Archive

Archive for April 8, 2010

India Calls Naxalites Greatest Threat, Yet Fight War With Policemen

April 8, 2010 Leave a comment

India Calls Naxalites Greatest Threat, Yet Fight War With Policemen

RAIPUR: A day after 76 troopers were massacred in the worst ever Maoist attack, hundreds of para-military men and state police personnel assigned to track down the killers are scared to enter the jungles of Chhattisgarh Wednesday fearing a repeat of the ‘bloody Tuesday’ incident.

The shell-shocked police incumbent here have ordered nearly 40,000 policemen deployed in the restive Bastar region to retaliate.

But officials posted in the interiors of the region say: “The Tuesday attack has rattled the entire police force engaged in the anti-Maoist operation and they are now reluctant to enter the landmine protected jungle terrain”.

“It’s easy for everyone to dictate to us from New Delhi and Raipur sitting in air-conditioned chambers, but here the situation is completely hostile because Maoists rule the roost in jungles. The forces in Bastar now need urgent motivation,” a police officer based in Dantewada said on phone.

Police officers posted in the sprawling 40,000 sq km Bastar terrain made up of five districts — Bijapur, Narayanpur, Bastar, Kanker and Dantewada where the Maoists staged a bloodbath in the Chintalnar hilly area say — “policemen are suffering high casualties because of an absolute lack of co-ordination between state forces and para-military men who are put in difficult terrains in Chhattisgarh”.

“Despite all efforts at the police headquarters and at the state government level, the CRPF is not taking local police and special police officers (SPOs) along while entering the Maoists’ den and are thus getting killed without a fight,” noted a senior official here.

He remarked that CRPF men are all outsiders and know nothing about the difficult jungle terrain. They were reminded several times by officers at the police headquarters to take along at least the SPOs who are locals but the CRPF men neither followed this suggestion nor did they stick to the 48-point guerrilla warfare manuals.

China to back Pakistan stance on civil nuclear deal

April 8, 2010 Leave a comment

China to back Pakistan stance on civil nuclear deal ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani reiterated his government’s commitment to take all parliamentary parties into confidence on all national policies particularly defence, Kashmir and nuclear policies.

In his opening statement while chairing a special meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security at the Parliament House Wednesday afternoon, the Prime Minister said Pakistan being a nuclear state was cognizant of its responsibilities.

Pakistan has developed effective nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation measures underpinned by extensive legislative, regulatory and administrative framework, he added.

He further said that as chairman of the National Command Authority, his government fully accepts the responsibility of nuclear security.

The Prime Minister said nuclear power generation offers viable solutions for energy security and addressing the challenge of climate change.

He said that China would support Pakistan demand that the United States also make a civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan like it had done with India.

He mentioned Pakistan had more than 35 years experience of operating nuclear power plants successfully. He further said highly trained manpower and a well established foolproof safety and security culture fully qualifies Pakistan for equal participation in civil nuclear cooperation at the international level which would help in addressing immediate energy problems and would bring greater stability as well.

The Prime Minister said Pakistan is a democratic, progressive and peaceful country.

He added that the socio-economic development hinges on the ability to meet rapidly expanding energy requirements.

He stressed, “we need to explore all options to ensure a reliable energy mix and civil nuclear power generation is therefore an essential part of our national energy security strategy.”

The Prime Minister declared that the government considers nuclear safety, security and safeguards as vehicles for facilitating international civil nuclear cooperation.

He observed that the objectives of nuclear non-proliferation, safety and security can only be served and promoted through a non-discriminatory paradigm for international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Earlier Lt. General (Rtd) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, DG SPD briefed the Parliamentary Committee on Pakistan’s nuclear programme and security of nuclear assets.

He mentioned that Pakistan has one of the best systems of safety and security of nuclear assets and technology both on the defence and civilian side.

Masood Khan, Pakistan’s Ambassador in China who participated in the preliminary deliberations of the forthcoming Nuclear Summit in Washington, apprised the Parliamentary Committee on the objectives of the Summit and the preparations made by Pakistan to be able to positively contribute in the deliberations of the Summit.

