toirtap

MediaBite Launch

2007-01-17T13:12:00.000Z

MediaBite.org is now online.

The first MediaShot concerns RTE's failure to cover the findings of the latest Iraqi mortality study published in the Lancet medical journal in October of last year...

www.mediabite.org

Despot to Martyr ... instantly

2007-01-04T22:41:00.000Z

Saddam begins journey from despot to martyr

Executing leaders is simply bad politics - history shows that they backfire. Saddam's reputation will be salvaged , writes Jim Duffy

Name the last monarchs of Italy, Russia, and France; US presidents from the 1860s and the 1960s; a 1920s Irish minister. The odds are that most people will not remember the last Italian king (Umberto II) and will get the last French king wrong (they'll say Louis XVI; it was Louis Phillippe), but will remember Tsar Nicholas II of Russia while naming Lincoln and John F Kennedy as US presidents and Kevin O'Higgins as an Irish minister.

continued... The Irish Times

Dear Madam,

In Thursday's Irish Times Jim Duffy relays the dangers of executing an invaded country's former leader: "The danger is that, should Iraq descend into civil war and chaos, those millions who never experienced the extremes of Saddam, will come to compare today's chaos with the stability and law and order of Saddam's day."

It seems that Mr. Duffy has misunderstood the current situation in Iraq. A poll conducted by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center in November last year found that 90% of adults felt the situation in Iraq was better before the US led invasion. [1]

In October of last year former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix described the US-led invasion of Iraq as a "pure failure" and said that they had left the country worse off than under Saddam Hussein. [2]

It appears that Mr. Duffy is correct, "Saddam's reputation will be salvaged," but not by the chaos of civil war but by the "failure" of an illegal invasion.

Yours etc...

1. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/
2. http://www.int.iol.co.za/

Exxon finance climate change sceptics

2007-01-04T13:42:00.000Z

WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."
ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

continued... Yahoo

HRW correction...

2006-12-19T22:03:00.000Z

"We regret that our press release below ("OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks") gave many readers the impression that we were criticizing civilians for engaging in nonviolent resistance. This was not our intention. It is not the policy of the organization to criticize non-violent resistance or any other form of peaceful protest, including civilians defending their homes. Rather, our focus is on the behavior of public officials and military commanders because they have responsibilities under international law to protect civilians."

http://hrw.org

The Best Workforce Money Can Buy

2006-12-02T12:05:00.000Z

1 in every 32 U.S. adults behind bars, on probation or on parole in 2005

The Associated Press
Published: November 29, 2006

WASHINGTON: A record 7 million people — or one in every 32 American adults — were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department.

Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday.

More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.

Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.

continued... IHT

A conflict of interest

2006-11-22T21:52:00.000Z

The RTE piece confirms that the documentary was funded by the mining company proposing the project. A fact left out in earlier reports.

It seems this fairly extensive coverage of a fairly ordinary documentary has also become useful in criticising the Shell to Sea campaign.

No mention here again of the real benefits to the Irish people that the Corrib gas venture will bring. For those that aren't aware, there are none.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1102/primetime.html

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1936510,00.html

And still no response to my questions:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=35395872

Out of interest, how much does Gabriel Resources stand to gain from this venture?

I understand there is something like 500,000 ounces of Gold to be harvested. What percentage of these profits are likely to filter down to the state and the local people?

Is the project aimed at allowing the poor of the region to exploit their natural resources or allowing foreign investors to eploit their resources? Essentially repeating the same process the director refers to; "Hundreds of years after we have become rich and comfortable by removing our forests and exploiting our natural resources."

Who funded this documentary? It appears from the Rocky Mountain News article that the mining company may have funded it. Is there any conflict of interest?

Environmentalism

2006-11-01T22:53:00.000Z

An Irish ex-foreign correspondent for the Financial Times uncovers a campaign by Western environmentalists against a mine proposed by a Canadian mining company at Rosia Montana in the Transylvania region of Romania.

http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/index.htm

He writes:

"Hundreds of years after we have become rich and comfortable by removing our forests and exploiting our natural resources such as coal, oil, and gold we are now going to the poorest countries on the planet to prevent them from doing what we did and having what we have."

"Mine Your Own Business demolishes the cosy consensus that environmentalists are well meaning, agenda free, activists and shows them to be anti-development ideologues who think the poor are happy being poor and don't want the development that we, in the west, take for granted."

"Environmenalists are against growth."

"The documentary hacks away at the cosy image of environmentalists' as well meaning, harmless activists."

It appears that Phelim McAleer, with funding from Canadian mining company, Gabriel Resources, has exposed the true face of environmentalism.

"When a representative of Gabriel Resources asked me to write a brochure about the project I declined, but I did suggest that if they did not interfere editorially I would make a documentary."

http://insidedenver.com/drmn/speak_out/article

And the Blog:

http://mineyourownbusiness.blogspot.com/

A news report on today's RTE 6 O'Clock news 'discussed' the new film. The story resonates quite loudly, with the same criticisms being leveled at protesters here. With the Shell to Sea campaign, the media have attempted, at times, to portray the environmental aspect of the protest as one that is opposed to development, opposed to progress, opposed to profit etc etc. i.e. against the interests of the country.

This report again, 4 substantial minutes, was uncritical and acted merely as a movie preview. There was no reference to the fact the documentary was apparently funded by the mining company attempting to secure the venture.

"Stop development at the expense of the poor."

I left these questions on their blog:

Out of interest, how much does Gabriel Resources stand to gain from this venture?

I understand there is something like 500,000 ounces of Gold to be harvested. What percentage of these profits are likely to filter down to the state and the local people?

Is the project aimed at allowing the poor of the region to exploit their natural resources or allowing foreign investors to eploit their resources? Essentially repeating the same process the director refers to; "Hundreds of years after we have become rich and comfortable by removing our forests and exploiting our natural resources."

