Iraq Body Count’s John Sloboda? - NO THANK YOU!

Dear friends,

Iraq Body Count’s John Sloboda gave an interview to the BBC and published on IBC’s website “Speculation is no substitute: a defence of Iraq Body Count”.

In the interview and in the “Speculation is no substitute: a defence of Iraq Body Count”, Sloboda insults Media Lens, John Pilger, Dahr Jamail, Les Roberts, Stephen Soldz and myself (but I assure you, I am delighted to be in such a wonderful company and I hope to deserve such an honor!)

Our crime: we dared to ask a few questions about IBC.

Also, he completely denigrates the Lancet study and says: “We've always said our work is an undercount, you can't possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the deaths. Our best estimate is that we've got about half the deaths that are out there.”

This means that according to Sloboda and IBC there would be at maximum 70,000 civilians killed. But you should read the article. There is much more!

This is the link

Please, note that Sloboda gave the interview to the BBC, calling it “responsible media”.

The “responsible media”, after the interview to Sloboda and the reply from Media Lens, published an article By David Fuller, Virtual war follows Iraq conflict. You can read it here

Media Lens’ editors commented: “This is actually pretty good by mainstream standards, given that it's us under the media microscope. Many of the facts are just plain wrong” and then explain their reasons. You may read this here

I don’t know what the other people insulted by Sloboda think or will do.

I just wanted to pass the info, so people may think about it.

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini

*********************
UPDATE
*********************

Iraq Body Count - John Pilger responds

PLEASE NOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE HOW THE BBC'S JOURNALIST INTRODUCE JOHN PILGER: "campaigning journalist John Pilger"


**********************
UPDATE
**********************

And this is an excerpt from Sloboda's interview:

"I think it's because we don't fit into their worldview. The hard left and the hard right, they're both utterly rigid, and the stuff that's going on in the middle, they can't handle.

They want certainty. They want something they can latch onto and say - this is what I believe.

They like the sense of being a beleaguered minority.

What's most chilling is if you look at people's allegiance to much more dangerous causes than either of our critics are adopting. This is also the mindset that draws angry young men towards terrorism. And it's ultimately self-destructive." - John Sloboda, "the man behind Iraq Body Count"

*********************
UPDATE
*********************

Iraq Body Count – The acceptable face of slaughter?
by William Bowles

Guardian's Censorship?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was reading Jonathan Steele's article 'The Best Help' and wanted to leave a comment, but when I tried, this is what happened:

This account has had its posting rights withdrawn. This may be because of a breach of our talk policy, or because you picked an unsuitable username. If you have any questions please contact registration@guardianunlimited.co.uk

I have never violated any policy whenever posting a comment and I have never received any email from you. Please, could you explain what it would seem an arbitrary act of censorship?

Thank you.

Regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE COMMENTS I POSTED ON THE GUARDIAN'S WEBSITE:

April 4, 2006 04:54 PM

Dear Sadakat Kadri,

In "They'd do better sticking Saddam's head on a pole" (Sadakat Kadri, The Guardian, Tuesday April 4, 2006) you mention several times the Nuremberg trials and Robert Jackson, the US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1746293,00.html

You also write that: The preconditions for a new Nuremberg - tranquillity, stable conceptions of justice and clarity of governing purpose - are lacking.

Its curious that you forgot to mention the core of the Nuremberg trials: "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

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan echoed the Nuremberg trials when he said that 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)

Your legal opinion about the Saddam Husseins trial is not convincing not because of the many reasons you gave in your articles but because of what you didnt write. There should be a new Nuremberg trial indeed, but its not Saddam Hussein who should be in the dock.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
http://thecatsdream.com

and

April 18, 2006 04:39 PM


124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 720 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org

TO KNOW MORE, PLEASE READ THE CAT'S BLOG at http://TheCatsDream.com

POLITICIANS LIE. THE JOURNALISTS’ JOB IS TO UNMASK THEM - an email with BBC's Newsnight

Dear Paul Mason,

I have posted an email (*) I had sent yesterday to NN’s editor Barron as a comment to your blog ‘Should Medialens be allowed NOT to come on Newsnight?’ but I can’t see it.

Have you got it? Is there any problem? If you didn’t accept it, please, could you explain why?

Thank you for your time.

Best,
Gabriele Zamparini

(*) Dear Peter Barron, Editor, Newsnight

I have just read your email on Media Lens message board.

You end your email with this line: “I hope you will post this on your website in order to correct the distorted vision your readers may have been given.”

As a Media Lens’ reader, I guarantee you that “the distorted vision” doesn’t come from Media Lens.

You may also be interested in my direct experience with your “show”:

My interview with the BBC
By Gabriele Zamparini

To use your words, “I hope you will post this on your website in order to correct the distorted vision your readers may have been given.”

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

PS When in your email you write “we flew Les over to take part”, just wanted to be sure I understand the meaning of that “we”: you obviously refer to “we, the taxpayers” who paid for Les Roberts flight as well as for the BBC in general, including BBC’s journalists’ salary.

***

Dear Gabriele,
I'm certainly happy for it to appear. I'm sorry I haven't got back to you yet on the points you made, but will do in due course.

Best
Peter

***

Thanks Peter and Paul. I look forward to seeing that e-mail on your blogs.

I get this opportunity to write a few words on the NN’s format, if I may. I lived many years in the US and one of the only TV shows I used to watch there was ‘NOW with Bill Moyers’ on PBS. That show was quite interesting because there was only one guest at the time usually and the tone was quite polite and people at home as myself could follow the questions and understand the answers and agree or disagree with a better understanding. The guests in studio had the time to fully elaborate their arguments without being abruptly interrupted, as too often it happens on TV. Since there are many different opinions out there on what’s going on, maybe NN could consider to “slow down” its pace and offer its audience a more intelligent and enjoyable format. I am sure people would appreciate and the quality of BBC’s information would improve. Too often Newsight (of course, not only Newsnight) looks more like a Newsnightmare and I am sure your goal is instead to offer quality information and give people at home the opportunity to make up their own mind.

Also I wonder why I don’t see often on TV, especially on BBC, people like Pilger, Fisk, Ken Loach or Harold Pinter. I am from Italy and lived many years in the US and these people are well known, admired and respected all over the world, so I thought it would be natural for the BBC to open its studios to them.