The USA, he mentioned, has already made the objectives public which are a manifestation of President Barack Obama’s three point strategy for non-proliferation of nuclear technology in the interest of global security.

The representatives of all the political parties in the Parliament Committee on National Defence applauded the gesture of the Prime Minister for taking them into confidence prior to his participation in an important International Summit.

They assured him complete support and expressed confidence that he would be able to put across Pakistan’s viewpoint forcefully being a democratically elected Prime Minister enjoying complete backing of the entire nation.

The members of the Committee also appreciated the preparations made by the Pakistani side for the Summit. The members also gave suggestions on various aspects of the subject of the Summit which were aptly accommodated.

The special meeting was also attended by General Tariq Majid, Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff Committee and the Foreign Secretary.

Why India hide bodies, secretly buried Mumbai militants

April 8, 2010 Leave a comment

Why India hide bodies, secretly buried Mumbai militants

The stories out of Bharat (aka India) are not very clear about Mumbai. Conflicting news reports are still emanating out of Delhi which have shocked the media and given rise to speculation that the attackers were Bharati nationals. What began as simple rumors and fodder for conspiracy theorists have now become part of the mainstream media which is increasingly strident and curious about the unanswered questions.

India sheepishly admits local connection in Mumbai attacks

MUMBAI: The bodies of the nine 26/11 Pakistani terrorists – which nobody, including Pakistan, wanted – have been disposed of in a top secret operation.

Maharashtra home minister R.R. Patil said on Tuesday the bodies of the nine terrorists, killed by Indian special forces during their three-day bloody siege of landmark areas of the city in November 2008, were quietly buried in January this year.

“I did not see any need to keep preserving the bodies for a longer time. So, we took the decision to bury the bodies,” he told the stunned members of the state legislative council here on Tuesday evening.

In view of the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that many Muslim organisations had opposed giving the dead terrorists a burial place anywhere in India, Patil said adequate care was taken to ensure that the matter remained a secret and the information did not leak out.

However, he did not mention the date on which the burial took place, or even the place where the bodies were buried.

Patil added that the decision was also prompted by the huge ongoing expense incurred on preserving the bodies in an air-conditioned room of the morgue in Sir J.J. Hospital, round-the-clock security deployed at the site, and other aspects.

Delhi lies about Mumbai exposed: All militants were Indian nationals–

For nearly 15 months, there were no claimants for the bodies of the nine terrorists who were killed by the security forces during the Nov 26-29, 2008, Mumbai terror attacks. Only one of their associates – Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab – was captured alive and he is currently awaiting judgment in the 26/11 trial.

The 10 gunmen killed 166 people in a series of coordinated attacks. Kasab remains lodged in the high-security Arthur Road Central Jail in an oval-shaped cell, and Special Judge M.L. Tahaliyani will deliver the verdict May 3.

Keeping the terrorists’ bodies for such a long time was considered without a precedent anywhere in the world. Kasab was the only one captured alive during the terrorist strikes that targeted two luxury hotels, the city’s main, historic train terminal, a hospital and a Jewish centre of worship.

Early last year, the Muslim Council had flatly refused to allow the burial of the nine killed terrorists in the Marine Lines Bada Qabrastan cemetery. The council had also sent a message to all cemeteries in India that none of the terrorists’ bodies should be buried on Indian soil.

The influential Muslim Jama Masjid Trust, which runs the 7.5-acre Bada Qabrastan in south Mumbai, said it would also not permit the burial of the gunmen “because they were not true followers of Islam”. Since then both the Maharashtra government and police have been caught in a bind over what to do with the bodies. “We had informed the Pakistan government about the bodies long ago. However, there was no response from them so far,” Special Public Prosecutor for the 26/11 terror attacks trial Ujjwal Nikam had said in November 2009.

Some outfits had even suggested after the terror siege that the bodies be dumped at the premises of the Pakistan high commission in New Delhi or thrown into the Arabian Sea. Shortly after the attackers were gunned down, their bodies were brought to the hospital where a team of doctors had performed autopsies and filed post-mortem reports with police.