Who funded this documentary? It appears from the Rocky Mountain News article that the mining company may have funded it. Is there any conflict of interest?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1101/6news.html

IRC in Congo vs. Johns Hopkins in Iraq

2006-11-01T22:49:00.000Z

Dear Ms. Treacy and Mr. Good,

In response to your explanations for RTE's non-reporting of the latest study into Iraqi mortality:

"There is contention about the number of civilian casualties in Iraq"

"This story was covered extensively [on] "Morning Ireland""

I have one question I hope you could find a moment to answer. Last month RTE reported on yesterday's elections in Congo:

"Congo's elections, the first free elections in the former Belgian colony for more than 40 years, will hopefully put an end to Africa's bloodiest conflict, a civil war that has killed 4 million people since 1998."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0930/print/congo.html

As did the Irish Times, The Guardian and the BBC.

The figures for mortality in the Congo were compiled using essentially the same methods and conducted by the same lead author, yet their reception in the media could not be more different. Could you explain this extraordinary disparity?

Yours sincerely,

1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6097990.stm
2.http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,,
3. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/
4. http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/

Trouble counting the dead

2006-10-22T17:49:00.000+01:00

And a concerted effort to make it even more difficult.

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office has instructed the country's health ministry to stop providing mortality figures to the United Nations, jeopardizing a key source of information on the number of civilian war dead in Iraq, according to a U.N. document." [The Post]

Via Media Lens

Jon Snow reports on the difficulties of reporting the reality of the occupation of Iraq, from inside the Green Zone.

"This remains one of the least well covered conflicts of the modern television age."

Channel 4

Via Pete Charles

"Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday." [USA Today 2003]

"Faik Bakir, the director of the Baghdad morgue, has fled Iraq in fear of his life after reporting that more than 7,000 people have been killed by death squads in recent months, the outgoing head of the UN human rights office in Iraq has disclosed." [Guardian]

"Days after the bombing of a Shiite shrine unleashed a wave of retaliatory killings of Sunnis, the leading Shiite party in Iraq's governing coalition directed the Health Ministry to stop tabulating execution-style shootings, according to a ministry official familiar with the recording of deaths." [Washington Post]

Via Ron F

"Iraqi hospitals are dangerous places. Policemen and soldiers carry their wounded comrades into operating theatres and demand immediate treatment, forcing doctors at gunpoint to abandon operations on civilians before they are completed. The hospital system is not a haven from the war. The Health Ministry is controlled by the supporters of the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who did well in the elections in December." [Patrick Cockburn in the Independent]

Tens or Hundreds?

2006-10-19T23:14:00.000+01:00

Dear Sir/Madam,

There is a serious inaccuracy in one of today's RTE website reports:

Change to US strategy in Iraq is recommended

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1017/iraq.html

The report reads: "tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed."

This should read: "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed."

This statement would be in line with the recent figures published by the Lancet last week.

I hope you can address this issue.

Yours sincerely,

To: Treacy Bree
Subject: FW: Inaccuracy in one of today's RTE website reports

Bree,

Just to advise you that the writer of the following e-mail is associated with the Irish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and is in constant e-mail contact with our Newsroom regarding our reporting on the Iraq war and the Middle East conflict areas.

regards
Nina

On 10/18/06, Treacy Bree wrote:

Dear David

Thanks for your mail and your interest in the site. The section you referred to is re-edited copy from Reuters. There is contention about the number of civilian casualties in Iraq but we strive to be accurate with our News coverage and 'tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed' is accurate.

Thanks again for your interest.

Bree Treacy
Editor
RTE.ie

Dear Ms. Treacy,

Thank you for responding.

However, I don't see how the fact the text was copied from a Reuters piece is relevant to the issue. Contrary to your contention, there is no reasonable or scientific refutation of the study's findings. The 'contention' you referred to is, as you are no doubt aware, politically motivated and should have no bearing on RTE's responsibility to report the facts to the best of their ability. Also contrary to your assertion, the phrase 'tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed' is about as accurate as writing post 9/11, "tens of Americans have been killed." The latter would never appear in a respectable newspaper and neither should the former.

I remain hopeful that you will address this inaccuracy.

For your information, I have no 'association' with the Irish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.

Yours sincerely,

And another Email: Nick at MLMB

Pat Kenny - Magnificent Puppetry

2006-10-08T19:13:00.000+01:00

to:

latelate@rte.ie

magilleditorial@bandf.net
georgegallowaydotcom@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Kenny,

Last weeks unsuccessful ambush of George Galloway was a shameful piece of 'light entertainment'. It is only a pity you didn't allow Eamon Delaney a seat on the stage, so as to see his face as his tired and fact barren rhetoric is torn apart. The Late Late Show was once an institution of intelligent political debate.

You remarked during the interview, "I'm just doing my job, George." I am amazed.

Yours sincerely,

http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/

and here's another... Liz at MLMB

Democracy in Cuba

2006-10-04T20:58:00.000+01:00

According to the Irish Times that is.

"While America's recent measures to push the island towards multiparty democracy when the commander-in- chief croaks are diplomatic, your average Cuban who consumes the state-controlled media is convinced they're ready to invade."

And how are they attempting to do this:

"America's $80 million package to fund political opposition in the one-party state when Castro eventually passes on has sent shivers up the Communist Party's spine."

Are we to believe US interests are completely benign?

Salim Lamrani of Voltaire thinks otherwise:

"The cruel state of siege that the United States has imposed on Cuba since 1959 stiffens day after day. Now, they openly confess that their goal is overthrowing the government in Havana by any means while the sufferings caused to the population only have a secondary importance for the White House."

There's always other reasons to believe independence isn't on the menu.

Dear Madam,

Jeff Farrell's letter from Cuba in Wednesday's Irish Times [1] explained that America has initiated measures to push the island towards multiparty democracy. These measures include an $80 million package [2] to fund political opposition.

While reading this a historic irony came to mind, as Washington now leads the fight against international terrorism from within Cuba [3], Noam Chomsky's comment in 1996 resonates more clearly, "Probably Cuba was the target of more international terrorism than probably the rest of the world combined, up until Nicaragua in the 1980s." [4] In an Orwellian twist, this terrorism emanated from the very halls that now fight so valiantly against it.

