BBC Apologizes for Iraq "Mistakes"

Al-Jazeera-on-the-Thames has offered an apology for misrepresenting the number of civilian deaths in Iraq:

The BBC's Panorama programme reported coalition and Iraqi security forces were responsible for most civilian conflict deaths in the past six months.

But the health ministry says that its figures were misinterpreted.

"The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports," said a BBC spokesman.

This BBC item goes on to explain:

"The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports," said a BBC spokesman.

The Iraqi figures said that 3,274 people died in conflict situations in the period July-December 2004.

Of these, 2,041 of those were categorised as the result of "military operations" while 1,233 were blamed on "terrorist operations".

But the health ministry says those recorded as dying in military action included people killed by insurgents, not just those killed by troops from the multinational force or Iraqi security bodies.

The deaths recorded included those of militants as well as civilians, officials said.

Please

go read this post by Ocean Guy. In commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Chapter 3 of "Pacific Memories" is up ...

... in which our narrator misses a pig hunt, participates in a rat race, and encounters a fayuntile.

The Great Rotorua Pig Hunt

The Holocaust

This post is part of a Blogburst commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army in 1945.

The Holocaust, symbolized by Auschwitz, the worst of the death camps, occurred in the wake of consistent, systematic, unrelenting anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns. As a result, the elimination of the Jews from German society was accepted as axiomatic, leaving open only two questions: when and how.

As Germany expanded its domination and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Poland, parts of the USSR, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Italy and others countries, the way was open for Hitler to realize his well-publicized plan of destroying the Jewish people.

After experimentation, the use of Zyklon B on unsuspecting victim was adopted by the Nazis as the means of choice, and Auschwitz was selected as the main factory of death (more accurately, one should refer to the “Auschwitz-Birkenau complex”). The green light for mass annihilation was given at the Wannsee Conference, January 20, 1942.

The Wannsee Conference formalized "the final solution" - the plan to transport Europe's Jews to eastern labour and death camps. Ever efficient and bureaucratic, the Nazi kept a record of the meeting, which were discovered in 1947 in the files of the German Foreign Office. The record represents a summary made by Adolf Eichmann at the time, even though they are sometime referred to as "minutes".

Several of the Conference participants survived the war to be convicted at Nuremberg. One notorious participant, Adolf Eichmann, was tried and convicted in Jerusalem, and executed in 1962 in Ramlah prison.

The mass gassings of Europe's took place in Auschwitz between 1942 and the end of 1944, when the Nazis retreated before the advancing Red Army. Jews were transported to Auschwitz from all over Nazi-occupied or Nazi-dominated Europe and most were slaughtered in Auschwitz upon arrival, sometimes as many as 12,000 in one day. Some victims were selected for slave labour or “medical” experimentation before they were murdered or allowed to die. All were subject to brutal treatment.

In all, between three and four million people, mostly Jews, but also Poles and Red Army POWs, were slaughtered in Auschwitz alone (though some authors put the number at 1.3 million). Other death camps were located at Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec (Belzek), Majdanek and Treblinka. Adding the toll of these and other camps, as well as the mass executions and the starvation im the Ghettos, six million Jews, men, women, the elderly and children lost their lives as a consequence of the Nazi atrocities.

Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army on 27 January 1945, sixty years ago, after most of the prisoners were forced into a Death March westwards. The Red Army found in Auschwitz about 7,600 survivors, but not all could be saved.

For a long time, the Allies were well aware of the mass murder, but deliberately refused to bomb the camp or the railways leading to it. Ironically, during the Polish uprising, the Allies had no hesitation in flying aid to Warsaw, sometimes flying right over Auschwitz.

There are troubling parallels between the systematic vilification of Jews before the Holocaust and the current vilification of the Jewish people and Israel. Suffice it to note the annual flood of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN; or the public opinion polls taken in Europe, which single out Israel as a danger to world peace; or the divestment campaigns being waged in the US against Israel; or the attempts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. The complicity of the Allies in WW II is mirrored by the support the PLO has been receiving from Europe, China and Russia to this very day.

If remembering Auschwitz should teach us anything, it is that we must all support Israel and the Jewish people against the vilification and the complicity we are witnessing, knowing where it inevitably leads.

For more information, see Israpundit blogburst info.

See also this special edition of Morning Report.

New York Times: No Religious Motive in Killings

According to the New York Times, this was not a hate crime.

Writing in the Sulzberger-owned Boston Globe, James Carroll tells us:

THIS WEEK marks the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. When news eventually came to America of what the Red Army found at that death camp in January 1945, the report was remarkably detailed.