Thereafter, the bodies had been embalmed and shifted to a separate room in the morgue, which was permanently sealed with round-the-clock security and temperatures maintained at a steady four degrees Celsius to prevent decomposition.
The room was out of bounds for all, barring those who had the relevant clearance from police headquarters.

Among those who viewed the bodies were the investigators from Mumbai Police, the state and central agencies, and representatives of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Many have suspected that Bharat has been hiding the facts of Mumbai. How could the gunmen enter the Taj Hotel when the front entrances are all cordoned off with metal detectors. The Taj owners clearly stated an inside job, where the militants were shown into the hotel through a maze of back doors and service entrances. Mr. Kasab the only surviving gunaman has stated that he went to Mumbai on a train and was being used as a patsy. Many of the witnesses were unable to recognize him a police lineup.

Then there is the whole episode of Mr. Kasab and the miracle of surviving a perilous journey on a red dinghy that was able to evade the most fortified border in the world–hoodwinking the Indian Navy, the Coast Guards, and plethora of animal named forces like the Black panthers. Analysts also wonder who armed to the teeth militants were able to hail cabs and reach downtown Mumbai carrying AK-47s, RPGs, and ammunition.

It is also been alleged that all the other gunmen were Indians and Bharat has hidden their identity and their bodies to dowlplay the local angle of the mayhem in Mumbai.

Afghanistan: Can Obama hammer India to stop interfering in US policy?

April 8, 2010 Leave a comment

Afghanistan: Can Obama hammer India to stop interfering in US policy?

The Obama Administration wants a face saving exit from Kabul. Islamabad holds a key to that face saving exit. Islamabad is asking Washington to use its offices to reduce the border tension between Pakistan and Bharat so that Islamabad can concentrate on the Western Frontier. The Obama Administration, and the Civilian and Military leadership seems to have understood this Pakistani point of view–which they find reasonable.

The Obama Administration must make it very clear to Delhi that it must stop its terror activities in Balochistan and its cross-border terror using the TTP and other terror groups. Enough is enough. Unless the Obama Administration can take that tough stand, it cannot bring peace to the land between the Indus and the Amu Darya and beyond. One major issue that many in the Administration are well aware of is the potential and the reality of the destabilization of Central Asia. If peace does not grow in Afghanistan and does not grow quickly, all of Central Asia will be encompassed in the vortex of war. That is why China and Russia want a quick end to violence on their doorstep.

  • The directive, issued in December, concluded that “India must make resolving its tensions with Pakistan a priority for progress to be made on US goals in the region,” Hindustan Times
  • http://www.hindustantimes.com/Obama-s-secret-directive-Intensify-efforts-to-ease-Indo-Pak-tensions/H1-Article1-527400.aspx
  • A debate continues within the administration over how hard to push India, which has long resisted outside intervention in the conflict with its neighbor. WSJ
  • To blunt India’s eager courtship of Afghanistan, Pakistan is pouring $300 million of its own money and resources into a nation it also views as key to the stability of volatile South Asia, as well as a potentially lucrative business partner. Emily Wax. Washington Post.
  • Pakistan has hosted 3 million Afghan refugees for 30 years and has already spent $500 million in projects in Pakistan. Millions of Afghans have been born in Pakistan and they speak Urdu and have made Pakistan their home–specially in Quetta.

President Obama wants to change Bharati attitudes. The issue in Washington is how to bell the Delhi cat. Bharat feigns nervousness about any third party “negotiations”–and uses the excuse of bilateralism so that it does not have to budge on any issue. Bilateral talks are the victim of Bharati hubris, arrogance, intransigence and obduracy. They always fail.

  • Indian epiphany: Taliban good again!
  • Rejection of Indian influence by the region

The directive concluded that India must make resolving its tensions with Pakistan a priority for progress to be made on U.S. goals in the region, according to people familiar with its contents.