Thanks for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Thanks Gabriele,
We are certainly keen to hear a range of opinions, and of course we like lively debate, but I take your point about giving people the chance to develop their argument. From time to time we do invite guest contributors to make authored pieces for us, but obviously these need to be balanced over time by people with opposing views, particularly on polarised issues like the Iraq war.

We regularly ask Pilger and Fisk to appear on Newsnight, though they are rarely keen, we aim to have Loach and Pinter on the programme again soon (we're working on a big project with Pinter).

We would hope to get you on at some point too. Regarding your experience with Newsnight I'm sorry you felt mistreated that day. We approached medialens who on that occasion gave us a list of possible names including yours. Our researcher spoke to you and others and judged that in terms of the live discussion David Miller would be best. I'm not 100% clear what happened after that but I think she passed your name to a further researcher for possible inclusion in the film to precede the debate.

I'm sorry you were frustrated by endless conversations and an apparent lack of knowledge by a researcher, but is it not better that Newsnight aims to reflect these issues and engage with bloggers - albeit perhaps imperfectly - than not?

Best wishes
Peter

***

Thanks Peter.

Just a few words underneath. (sorry for using CAPITAL LETTERS)


PETER BARRON: We are certainly keen to hear a range of opinions, and of course we like lively debate, but I take your point about giving people the chance to develop their argument. From time to time we do invite guest contributors to make authored pieces for us, but obviously these need to be balanced over time by people with opposing views, particularly on polarised issues like the Iraq war.

GABRIELE ZAMPARINI: I AGREE 100% ON THE “need to be balanced over time by people with opposing views, particularly on polarised issues like the Iraq war.” BUT I DON’T SEE THIS HAPPENING ON THE BBC UNFORTUNATELY. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO SEE THE WAR ON IRAQ NOT AS A MISTAKE BUT AS THE SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIME, THAT WAR OF AGGRESSION JUDGED IN NUREMBERG IN 1946. AMONG THESE PEOPLE, THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL ANNAN. YET, WHAT HAPPENS ON BBC? "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)


PETER BARRON: We regularly ask Pilger and Fisk to appear on Newsnight, though they are rarely keen, we aim to have Loach and Pinter on the programme again soon (we're working on a big project with Pinter).

GABRIELE ZAMPARINI: PILGER AND FISK ARE SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT JOURNALISTS, AND NOT ONLY IN THIS COUNTRY. WHY DO YOU THINK “they are rarely keen”? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE LOACH AND PINTER ON NEWSNIGHT. I AM STILL SHOCKED FOR THE REFUSAL BY THE BBC TO BROADCAST PINTER’S NOBEL PRIZE ACCEPTANCE’S SPEECH.


PETER BARRON: We would hope to get you on at some point too.

GABRIELE ZAMPARINI: THANKS, BUT I AM SURE THERE ARE MORE INTERESTING PEOPLE OUT THERE.

PETER BARRON: Regarding your experience with Newsnight I'm sorry you felt mistreated that day. We approached medialens who on that occasion gave us a list of possible names including yours. Our researcher spoke to you and others and judged that in terms of the live discussion David Miller would be best. I'm not 100% clear what happened after that but I think she passed your name to a further researcher for possible inclusion in the film to precede the debate.

GABRIELE ZAMPARINI: ACTUALLY, THAT EXPERIENCE WAS QUITE INSTRUCTIVE AND I AM GRATEFUL FOR THAT. I HAVE LEARNED A LOT.

PETER BARRON: I'm sorry you were frustrated by endless conversations and an apparent lack of knowledge by a researcher, but is it not better that Newsnight aims to reflect these issues and engage with bloggers - albeit perhaps imperfectly - than not?

GABRIELE ZAMPARINI: I WAS NOT “frustrated”. NOT AT ALL. I WAS QUITE RELAXED AND INTERESTED IN TELLING THE NEWSNIGHT’S PEOPLE MY POINT OF VIEW. THE PROBLEM WAS (AND STILL IT IS) NOT ABOUT BLOGGERS AND INTERNET NEW TECHNOLOGIES. IT’S A PROBLEM OF CONTENT, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEMOCRACY. JUST CONSIDER ONE THING: MOST OF US WHO WORK IN THE SO CALLED ALTERNATIVE MEDIA AND MEDIA ACTIVISM, WORK FOR FREE OR FOR VERY LITTLE MONEY. WE DO BELIEVE IN WHAT WE DO, HAVE PASSION AND CONVICTIONS. WE DON’T HAVE THOSE BIG CHEQUES AS MOTIVATION OR PERSONAL PRESTIGE BUT OUR BELIEVES AND HOPES TO BUILD A BETTER WORLD, REACHING OUT OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND TO OPPOSE THIS MADNESS. AND THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE IS TELLING THE TRUTH, ASKING QUESTIONS, TRY TO DECONSTRUCT THE LIES AND THE PROPAGANDA OF THOSE WITH MEANS, MONEY AND POWER.

DEAR PETER, SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG OUT THERE. YOU (AS A TV MAINSTREAM JOURNALIST) HAVE A VERY BIG POWER. AND WITH POWER COMES RESPONSIBILITY. YOUR WORDS, YOUR DECISIONS AND YOUR ACTIONS HAVE HUGE CONSEQUENCES. CONSEQUENCES THAT FOR MANY PEOPLE COULD MEAN LIFE OR DEATH. LITERALLY.

THE NEXT TIME YOU HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE BLAIR’S GOVERNMENT IN STUDIO, PLEASE, KEEP THIS IN MIND. AND ASK SOME REAL HARD QUESTIONS. EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, KEEP ASKING THE SECOND AND THE THIRD QUESTION AFTER THE LIES THAT INEVITABLY YOU’LL GET FROM THAT PERSON. POLITICIANS AND PEOPLE IN POWER AND WITH POWER LIE. THAT’S THEIR JOB. THE JOURNALISTS’ JOB IS TO UNMASK THEM.

BEST WISHES AND GOOD LUCK,
GABRIELE

***

Thanks Gabriele,
I agree with a lot of that. I'm hope you'll agree that on Newsnight at least we try to air these issues. In my view it would be a pity if suspicion of the media meant that important voices and views aren't heard.

best wishes

Peter

***

Thanks Peter.

