Baghdad Lullaby

#44 by Manjit on March 28, 2003 6:07am PT

Refering to Khalistani websites is to divert attention.

On the killing of 5 local kashmiri muslims who it was claimed were pakstani terrorists there are many articles in mainstream Indian press which point to the security forces killing innocent villagers to account for the lack of details on who were the killers of Chattishingpura.

Even the courts have reprimanded the govt on this issue. There was much reluctance on part of the govt to agree for DNA testing of those killed by the police for many months. The slain mens DNA was taken and sent for testing to compare with those of the relatives (Govt claims that they are not the slain mens relatives and that the 5 killed came from Pakistan). At the outset itself there was controversery that the govt will cheat on the DNA samples. After months(nearly a year) of not agreeing they sent the DNAsamples for testing to Hyderabad at the Forsenics Dept of CCMB(a govt research orginisation).
The govt sat on the report (the govt told that they got the report)of the DNA test refusing to give it to anyone for more than a year. Finally when the court insisted that the report released they released a False report. When the Scientists read about the details of the report in the press they gave a statement saying that it was a false report and they had never sent the report for the simple reason that the samples were contaminated and couldnt be accepted for testing. The second samples were sent and same incidents hapenned. Finally the DNA testing administarors came out with a statement that the second report shown also was false and the actual DNA samples that they tested belonged to women (not the the five men killed).

So do you ask is the govt hiding something in this? I would say not hiding but actually going about interfering in investigatinons by creating false facts and reports This is called criminal suppression of facts.

Now is it possible that a criminal govt which killed 5 innocent people is capable of killing a few more sikhs?

I would say that is very much possible.

Did the govt actually do it? I dont know. But are they capable of doing it.?

Answer is YES.

Roohi, Ahmadzai

Thanks. I have read that article and Pankaj Mishra`s articles. Many such articles are also available on Khalistani websites. Their views are predictable but I have not seen it established that the murders were carried out by Indian troops.

So if a general (Indian?) made that claim and an impartial human rights group established it then we will have something reliable.

We should wait for Ahmadzai`s links.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Manjit #40 - an indepth article from the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001231mag-kashmir.html

Powerful stuff.

Really liked the ending.

Ras

# 39 ahmadzai

``Killing of Sikhs in Chittisinghpura was blamed by Sikh community on Indian military. Even a General stated that it was Government`s doing. An impartial finding by humanright group was also of the same view. I can post links if you want.``


Please post the links.

adnan_rafiq @ # 35:

While I agree with first part of your message on War in Iraq, I disagree with 2nd part on Pakistan support to Kashmiri terrorist.

By definition, we have only supported freedom fighters. If some misguided soules have taken up terrorism, its not our responsibility just like a few Timothy Macveighs are not the responsibility of American military might.

Second and more important, how do we know that its Pakistani supported terrorists at work in India. Let us see some quick facts on the matter:

1. Killing of Sikhs in Chittisinghpura was blamed by Sikh community on Indian military. Even a General stated that it was Government`s doing. An impartial finding by humanright group was also of the same view. I can post links if you want.

2. Indian does not allow neutral observers and international media in the valley.

3. India refused Hampshire reps to visit the valley and to find out the truth in the valley.

4. India blames Pakistan of cross-border terrorism, but has refused our proposal of deploying 3rd party monitors on the LOC. India has also not agreed to a joint Pak-India patrolling of the LOC.

5. India has not held an independent enquiry over any massacre.

India cannot be an accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time.

And in the absence of the findings by a neutral party, we should not take things for granted.

Adnan:

Your post suggests that you are a pacifist. If that is the case, then I do not accuse you of hypocrisy. But I disagree on ideological grounds.

