JUST NOT WELCOME

Member of the boards of directors of Chevron Corporation from 1991 to 2001 (there is a 130,000-ton oil tanker named after her), former US National Security Adviser and now traveling the world as emissary of “world nightmare incarnate” as Indian writer Arundhati Roy recently called George W. Bush, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is coming to England, invited by UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Jack Straw.

“[H]e will introduce them [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US media] to the people of Blackburn and Liverpool in a return match for the unusual tour Ms Rice gave Mr Straw in the southern states last year (…) Ms Rice and the US media corps might be rather damp at the end of the weekend, but they will be better informed about the vibrant Britain that exists beyond London.” (In praise of... Condi's tour, Leader, The Guardian, Wednesday March 29, 2006)

It seems that “the people of Blackburn and Liverpool” have already started to inform “about the vibrant Britain that exists beyond London.”

“Condoleezza Rice's two-day visit to the north of England suffered a second setback today, as a visit to a mosque was cancelled due to fears of anti-war protests.

It follows the withdrawal of the poet Roger McGough from compeering a celebratory concert in Liverpool on Saturday, to be attended by the US secretary of state.

A spokesman for the mosque in Blackburn said the planned visit had been called off because of fears of an "invasion" by anti-war Muslims - although Ms Rice is probably the most heavily-protected woman in the world.” (Rice visit to Blackburn mosque cancelled, Matthew Tempest and agencies, The Guardian, Thursday, March 30, 2006)

The BBC reports:

In addition to meeting dignitaries in Mr Straw's constituency, she will also attend a gala concert at the Liverpool Philharmonic.

She will also attend Blackburn Cathedral on Saturday. The Dean of Blackburn, the Very Rev Christopher Armstrong, said her visit would "promote peace and justice in the global community." (Protests stop Rice's mosque visit, BBC News website, Thursday, 30 March 2006)

Forgive the Very Rev Christopher Armstrong and just don’t look for God at Blackburn Cathedral on Saturday.

To know more click here

e-mail to Stop the War Coalition RE: IBC

Dear Robin Beste, Stop the War Coalition

I hope you are well.

You know I have great esteem and respect for you and the SWC and I know your serious and tireless commitment for the cause of peace and justice.

I have read on the Media Lens message board your correspondence with Media Lens about IBC. Please, as a friend and comrade, allow me to express my point of view.

A few days ago I had an email exchange with a BBC’s journalist. I sent an email about this to IBC’s Sloboda but he didn’t reply.

Please, take a look here

IBC’s Sloboda recently wrote to Pilger:

“1. We have little confidence in the estimates based on the Lancet study and recent extrapolations, for the reasons explained. We think that the UNDP study offers a more reliable estimate for the period covered by the Lancet, and one which is not inconsistent with the type of data we have gathered. (para 6.0 a of "On IBC")

2. Thus, the Lancet is not strong evidence for a massive deficit in accounting for war deaths (although this does mean there is not any deficit - just that the Lancet doesn't show what that deficit is).”

Why “little confidence”?

“This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

“’Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...) Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. ‘Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says.” (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)

“But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

This is what IBC writes in its last press release:

“Although what has been described as ‘sectarian violence’ undoubtedly contributes to a growing proportion of deaths, the last year’s total includes 370 known civilian deaths from military action by US-led forces and 2,231 from anti-occupation activity against coalition and Iraqi government targets. The post-invasion increase in criminal activity remains an important concern, but the majority of media reports do not allow a clear identification of the perpetrators or their motives. The “unknown agents” who did most of the killing could fall into any of the categories above, as well as other types of ‘terrorist.’ Reports also indicate that the past year has seen an increasing number of extra-judicial executions.” (Iraq Body Count Press Release 13, 9th March 2006)

An article published by Stars and Stripes, "a Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community", reads:

BAGHDAD — There are few things Lt. Gen. Pete Chiarelli and the founders of Iraq Body Count agree on except this: In daily bombings and killings in Iraq, it is often impossible to determine who was responsible, and why.

“Today, everything that happens in Iraq is [supposedly] sectarian,” Chiarelli, the second- highest ranking general in Iraq, said last week. But some of those attacks were undoubtedly the work of al-Qaida in Iraq, he said. At the same time, “there’s a certain proportion that’s chalked up to insurgents that in reality are pure, unadulterated crime.”

Iraq Body Count — the anti-war organization whose Web site count of media-reported deaths in the country since 2003 is viewed as the most accurate and has been cited by President Bush — said much the same thing in a Thursday press release.

Iraq Body Count is thought to have the best numbers on civilian deaths, although because the figures are based mostly on media reports and not all killings are reported, they’re thought to be low. There were 12,617 civilian deaths in the third year of the occupation, according to the organization. Of those, 370 civilians were killed by U.S.-led forces and 2,231 were killed by insurgents. Who’s responsible for the remaining 10,000 is unknown. (Iraq's deadly numbers game - Nothing adds up when local officials, U.S. forces or anti-war groups try to count casualties, bombs or attacks; By Nancy Montgomery, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Tuesday, March 14, 2006)

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

Shouldn’t this be the starting point of this debate?

It seems to me an indisputable fact that the warmongers have used IBC to re-write history, to neutralize the western anti-war movement and to discredit the Iraqi Resistance.

Does IBC have anything to say about this?

The refusal of IBC to answer the many questions coming from many sides is outrageous. The Iraqi civilian deaths are not private property of Iraq Body Count.

Finally, I have read many times the expressions “witch-hunt” and “attacks” to describe analyses and questions about IBC. These expressions would be hilarious if they were not used as a smokescreen to avoid a serious discussion on the specific topics and to avoid to answer questions. Using these expressions, “witch-hunt” and “attacks”, reminds me of Bush’s “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.

For what I consider an attack (to freedom of expression), please take a look here

Yours in solidarity and struggle,
Gabriele Zamparini

P.S. I CC this email to Media Lens and to IBC because of my conviction that this should be an open debate.

The "controversial security fence"

Dear Alan Rusbridger, Editor

“A small step towards peace” (Leader, The Guardian, Tuesday, March 28, 2006) reads:

"Most" is a key word here. Mr Olmert has signalled his readiness to abandon the smaller settlements deep in the West Bank, though not the larger ones - inside the controversial "security fence" - that have become an extension of the urban sprawl of expanded Jewish Jerusalem.

There is nothing “controversial” in what you called “security fence”.

“The International Court of Justice issued an advisory ruling in 2004 that the barrier breached international law where it is built on occupied territory and should be dismantled.” (“Israel 'to keep major settlement'”, BBC News website, Tuesday, 14 March 2006)

Please, will you publish a formal correction?

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Shameless BBC

Dear Bridget Kendall,

"There's still bitter disagreement over invading Iraq. Was it justified or a disastrous miscalculation?" (Bridget Kendall, BBC Six O'Clock News, Monday, March 20, 2006)

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

Then there are American, British and other countries’ soldiers. In their thousands.

Disagreement?

82 per cent of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces;

67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

Disagreement?

“An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately” (U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006, Zogby International, February 28, 2006)

Disagreement?

“The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.” (“Iraq war illegal, says Annan”, BBC News website, Thursday, 16 September, 2004)

Now, please read your words: “There's still bitter disagreement over invading Iraq. Was it justified or a disastrous miscalculation?”

Do you know that "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals - Nuremberg, Germany 1946

Do you want to be responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Please, I urge you to correct what you have said, adding a third option: “Was it justified, a disastrous miscalculation or – as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said - ‘an illegal act that contravened the UN charter’ ?”

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your reply.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

TODAY I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING EMAIL FROM Helen Boaden, Director, BBC News

Thank you for your email about Bridget Kendall’s report on the Six O’Clock News on Monday (March 20th), pegged to the third anniversary since the start of the war in Iraq.

I’ve consulted Bridget and I have to confess that we are both surprised by your criticism of her having contrasted the word "justified" with "disastrous miscalculation" in the phrase, "There is still bitter disagreement over invading Iraq - was it justified or a disastrous miscalculation?" Strictly speaking, the opposite of "justified" would be "unjustified" but that more neutral word would not point to the extent to which the war’s aftermath has proved extraordinarily problematic, which was the subject of this report. Bridget’s phrasing was much stronger.

The focus of this report was very much on the post-war difficulties and distress experienced by Iraqi people – not on the legality of the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Before the war, one "justification" for it was that it would improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis and the anniversary gave us an opportunity to examine whether so far this has proved correct. The report gave a picture of the extent of post-war difficulties in the round, including daily violence, economic set-backs and political turmoil.

I hope you find this explanation of the intention behind the phraseology helpful.

Yours sincerely

Helen Boaden

Director, BBC News

Disinformation

Dear AC Grayling,
Dear Alan Rusbridger, Editor
Dear Ian Mayes, Readers' editor

“Bombing civilians is not only immoral, it's ineffective” (AC Grayling, The Guardian, Monday, March 27, 2006), reads:

“No one knows how many civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. The most careful assessment, by the website Iraq Body Count, estimates at least 36,000. The true figure could be three times higher.”

This is factually wrong.

IBC simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported in the English language media with an online website. On the IBC website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.”

“The most careful assessment” IS NOT “by the website Iraq Body Count”.

On 29 October 2004, the British medical journal The Lancet published ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)

Source: Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004

The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote:

“This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

“’Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...) Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. ‘Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says.” (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)

A few weeks ago, the Independent wrote:

“But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

“The true figure could be [NOT] three times higher” than 36,000.

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

Please, after reading the articles and the studies I am sending you, I urge you to publish a formal correction.

Hiding the truth is not only ineffective, it’s immoral.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

P.S. Here some important articles regarding the Iraqi civilian deaths.

Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005

When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2

BURYING THE LANCET – Update

Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006

***

Dear Ms Zamparini

Thank you for your email and the points it contains. I am a little puzzled by what you say, however, given that the figures I quote are in effect in agreement with those you quote, in the sense that whereas the very conservative estimate of civilian deaths as published by IBC is 36,000, my remark that the true figure could be three times greater (i.e. in the region of 100,000) is consistent with the Lancet estimate and the figure you take to be accurate. I do not see that there is an inconsistency between this and your view. My good wishes - Anthony Grayling

***

Dear Mr. Grayling,

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am sorry you are "a little puzzled" but what you write in your email is - again - not correct: our figures are not in agreement.

Again, in the Guardian's article, you write:

“No one knows how many civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. The most careful assessment, by the website Iraq Body Count, estimates at least 36,000. The true figure could be three times higher.”

You write “The most careful assessment”. IBC is not “The most careful assessment”. IBC simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported in the English language media with an online website. On the IBC website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.”

Also, you write “The true figure could be three times higher.” You didn’t even mention the Lancet’s study. That study was published on 29 October 2004. According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

So, I have to insist with my remarks and ask you and the Guardian’s editors for a formal correction.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Mr. Grayling,

I hope you are well.

I have not received any reply to my last email (underneath) regarding your article “Bombing civilians is not only immoral, it's ineffective”.

As a professor of moral philosophy you must understand the ethical implications of what you write.

Please, will you publish a formal correction?

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

"Welcome home Mr Kember" - a letter by Felicity Arbuthnot

Note: Felicity Arbuthnot has sent the following letter "to every letters editor I can think of"

---

The Editor,

The instantly orchestrated attack on Christian Peace Team's Norman Kember and his colleagues, James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden for failing to thank their rescuers, beggars belief.

Just when one thinks this Administration and their hangers on can sink no lower, they effortlessly plunge to new depths.

They would do well to remember that whatever about the Iraqi regime, Iraq was amongst the safest countries on earth for foreigners and overwhelming hospitality was extended by strangers to visitors and travellers.

The illegal US/UK led invasion and the foreign troops illegally squatting in Iraq's buildings and illegally on Iraqi sovereign soil, have brought about the distortion of the whole structure of Iraqi society. Kidnappings, summary executions, beheading were unheard of (as long, of course, the regime itself was not plotted against or targetted.)

The UK and US broke it, so it is up to them to fix it. Mr Kember and his colleagues would have been quite safe in Saddam's Iraq, but no one is in 'liberated' Iraq. At least British soldiers did something more constructive than beating up kids, hoisting liberated Iraqis on fork lifts, generally torturing (in 'isolated incidents' of course) and donning fancy dress and driving round Basra in an allegedly explosive laden car - then demolishing a police station and prison.

Whilst the Christian Peace Team were being held, the Prime Minister was skulking around pretending to be in Basra, when he was in a fortified base at least forty five minutes drive away - helicoptered in, of course. The CPT whether foolhardy or not, went in courage, unprotected, to build bridges, not blow them up.

Unlike the latest to jump on the anti CPT bandwaggon, General Sir 'Mike' Jackson, they have devoted their lives to saving those of others, his has been devoted to ending them. It was Peter Ustinov who said: 'Generals are a case of arrested development.When we were five, we all wanted to be Generals.' General Jackson's petty, childish comments, prove the point perfectly.

Welcome home Mr Kember - or as we say in Ireland : 'One thousand welcomes.'

Yours faithfully,
Felicity Arbuthnot.

BBC BETWEEN GOSSIP AND PROPAGANDA

Dear Paul,

What a ‘good morning’ you have given me today! I have just read “Iraqi documents: Saddam's delusions” (Paul Reynolds, World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website). After reading the long, detailed and analytical article, at the very bottom of it I read:

Caution

However, a note of caution is due here which is also introduced by the US Army unit releasing the documents. It says: "The US government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents."

What a surprise (sic!) and reading it at the very end of the article! Why don’t you put the “caution” at the beginning and use “quotation marks” for your article’s title? People interested in gossip would be thrilled!

Have a good week-end.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele

How nice to hear from you again.

May I ask you the following questions?

1. Have you read the Foreign Affairs magazine article?

2. Have you read the full report from USJSCOM?

3. Have you read any of the documents released by Joint Reserve Intelligence Center?

All are linked to from my article, so you should have no trouble in finding them.

When you have read them ( I assume you have not as your message to me said that you had 'just read' the article), we can discuss them further perhaps.

Thank you for your time.

with regards

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

“How nice to hear from you again” indeed.

You can of course ask all the questions you like. It would be nice though if you could answer first the questions I asked you.

Why did you put the “caution” at the end of the article? Being a “caution”, it’s simply logical to put it at the beginning. Which kind of “caution” comes after?!

Also, in the “caution” at the very end of your article, you write: “The US government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents." The original text of the “caution” (PLEASE, NOTE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT WEBSITE PUTS THE CAUTION AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE), reads:

At the request of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office has created this portal to provide the general public with access to unclassified documents and media captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available. Users who come across documents they feel are inappropriately released may contact the responsible officers at docex@center.osis.gov. The ODNI press release and public affairs contact information is available at http://www.odni.gov

They are very simple questions Paul.

1) Why didn’t you put the “caution” at the beginning?

2) Why does the “caution” used by the US government is more cautious of the one you used?

3) Why do you always use in your article verbs in certainty tenses and never in doubt tenses. For example “Among the documents is one that demonstrates how the Iraqis supported the al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines.” Demonstrate? What about the “caution” Paul?

Will you be so kind to answer my questions? And what’s that “perhaps” supposed to mean?

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

PS Don’t worry Paul, you will have the pleasure to “hear from [me] again”. After all, the BBC is a public service paid for by public money. And I do all I can to make sure my money are well spent.

***

Dear Gabriele

I hope you are well.

It seems that only you expect answers to your questions!

Let me repeat mine in the hope that you will reply.

Have you read:

1. The Foreign Affairs article?

2. The full USJFCOM report?

3. The documents on the Iraqi documents portal?

What is your opinion of the articles and the full report? Do they have any credibility? Should they not have been examined? Should they have been ignored? Do they or do they not throw light on the events in Iraq before and during the invasion? Do they or do they not reveal issues about the non-existence of WMD? About the POwell tape? Are they worth examining (with suitable caution, which was given) about the light they might or might not throw on Iraqi links with al-Qaeda?

Al these questions I would like your opinion on, please.

Now, for your question. I think I must be the only reporter who has actually put this note of caution into a story about these documents!

The caution we both quote from is in fact only from the documents portal and as that is at the end of my piece, that is where the caution comes. The fcat is that the caution is there and a link exists to the full portal.

I do agree however on the word "demonstrates" and will amend this to "appears to demonstrate".

I now look forward to you answering some questions for a change!

Have a nice day.

Paul

***

Dear Gabriele

If you will permit me to add more more thing:

You ask why my 'caution' is less 'cautious' than the one the US military uses? This is not so. I cut through their euphemism about docvuments being possibly "inappropriately released" to say what that means -- they might be forgeries.

Plain or what?

I now look forward to receiving your detailed replies.

with regards

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your reply and for the change you have made to your article.

You write:

I do agree however on the word "demonstrates" and will amend this to "appears to demonstrate".

As I wrote in my previous email, that was just an example. The whole article is built on that “demonstrates” instead of “appears to demonstrate”. Just read again your article keeping in mind the difference between “demonstrates” and “appears to demonstrate”. [“have thrown important new light”; “has shown Saddam Hussein's confusion”; “how and why Saddam believed”; “the Russians had a spy”; etc. There is never a “would”, never an “appear to”...]

My remarks were all in this light. This is why I asked you about the “caution” at the end instead of the beginning. Had you positioned that “caution” at the beginning, I am sure it would have helped not only the readers but also you to keep in mind the difference between “demonstrates” and “appears to demonstrate”.

Now, about your questions.

What is your opinion of the articles and the full report? Do they have any credibility? Should they not have been examined? Should they have been ignored? Do they or do they not throw light on the events in Iraq before and during the invasion? Do they or do they not reveal issues about the non-existence of WMD? About the POwell tape? Are they worth examining (with suitable caution, which was given) about the light they might or might not throw on Iraqi links with al-Qaeda?

On the Foreign Affairs’ website, before the article “Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside” (By Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray), there are these two notes:

EDITOR'S NOTE: The fall of Baghdad in April 2003 opened one of the most secretive and brutal governments in history to outside scrutiny. For the first time since the end of World War II, American analysts did not have to guess what had happened on the other side of a conflict but could actually read the defeated enemy's documents and interrogate its leading figures. To make the most of this unique opportunity, the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) commissioned a comprehensive study of the inner workings and behavior of Saddam Hussein's regime based on previously inaccessible primary sources. Drawing on interviews with dozens of captured senior Iraqi military and political leaders and hundreds of thousands of official Iraqi documents (hundreds of them fully translated), this two-year project has changed our understanding of the war from the ground up. The study was partially declassified in late February; its key findings are presented here.

New on March 24, 2006: Today the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) released the 230-page report of the Iraq Perspective Project (IPP) on which "Saddam's Delusions" is based. Essay authors Woods, Lacey, and Williamson were the principal authors of the IPP report. You may download the full IPP report from the Foreign Affairs website as an Adobe Acrobat file (.pdf, 7.2 MB).

To answer your questions, of course they should have been examined, of course they should have not been ignored, of course they are worth examining. Again, keeping well in mind the sources. But it seems that even in the title (Iraqi documents: Saddam's delusions) you reproduce the point of view of the Foreign Affairs’ article (Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside), which is, it helps to repeat, a study commissioned by the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM).

Finally, you write:

“I think I must be the only reporter who has actually put this note of caution into a story about these documents!”

This honors you as a journalist and as a human being. At the same time it speaks volumes about the level of propaganda the so-called mainstream journalism has reached. I am glad you have admitted it.

In the real world, outside the ‘ivory tower’ (and the ‘green zone’), people understand what’s going on and are more and more aware of the lies and propaganda coming from our ruthless leaders and their docile friends in the state-corporate media. We are waiting for these journalists to re-discover their profession, the truth and their conscience.

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele,

Thank you for your reply and your acknowledgement that the issues were worth examining. That is some way from the 'gossip' you claimed it all was before.

Have a nice day as always,

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your e-mail.

You must have no arguments to my objections if you resort to a puerile misinterpretation of my thoughts.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele

Please do not descend into abuse. There is no need for that.

"People interested in gossip would be thrilled!" is what you said in your first message,

"of course they are worth examining." is what you say now.

We can debate about the 'note of caution.' I argue that I entered a proper note. You wanted more. We can disagree about that without personal attacks.

with regards

Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Good morning.

This is what I wrote in my first email:

“What a surprise (sic!) and reading it at the very end of the article! Why don’t you put the “caution” at the beginning and use “quotation marks” for your article’s title? People interested in gossip would be thrilled!”

Where is the “abuse”?

This is what I wrote in another email:

“To answer your questions, of course they should have been examined, of course they should have not been ignored, of course they are worth examining. Again, keeping well in mind the sources. But it seems that even in the title (Iraqi documents: Saddam's delusions) you reproduce the point of view of the Foreign Affairs’ article (Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside), which is, it helps to repeat, a study commissioned by the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM).”

Also, with a few emails, I have tried to explain in a polite and rational way my reasons.

It was not an abuse nor a personal attack. I can’t understand why you read it in that way nor I can’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to reply the objections I wrote in my emails.

My tone has been so polite and kind all way through that I wrote:

“Finally, you write: “I think I must be the only reporter who has actually put this note of caution into a story about these documents!”

This honors you as a journalist and as a human being. At the same time it speaks volumes about the level of propaganda the so-called mainstream journalism has reached. I am glad you have admitted it.”

Where are the “personal attacks”?

Can I suggest to read again all the emails I sent (and your replies) in chronological order?

Best wishes,
Gabriele

***

Gabrile


The abuse is in your last e-mail, that talk of "puerile misunderstanding." I do not misunderstand your position. I simply do not agree with it.

with regards

Paul

***

Thanks Paul.

After many emails where I tried to explain rationally and politely my point of view, you wrote:

“Thank you for your reply and your acknowledgement that the issues were worth examining. That is some way from the 'gossip' you claimed it all was before.”

To that, I replied:

“You must have no arguments to my objections if you resort to a puerile misinterpretation of my thoughts.”

I still can’t see “the abuse”.

You are of course free to disagree with my reasons, but you didn’t reply my objections nor did you explain the reasons you disagree.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Gabriele

The use of the word "puerile" is abuse pure and simple. Please do not be disingenuous.

As for the issue, let me repeat: I put a note of caution in. You do not think it went far enough. I disagree. I felt it was adequate.


Paul

***

Dear Paul,

Again, after many emails where I tried to explain rationally and politely my point of view, you wrote:

“Thank you for your reply and your acknowledgement that the issues were worth examining. That is some way from the 'gossip' you claimed it all was before.”

To that, I replied:

“You must have no arguments to my objections if you resort to a puerile misinterpretation of my thoughts.”

I am not “disingenuous”. (Abuse?)

Best wishes,
Gabriele

Do Iraqi Lives Matter? - an email exchange with the BBC

Dear Steve Hermann,

In “Violence marks Iraq anniversary” (BBC News website, Monday, 20 March 2006), there is an insert, with the title “Cost of War”.

It reads: “Iraqi civilians killed: 32,600-35,700 on 1 March. Police: 1,900. Source: Iraq Body Count campaign group”

Again, this is factually wrong.

IBC simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported by English language media. On the IBC website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.”

So, even if you want to use the numbers provided by IBC (instead of scientific data provided by the Lancet study. WHY?), you are using these numbers in a wrong way and your use is objectively deceiving.

Why do you keep repeating something that you know perfectly well is false? Why do you keep hiding the truth?

A few days ago, the Independent wrote: “But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote: “This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

Here some important articles regarding the Iraqi civilian deaths.

Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005

When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2

BURYING THE LANCET – Update

Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006

Regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele Zamparini

Thanks for your emails on this subject. I will consider them and reply as soon as I can.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Herrmann

***

Dear Steve Herrmann,

Thank you for your reply.

Please, don’t rush. The deaths can wait.

Can your conscience?

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

[Related e-mail]

Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

In “US military probes Iraq killings” (BBC NEWS website, Tuesday, 21 March 2006), there is this paragraph: “Iraqis often accuse US troops fighting insurgents of committing war crimes.”

Please, would you mind to explain the meaning of such a paragraph in such a context?

It would seem pure racism used as a tool for propaganda.

If you have another explanation I would be much interested to know it.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Steve Herrmann and Paul Reynolds,

The RELATED INTERNET LINKS for the BBC News website article “Iraq Body Count: War dead figures” list:

Iraq Body Count
Iraqi government
US Central Command
Pentagon report on Iraq
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

Since in the article it’s mentioned also The Lancet study, please could you add its link among those listed?

This is the URL for the Link

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele
Thanks for pointing this out. We have added a link to the Lancet to this story.

Yours sincerely
Steve Herrmann

***

Dear Gabriele,

In response to your email about our story on the Iraq Body Count figures, I would make the point that we reported on this as part of our overall effort to cover the war in Iraq and its consequences as fully as possible across a wide range of coverage.

We reported on the Iraq Body Count (IBC) as a credible attempt available in the public domain to count the civilian casualties of the war. We do not think their count is faultless, and indeed we have pointed out that because it relies on deaths reported by the media, the IBC itself suggests its figures are an underestimate as “many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported”.

The Lancet study is a snapshot taken more than 18 months ago and though the methodology has been widely acknowledged as standard, there has been argument about whether the sampling method is the most appropriate for this kind of survey. By featuring the IBC count of civilian deaths in Iraq we are not seeking to dismiss the Lancet study. We have reported on the latter extensively and refer to it in our report on the IBC.

Yours sincerely
Steve Herrmann

***

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your reply.

You must have been ill-informed.

You write that “there has been argument about whether the sampling method is the most appropriate for this kind of survey”.

Can I ask you who told you that? There has been no argument whatsoever within the scientific community. As I wrote many, many, many times to you and to the BBC:

- “This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

- “’Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...) Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. ‘Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says.” (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)

The Lancet is a very prestigious medical journal and has published Les Roberts’ study. Why did it disappeared from the BBC’s coverage? Which scientific expertise do you and the BBC have to ignore it? It’s not up to a journalist nor to the BBC to discredit a serious scientific study, acknowledged as such by the scientific international community. Do you agree?

It’s false that the BBC has reported on the Lancet “extensively” as you write and you “refer to it in our report on the IBC” only because you have been pressed repeatedly by media activism. You know that I can prove it, don’t you? And of course, that reference is simply outrageous. After fifteen months the Lancet published this study, you gave to it a 35 word mention!

I keep sending you all the rational arguments, the articles, the studies that contradict what you wrote in your email. Please, this time take your time to seriously review them and I would really appreciate if you could reply my serious questions and concerns with a serious reply.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Again, here you can and should read:

Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005

When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2

BURYING THE LANCET – Update

Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006

Freedom of Speech

Dear Henry Tinsley,

I have read on Media Lens Message Board the following letter you sent to Media Lens:

Dear Davids,

I note from your website that you list the Tinsley Charitable Trust as a donor. Please remove our name from your website.

While we did make a donation some years ago, we will not be making further contributions in the future (apart from anything else, we're told that our trust cannot legally give to you).

More seriously, I am unable to support your work when you spend your time attacking good guys like John Sloboda of the IBC. I would have thought you would have something better to do.

I also supported the Bosnian war which ensured that Milosevic and his henchmen were belatedly forced to stop their mass murder. Do you really believe that the Serbian regime(s) were not responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and that something had to be done to stop this? It's a shame Milosevic died before his trial was completed.

Regards,

Henry Tinsley

You must have been ill-informed.

On Iraq Body Count’s website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.” Being a media watch-dog, Media Lens has been monitoring the use made by the media of the IBC’s data.

A very interesting open debate developed, as it should be in a healthy and democratic society.

A few days ago, the Independent wrote:

“But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote:

“This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

On 29 October 2004, the British medical journal The Lancet published ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)

Source: Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

To know more about The Lancet study, please read Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005

About the other topic, you may want to read again that Media Alert. But even if you happen to disagree with this or that of the Media Lens’s works, do you really believe that this gives you the (moral and intellectual) right to punish it? The money is yours, so legally nulla questio. But don’t you think that if you decided once to help Media Lens’ project, withdrawing your support would be against that very Freedom of expression that should characterize the Waging for Peace, of which you are the founder Director, the Carter Centre UK, where you sit in the Board of Trustees, the Tinsley Charitable Trust and any liberal-democratic society in its whole?

Media Lens has distinguished itself for acting accordingly and supporting intellectual honesty, openness, compassion, freedom and democracy. The debates that promotes are always public, open, rational, extremely polite and intellectually stimulating.

Please, I urge you to think again of your decision and to keep supporting Media Lens.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Iraqi Civilian Deaths: Time To Know the Truth

My e-mail to the BBC:

Dear David Gritten,

In “Iraqi civilian deaths shrouded in secrecy” (By David Gritten, BBC News website, Wednesday, 22 March 2006), you write:

Recent figures from the campaign group Iraq Body Count put the minimum number of civilians killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion three years ago at between 33,710 and 37,832.

Although the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent attacks, multi-national forces stationed in Iraq ostensibly to protect the population have been responsible for a significant number.

QUESTION: Who told you that “the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent attacks” ?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

My e-mail to Iraq Body Count:

Dear John Sloboda and Hamit Dardagan,

In “Iraqi civilian deaths shrouded in secrecy” (By David Gritten, BBC News website, Wednesday, 22 March 2006), the BBC journalist writes:

Recent figures from the campaign group Iraq Body Count put the minimum number of civilians killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion three years ago at between 33,710 and 37,832.

Although the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent attacks, multi-national forces stationed in Iraq ostensibly to protect the population have been responsible for a significant number.

Please, can I ask you if this is true? According to Iraq Body Count figures, is it true that “the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent attacks” ?

Also, in his speech yesterday, PM Tony Blair said: “… those who have died, mainly in terrorist acts… " .

So, both PM Tony Blair and BBC’s journalist Gritten agree that the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths “were caused by insurgent attacks”.

Since the BBC’s journalist cites your figures, I ask you: Do you agree with them? According to Iraq Body Count figures, is it true that “the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent attacks” ?

I would be very grateful if you could reply this question. Thank you.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

The BBC replies:

Dear Gabriele,

Thank-you for your feedback on my article.

I have changed the second paragraph to read "many of those deaths" rather than "the majority of those deaths".

Regards,

David Gritten

***

My reply to the BBC:

Dear David Gritten,

Thank you for your reply and for the changes you have made.

I still don’t understand: “the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent attacks” . What a “slip”!

And what a coincidence that PM Tony Blair yesterday said: “… those who have died, mainly in terrorist acts… ".

Of course, “many of those deaths” could be anything. Let’s see then how “many of those deaths” were caused by the US led invasion.

"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)

Oh yes, if you have the chance, please, could you pass the word to Mr. Blair. He must have been ill informed. Thanks.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

I have not received any reply from Iraq Body Count

"Operation Swarmer"

On 19 March 2006 I wrote to the BBC about their coverage of US military “Operation Swarmer”:

Dear Jim Muir, BBC News, Baghdad
Dear Adam Brookes, BBC News, Washington
Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

“How US assault grabbed global attention” (By Jim Muir, BBC News Website, Friday, 17 March 2006), reads:

By the middle of Day Two in the ongoing operation, it was clear from both US and Iraqi military sources that the advance had met no resistance.

There were no clashes with insurgents. No casualties were reported. (...)

The use of the phrase "the largest air assault operation" was clearly crucial, raising visions of a massive bombing campaign.

In fact, all the phrase meant is that more helicopters were deployed to airlift the troops into the area than in previous such operations. (...)

The reasons for it being given such high-profile publicity are clearly open to speculation.

“Iraqi troop control 'to spread'” (By Adam Brookes, BBC News website, Friday, 17 March 2006), reads:

The general spoke as Operation Swarmer entered its third day.

This is a large-scale operation conducted by airborne troops.

It is aimed at rooting out suspected insurgent networks near the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad.

On the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) website, which is part of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the article “IRAQ: Hundreds of families displaced due to major offensive” reads:

BAGHDAD, 19 Mar 2006 (IRIN) - Hundreds of families have fled the city of Samarra, some 120 km northwest of the capital, Baghdad, after US coalition and Iraqi forces launched the biggest air offensive in the country since 2003. (...)

“We have informed the IRCS’s office in the capital about the critical situation and they are going to send a convoy to the area. The main requirements are blankets, tents, food supplies, potable water and medicine,” explained Ahmed Tikrit, a volunteer for the IRCS and resident of Samarra. (...)

“When they started to hit our city I didn’t take anything. I just took my family and ran like hell. We don’t have anything to eat or wear,” urged Barakat Muhammad, a resident and father of five in Samarra. (...)

According to a senior official in the Iraq Ministry of Defence, Ra’ad Shalal, more than 75 insurgents have been captured so far. He added that there had been no civilian deaths reported since the operation began.

But local doctors say that at least 35 civilians including women and children have been treated at the local hospital with injuries caused by the air-strikes. In addition, 18 bodies had been taken to the hospital since 17 March.

QUESTION: Could you please explain why in your articles and in others (for example in “Iraq in civil war, says former PM”, BBC News website, Sunday, 19 March 2006) there is no mention at all about the results of this military operation on the people of Iraq? Will you update these articles or will you write another one on the real effects of this operation on human lives? Or do you think that those Iraqi people don’t deserve your time and are too insignificant for the BBC to cover their story?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards.

Gabriele Zamparini

BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad replied the same day. Unfortunately I can't post his email because he expressly requested me not to quote from it. But in his email, Mr Muir says that what the IRIN reports is false. What the IRIN reports never happened. Of course, Mr Muir couldn't check the story personally. He has only second hand information. But he is sure. "Operation Swarmer" is nothing but a show for the media. Nothing serious really happened.

The same day I wrote back to BBC's Jim Muir:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your email.

I am well aware of the situation in Iraq and of the many risks journalists can have if they were going outside. For this reason I don’t understand why most of the journalists keep just repeating what the US military is telling them. Maybe some more skepticism would help.

About this concrete case. You write that what IRIN is reporting is false.

IRIN is a serious organization. Even if you have doubts about what they are reporting – and since you can’t check it out for yourself – why didn’t you write what IRIN reported? You could simply saying IRIN claims that but none else is reporting that.

Don’t you think that in that way you would have done a much better job as a journalist?

You and your colleagues usually report what the Pentagon, the White House, 10 Downing Street, etc claim. Couldn’t you do the same with IRIN?

Finally, why do you write “XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX” ? We got to the point that there is an official version of the facts for the public and another version (the truth?) for the “professionals”?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

Again, on the same day BBC's Jim Muir writes back. Again I can't post his e-mail. He writes again that what the IRIN reports has never happened. That he had checked it out, but nothing. Even the CNN agrees. Nothing happened.

Again, on the same day I write again to BBC's Jim Muir:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your email.

I don’t know if Samarra was bombed, but the IRIN report is very detailed and says that:

Hundreds of families have fled the city of Samarra, some 120 km northwest of the capital, Baghdad, after US coalition and Iraqi forces launched the biggest air offensive in the country since 2003. (...)

“We have informed the IRCS’s office in the capital about the critical situation and they are going to send a convoy to the area. The main requirements are blankets, tents, food supplies, potable water and medicine,” explained Ahmed Tikrit, a volunteer for the IRCS and resident of Samarra. (...)

“When they started to hit our city I didn’t take anything. I just took my family and ran like hell. We don’t have anything to eat or wear,” urged Barakat Muhammad, a resident and father of five in Samarra. (...)

According to a senior official in the Iraq Ministry of Defence, Ra’ad Shalal, more than 75 insurgents have been captured so far. He added that there had been no civilian deaths reported since the operation began.

But local doctors say that at least 35 civilians including women and children have been treated at the local hospital with injuries caused by the air-strikes. In addition, 18 bodies had been taken to the hospital since 17 March.

You didn’t report anything that IRIN writes because you are 100% sure that everything IRIN writes in this article is false.

I hope you are right.

What if you are wrong? What if indeed “Hundreds of families have fled the city of Samarra...” ?

In these circumstances, where you can’t have first hand information, how can you dismiss a report from IRIN?

Best wishes,
Gabriele

At this point, I din't get any more reply from BBC's Jim Muir.

The same day I wrote to IRIN:

Dear editor,

RE: “IRAQ: Hundreds of families displaced due to major offensive”

I have contacted a journalist with one of the major European news network in Iraq. This journalist wrote me that what IRIN writes is false.

URGENT QUESTION: Please, could you confirm your story?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini

Today, 21 March 2006, I got the following reply from IRIN:

Dear Gabriele Zamparini

You have inquired about the IRIN story on Iraq and the displacement after the offensive. We have double-checked this and, to the best of our knowledge, the information is correct.

Could you let us know for what purpose you would like to use the information in this story?

We thank you warmly for your interest in IRIN – Middle-East’s news service.

Kind regards

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
UNOCHA IRIN

Now, should I keep the information above or should I make this story available to the public? Of course I will publish this story. Will the BBC and Jim Muir sue me? Will anyone in the so-called mainstream media pick up this story? Will anyone in the so-called alternative media do it?

To be fair, on the same day I wrote to the BBC I also sent the following e-mail to the Independent:

Dear Raymond Whitaker,

In “Iraq occupation: Three years on and still they're lying to us” (Raymond Whitaker, The Independent, 19 March 2006), you write:

Three days into the offensive against suspected insurgents, there had been no clashes and no casualties among American or Iraqi troops. (...) But far from being a major counter-insurgency campaign of the kind which demolished Fallujah in November 2004 at the cost of thousands of lives, Operation Swarmer was a "sweep" exercise in a sparsely populated desert area.

On the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) website, which is part of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the article “IRAQ: Hundreds of families displaced due to major offensive” reads:

BAGHDAD, 19 Mar 2006 (IRIN) - Hundreds of families have fled the city of Samarra, some 120 km northwest of the capital, Baghdad, after US coalition and Iraqi forces launched the biggest air offensive in the country since 2003. (...)

“We have informed the IRCS’s office in the capital about the critical situation and they are going to send a convoy to the area. The main requirements are blankets, tents, food supplies, potable water and medicine,” explained Ahmed Tikrit, a volunteer for the IRCS and resident of Samarra. (...)

“When they started to hit our city I didn’t take anything. I just took my family and ran like hell. We don’t have anything to eat or wear,” urged Barakat Muhammad, a resident and father of five in Samarra. (...)

According to a senior official in the Iraq Ministry of Defence, Ra’ad Shalal, more than 75 insurgents have been captured so far. He added that there had been no civilian deaths reported since the operation began.

But local doctors say that at least 35 civilians including women and children have been treated at the local hospital with injuries caused by the air-strikes. In addition, 18 bodies had been taken to the hospital since 17 March.

QUESTION: Could you please explain why in your article there is no mention at all about the results of this military operation on the people of Iraq? Will you write another article on the real effects of this operation on human lives? Or do you think that those Iraqi people don’t deserve your time and are too insignificant for the Independent to cover their story? “Iraq occupation: Three years on and still they're lying to us”. Indeed!

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

I have not received any reply yet.

***

UPDATES: Today, June 12, 2006, I received the following email from BBC Jim Muir:

Dear Gabriele

With reference to our earlier exchanges about Operation Swarmer and IRIN's report on the same : Following my message to them (which predated your message to me) IRIN conducted an extensive investigation into their report and have now withdrawn it, as they were not able to substantiate it. You can check this by going to their website. I don't imagine that you will be inclined to point this out on your own website, and I have no desire at all to embarrass IRIN, most of whose work is excellent.

For your information, the BBC in Baghdad does not operate either from a hotel or from the Green Zone.

If you have any further comments on my work, please address them to :

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Best wishes

Jim Muir

and this is my reply:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your email. Contrary to what you write, I have just posted it on my website.

About what you write regarding IRIN - “I have no desire at all to embarrass IRIN, most of whose work is excellent.” - I am sure IRIN won’t be embarrassed for one mistake you claim they made. After all, the BBC has made “mistakes” constantly and no embarrassment has ever come from your corporation.

Finally, when you write: “For your information, the BBC in Baghdad does not operate either from a hotel or from the Green Zone.”, what’s your point? Is the BBC able to work freely in Iraq, without having to count for its survival on the military might provided by the US and UK forces? Is that journalism?

Since you give me this chance, please could you explain why the BBC is calling those who fight against a foreign, military, brutal, immoral and illegal occupation of their own country “insurgents” and “terrorists” instead of using the only proper word fitting to them, Resistance?

Also, have you ever thought that by completely relying on this brutal and illegal occupation to do your job, according to international law you and your colleagues could be accused of actively aiding and abetting in war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Thank you and please note that this is NOT a personal attack.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

BBC's Jim Muir's new reply:

Dear Gabriele

I do not "claim" that IRIN made a mistake, they admit it.

My point re hotels is in answer to your snide remarks in earlier communcations about our staying in hotels and "BBC hotel journalism", as though we are somehow having a safe and comfortable time. I assure you we are having neither. Nor are we dependent for our security on foreign forces, except on the very rare occasions when we go on embeds. How safe that is, you can judge from the death of two CBS colleagues two weeks ago. Of course we cannot operate freely - there is a war going on, in which we are at definite risk from both sides. As I wrote to you before, we are well aware of the limitations, but still judge it better to be there than not. You may think you know better from where you are writing, but we believe that trying to report Iraq from London or wherever would not work. You accuse us of "actively aiding and abetting in war crimes and crimes against humanity" - do you think incidents such as Haditha would have been credibly reported had the media not been present in Iraq? It was only investigated by the US after the media had taken it up.

I don't think there is anything I can say that will convince you that we are sincerely trying to do our best to give an accurate picture of what is happening in Iraq, in difficult and dangerous conditions. So with regret, I don't wish to spend any more time on this apparently fruitless task.

Best wishes

Jim Muir

... and my new reply to him:

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your reply.

You make some very important points and your words “there is a war going on, in which we are at definite risk from both sides” are very interesting and full of consequences.

One point in particular I think deserves some more details. You write:

“do you think incidents such as Haditha would have been credibly reported had the media not been present in Iraq? It was only investigated by the US after the media had taken it up.”

Independent journalist Dahr Jamail (he spent lots of time reporting from Iraq, and he has never been embedded) recently wrote:

Al-Jazeera channel, with over 40 million viewers in the Arab world, is the largest broadcaster of news in the Middle East. It has been bearing the brunt of an ongoing violent US propaganda campaign. Their station headquarters in both Afghanistan and Baghdad were destroyed by US forces during the US invasions of both countries. In Baghdad, the attack on their office by a US warplane killed their correspondent Tareq Ayoub. Additionally, al-Jazeera reporters throughout Iraq have been systematically detained and intimidated before the broadcaster was banned outright from the country. These are somewhat contradictory actions for an occupying force ostensibly attempting to promote democracy and freedom in Iraq.

On November 19, 2005, the day of the Haditha Massacre, al-Jazeera had long since been banned from operating in Iraq. The station forced to conduct its war reporting from a desk in Doha, Qatar, was doing so via telephone. Two Iraqis worked diligently to cover the US occupation of Iraq through a loose network of contacts within Iraq. Defying the US-imposed extreme challenges, al-Jazeera, by dint of its responsible reporting, had the entire Haditha scoop as soon as it occurred, which they shared with Western and other media outlets, while the latter were content to participate in delaying the story nearly four months by regurgitating unverified military releases.

Two days after the massacre, DahrJamailiraq.com was the only free place on the Internet that carried al-Jazeera's report translated into English (it could be viewed at MidEastWire.com for a fee).

The anchorperson for al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar, interviewed journalist Walid Khalid in Bahgdad. Khalid's report, translated by MidEastWire.com, was as follows:
Yesterday evening, an explosive charge went off under a US Marines vehicle in the al-Subhani area, destroying it completely. Half an hour later, the US reaction was violent. US aircraft bombarded four houses near the scene of the incident, causing the immediate death of five Iraqis. Afterward, the US troops stormed three adjacent houses where three families were living near the scene of the explosion. Medical sources and eyewitnesses close to these families affirmed that the US troops, along with the Iraqi Army, executed 21 persons; that is, three families, including nine children and boys, seven women, and three elderly people. (...)

It wasn't until four months after the event that the Western corporate media started to straighten out the story. On March 19, 2006, it was Time Magazine that "broke" the Haditha story in a piece titled "Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha." The primary sources for this piece were a video shot by an Iraqi journalism student produced the day after the massacre and interviews conducted with witnesses. Another glaring evidence of how a few simple interviews with Iraqis and some readily available photographs and video can drastically correct the glaring errors in the Western media's representations of the occupation. (...)

But the Haditha Massacre is far from being the only story that the Western corporate media has delayed covering. On May 4, 2004, journalist Dahr Jamail, one of the authors of this piece, wrote "Telltale Signs of Torture Lead Family to Demand Answers." The story, published by the NewStandard, was about a 57-year-old Iraqi named Sadiq Zoman, who was detained at his residence in Kirkuk on July 21, 2003, when US troops raided the Zoman family home in search of weapons and, apparently, to arrest Zoman. Over a month later, on August 23, soldiers dropped Zoman off, comatose, at the main hospital in Tikrit. His body bore telltale signs of torture: point burns on his skin, bludgeon marks on the back of his head, a badly broken thumb, electrical burns on the soles of his feet and genitals and whip marks across his back.

Jamail originally wrote the story in January 2004 and shared the information with over 100 newspapers in the US for them to report on. The story was conveniently ignored by the US corporate media until it was forced to run other torture photos from Abu Ghraib after journalist Seymour Hersh threatened to scoop 60 Minutes II by running his piece about torture in the New Yorker, in late April 2004.

Another example of this delayed "reporting" involved the report on the use of white phosphorous by the US military against civilians in Fallujah during the November 2004 assault on the city. Jamail originally reported a story titled "Unusual Weapons Used in Fallujah" with Inter Press Service. US corporate media ignored the story until the Independent in the UK ran his reporting about the atrocity. Even after this, aside from a few token editorials that mentioned this war crime, most major news outlets continued in their silence. This despite the fact that the Pentagon admitted to the use of these weapons, and residents of Fallujah like Abu Sabah had long since told a reporter, "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud, then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of soke behind them." He also described pieces of these bombs that exploded into large fires that burnt the skin when water was thrown on the burns.

There are countless other stories which the US corporate media has deliberately delayed from their reportage and which may never reach the wide US audience that they deserve. It is necessary to ask, when will the corporate media report on stories such as the following: (...)

Please, take the time to read what independent journalist Dahr Jamail wrote in Propaganda and Haditha, By Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger, t r u t h o u t, Friday 09 June 2006. He writes about the same Iraq and the same war you, the BBC and the other state-corporate media do.

Why then is there so much difference?

Best regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Not In My Name

Not in My Name!
By Gabriele Zamparini


Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi honoured Fabrizio Quattrocchi, the contractor kidnapped and killed in Iraq on 14 April 2004, with a golden medal for civic value to his memory (Medaglia d’Oro al Valor Civile alla Memoria).

According to the Italian Law, the Medaglia d’Oro al Valor Civile is the highest honor ‘to reward acts of exceptional courage showing distinguished civic virtue and to point out the authors as worthy of public honors’ [Law 2 gennaio 1958, n. 13]

This act represents another shame for Italy and the Italian people. As an Italian citizen I say NOT IN MY NAME!

Iraq: Helping BBC's memory...

Dear John Simpson, BBC World Affairs Editor

In “Iraq invasion: For better or worse?” (BBC News website, Monday, 20 March 2006), you write:

“The first thing that struck me about Baghdad when I saw it in April 2003, a few days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, was how poor it had become. I hadn't been allowed back there since 1991, after the first Gulf War.”

From your article it seems you have missed something since 1991. Please, let me help your memory.