The US government, and I make this distinction quite purposefully, has sought to isolate Cuba and make life as 'uncomfortable' as possible for the ordinary Cuban for over 40 years now. In December last year Condoleezza Rice moved to 'stiffen' the economic blockade. [5]

Washington has long made clear their intentions to scupper "dynastic succession" [6] [7], and quite rightly, who would allow father and then son to rule?

Cuba is not a democracy, but lets not let Mr. Farrell pretend the US wants it to be, unless that is he can convince an Iraqi first.

Regards,

Dav

1. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper
2. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/68776.htm
3. http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/htmpgs/mission.htm
4. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/142.html
5. http://www.voltairenet.org/article134700.htm
6. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle
7. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/58283.htm

Total Surrender

2006-09-28T12:25:00.000+01:00

Melanie Phillips, of Daily Mail and Question Time fame, writes:

"The bottom line is that this jihad against the west started long before even the first Iraq war. And any defence against it mounted by the free world is used to boost recruitment to the jihad. There is only one sure way for the west to prevent such recruitment: total surrender. That is the inexorable logic of all who inhabit the fantasy world of Planet Chomsky."

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1337

And here's a completely pointless/ridiculous exchange with her:

Dear Melanie,

I have only just read your latest blog entries, and I was surprised to read this:

"But the fact remains that had Saddam remained in power, we would now be having to deal with Saddam-sponsored terrorism, possibly armed with WMD.

The justification for toppling Saddam remains as valid as it ever was: that he was an unconscionable danger to the world because of the axis between his sponsorship of terror, his ambition to lead the Arab world and his intention to develop weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1337

Does this mean you have finally given up your belief that "[a]bsence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence"?

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/

Yours sincerely,

---------

No. There is no contradiction. I have also said this on several previous
occasions.

---------

Hi Melanie,

Well to the 'lay man' it does appear that in the first post you describe Saddam's intentions to pursue WMDs and that left in power he may well possess them by now.

In the second you suggest that prior to being ousted he had WMDs.

It would seem, by your logic, that if Saddam had been left in power he would have sought to increase his stock piles and further his WMD program?

Regards,

---------

Thanks for the further explanation of what you think is inconsistent. I'm afraid, though, that I just can't see that it is. I think you have also misunderstood what I wrote.

We went to war not because of the supposed stockpiles -- which at the time everyone thought Saddam had -- but because we thought he was actively pursuing a WMD programme and trying to construct WMD, in breach of the ceasefire conditions at the end of the first Gulf War , as I said in the earlier of my two posts.

What I wrote in my recent post was: 'But the fact remains that had Saddam remained in power, we would now be having to deal with Saddam-sponsored terrorism, possibly armed with WMD.' I did not write, as you claimed, 'that left in power he may well possess them by now'. I thought he was actively pursuing them, and may well have had some of them, at the time. Either way, in my view if he had remained in power we would now be having to confront a WMD-armed Saddam.

I also believe that the assertion that it has now been shown that he never had any stockpiles is absurd, because he was known to have had them and never showed that he had destroyed them -- and could well have hidden them in Syria, as has been repeatedly suggested, or destroyed them when the Americans arrived, when he razed the sites where they thought the stuff was. Hence my remark about absence of evidence and so forth.

I hope this now explains the matter.

Best wishes

Melanie

----------

Thanks Melanie,

I'm nearly there. So if Saddam had as you say the weapons Bush says he didn't have and the CIA said went out of date in '91 and if he was in cahoots with the terrorists Bush says he wasn't in cahoots with and if we'd left him in power, which we couldn't because of the imminent threat he posed to the West because of his possession of, I'll quote, 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' which he had failed to account the destruction of, then he would now be arming the terrorists he wasn't arming before, even though he had weapons to arm them, though George Tenet testified he was only likely to use them in self defense, although now they say he didn't, but you say they're in Syria presumably along with the uranium he was not attempting to acquire, so maybe the Syrians were behind the whole thing, but they're working for the US now, unless they cynically orchestrated the attack on the embassy, but then again if he had the weapons that he hid and if he posed the threat he did...

Sounds a bit convoluted. Have you been reading John Grisham?

Best,

----------

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't think you understand what I have written. I'm afraid I'll have to leave it there, since I've run out of time on this one. Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

Best wishes

Melanie

The Sound of Violence

2006-09-25T19:50:00.000+01:00

Further to Media Lens' Haiti alert:

http://www.medialens.org/alert

A response from RTE's News Editor and my reply:

Dear Mr. Good,

Apologies for my delayed response.

As far as I am aware the complaint regards the use of one of the coordinators names and does not question 'the figures for the number of sexual attacks and murders', this confusion has been exploited by the media in order to undermine the the study by speculating on the political motivations of the coordinator. However, neither the Lancet's investigation, nor the complaint, question the validity of the study's core findings.

"It is not suggested that the Lancet report had misreported its findings or that Ms Kolbe had any other agenda than the welfare of ordinary Haitians at heart. It is accepted by all parties that the study's core findings - that there have been disturbingly high levels of violence and sexual abuse in Haiti in that period - are true and need to be urgently addressed by the Haitian government and other bodies." [1]

It is alleged that this coordinator, in 'failing' to clearly state that she had worked at an orphanage founded by Mr. Aristide, has attempted to disguise her political association. This insinuation is then used to suggest this 'undisclosed' favour may have coloured the findings, so as to cast a more favourable light on pro-Lavalas groups.

Yet, "Prior to beginning research, [the study's coordinators] received written permission from Latortue's [Prime Minister of Haïti] administration to conduct the study. We fully informed the government of our intentions to research human-rights abuses and of Athena Kolbe's background as a journalist writing under her mother's maiden name, as well as the volunteering she did with orphans in Port-au-Prince." [Exert from a letter to the Miami Herald from the study's coordinators, Royce Hutson and Athena Kolbe, attached in full below] [2]

It appears, this relatively inconsequential issue has been exploited in order to cast doubt on the findings, which do not support the 'complainants' contention. Therefore there is some reason to believe the speculation is politically motivated.

