Suppressed History: How the Filipino Revolt Paved the Way for Vietnam and Iraq

October 24, 2008

America’s wars of aggression against Viet Nam and Iraq might not have been waged if the U.S. government had not censored the true story of the widespread atrocities its troops committed in the Philippines at the end of the 19th Century.

America’s invasion of the Philippines in 1898 in the Spanish-American War and the suppression of that nation’s independence fighters afterwards resulted in the deaths of 4,374 U.S. troops — about as many as have been killed in Iraq. It also led to the deaths of 16,000 “guerrillas”(indigenous Filipino resistance fighters) and at least 20,000 civilians, writes Stephen Kinzer in his new history, “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq”(Times Books, Henry Holt and Co.)

The atrocities by U.S. forces, including a dreadful form of “waterboarding,” were so ubiquitous that novelist Mark Twain suggested redesigning the American flag by painting the white stripes black and replacing the stars with the pirate skull and crossbones.

In a review of Kinzer’s book, Dean Lawrence Velvel of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover notes, “The disappearance of the episode from our history books paved the way, of course, for the imperialism, and the repetition of disaster, which reached their zeniths in the disasters of, first, Viet Nam, and now Iraq,” Velvel writes. “It is another of the gross distortions of the history profession….”

As Kinzer writes, “The scandal over torture and murder in the Philippines, for example, might have led Americans to rethink their country’s worldwide ambitions, but it did not. Instead, they came to accept the idea that their soldiers might have to commit atrocities in order to subdue insurgents and win wars.”

Despite Washington’s success in censoring atrocity reports during the first half of the war, reporters got the sordid details from returning veterans. As the Philadelphia Ledger reported in 1901: “Our men have been relentless; have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog…Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to ‘make them talk,’ have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one…”

Velvel writes that America made war on Spain in 1898 as part of its search for influence. “Christianizing heathen nations, building a strong navy, establishing military bases around the world, and bringing foreign governments under American control were never ends in themselves. They were ways for the United States to assure itself access to the markets, resources, and investment potential of distant lands.”

Although the U.S. economy grew tremendously during the last quarter of the 19th Century, Velvel continues, the fruits were distributed unevenly. “Conditions for most ordinary people were steadily deteriorating. By 1893, one of every six American workers was unemployed, and many of the rest lived on subsistence wages. Plummeting agricultural prices in the 1890s killed off a whole generation of small farmers” and “strikes and labor riots” broke out from New York to California.”

American leaders clamored for an imperialist policy on grounds the country needed to resolve its “glut” of overproduction when, in fact, Americans lacked the means to consume. “The surplus production from farms and factories could have been used to lift millions out of poverty, but this would have required a form of wealth redistribution that was repugnant to powerful Americans. Instead they looked abroad,” Velvel writes, adding that today’s “globalization” is imperialism by another name.

Velvel is cofounder of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, a law school purposefully dedicated to the education of minorities, immigrants, and students from working-class backgrounds who would otherwise not be able to embark on a legal career. The school is famed for providing an affordable, quality education and widely regarded as a leader in the reform movement to make legal education more practicable.

Sherwood Ross, Media Consultant to Massachusetts School of Law, sherwoodr1@yahoo.com

Police arrest Kashmiri leader over anti-poll rally

October 24, 2008

REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service

Oct 23, 2008 02:33 EST

SRINAGAR, India, Oct 23 (Reuters) – Indian police arrested a Kashmiri separatist leader in an overnight raid after he led a rally urging people to boycott forthcoming state elections in the disputed Himalayan region, police said on Thursday.

Multi-stage state elections are due to start on Nov. 17 in Kashmir, where the past two months have witnessed some of the biggest anti-India protests since a separatist revolt against New Delhi’s rule broke out in 1989.

Yasin Malik, chief of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front who started an anti-election campaign in north Kashmir on Wednesday was detained at his house in Srinagar, Kashmir’s summer capital.

Police used tear gas and batons to disperse scores of demonstrators protesting against the arrest.

Kashmir’s main separatist alliance the All Parties Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference, which is demanding an end to Indian rule in the region, has called for a complete boycott of the elections scheduled to be held in seven phases.

There had been pressure to suspend the elections, due this year, after at least 42 people were killed by security forces and more than 1,000 wounded in anti-India protests.

“New Delhi is trying to project the election as an alternative solution to Kashmir, but we will not allow it to happen,” Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq told reporters. “We appeal to the people to boycott the elections.”

The government has announced a ban on public meetings of five or more people for one month.

There will be a massive deployment of security forces across the strife-torn region during the poll.

