BBC's math poblem - an exchange with BBC's Paul Reynolds

Dear Paul,

I hope you’re well.

Thanks for your article, Iraq: Debate on the Baghdad surge

In your analysis there is no mention of the real subject of this story, the Iraqi people.

While I understand that your aim, as you stated at the beginning, was the “debate [that] is raging in Washington about whether the so-called surge of US forces in Iraq is likely to work”, I wonder if the real effects of this “surge” on the Iraqis could have been part of your analysis. After all we are not talking about some abstract experiment and the “surge” has concrete consequences on the lives (and death) of Iraqis.

Perhaps it would be not a bad idea to inform the readers with the point of view of Iraqis – as you know the vast majority of them do not want any foreign troops on their own country - and with some numbers, like the civilians killed as a direct consequence of the illegal Anglo-American invasion that, as you know, might have reached one million of human lives. As you know there are many other numbers that it could be useful to inform the readers with when discussing “whether the so-called surge of US forces in Iraq is likely to work”, like the millions of Iraqis displaced and the apocalyptic situation of a country that’s been annihilated since and because an illegal invasion by those same people who now are discussing “about whether the so-called surge of US forces in Iraq is likely to work”.

I hope you’ll take the time to consider if these points could be included in that debate in this as in future analysis.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini


***

BBC's Paul Reynolds' reply:

You should read this

***


Thanks Paul.

I have just read that piece. But first, back to my original question.

In my 4 July email, my point was, and still is today: Why did not you mention the real subject of your story, the Iraqi people, in your analysis “Iraq: Debate on the Baghdad surge”?

Now, about the new piece you sent. Is this a joke?

It reads:

“The level of violence has not decreased, with attacks shifting away from places where US forces are concentrated, such as Baghdad and Anbar, into other, less defended provinces, says the BBC's Defence and Security correspondent Rob Watson.”

The violence comes from the Iraqis while the US forces are there to defend Iraq. Of course we trust “BBC's Defence and Security correspondent Rob Watson”.

The new piece, you suggested I should read, continues:

“During the seven-day period ending on 4 July, there were 617 violent deaths compared to 299 for the week before. As in the previous two weeks, most of those killed were civilians - 365 of them. There was also a big increase in the reported deaths of insurgents, up from 98 dead last week to 175. These figures are from the Iraqi Interior Ministry, whose figures are consistently lower than anyone else's estimates of casualties. The US military suffered 19 dead, bringing the total US toll to 3,586. More than 5,800 Iraqi police and recruits have been killed in the same period since 2005 - including 65 this week, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which quotes Pentagon figures.”

Why does this piece not include “the total” of Iraqi deaths but only “the total US toll” ? I believe that these two total, put next each other, tell the real story the BBC should go after:

- total US toll to 3,586
- total Iraqi deaths (estimated, of course) 1,000,000

Here just one of the many articles on the Iraqi deaths one can read on the alternative media but rarely, if ever, on the BBC:

Is the U.S. Responsible for the Death of Nearly a Million Iraqis?
by Robert Naiman

“You should read this” and maybe suggest it to “BBC's Defence and Security correspondent Rob Watson” too.

The last part in the new piece you sent me reads:

“One of the hospitals covered by the survey provides some grim details about the death toll. Al-Yarmouk received 10 limbs with the rest of the bodies missing, 22 victims who had been beheaded, 45 people killed by one car bomb alone in the al-Baaya district and the bodies of 13 people who had been shot in the head.”

I have no doubts that in Iraq the picture is even grimmer that what comes out from this line above. I can send you some graphic picture if you and the BBC like to publish them. But I can’t believe the BBC couldn’t find an hospital that received the thousands of innocent Iraqis slaughtered by the Anglo-American occupation. I can send you these pictures too, if you need them. I am sure that those hospitals could provide “some grim details about the death toll” too.

Finally, I am sure you and your BBC colleagues will be interested in what your Iraqi colleagues say. You know, just for the sake of impartiality.

“We all know now that the U.S. military is using the name of al-Qaeda to cover attacks against our national resistance fighters and civilians who wish immediate or scheduled withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq," Hilmi Saed, an Iraqi journalist from Baghdad told IPS on the outskirts of Baquba.

After one million Iraqis slaughtered, 4 million displaced and a whole country destroyed, the BBC keeps echoing those lies that made all this not only possible, but inevitable. The show couldn’t really be more revolting.

Best wishes,
Gabriele