The headline of a first New York Times story about Auschwitz, filed from Moscow on May 8, 1945, read, "Oswiecim Killings Placed at 4,000,000." This number overstated by a factor of two the total of those murdered at Auschwitz, yet the account seemed closely observed in most other respects. The remains of the victims were described -- the charnel pits and piles of ashes, the corpses. The mechanized death process was explained, with a careful description of the gas chambers, down, even, to the name of the manufacturer of the crematoria -- Topf and Son. The identities of the victims were given as "more than 4,000,000 citizens" of a list of European nations -- Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, France. But what is most remarkable about the Times story -- apart from the fact that it was buried on page 12 -- is that in defining the identities of those victims, the story never used the word "Jew."

Many non-Jewish Poles were murdered at Auschwitz, but the vast majority of the dead were Jews -- killed for being Jewish. Indeed, of all the death camps, Auschwitz was most expressly commissioned to murder of Jews. Yet the New York Times reporter apparently saw nothing untoward in passing along a Soviet report that made no mention of Jews at Auschwitz. The murdered were Dutch, or French. They were men, women and children. They were old. They were Italian. Nothing about their being Jewish, which for the Nazis was the only thing that counted. The Times reporter was C. L. Sulzberger.

(Hat tip: DFME.)

The editorial goes on to note: "The New York Times index did not cite stories about concentration camps under the category "Jews" until 1950. It was not until 1975 that the index category "Nazi Policies Toward Jews" appeared."

As we approach the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, we must take a long, hard look at ourselves, and at the culture of denial that continues to enable religious hate crimes and other atrocities, even in our own day.

Indestructible

Go check out this new Volkswagen ad. It'll make your day.

Hat tip to Iraq the Model.

New Reports on Armanious - Garas Killings

The New York Post reports that a "bloody vendetta" pre-dating the family's immigration to the United States may have led to the murders of Hossam Armanious, Amal Garas, and their two daughters in New Jersey, in this article. "We're trying to develop their history right now," Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio said yesterday of the brutal quadruple slaying. Read the whole article at the link.

"Nothing indicates" that religion was the prime motive, DeFazio says in this article at NorthJersey.com.

Shortly after the bound and gagged bodies were found on |Jan. 14, friends of the family circulated word that Armanious had angered Muslims with Internet postings in a religious chat room.

The claims resulted in widespread tension between Christians and Muslims in Jersey City, which led to numerous scuffles at the family's funeral. But authorities said nothing so far supports the theory.

"Is it possible? Yes," DeFazio said. "Do we have anything that gives us reason to believe this is what it was, factually? No. Nothing indicates that was the prime motivation for this. That we can clearly say."

This appears to be a significant development. DeFazio is now saying that "nothing indicates" a religious hate crime, which is different from the "no proof" line the big media have been giving us all along.

DeFazio said no motive has been established in the case.

In addition to the Internet theory, investigators continue to look at robbery as a possible motive, because the home was ransacked and money was taken from the victims. Detectives are reviewing the family's finances to see if there are any obvious motives.

Hudson authorities have enlisted the FBI to scrutinize the family's activities in Egypt before they came to this country in 1997.

"It could be that it's a vendetta that might go back to the old country," DeFazio said. "We're going to try to look into that."

Update: 1/26, 6AM Pacific:

Michaelangelo Conte of the Jersey Journal gives a good roundup of developments in this Wednesday article at NJ.com. DeFazio, quoted in the article:

"We have more work to do, including on the computer angle, the financial profile and history of the family, including any information on the family or associated people in Egypt. All of that is being done, but it's taking time."

Joseph Farah speaks out in a column carried by Assyrian International News Agency and WorldNetDaily:

Yet, the media's focus hasn't been the horror of this kind of centuries-old anti-Christian persecution apparently coming to America. Instead, there has been a concerted effort, it seems, to downplay this gruesome slaughter as some kind of anomaly, to search desperately for motives other than religious hatred -- in effect, to ignore the kind of oppression that Christians and Jews in the Middle East have been experiencing since Islam became dominant in that part of the world more than 1,300 years ago.

I don't like it.

As an Arab-American, Christian journalist, it reminds me of the way law enforcement officials and the news media discarded any evidence that the Washington-area "Beltway snipers" had an Islamic terrorist motive. This mindset almost certainly resulted in more deaths as vital information -- the kind of descriptions that ultimately led to the capture of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo -- was withheld from the public to avoid "hysteria," "panic" and, worst of all, "racial or ethnic profiling."

Let me add a strong second to Farah's comments. I disagree with the headline "Jihad in Jersey City" simply because we do not yet know for a fact that "jihad" was involved - a point I have continually stressed here at Dreams Into Lightning. We do, however, have evidence that allows us to entertain that as a plausible theory - and we have a Big Media that wants to steer us away from that theory by withholding relevant facts (as CNN and NYT ignored reports of death threats against Armanious).