In the past, separatist guerrillas have attacked candidates, polling stations, party workers and rallies during elections, killing scores of candidates and workers.

But early this year, United Jihad Council, a Pakistan-based militant alliance fighting Indian troops in Kashmir, rejected the use of violence to force a boycott of elections.

Violence involving Indian troops and separatist guerrillas has declined significantly since India and Pakistan, which both claim the region, began a slow-moving peace process in 2004. (Reporting by Sheikh Mushtaq; Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Alex Richardson) (For the latest Reuters news on India see in.reuters.com, for blogs see blogs.reuters.com/in)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

High Court shocked by US obstruction in Guantánamo torture case

October 24, 2008

Andy Worthington, 23.10.08

Binyam Mohamed“Contempt of court” is the title of an article I wrote for the Guardian’s “Comment is free” section today, in which I looked at the UK High Court’s latest judgment in the case of British resident and Guantánamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed, a victim of “extraordinary rendition” and torture who is engaged in a transatlantic struggle to secure exculpatory evidence proving that his confessions — of involvement with al-Qaeda and a “dirty bomb” plot — were extracted through the use of torture.

On Tuesday I reported how the US Defense Department had dropped Binyam’s proposed trial by Military Commission (and those of four other prisoners) following the resignation of Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, the prosecutor in all five cases, and this latest article brings the British side of the story up to date. It is, of necessity, inconclusive, as the judges are awaiting a ruling on the exculpatory evidence in a US court, but it was clear yesterday that Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones were appalled by the lengths to which the US administration seems prepared to go to avoid having to release the evidence.

I intend to write about the judgment in more detail in the near future, but in the meantime I hope that this article captures the essence of yesterday’s ruling.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press/the University of Michigan Press).

Iraq: Did the Surge Work?

October 24, 2008

by George Hunsinger

Violence, Alexander Solzenitsyn once observed, finds refuge in falsehood, even as falsehood is supported by violence. “Anyone who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.” (Nobel Prize acceptance speech, 1972) A practical rule can be deduced. Where there is violence, look for falsehood; where there is falsehood, look for violence. If Solzenitsyn is correct, they go together.

According to conventional wisdom, it seems that the “surge” in Iraq was a huge success. For example, a recent CNS News story was headlined: “With Success of Surge, NY Times’ Iraq War Coverage Drops to All-Time Low” (October 21, 2008). The Times’ coverage has dropped 60 per cent since 2004, and this is not terribly different from other news outlets. The media has lost interest in Iraq. Whether the surge really “worked,” however, is another story.

In September 2007, Juan Cole, the respected Middle East expert, wrote an article called “Big Lies Surround the Iraq ‘Surge.'” At that time he stated: “US troop deaths in Iraq have not fallen and . . . violence in Iraq has not fallen because of the Surge. Violence is way up this year.” But, one might reply, that was then and this is now. How do matters stand more than a year after this gloomy verdict? A widespread consensus exists today throughout the political campaigns and the mainstream media that the great success of the Surge is beyond doubt.

The so-called Surge — a euphemism for escalation — was designed to increase security in Iraq. U.S. presence in the country was to be increased by 30,000 personnel along with a three-fold contribution in Iraqi forces. Additional troops were to be provided by coalition partners. Baghdad was selected as the center of the campaign. If security could be increased for the country’s largest city, the rest would surely follow. A Shi’ite and Sunni “fault line” ran throughout the city.

In January 2007, a year after being launched, the Surge was widely acclaimed as a triumph. Contrary to naysayers like Cole, violence across the country was said to be down by 60 percent. Al Qaeda in Iraq, expelled from Baghdad and Anbar Province, was said to be on the run, and the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior reported that it was 75 percent destroyed. Not only was the violence in Iraq reduced, but Al Qaeda was being decimated.

Again, however, Cole, who relies on independent sources in the original languages, argued otherwise. What actually seems to have happened, he wrote in the summer of 2008, was that, first, the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad were disarmed by the escalation troops. Then, “once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them.”

Mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad ended up with almost no Sunnis. In 2007 Baghdad went from being predominantly Sunni to being overwhelmingly Shiite. According to Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress, Baghdad, once having a 65 percent Sunni majority, “is now 75 percent Shia.”

“My thesis,” wrote Cole, “would be that the U.S. inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods.”

Cole’s thesis has received important confirmation. According to Bob Woodward, in his new book The War Within (Simon & Schuster, 2008), the biggest factor behind the reduced violence in Iraq was “very possibly” not the Surge, but a resort to Death Squads. A “Top Secret” memo viewed by Woodward indicates that the Sunnis were systematically targeted and assassinated. What took place was reminiscent of the infamous Phoenix Program instituted by the U.S. in Vietnam. It was a strategy of summary executions.