"The main reason why I doubt this finding is that it contradicts the information that I have received from independent human rights investigators working in some of the most violent areas of Port-au-Prince...I have some doubts about the credibility of the research with regard to the perpetrators of these acts. These doubts focus on the contention that very few of the human rights violations have been attributed to "Lavalas members or partisans" (by which I assume the authors mean members or partisans of the Lavalas Family party led by Jean-Bertrand Aristide)." [Exert from a letter from Charles Arthur to the Lancet] [3]

Though the 'contention' has been extensively examined: "The publisher of the Lancet, Richard Horton, said the study had come with excellent credentials and peer reviews. "It was very thoroughly reviewed by four external advisers," he said."

The investigation into this complaint by the Lancet, which I might add has received more publicity than the actual study, is presumably standard procedure for a peer reviewed scientific journal.

As I pointed out before, the results of the study and the level of violence depicted in Haiti is not disputed. And while it is unalarming that such a study should be treated with hostility in the mainstream press, it is shameful that the media would choose not to report the findings, and in the case of the Guardian, for instance, focus on the unsubstantiated allegations.

There remains several options open to the media; firstly, ignore the existence of the study in compliant fashion, secondly, report the findings of the report, but choose to focus on the unfounded insinuations, or thirdly, report the findings and also the complaint, while ensuring that appropriate weighting is assigned to each.

If the purpose of the media is to provide adequate and accurate information in order to afford citizens the means to maintain democratic institutions, then refraining from reporting such findings amounts to a conscious attempt to hinder that process.

While the 'complainant' and those that conducted the study have much common ground, in that they both have the interests of Haitians at heart, the media has cynically used this issue to bury the report. Much of the responsibility for the human rights abuses detailed in this study falls at the feet of those that supported the 2004 coup, namely, France, the US, and Canada. The reason they were able to conduct this operation with little resistance from their citizens is that the media has consistently and continually failed to report the situation in Haiti.

Regards,

David

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/
2. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news
3. http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1842

Haitian-abuse study legitimate

Re Gerard Latortue's Sept. 9 letter, Kurzban column gets it wrong: We were surprised to see Latortue's attack on our study, which estimates that 8,000 murders and 35,000 sexual assaults -- half against children -- were committed during his tenure as Haiti's interim prime minister.

Prior to beginning research, we received written permission from Latortue's administration to conduct the study.

We fully informed the government of our intentions to research human-rights abuses and of Athena Kolbe's background as a journalist writing under her mother's maiden name, as well as the volunteering she did with orphans in Port-au-Prince.

Using Random GPS Coordinate Sampling, we surveyed 1,260 households accounting for 5,720 individuals and found extensive violations by Latortue's interim-government forces. More than 20 percent of the murders and 13 percent of the sexual assaults were attributed to government-security agents. Had Latortue had any questions about our credibility, his administration should not have authorized the study.

Latortue's claim that we were ''discredited'' is false. The Lancet's editor has publicly stated that the study's findings are not under dispute. The journal's only concern is with tangential issues regarding the use of one of our names. Neither of the researchers was ever a member nor paid employee of any Haitian entity or political party. Volunteering to do child care and teach communications classes at an orphanage's youth radio station 10 years ago is not a conflict of interest, either by academic ethics or by common sense.

ROYCE HUTSON and ATHENA KOLBE, assistant professor and research assistant, Wayne State University School of Social Work, Detroit

Dear [Me],

Thank you for your recent letter concerning the Lancet report on human rights abuses in Haiti.

As are probably aware, the Lancet has been investigating allegations that this report may have been misleading. They have received complaints questioning the findings - especially in relation to the role of the Lavalas groups, and the figures for the number of sexual attacks and murders.

However, all parties do appear to accept that the level of violence and sexual assaults in Haiti is disturbingly high.

We will continue to monitor the situation in Haiti with a view to returning to this story in the near future.

Regards,

Michael Good

Dear Mr. Good,

It is now over three weeks since that damning report detailing human rights abuses in Haiti was published in the peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet. There has yet been no mention of it in the Irish media. Are we to wait until it reaches the agenda of a politician before it is deemed worthy of reporting?

Please find attached below my original email and one I sent to the Irish Times.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

See 'Silence and Complicity' for the rest.

A Just War

2006-09-20T21:50:00.001+01:00

Or a conscious act to murder

[cross posted over at Indymedia.ie]

Five years on since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the wars that precipitated from that act are now discussed in frustratingly candid terms. While the thousands of American deaths are fittingly remembered as avoidable tragedies, the military responses, claiming the lives of many more innocent people, are described as 'mistakes' and 'necessities'.

A legitimate response to terror

In a recent RTE Questions & Answers discussion all but the token 'left of centre' panelist described the war in Afghanistan in much the same way, a necessary response to an act of terror, which has resulted in a more favourable situation in the region. The removal of the Taliban was, though not the principal goal of the conflict, a welcome result. [1]

Noel Whelan and Stephen Collins, Political Correspondent with The Irish Times, laid out the fundamentals of the war as they see them. Noel commented that the war was a 'necessary issue that had to be dealt with', Mr. Collins reinforced the point stating that the 'Americans were right to go in... they have improved the lives of people in the long term... they were attacked by Al Qaeda and were entitled to respond.'

The principle point the panelists wished to bring across was that while one could criticise the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan was an act beyond reproach. It was a legitimate response to an act of aggression.

A media so detached from reality

In a lecture held by the Technology and Culture Forum of MIT in 2001 Noam Chomsky addressed the idea of a 'Just War' in Afghanistan. [2]

He was asked whether Richard Falk's (who incidentally also opposed the Iraq war [3]) October 2001 article in the Nation [4] provided a valid justification for the Afghan conflict. The article read: “The war in Afghanistan against apocalyptic terrorism qualifies in my understanding as the first truly just war since World War II...The perpetrators of the September 11 attack cannot be reliably neutralized by nonviolent or diplomatic means; a response that includes military action is essential to diminish the threat of repetition, to inflict punishment and to restore a sense of security at home and abroad.“

Chomsky's answer was quite simple, “if you can't find out who did it you can't punish anyone... [you] certainly can't do it by aiming activities against hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with it.”