I don’t see any “suspicion” but a lot of rational, logical and documented facts.

Yes, views are important. Facts even more.

Just having in mind the war of aggression against Iraq. There might be as many as 300,000 civilians deaths. Most of them women and children. Most of them killed by the US and UK through aerial bombing. "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)

Before that, more than a decade of sanctions killed more than one million of innocent Iraqis. 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)

On the other side, lies, lies and more lies. I would like a BBC’s journalist to remind the public about these facts and to ask explanation about this to Blair, his pals and his apologists every time they start singing about freedom, democracy and “our values”.

In these hours Iran may become the next target. When in your show you will discuss about Iran, please Peter, remember and remind that the people who live in Iran are called Iranians and they are normal people like you and I and the people who are watching the BBC at home. Don’t let these people out of the picture.

The same for the so-called “war on terror”, Venezuela, Palestine, etc.

I know that the truth is always subversive. But what’s the alternative?

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

***

Thanks Gabriele,

Peter

BBC is actively aiding and abetting in war crimes

Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

Is this another example of BBC’s independent, fair and balanced reporting?

Air strike kills 'Iraq militants'

US forces in Iraq have killed 12 suspected militants and a woman in a raid and air strike on a house outside Baghdad, military officials said.

The military says troops came under fire when approaching the house, which it described as a militant hideout.

All the dead men were said to have been wearing vests loaded with ammunition. There was no word on US casualties.

In other incidents, four bullet-riddled bodies were found in Baghdad and one civilian was killed in a roadside bomb.

Are you paid to print US and UK military dispatches? Who are these 12 men? And the woman? “Military officials” can say whatever they want, but you are journalists not soldiers and you work to inform nor to help government’s propaganda. Where is the skepticism?

A few weeks ago, BBC’s Jim Muir wrote me: “As to your suggestion that we should run an IRIN report and say nobody else is reporting that - well, that is not how it works.... you can't spend airspace reporting things you believe are wrong. Life is too short and Swarmer was already in my view greatly exaggerated for all the reasons I went into in that website piece. IRIN is a news agency of which there are many, and a single agency report has to be checked and verified before we could use it”

It came out that that IRIN report was true [“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.”] but the BBC and Jim Muir never acknowledged it, let alone running a story about those “Hundreds of families”.

But it seems the BBC has no problem in printing what “military officials said”.

You are actively aiding and abetting in war crimes.

Gabriele Zamparini

Is the UK press supposed to be challenging the lies of this war?

Dear Ewen MacAskill,
Dear Alan Rusbridger, Editor,
Dear Georgina Henry, Deputy editor,
Dear Paul Johnson, Deputy editor, News,
Dear Ian Mayes, Readers' editor,
Dear Michael White, Political editor,


“Zarqawi shows face for first time since start of Iraq insurgency” (by Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, April 26, 2006) reads:

“A man believed to be al-Qaida's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, yesterday showed his face publicly for the first time since the insurgency began three years ago.”

Just a few days ago, The Washington Post wrote:

“The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” (Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi. Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability, By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, April 10, 2006)

A few weeks ago, interviewed by ABC – Australia, Robert Fisk said:

“Well, I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive. You know, al-Zarqawi did exist before the American Anglo-American invasion. He was up in the Kurdish area, which was not actually properly controlled by Saddam. But after that he seems to have disappeared. We know there's an identity card that pops up. We know the Americans say we think we've recognised him on a videotape. Who recognises him on a videotape? How many Americans have ever met al-Zarqawi? Al-Zarqawi's mother died more than 12 months ago and he didn't even send commiserations or say "I'm sorry to hear that". His wife of whom he was very possessive is so poor she has to go out and work in the family town of Zarqa. Hence the name Zarqawi. I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive or exists at the moment. I don't know if he isn't a sort of creature invented in order to fill in the narrative gaps, so to speak.” (Roberst Fisk shares his Middle East knowledge, Broadcast: 03/02/2006 ABC - Australia - Lateline)

On 18 March 2006, the same Robert Fisk, commenting on a Los Angeles Times’ article whose title was “In a Battle of Wits, Iraq's Insurgency Mastermind Stays a Step Ahead of US", wrote:

“Now quite apart from the fact that many Iraqis - along, I have to admit, with myself - have grave doubts about whether Zarqawi exists, and that al-Qai'da's Zarqawi, if he does exist, does not merit the title of "insurgency mastermind", the words that caught my eye were "US authorities say". And as I read through the report, I note how the Los Angeles Times sources this extraordinary tale. I thought American reporters no longer trusted the US administration, not after the mythical weapons of mass destruction and the equally mythical connections between Saddam and the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. Of course, I was wrong.”

Fisk’s article’s title was “The farcical end of the American dream. The US press is supposed to be challenging the lies of this war”

And the UK press?

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

Best regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

******************
UPDATE
******************

Zarqawi tape authentic, says Fisk
Lateline- ABC - Australia - 04/26/06

Does Robert Fisk read the Independent?

Dear Geneviève Roberts,
Dear Simon Kelner, Editor

I hope all is well at the Independent.

“Insurgency leader Zarqawi appears in video to warn of more Iraq attacks” (By Geneviève Roberts, The Independent, 26 April 2006) reads:

“Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the terrorist group al-Qa'ida in Iraq, appeared in a video posted on the internet warning of more terrorist attacks”

Just a few days ago, The Washington Post wrote:

“The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” (Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi. Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability, By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, April 10, 2006)

A few weeks ago, interviewed by ABC – Australia, Robert Fisk said:

“Well, I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive. You know, al-Zarqawi did exist before the American Anglo-American invasion. He was up in the Kurdish area, which was not actually properly controlled by Saddam. But after that he seems to have disappeared. We know there's an identity card that pops up. We know the Americans say we think we've recognised him on a videotape. Who recognises him on a videotape? How many Americans have ever met al-Zarqawi? Al-Zarqawi's mother died more than 12 months ago and he didn't even send commiserations or say "I'm sorry to hear that". His wife of whom he was very possessive is so poor she has to go out and work in the family town of Zarqa. Hence the name Zarqawi. I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive or exists at the moment. I don't know if he isn't a sort of creature invented in order to fill in the narrative gaps, so to speak.” (Roberst Fisk shares his Middle East knowledge, Broadcast: 03/02/2006 ABC - Australia - Lateline)

In your article you take for granted that al-Zarqawi is still alive, is still in Iraq, is “the head of the terrorist group al-Qa'ida in Iraq” and that he “appeared in a video posted on the internet warning of more terrorist attacks”. Why? Because, you write, “[T]he recording, showing the Iraqi most wanted man unmasked for the first time since the start of insurgency, was believed by analysts to be genuine.”