Yet another confirmation appeared in a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of California. Based on an examination of satellite photos across Baghdad, the study observed that Sunni neighborhoods, which showed a dramatic decrease of nighttime light in Sunni neighborhoods, had been abandoned by their inhabitants. The surge, the study concluded, “has had no observable effect.” The study attributed the tremendous decline in Baghdad’s Sunni population to relocations and ethnic cleansing.

Tom Hayden raises some disturbing questions. “Why were the targets killed instead of being detained? How many targeted individuals were killed or made to disappear? . . . How are the operations consistent with US constitutional law and international human rights standards?” Why has thee been no congressional investigation?

According to UN reports, the number of Iraqi refugees has spiked during the Surge. Between 2.5 and 4 million are now estimated to exist outside their country, while another 2.5 are internal refugees. At least 2 million Sunni refugees cannot return to their homes without fear of being slaughtered.

People’s lives remain shattered. One in four has had a family member who was murdered. “The humanitarian situation in most of the country remains among the most critical in the world,” according to the Iraqi Red Cross/Red Crescent. Iraq’s health care system is “now in worse shape than ever.”

Unemployment remains high, sanitation and electrical facilities remain degraded, families use up to a third of their monthly income to buy drinking water. Tens of thousands are being held in detention camps. According to the UN, “the detention of children in adult detention centers violates U.S. obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as accepted international human rights norms.” (AP, May 19, 2008)

Resorting to Death Squads, while ignoring the humanitarian crisis and touting the Surge, seems to offer yet another instance of Solzenitsyn’s bleak prognosis that violence seeks refuge in falsehood.

George Hunsinger teaches at Princeton Theological Seminary

Ex-Bush spokesman backs Obama

October 24, 2008
Al Jazeera, Oct 24, 2008

McCain’s message seemed to be resonate with his own supporters [Reuters]

The former press secretary to George Bush has announced he is backing Barack Obama in the race to replace his ex-boss as US president.

Scott McClellan said on Thursday that he had decided to back the Democrat because he wanted to support the candidate with the best chance of changing the way Washington – the political heart of the US – works and gets things done.

His announcement is yet another blow to the campaign of John McCain, the Republican contender, who is struggling to erode Obama’s opinion poll lead.

McClellan is the second former Bush administration figure this week to publicly support Obama after Colin Powell, the former US secretary of state under Bush, threw his weight behind the Illinois senator.

McClellan disclosed his decision during the recording of a television show to be shown on CNN, the US broadcaster, this weekend.

He had ruffled the feathers of his former colleagues with the publication of What Happened, a book that was critical of Bush and exposed some of the inner workings of the administration.

Candidates spar

The news came after the US presidential candidates attacked each other once again on economic issues as they continued to campaign across key battleground states.

In focus

In-depth coverage of the US presidential election

McCain told voters in Florida that Obama’s plan to raise taxes on small businesses making more than $250,000 would “kill jobs” and “comes at the worst possible time for America”.The McCain campaign also released a new advertisement using “Joe the Plumber”, the Ohio plumber who questioned Obama over his tax plans earlier this month.

Trailing in opinion polls both nationally and in many key states, McCain is facing a difficult path to victory and finds himself racing to defend states that have voted Republican in recent elections.

‘International crisis’

However, Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan, who has been following the McCain campaign, said the message based around “Joe the Plumber” was resonating, at least among his supporters, who cheered every time the name was mentioned.

The Arizona senator’s latest campaign advertisement features a number of Americans all saying “I am Joe the Plumber too”.

“Senator Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of pie than he is in growing the pie,” McCain told a cheering crowd at an Ormond Beach timber yard.

“He’s more concerned about using taxes to spread the wealth than creating a tax plan that creates jobs and grows our economy,” he said.

McCain also again used an assertion by Joe Biden, Obama’s running-mate that, like John F Kennedy, Obama would be tested with an international crisis within six months of taking office.

“Senator Obama tried to explain away this by saying his running mate sometimes engages in ‘rhetorical flourishes’. Really? Really?” he said.

Bush link

Obama says his tax plan would give a tax cut to 95 per cent of Americans.

In depth

Map: US & the World

Video: Distrust mars US-China relations

Focus: US election diary

Send us Your Views on the election campaign

The Illinois senator gave his last campaign speech in Indiana on Thursday before leaving the campaign for two days to go to Hawaii to be with his gravely ill grandmother.Obama said the US could not afford a president McCain who “thinks the economic policies of George W Bush are just right for America”.

