http://www.sundayherald.com/32524

Sunday Herald

Blair hints Iraq to blame for Baghdad market carnage

By James Cusick, Westminster Editor

TONY Blair's press spokesman has strongly implied that Iraqi 'friendly fire' by its surface-to-air missiles killed nearly 70 Iraqi civilians in two Baghdad marketplaces last week.

Intelligence given to Blair suggested Iraqi missiles had been launched but had fallen back onto the city.

It was also suggested that teams of civil defence workers were sent into the bomb sites to 'sanitise' the chaos before journalists were allowed in.

In an intelligence briefing given to Blair yesterday morning -- the contents of which were later des cribed by his official spokesman, Godric Smith -- Blair was told that Saddam Hussein had sacked his cousin Musahim Saab al-Tikriti as commander of Iraq's air defence force. The reason given for the dismissal was the 'non-performance' of air defences, especially in Baghdad.

The PM's spokesman said: 'The judgement on this relevant intelligence should not be taken lightly.'

Without stating the Iraqi regime was accidentally bombing its own people and trying to cover it up, Downing Street said 'people should exercise scepticism when deciding to accept the version of events from a regime where truth matters little.'

In Baghdad yesterday, where Smith's opposite number was attempting to achieve much the same influence on events, the language was less diplomatic.

Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf branded the US and British forces 'an international gang of criminal bastards' and 'ignorant imperialists, losers and fools'. He talked of consulting international Arab law professors over the possibility of suing US President George W Bush and Blair. He said the latest Cruise missiles attacks on the Information Ministry were aimed at stopping broadcasts of Iraqi civilians killed by coalition bombs.

As he spoke, pictures of the carnage in the city's al-Nasser market in the Shula district were being broadcast. Children were shown in agony on hospital beds, the corridors packed with grieving relatives. It is thought that around 60 people had been killed, with the death toll still expected to rise. Iraq claims the market was hit by a Cruise missile late on Friday night. The area is a poor part of western Baghdad mostly inhabited by Shia Muslims. The coalition forces expect that if there is an anti-Saddam uprising the Shi'ites will start it.

Five days ago, 14 people died when a missile hit the Shaab district of northern Baghdad. US commanders then maintained that their records -- which are being examined -- show the bombing could have been caused by an errant Iraqi anti-aircraft missile. US commanders also insisted the Shaab bombing may have been a deliberate act by the Iraqi regime.

Downing Street yesterday, talking about the al-Nasser market bombing, said 'utmost care' had been taken to avoid civilian targets and that the coalition forces had 'not targeted the market place'.

**********************************************************

Now that you have read this above piece of bullshit, check out Robert Fisk's first hand eyewitness report on the missile that hit the market, and which fundamentally contradicts the lies peddled by Phony Blair, British intelligence agencies, and the English government:


http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=392161

In Baghdad, blood and bandages for the innocent
By Robert Fisk in the Baghdad suburb of Shu'ale
30 March 2003


The piece of metal is only a foot high, but the numbers on it hold the clue to the latest atrocity in Baghdad.

At least 62 civilians had died by yesterday afternoon, and the coding on that hunk of metal contains the identity of the culprit. The Americans and British were doing their best yesterday to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile destroyed those dozens of lives, adding that they were "still investigating" the carnage. But the coding is in Western style, not in Arabic. And many of the survivors heard the plane.

In the Al-Noor hospital yesterday morning, there were appalling scenes of pain and suffering. A two-year-old girl, Saida Jaffar, swaddled in bandages, a tube into her nose, another into her stomach. All I could see of her was her forehead, two small eyes and a chin. Beside her, blood and flies covered a heap of old bandages and swabs. Not far away, lying on a dirty bed, was three-year-old Mohamed Amaid, his face, stomach, hands and feet all tied tightly in bandages. A great black mass of congealed blood lay at the bottom of his bed.

This is a hospital without computers, with only the most primitive of X-ray machines. But the missile was guided by computers and that vital shard of fuselage was computer-coded. It can be easily verified and checked by the Americans--if they choose to do so. It reads: 30003-704ASB 7492. The letter "B" is scratched and could be an "H". This is believed to be the serial number. It is followed by a further code which arms manufacturers usually refer to as the weapon's "Lot" number. It reads: MFR 96214 09.

The piece of metal bearing the codings was retrieved only minutes after the missile exploded on Friday evening, by an old man whose home is only 100 yards from the 6ft crater. Even the Iraqi authorities do not know that it exists. The missile sprayed hunks of metal through the crowds--mainly women and children--and through the cheap brick walls of local homes, amputating limbs and heads. Three brothers, the eldest 21 and the youngest 12, for example, were cut down inside the living room of their brick hut on the main road opposite the market. Two doors away, two sisters were killed in an identical manner. "We have never seen anything like these wounds before," Dr Ahmed, an anaesthetist at the Al-Noor hospital told me later. "These people have been punctured by dozens of bits of metal." He was right. One old man I visited in a hospital ward had 24 holes in the back of his legs and buttocks, some as big as pound coins. An X-ray photograph handed to me by one of his doctors clearly showed at least 35 slivers of metal still embedded in his body

Like the Sha'ab highway massacre on Thursday--when at least 21 Iraqi civilians were killed or burned to death by two missiles fired by an American jet--Shu'ale is a poor, Shia Muslim neighbourhood of single-storey corrugated iron and cement food stores and two-room brick homes. These are the very people whom Messrs Bush and Blair expected to rise in insurrection against Saddam. But the anger in the slums was directed at the Americans and British yesterday, by old women and bereaved fathers and brothers who spoke without hesitation--and without the presence of the otherwise ubiquitous government "minders".

"This is a crime," a woman muttered at me angrily. "Yes, I know they say they are targeting the military. But can you see soldiers here? Can you see missiles?" The answer has to be in the negative. A few journalists did report seeing a Scud missile on a transporter near the Sha'ab area on Thursday and there were anti-aircraft guns around Shu'ale. At one point yesterday morning, I heard an American jet race over the scene of the massacre and just caught sight of a ground-to-air missile that was vainly chasing it, its contrail soaring over the slum houses in the dark blue sky. An anti-aircraft battery--manufactured circa 1942 --also began firing into the air a few blocks away. But even if the Iraqis do position or move their munitions close to the suburbs, does that justify the Americans firing into those packed civilian neighbourhoods, into areas which they know contain crowded main roads and markets--and during the hours of daylight?

Last week's attack on the Sha'ab highway was carried out on a main road at midday during a sandstorm--when dozens of civilians are bound to be killed, whatever the pilot thought he was aiming at. "I had five sons and now I have only two--and how do I know that even they will survive?" a bespectacled middle-aged man said in the bare concrete back room of his home yesterday. "One of my boys was hit in the kidneys and heart. His chest was full of shrapnel; it came right through the windows. Now all I can say is that I am sad that I am alive." A neighbour interrupted to say that he saw the plane with his own eyes. "I saw the side of the aircraft and I noticed it changed course after it fired the missile."

Plane-spotting has become an all-embracing part of life in Baghdad. And to the reader who thoughtfully asked last week if I could see with my own eyes the American aircraft over the city, I have to say that in at least 65 raids by aircraft, I have not-- despite my tiger-like eyes--actually seen one plane. I hear them, especially at night, but they are flying at supersonic speed; during the day, they are usually above the clouds of black smoke that wash over the city. I have, just once, spotted a cruise missile--the cruise or Tomahawk rockets fly at only around 400mph--and I saw it passing down a boulevard towards the Tigris river. But the grey smoke that shoots out of the city like the fingers of a dead hand is unmistakeable, along with the concussion of sound. And--when they can be found--the computer codings on the bomb fragments reveal their own story. As the codes on the Shu'ale missile surely must.

All morning yesterday, the Americans were at it again, blasting away at targets on the perimeter of Baghdad--where the outer defences of the city are being dug by Iraqi troops-- and in the centre. An air-fired rocket exploded on the roof of the Iraqi Ministry of Information, destroying a clutch of satellite dishes. One office building from which I was watching the bombardment literally swayed for several seconds during one long raid. Even in the Al-Noor hospital, the walls were shaking yesterday as the survivors of the market slaughter struggled for survival.

Hussein Mnati is 52 and just stared at me--his face pitted with metal fragments--as bombs blasted the city. A 20-year-old man was sitting up in the next bed, the blood-soaked stump of his left arm plastered over with bandages. Only 12 hours ago, he had a left arm, a left hand, fingers. Now he blankly recorded his memories. "I was in the market and I didn't feel anything," he told me. "The rocket came and I was to the right of it and then an ambulance took me to hospital."

Whether or not his amputation was dulled by painkillers, he wanted to talk. When I asked him his name, he sat upright in bed and shouted at me: "My name is Saddam Hussein Jassem."

*********************************************************

Another good link on this issue:

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=306245&group=webcast

Robert Fisk is HARDLY an example of objective reporting. Complete conspiracy theory nonsense. Do a search and read ANYTHING by him. He's a vanity reporter.

...when was the last time you saw him on Faux News?

My, you're more of a lapdog than I thought. Not very good at hearing criticism of your idols are you. Simply check out his website and read some of his "work". Now if you can't see an OVERWHELMING bias then you're either stupid or lying. You have two options. Now get to work.

fresca, what does objective mean to you? Do the phrases 'friendly fire' or 'colateral damage' seem objective to you? Or are they mere branding examples of a dehumanized propaganda machine that is out of control?

Blair is the person who willl no doubt 'try again' to mollify civilian death as necessary. The propping up of the system of death which bush envisions as life in a theocratic, racist America in control of the world is the conspriacy, and even though he and you refuse to admit the truth it is the fallacy of capitalist hegemony.

But until humanity's strange mutations (or perhaps it is a flaw in quality), like yourself and the republicrat lemmings, realize that one small shallow gas station attendent who thinks he is 'leader of the free world' cannot rule all the planet then you sentence us all to mindless war and destruction. And all become victims when bombs fall on a marketplace where mothers are pushing children in strollers, and lovers stealing hidden glances at one another, and old men are thinking vaguely poetic thoughts while sipping mint tea. And the bombs were made here, profited off by arms merchants who then play golf and drive SUVs and deny that 9/10s of humanity is the same as themselves, has the same needs, has the same wants and the same cares.Remember that truth is the first casualty in war and that the mill of lies in the Pentagon is spinning 24 hrs a day.

But perhaps you like being lied to. Stranger things have happened. It is not conspiracy on the part of reporters but a willful blindness on your part, and a monkey see monkey do attitude which the right wing so readily embraces.

Let me spell it out for you if you'll listen. First, read my post. At no point did I suggest that Tony Blair or ANY spokesman for him or Bush or Chirac or etc.... are to be trusted implicitly. All I'm saying is that posting an article by someone obviously prejudiced (for whatever reason) and implying that its any more credible than Fox news is nonsense. I would never post a report from Fox or CNN or even Radio Pacifica, for that matter, and claim it to be the last word on the subject. However, the original poster of Fisk's article did. Fisk is simply another biased oppinion in this sea of half-truths.

...other than PsyOps code words like "Conspiracy Theory" what specifically do you dispute in Robert Fisk's article?

That is do you have any objection other than "I don't like Robert Fisk"?

You love trying to pose dilemma's based on false premises - just once why don't you make a substantive rebuttal?

You are absolutely wrong. What do I dispute in Fisk's article? Nothing. What I dispute is that he is some sort of be all end all conduit for truth as obviously the poster seems to think. Again, read his work, check out his site and tell me he's any more objective then FOX, Blair or Fleischer. He's not.
I'm posing no "dilemma" at all much less one based on false premises.
And please spare me the nonsense about you requiring a more substantitive rebuttal. The fact that you think my post was about my not liking Fisk shows that you don't understand it anyway, so of course it seems unsubstantive. That's your problem my friend. I don't have time to walk you through every post.
To recap: Fisk is biased and, at best, a source of an alternative opinion and should not be quoted as fact. Neither should the voices of our leaders or their news conduits. Simple enough for you?

I could not defend Frisk because I do not know the gentleman, but by dismissing him w/o any evidence whatsoever you IMPLY that all non-corporate media is false. As I am sure that you aware their are many, many examples of lies emanating from the corporate media (e.g. Saddam and Usam are connected; aluminum tubes = death weapon construction; America is a law abiding, treaty respecting moral nation, global warming is stilll not conclusive, Frankenstien foods are healthy; depleted uranium is a valid weapon to use against people; etc....I could obviousy continue...)

So stop with the juvenile quips and present your evidence why Frisk is a liar, or go sabotage some other meeting of intelligent peace-affirming minds.

Please, Robert Frisk has put his neck out on the line more than any of the corporate journalist whores from all
of the US media put together. I have more confidence in his candid reporting than in the whole staff of CNN.
Where were these spineless military mouthpieces when Fisk was dealing with the violent trauma of Afghani refugees on the Pakistani border?

I've got your "spine" right here, you head queen.

wow
sound grunts.
head queen
wow

This is the last time I'll spell this out for you. I never called Fisk a liar. I merely said that to consider him any more honest and reliable than any other news outlet is foolish. I'm sure Fisk is a fine man and very noble, but he's as slanted as the next. the London Independant is the Fox news of Englands' left. Same people, same bias, different sides. Now please, understand before you post.

I get all of my "news" from Fox. Whatever they report is the gospel truth. Besides, they always have a pretty flag graphic somewhere on the screen, so they must independent.

Time to change somebody's diapers!