The U.S. has invested heavily in its own relations with Pakistan in recent months, agreeing to a $7.5 billion aid package and sending top military and diplomatic officials to Islamabad on repeated visits. The public embrace, which reached a high point last month in high-profile talks in Washington, reflects the Obama administration’s belief that Pakistan must be convinced to change its strategic calculus and take a more assertive stance against militants based in its western tribal regions over the course of the next year in order to turn the tide in Afghanistan.

According to the Boston Globe Senator “Kerry has become a key architect of a policy shift away from strictly short-term, conditional payments to Pakistan’s military and toward long-term pledges of assistance to its citizens”. Wendy Chamberlain is very popular in Pakistan. The Boston Globe quotes her on Senator John Kerry. “John Kerry has played an enormously positive role,’’ said Wendy Chamberlin, a former ambassador to Pakistan who is president of the Middle East Institute…Kerry hopes the aid will bolster what he calls a “sea change’’ in Pakistan.

  • India prepares for war with China-Raises 2 divisions
  • Syed Ali Gilani says ‘Kashmiris’ sacrifices not to go waste’
  • Hasina Wajed ordered BDR massacre
  • Afghanistan tests India’s Strategic Innocence

President Barack Obama issued a secret directive in December to intensify American diplomacy aimed at easing tensions between India and Pakistan, asserting that without détente between the two rivals, the administration’s efforts to win Pakistani cooperation in Afghanistan would suffer.

Peter Spiegel and Matthew Rosenberg make some blunt observations in The Wall Street Journal and if the reports are to be believed then Delhi is under a lot of pressure to reduce its presence in Afghanistan, and obtund its military presence along the Pakistani border. While Delhi clamors to proffer the anti-thesis that Islamabad’s perceptions about Bharat are incorrect–Washington’s retort on this line is “deal with the perception”, and “resolve the issues”.

  • The Pentagon, in particular, has sought more pressure on New Delhi, according to U.S. and Indian officials. WSJ
  • Current and former U.S. officials said the discussion in Washington over how to approach India has intensified as Pakistan ratchets up requests that the U.S. intercede in a series of continuing disputes.
  • The directive concluded that India must make resolving its tensions with Pakistan a priority for progress to be made on U.S. goals in the region, according to people familiar with its contents. Times of India
  • Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been among the more vocal advocates of encouraging Delhi to be more “transparent” about its activities along the countries’ shared border and to cooperate more with Pakistan. WSJ

A debate continues within the administration over how hard to push India, which has long resisted outside intervention in the conflict with its neighbor. The Pentagon, in particular, has sought more pressure on New Delhi, according to U.S. and Indian officials. Current and former U.S. officials said the discussion in Washington over how to approach India has intensified as Pakistan ratchets up requests that the U.S. intercede in a series of continuing disputes.

During the Strategic Dialog with Pakistan, the US tacitly, and publicly accepted Pakistan’s Strategic Depth and role in brining peace to Afghanistan. This is anathema to Delhi which wants to pressure Pakistan from both sides.

The Wall Street Journal and major media outlets are portending the thesis that the Obama Administration is asking Delhi to be stop terror activities against Pakistan, listen more carefully to Islamabad’s complaints, and resolve the Kashmir and water disputes with Pakistan. This is not music to the Delhi politicians who usually ignore the Pakistani point of view and take the Kashmir discussion into a cul de sac called bilateral talks. During bilateral talks Delhi then kills all discussion by loudly proclaiming that Kashmir is an integral part of Bharat (aka India) and the topic of boundaries are nut subject to negotiations. Since 1947 dozens of these “talks have been held between Delhi and Pakistan–all ending in abject failure due to obduracy, intransigence and skullduggery of Delhi. Pakistan is not the only country that has faced Bharati tergiversation. Delhi has been unable to resolve its boundary disputes with any of her neighbors, namely Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Myanmar, China, Bangladesh.

Pakistan has long regarded Afghanistan as providing “strategic depth”—essentially, a buffer zone—in a potential conflict with India. Some U.S. officials believe Islamabad will remain reluctant to wholeheartedly fight the Islamic militants based on its Afghan border unless the sense of threat from India is reduced.