Many of these people, Chomsky noted, were in need of basic food supplies prior to the attack. These supplies were then severely hampered by US bombing:

“After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs falling the delivery rate is down to half of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that.”

Taking into account what we knew before the invasion, including what we could predict would happen, the invasion of Afghanistan amounts to a conscious act to murder.

With reference to the fact the US was 'requesting' the Taliban hand over Bin Laden, Chomsky proposes that the Taliban were probably quite sincere their request for evidence before any handover. A letter to the New York Times in October 2001 [5] made the same point; “If NATO has ''clear and compelling proof'' of Mr. Bin Laden's involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, why doesn't it just hand that evidence over to the Taliban so that they can give their people a legitimate reason for surrendering him?”

This is all quite irrelevant though. The purpose of the war was to capture those found responsible for the attack of 9/11. If we assume that the Taliban were protecting Osama bin Laden, we must also accept that it was the Taliban, a regime unpopular with it's people, were the ones protecting him, not the Afghan people. In contributing to the starvation of thousands of people and the bombing of many others it is obvious that it was the victims of the Taliban who were attacked, not Bin Laden.

A more favourable situation

The Senlis Council published a report on Afghanistan's current situation paints a bleak picture:

“After five years of intensive international involvement in Afghanistan, the country remains ravaged by severe poverty and the spreading starvation of the rural and urban poor. Despite promises from the US-led international community guaranteeing to provide the resources and assistance necessary for its reconstruction and development needs, Afghanistan's people are starving to death. Afghanistan continues to rank at the bottom of most poverty indicators, and the situation of women and children is particularly grave. One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world.

...[t]hose who do not want to turn to the Taliban are forced to do so in order to survive and support their families.

Taliban now control southern Afghanistan. Since 2001, the day-to-day security of ordinary Afghan people has deteriorated markedly. Despite the concerted focus on military and security issues in the country, the Taliban are tightening their grip on the southern half of Afghanistan. In addition to their current de facto military control of entire towns, districts, and neighbourhoods in the provinces capitals, the Taliban have psychological control over nearly half of Afghanistan. A doctor in Kandahar City reported that parents are no longer sending their daughters to school, women only rarely venture outdoors, and even then only when wearing a full burka." [6]

A tragedy of errors

The Independent [7] reported earlier this month: “The Senlis Council claimed that the campaign by British forces against the Taliban had inflicted lawlessness, misery and starvation on the Afghan people.

Thousands of villagers fleeing the fighting and a continuing drought, as well as farmers who have lost their livelihood with the eradication of the opium crop, were suffering dreadful conditions in refugee camps.

In a separate intervention, the influential International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) said that a vital opportunity was lost when the West failed to carry out adequate reconstruction work after the 2001 war.”

While the Times hears the opinion of someone 'on the ground':

“The former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan has described the campaign in Helmand province as a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency.

'We're now scattered in a shallow meaningless way across northern towns where the only way for the troops to survive is to increase the level of violence so more people get killed. It's pretty shocking and not something I want to be part of.'” [8]

The Media's Role

RTE's summary of the 'Removal of the Taliban':

"It was suspected that the hardline Islamic regime in Afghanistan, the Taliban, was sheltering Bin Laden and his followers. US President George W Bush issued the ultimatum that the Taliban must either hand over Bin Laden and other suspects immediately or "share in their fate". This did not happen." [9]

Note there is no reference to the Taliban's offer to hand over Bin Laden.

"The US and Britain began air strikes on Afghanistan on 7 October, knowing that bombing alone would not overthrow the ruling Taliban regime."

Note no mention of the other 'repercussions' to bombing.

And then follows the typical account of a media approved conflict. All told through the prisim of truth that is Donald Rumsfeld. Shockingly, there is no reference to the civllian death toll since US intervention in this summary. It is not even alluded to. It seems an efficient journalist must make no association between 'benevolent' military machines and civilian casualties. In fact, it would appear from this distilled version of events the only people to die as a result of this invasion were those killed in 2002's earthquake.

Based on this account of the war there is little wonder why five years on RTE's idea of balance is as skewed as it is. A balance that offers 'debate' on a war that claimed thousands of lives with not one dissenting voice.

Whatever the 'blunders' and lack of forethought those behind the Afghan conflict are guilty of, there remains one elementary truism. The humanitarian situation was well known and the risks clearly identified prior to the attack on Afghanistan. The dangers posed to the Afghan people were considered and the bombing was sanctioned.

The death of thousands of Afghans was not accidental, it was inevitable. But this is not an acceptable truth in the studios of licensed liberal discourse.

1. http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0911/qanda.html
2. http://web.mit.edu/tac/past/2001-2002/index.html
3. http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2002/
4. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011029/falk
5. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
6. http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications
7. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article
8. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087
9. http://www.rte.ie/news/features/oneyearon/

Slow vs. Regular

2006-09-16T14:26:00.000+01:00

No News Is Slow News

The news that doesn't make the front pages or the BBC bulletins is 'slow news'. For example, the resistance to foreign power by the Palestinians, ordinary Iraqis and Afghans is 'slow news' while the internecine machinations of Bush and Blair is 'regular news'.

By John Pilger

09/15/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- When I began working as a journalist, there was something called "slow news". We would refer to "slow news days" when "nothing happened" – apart from, that is, triumphs and tragedies in faraway places where most of humanity lived. These were rarely reported, or the tragedies were dismissed as acts of nature, regardless of evidence to the contrary. The news value of whole societies was measured by their relationship with "us" in the west and their degree of compliance with, or hostility to, our authority. If they didn't measure up, they were slow news.

Few of these assumptions have changed. To sustain them, millions of people remain invisible, and expendable. On 11 September 2001, while the world lamented the deaths of almost 3,000 people in the United States, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation reported that more than 36,000 children had died from the effects of extreme poverty. They were very slow news.
Let's take a few recent examples and compare each with the regular news as seen on the BBC and elsewhere. Keep in mind that Palestinians are chronically slow news and that Israelis are regular news.