On this particular topic then, I think we should agree to disagree.

ferozk #30 You say that ``this war cannot be justified no matter how noble the reasons. I support the removal of Saddam Hussein ... (but the)...equation that removal of one man justifies the loss of a few thousand people or more or less is wrong.``
You consider the reasons I presented for this war ``noble`` (I think ``practical`` is a more accurate term), and say that nothing justifies the loss of a few thousand people: so far of course the death toll for all sides put together is much less, but your point is well taken. War is indeed a terrible thing: I remember an uncle of mine who was a young and gung-ho tank regiment commander in the Pakistan Army in the 1965, relate to me in sober tones the shocking things he saw during battle: the bodies of fine, strapping young men he knew from his regiment, burnt inside their tanks and giving the appearance of shrivelled and blackened dolls; a champion runner in athletic competitions from his regiment lying dead, his legs burnt and twisted in odd directions. And this was the winning side in that particular battle!! (His regiment had just finised chasing the Indians all the way from behind their reinforced concrete bunkers at the LOC, and through the trees and bushes to Chhamb, and from there across the river Tawi, and from there over the hills, all the way to Jaurian. )

I have always said (in the context of our discussions on Kashmir on chowk) that no piece of territory is worth even a single life. War is a terrible thing, and indeed we need to work towards the day when this madness finally ends and people can solve their differences in a civilized manner. However, as long as there are dictators in this world who stay in power only through the power of the sword, or maulvis who think it is fun to smash jet planes full of passengers into buildings full of office workers, I think I will support war if that is needed to fight this menace to civilized society. I would never, ever support a war for territory or money only (for reasons described above).

stuka #32

That`s why Indians criticizing the US for endangering the lives of Iraquis make me want to throw up. Indians are being dragged out of buses and shot by Pakistanis while these good samaritans have nothing to say. They are busy writing poems weeping for Iraquis.

What a disgusting crowd of hypocrites.

Let`s forget about the pro-war stances taken by certain Chowkies and their ensuing justifications for a moment, and answer the following question:

``Are you willing to send your loved ones (children, parents, spouse) to Baghdad and face the bombs so that Saddam could be removed and the Iraqi people could be liberated?``

If your answer is no, then you need to shut up! No cause is great enough to justify the wrongful death of an innocent child. Even if she is an Iraqi.

By the same token, as Pakistanis and Muslims, we should also condemn our government`s stand vis-a-vis the Kashmiri terrorists who have no qualms about killing children to achieve liberation. We are quick to point to Israel`s oppression in Palestine but hardly raise an eyebrow when suicide bombers indiscriminately blow Israelis to bits. If you don`t feel sorry for the deaths of those Israeli children then you have no right to expect the world to feel sad about the loss of Muslim lives.

ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS!

I have a question for any military analyst or any one with some experince on the matter.

The defined objective of the war is to remove Saddam. This means that the coalition forces will have to enter Baghdad. There will be street fight and high probability that civilians will get killed and coalition personnel may also get killed. How will US/UK manage this crisis as the last thing they would need is bad publicity about too many deaths.

Another option is to lay a seige on Baghdad, which will only mean civilian sufferings. That too is bad for the coalition.

My personal view is that Saddam should have been sent packing, but if Iraqis are fighting on his side rather than welcoming coalition forces, then I would like to change my view point.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Temporal:

…``I think I am in a vocal minority ``

That about says it all. I know where you stand, and you as well as Samina are consistent. I amy disagree with you on principle, but I applaud your consistency.

My post was about the dominant discourse, not just in Pakistan but in pretty much every country of the world. States in general, and as a result their populations, revert to realpolitik when thier own interests are at stake but cite principles when it suits thwm. The US is in the same boat. No different from any other country.

That is why I feel that the US need not be apologetic about actions taken in it;s self interest. There are plenty of victims, but poems get written only for a chosen few.

What would be the reaction of the Arab world if a Jewish right wing group lines up 24 Palestenians including women and children and then shot them in cold blood? Even if the Israeli government was not involved all hell would have broken loose and suicide bombings resluting in the deaths of Israeli civilians would have been justified.

These double standards make me very cynical. I now truly believe that the killing of enemy nationals is a fact of life, and every state should basically take care of its own.

A very poignant article, Bina. You couldn`t have expressed it better.

Behold the spectre of 21st century imperialism! With each passing day, this war begins to stink more.

Tis true that Saddam is a scourge for humanity, and has killed more Muslims than Milosevic, Karadzic, Sangh Parivar and Israel combined! He is a vicious megalomaniac who lacks legitimacy, a self-styled Nebuchadnazzar... indeed a dangerous man.

Yet none of his sins justify a pre-emptive, unilateral and self-righteous war on 20 million Iraqis. Rumsfield, Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz cannot fool world opinion by calling this a ``war on Saddam``, instead of the Iraqi people . Any war on Saddam will kill innocent and patriotic Iraqis. World opinion will not accept this loss of life simply as ``collateral damage``.