“He made kind of a strange argument that the best way to stop companies from shipping jobs overseas is to give more tax cuts to companies that are shipping jobs overseas,” Obama said of his opponent.

“More tax cuts for job outsourcers. That’s what Senator McCain proposed as his answer to outsourcing.”

With less than two weeks before the election, Obama leads McCain 52 per cent to 40 per cent among likely voters in the latest three-day tracking poll by Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby.

However, an Associated Press poll released on Wednesday put the gap between the two at just one per cent with Obama on 44 per cent and McCain 43.

Beijing condemns EU award of Sakharov Prize to dissident Hu Jia

October 24, 2008

Hu Jia has campaigned for Aids suffers, the environment and Tibet

Hu Jia has campaigned for Aids suffers, the environment and Tibet

The award of a European human rights prize to a jailed Chinese dissident yesterday brought condemnation from Beijing on the eve of a key summit with the EU.

The highly regarded Sakharov Prize was given to 35-year-old Hu Jia despite intense lobbying by China, which gave warning that the honour would damage relations with Europe.

Mr Hu was recognised for his campaigning for rural Aids sufferers as well as for environmental causes and selfdetermination for Tibet. The Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed “strong dissatisfaction at the decision by the European Parliament to give the award to a jailed criminal in China, in disregard of our repeated representations”.

Liu Jianchao, a ministry spokesman, said: “This is gross interference in China’s domestic affairs. I do not believe that anyone gets anywhere by interfering in the affairs of others.” He added later that the award would not hinder today’s summit with senior EU figures including President Sarkozy of France and José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, which will cover issues including CO2 targets and reforming the global financial system.

Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, said: “By awarding the Sakharov Prize to Hu Jia, the European Parliament is sending out a clear signal of support to all those who defend human rights in China.” He said that Mr Hu had spoken out against oppression in Tibet and described him as one of the real defenders of human rights in the People’s Republic of China.

In a letter sent to Mr Pöttering before the award decision, China’s EU Ambassador, Song Zhe, said: “If the European Parliament should award this prize to Hu Jia, that would inevitably hurt the Chinese people once again and bring serious damage to China-EU relations.”

The Sakharov Prize, named after the Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov, is in its 20th year and is worth €50,000 (£39,800). Past winners include Nelson Mandela, the former South African President, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese pro-democracy campaigner, and Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General.

Mr Hu’s wife said that he was suffering in prison from cirrhosis of the liver and anaemia. Zeng Jinyan added: “I think Hu Jia would be very happy because his work has now received everyone’s validation.”

Pakistan rejects ‘America’s war’ on extremists

October 24, 2008

• Parliament vows to end military action on border
• Relations with US will be strained by new strategy

Members of religious party Jamaat e-Islami yesterday at a protest against US airstrikes along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan

Members of religious party Jamaat e-Islami yesterday at a protest against US airstrikes along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. Photograph: Fayyaz Hussain/Reuters

Serious doubts multiplied yesterday about Pakistan‘s commitment to America‘s military campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban after parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for dialogue with extremist groups and an end to military action.

The new strategy, backed by all parties, emerged after a fierce debate in parliament where most parliamentarians said that Pakistan was paying an unacceptable price for fighting “America’s war”. If implemented by the government, support for Pakistan from international allies would come under severe strain, adding further instability to a country facing a spiral of violence and economic collapse.

“We need to prioritise our own national security interests,” said Raza Rabbani, a leading member of the ruling Pakistan People’s party. “As far as the US is concerned, the message that has gone with this resolution will definitely ring alarm bells, vis-a-vis their policy of bulldozing Pakistan.”

The resolution, passed unanimously in parliament on Wednesday night demanded the abandonment of the use of force against extremists, in favour of negotiation, in what it called “an urgent review of our national security strategy”.

“Dialogue must now be the highest priority, as a principal instrument of conflict management and resolution,” said the resolution. “The military will be replaced as early as possible by civilian law enforcement agencies.” It also said Pakistan would pursue “an independent foreign policy” and, in a pointed reference to US military incursions into Pakistani territory, proclaimed that “the nation stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and calls upon the government to deal with it effectively”.

The force of the resolution was unclear last night, with differences in interpretation between the ruling People’s party and opposition. The document is not binding on the government even though it was party to it. The army remains the ultimate arbiter of security policy. Some analysts believe that differences between the parties will see a tussle over implementation that could temper the resolution’s thrust. The US response was muted, with officials saying they considered it rhetoric for domestic consumption.