On 18 March 2006, on your same newspaper, Robert Fisk, commenting on a Los Angeles Times’ article whose title was “In a Battle of Wits, Iraq's Insurgency Mastermind Stays a Step Ahead of US", wrote:

“Now quite apart from the fact that many Iraqis - along, I have to admit, with myself - have grave doubts about whether Zarqawi exists, and that al-Qai'da's Zarqawi, if he does exist, does not merit the title of "insurgency mastermind", the words that caught my eye were "US authorities say". And as I read through the report, I note how the Los Angeles Times sources this extraordinary tale. I thought American reporters no longer trusted the US administration, not after the mythical weapons of mass destruction and the equally mythical connections between Saddam and the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. Of course, I was wrong.”

Fisk’s article’s title was “The farcical end of the American dream. The US press is supposed to be challenging the lies of this war”

Sometimes I wonder if Robert Fisk still reads the Independent.

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

Best regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

******************
UPDATE
******************

Zarqawi tape authentic, says Fisk
Lateline- ABC - Australia - 04/26/06

BBC's al-Zarqawi show

Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

I hope all is well at the BBC.

I would like to ask for your opinion about this BBC NEWS website’s article.

'Zarqawi' shows face in new video (BBC NEWS website, Tuesday, 25 April 2006) reads:

“A website has posted a video message which shows unmasked a man who appears to be the Iraqi insurgency's most wanted leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In the tape, the man says holy warriors are fighting on despite a three-year "crusade". US experts told the BBC they believed the recording was genuine.”

Just a few days ago, The Washington Post wrote:

“The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” (Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi. Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability, By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, April 10, 2006)

A few weeks ago, interviewed by ABC – Australia, Robert Fisk said:

“Well, I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive. You know, al-Zarqawi did exist before the American Anglo-American invasion. He was up in the Kurdish area, which was not actually properly controlled by Saddam. But after that he seems to have disappeared. We know there's an identity card that pops up. We know the Americans say we think we've recognised him on a videotape. Who recognises him on a videotape? How many Americans have ever met al-Zarqawi? Al-Zarqawi's mother died more than 12 months ago and he didn't even send commiserations or say "I'm sorry to hear that". His wife of whom he was very possessive is so poor she has to go out and work in the family town of Zarqa. Hence the name Zarqawi. I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive or exists at the moment. I don't know if he isn't a sort of creature invented in order to fill in the narrative gaps, so to speak.” (Roberst Fisk shares his Middle East knowledge, Broadcast: 03/02/2006 ABC - Australia - Lateline)

I have just three simple questions and I would be really grateful if you could give me just three short but honest answers.

QUESTION 1

You write: “a man who appears to be the Iraqi insurgency's most wanted leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Who says that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is “Iraqi insurgency's most wanted leader”? A better phrasing could have been: “a man whom The US government claims to be the Iraqi insurgency's most wanted leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

QUESTION 2

You write: “US experts told the BBC they believed the recording was genuine.” Who are these “US experts [who] told the BBC they believed the recording was genuine”? I think this is a very important information for the BBC to give to its readers so that everyone can make up her/his own mind.

QUESTION 3

Considering what I have reported above from the Washington Post and Robert Fisk, why doesn’t the BBC NEWS’ article even mention any skeptical point of view?

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

Best regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

******************
UPDATE
******************

Zarqawi tape authentic, says Fisk
Lateline- ABC - Australia - 04/26/06

Remember this boy?

Dear Gareth Furby, BBC News, London

In “Orphan Ali settles into London life” (BBC News website, 19 April 2006), you write:

“At Hall School in Wimbledon, south-west London, where 15-year-old Ali has been given free tuition for more than two years (it normally costs around £8,000 a year) the teenager has been fitting into school life, and is making remarkable progress.”

I don’t understand the emphasis you gave to the “free tuition” at the beginning of your article. Are you suggesting that Ali Abbas should be grateful for that?

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

Best regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Shameless Mother Jones

Dear Editor,

In “Dead Reckoning: Counting Iraq's Civilian Dead” (By Adam Shemper, Mother Jones, May/June 2006 Issue), Adam Shemper writes:

“This tally is updated daily on his website, Iraqbodycount.net, which Dardagan cofounded and runs with a team of 16 volunteers. The site, also known as IBC, has been the only consistent record of the war’s human toll, making it the go-to source for reporters, activists, and even the Bush administration. (...)

There have been more than a dozen independent surveys of civilian casualties, including a 2004 report in The Lancet that concluded 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed, but IBC remains the most-cited source for casualty numbers.

When asked for a figure last December, President Bush shrugged “30,000, more or less”—a number very close to the one on IBC at the time. Afterward, a CNN White House correspondent reported that Bush officials named Iraqbodycount.net as the source of the president’s estimate. “I think he surprised everyone by giving this figure,” said John Sloboda, IBC’s cofounder. (The president, however, misused the number, thinking it included Iraqi military and police casualties.)”

Just a few days ago Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger wrote:

“We are, however, alarmed at their apparent lack of concern at the way their information is being usurped by the pro-war camp to manipulate public opinion and minimize the catastrophe the failed US occupation has become for Iraqis. The authors of this piece submit that if, as it claims, IBC is truly a humanitarian research project armed for greater impact with an aggressive and sophisticated marketing system, it must not allow its data to be misused and misrepresented for pro-war propaganda campaigns.