Bush has already declared that even if Saddam goes into exile, the war will not end. America will still move in, destroy their weapons of mass destruction (read: military equalizers with Israel) and bring democracy (read: puppet regimes) to the entire region (read: Iran and Syria are next).

While the war is raging, America`s so-called objective media is editorializing its news bulletins. CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ABC and CBS are flashing glamorized images of American troops, conducting interviews of military family members and deriding all news from the Iraqi news agency. American journalists stationed in Baghdad are reporting on troop movement, strength of Republican Guards and amount of damage done to official Iraqi buildings.

Is this journalism? This is espionage at worst, propaganda at best. The media is conducting psy-ops (psychological operations) by reporting Iraqi losses in an attempt to demoralize the Iraqi resistance.

On the other hand, Al-Jazeera dared to show American POWs and press conferences of Iraqi Defence Minister as well as American opinions... and suddenly the U.S. media is labeling Al-Jazeera as ``irresponsible, and unethical``.

Hats off to the discerning American public that withstood the media onslaught and took to the streets in anti-war protests.

Re: tahmed32 # 14

I think that is one explanation to justify this war. My friend therein lies the problem; this war cannot be justified no matter how noble the reasons. I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and I think the Muslim popuar opinion, rage in the streets, in his defence is misplaced and he and his ilk have to be stopped. Still the moral balance sheet of this war is relative, because the equation that removal of one man justifies the loss of a few thousand people or more or less is wrong.

Democracy is about the pluarality of opinions and we in Pakistan know fully well what that means or the lack of it thereof. When Bush and company insist on their right to act unilaterally, they are in fact dening a basic democratic right - the right to dissent. It is trival to suggest that breaking the law will help in the upholding of its principles and all it amounts to is hypocricy. International system is based on the premise of a diplomatic anarchy and hence, it does not mean that dissent is an absence of will to act. It might be interesting to realize that the precourse to this war has created really awful precedents and the democracies never go to war is just another lie like the fact that public opinion in socities with representive governments do matter! There is nothing democratic about this war; it is the fiat of a shallow personality, who suffers from an Odipedian complex and realizes his security in the misery of others.

My friend, this war and any other war, cannot be justfied no matter how you rationalize the arguments. Yes; dictatorships are bad, but that does not imply that we have to become what we beheld and foresake what we foreswore. This war is wrong. Simple and nothing will make it right.

Best wishes, as always

Ciao

Geneva Convention

Just happened to come across this Siraiki poetry in this regard.



saaday apne munafiq taiday naal han
varna kaafi ha Saddam taiday keetay

jay kar aj vi zameeraaN ku jaag aa vanjhay
taidee maghrooree da sar qalam thee vanjhay



[translation: If hypocrites among our ranks didn`t side with you, just Saddam would have been enough for you. Beware! The awakening of slumbering conciense. The awakening may smite your pride].

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

faisaluno #24 Could you please state your point directly?

Apparently, the liberation parades by Iraqi civilians that every supporter of this war was pointing out, haven`t occured. Infact, the Americans forces are actually facing some resistance in the cities. They are definitely not being welcomed with parades.

These liberation parades are the basis of the latest argument presented to justify this war. If it becomes clear that the Iraqis may hate Saddam, however they hate the US equally or much more, then I am afraid Iraq is in for a long and terrible ride. At that point, hopefully all the supporters of this war will at least apologize.

The only Iraqis I have seen supporting this war are the ones in exile in the US, waiting to get into power in Iraq (and the Kurds). Other than that every Arab I have talked to and every Iraqi I have seen on TV is totally against the US led war. Infact, it seems like the only people who want Iraqis to be liberated by the Americans are Americans.

There was one Iraqi who I saw on Canadian TV who did support this war. However, even his argument was that the US was an evil, but a lesser and weaker evil than Saddam. Hence the Iraqis would eventually get rid of the US easier than they could get rid of Saddam.

