The New York Times gives an incomplete picture re: talks with Syria

As Obama endeavors on a 'new' journey of talks with Syria, the New York Times has decided it supports this 'engagement.' This is well evidenced by the way a 'neutral' article was written in the Times about this 'engagement.' This article places the onus upon Israel to 'negotiate' and ignores the ways in which Syria has obfuscated all efforts at 'peace' in the past. Syria's state sponsor of terrorism is barely a blip in this article, and it appears at the very bottom of this article. Instead, the onus is on Israel. Feel free to read for yourself what passes as 'news' in the New York Times. This article was not even one that hit CAMERA's website. Just another day the Times, which has their 'two state solution' ideology, and their 'Israel should concede something for 'peace' ideology, as well as their 'diplomacy is always a good thing' ideology. For more information about the New York Times and the ideology that appears in the news pages (as apart from the OpEds, please go to How Fit to Print, a new blog which examines the ideology of the New York Times.

Please see the article right here.

Below is my Fisking of this article.

JERUSALEM — Signaling a new direction in Middle East diplomacy, the Obama administration will send two senior officials to Syria this weekend to begin discussions with the government, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on a visit to Israel on Tuesday.

The overture suggests how the Obama administration intends to tackle three interlocking challenges in the Middle East: the nuclear threat posed by Iran [Note: this ignores the fact that Syria itself is going nuclear]; long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria; and the grinding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Syria, regional experts say, could be the key to alleviating all three. [NOTE: the names of these ‘regional experts’ is not given, and there is no reason given as to why Syria could be of help. Moreover, the fact that Syria itself is a major part of the problem, having occupied Lebanon for decades, including to this day, is ignored.]

By seeking an understanding with Syria, which has cultivated close ties to Iran, the United States could increase the pressure on Iran to respond to its offer of direct talks. Such an understanding would also give Arab states and moderate Palestinians the political cover to negotiate with Israel. [NOTE: The definition of what a ‘moderate’ is is left out. This is a crucial term and yet the reader is left to guess as to the meaning.] That, in turn, could increase the burden on Hamas, the Islamic militant [NOTE: the term ‘militant’ and not ‘terrorist’ is used; this is an editorial decision by the Times.] group that controls Gaza, to relax its hostile stance toward Israel. [NOTE: It is not suggested how this could be reconciled with Syria’s decision to allow Hamas terrorists sanctuary on their soil.]

But in a region where even small steps take years to negotiate, officials sought to tamp down expectations of rapid progress. “It is a worthwhile effort to go and begin preliminary conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting Syria’s wide influence in the region, as well as its troubled history with the United States. Yet, she cautioned, “we have no way to predict what the future of our relations with Syria might be.”

The State Department declined to elaborate on the issues the emissaries would broach in Syria or why negotiators were going now.

The two emissaries are Daniel B. Shapiro, a senior director at the National Security Council, and Jeffrey D. Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Mr. Feltman, a former ambassador to Lebanon, has extensive experience with Syria; Mr. Shapiro advised the Obama campaign on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Middle East experts say they believe that conditions for an opening to Syria are ripe on both sides. [NOTE: Who are these experts?] “We’ve got a Syrian government that wants to engage,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. [NOTE: Was Mr. Indyk the ‘expert’ the whole time? And why does he want to believe that? How does this wash with Syria’s statements that they will never give up on the Golan? Where is that proof of ‘engagement’? Moreover, how does this wash with his earlier statements of Syria's involvement in terrorizing Lebanon, and its close ties to Iran?] “We’re likely to get an Israeli government that will find it easier to engage with Syria than with the Palestinians.”

There are clear benefits to Israel from better relations with Syria [NOTE: What about the benefits to Syria? Why is it framed as if Israel and not Syria has everything to gain?]: the government of President Bashar al-Assad is a sponsor of Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon, and provides a sanctuary for Hamas’s leaders in Damascus, Syria’s capital. [NOTE: Aren’t these also reasons to NOTE ‘engage’ with Syria?]

In May, Israel and Syria announced that they were in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty through Turkish mediators. [NOTE: The Turkish Prime Minister’s recent statements against Israel are omitted here, and the reader is left without the knowledge of how that would/could affect negotiations.] Israel’s departing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said he planned to brief Mrs. Clinton on those talks on Tuesday.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who is likely to become Israel’s next prime minister, will face pressure from the United States to move forward with the peace process. [NOTE: The Times outright says it will be Israel which is pressured and not Syria. Furthermore, stating that ‘negotiating’ is part of the ‘peace process’ is an editorial which is presented as news.] Mr. Indyk said that Mr. Netanyahu would find it more politically palatable to engage Syria than to alienate the settler movement by slowing or halting settlements as a concession to the Palestinians. [NOTE: The notion of a powerful ‘settler movement’ is introduced as an obstacle to ‘peace.’ Of course, the fact that this did not stop the Gush Katif evacuation is not worthy of mention to the Times.]

Nonetheless, Israeli public opinion polls show wide opposition to giving up the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. [NOTE: The Syrian public opinion is seen as irrelevant. Only the Israeli public opinion is an ‘obstacle’ to ‘peace.’ Also note that the Times omits the fact that the Golan Heights was annexed by Israel and that fact affects its legal status.] In his previous stint as prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu initiated peace talks with Syria, but they came to nothing.

The Obama administration has carefully laid the groundwork for the envoys’ visit. Members of Congress, including Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, have recently traveled to the region. [NOTE: Depending on when the trip was scheduled (i.e., if it was during when Bush was in office, it could be a violation of the Logan Act. This is deemed irrelevant to the Times.] Last Thursday, Mr. Feltman met with Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha.

“We don’t engage in discussions for the sake of having conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, after a meeting with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. “There has to be a purpose to them; there has to be some benefit accruing to the United States and our allies.” [NOTE: What is the purpose, if Assad has stated on numerous times his demand for the Golan Heights?]

The Bush administration largely shunned Syria, recalling its ambassador in February 2005, after the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. [NOTE: Syria’s role in the Hariri assassination is buried at the bottom of the article, despite the fact that this could be a major impediment towards any fruitful ‘negotiations.’] Many Lebanese accuse Syria of involvement in the assassination, a charge it denies. A United Nations tribunal has begun proceedings in the case.

While Mr. Feltman was the ambassador in Lebanon, three people were killed when a car bomb exploded next to an American Embassy vehicle in Beirut in January 2008. Suspicions again fell on Syria. [NOTE: The fact that Hizballah leader Nasrallah called Lebanon’s Seniora-led government “Feltman’s government” is omitted. Surely this would affect 'negotiations'!]

Mr. Feltman and Mr. Shapiro are accompanying Mrs. Clinton on her first tour of the Middle East as secretary of state, which began Monday in Egypt, where she said the United States would pursue peace “on many fronts.”

Meeting on Tuesday with Israel’s leaders during a time of political transition, Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed the desire of the United States for an agreement that would create a separate Palestinian state side by side with Israel. [NOTE: Why is this American desire relevant? What about the desire of Israel? Lest we forget, it is none of America’s business whether there is a ‘Palestine.’ This frames the issue of forcing Israel to concede territory that lawfully belongs to it.]

But she was plainly reluctant to step into a domestic political tussle. [NOTE: The Times is right to call this a domestic issue.] Mr. Netanyahu, who is likely to form a right-wing government in the coming days, has emphasized economic development in the West Bank over negotiations to create a Palestinian state.

“We happen to believe that moving toward the two-state solution, step by step, is in Israel’s best interests,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But obviously, it is up to the people and the government of Israel to decide.” [NOTE: Good acknowledgement that it is up to Israel to decide a domestic issue, BUT, Clinton is editorializing that “two states” is indeed a solution. The Times does not call her on that.]

Ms. Livni said she embraced a two-state solution [NOTE: Again, an editorial presented as fact that “two states” is a “solution.], a crucial difference between her Kadima Party and Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and one that has impeded Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to form a coalition with Kadima. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Netanyahu on Tuesday.

She promised to consult Israel and other Middle Eastern countries as the United States develops its policy toward Iran. At a Gaza donors’ conference in Egypt on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates that she did not believe that Iran would respond positively to the Obama administration’s offer of direct talks.

Ms. Livni said she had no qualms about the American offer, but she maintained that Israel’s Muslim neighbors were as worried as Israel by Iran. “They feel that Iran tries to undermine their regimes,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton also declined to publicly press Israel to open border crossings into Gaza; critics say that closing the crossings has impeded the flow of humanitarian relief. [NOTE: This is untrue and Israel does allow aid to flow into Gaza.] Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza after Hamas took control of the territory in June 2007. [NOTE: the fact that this blockade was a defensive response to terror attacks is not mentioned.] It has allowed in aid since the end of the recent three-week assault on Hamas, but has not opened the crossings for many other goods.

On Monday, European officials said they expected Mrs. Clinton to raise the issue with the Israelis.But she said: “It’s very difficult to solve this dilemma when Israel is under physical attack. We have a humanitarian challenge in Gaza, with a lot of innocent Palestinians who need the help [NOTE: What about innocent Israelis in Sderot? Why is it framed as a ‘humanitarian crisis’ only for Gazans?], and Hamas decides to continue to rain rockets down on Israel.”

In response to those who believe the BBC is being 'unfair' in refusing to air a video calling for aid to Hamas...

The BBC recently announced it will not air a commercial asking for aid money to be sent to Hamas. In response - as you can imagine, shoes were thrown at the BBC, and all sorts of claims of 'human rights violations' were screamed about.

The BBC is a cesspool of anti-Israel sentiment, yet it happened to do one right thing in refusing to air a call for funding Hamas. That's about the only thing to say. This action does not mean the BBC suddenly has become a pro-Israel institution.

The reality is that the "appeal for aid" was an appeal to fund Hamas, and nothing less. The BBC, for once, decided it has principles (I know, shocking!) and does not want to air an ad requesting funds to go to a jihadist terror organization.

Anyone who thinks this is a "human rights violation" or that the BBC is being unfair should ask themselves why exactly appeals for aid to Hamas should be aired on the BBC. I will ask a follow up: should the BBC air appeals to aid for Al Queda? At what point do they have even a minimal responsibility to protect the public? Or should the BBC air every terrorist propoganda video on earth, and/or every video on earth calling for aid to terror organizations?

Given the history of the BBC's craven capitulation to jihad, I expect they will cave on this soon, and air a commercial asking for aid to be sent to Hamas. I find the whole thing pathetic, that people have the shocking gall to believe this renders the BBC somehow biased in favor of Israel. The reality is that this means is that the BBC has at least a tiny vestige of principles left, but nothing more. It should be a given that it is wrong to air an appeal to aid a jihadist terror organization.

As an aside, here is a link to an article which discusses money from a UK Islamic 'aid' society going to Hamas.

UPDATE: This is a must read article which details exactly why the BBC is right - for once - in its refusal to air the disgusting "appeal to aid" for Hamas.

Here is an excerpt:

Who adjudicates on which victims to support via such charitable aid - and according to whose political morality? Why did the BBC not launch an appeal for the victims of collateral damage during Nato's bombing of Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign? And had it done so, would it have given money to ethnic Serbs as well as to Kosovars and Bosnian Muslims, all of whom were “cleansed” during the Balkan wars of that decade? What about the victims of insurgencies and counter- insurgencies in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya or Georgia? Or Israeli victims of the next Hamas suicide attack? Indeed, what about the Palestinian victims of Hamas's hideous human rights abuses, still so shamefully under-reported by the British media as a whole?

And who are these supposedly impartial charities who are attacking Mr Thompson's (albeit belated) attempt to uphold the Corporation's traditional standards? While groups such as the British Red Cross and Christian Aid are generally impartial in other areas of the world, that cannot be said to apply to their role in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, where they regularly view the conflict through a deeply partisan lens.

In the months prior to the decision by Hamas to end the six-month ceasefire and resume rocket attacks, these charities issued a flood of one- sided denunciations aimed at Israel. Their campaign repeated tendentious and often highly inaccurate terms such as “collective punishment” and “violation of international law”. On March 6, 2008, CARE International, Cafod, Christian Aid and Oxfam (among others) published a widely quoted report under the headline “The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion”. The authors did not bother to hide their political bias against Israel, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric and including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law”.

Read it all.

Winograd to address alleged war crimes during last year's Hizballah war

Read more about another aspect of Winograd right here.

Personally, I think this is great idea. I think Israel should honestly look at whether it committed 'war crimes' or not. But in turn, let's see the press publicize the fact that Israel is such a strong democracy, that it is willing to have a commission examine this issue. I also would love to see a commission examine Hizballah's war crimes. Maybe Winograd will do that?

Predictions...(and you do not need to be a swami to figure this out)...

• The report will find at least some 'war crimes' committed by Israel as war is hell and there are always war crimes committed during war. You cannot win a war without committing war crimes.
• The report will also address Hizballah's war crimes (which are much more serious, as they, unlike Israel, purposely aimed for civilians and in fact started the conflict).
• The media will ONLY highlight Israel's 'war crimes.'
• Olmert and cronies will remain in power, after all, Olmert said recently that Kadima will remain in power and he will be PM - despite his 0% approval rating. He will remain in power, no matter what Winograd says.
• Israel will not be praised for being such a strong democracy, that it even is willing to be this critical of itself.

These are my predictions, but I assure you that one does not have to be gifted with supersensory perception in order to figure these things out.

A captain in the US army's email written to your's truly

A few weeks ago, I was perusing Daily Kos, when I happened to read comments written by a very knowledgeable user. He debunked some of the more outlandish things blabbed about by user "Meteor Blades." Intrigued, I wrote him an email. It turns out this individual is a captain in the US army. He goes by the user name "John Rohan," and he is an extraordinary person. This is the email he wrote to your's truly...I think it will enlighten you all. It puts the Iraq War in a very different light.

Sorry it took so long to answer back. I've been on leave the last couple weeks and don't check this email account often. By coincidence, like your friend, I am a captain in the army too, and have done two tours myself. I think we should stay, but I would drastically change tactics and then cut down the troop numbers greatly. I would declare martial law, appoint a single strongman in charge for a two-year period, arrest Muqtada Al-Sadr, draft every eligible male, ban all personal weapons period, issue a new Iraqi ID without religion indicated on it, ban all non-essential foreigners from entering the country, and shut down the cell phone network. All the above would make life very difficult for the terrorists. To answer some of your other questions, here below is a letter I sent out to all my friends back in February, just before I got back from Iraq my second time. John Hello all, I'm leaving Iraq safe and sound. In fact, I am literally waiting for my flight out of here as I write this. This was my second tour, and hopefully my last. Now that you don't need to worry about me anymore (and if you didn't worry, it’s ok) I just wanted to describe my tour a little here to the people I love and to tell you a few things the press gets wrong. This way I also don't need to describe what I did here a dozen times over. If you are not interested, just skip all the below. It ended up longer than I planned. The opinions here are mine only, and probably not shared by everyone on this list. 1) What my job was: I was the intel officer for a transition team. We were a very small (11 man) team that worked as a liaison to an Iraqi national police battalion (Once upon a time, there was a real difference between Iraqi police, National police, and Iraqi army, but no more - they really all do the same job). We were pretty much on our own, and worked with our Iraqi soldiers on a daily basis. When I first got here, I expected we were to train them, and work with their staff. In reality, we didn't do much training; these guys were mostly all veterans, some of the Iran-Iraq war. I did work with their intel officers and train them, but the majority of our time was spent on joint patrols, or watching them while they conducted searches and raids. They prefer to have US forces there so people will see the raid is legit, not being done by a militia. We prefer to be there, because then there's less chance the Iraqis would abuse prisoners or mishandle weapons or evidence. 2) What is Baghdad like? - Well, it’s pretty much like it was in 2003-2004. That is, hot, dry, and not a lot of fun. The whole place just looks and reeks of death. Along the streets you can find one black spot after another where a bomb has gone off. If you look at the buildings, it would be hard to find one without bullet marks on it. At regular intervals there are lots twisted shapes of cars, the remnants of car bombs that exploded but were never towed off. Playgrounds are rusty relics, soccer field have been neglected and turn into trash dumps. Dust is everywhere, and it’s impossible to keep anything really clean. All the buildings, no matter their original color, turn the same dust color eventually, so the whole city is essentially the same color everywhere. It’s impossible to really describe in one email the many ways dust degrades the quality of life here. This country was had the most advanced and prosperous civilization in the world. But that was thousands of years ago, when the rivers provided plenty for the 1 million people of the land. Now it’s 23 million, and there's also less river because Turkey has damned up many of the sources for the Tigris and Euphrates. There are actually fish still living in the Tigris, but you wouldn't want to swim in it or drink from it, I promise you.In the distance, you regularly hear the pops of gunfire, and every once in a while, a mortar. Some of the gunfire is celebratory, and sometimes the bullets fall and kill people. I've seen the US wrongly blamed for this; people don't understand that bullets fall to earth, and they assume that a single bullet from the sky must have been fired from an aircraft.If you looked around, you might also notice that women are missing. Of all people you see walking on the streets or riding in a car, there are about 6-7 men for every woman. Baghdad streets are usually crowded with children, but normally all you see are boys. Many soldiers get the impression that there aren't many women in this country, when in reality there are far more women than men. The reason is very simple. People who think the US is a chauvinistic society should try visiting Iraq (or any country in the Middle East). Iraqis believe a woman's place is in the home (both figuratively and literally) and even when they go out they cover up from head to toe with a garment called the abaya. This was true in Saddam's time as well, but it’s even worse now, because of fears of woman's safety. To contrast with Germany, where women go jogging or biking all the time, this would be impossible here. To Muslims, everything is connected to sex, everything. If a woman did decide to simply jog down a street, I am told that everyone will point to her and say: "look at that bad woman, she is trying to show off her body to everyone", and the religious militias might beat her up for it.Believe it or not, Iraqi police and Iraqi army have women in them, but very few, and their job is really only to search female prisoners. Before they go home for the day, they change out of their uniform into an abaya, and generally don't tell their friends or family about their "scandalous" job. 3) Did I see any action? In 2003-2004, during my first tour, very little. I mostly dealt with prisoners and didn't go on many patrols or raids. But this time, I have been shot at, had a bomb blow up directly in front of me while manning a gun turret, witnessed a suicide car bomb go off just down the street (and searched through the grisly aftermath), treated an Iraqi gunshot victim while under fire, and many other gruesome things. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here; I didn't really do anything heroic, I just did the same job as everyone else with me at the time. But as bad as it was, all this is far worse for the average Iraqi soldier. They have to go through all this, plus they get paid far less for it, they don't have a safe place to go home to eventually, they don't have the advanced body and vehicle armor like we do, and their medical care is seriously lacking, since so many doctors have left the country to take safer, better paying jobs in the West. Here are just some of the ways the media or press either misunderstands Iraq, or deliberately distorts it: Myth 1) Every time we kill/capture an insurgent, more just takes his place, the war is just creating more terrorists. This is true to a point, but there is the other side of the coin. Every time terrorists kill an Iraqi national, it drives his family members to want to fight the terrorists - some of them join the ISF (Iraqi security forces) for this reason; unfortunately, many instead join a competing terrorist group to take out revenge. Myth 2) We are losing the war The war is actually a stalemate right now. If we are losing then the terrorists must be winning. Problem is, they don't dare openly control any territory and disappear pretty quickly whenever coalition forces or ISF show up in force. Moreover, they haven't achieved any of their objectives other than terrorizing the population. We made much more progress initially, but then it stopped. We are simply too divorced from the culture, language, and society to make much more progress. We can't blend in with the population or go deep undercover to root out the insurgents from their lairs. The Iraqis really do have to take it from here. For this reason, the planned upcoming surge in troops will not help much unless the tactics also change. We need to show a little more imagination than just playing "whack a mole". Some of the ideas I've heard kicked around for the extra troops do sound pretty good, but I'm not in that planning loop. Just have to see how it goes. Myth 3) Iraq is in a Civil War Not exactly a myth; This is actually entirely how you define civil war. It certainly isn't what you imagine as a classical example of Civil War, such as the US or Spanish Civil Wars. There aren't two clearly definable sides to the conflict. Each insurgent group (and there are many) is either Sunni or Shia, never mixed. But even these groups fight among themselves and both fight against US troops or Iraqi forces. If the US completely pulled out, my prediction is that it would turn into open civil war, with more definable sides as each faction decided to join one side or another. The danger is that the surrounding nations would get involved, and could be a very messy war. Myth 4) It’s a scandal that we didn't have more body armor for the troops or vehicles at the start of the war This one really galls me and I hear it a lot. Its strange that people who allege this didn't see it also as a scandal that Clinton didn't have body armor for soldiers in Somalia, Bosnia, or for that matter, any President in any prior war in US history (we have had flak jackets since Vietnam, but they stop shrapnel only - they aren't bulletproof). The reason why not every soldier had the IBA (interceptor body armor) at the start was that it was just being introduced for the very first time when the invasion took place! Now there is some misunderstanding on this among the public - if police departments have had bulletproof vests for a long time, why did it take the military so long to get them? The types of vests that police use would be pretty useless out here. Police vests stop handguns only, they don't stop any rifles unless they are of a very low caliber, and can't stop armor piercing bullets at all. The IBA is capable of stopping almost every kind of bullet there is (at least for a few hits). But it is bulky and hot as hell in the summertime!! Incredibly, some people are calling for more armor, like full arm and leg protection... I would ask them to try themselves going through an Iraqi Summer with all that on!! Also incredibly, sometimes the press is still claiming we don't have enough body armor, which hasn't been true for the last three years. Vehicle armor is a little different issue, and plenty of soldiers don't agree with me here. I feel the administration could have done more here, but not much. If, before the war, Rumsfeld tried to budget hundreds of millions for armor upgrade kits for Humvees, congress would have slammed him for it, and rightly so. There was no justifiable reason at that time to spend millions to put armor on a vehicles that still couldn't stand up to even the weakest Iraqi tank. Keep in mind that Humvees were meant to be military cars, like jeeps. They weren't supposed to be armored fighting vehicles. For that job we already had the Abrams tank, the Bradley, or the M113. But shortly after the invasion, it was decided that these vehicles were not ideal for regularly patrolling city streets, so they decided to go with Humvees for some patrols. I remember this time clearly. I guess they could have waited a couple months until more uparmored Humvees were available, but that would have given theinsurgents a faster head start in the cities of Iraq. I'm not sure if there really is a perfect answer here. Myth 5) The war was illegal It may have been immoral, if that's your opinion (not mine), but the war was actually technically legal. The UN had a mandatory resolution on Iraq authorizing the use of force if they didn't comply with inspections. Saddam didn't comply for 10 years and we let him get away with it (although we bombed him several times during the Clinton years). After such a long period of time, maybe it would have been better to get another resolution, but that's another story. Myth 6) Bush is to blame for all this violence Bush is certainly most to credit or blame for the invasion, but primary blame for the sectarian violence is on those who actually commit it. I saw this same attitude a couple years ago when so many commentators blamed the French government for the riots in Paris. I think there is an element of racism here; as if Arabs or Muslims in general just by nature can't help rioting or bombing other people, and so Bush's war set them all off and now of course that's all they will do. They can help it. They don't have to kill each other if they don't want to. If they don't want the US there the government now can simply ask us to leave. Even if they were justified in attacking coalition forces, what justification is there for them to blow up oil pipelines, hospitals and even crowded market places? That doesn't hurt us, it only hurts them.Shortly after I got here, there was a very shocking murder in a neighborhood right next to ours. An 8 year old boy was found dead with drill holes in his body and head. Let me say this straight - an EIGHT year old boy (same age as my daughter) was not just murdered, but tortured several times with a power drill. I'm sorry if that sounds upsetting (it upset me greatly) but there's no way to sugar coat it. It was almost certainly done by the Jaysh Al Mahdi (Sadr's militia), since that is one of their favorite techniques. Now there's no possible way this little boy was involved in terrorism. The only purpose of this torture and murder was to terrorize that particular Sunni neighborhood, and I'm sure it worked. Now in spite of all their religious justifications (it’s weird how every threatening letter here, no matter how violent the threats, is signed "in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful"!), the terrorists are human beings and deep down they know they are doingsomething wrong. Of the hundreds of prisoners I have dealt with, some of whom were literally caught in the act, I have yet to see one proudly admit he is fighting a just cause, or doing something right. You know what insurgents do when they get caught? They cry, cry, cry and deny, deny deny. Even if they are caught with overwhelming evidence, they make the most ludicrous stories about their situation (one guy claimed he was setting off bombs only to protect children because children kept trying to play with them!!!), or they will claim they were forced to join the terrorists because of threats to their family. It’s usually not true, but even if true, I don't believe that being threatened is a justifiable excuse for murdering innocent people. Strangely, for all their ferocity, they are extremely docile after they are caught and almost always spill their information very freely. If they truly believed they were fighting a just cause I think their behavior would be very different. I read in the paper that the Gitmo prisoners act very differently. Maybe it’s because they are the most hard core extremists? I don't know. Myth 7) Soldiers rape, murder and torture They do, but so do everyone else in the world. Certainly not at the rates you see in the press. My experiences here have forced me to challenge some of my past assumptions. For example, years ago when I saw the movie "Platoon", like everyone else I took it for granted that just like in the film, soldiers in Vietnam regularly tortured/raped/killed civilians, and got away with it. Now I am much more skeptical of these claims; I'm sure they happened, but I believe it may have been much more rare than people assume. The reason is because reporting on Iraq and soldiers actions has been so skewed from my personal experience that sometimes I wonder if I will ever believe the news again. I'm not exaggerating, probably only about 30% of what you read in the press about Iraq, especially if they are recent reports, is accurate. I can't tell you how often a news report said civilians were killed here or there in Baghdad, when I was there and no such thing happened at all. Or three werekilled but the news outlets say 30. Or they label the dead as "civilians" when more accurately they were actually armed insurgents. Moreover, there is no balance at all. On the very rare occasions when a soldier was accused of rape, it makes front pages everywhere. Yet, there have only been a handful of rape allegations in Iraq and even fewer verdicts. Moreover, anytime you have between 100-200 thousand people in one place, you are likely to have some incidents of rape and sexual assault. In fact, the rate out here is probably lower than the US average. Heck, once in 2003 my unit stopped a rape in progress at an Iraqi home. Did the press report it? Of course not, that's not newsworthy to them.In fact, going back to the murdered boy I spoke about earlier: the press didn't report that either. And why should they? It happens here every day. But one incident alone was far more egregious than all of the "tortures" done at Abu Gharayb put together, yet Abu Gharayb was splashed on the front page of the NYT at least two dozen times.Speaking of Abu Gharayb, I have had Iraqi prisoners sent there on my orders. A few of them were later released and I met them again (they sometimes come back trying to find out what happened to other prisoners, or looking for their missing belongings or some such). This was both before and after the big scandal broke. I asked them how they were treated, and not a single one of them told me he was abused there. They did have plenty of complaints about the food, the length of time, visitation, etc. But not abuse. In any case, I think a lot of this distortion is because people want to discredit Bush, and so they do it by criticizing the military, like they are one and the same. But I need to emphasize this: It is NOT George W Bush's military! We are not his personal force. I have served since the Clinton years and seen very little difference in the way the military is run. Bush is commander in Chief, but he actually scarcely gets involved in the day to day operations. Myth 8) We armed Saddam in the first place I see this falsehood repeated a lot, and a lot of authors have tried to cash in on it. The US did provide some assistance, but we never sold weapons to Saddam (at least not directly, and saying we "armed Saddam" is ridiculous). The US did directly sell some artillery pieces to Iraq, but the last was in 1967, before Saddam's time. During the Iran-Iraq war, the US also sold some unarmed helicopters, and some US companies sold chemicals, some of which were used to help make chemical weapons later. But the chemicals themselves were perfectly legal to sell, and Saddam was also buying them from other countries anyway. The CIA did help Iraq make contacts to buy weapons from several other nations, and strangely these nations get very little criticism for it. For example, France sold Saddam Roland missiles, Mirage fighters and Super Etendard bombers, while Argentina sold thousands of anti-personnel mines. One popular weapon of choice among insurgents is a particular Italian-made anti-tank mine. Myth 9) The US used chemical weapons in Fallujah This was a huge lie spread in a short film by RAI, an Italian company, several months ago, and was debunked, but not loudly enough, in my opinion. They showed footage of blackened bodies with Iraqis claiming that it was done by napalm and white phosphorous from US attacks. But they didn't seem to notice that the bodies still had clothes on them, and the clothes weren't burnt at all! The bodies were actually dug from the ground and were black from decomposition, not burning. In any case, napalm has never been used here to my knowledge, and in the desert it wouldn't be very useful anyway. White phosphorous has been used to smoke out insurgents, since it makes a lot of smoke, but it doesn't work well as a weapon. But even if it was used as a weapon, it is not a chemical weapon under any international agreement. This is an important distinction, because every weapon on Earth, whether bullets, knives or bombs, uses chemicals. Myth 9) The Iraqi people hate Americans and want to kill each other I see this attitude around, among a lot of soldiers too. Truth is, probably less than 1% of Iraqis want to kill Americans, and over 90% want the violence to end. But even 1% in a nation of 23 million is 230,000 people, so it’s still a lot of people! But the point is, the vast majority of Iraqis are decent people, and they really do want and end to the fighting and just to be able to live in a decent country. I'm not just saying this in some obligatory way. There are several Iraqis that I am very proud to call my friends, and would be welcome in my home anytime. But what they don't seem to understand yet is that the US cannot fix this all for them. They must do this themselves.

I hope you found this all as interesting as I did!

The morality of MURDER

Several months ago, I wrote posts about terrorism and heroism. I feel that the two posts need to be re-read in light of a recent brutal murder of an Israeli settler near Hebron. This person, Erez Levanon, was stabbed to death by two Israeli teens. Islamic Jihad is claiming responsibility. The crime of Mr. Levanon? Existing. Levanon was not a soldier. He was not a warrior. Rather, all he wanted to do was pray in peace. But Mr. Levanon was a 'settler,' and hence inherently 'evil,' merely by existing. The justification for the attack was that Mr. Levanon was simply living in land that never was 'Palestinian' to begin with, and at the very MOST could be considered disputed territory. (Please read my earlier column explaining why I support Israel's 'settlements.') Yet the world swallows this 'justification' as if there is a moral equivalence. The fact that Mr. Levanon was living in land that Israel has every right to, mind you, is seen as morally equivalent to his brutal stabbing death. It's 'understandable' that 'Palestinians' would brutally slay a settler, because, goshdarnit, the settler is the original evil by trespassing, anyway! OR, it's understandable why an unarmed man would be killed, because it's logical 'retaliation' for Israel's killing Palestinians who are engaged in active warfare with Israel. (please visit Aussie Dave's analysis of the inconsistency in the media reports concerning the death of one such 'Palestinian') Let's see some examples of the MSM's 'reporting' of the issue... United Press International - Spends time going over the IDF activities in Nablus, and then mentions in passing that Erez Levanon was killed, implying that it was linked to Nablus activities, justified by it, or generally insignificant compared to the harm caused to 'Palestinians.' Boston Globe - Spends time discussing activities in Nablus, and then mentions in passing about Levanon, after it goes into detail about the death of Anan Tibi, and 'delays of Palestinian medical trucks.' (this ignores the Red Crescent link to terror, of course) BBC - Oops, no coverage of the Levanon death! L.A. Times - Almost word for word the same as the Boston Globe. N.Y. Times - Spends many paragraphs discussing Tibi's death, as well as the Nablus activities of the IDF, and a passing sentence about Levanon. You get the point. I could do a wider analysis of every single MSM outlet that discusses the death of Erez Levanon, but they are all very similar. Please note how the MSM spends so little time discussing Levanon's death, and so much time discussing Tibi's death. Please also note how Levanon's death is framed - as if it is a justified retaliation to the IDF's activities in Nablus. (activities that are necessary for Israel's security!) Far leftists (and far 'rightists') will openly proclaim Levanon's death as justified because of the mere fact that he is a settler. But the MSM, in the way it covers things, is subtley saying the same. There is no moral equivalence. And there is no justified link between the murder of people like Levanon, and the 'Palestinian' dreams of statehood. While we are NOT fighting a war on 'terror,' (we are fighting a war against Islamofascism), this terror is NOT justified under ANY logical form of reasoning! These Palestinians are NOT heroes or 'martyrs' for some higher cause! Rather, they are the WORST ENEMIES OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE! And by acknowledging this, I am one of the few truly 'pro-Palestinian' people out there.

The MSM continues its diservice to readers

Continuing its disgraceful trend of doing a disservice to its readers, the mainstream Media (MSM) again censored various parts of reports coming about the “Deal Express incident” (Samjhauta Express). This censorship concerns whether the individuals detained are Muslim or Hindu. This time the victims were Muslims, but the censorship may stem from MSM fears that Muslims will strike back at Muslims if they bring to light that the detained persons were Muslims. Or, perhaps MSM fears that it will boost a feeling of “Islamophobia” in Muslims against Muslims. In our previous report, we discussed different factors behind the recent Samjhauta Express bombing, including “Why Panipat was choosen”. The new outcomes from media reports well illustrates our report. The terrorist, who planned suitcase bombs inside “Samjhauta Express” flew using western UP (cultural hub of the Deobandi sect of Islam). In any case, once again, MSM news is clashing with the truth (in this case, raping with the truth!) This has gone beyond just mangling the words, now they are involved in hiding figures presented by Police. BBC quoted:

Police in India say they have detained three people in connection with Sunday's bomb attack aboard a train travelling from India to Pakistan.

It further added,

The three people (two men and a woman) were detained by police in Bikaner, one of Rajasthan's four districts bordering Pakistan, says the BBC correspondent in the state.

For the same incident covered at NDTV says:

Also, six people have been held by the police in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Of the six people, two were picked up for questioning in western UP and four in Rajasthan.

Among the four people detained in Rajasthan is a married couple from the Naya Sahar locality of Bikaner.The couple provided the police with leads which led to two more people being held in Bikaner.

The police sketches were based on eyewitness descriptions of the men who left the train just before the bombs exploded.

IBNLive, another news channel from India, has provided a bit more insight to the story. It documented something that other Media skipped.

The five were held from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Old Delhi. Among them were a Muslim man and his wife who were detained from Naya Sahar in Bikaner, Rajasthan.

The raids were conducted in Bikaner and other parts of Rajasthan, including Jaipur, based on intelligence inputs, Bikaner Superintendent of Police Ashok Rathore told PTI.

He added that no names were being revealed yet due to security reasons but stated that the raids were still on.

We can take from this that the frame for the direction of the investigation is setting. The questions still always exist, Were the radical Hindus using a Muslim to blow Muslims? …Or, were they new converts to Islam radicalised by ‘peaceful Imams,’ due to ‘bad communication skills and misinterpretation of Koran?’ …Or were they Muslims fed with a radical mentality from birth?

From the Ashes of a Burnt Train

*UPDATE** Please see updates to this story here.

*UPDATE 2** can be located here The date of this story was changed so it remains on the front page for a longer time.

***** 18th February, 2007: Yet another chapter has been added to the list of terrorist attacks committed on the Indian transportation system. While politicians now appear to have decided to comment with even greater caution as to the content of their own remarks on the atrocity, the MSM (Mainstream Media) has somehow tried to further their censorship of such comments by politicians, with the result that the real picture is increasingly mired in thick fog. Verbal tricks now commonly being deployed among the Western MSM, such as the remark that "a person of South Asian origin" was behind the terrorist attack, continues as ever to evade and obscure the real issues at hand. But still the question remains: what is really happening? This question will remain unanswered satisfactorily until vast sections of the media stop defending the real terrorists, and until politicians stop their continual hesitation in discussing global terrorism from behind a thick veil of political correctness. The following documentation will take you inside the untold story of the "blast in Samjhauta Express," and will address existing differences among media reports, and what they certainly forgot to tell. This is not the first time that Indian railways have come under attack from terrorist and radical elements. To begin with, we list a chronology of attacks provided by the MSM on this very issue:

July 11, 2006: 185 people were killed in seven bomb explosions at rail stations and on trains in Mumbai. March 13, 2003: A bomb attack on a commuter train in Mumbai killed 11 persons. June 22, 1999: A powerful explosion rocked the New Jalpaiguri railway station killing at least nine passengers, including two Indian soldiers headed for Kashmir. 85 others were injured, including 10 soldiers. July eight, 1997: Thirty-three people were killed in a bomb blast in a passenger train at Lehra Khanna railway station in Punjab's Bhatinda district. December 30, 1996: Thirty-three people were killed in a bomb blast in Brahmaputra Mail between Kokrajhar and Fakiragram stations in lower Assam.

The above provided chronology, a chronology available on almost every media site, can easily be located at the following URLs: (Times of India; NDTV.com; Washington Post) Almost every Indian, including Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Sikhs, is openly condemning this terror attack. Moderate Muslims are also victims of terrorism, because if they disagree with the Jihadists, then such radical elements will attack them as well. However, the terrorism cited is taking place in Hindu-majority India. When the media focuses on radical Hindu groups, but pays less attention to the radical Islamic groups, this gives an extra reason for moderate Muslim groups not to speak out. As an individual from India, I will document the situation as I interpret it. I hope the following will enlighten you about an India that you may not have yet explored. If you were to ask me to explain the attack on Samjhauta express, then I will say not just that it is a terrorist atrocity like others, but also thus:

If you ignore one massacre, there will be another soon waiting to happen.

In line with this, this episode is unfortunately not something new happening on Indian trains. Just look at a few descriptive words from the horrific Samjhota Express tragedy: On the train, many feared to be dead, bodies were charred beyond reorganisation, disturbing their peace process, heinous crime, bottles of explosives, screaming, struggling to get out of fire stricken carriages… Put these floating words next to perhaps any Hindu, or a person well aware of Indian history, and he will give you an account of an incident that took place on 27th February, 2002. Unfortunately, this same incident has been missed out on altogether in the above chronologies. Perhaps the MSM saw that an attack on Hindus was not a terrorist attack, thus becoming the latest addition to the Indian brand of "Negationism"? However, the manner in which the recent Samjhota Express terror attack was reported is yet another example of why Hindu Indians are losing faith in their government. But the government will claim it is only "Hindu radicals" that are losing faith in the Indian National Congress-led government. Anger is not only growing towards the Indian government, but also towards the West. A typical Indian thinks that these kinds of cover-ups and endless submissive posturing to certain Islamic interest groups owes in large part to Western pressures, and wonders why India does not take action against terrorist organisations inside Pakistan-organised Kashmir. A recent NDTV poll shows that Indians thinks the West uses double standards in dealing with terror. While Indians have faced terrorist attacks continuously for decades, western commentators seem unwilling to sympathise with the pain of India, as in the case of documentaries like Obsession, where they just skipped any reference to the Indian experience. People have been murdered, and an unbearable pain exists in hearts of relatives and friends of those murdered victims. But the question arises: how do you begin to define this human pain? In the case of the "Samjhauta Express," the Indian government has accepted that there was a security loophole. In case of the Godhra train burning, we got thousands of conspiracy theories. Are moderate Muslims ready to accept the comment of Laloo Prasad Yadav that it was just a security loophole, or will they also think of the inter-religious hate that Muslims direct towards non-Muslims? If the Indian government even speaks from security loophole point, then why was there little or no discussion about the security of Indians after the Mumbai bomb blast? Why were fire-extinguishers not installed in Indian trains after the Godhra incident? Various other questions include ones such as whether Panipat was strategically chosen. If it was, then why is the media not speaking of it? Why did the blast occur in an ultra-sensitive security zone? How did the blast occur? Who was behind the attack? All of the answers are hidden inside Godhra train burning incident, the same incident that was brutally ripped off from terror attack chronologies. Perhaps Americans should learn from this that if they do not defend themselves against 9/11 conspiracy theories, they will also end up with similar fates, with no one to remember victims of 9/11, except all those who curse Americans for their war against terror. The media has chosen the option of sidelining 9/11. So to see what is really missing in media commentaries, and what politicians really want to hide, let us drill into Godhra.