But the intense American pressure on Islamabad to take on the militants was underlined yesterday by another US missile strike inside Pakistani territory, an instance of the heavy-handed intervention that parliament railed against. The attack came in Pakistan’s border area with Afghanistan, at an Islamic school being used by suspected extremists, killing 11. The madrasa was linked to Afghan Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, who has an extensive network in Pakistan.

There have been about a dozen US missile strikes inside Pakistan since the beginning of September and a ground assault, fanning widespread anti-Americanism in the country. The US and Nato depend on Pakistan to prevent its tribal area being used as a safe haven for Afghan Taliban.

Past attempts by Pakistan at making peace with militant groups in the tribal area have allowed them to regroup and led to a sharp increase in cross-border attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Yesterday a US official made clear what it expected. “Pakistan needs to and is attacking insurgents in its northern areas,” Patrick Moon, a deputy US assistant secretary of state, said during a visit to Kabul. “Sanctuaries for Afghanistan Taliban in Pakistan complicate our security operations. Pakistani Taliban and other extremists such as al-Qaida are posing a threat to the stability of Pakistan.”

Pakistan is confronting multiple crises, political, security and financial, which threaten to overwhelm the nuclear-armed country and push it into chaos. It is heading towards bankruptcy, forcing Islamabad this week to approach to the International Monetary Fund for a rescue package. But the IMF bailout could be jeopardised if Washington is not on board.

Ordinary people complain that the country feels like it is falling apart, with a severe shortage of electricity causing blackouts of 12 hours or more in many areas, and crippling food price inflation, running at up to 100%, swelling the numbers living below the poverty line.

The country’s north-west, especially its tribal border area with Afghanistan, is under the control of Taliban and al-Qaida, who are connected to militant groups that have networks across the country. Yesterday, in what is now a typical day for Pakistan, aside from the US missile strike, eight anti-Taliban tribal leaders were killed by militants in the Orakzai part of the tribal area, and the army killed 20 fighters in Bajaur, another part of the tribal belt.

In Swat, a valley in the north-west, the headless body was found of a policeman, previously kidnapped by Taliban, and posters went up in Swat warning women against shopping in markets, saying it was “unIslamic”.

“Our country is burning,” said Senator Khurshid Ahmad, a member of Pakistan’s upper house of parliament for Jamaat-e-Islami, a mainstream religious party. “We don’t want Bush to put oil on the fire. We want to extinguish this fire.”

Sherry Rehman, minister for information, said the motion was a “firm resolve to combat terrorism”. But Talat Masood, a retired general and security analyst, said: “The army will be disappointed there was not a clear consensus. I think the army will continue with the existing policy.”

Backstory

Pakistan’s tribal territory, formally known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata), is a legacy of the Raj, a 10,000 square mile sliver of territory that has become central to geopolitics and the homeland security of the US, Britain and Europe.

The laws of Pakistan do not extend to the tribal belt, which is run under its own punitive laws and tribal custom, a system developed by the British. Fierce customs mean that men all carry guns, and guests, including al-Qaida militants, must be protected.

Al-Qaida’s leadership and thousands of Taliban escaped the US war in Afghanistan after September 11 2001 by slipping into the tribal area, which runs along the border.

Under a treaty with the tribes, the Pakistan army was not allowed to enter the Fata, but the accord broke in 2004 under US pressure calling for al-Qaida bases to be disrupted. This sparked a tribal insurrection and pushed the locals towards extremism, creating a Pakistani Taliban. Taliban militants killed hundreds of traditional leaders and now control most of the Fata, imposing a rough and ready Islamic law, though it is believed that most tribesmen remain moderate.

Indo-US Terrorism in Pakistan?

October 23, 2008

By Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal

It is crudely painful to know the Pakistan is engaged in killing Muslims of Pakistan with the help of USA and India via Afghanistan. Recently, a lot of Muslims are being butchered by these trio-“democrats” in this Islamic nation and that is a shameful event. Missiles thought to have been fired by the US have killed at least seven students of a religious school in north-western Pakistan. At least two missiles, reportedly fired by pilotless US drones, hit the school early on Oct 23. One does not what exactly the USA wants in Pakistan by destabilizing and terrorizing citizens of that country. The school, in North Waziristan, is close to the residence of a fugitive Taleban leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani and by killing these innocent school kids, USA has possible tried to reduce the Muslim population in a Muslim country with the help of Indian Hindus who always talk filth about Indian Muslims saying they are growing at a reckless speed and they have 30 million share in the 1 billion of India and that poor Hindus have stopped producing children long back. America is, then, appeasing it newly found nuclear partner in many ways.