Do the people who are arguing for the liberation of Iraq by the USA have any statitistics and opinion polls from Iraqis, on which they are basing their arguments? I have yet to see any such opinion poll.

tahmed sahib:

looks like your wishes are about to come true:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=275282&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

``After the war in Iraq, Israel will try to convince the U.S. to direct its war on terror at Iran, Damascus and Beirut. Senior defense establishment officials say that initial contacts in this direction have already been made in recent months, and that there is a good chance that America will be swayed by the Israeli argument.``

and the profound anguish your president went through before deciding to liberate iraqis:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html

``F___ Saddam. We`re taking him out.`` Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America`s Middle East allies. Bush wasn`t interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.``

tahmed #22

to make things more clear, i should have said that the good general will never support it, as he knows his turn could easily come next based on the principle of ridding a country of dictators... the same would probably be true of most of the dictators i.e. most of the Muslim world...

#20 by stuka:


thank you friend for bringing this up here…here are my unequivocal thoughts on this:


I abhor and condemn the murderers…you know my views and have repeated it on many occasions in the past here…loss of even one life in these extra-judicial scenarios is senseless, counter-productive and must be condemned…my prayers for the dead and those left behind to mourn…

(a cautionary note: yes we know the perpetrators are not found or tried and depending on whom you listen to they could be from here, there, or there and here)

…I think I am in a vocal minority (from over there)…who vehemently opposes such extra-judicial acts…and recently the more I think the more convinced I become that isi is beyond the control of this government…they are a power unto themselves…even though by charter they are supposed to take their orders from the government…

now…more than ever…concerned Pakistanis have to think deeply to rid their country of the occupying army and its jayaz or na-jayaz aulad isi…

rgds,

t

Romair #15 So much anger over use of the term ``targetted bombing``! Tsk! Tsk!
On the avoidance of civilian casualties: Glad to know you army boys were so thoughtful as to risk your own lives avoiding civilian casualties. Of course, there were some unavoidable accidents, like the few thousand Bengali women who accidentally were raped in 1971 (no doubt they seduced our innocent boys), the Bengali students and teachers who were killed at Dacca University (no doubt they deliberately came in the line of fire). And somehow none of these could be brought to trial, bringing great honor to the entire nation. And need I mention the proxy wars with in Kashmir where we fight like real men (i.e. we send those half-brained mullahs to go and kill civilians in Kashmir). The entire nation stands in awe at these modern day Salahuddin Ayubis, the knights of chivalry and honor.
Maybe we ought to send these Yanks over to Pakistan to attend ethics classes and learn honor from General ``Tiger`` Niazi and ``Whipping`` Zia. (I wont discuss the Indian Army which you say also has risked its lives to avoid civilian casualties, although I do remember my brother telling me of the civilian railway shed near Lahore that was hit by a bomb from an Indian plane and he and his fellow medical types spent the next few days trying to put the body parts of these civilian humpty dumpties together again.)
Second: On targetted bombing. By this I mean the targetting of bombs with the help of Global Positioning Satellites that have rendered even the laser guided bombing (since these are more accurate and are not blinded by smoke) of the first gulf war out of date. Nothing to do with ethics or politics as you seem to think. Only technology.

ally #18 Does one have a different set of principles for one`s own country than one does for another person`s country? If replacement of dictatorships with democracies is good, then it is good not only for Iraq but for Pakistan as well. Of course, our generals are a lot smarter, and know when to step aside or step down or share power and so forth. Saddam only understands something when he is hit on the head with it.

ferozk #11 You are correct in pointing to (a) the deaths and destruction caused by war, any war; and (b) the damage done to international institutions (UN in particular) by this war.
These are of course the basic objections to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action. I think Bush is sincere in his formulation of this doctrine for the following reasons:
(a) In Texas, he was a strong ``law and order`` governor. This emphasis on law and order I think is rooted deep in US history: the Wild West was tamed by gun-toting sherrifs; waves of immigrants from time to time introduced gangs (e.g. the irish gangs on the 19th century, the mafia in the 1930`s), and the US took pre-emptive action that in many ways was not dissimilar to the approach taken to the war against terror (e.g. the shoot-out in Chicago that ended the dominance of the mafia in that town once and for all).
(b) the massive destruction and deaths caused on 9/11 was clearly a pre-emptive attack by terrorists on the US.
One may argue about the mishandling of the UN process, and throw in the additional motivation of trying to end the mid-east dispute once and for all by placing a strong US presence and a pro-US Iraq in the area. (The oil argument, most often presented on chowk, is probably the flimsiest one and reflects little understanding of the economic situation).
Based on the above, I think Bush tends to get a bad rap. In particular, given the lax manner in which law and order is treated in Pakistan (and the resulting misery caused to people in Karachi and other places), I think we should perhaps appreciate rather than ignore this emphasis on law and order in the US.
At least these are my deep thoughts on the subject. :-)

tahmad #8: ``the facts of the targetted bombing in Iraq (a totally different ball game),``

One always hears this comment about US bombings by certain Americans, not to mention the odd Pakistani-American.