If IBC cannot prevent the misuse of its data, it would be better for it to remove its web site and counters from the Internet permanently. It must then limit itself to objective scholarly research of the English media without sophisticated marketing paraphernalia.” (Learning to Count: The Dead in Iraq, by Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger, truthout, 13 April 2006)

In February, Stephen Soldz wrote:

“If Western reporters, competing for scarce public attention, are loath to accurately portray the extent of their ignorance about what is going on in enormous chunks of Iraq, IBC has no excuse not to acknowledge, openly and prominently, the resultant limits to their civilian death tally. To not proclaim loudly that the IBC count is, by its nature, likely a severe undercount of the true number of deaths, is to participate in the culture of deceit and denial of the costs in civilian lives and suffering that has plagued this alleged humanitarian intervention from the beginning. If IBC does not understand this point, then their efforts at promoting truth have now turned into its opposite and should cease.” (When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, 5 February 2006)

About the “Lancet study” and the Iraqi civilian deaths, you and Mr. Shemper may be interested in the following.

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

This study reads:

"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)

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)

The Chronicle of Higher Education on January 27, 2005 wrote

“’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)

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)

The horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name, might be way far more horrifying. Dr Gideon Polya recently wrote:

“AVOIDABLE MORTALITY (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. with the same birth rate and the same population age profile). Avoidable mortality is a fundamental parameter to be considered in any sensible discussion of human affairs – it is the bottom-line issue when assessing the success or otherwise of societal, regional and global policies. (...)

Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated. Thus the actuality of the Jewish Holocaust (6 million deaths) was not formally acknowledged by the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2 in Europe. This tardiness in reportage must surely have contributed significantly to this atrocity.

However, TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently totaling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First World-dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each year).” (Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006)

Underneath please find some interesting articles and studies about this issue.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006

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

- Learning to Count: The Dead in Iraq, By Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger

email to Antiwar.com

Dear Editor,

On your website, the page Casualties of War, about the Iraqi casualties, reads: "We have not set up a database for these numbers, rather we direct you Iraq Body Count."

Underneath the IBC counter, there is this line: "British Medical Journal Lancet estimates 100,000 civilians killed."

The link to this line is an article on the BBC NEWS website, date Friday, 29 October, 2004.

I wonder if Antiwar.com would be interested in making a few changes on its page 'Casualties of War', considering the following.

Iraq Body Count 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.”

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

This study reads:

"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)

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)

The Chronicle of Higher Education on January 27, 2005 wrote

“’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)

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)

The horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name, might be way far more horrifying. Dr Gideon Polya recently wrote:

“AVOIDABLE MORTALITY (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. with the same birth rate and the same population age profile). Avoidable mortality is a fundamental parameter to be considered in any sensible discussion of human affairs – it is the bottom-line issue when assessing the success or otherwise of societal, regional and global policies. (...)

Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated. Thus the actuality of the Jewish Holocaust (6 million deaths) was not formally acknowledged by the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2 in Europe. This tardiness in reportage must surely have contributed significantly to this atrocity.

However, TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently totaling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First World-dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each year).” (Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006)

Underneath please find some interesting articles and studies about this issue.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006

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

- Learning to Count: The Dead in Iraq, By Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger

BBC's Hotel Journalism

Dear Jim Muir,

I hope all is well in Baghdad, at least in the hotel you are in.

About your piece “Can a new government rescue Iraq?” (Jim Muir, BBC News website)

Are you aware that Iraq has been illegally invaded? Are you aware that at the present there is a cruel, brutal, military occupation? Are you aware that this illegal invasion and occupation killed already hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Are you aware that the same occupation has tortured and imprisoned children, women and thousands of innocent Iraqis? Are you aware that the same occupation dismantled and destroyed the State Iraq, violated the Geneva Conventions all over the places and is responsible for the current situation in that country? Are you aware that the government you write about in your piece is simply a puppet government of a country under military occupation?

In your piece you write: “... Islamic jihadi militants, many of whom have come from outside.” Where do you think the American and British (and the other members of this illegal Coalition of the Willing) have come from?

In your 1,100 plus word piece on Iraq, you not even once mention that that country is under military occupation nor any other of the facts I wrote above. It takes non common skills to succeed in such a task. Finally I fully understand what Robert Fisk means when he writes “hotel journalism”.

Regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

P.S. Do you remember “Operation Swarmer” and that IRIN report [“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.”] ? You wrote me that everything in that report was false? According to you, nothing had ever happened. Well, it seems you were wrong and the IRIN report was true. Another example of “hotel journalism”?

BBC Propaganda and Death Penalty

Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

BBC NEWS website publishes an article with the title: “Mid-East executions are condemned”

The first paragraph reads: “Amnesty International has said that Iran executed 94 people in 2005, while 86 were executed in Saudi Arabia.”

From AI website:

"As the world continues to turn away from the use of the death penalty, it is a glaring anomaly that China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the USA stand out for their extreme use of this form of punishment as the 'top' executioners in the world." - Irene Khan, AI Secretary General.

“In China - the country that accounts for around 80% of all executions - a person can be sentenced and executed for as many as 68 crimes, including non-violent crimes such as tax fraud, embezzlement and drug offences. 1,770 executions were reportedly carried out in China during 2005. However, a Chinese legal expert was recently quoted as stating the true figure for executions is more like 8,000.”

“There were 60 executions in the US in 2005. Two men were released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. The USA banned the execution of juvenile offenders in March 2005 having previously been a "world leader" in the practice.”

QUESTION: Why does the title read “Mid-East executions are condemned” ? Are the Mid-East executions the only ones to be condemned? China and USA are not in the Middle East, are they? Why does the article focus on Iran and Saudi Arabia while China (80% of all executions!) and the USA are not even in the first part of the article?

Kind regards.

Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Neil Durkin, Amnesty International UK
Dear Mike Blakemore, Media director, Amnesty International UK


About AI’s report ‘The Death Penalty in 2005’, I would like to ask if AI has any comments on the way the BBC NEWS website reported it.

This is the BBC’s article:

Mid-East executions are condemned

I paste underneath [above] an email I sent yesterday to Steve Herrmann, Editor, BBC News Online.

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

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

THE BBC'S REPLY:

Dear Gabriele,

Thanks for your email. We in fact published two stories on the Amnesty report yesterday. The one to which you refer was specifically about the Middle East, written for our Middle East regional page, though it also included the report‚s references to China and the US and referred (twice) to the point in the report about 80% of the executions occurring in China. The Middle East story also included the comments from Amnesty‚s Secretary General criticising China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the US. The other story we ran yesterday, which you do not refer to in your email, was our main overview story about the Amnesty report. This story led with the overall figures worldwide, highlighted the points made in the report specifically about China and also covered the other main countries mentioned. The link to this story is below. Both our stories carried the main facts and figures from the Amnesty report about the overall situation, along with quotes and a link to Amnesty‚s website.