The latest missile attack comes hours after the Pakistani parliament unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the government to defend its sovereignty and expel foreign fighters from the region. The resolution also called upon the government to prevent the use of Pakistani territory for attacks on another country. The Pakistani army is investigating the incident. The US has made no comment. It seems both USA, the global terrorist state and India, the regional terror state, have coerced Pakistan to be silent on the US-led terror wars in Islamic world including Pakistan and accommodate the Into-US “concerns” in Pakistan. Witnesses told the BBC that the missiles destroyed nearly half of the school building in the Dande Darpakhel area near Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan. At least six people were injured in the attack. It is still not clear whether there were any foreign fighters among the dead students. Local people have said that most of the injured were local students at the seminary. The residential complex of Jalaluddin Haqqani had been targeted by a previous missile attack, in which more than 10 people had been killed or injured.

In recent weeks the United States has launched several missile strikes against suspected militant targets in the Afghan border region. Any support for Muslims is treated as act of terrorism. Muslim fighters from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East sympathizing with the terrorized global Muslims are the target of Indo-US state terrorists. Intelligence failures have sometimes led to civilian casualties and in Islamic world that does not matter to anti-Islamic terrorists led by the USA. Washington is least worried about Muslim civilian casualties and simply covers it up by saying the strikes are used against “suspected” militant targets. Some 80 people have been killed in a number of suspected US missile strikes in South and North Waziristan region over the past month.

Earlier in October a suspected pilotless American drone fired missiles in North Waziristan, killing at least six people. The United States rarely confirms or denies such attacks, as India does it when they kill innocent Kashmiri civilians. They have least regard for Muslim human lives.

Pakistan has been on the hit list of India and one cannot firmly say if the recent cross-border trade would eventually remove the “cross-border-terrorism” mentality of India. Indian media and intelligence not seem to be really interested in peace with India, although on US pressure both are doing this kind of CBMs. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the military based premier spy agency of India created in 1968, has assumed a significant status as invisible actor in formulation of India’s domestic, regional and global policies, particularly directed against Muslims. It fundamental jobs include destabilize the region by engineering splits and turmoil in Indian neighborhoods. Fundamentalist Hindus give credit to Indira Gandhi who in the late 1970s gave RAW a new role to suit her Indira Doctrine specifically asking it to undertake covert operations in neighboring countries especially Pakistan which comprises majority of Muslims. RAW was given a green signal to mobilize all its resources by exploiting political turmoil in East Pakistan in 1971 which RAW had created through its agents who provided Bengalis arms and ammunition for conducting guerrilla acts against the Pakistani defence forces.

Tensions between the US and Pakistan have increased over the issue of cross-border incursions against militants by American forces based in Afghanistan. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has said he will not tolerate violations of his country’s territory. The US state department has affirmed “its support for Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity”. But the US-led terrorist attacks are on the increase inside Pakistan, known as a major non-NATO ally and a “respected”, crucial partner of the USA. No one can clearly say what exactly has been happening in Jinnah’s Pakistan now-a-days!

Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal has been a university teacher, and has worked in various Indian institutions like JNU, Mysore University, Central Institute of English FL, etc. He is also a political commentator, researcher, and columnist. He has widely published in India and abroad, and has written about state terrorism.

Washington warns Iraq to accept security deal

October 23, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of “real consequences” for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.

The White House said Iraqi security forces are incapable of keeping the peace without U.S. troops, raising the specter of reversals in recent security and political gains if the proposed security deal is not approved by the time the current legal basis for U.S. military operations expires Dec. 31.

“There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said. “And the Iraqis know that. And so, we’re confident that they’ll be able to recognize this. And if they don’t, there will be real consequences, if Americans aren’t able to operate there.”

At the Pentagon, press secretary Geoff Morrell said the U.S. fallback position is to extend the U.N. Security Council mandate authorizing U.S.-led coalition operations in Iraq, but he emphasized that the Bush administration’s preference is to complete a bilateral U.S.-Iraqi agreement.

“Our focus is entirely on trying to get this deal done,” Morrell said.

Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not had direct contacts with Iraqi officials since Baghdad announced earlier this week that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki determined that unspecified changes to the draft accord are required. The spokesman said it was not clear what changes the Iraqis are demanding.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the draft agreement “both protects our troops and the Iraqi sovereignty” and would stand as it was negotiated.

“It is a good agreement,” Rice told reporters traveling with her Wednesday to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where she was to meet her Mexican counterpart, Patricia Espinosa.

Rice would not say whether she opposes the Iraqi Cabinet petition to reopen negotiations.

“I understand the Iraqis themselves recognize they are not ready to operate without the coalition forces yet,” Rice said.