Regular news: Charles Clarke, a spokesman for Tony Blair, "revives the battle of Downing Street" and calls Gordon Brown "stupid, stupid" and a "control freak". He disapproves of the way Brown smiles. This is given saturation coverage.

Slow news: "A genocide is taking place in Gaza," warns Ilan Pappe, one of Israel's leading historians. "This morning... another three citizens of Gaza were killed and a whole family wounded. This is the morning reap; before the end of the day many more will be massacred."

continued... Information Clearing House

Deja vu

2006-09-14T17:27:00.000+01:00

"IAEA complains of 'outrageous' inaccuracies in Iran report to House Intelligence Committee"

International Hearld Tribune

"UN criticises 'erroneous' US report on Iran"

The Irish Times

and the Irish Times does the unthinkable, employs historical perspective:

"It is a subject Dr Blix knows all too well from his experience as the chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq three years ago, when his advice that more time was needed to assess whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was disregarded by the coalition led by the United States. As he put it yesterday: "The world was told that the invasion would lead to the 'moment of truth'. It did, and the truth was that there were no weapons of mass destruction!"
His remarks remain extraordinarily apposite as the world faces into a similar crisis over Iran's nuclear programme."

The Irish Times

Though these infrequent lapses in compliance make the liberal press what it is today.

Just take a look at almost ever other report on Iran's nuclear program for the last year.

"...for the mainstream media every fresh deception should be judged on its own merits, in isolation from economics, politics, history, and simple common sense."

Media Lens

Silence and Complicity

2006-09-13T23:41:00.000+01:00

A recent Media Lens alert covers the silence surrounding the killing in Haiti.

Emailed to The Irish Times and the Irish Independent:

lettersed@irish-times.ie, gkennedy@irish-times.ie, independent.letters@unison.independent.ie

Dear Madam,

It is now two weeks since the Lancet medical journal published the findings of a study which examined human rights abuses in Haiti since the ousting of democratically-elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide. Only a handful of news outlets have bothered to report on the findings, though this should come as little surprise to those that have followed events in Haiti since the US backed coup of two years ago.

UK based media watch organisation Media Lens, in monitoring the media's reporting of Haiti's human rights situation, have revealed a remarkable trend. Prior to the ousting of President Aristide the British and US media published many articles about the human rights situation in Haiti in order to vilify a leader, unpopular with the US, Canadian and French governments.

Yet following the 'forced exile' of President Aristide there followed large scale human rights abuses in Haiti which have gone unreported in the media. The most blatant example of this silence is the lack of coverage of this study's shocking findings: "8,000 people were murdered in the greater Port-au Prince area of Haiti alone," many by anti-Aristide groups, also, "35,000 women and girls were raped or sexually assaulted, more than half of the victims were children."

In failing to report the dire situation in Haiti the liberal media walks a fine line between inexplicable silence and complicity.

Yours sincerely,

1. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
2. http://www.thelancet.com/search

To the RTE News Editor:

complaints@rte.ie, Michael.Good@rte.ie

Dear Mr. Good,

A study conducted by the Wayne State University school of social work in Detroit Michigan in 2005 of human rights abuses in Haiti since the ousting of democratically-elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide was published in the British medical journal The Lancet last month. The study has received surprisingly little attention given the disturbing picture it paints of life in Haiti since the US backed coup. Among the figures:

8,000 people were murdered in the greater Port-au Prince area of Haiti alone

[22 per cent of the killings were committed by the Haitian National Police (HNP), 26 per cent by the demobilised army or armed anti-Aristide groups, 48 per cent by criminals]

35,000 women and girls were raped or sexually assaulted

[more than half of the victims were children]

The findings are particularly unwelcome for those countries who actively engaged in 'disturbing' the democratic process by forcibly removing President Aristide, as the figures show a sizable proportion of attacks were conducted by political groups with 'Western' support. This however should not impede RTE in reporting the facts.

I hope you can find time to address this issue.

Yours sincerely,

For more information on the report please see:

http://www.democracynow.org/

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php

Proportional Terror

2006-09-13T13:55:00.000+01:00

Haaretz reports:

"IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon By Meron Rappaport "What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war. "

Kidnap/Capture Again

2006-09-08T19:12:00.000+01:00

The BBC Director of News responds and I do the same.

[Read from the bottom up]

Ms. Boaden,

Incidentally, the BBC's use of the term 'kidnapping' in relation to the capture of Israeli soldiers was not the main point of my complaint.

I was simply asking why you had not implemented the editorial policy you refer to in your email. Under what authority to Israeli soldiers 'arrest' Palestinian officials?

Regards,

Ms Boaden,

Thank you for responding. Here are two examples I have just found of the BBC using the word 'kidnap' to describe the capture of Israeli soldiers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5171616.stm

BBC News Online

There are presumably more. Also, a cursory glance at the BBC website reveals that the BBC has published numerous quotes by various people which again refer to the capture as a kidnapping.

I had seen the entry on the blog, however if the editorial policy is not strictly applied, what use is it?

Regards,

Thank you for your email, but it is not right to say that the BBC has continually used the word "kidnapping" in relation to the Israeli soldiers. You may be interested in this entry on the Editors' Blog setting out our position that we prefer the word "capture":

Editor's Blog

Yours sincerely
pp Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News

Dear Ms Boaden,

A BBC TV news segment earlier today reported that Israeli forces had arrested the Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister, Nasser al-Shaer. The BBC website now states that he is presently being detained by Israeli forces.

Under what authority do Israeli forces act within Palestinian territories? The term 'arrest' implies that this action is in some way legal. Nasser as-Shaer is not simply being 'detained' he is being illegally detained.

I live in Ireland and noticed a similar pacification of language with regard to the capture of Israeli soldiers by Palestinian and Lebanese militants. I wrote to the RTE News Editor with respect to this issue: "Israeli detention assures prisoners no more rights than Palestinian captivity. Why does Israel 'detain' and Palestine 'kidnap '?"

