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