I don't like it either.




Note to readers. As promised, I will continue to follow this case. Some of you will recall that I'm in light-posting mode this week (due to an exam this Thursday), so coverage may not be as prompt or as thorough as I'd like, but I will post as much as I can. If you become aware of any new developments, please send a link. I'll post my own thoughts on this when time permits.

Quote of the Day

The Austrian Green Party's Peter Pilz on California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for allowing the execution of a convicted killer in California:

"Schwarzenegger is possibly the most prominent Austrian abroad, and he shapes the picture of Austria," Mr Pilz said.

"I don't want that picture shaped by someone who commits state murder. That does not correspond to the political culture of this country."

BBC News

Islam and Islamophobia

Before I close up shop for Shabbat, I want to say a few words about Islam and religious prejudice.

Islamist violence is a reality; anti-Muslim prejudice is also a reality. Both exist; both are wrong. Neither one justifies the other. The existence of islamophobia is not a reason to excuse, avoid, minimize, or ignore the fact that a wealthy and well-organized mafia has used the Muslim faith as a garrison from which to commit unspeakable crimes against humanity. And recognizing this fact is not a justification to indulge one's own base prejudices against a billion human beings.

There are certain well-known websites that I won't link on my sidebar because they foster a climate of islamophobic religious hate. I will not assent to such speech in my social life, nor will I tolerate it in my comments section.

A few weeks ago, I was having dinner with some acquaintances in the local community. In the course of conversation, I mentioned my studies with Imam Toure and my visits to the local mosques. I quickly found myself being shouted down by two of the other people present. I won't bore you with the details of that conversation - which eventually ended on a more civil, though still strained, note - but I do want to share a few thoughts that followed from it.

A religion is as good or as bad as its followers choose to make it. The Muslims I have met have been wonderful, warm, caring people. Imam Toure is one of the finest spiritual leaders I've ever met. People like him need to be supported and encouraged, not ignored and degraded.

I lived in a Muslim country - Turkey - for two years, around the mid-1980's when I was stationed in Izmir with the Air Force. We were living in the city itself, not on a separate base, and it was a great opportunity to meet people and learn a little about the culture and the language. (Evet, ben bir az tu"rkc,e konus,iyorum!) I was completely open about being Jewish, and never experienced hostility from the Muslim Turks. I'm not claiming anti-Semitism doesn't exist there, but I am saying I met a lot of great people. When the Neveh Shalom synagogue in Istanbul was attacked, my Turkish friends extended their sympathies and expressed what was clearly deeply felt outrage. A number of Turks also expressed disgust with their government's atrocities against the Kurdish people.

I'm not going to try to judge an entire religion by what is written in a single sacred text. The language of faith is not like ordinary language. You can find passages in any religious scripture which, when read alone, may seem shocking or horrifying, and you can find people who are only too happy to treat the most repugnant interpretation as a divine commandment. But there are also those who see another dimension in the traditional teachings, and to wrong these people is to wrong all religion, and human nature itself. Ali Fadhil wrote: 'I think that the governments can not create criminals or saints, but a wise one makes it easier for the good ones to use their free will as it makes it harder for the bad ones to use theirs. And the opposite applies for the bad government; it just acts as a catalyst to the potentialities within each human soul.' I think this is also true of religion. There is no doubt that people who are raised in an environment calculated to foster hate will themselves be more predisposed to hateful attitudes and behavior. People who are systematically schooled in brutality often absorb the lesson. But this does not apply to the entire Muslim world. I don't want to get too deep into this, but I will say that cherry-picking another religion's scriptures to validate your own prejudices is a pointless, stupid exercise which proves nothing.

Who are the "real" Muslims? One of my interlocutors at the dinner gathering, when I mentioned my experience in Turkey, waved the point away saying, "Well, Turkey is more moderate." Well, yes - and isn't that exactly the point? But if they're "moderate" then, according to a certain mindset, they don't exist - or they're not "real Muslims". And so we come to the very kernel, the very core algorithm, of prejudice. Reader Mark of Conservapuppies had some very insightful comments on this in an earlier thread. If you're determined to stigmatize a group in a certain way, you can just exclude any people who don't fit your stereotype by saying they're not "real" whatever.

What about the Iraqis who are risking their lives to help the Coalition forces defeat fascism in their country? The Belmont Club says it well: 'Personally I find it difficult to conceive of an enmity with Muslims in general when it is Muslims doing the most dying on the side of freedom in Iraq. Surely that is proof that the basic faultline is nothing so slender as the boundary between Sunni and Shi'ite; Muslim and Jew; atheist or Christian, but something wider still.'

So who are the real Muslims? Ultimately that's for the Islamic world to decide. Some people raised in the Muslim tradition have already declared, like Ali Sina that they want no part of it; that is their choice and their right. But it is not the only choice: Muslim dissidents like Irshad Manji prefer to work within the context of the faith - and perhaps it is they who will inspire more people.

To have faith in the ability of human beings to be human is not - as some people would condescendingly suggest - "naive". As I left the dinner gathering, one of the other guests - who had been shouting at me across the table an hour earlier - wished me a good night, and admonished me to "be careful". (Thanks, pal. I'll be a little more careful who I eat dinner with from now on.)

No, it is simple realism to affirm that people everywhere are not too different from one another on a basic level; and that as individuals, we run the entire spectrum. It is not a question of the name of one's faith, but of the nature of one's character. All of us are created in the image of G-d; we honor our Creator when we live up to our highest nature.

Big Pharaoh on New Jersey Murders

Don't miss this post at Big Pharaoh on the murders of Hossam Armanious, Amal Garas, and their two daughters in Jersey City, New Jersey. At this moment I don't have anything further to add to what I've already said; you can scroll down in this month's posts to read my earlier comments.

On second thought, just one or two points. Everyone agrees that we shouldn't "jump to conclusions" about the murders; that's fine by me. What troubles me is the MSM's evasiveness on the question of a possible religious hate killing. Americans have a right to question whether a religiously motivated hate crime occurred, without being implicitly accused of "jumping to conclusions" for wondering about it. If the motive turns out to have been something else - robbery, a random act of a psycopath, or a personal vendetta having nothing to do with religion - then I will be personally relieved, and you can bet I'll be among the first to post on it.

Judging from recent comments on GM's post, it seems that heated rhetoric was not uncommon at PalTalk. (I'm not personally familiar with the site myself.) If this is the case, then that might help to place the reported death threat against Armanious in some context; perhaps a PalTalk death threat is less serious than one wrapped around a brick thrown through one's window, for instance. So, extending the benefit of the doubt, perhaps death threats on PalTalk were so commonplace that this one merited no special attention. But then why didn't NYT and CNN bring out that point?

Or perhaps there was no death threat after all, and those reports (like the stories of the defaced cross tattoos) were in error? Then we should expect the media to report on the story in order to refute it. But instead we have silence. Why?

The editors of CNN and NYT must know that there are many among us - particularly in the blogosphere - who have come to view their reporting with suspicion, and who specifically worry that they are taking a "see no evil, hear no evil" attitude toward islamist violence. They can dispel this perception by proving that they take this threat seriously. If instead they continue to discount it and minimize it, they make themselves appear defensive - and cause the rest of us to wonder what they are hiding.

A death threat is always serious; a death threat followed by an actual murder is exceptionally serious. Even if the killings prove to have been unconnected with the threat, or with religion, the "news" media who knowingly withheld this relevant fact from their audiences are guilty of obscenely irresponsible behavior. That is the real crime.

Feminism and Responsibility

Don't miss this great new post at Straight Up With Sherri. Sherri takes a long, hard look at the feminist movement and wonders where things went wrong:

What has happened to the feminist movement is flat out shameful. In their fight, they found inner strength and great comfort in their power to work together and cause great change that was needed and warranted. Then, somewhere along the line, comfort turned to lust, and things went VERY, VERY BADLY. Once you have organized a group to take on such a task and then that task is achieved, what next? How about scaling down and instead of remaining a full fledged fighting machine, you turn into a watchdog. You keep an eye on the system and assure that the things promised to you actually continue to take place.

Exactly! I cannot add anything to this, except to suggest that what applies to feminism also applies to liberalism in general. Sherri goes on to make a compelling pro-life argument based on the premises of women's empowerment and responsibility:

A woman that wants to convince the world that her becoming pregnant and carrying a life inside of her is some kind of curse and a violation of her rights if she can’t kill this life is just plain selfish, immature, and is actually denying that she has power. I thought feminists were about womanpower. Why all the effort to portray women as powerless victims? I thought feminism was about asserting that women are intelligent and can make good decisions. Why all the effort to deny logic and common sense while showing such a lack of ability to make wise decisions? This “reproductive rights” thing is a bunch of gobly gook. If you truly believe that women are powerful, well adjusted, smart, and strong, then start acting like it. Accept responsibility for your own actions.

Go read the whole thing at the link.

Update

I've got a physics exam next Thursday, and I need to work out 30 charged-particle and dipole problems (and get them RIGHT!) in the intervening week so that I'll know what I'm doing by exam time.

I still aim to post a couple of pieces that I've had in mind, but posting will be light for the next week or so. Thanks to all new, regular, and returning visitors.