He responded:

"Fair point. We have put a message in our general mail to this effect."

The BBC has continually referred to the capture of Israeli soldiers by Palestinian and Lebanese militants as 'kidnappings', yet Israel's captures are referred to as 'seizures' and 'arrests'. Could you please explain this disparity?

Yours sincerely,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5265792.stm

'Sustainable' transport solutions

2006-09-07T21:35:00.000+01:00

In a letter to the Irish Times today Michael O'Leary writes:

"The Dublin metro makes even less sense than wasting €50 million on electronic voting machines. Linking Dublin airport to St Stephen's Green will not encourage any early morning passengers from around the city to do anything other than drive to the airport on the already congested M50. The airport metro will carry fewer than 20 per cent of passengers using Dublin airport. Wasting €1.5 billion (at current estimates) providing airport access for this small visitor group, who are already well served by competing bus services, is economic lunacy.

If this Government knew anything about transport - and it doesn't - then it would scrap this madcap plan to waste €1.5 billion of taxpayers' money building an airport metro which passengers neither want nor need. This money would be far better spent building an outer orbital ring road outside the M50, relieving the intolerable congestion on the M50, and providing better access to Dublin airport for cars and buses, which is how the overwhelming majority of passengers will continue to get there." [The Irish Times]

Here he makes a few slightly suspect statements:

"Linking Dublin airport to St Stephen's Green will not encourage any early morning passengers from around the city to do anything other than drive to the airport on the already congested M50"

Presumably this is because the Metro will not run at 5 O'clock in the morning, yet how busy is the M50 at this time?

Since the plan is to provide links between existing infrastructures such as the LUAS, the DART and Dublin Bus, why would people refuse to use the service?

"The airport metro will carry fewer than 20 per cent of passengers using Dublin airport."

With air travel on the rise and future growth needs to be met, this figure of 20% seems extremely low. And stating that the public service will "provid[e] airport access for this small visitor group" seems a little unlikely. Do the majority of people not travel into Dublin City on arriving in Dublin airport? Would those that don't, change their route if an efficient mode of transport was available? Certainly a guaranteed metro trip trumps a 25 euro taxi.

"This money would be far better spent building an outer orbital ring road outside the M50, relieving the intolerable congestion on the M50, and providing better access to Dublin airport for cars and buses, which is how the overwhelming majority of passengers will continue to get there."

Firstly, could someone, as I am unsure, tell me how many buses run on the M50 to the airport, and from which locations do their trips originate?

This is though, beside the point, and appears only as a diversion, used by Mr. O'Leary to enhance his point. His solution, quite simply, is to build more roads, wider roads and most importantly, roads to the airport. Does this sound like a sustainable solution?

Martin Cullen wrote; "It is not an airport rail link. It is designed to provide a high-quality rail service along a north-south corridor, meeting existing transport requirements in that corridor, serving the airport and facilitating major residential development in the Swords area." [The Irish Times]

Therefore Mr. O'Leary is not just protesting a proposed airport link, he is protesting a public transport initiative. He proposes an alternative though, yet one that takes no account of economic or environmental factors. He suggests building another M50, therefore decreasing car journey time in the short term, promoting further car use. While improved public transport encourages people to move from road to 'rail', Mr. O'Leary's solution simply ensures we will have the same (if not worse) problems, of congestion, pollution etc, in 10 years time.

This is all completely predictable though. For a man that makes his money through air travel in a time of 'a bit of a climate crisis' [Zmag]

"The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, recently described climate change as "probably the greatest environmental threat facing the global community". Most scientists would agree; indeed, they would go further by saying it is the greatest threat to the survival of humanity on the planet." [The Irish Times]

['Greenhouse gases are already past threshold that spells disaster.' A May 4 article read: 'Global warming fastest for 20,000 years - and it is mankind's fault.'] [Media Lens]

to hear him suggest the solution to our transport woes is more roads for more cars is not surprising. Air travel has a serious impact on global warming, and Mr. O'Leary's ruthless and successful attempts to increase that pollution, and his bank balance, evidences his disregard for the environment and those that live in it.

"Aircraft emissions that go directly into the stratosphere have more than twice the global warming effect of emissions from cars and power stations at ground level and, based on the Government's own calculations, the effect of the 2030 emissions will be equivalent to 44.3 million tons of carbon - 45 per cent of Britain's expected emissions total at that date.

That growth alone, the environmental audit committee says, will make Britain's 60 per cent CO2 reduction target "meaningless and unachievable". The clash of interests cannot be ducked any more, say the green groups. "The convenience we enjoy in covering huge distances in a short time is one of the fast-growing threats to life on earth," said Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth.

"Aviation is an increasing source of climate-changing pollution and we must take steps to curb it now. Planes pump out eight times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a train. A return flight to Australia will release as much carbon dioxide as all the heating, light and cooking for a house for a year."

Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director for Greenpeace, said: "The simple fact is the boom in cheap air travel cannot be reconciled with the survival of those things we most value about the planet, and will ultimately kill millions of people."

No one is suggesting the governments approach to providing sustainable transport solutions has been anything more than abysmal, but Michael O'Leary's offering is just plain ridiculous and impressively short sighted.

Why does Michael O'Leary want another M50?

blood and petrol

2006-09-06T23:45:00.000+01:00

beyond petroleum

""Their campaign worked. You can argue on whether they're green, but they've clearly gained brand trust and brand value," said Andrew Winston, co-author of the upcoming book Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage." [The Irish Times]

"As the world approaches a climate collapse that will likely consume millions of lives, this represents the most critical response to BP's latest ruse to appear anywhere in our 'free press'.