Pakistan does not see the threat from the same prism that Bharat sees the threat. For Pakistan the threat is Bharat–whether from the Eastern of the Western border. Islamabad feels that it can deal with the Pakhtuns through battles, negotiations, and with projects. Delhi wants to dominate Afghanistan as part of its colonial legacy and its flights of fancy headed towards regional power. For Pakistan it is a struggle for survival. For Bharat is it a point of prestige and stature. The Pakistanis will fight with a lot more determination than the Bharatis can ever hope to.

U.S. and Indian officials say the Obama administration has so far made few concrete demands of New Delhi. According to U.S. officials, the only specific request has been to discourage India from getting more involved in training the Afghan military, to ease Pakistani concerns about getting squeezed by India on two borders.

Can President Obama over rule or convince its Bharati constituencies supported on the Hill by the Bharati lobby and their AIPAC allies? This is the question that vexes the Obama Administration. His second term and his presidency depends on the ability to face the onslaught of the lobbies. If he follows the Bush doctrine and does not stand up to the Bharatis, the Afghan war will go on in perpetuity without any chance of ever achieving peace. The Afghan war is not popular with the American people and the US military. They want a face saving exit. Bharat was given a decade, and it cannot deliver peace in Kabul. The US military and the CIA believe that no peace is possible in the Hindu Kush without Islamabad on board. The only way to get wholehearted Pakistani cooperation is to resolve its disputes with Delhi and to give it a major role in Afghanistan.

  • Will India ever know what US is hiding about Mumbai
  • Artcile 370: Can India reverse the clock on Kashmir
  • Delhi packs up, retreats from Afghanistan

“This is an administration that’s deeply divided about the wisdom of leaning on India to solve U.S. problems with Pakistan,” said Ashley Tellis, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who has discussed the issue with senior officials in the U.S. and India. “There are still important constituencies within the administration that have not given up hope that India represents the answer.”

India has long resisted outside involvement in its differences with Pakistan, particularly over the disputed region of Kashmir. But, according to a U.S. government official, a 56-page dossier presented by the Pakistani government to the Obama administration ahead of high-level talks in Washington last month contained a litany of accusations against the Indian government, and suggestions the U.S. intercede on Pakistan’s behalf.

Pakistan has forcefully and unequivocally informed Washington that Bharati dourness about Pakistan stems from its historic inability to accept the reality of Pakistan which it feels was artificially and temporarily “partitioned” from the mother country. Ms. Hillary Clinton and many in the Democratic Party had been unable to see this Pakistani point of view–initially they brushed it off as Pakistani paranoia. However lately there have been signs that the American tin ear has melted and Pakistani concerns about its sovereignty viz a viz Bharat have found some measure of understanding in Washington.

  • Is US using Liability, Design excuses to ‘delay’ 123-Nuclear deal with India?
  • Post dialogue analysis: Pakistanis not impressed with US promises
  • India cannot match Pakistan in its relations with Afghanistan: FM Qureshi

The official said the document alleges that India has never accepted Pakistan’s sovereignty as an independent state, and accuses India of diverting water from the Indus River and fomenting separatism in the southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signaled that Washington isn’t interested in mediating on water issues, which are covered by a bilateral treaty.

The Bharati media has been reacting to the sagacious and sane Obama initiative which could and would bring peace to Afghanistan. Obviously the sagacious policy has been met with a wall of traditional Bharati inexorability and stubbornness. The Bharati pundits and media wish Pakistan to go away, so that Bharat can reach out to its lands in Afghanistan and beyond. Realpolitik comes in the way of this Bharati revanchism, kleptomania and irredentism. Unable to hold on to its own fraying Union, Delhi is consumed by its desire to extend its borders–on the Eastern, Northern, and Western fronts. IN the North it faces Chinese might, and on the West it faces Pakistan’s Nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction. therefore it wants to use Afghanistan to pressure Pakistan, to aid separatists, and to form road and rail links to “conquer” Central Asia. This is not the Indian Doctrine–the religion requires them to expand into areas which Alexander and Islam had taken from them.