At the State Department, spokesman Robert Wood said time was running short.

“It’s time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate and take a decision,” Wood said. He insisted that the administration had yet to hear anything official from the Iraqi government on its position or its suggestions for possible amendments.

The U.S. has 155,000 troops in Iraq. In addition to conducting combat operations against a weakened insurgency and hunting down al-Qaida fighters, the U.S. military is training Iraqi security forces, assisting in the resettlement of displaced persons, coordinating efforts to restore and improve basic services like water and sewage, and providing personal security for senior Iraqi government officials.

Iraqi government on Wednesday decried what it called the “not welcomed” statements from Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who cautioned the Iraqis of unwelcome consequences in the event that the security pact is not signed by the end of the year.

Mullen, who was traveling in Europe, told reporters on Tuesday that time was running out for the Iraqis to sign the deal and that he was concerned the Iraqis may not fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation.

“These statements are not welcomed in Iraq,” Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement. “All Iraqis realize the volume of their responsibilities and they appreciate the importance of signing the pact or not in the way they deem it proper.”

Al-Dabbagh added: “A compulsory method must not be imposed on their choice and it is improper to address Iraqis in such manner.”

Morrell said the Iraqis should not take Mullen’s comments as an attempt to force anything on them.

“That couldn’t be further from the truth,” Morrell said. “We are not trying to pressure the Iraqis or force the Iraqis into signing anything they don’t wish to sign.”

In subsequent remarks Wednesday, Mullen said he believes the Iraqis are not ready to provide their own defense, according to a Pentagon account of comments to reporters traveling with him.

Mullen also made clear in those remarks that if there is no U.S.-Iraqi deal and the U.N. mandate runs out on Dec. 31 without being extended by the Security Council, then all U.S. military operations would have to cease. Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials have said repeatedly that the security situation in Iraq is too fragile to justify a full U.S. withdrawal anytime soon.

The proposed security pact calls for all U.S. combat forces to be removed from Iraqi cities by June 2009 and for all forces to leave the country by the end of 2011, unless both sides agree to an extension.

In a satellite video-teleconference from Baghdad, an Army commander told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday that his understanding is that by June 2009 U.S. troops would not be based inside cities but would be allowed to operate as trainers and advisers attached to Iraqi military units.

“We will have embedded teams,” Col. William Hickman, commander of the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, said. “And those teams will remain with Iraqi army and the Iraqi police in execution of our mission. So that is how we’re seeing our situation here — to continue to focus on the training of the Iraqi security forces so that they are prepared as we go into spring and summer of next year.”

Hickman’s brigade operates in western Baghdad.

Morrell announced that on Thursday the Iraqis would regain security responsibilities for Babil province, making it the 12th of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be restored to Iraqi control.

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Matthew Lee, Terence Hunt and Nestor Ikeda contributed to this story.

Massacre by Drone in Afghanistan

October 23, 2008

Kid Killers are Barbarians

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY | Counterpunch, Oct 22, 2008

There is yet more news from Afghanistan about the killing of civilians by foreign forces’ air attacks. The BBC reported that “Angry villagers took 18 bodies – including badly mangled bodies of women and children – to the governor’s house in the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah, Haji Adnan Khan, a tribal leader in the city who had seen the bodies, was reported as saying. He said there might be more bodies trapped under the rubble. A BBC reporter in Lashkar Gah said he saw the bodies – three women and the rest children ranging in age from six months to 15. The families brought the bodies from their village in the Nad Ali district.” Ho hum; just another day in the war for freedom.

And then there was the killing of kids next door, as it were, for it was reported from Pakistan only a few days before the Lashkar Gah atrocity that “Eleven people were killed in Upper Dir district . . . when a roadside bomb exploded near a police van [and] four schoolchildren in a passing bus were among the dead.”

The criminal fanatics who planned and directed the Dir atrocity would claim, just like American official mouthpieces after the blitzing of tribal wedding parties or memorial services, that innocent people are simply unfortunate to be in the way when they tried to hit the main target. These barbarians attempt to convince us that in some way women and children are themselves at fault when they are killed by lunatic bombers or almost equally deranged controllers of aerial slaughter-machines. Another line is that it is the responsibility of those whom they target because they permit civilians to be close by. These claims are not persuasive enough to let us ignore the innocent children and their weeping families. In fact they are evidence of hand-washing arrogance.

People who kill kids, for whatever reason and no matter in what manner, are disgusting, murderous, cowardly barbarians.