In considering the credibility of oil industry greenwash, one might deem relevant its documented history of subordinating human life to profits. One might describe its role in supporting dictatorships, in overthrowing obstructive governments, and in suppressing democratic movements. One might even refer to its tireless, fanatical attempts to deny the reality of climate change. But for the mainstream media every fresh deception should be judged on its own merits, in isolation from economics, politics, history, and simple common sense."

continued... Latest Media Lens Alert

And from an interesting paper on the subject:

"Analysis of a recent BP public relations campaign will attempt to show how its call for action masks an intention to carry on with business as usual. The call to the public to change their behaviours, part of a wider discursive formations, will be related to Fowler’s work on the food poisoning scare of the late 1980’s in the UK, whereby mounting criticism of food production techniques was transformed into a the consumer’s problem, who was showered with advice on what they could do in the home to reduce the risk of food poisoning. (Fowler, 1991). The BP discourse will be positioned as part of a wider discourse employed by business and the state which is designed to ensure solutions to this problem are all embedded within discursive formations which seek to preserve the goal of continued economic growth." [Trust me, I’m an institution: BP and climate change]

"Athan Manuel, who directs lands protection for the Sierra Club and who negotiated with BP officials over drilling in ANWR several years ago, gives BP only a qualified endorsement. "Compared to their colleagues in the oil and gas industry, they're the best," he said.

Manuel added, however: "Being the best of the oil industry is like being the smartest of the Three Stooges. At the end of the day you're Moe, you're still a stooge." [IT]

Monbiot on the IMF

2006-09-05T22:06:00.000+01:00

What will be passed off as a democratisation is in fact a way of ensuring the poor global majority continue to have no say

George Monbiot
Tuesday September 5, 2006
The Guardian

The glacier has begun to creak. In the world's most powerful dictatorship we detect the merest hint of a thaw. I am not talking about China or Uzbekistan, Burma or North Korea. This state runs no torture chambers or labour camps. No one is executed, though plenty starve to death as a result of its policies. The unhurried perestroika is taking place in Washington, in the offices of the International Monetary Fund.

Like most concessions made by dictatorial regimes, the reforms seem designed not to catalyse further change, but to prevent it. By slightly increasing the shares (and therefore the voting powers) of China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey, the regime hopes to buy off the most powerful rebel warlords, while keeping the mob at bay. It has even thrown a few coppers from the balcony, for the great unwashed to scuffle over. But no one - except the leaders of the rich nations and the leader writers of just about every newspaper in the rich world - could regard this as an adequate response to its problems.

continued... The Guardian

A Democratic Iraq

2006-08-28T22:50:00.001+01:00

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has claimed that violence is decreasing, saying that the country would never slide into a civil war.

Mr Maliki has refused to be drawn on a timetable for the withdrawal of the 130,000 US and 7,000 British troops who form the bulk of the foreign force in Iraq." [RTE]

"91.7% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition troops in the country, up from 74.4% in 2004. 84.5% are "strongly opposed". Among Sunnis, opposition to the US presence went from 94.5% to 97.9% (97.2% "strongly opposed"). Among Shia, opposition to the US presence went from 81.2% to 94.6%, with "strongly opposed" going from 63.5% to 89.7%. Even among the Kurds, opposition went from 19.6% to 63.3%. In other words, it isn't just that Iraqis oppose the American presence - it's that their feelings are intense: only 7.2% "somewhat oppose" and 4.7% "somewhat support."" [Lenin's Tomb] [Poll conducted by the University of Michigan]

And on Iran:

In the Times today Charles Krauthammer foams at the mouth:

"The point of this multilateral exercise cannot be to stop Iran's nuclear programme by diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will take military means. There will be terrible consequences from such an attack. These must be weighed against the terrible consequences of allowing an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership to acquire weapons of genocide. The point of the current elaborate exercise in multilateral diplomacy is to slightly alter that future calculation.

By demonstrating extraordinary forbearance and accommodation, perhaps we will have purchased the acquiescence of our closest allies - Britain, Germany and, yes, France - to a military strike on that fateful day when diplomacy has run its course." [The Irish Times]

The Old Lie

2006-08-26T20:02:00.000+01:00

Harold Evans pens some drivel for the Irish Times and the Guardian. Read it here.

Dear Alan and Geraldine,

Harold Evans repeats the 'old lie' in his celebration of Joe Rosenthal's iconic picture of February 23rd 1945 in Saturday's Irish Times (via the Guardian Service). He reiterates the nonsensical rhetoric of those in power in order to glorify the sacrifice of those forced, through economic necessity and blind faith in their government, to put their bodies in the firing line.

He divides Iraq's conflict, quite conveniently, into two distinct parts. On the side of good he finds 'the coalition of the willing', on the side of evil he imagines 'the enemies of freedom'. Yet the war's 'great evil' was captured long ago, what now exists is a country suffocating under foreign occupation. And as with any occupation, the occupied tend to steadily lose faith in their right to 'choose their own destiny' the longer they are occupied.

If we are to accept, as Mr. Evans wills us to, that the coalition in Iraq epitomise 'freedom' then a recent BBC report detailing the findings of the Multi-national Force - Iraq backs up that assertion. The 'enemy', Iraq's Insurgency, primarily targets coalition forces. The victims of these attacks are also victims of the of the act of aggression that brought about that insurgency, these dead soldiers are victims of their own governments foreign policies.

Yet there is no credible reason to believe his assertion, Iraq has been ravaged by foreign forces since 2003. In complete contradiction to Mr. Evans' contention, many of the coalition's crimes against Iraq's people have not and will never face public scrutiny. And if we really have the "free press and an independent judiciary, vigilant for any breach of the constitution and reputation" to which Mr. Evans attests why is it that the blatant crime, the supreme international crime, the 'search for WMDs' itself will never face judgement in the courts of justice?

Only weeks ago, quietly whispered revelations emanating from the corridors of freedom in Washington now cast doubt on what sort of destiny the occupiers intend leaving in Iraq; "Senior administration officials have acknowledged .. that they are considering alternatives other than democracy." History resonates so predictably.

The gallantry of the soldier has not been besmirched by 'the few who dishonour their service and their country' though this of course has tarred many with the same brush. It has been the cynical deception of the gallant by their leaders that has sullied he names of those who go to war.

Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

"Sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country."

Yours sincerely,

[alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk, gkennedy@irish-times.ie]