Subcontinental Drift

The White House declined to comment on Mr. Obama’s directive or on the debate within the administration over India policy. The directive to top foreign-policy and national-security officials was summarized in a memo written by National Security Adviser James Jones at the end of the White House’s three-month review of Afghan war policy in December.

Bharat is now trying to blackmail the US by holding commerce, currency, lobbies and other means to make it change its course–and help Delhi as a counterweight to China. Of course Delhi sees this a temporary alliance–’till it can challenge the US itself.

An Indian government official said the U.S.’s increasing attention to Pakistani concerns hasn’t hurt bilateral relations overall. “Our relationship is mature—of course we have disagreements, but we’re trying not to have knee-jerk reactions,” the Indian official said.

According to U.S. and Indian officials, the Pentagon has emerged in internal Obama administration debates as an active lobbyist for more pressure on India, with some officials already informally pressing Indian officials to take Pakistan’s concerns more seriously. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. government’s prime interlocutor with the powerful head of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, has been among the more vocal advocates of a greater Indian role, according to a U.S. military official, encouraging New Delhi to be more “transparent” about its activities along the countries’ shared border and to cooperate more with Pakistan.

Pakistan has made clear to Delhi that it does not just want talks so that Delhi can appease Washington. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister recently told the media that Delhi must initiate a composite results oriented dialog with a schedule. Talks for the sake of talks will not work, and Pakistan is not interested in parleys to show Washington that Delhi is talking.

In interviews, U.S. military officials were circumspect about what specific moves they would like to see from New Delhi. But according to people who have discussed India policy with Pentagon officials, the ideas discussed in internal debates include reducing the number of Indian troops in Kashmir or pulling back forces along the border.

“They say, ‘The Pakistanis have this perception and you have to deal with the perception’,” said one foreign diplomat who has discussed India’s role with Pentagon officials.

An Indian defense ministry spokesman said his country’s army has already moved about 30,000 troops out of Kashmir in recent years.

The State Department has resisted such moves to pressure India, according to current and former U.S. officials, insisting they could backfire. These officials have argued that the most recent promising peace effort—secret reconciliation talks several years ago between Indian Prime Minster Singh and then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf—occurred without U.S. involvement.

“Our principal interest has always been to encourage the talks to resume, but we also understand where the Indians are coming from, which is that there has to be some progress on these bilateral counterterrorism” issues, said the official.

During the Strategic Dialog with the US, Pakistan clearly described the Bharati interference in Pakistan and wanted it stopped as quickly as possible. Why would Bharat need so many Consulates in Afghanistan? The number of consulates exceeds the number of visas issued to Afghanis. Pakistan has repeatedly and forcefully proclaimed that these Consulates are the dens of inequity spreading problems for Pakistan. Those Indian sponsored problems then bring pain not only to Pakistanis, but also are an impediment to US interests in the region. The US has asked Delhi to reduce its presence in Afghanistan, and there are signs that Bharat may be reducing its staff and activities that were aimed against Islamabad.

Separately, Pakistan has been more forcefully raising concerns about Indian activities in Afghanistan with the U.S. Senior Pakistani officials allege India is using its Afghan aid missions as a cover to support separatists in Baluchistan and the Pakistani Taliban, and say they have presented evidence of that to U.S. officials. Indian officials deny the accusations.

A Pakistani security official said his government also has pressed the U.S. about India’s ties to the Afghan intelligence agency, the National Security Directorate, and argued that Indian consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar are outposts for India’s spy agency.

“Something has to be done to stop Afghanistan from being a jumping-off point for Indian intelligence,” said the security official. Washington Post. U.S. Aims to Ease India-Pakistan Tension By PETER SPIEGEL in Washington and MATTHEW ROSENBERG in Kabul

Pakistanis don’t believe ‘Ugly American’ with ‘forked tongue’

There are clear signs that the US has in many ways asked Bharat to reduce the tensions by whatever means necessary. The question is what will Delhi do to circumvents US pressure and bypass Washington’s requirements and then work against President Obama’s plans. How will Delhi resist the US military’s demands?

