Hello All
Have come back to the SI site after some time. It’s amazing to see the amount of political discussion and debates going on this website and also in most of the threads.
Just wanted to make some comments on what I read very briefly here.
The Goebelle machine is always at work in war from all interest groups. One has to sift thru the misinformation, disinformation and truth, all appearing the same in relative terms to evaluate the credibility of events. The sources from where the information is always a good guide in these type of analysis.
Assuming one doesn’t have a hidden agenda or is intending to push a certain point of view out to the public, can always point to the alternative sources of information and points of view, and then contrast the credibility of the facts in that light.
Putting event in a bigger context also helps to analyze the creditability facts with much better sense of understanding.
When you attempt to examine the very tragic market bombing and the bloody deaths of the innocent civilians, in light of the above, facts start pointing to a bitter reality that can tragically very much happen in the future also, that it could have been caused by one of the our bombs in the allied forces. Though it definitely has to be un-intentional, but looking at the 90% precision of some of those bombs, we better be prepared to accept the responsibility for the 10% of the collateral damage.
Looking at also some of the other corroborating pieces of information related to the story, some other points should also be noticed.
Firstly looking at the story itself. In spite of all the details at our disposal, note that neither the US or UK had denied they were responsible for that bombing, they said they were investigating it still. In fact in the same story, Mr. Blair’s spokesperson never categorically stated they were NOT responsible by hedged himself by saying that “unspecified intelligence indicated that U.S. and British bombing may not have been to blame for explosions in two marketplaces in Baghdad” and note that he stopped short, however, of saying that Iraqi missiles were responsible for the explosions, which reportedly killed scores of civilians.
Secondly to link the story of the defense general being fired, as being mentioned in some circles, as indicative of somehow Iraq’s forces made the blunder of firing the missile, appear to be absurd, especially if the general “accomplished” the mission.
Thirdly, the source of the news about the general getting fired, came from none other then the spokesperson of the prime minister Tony Blair. Believing him on such a thing is tantamount to relying on Saddam announcing that Tony Blair has fired an XYZ general due to a massacre committed in Al-Nassirya. I tried to find some other source for the story and did not see any other source that corroborated that story.
In addition to this let me point out a few things. Shiite population is spread all around Baghdad not necessarily concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Also they are not some separate isolated constituency that could be easily exploited by such a tactic. In such a state this can have disastrous consequences on the contrary. Don’t forget some key military leaders and members of high command in the Baath party are Shiites.
The coffins of Shia and non-shias could use the Imam Musa Kazims name on it. Looking at Imam Kazims name alone (as could be read by all Persian and Arabic speaking individuals) on a coffin of dead people living in that part of Baghdad close to Kazmain region doesn’t give any message to anybody, other then an extremely brutal images of Muslims dying due to an aerial bombardment.
Same thing could be said about attempting to rely on names, to relate one’s affiliation with a certain group could be very naïve, especially in that art of the world. As for example relying on the name of the suicide bomber’s name to speculate if the shias are being motivated to lead the charge in this area or not.
Secondly Iraq if it wanted to influence Iranians public opinion or the opinion of the shias around the world can more easily exploit the facts around the most holiest of the holiest places for shias around the terrain of Southern Iraq, especially since it out of the range of western journalists. It can easily create a situation in Al Najaf and Kerbala currently cut out of the world’s eyes and potentially instigate a violent backlash by exploiting the shias emotion, mobilizing the shias around the world not just Iran. Kerbala especially provides that trigger.
Thirdly, Saddam’s focus should not be as much on the Persian public opinion (which in his view should be a lost cause by now) but on the broader Arab world and the other border states (mostly Sunnis).
Lastly, keeping all the complexity of analysis and intricate details of zillions of facts aside, in the final analysis let us not forget one ting in the end. No matter how much Goebellian strategy is used by whomsoever party, the fact of the matter is, the higher the number of civilian casualties, worse the burden of proof falling on us and NOT on the current “Butcher of Baghdad””
Just my humble opinion |