'20,000' on death row worldwide

I hope this answers your question and clarifies matters for you.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Herrmann

***

MY REPLY TO THE BBC:

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your reply.

Strange. I spent lots of time yesterday on the BBC’s website but I couldn’t find the article you just sent me. And I am not the only one. Really strange!

Also strange is the fact that the BBC felt the need to write two different articles on the same story, the AI’s report. Why?

Why did the BBC feel the need to write a specific Middle East article on this story? Why didn’t the BBC feel the same need for China? Or the USA?

Could you explain the rational behind?

Thank you again for your time.

Regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

BBC PROPAGANDA

Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

The BBC NEWS website’s article “After the invasion: Iraqis speak” reads:

"The BBC News website spoke to four Iraqis and asked them for their memories of the invasion, what life has been like in the country since and what they feel the future holds."

By chance, the four people have something in common...

FIRST PERSON: "I do not think the occupation is necessarily the problem"

SECOND PERSON: "I would not call it an invasion, I would call it a liberation"

THIRD PERSON: "When the fighting was over we came back. We were amazed when Saddam's statue came down and we said to ourselves: "Now things are better"

FORTH PERSON: "Now, I think things here are now slowly becoming stable and we finally are starting to have a working government. They are trying to find solutions to stop things getting out of hand, like after the shrine bombing"

Just a few months ago a poll undertaken for the Ministry of Defence, showed:

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;

It must have been quite difficult for the BBC to find these four Iraqis who seem belonging to a very tiny minority if we have to believe to the Ministry of Defence’s poll.

Any self-respect left at the BBC?

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Gabriele Zamparini

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the BBC News website article "After the invasion: Iraqis speak."

You refer to four individual quotes taken from the people featured in this article. However a fuller reading of their testimony suggests that the Iraqis to whom we spoke have mixed and in some cases pessimistic opinions about the invasion and its aftermath. For example, Tara Rashid also notes "prospects for the future are very bad", Samiah the engineer says "three years on and you cannot feel any change for the better" and Hassan Kharrufa says "our daily lives have changed little, we still live in fear".

The BBC News website regularly speaks to Iraqis from all walks of life and is committed to displaying a diverse array of opinion on its pages.

Thank you again for your e-mail.

Kind regards
BBC News website

***

Dear “BBC News website”,

You must be kidding!

Whoever you are behind that “BBC News website”, you are so shameless to deny the evidence. Your reply is an insult to the intelligence of your readers, who are those who pay your salary.

You can’t hide your complicity in mass murder and crimes against humanity anymore and the spectres of those hundred of thousands of brothers and sisters you helped to murder will follow you for the rest of your life.

In disgust,
Gabriele Zamparini

Silence kills and silence is complicity - 'a follow-up'

Dear friends,

It seems my correspondence with Phyllis Bennis and United for Peace and Justice did produce some good results.

UFPJ’s Legislative Action Coordinator wrote me “as a follow-up -- i am working with phyllis to figure out a way to force the US congress to investigate the true number of iraqi civilian casualties”

The problem is that even good and well intentioned people seem not to have clear ideas on this subject, since UFPJ’s Legislative Action Coordinator then writes: “the problem is that there isn't really a credible number that we can quote because no one really knows! and that in itself is horrific.”

I explained that that is not correct. There IS a VERY CREDIBLE NUMBER indeed. I had already sent them all the articles and the material in previous email and this time I connected them with a few people who have been following this story and with Les Roberts.

She also wrote: “i just meant we should raise the issue in a respectful, not insulting way, understanding that we are all overworked and doing our best to end the war, and not to assume that people are trying to "hide" anything or acting out of cowardice or impure motives -- (i am not accusing you of doing that, but some people have... ) i thank you for raising the concern in the way you did -- (l like what i highligted below in purple)” [she refers to this line of mine: “Please consider this email not as a critique but as an open dialogue between brothers/sisters and comrades.”]

So it seems that honest and open discussion DO NOT divide the antiwar movement and DO get concrete results and it’s quite useful when things get too foggy for too much propaganda and more...

The damage that Iraq Body Count’s figures have done is huge, terrifying and shocking. They refuse to answer legitimate questions and concerns within the antiwar movement and instead work behind the scenes to make these legitimate questions and concerns seem an “attack” and an attempt to destroy the unity of the antiwar movement.

You may already know that yesterday truthout published an article written by my friend Dahr Jamail together with Jeff Pflueger: Learning to Count: The Dead in Iraq

Once again I would like to end with Dr. Polya’s words: “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini

BBC, Iran and the Bomb

Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online

I hope you are well.

The BBC News website’s article “Iran urged to stop nuclear work” reads:

“Iran is on course to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.”

That statement seems quite strange, since in the same BBC News website there is another article that reads:

“So given these limitations, the IISS [International Institute of Strategic Studies] believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon.” (Iran 'years from nuclear bomb', By Sarah Buckley and Paul Rincon, BBC News website)

I went to the International Institute of Strategic Studies and I found an article published today by the Daily Telegraph. This article reads:

“Mark Fitzpatrick, a counter-proliferation specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that even if Iran can operate a basic unit of 164 machines efficiently and for a sustained period of time, it would take 11 years for it to make enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb.” (Has Iran reached nuclear point of no return? By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor, April 12, 2004)

Also, just as another reference, The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2005:

“A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.” (Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb. U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements, By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, August 2, 2005)

QUESTION: Where do those “3 years” come from?

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

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Ms. Zamparini,
Thank you for noting this and alerting me. I have just spoken to a reporter at reporter at BBC who undertook to have the discrepancy corrected.
A detailed IISS report last September concluded that if Iran threw caution to the wind and ignored international reactions, it could produce enough HEU for one weapon by the end of the decade at the earliest. The clock on that five-year timeline began ticking in January when Iran resumed the enrichment, although it actually resumed enrichment-related work in August. In the past couple weeks, more than one reputable organization has concluded that three years is the shortest timeline. Given the speed at which Iran is moving, it is hard to dispute the three year figure. But these timeline estimates are all a bit of a crapshoot. I have been saying that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable, especially if IAEA inspectors cannot have greater access than they have right now.
The 11-year figure I gave the Guardian was if the Iranians stopped at 164 centrifuges. They plan to go far beyond that.