‘Ha ha, I hit ‘em’: Top secret video showing U.S. helicopter pilots gunning down 12 civilians in Baghdad attack leaked online

April 8, 2010 1 comment

By David Gardner

A secret video leaked on to the internet shows American soldiers laughing as a helicopter strike kills around a dozen civilians in Baghdad.

In the 17-minute black-and-white footage from an Apache helicopter gunsight, the crew can be heard discussing the carnage as if they were playing a video war game.

One soldier can even be heard shouting: ‘Ha, ha, I hit ‘em.’ Another says: ‘Look at those dead b******s.’

A still from a video shot from a U.S. army Apache helicopter showing a group of men in the streets of eastern Baghdad just prior to being fired upon
Target: A still from a video shot from a U.S. army Apache helicopter showing a group of men in the streets of eastern Baghdad just prior to being fired upon
Baghdad attack
Seconds from death: The video identifies the two Reuters employees just seconds before the two helicopters fire on them

The film was posted online by WikiLeaks – a website that encourages whistleblowers to expose government and corporate cover-ups – in defiance of a Pentagon ban.

The footage also runs onscreen subtitles on what the crew are saying. 

Before one attack on a group of men, a voice is also heard saying: ‘Light em all up. Come on, fire!’

Although the video’s existence has been known since shortly after the July 12, 2007, attack, all attempts to make it public under the Freedom of Information Act have been rebuffed by the U.S. defence department.

Baghdad attack
The Apache opens up with its 30-millimetre M230 chain gun in a devastating attack that appears to kill or wound every man in the group

 

Baghdad attack
Collateral damage: One of the wounded men dashes for cover as the helicopter pilot urges his colleague to continue firing. He is eventually brought down
Baghdad attack
War wounded: A van turns up at the scene and two men pick up one of the wounded Iraqis. The Apache pilots plead to be allowed to re-engage and are eventually given permission to open fire a second time

 

Baghdad attack
Deadly force: The gunsight camera shows the moment the van is picked off by the Apache pilot as he blasts away with his heavy machine gun

WikiLeaks refused to say how it got the video of the attack in which two Iraqis working for Reuters international news agency were killed.

The shocking contents were being seen last night as a huge blow to President Obama’s hopes of mending relations with the Arab world. 

The video, confirmed as authentic by U.S. officials, offers a glimpse at the apparent coldness and arrogance of the Americans in two helicopters who opened fire on the unarmed civilians without any firm evidence that they were insurgents.

The chilling comments about shooting the civilians came after the helicopter raked a group of about eight men with a machine gun.

One man, believed to be Reuters driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who later died, can then be seen crawling on the ground and a voice can be heard over the video urging the wounded man in his sights to pick up a gun so he can finish him off.

When a van pulled up in what appeared to be an attempt to get the shooting victim to hospital, a second helicopter opened fire.

Namir Noor-Eldeen
Victim: Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, died in the attack. He was covering a story about weightlifting at the time
An Iraqi man weeps as he walks next to the vehicle carrying the coffin of Namir Noor-EldeenDistraught: An Iraqi man weeps as he walks next to the vehicle carrying the coffin of Namir Noor-Eldeen

The Americans later discovered two children in the van had been injured. Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, was also killed. The Reuters men were hit because their cameras were mistakenly identified as guns.

David Schlesinger, Reuters’ editor in chief, said the deaths were ‘tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones’.

Reuters has pressed the U.S. military for a full investigation.

Baghdad attack
Iraqis carry the coffin of Saeed Chmagh, an Iraqi driver working with Reuters, during his funeral in the holy Shiite city of Najaf in 2007
http://www.wikileaks.org/
Shattered: An Iraqi man stands near the wreckage of a mini-bus at site where an Iraqi photographer and driver working for Reuters were killed

 Courtesy:  Daily Mail.CO.UK

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers