'No Great Way To Die' - But The Generals Love Napalm

[Guest guest]

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:02:10 UT

" Medialens Media Alerts " <noreply

 

 

'No Great Way To Die' - But The Generals Love Napalm

 

 

 

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

 

March 30, 2005

 

 

MEDIA ALERT: " NO GREAT WAY TO DIE " - BUT THE GENERALS LOVE NAPALM

 

Exchange With the BBC's Director of News

 

 

" These are the stories that will continue to emerge from the rubble of

Fallujah for years. No, for generations... "

(Dahr Jamail, independent reporter in Iraq)

 

 

Heavily Conditioned Sensitivity

 

Traditionally, Western journalists give massive emphasis to acts of

violence committed by official enemies of the West, while lightly passing

over Western responsibility for often far more extreme violence. As

Robert Fisk has noted:

 

" The atrocities of yesterday - the Beslan school massacre, the Bali

bombings, the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001, the gassings

of Halabja - can still fill us with horror and pity, although that

sensitivity is heavily conditioned by the nature of the perpetrators.

In an

age where war has become a policy option rather than a last resort,

where its legitimacy rather than its morality can be summed up on a sheet

of A4 paper, we prefer to concentrate on the suffering caused by 'them'

rather than 'us'. " (Fisk, 'When weeping for religious martyrs leads to

the crucifixion of innocents', The Independent, 26 March, 2005)

 

By contrast, the journalist Dahr Jamail recently interviewed an Iraqi

doctor from Fallujah who describes atrocities committed by US forces

during their assault on that city last November. The doctor, now a

refugee

in Jordan and speaking on condition of anonymity, insists his testimony

is backed up by video and photographic evidence.

 

According to the doctor, during the second week of their attack US

forces " announced that all the families [had] to leave their homes and

meet

at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave

them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an

enemy. We documented this story with video - a family of 12, including a

relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this

instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could

carry, and

white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were

accumulating, they heard someone shouting 'Now!' in English, and

shooting started everywhere. " (Jamail, 'Stories from Fallujah', 8

February,

2005, http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000196.php)

 

A surviving eyewitness told the doctor everyone in the family was

carrying white flags, as instructed. Nevertheless, the witness watched as

his mother was shot in the head and his father was shot through the heart

by snipers. His two aunts were also shot, and his brother was shot in

the neck. The survivor stated that when he raised himself from the

ground to shout for help, he too was shot in the side. The doctor

continued:

" After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm. So

after a while he raised his hand and they shot his hand. "

 

A six year-old boy was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying,

and he too was shot.

 

" Anyone who raised up was shot, " the doctor said, adding that he had

photographs of the dead and also of survivors' gunshot wounds.

 

Grisly Accounts - A Few Questions For The BBC

 

On 15th February, Media Lens contacted the BBC's director of news,

Helen Boaden, and asked whether the BBC was investigating these specific

allegations of US atrocities. Her response came via a BBC spokesperson:

 

" The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC

programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case. " (Email

from BBC Press Office, 23 February, 2005)

 

In a follow-up query sent on February 25, we asked which BBC programmes

had addressed the conduct of " coalition " forces in Fallujah, including

the above evidence of war crimes. Our email was ignored.

 

Meanwhile, further evidence of US war crimes continued to emerge.

Aljazeera reported on March 3:

 

" Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said

that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its

deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah. "

 

The official reported evidence that US forces had " used... substances,

including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their

attacks in the war-torn city. "

 

Fallujah residents described how they had seen " melted " bodies in the

city, indicative of usage of napalm, a lethal cocktail of polystyrene

and jet fuel that incinerates the human body. ('US used banned weapons in

Fallujah - Health ministry', 3 March, 2005,

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service\

_id=7216)

 

Claims are one thing, but can these allegations be corroborated?

American documentary film-maker Mark Manning recently returned from

Fallujah

after delivering medical supplies to refugees. Manning was able to

secretly conduct 25 hours of videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqi

eyewitnesses - men, women and children who had experienced the assault on

Fallujah first-hand. In an interview with a local newspaper in the

United States, Manning recounted how he:

 

" ... was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their

sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American

soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by

both

American and Iraqi troops. Manning said he heard numerous reports of the

second siege of Falluja that described American forces deploying - in

violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons,

phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted

uranium. Use

of any of these against civilians is a violation of international

law. " (Nick Welsh, 'Diving into Fallujah " , Santa Barbara Independent, 17

March, 2005, http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover956.htm)

 

We pressed Boaden to explain why the BBC news had devoted so little

attention to these repeated allegations of US atrocities, or to the

evidence of the use of banned weapons in Fallujah. Boaden responded:

 

Dear David Cromwell,

 

Thank you for your latest e-mails to me and my colleagues. Our bureau

in Baghdad and our defence correspondent are aware of the particular

claims to which you refer. Naturally, independent verification of these

reports is vital - and, as you know, our movements within Iraq are

severely restricted for security reasons. However, Fallujah is an ongoing

issue and our team in Baghdad are constantly talking to contacts about

what happened there and are assessing all the information they receive.

Our World Current Affairs teams are also looking into a range of related

issues.

 

Regarding the allegation that the Americans used internationally banned

weapons during the assault on Fallujah, one of our correspondents who

was an " embed " with the US troops in Fallujah said that he saw no

evidence of the use of such weapons and that there was never any

reference

made to them at the confidential pre-assault military briefings he

attended. Paul Wood also says: " The character of the fighting that I

saw was

bloody, old-fashioned clearing of houses and buildings street by

street, block by block, the kind of fighting which is done with little

more

than an M16 and a handful of grenades. It doesn't make sense to use

mustard gas, nerve agents, other chemical agents or nuclear devices -- to

quote the Al Jazeera story -- in such a small space also occupied by

your own forces.

 

The Americans certainly did possess terrifying weapons, such as 155mm

artillery, or M1 A1 Abrams tanks, and I questioned the Marines about the

use of such powerful arms in an area which might still contain

civilians. But I repeat the point made by my editors, over many weeks

of total

access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned

weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore

report their use. Of course, we keep an open mind and will always

investigate, and report, any hard evidence which comes to light.

Yours sincerely,

Helen Boaden, BBC News (Email to Media Lens, 7 March, 2005)

 

 

We replied two days later:

 

Dear Helen Boaden,

 

Many thanks for responding; it's much appreciated. I am pleased to hear

that the BBC is pursuing vigorously the mounting evidence of US

atrocities in Fallujah.

 

There are a couple of points about your response I would like you to

clarify, please. You say that the BBC had " total access to the military

operation, at all levels " . Would you please justify this claim.

 

Secondly, you have marked your response as " private, not for

publication " . What is in it that you do not want brought to public

attention?

 

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

best wishes,

David Cromwell (Email, 9 March, 2005)

 

Boaden replied:

 

Thank you for your further email. We treat correspondence as private as

a rule and have concerns about distortions arising if we are quoted out

of context. If you wish to publish our responses, please go through the

BBC's press office.

 

In response to your query, Paul Wood says that total access meant that

he was never stopped from going into any meeting he asked to go into.

He was embedded at battalion level but , for instance, he did show up

several times (and film) at the colonel's morning meeting with senior

staff, where orders were given out.

 

Paul says, " Most importantly, I also attended the eve of battle

briefing for the battalion, at which there were slides and folders

with " Top

Secret " stamped all over them.

 

" At this briefing, we were given exactly the same information as the

officers who were about to command the Marines in battle. We knew what

they knew. There was incredibly sensitive information, such as the latest

satellite imagery of the insurgents and the distilled " humint " or human

intelligence, such as it was, on the insurgents' movements and

strength. We were, of course, covered by the rules of the embed, which

were

particularly strict about operational security. That meant I couldn't go

on air with the battle plan before it started, or at any stage go into

details about the exact rules of engagement. Total access also meant

access on the ground, going out with individual patrols, hearing the

orders as they were given out, seeing how they were implemented. "

 

Paul Wood believes that if the US military were going to use banned

weapons the troops would have to be briefed in advance. At the

meetings he

attended there was no such briefing. Paul stresses that the point about

these kinds of banned weapons is that they do not discriminate between

friendly and enemy forces. That means you have to make sure your troops

know and you have to make sure they have the necessary NBC kit.

 

Paul says, " We would have seen the Americans in full NBC kit, much as

they were when they fought their way up to Baghdad in March 2003. That

is why I just don't think it plausible that these weapons were used. "

 

Compellingly, Paul Wood has had meetings with the relevant specialists

at Human Rights Watch, who have been very tough on the US military as

regards abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul asked them specifically

about banned weapons in Fallujah.They said they had heard the claims, had

made some [sic] investigations, and had found no evidence that such

weapons had been used. They also found the idea implausible for the

reasons Paul states above. He also says that HRW had seen no evidence of

napalm use -- nor the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons claimed

[sic] by Al Jazeera and Media Lens.

 

Yours sincerely,

Helen Boaden, BBC News (Email, 17 March, 2005)

 

Media Lens then replied:

 

Many thanks for your latest email. I appreciate your taking the time

and trouble to send it.

 

Your response does not support your earlier assertion that the BBC " had

total access to the military operation, at all levels " . I note that you

have, in fact, backed down from that claim given that you state that it

means simply that Paul Wood " was never stopped from going into any

meeting he asked to go into. " That is not at all the same thing. Also,

Wood

says that he " attended the eve of battle briefing for the battalion " .

What evidence does he have that this was the +only+ such briefing?

 

Are you aware that US marines have, in fact, already admitted that they

have used an upgraded version of napalm? (Andrew Buncombe, 'US admits

it used napalm bombs in Iraq', The Independent on Sunday, 10 August,

2003). The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was

deployed when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the

Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. As Andrew Buncombe

reported in the Independent on Sunday:

 

" We napalmed both those bridge approaches, " said Colonel James Alles,

commander of Marine Air Group 11. " Unfortunately there were people

there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi

soldiers.

It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big

psychological effect. "

 

Also, you will be aware that BBC Worldwide Monitoring has picked up

multiple media reports of US use of poisonous gas in Falluja. For

example,

this item dated 2 March in the Lexis-Nexis database:

 

" Text of report by Abd-al-Hamid Abdallah in Baghdad headlined

'Occupation forces use apple-scented poisonous gas against residents of

Al-Fallujah' carried on Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah web site on 28

February.

 

" Sources from Iraq's Association of Muslim Scholars who have recently

visited Al-Fallujah say the occupation forces used poisonous gas against

the inhabitants of the city in the last couple of days. "

 

If BBC Worldwide Monitoring is relaying such reports, why is the BBC

not ever referring to them in its news bulletins? You refer to HRW who

had " made some investigations " . How comprehensive were they? What about

the investigations and reports made by Iraqi medical staff and Dr.

Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry? Why have you

dismissed those? This would appear to contravene BBC producers'

guidelines

on balance, fairness, accuracy and impartiality.

 

Re: atrocities carried out by US forces. Are you aware of a newspaper

interview with two men from Falluja - physician Mahammad J. Haded and

Mohammad Awad, director of a refugee centre - in the German daily Junge

Welt, Week final supplement, Feb 26, 2005? Excerpt:

 

" I saw in Falluja with own eyes a family that had been shot by U.S.

soldiers: The father was in his mid-fifties, his three children between

ten and twelve years old. In the refugee camp a teacher told me she had

been preparing a meal, when soldiers stormed their dwelling in Falluja.

Without preliminary warning they shot her father, her husband and her

brother. Then they went right out. From fear the woman remained in the

house with the dead bodies. In the evening other soldiers came, who took

her and her children and brought them out of the city. Those are only

two of many tragedies in Falluja. " (International Action Center,

" Fallujah was wiped out " , http://www.iacenter.org/jc_falluja.htm)

 

Why are such tragedies given such scant coverage, if any, by BBC news?

Would you please retract your assertion that claims of nuclear,

chemical and biological weapons use have been made +by+ Media Lens.

That is

incorrect. We are asking the BBC to report such claims; an entirely

different matter.

 

I am pleased that we are able to undertake a polite, civilised and

rational exchange of views. Could you please explain why this cannot

appear

on the BBC website - for example on your Newswatch pages? Failing that,

Media Lens would be pleased to host this exchange at our own website.

 

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

best wishes,

David Cromwell

co-editor

Media Lens (Email, 21 March, 2005)

 

Within four hours we received the following abrupt dismissal:

 

Dear David Cromwell

 

Thank you for your further email. However, I do not believe that

further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.

 

Yours sincerely

Helen Boaden, BBC News (Email, 21 March, 2005)

 

We at Media Lens do not know whether US forces have used banned weapons

in their attack on Fallujah. However, it is remarkable that the BBC is,

in effect, suppressing repeated and persistent reports of their

+alleged+ use. Even more depressing is the failure of the BBC to

convey the

sheer scale of the horror inflicted upon Iraqi civilians. Dahr Jamail

notes:

 

" The military estimates that 2,000 people in Fallujah were killed, but

claims that most of them were fighters. Relief personnel and locals,

however, believe the vast majority of the dead were civilians. " (Jamail,

'An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah', 16 December, 2004,

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/2004_12_19.php)

 

A report on Fallujah presented to the 61st session of the United

Nations Commission on Human Rights by the Baghdad-based Studies Center of

Human Rights and Democracy appeals to the international community:

 

" What more tragedies are the international bodies waiting for in order

to raise their voices demanding to stop the massacres and mass killings

of the civilians? "

 

The report warns that " there are mass graves in the city " and " the

medical authorities and the citizens could not find the burial ground of

450 bodies of the citizens of Fallujah that the American occupation

forces have photographed and buried in a place that is still unknown. "

(SCHRD, 'Report on the current situation in Fallujah', 26 March, 2005,

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lastReportFallujah%20crimes.pdf)

 

We understand that lack of security means there are severe difficulties

in reporting from Iraq. But as independent reporters like Dahr Jamail

and Mark Manning have shown, it +is+ possible to obtain detailed

testimony relating to possible war crimes in Fallujah - testimony that

surely

merits discussion. The BBC's grievous omissions highlight, once again,

its longstanding complicity in Western mass violence.

 

 

SUGGESTED ACTION

 

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and

respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly urge

readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

 

Write to Helen Boaden, BBC news director:

Email: helen.boaden

 

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:

Email: editor

 

This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Please

consider giving less to the corporate media and donating more to Media

Lens:

 

http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

 

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org