Regards,
Mark Fitzpatrick


***

Read Mr. Fitzpatrick's bio here

***

MY REPLY TO MR. FITZPATRICK

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

Thank you for your reply.

Original BBC’s article: “Iran is on course to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.”

After my email and after you contacted the BBC, the article now reads: “Iran could be in a position to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3-5 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.”

So, “is on course” became “could be” and “3 years” became “within 3-5 years”.

Well, considering that this may be the reason for a possible nuclear bombing of that country by the US government, this correction has its importance indeed.

Please, forgive my ignorance. In your email you also write: “I have been saying that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...”

But in the BBC’s article there is no mention of this and it doesn’t seem a detail to me. Don’t you think that the BBC (and the media in general) should be more careful about the words they use and the way they present all this issue. Iraq’s precedent on the WMD should teach us something after all.

Please, I would be very interested in your opinion and also don’t you think that the readers of that BBC article could still be mislead since in that article there is no mention of “that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error” ?

Thank you very much for your time and kindness.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear Ms. Zamparini,

I appreciate your deep interest in this matter. There is much more that can be said about it, but the corrected article on the BBC website is accurate, in terms of what I said to the reporter who interviewed me.

Regards,
Mark


Mark Fitzpatrick
Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Arundel House, 13-15 Arundel Street
Temple Place, London WC2R 3DX

Switchboard: +44(020) 7379 7676
Fax: + 44(0)20 7836 31 08
E-mail: Fitzpatrick@iiss.org
web site: www.iiss.org

***

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

Thank you for your reply.

Since you get responsibility for what that BBC’s article states - “Iran could be in a position to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3-5 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.” - I will ask you those questions and those remarks.

In the BBC’s article there is no mention of what you wrote me in your previous email: “I have been saying that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...”. Did you tell the BBC’s reporter about this? If yes, how can you write that “the corrected article on the BBC website is accurate, in terms of what I said to the reporter who interviewed me.” ?

If you didn’t tell this paramount element to the BBC’s reporter, could you tell me why?

Having in mind what happened regarding Iraq and WMD, should we wait other hundreds of thousands of civilians deaths to know “that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...” ?

Don’t you feel the responsibility of your knowledge and for the consequences of what you say to the media?

Yesterday a Bloomberg’s reporter wrote:

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. (...) Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.” (“Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)”)

You may want to inform Mr. Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, “that three years is the shortest timeline... [and] that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable...”.

Since your bio reads “Mr Fitzpatrick comes to IISS from a distinguished 26-year career in the US Department of State, where for the last ten years he focused on non-proliferation issues.” I am sure you will find Mr. Rademaker’s number.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

I am sorry to be impolite, but I need to bow out of this conversation at this stage.
- Mark

Mark Fitzpatrick
Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Arundel House, 13-15 Arundel Street
Temple Place, London WC2R 3DX

Switchboard: +44(020) 7379 7676
Fax: + 44(0)20 7836 31 08
E-mail: Fitzpatrick@iiss.org
web site: www.iiss.org

***

AND FINALLY THE BBC'S REPLY

Dear Gabriele Zamparini,

Thank you for your message, and for pointing out the apparent inconsistency in our references to statements on Iran's nuclear programme issued by the International Institute of Strategic Studies. The Institute has, in fact, given variable estimates based on variable assumptions. We have now made changes to our output to make this clear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606356.stm

With best wishes,
The BBC News Website

"Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days" - Really?

Dear Sebastian Alison,

In “Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)” you report:

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. (...) Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.”

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2005:

“A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.” (Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb. U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements, By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, August 2, 2005)

Did any reporter in Moscow ask Mr. Rademaker about that “major U.S. intelligence review [that] has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon” ?

Will you have a chance to ask him about this in a next press conference?

In your report you don’t write anything either about that “major U.S. intelligence review [that] has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon”. So, I would be very interested in your comments on this.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

John Sloboda: “a commitment to dialogue and openness”

Oxford Research Group
Theodore Zeldin's Oxford Muse project

In the Oxford Research Group's website, Oxford Research Group's Executive Director John Sloboda's bio reads:

“John's self-portrait has recently been published as part of Theodore Zeldin's Oxford Muse project, which shares with ORG a commitment to dialogue and openness.”

However, on a most serious matter, the Iraqi civilian deaths, Mr. Sloboda and IBC refuse to answer the many serious questions asked them by Media Lens, John Pilger, Stephen Soldz and ‘one of the world’s leading professional epidemiologists’

Mr. Sloboda recently wrote to Media Lens:

Dear Davids,

Thanks for your letter.

Unfortunately the events of the last three months have convinced us that direct correspondence with you is unproductive. We've said it before, and we say it again, though we do so with regret.

Yours sincerely,

John Sloboda (April 7, 2006)

This doesn’t seem a “a commitment to dialogue and openness” to me.

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

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Silence kills and silence is complicity - email to United for Peace and Justice

United for Peace and Justice,

On your website, a legislative action, “Keep the Pressure On” reads:

Take Action!

Unless Congress votes to end the war, the fourth year of fighting will begin on March 19. The costs so far …

• over 33,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives)

Iraq Body Count, from where presumably you got the numbers, 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.”

When you write “some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives” you presumably refer to a study published on 29 October 2004 in the British medical journal The Lancet with the title ‘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

This study reads:

"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)

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)

The Chronicle of Higher Education on January 27, 2005 wrote

“’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)

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) “the estimates of 20,000 to 30,000 civilian deaths cited in the American press are too low, most likely by a factor of five or ten.” (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

This means that “most likely” there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths


The horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name, might be way far more horrifying. Dr Gideon Polya recently wrote:

“AVOIDABLE MORTALITY (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. with the same birth rate and the same population age profile). Avoidable mortality is a fundamental parameter to be considered in any sensible discussion of human affairs – it is the bottom-line issue when assessing the success or otherwise of societal, regional and global policies. (...)

Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated. Thus the actuality of the Jewish Holocaust (6 million deaths) was not formally acknowledged by the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2 in Europe. This tardiness in reportage must surely have contributed significantly to this atrocity.

However, TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently totaling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First World-dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each year).” (Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006)

I leave you with Dr. Polya’s words: “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”

Gabriele Zamparini

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

Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006

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

***

UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE'S REPLY

thank you for your concern -- this is an issue that we have wrestled with and argued about extensively --
we really can't let this issue tear apart the peace movement --
frankly, i believe that 33,000 iraqi civilian deaths is quite horrific enough to warrant an immediate end to the war. i don't think we are ignoring the mass killings of iraqis --
however, thank you for sending these references -- we'll make use of them and revise our language

--
Sue Udry
Legislative Action Coordinator
United for Peace and Justice

***

Dear Sue,

Thank you for your reply.

I don’t understand. What do you mean when you write: “we really can't let this issue tear apart the peace movement”. Please, could you explain?

As I wrote recently to Phyllis Bennis, of course even the life of one innocent person, of one woman, of one baby should be enough to make people take action. Unfortunately it’s not. And the scale of the horror is ignored by the mainstream media precisely for this goal: to keep the population ignorant on the real effects of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And of course those responsible for inflicting the horror to innocent people do all they can to hide the truth.

Also, why do the lives of the US and UK military people are counted (rightly so!) and that number is very important (rightly so!) while the scale of the horror inflicted to the lives of the Iraqi victims, the civilians, the innocent people who have been slaughtered in their homes, in their own country, is not that important for us to know?

When you write in your website “over 33,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives)” you objectively DO ignore mass killings.

When you use a poster that reads “30,000 Iraqis” you objectively DO ignore mass killings

I am not sure to understand what you mean exactly when you write “revise our language”. It’s not a question of language.

Please, make good use of those articles and studies I sent. Again, “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”

Please consider this email not as a critique but as an open dialogue between brothers/sisters and comrades.

Thank you for your time.

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE'S REPLY

i just meant we should raise the issue in a respectful, not insulting way, understanding that we are all overworked and doing our best to end the war, and not to assume that people are trying to "hide" anything or acting out of cowardice or impure motives -- (i am not accusing you of doing that, but some people have... ) i thank you for raising the concern in the way you did -- (llike what i highligted below in purple)

as a follow-up -- i am working with phyllis to figure out a way to force the US congress to investigate the true number of iraqi civilian casualties -- the problem is that there isn't really a credible number that we can quote because no one really knows! and that in itself is horrific.

thanks
sue

***

Dear Sue,

Thank you for your reply.

You write: “the problem is that there isn't really a credible number that we can quote because no one really knows! and that in itself is horrific.”

This is not correct. I sent you lots of articles and studies. Please, find the time to read those articles. I understand the time issue, but it will be a very good time investment.

Also, today truthout published an article written by my friend Dahr Jamail wrote together with Jeff Pflueger

Learning to Count: The Dead in Iraq
By Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger

Together with Dahr Jamail (email address), I would strongly suggest you to contact Stephen Soldz (email address) and Media Lens’ editors (email address)

Of course, the first person you should contact is Les Roberts (the author of the Lancet study) (email address)

I CC this email to all these people who will be more than happy to help United for Peace and Justice in this matter.

Thank you and best wishes.

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini

Silence kills and silence is complicity - email to Phyllis Bennis

Dear Phyllis Bennis,

I hope you are well.

I read with interest your article on ZNet “Thinking Strategically, Challenges Facing the Anti-War Movement“. You write:

“Additionally, the U.S. air war has escalated dramatically, again raising the spectre of Viet Nam, especially at the moment the U.S. is attempting to reduce the level of U.S. troop casualties, and instead move to "change the color of the corpses," as it was described in Indochina.” (Thinking Strategically, Challenges Facing the Anti-War Movement, ZNet, April 06, 2006)

I was surprised though that in your article there is no mention of the Iraqi civilians that have already been killed since the US-led invasion.

As you know, 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

This study reads:

"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."

Source: 'Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004

The horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name, might be way far more horrifying. Dr Gideon Polya recently wrote:

“AVOIDABLE MORTALITY (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. with the same birth rate and the same population age profile). Avoidable mortality is a fundamental parameter to be considered in any sensible discussion of human affairs – it is the bottom-line issue when assessing the success or otherwise of societal, regional and global policies. (...)

Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated. Thus the actuality of the Jewish Holocaust (6 million deaths) was not formally acknowledged by the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2 in Europe. This tardiness in reportage must surely have contributed significantly to this atrocity.

However, TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently totaling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First World-dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each year).” (Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006)

On March 14, 2006 Todd Chretien wrote on Counter Punch:

“However, there are some in the anti-war movement who seem reluctant to publicize all the dead in Iraq. This week, United for Peace and Justice put a "legislative alert" on their website's front page, written up by its legislative working group, which lists the following casualty figures in Iraq: over 28,000 Iraqi civilian lives (and some estimates are as high as 100,000 lives) (...) UFPJ's legislative working group's figures raise a couple of questions. First, the 28,000 total for Iraqi civilian casualties is a full 5,000 short of what www.Iraqbodycount.org lists as the absolute minimum number of deaths. So where does UFPJ get its 28,000 figure for civilian deaths and why is that figure prioritized over the Johns Hopkins study (which was conducted as a national survey, based on a scientific sampling of households all over Iraq), which is presented as only an "estimate? (...) Secondly (...) one group is suspiciously absent from the legislative working group's figures, namely, the number of Iraqi resistance fighters killed by the American military and the puppet Iraqi army. Certainly one does not have to agree with the military tactics pursued by every resistance group in Iraq in order to believe that their dead have as much right to be counted as those American soldiers who are used as cannon fodder for an illegal and unjust occupation.” (Counting the Dead in Iraq. Why is the Left Understating the Carnage?, Todd Chretien, Counter Punch, March 14, 2006)

On March 15, 2006 I wrote to Mountain View Voices for Peace, to United for Peace and Justice and to Danny Schechter of MediaChannel about their use of the Mountain View Voices for Peace’s poster for the March 2006 third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq that states (about Iraqi civilian deaths) “30,000 Iraqis”

I have received a reply from Mountain View Voices for Peace’s Lenny Siegel with whom I disagree deeply and a reply from my friend Danny Schechter of MediaChannel, who agreed with my concerns over the use of that poster and withdrew it from Media Channel’s website.

I have not received any reply from United for Peace and Justice, even though I have written to them repeatedly. And the po