Armament nowdays is infinitely more powerful than in WWII, hence bombing today is far more devastating.

Could I ask you your sources that suggest targetted bombings by the USA? Could I also ask you to explain the term, ``targetted`` bombings? Also, are you aware of the tactics, armaments, flight profiles, types of bombs and their accuracy ratios, etc. that are used by the USAF? Similarly, are you aware of the number of people that are actually killed by these bombings (for example in the last Gulf War, 100,000 to 200,000 is the direct estimate given)? Do you consider this targetted? This number is larger than the combined people (Indian and Pakistanis) killed in all the Indo-Pak wars. It is also near the figure of all the Americans killed in WWII.

And considering the fact that the primary aim of all such wars carried out by the USA is to minimize losses of its own soldiers (stated by US public opinion poles), how exactly can that be done while doing targeting bombings? Targetted bombings will lead to exactly the opposite, i.e. more US pilots and ground troops deaths, not less.

When India and Pakistan fought military battles (not civilian ones like Kashmir, Bangladesh etc.), to the best of my knowledge, they only targeted military installations. They did not bomb Lahore, Pindi, Delhi and Agra. Infact, I lived smack in the middle of a military station in Pakistan. And I remember Indian planes coming in and targeting only the runway and aircraft hangers - not even the housing inside the military stations. The Pakistani cities and even the housing areas of Pakistani military bases have survived two wars, almost unscratched.

All the Pakistani pilots I have talked to (perhaps NazarHayatKhan can provide more detailed info) have told me that they (and the Indians) went out of their way to avoid civilian targets, even risking their own lives.

Teh above is targetted bombing. This too, in a situation where neither country had air superiority and hence the pilots were under threat, and thus it was difficult to do targetted bombing. The US has complete air superiority in its wars. To the extent that their isn`t a single plane to challenge them in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Yet it bombs cities.

What is the need to bomb cities in Iraq, like Baghdad. Why not just bomb military installations? The reason is that the US needs to cripple the other country`s infrastructure to such a degree that when the ground invasion is done, not a single US soldier is killed. To do this, it has to wipe out the electrical, water, sanitation, industrial etc. complete structures of the whole country. It also has to do so without getting a single one of its pilots killed by anti-aircraft guns.

In the process, the civilian infrastructure is decimated also. The pilots do not come in low-level to target their bombs. They rely completely on technology from mid to high altitudes (some aircraft like B-52 cannot even do targetted low level bombings). Any bomber pilot (and I know quite a few Pakistani and American ones) will tell you that even if (a big if) the pilot tries his best, in such high intensity mid to high level bombings on targets in densely populated cities (which are far more difficult to target than runways etc.) a great deal of inaccuracies will occur.

The US armament intensity is extremely high. In the last Gulf War, it flew over Iand bombed Iraq for seven hours straight on many occassions. Was this for seven hours of targetted bombings? This cannot even be compared to WWII. Infact, even in Vietnam War the US dropped greater tonnage of bombs around Khe Sahn alone, in three months than it had dropped on Japan during all of WWII.

If you have detailed information (not of the CNN variety) proving that the US actually indulges in targetting bombing (which is the opposite of worrying about US casualities) then kindly provide the information. Otherwise, I fail to understand the point of justifying attacks on civilians without even taking the trouble to do some research.

When one assumes someone to be extremely perfect, one suggests that even, ``Their sh*t doesn`t stink.`` From your argument, in case of the USA, even when it decides to bomb other countries which have in no way threatened it, even, ``US bombs don`t kill civilians.``

In my opinion, anyone who actually believes that the US bombing strategy is to minimize civilian casualities, when it is actually to minimize US air and groud troops deaths, even if it leads to more civilian deaths (one can do one or the other - not both), is arguing along the same lines as those who say that Jews carried out the WTC attacks. Such people are in a state of denial.

This kind of support for the USA is no different than the hero-worshippers of OBL, i.e. their conviction about a leader or concept or (misguided) cause is so strong that they are even willing to justify or attempt to minimize the numbers of the deaths of civilians. There should be a limit to hero-worship. I knew there were people who thought, OBLs` sh*t doesn`t stink. I am amazed to find out so many who think the same about Bush.

semipreciousme #12 Agreed fully.
I dont think any democracy likes to go to war if it can avoid it, given that most people see things the same way you do, and thus try to avoid bloodshed, and thus demonstrate on the streets and otherwise try to pressure their representatives (as is happening in the US). Dictators on the other hand dont mind war: typically, these are ruthless men who live by the sword and die by the sword. It is for this reason that they say that democracies never fight one another. They only fight dictatorships, either in defense or pre-emptively (as I discuss in my post to ferozk).
Let us pray for the day there is democracy all over the world, particularly among muslim countries. I suspect we will then find peace in the middle east (and of course the Israelis would also need to revert to the mindset of people like Ben-Gurion, who sought accomodation with the Arabs, for this to happen).

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, they also stated it was to liberate the country and to remove a bad leader (of course the actual cause was different). That set into motion a cycle of, ``liberations`` and bombings, that have ruined the country. The same is going to happen to Iraq.

There is only one long term way to remove a dictator, and that is through a popular internal revolt, i.e. one carried out by the people thorugh direct street power, or through their own military (not US military) etc. Those who think this is not possible, need to look at Iran, Indonesia and Phillipines (not to mention Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif). The Shah, Suharto and Marcos were removed by the people. The same would happen in Iraq eventually, if the people weren`t starved by sanctions.

The future of Iraq is going to be along the lines of Afghanistan - not the lines of Iran, Indonesia and Phillipines. This decline has already started since 1991. Iraq, a country Pakistanis used to migrate to (even when Saddam was ruling), is now a basketcase. This is due to Saddam and due to the USA. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge both parties` faults is being biased.

Whenever the US interests in Iraq are contradictory to Iraqis` in Iraq, the US will always support its own interests. Thus, I am thus convinced that the more the USA gets involved in Iraq, the more it will screw up the country - much like what the Soviets (and Americans - not to mention Pakistan, Iran, India etc.) did in Afghanistan. The ultimate sufferers are the people of Iraq.

Interestingly, Shah, Suharot and Marcos were strong US allies, when they were overthrown by their people.

Bina

very nice piece... thank you

tahmed #8

Both the Turks and the Pakistanis would have been far better off if their respective governments had whole-heartedly supported this war which (whatever the polticis behind it) is undoubtedly has the very positive result of getting rid of a cruel dictator and giving the Iraqis a chance to be a free and normal country again.

hmmm, Musharraf may not be cruel (publicly that we know about) but most def is a dictator... remember what goes around comes around...

``The bombardment of Baghdad, broadcast live on German television, has brought back harrowing memories for many elderly Berliners who survived the horrific siege of their city during World War Two. ``

Wow!! Does the smell of freshly baked bread remind them of the ovens of Sobibor and Dachau?

PMishra:

``Indian Police Say 24 Hindus Killed in Kashmir
By REUTERS


Filed at 9:41 a.m. ET

NADI MARG, India (Reuters) - Suspected Muslim militants shot dead 24 Hindus in Indian Kashmir, including a two-year-old and a four-year-old girl, in a raid which could stoke fresh tension with neighboring Pakistan.

Police and witnesses said militants wearing army fatigues lined up and shot the victims, who included 11 men and 11 women, on Sunday night after ordering them out of their homes in the remote village of Nadi Marg.``


Habe you not understood this basic fact yet? Some victims are more innocent than others. The victims to American weapons are especially more innocent than others.

Pakistanis will not write poems for Hindu dead; vice versa Indians for Pakistan (let us be honest here)

But both Indians and Pakistanis retain their sense of humanity for Iraqis, even if the killing is unintentional, and humanitarian aid follows. Those victims are especially poignant and articles and poems are written. If this is not a double standard, what is?

Bina just when i thought i couldnt get any sadder :((...the `shock and awe` bombing/attack will be the cause of nightmares for a long long time....never thought i could be a casualty in war...but who`s to say it`s not going to happen to us next??

woh marein tu breaking news...hum marein tu casualty....

that`s not the kind of world i was born in....:(

take care,
samina

Re: Tahmed32 # 8

No one is denying the evil associated with Saddam Hussein and the need to remove him from power. Popular sentiments aside, the end result of this war may end up proving the naysayers wrong, but between then and now, people will die and devastations will insue. In a cold clinical sense, this war can be justified and not by its intentions, but whether the end of this war; its results and consequences will balance out with the reasons for its begining.

Unfortunately, that does not offer even a glimpse of a reason for rationalizing this war. The end of this war and its intended results might be, and can be, lauded, but the recourse to this war and the methodology, which propelled it, can never be justified. What this war and its logic suggests is that power flows from the barrel of a gun and might is right and pre-emption is forgiven as long as the winner decides the verdict over the loser. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein does not balance out the price and the costs of this war, because if the intention is to replace evil with anarchy, then the end results will be more harmful than all the noble intentions put together justifying this war.

My friend, getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not a concern and it should not be used as the dejure reason for waging this war, but what is of concern is that this war has shattered the regime of international law, which had governed inter-state relations, in one form or another, since the last 350 years. What is of concern is that the old sytem of international balance of power has been destoryed, and yet there is nothing to replace it. Is the collective of the international opinion going to be replaced by the law of an anarchic philosophy? International balance of power, despite its flaws, was a mechanism of deterrance, which caused the states to ponder the consequences of their actions and worked on the principle of reward and punishment. Those states that tried to subvert it for their own interests and challenged its rationale of status quo ante, were considered as a threat and those that supported its intentions, were rewarded. Now, sadly, there is no sense of accountablity in international affairs and there is no dread of deviant behavior, and hence, there is nothing to prevent national egocentric interests from assuming the proportions of a rogue behavior in international relations.

In other words, yes; international law is akin to a forest and it does offer protection to those who are evil, but it makes no sense, at all, to cut down all the trees in order to expose that evil, because when the winds of anarchy blow, no one will be able to shelter against its howling and will be swept away by its force. The sancity of laws works not only when its intentions are upheld, but when it is implemented in a non-arbitary manner without prejudice.

Depsite the reasonableness of getting of Saddam Hussein and ending his reign of evil, it does not justify this war - it does not make sense to decapitate the head in order to get rid of a headache!

Ciao

....tahmedsaab....bombing is bombing....carpet or otherwise....going beyong the facts, yes....but that still doesn`t lesson the terror and fear...or the horrors of war...

Put very poignantly.

Satire

Re: Bina

Yaar, I did not expect anything else from you; articulate and sensitive response of a conscience grieved by the insanity of the moment.

Best wishes, as always

Ciao

semipreciousme: By reporting the impressions of carpet bombing from 50 years ago of old people sitting in Germany with memories going back to what happened to them in WWII (and of course forgetting what their Nazi government did to other people), and presenting these as being in any way a substitute for reporting on the facts of the targetted bombing in Iraq (a totally different ball game), Dawn has displayed not just poor journalism in this case (even though it is generally reasoably objective), it has also done a disservice to the Pakistani public.
People have the right to be told the facts, and a responsibility of interpreting the facts as objectively as they can. Lacking that, they end up taking unrealistic view of the world and as a result often end up suffering themselves in the long run. Both the Turks and the Pakistanis would have been far better off if their respective governments had whole-heartedly supported this war which (whatever the polticis behind it) is undoubtedly has the very positive result of getting rid of a cruel dictator and giving the Iraqis a chance to be a free and normal country again.

The Americans should have simply gotten the occupied territories freed by the Israel and lived happily after as a benign Super power.

And gone after the terrorist nuts with full throttle.

But they have messed it up and fallen into a neat trap set by the Israel.

Now it is all open and everything is for grabs for anyone who is powerful.

I am in charge of American oil policy making,
And you know I already own the Saudi king,
So here`s my new goal,
To dump Saddam into a hole,
And as for Baghdad, Aramco will sing!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

When will we start taking out friends and family of the pakistani leadership and mullahs? How long is this going to go on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/international/asia/24KASH.html

Kashmiri Militant Who Sought Dialogue Is Killed

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-kashmir.html

Indian Police Say 24 Hindus Killed in Kashmir

http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/23/int7.htm



Berliners relive WW2 nightmares after Baghdad bombing




BERLIN, March 22: The bombardment of Baghdad, broadcast live on German television, has brought back harrowing memories for many elderly Berliners who survived the horrific siege of their city during World War Two.

Tears welled in the eyes of dozens interviewed on Saturday as they remembered the Allied aerial bombing which destroyed much of the German capital.

``It`s all coming back again - the nightmares, the bombs, the fires and the dead bodies everywhere,`` said Helga vom Bauer, 75, shaken by images of explosions in Baghdad. ``I couldn`t sleep. The fears are back. I feel so sad and helpless again,`` she told Reuters.

Emile Wilner, a retired electrician, broke down and cried when he saw the flickering TV pictures of Baghdad burning.

``The tears came and I just couldn`t stop crying,`` said Wilner, 68. ``My heart goes out to the poor people in Baghdad. I can`t stop thinking about them. My heart and head feel so heavy today. It`s so uncivilised. It`s so barbaric.`` Iraqi ministers said three people had been killed and 207 wounded in the overnight attack.

More than 500,000 Berlin civilians were killed during World War Two. The city was pummelled by four years of American and British bombing before the Soviet army battered it with artillery at the war`s end.

More than 18 square kilometres of buildings were reduced to rubble and a half a million homes destroyed. Only five percent of the buildings survived intact. Fires caused by attacks burned nearly every night in the final years of the war.

``These revolting television pictures make me sick,`` said Brigitte Berg, 72. ``This war is just so wrong. Innocent people are being killed by these bombs, just like 60 years ago.``

There are many visible reminders of the battles in Berlin. Bullet holes still scar buildings and the ruins of the Kaiser Wilhelm memorial church damaged by Allied bombs were preserved in the city centre as a haunting memorial.

Unexploded bombs and shells are still buried in Berlin. Massive piles made from the 80 million cubic metres of buried rubble rise up hundreds of metres, giving the otherwise flat city hills high enough to ski down in winter.

``I couldn`t bear to watch anymore,`` said Elise Stalder, 88, of Friday`s US-led bombing of Baghdad. ``It upset me too much,`` she said, tears running down her cheeks.

Eva Moeller, 72, said US President George W. Bush was right to fight to remove a dictator, but she hoped the US bombs really were as accurate as promised.

``I feel sorry for the poor ordinary people there,`` said Moeller, who spent hundreds of frightening nights in Berlin bomb shelters. ``It`s horrible when the bombs are falling on you. But I think this is the only way to get rid of a dictator.``

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went out of his way at a news briefing in Washington to say there was no way the precision bombs hitting Iraq could be compared to the bombs of World War Two.

``The weapons that are being used today have a degree of precision that no one every dreamt of in a prior conflict. They didn`t exist...`` he said. But a 75-year-old man named Gerhard, loath to reveal his surname because he deserted his anti-aircraft post as a teenager near the end of the war and evaded Soviet captors, said he didn`t believe that only military targets were being hit.

``Innocent people in Baghdad are suffering like we did,`` he said. ``This misery is being caused because Bush and the other war-mongers never were in combat themselves. They never had bombs falling on them or saw people next to them killed.``

`CHILLING IMAGES: Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, widely regarded as the most pro-American member of the cabinet, on Friday said the images of bombs striking Iraq were ``chilling`` and urged Washington to help rebuild the country properly to avoid a backlash.

Manley`s comments were the first by a Canadian federal government minister since the start of a massive U.S. bombing campaign against Baghdad and other Iraqi targets.

``It`s chilling. It`s unimaginable what it must be like to be there, to be in your home and see and hear the force of that attack and to feel the helplessness that must be felt by ordinary citizens of Iraq. One can only hope it doesn`t last very long until peace returns,`` he told CBC television.

The United States is Canada`s most important ally but Ottawa has not committed troops to the war. Many legislators from the ruling Liberal Party are deeply unhappy with Washington`s decision to attack Iraq.

Canadian business executives are increasingly worried that the lucrative trade relationship between the two countries could be hurt if the criticisms do not stop.-AFP/Reuters

Good work

Taqdeer key kazi ka yeh Fatwa hai Azal se
Hai Jurm -i Zagheefi ki sazza Marg i Mufajjat