Suicide bombing is not the way to achieve paradise, but alas there appears to be nobody influential enough to make this clear to the world at large. The problem is that rabble-rousing, brutal, religious bigots use their position to persuade poorly-educated (and some not-so-poorly-educated), easily-influenced people that those who die for their Faith, even if that involves murdering children, are assured of heaven.

It is tragic that the real meaning of the Koran, as well as civilised common sense, decency, and respect for human lives, are thrust aside by such as the rabidly fanatical Egyptian cleric Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who claims that Islam justifies suicide bombings.

In a BBC interview Al-Qaradawi said that “I consider this type of martyrdom operation [by suicide bombing] as an indication of the justice of Allah Almighty. Allah is just – through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs like the Palestinians do. Islamic theologians and jurisprudents have debated this issue, referring to it as a form of Jihad under the title of ‘jeopardising the life of the mujaheed.’ It is allowed to jeopardise your soul and cross the path of the enemy and be killed if this act of jeopardy affects the enemy, even if it only generates fear in their hearts, shaking their morale, making them fear Muslims.”

A tortuous argument, to put it mildly ; and just as poorly constructed and badly delivered as the justification for the US slaughter of innocent men, women and children attending a night-time memorial service in the Afghan village of Azizabad on August 22. In that case it was at first (and as usual) flatly denied that there had been any civilian deaths. As the New York Times recorded : “The US hotly disputed the toll [of 90], claiming initially that no civilians were killed, then later revising the number up to 5-7 civilians. They also accused Afghan civilians who claimed a higher toll of spreading “outrageous Taliba n propaganda.” They were forced to re-examine their findings, however, when video evidence of the toll went public.”

United Nations officials conducted an inquiry immediately and found that 90 civilians had been killed, of whom 60 were children, but the US ignored the report, and when the Afghan government confirmed that there were scores of dead a US spokesman called the statement “outrageous.”

It was unfortunate – at least for the liars who deliberated concocted falsehoods about the massacre – that “Cellphone images that a villager said he took, and seen by this reporter [Carlotta Gall, a marvellous and courageous journalist], showed two lines of about 20 bodies each laid out in the mosque, with the sounds of loud sobbing and villagers’ cries in the background. An Afghan doctor who runs a clinic in a nearby village said he counted 50 to 60 bodies of civilians, most of them women and children and some of them his own patients, laid out in the village mosque on the day of the strike . . . In a series of statements about the operation, the US military has said that extremists who entered the village after the bombardment encouraged villagers to change their story and inflate the number of dead.”

If there had been no independent reporting of the atrocity it would, like so many others, have been forgotten about. (Nobody would have known about the atrocities at Abu Ghraib if photographs hadn’t appeared.) But Washington was forced to order an inquiry. Not that there is any intention to take disciplinary action against those responsible for any aspect of the horrible affair, even when it was eventually admitted there were “more than 30” civilians killed, because, with indifferent callousness, the spin-masters pronounced that the strike was against “a legitimate target.”

The pattern is clear : first lie your head off after a war crime has been committed; then try to play down the gravity of the slaughter and while you’re at it, vilify anyone courageous enough to have held an independent inquiry that discovered the truth. After it is obvious that a major atrocity did actually take place, all must wring hands and announce that an inquiry is to be held. (If anxious to appear serious it is better to state that it will be a “full” inquiry. But on no account must there be representation at the inquiry by officials, or, indeed, attendance by any citizens of the country in which the attack has taken.) Last, when irrefutable evidence has to be grudgingly admitted, say that there has been a mistake but that the people who identified the target, fired the missiles or lied in their teeth about the squalid affair are not going to receive even a wrist-slap in punishment. Then the whole affair will be forgotten except by the few hundred more Afghans, Iraqis or Pakistanis who have been persuaded that US “freedom” is meaningless and queue up to join the ranks of anti-western fanatics and suicide bombers.

There is a chilling parallel between the types of child killers. On the one hand, a formal military organisation is adamant that “legitimate targets” must be blasted even if the deaths of children are inevitable. On the other, the psychotic savages who plan and carry out suicide bombings that slaughter innocent youngsters are convinced their atrocities are justified by a warped interpretation of their Faith.

The potential victims of attacks – the ordinary innocent citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan – should be protected; but this is impossible, given the zeal of both types of attackers. There can be no excuses for killing children, but violence feeds violence, courtesy of trigger-happy moronic foreigners and home-grown fiendish monsters. The terrible thing is that they have so much in common : mainly barbarity.

Brian Cloughley’s new book, War, Coups and Terror, about the Pakistan army, has just been published by Pen & Sword Books (UK) and will be published in the US by Skyhorse Publishing (New York). He lives in France.