In 1991, there were between 142,000 and 206,000 Iraqi deaths directly attributable to the Gulf War. (Source: U.N. 1991 the Ahtisaari report; Daponte 1993)

How many deaths as a result of the sanctions? Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1997-98) who resigned after thirty-four years with the United Nations, in protest over the effects of the embargo on the civilian population, said: “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that had effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.” (The New Rulers of the World, by John Pilger, Verso, 2002)

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

Since Hiroshima Day 1990, for the past fifteen years and with the complicity and silence of most of the so-called “international community” (and many Western intellectuals and journalists), Washington and London have waged a war against the people of Iraq that has slaughtered over 2,000,000 people. Most of them women and children.

Proportionally to its population, it’s as if a war against the United States had killed 23 million of innocent Americans.

“Iraq invasion: For better or worse?” Freedom! Freedom! Democracy! Democracy!

Oh yes, the photo used for your article portrays a PR show organized by the US army. Please congratulate with the person who chose it. The right choice for your article!

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

VIDEO: Les Roberts' Lecture on The Lancet Report

VIDEO of a lecture Les Roberts gave here in London

rtsp://bresslaw.lshtm.ac.uk/les-roberts-high.mov

Credits: Adrian Cousins

Freedom! Freedom! Democracy! Democracy! - an email to Johann Hari

Dear Johann Hari,

In “I was wrong, terribly wrong - and the evidence should have been clear all along” (The Independent, 20 March 2006), you write, among other things:

“So after three years and at least 150,000 Iraqi corpses, can those of us who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein for the Iraqis' sake still claim it was worth it?”

“I still support the principle of invasion, it's just the Bush administration screwed it up.”

“I, like most Iraqis, failed to see that the Bush administration's warped motives would lead to a warped occupation.”

“Just as the opponents of the war would never have faced Saddam's torture chambers...”

Do you call this a “A melancholic mea culpa”, as the subtitle to your article reads on your website?

The “evidence” were “clear all along” indeed. Since Hiroshima Day 1990, for the past fifteen years and with the complicity and silence of most of the so-called “international community” (and those “who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein for the Iraqis' sake”), Washington and London have waged a war against the people of Iraq that has slaughtered over 2,000,000 people. Most of them women and children. Proportionally to its population, it’s as if a war against the United States had killed 23 million of innocent Americans.

And here you are still singing Freedom! Freedom! Democracy! Democracy!

As the saying goes, God is always on the side of the winner. So, it would seem certain intellectuals.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini


Hari's reply:


Gabrielle, you have deliberately misread me. You quote the part where i say
"I still support the principle of invasion, it's just the Bush
administration screwed it up", witout quoting the part where I then say
this argument is wrong and untrue!

Have a look at the article again...


My reply to him:


Dear Johann,

Thanks for your reply.

I have read and re-read your article. I was writing an email to you. I was not writing an article about yours and quoting you out of context. I guess you know what you wrote.

Just out of curiosity, when you write “I, like most Iraqis, failed to see that the Bush administration's warped motives would lead to a warped occupation”, who were all these Iraqi?

Strange you didn’t mention the Iraqi intellectuals against the war, many of whom had either been tortured (Haifa Zangana) threatened with it or fled.

There were countless Iraqis on demo after demo against the war, who had suffered, or whose family had, but railed against further suffering for Iraqis.

Again, the “evidence” were “clear all along” indeed. Since Hiroshima Day 1990, for the past fifteen years and with the complicity and silence of most of the so-called “international community” (and those “who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein for the Iraqis' sake”), Washington and London have waged a war against the people of Iraq that has slaughtered over 2,000,000 people. Most of them women and children. Proportionally to its population, it’s as if a war against the United States had killed 23 million of innocent Americans.

And here you are still singing Freedom! Freedom! Democracy! Democracy!

A ‘mea culpa’ would demand much more humility and intellectual honesty.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

PS Again, out of curiosity, could you please tell me where you get that number, “150,000”? According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

Normalising the unthinkable - an email exchange with the BBC

Dear Paul Reynolds,
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

I hope you are well.

In “Iraq three years on: A bleak tale” (By Paul Reynolds, World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website, Friday, 17 March 2006), you write:

“By now, according to the plan, Iraq should have emerged into a peaceful, stable representative democracy, an example to dictatorships and authoritarian regimes across the Middle East.”

Besides that that “plan” started with the international crime of a war of aggression of a sovereign country, described by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.” - I would like to ask you: How do you know that “according to the plan, Iraq should have emerged into a peaceful, stable representative democracy, an example to dictatorships and authoritarian regimes across the Middle East.” ?

Do you write that because it’s what Bush and Blair have repeatedly said? If so, shouldn’t have you said that that was Bush and Blair’s claim? As it was their claim that Iraq had WMD and that those WMD posed an imminent threat for the US, the UK and the international security, remember?

Also you write:

“Thousands of people have died (the true number of Iraqi deaths is not known and even the Iraqi body count figure of somewhere in the mid 30,000s is criticised as a possible underestimate).”

A few days ago, the Independent wrote:

“What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote:

“This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

QUESTION: Why didn’t you mention this study?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini


---


Dear Gabriele

I too hope that you are well.

1. Whatever the origins of the invasion, the stated plan was to develop in Iraq a representative government. My piece looked at whether this had been achieved.

2. I said that the Iraqi casualties are not known. INor are they. will however add in a reference to the Lancet report in the interests of greater clarity.

Thank you in turn for your time

Paul


---


Dear Paul,

Thank you for your reply and for the correction to the website’s article.

You have added: “The British medical journal The Lancet suggested a figure of about 100,000.”

Here it’s what that study says:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)

Source: Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004

Please, for the sake of clarity and for the importance of the matter, could you these lines by quoting them and put a link to the Lancet study? It would help many people to have a better idea. Also, it would help if you could add the date of publication: 29 October 2004

About the other point (and I really hope you don’t think I abuse of your time)

You write in your email that “Whatever the origins of the invasion, the stated plan was to develop in Iraq a representative government. My piece looked at whether this had been achieved.” In the article you write “according to the plan”. Why don’t you write in the article “By now, according to the stated plan, Iraq should have emerged...” Just one word would make the whole article much more correct, fair and balanced in my opinion. What do you think?

Thank you very much for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele


---


Dear Paul,

Forgive my insistence. I am aware you must be busy with other things.

When you write “The British medical journal The Lancet suggested a figure of about 100,000.” Could you please add at least a time reference (The Lancet report was published online on October 29, 2004). I think this piece of information is quite important. Otherwise, since the article’s title is “Iraq three years on: A bleak tale” it would seem that the Lancet suggested that figure now.

I paste here below my previous email. I hope you may use some of the remarks below in your article.

Thank you again.

Best wishes,
Gabriele


----


Gabriele

You have a fair point about the date of the Lancet report and I have added it in.

It is always a matter of judgment trying to balance detail against space. These articles are not intended to be dissertations. They aim to catch the general reader while showing the specialists that we are aware of the issues. I am therefore not going to quote from the Lancet report which had a good run when it came out. Nor from IBC itself, nor from MediaLens. It could