REVISITING ASHES OF GODHRA

The Godhra Train Burning Incident occurred in the town of Godhra in the Indian state of Gujarat at 0630 hrs on 27 February 2002. A train named the "Sabarmati Express" caught fire right after it left the train station. One of the coaches (Coach #S6) that was set on fire was occupied by Hindu religious pilgrims called Kar Sevaks who were returning from Ayodhya. 58 Hindu pilgrims including 15 women and 20 children were burnt alive in the train coach. It is said that intelligence agencies were aware of an impending disaster as the areas around the small town of Godhra were by then already called mini-Pakistan. Americans must equate this to those 9/11 conspiracies theories which place blame back on America. Coach S6 was completely gutted by the fire. The fire happened during an attack by a Muslim mob following an altercation between the Hindu pilgrims and local Muslims when the train was in platform. People, who are unaware of the background, should understand that term "mini Pakistan" was a term coined at a time when Islamabad had a stronghold of terrorists, and radical Islamic elements were openly taking roads in Karachi and Islamabad. These Islamists were contributing to worldwide demonstrations of calls of "death to America, death to Israel, death to India." The areas which were full of people sympathizing and contributing in those death call missions were known as mini-Pakistan. The Tribune reported:

As the train left Godhra station, one of the miscreants who had boarded it, pulled the chain alarm after some time to halt the train a km away. It was here that a large number of stone-pelting [Muslim] miscreants set the coach ablaze by throwing petrol bombs and dousing it with kerosene and petrol.

Setting Frame around Godhra train burning incident

Initial investigations led to the suspicion that a planned conspiracy was behind the train burning, rather than a spontaneous reaction. In 2003, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Gujarat Police moved the session's court in Godhra to invoke provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) against all 123 accused in the case, including seven who were out on bail. On February 6, 2003, Maulana Hussein Umarji a Muslim leader of the Deobandi sect of Islamic Fundamentalism in Godhra, was arrested. The police alleged that he was the prime conspirator in the train burning. His arrest followed the confessional statement of Jabir Binyamin Behera, an accused who was arrested on January 22. For those who are unaware, Deobandi sect of Islam also represents the Talibani movement. Behera confessed that around 11.30 p.m. on the previous night he was present on the ground floor of a guest house when other suspects arrived on a scooter and initiated the first meeting. Allegedly, the strategy was to launch an attack at the slightest provocation from the Kar Sevaks who were returning from Ayodhya. The same night, the conspirators collected 140 litres of fuel from a local petrol pump and stored it at a guest house. They also had instructions from Umarji, who had advanced information on the position of the Kar Sevaks on the Sabarmati Express and specifically told them to target Coach S6 of the train. The confession further went that a second meeting was held around midnight after which a co-conspirator named Paanwala allegedly left for the railway station to check on the train's arrival time. After learning that the train was late, they scrapped their original plan of a pre-dawn attack. In his confession Behera says it was Umarji ( equivalent figure to the Mayor of London, who had supported Mega Mosque project) who advised him against surrendering to the police. The investigators considered Umarji(leader of the Deobandi-Tablighi Jamaat) a "big catch" since the mob that burnt bogie S6 was mainly composed of people from the Ghanchi community, a majority of whom were followers of the Deobandi sect. It was also suggested that foreign Islamic terrorists were involved in the act thus necessitating the invocation of POTA. In September, the investigations changed course with the naming of Razzak Kurkur, a hotelier from the Muslim-dominated Signal Falia area, as an accused. It was then claimed that though a huge mob was involved in the attack, the actual train burning was the handiwork of a core team of twenty. By the end, the findings of Godhra were suffering the conspiracies theories, like the vast conspiracies theories in case of 9/11. The defense lawyers of the accused argued against the theories of the SIT, alleging that the charge sheets did not mention that the accused were active participants in the burning, and that the confessions needed to be backed up by sufficient evidence. The SIT report has also been questioned for apparent inconsistencies, such as the speed at which the petrol fuel was delivered to the attack site, and the lack of witnesses. Frontline reports on Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Gujarat Police findings:

SIT called a press conference to reiterate its conspiracy theory. Rakesh Asthana, who heads the SIT. He maintains that the plan to torch the train was masterminded during meetings at the Aman Guest House, owned by Razak Kurkur, who allegedly heads a local criminal gang involved in railway crimes. ... the actual operation was conducted by six people, who cut open the vestibule and entered the coach, opened the doors of the compartment and poured 120 litres of petrol (each person supposedly carried a 20-litre jerry can) before jumping out. Then, burning rags were thrown into the compartments through the windows. The SIT's main evidence is a court confession by Zabir Bin Yameen Behra, one of those who allegedly entered coach S-6. Behra first gave details of how the plan was hatched. Later, he went back on the testimony, saying the police forced him to depose before the court.

Searching Godhra in Samjhauta Express flames

In the Samjhauta Express incident, the majority of victims were Pakistani Muslims, but the various similarities between Godhra and Samjhauta Express case are ignored. The ignorance given to Godhra itself raises various questions about the neutral role of Indian government and Mainstream Media. Normally, all of the reports say that the purpose of the attack on the Samjhauta Express was to derail the peace process, or indirectly to provoke Hindu Muslim riots. Condemning the incident, Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav said it was an attempt to derail the improving relations between the two sides. "The dead include children, guards and many of our Pakistani brothers and sisters," said Lalu. "Whoever is behind the incident is against peace and wants to spoil our growing relationship with other countries," said Patil. More of political and media condemnation and its media coverage can be located here: (Daily Pioneer; BBC) While most news agencies were busy in mangling the news from the ground, the BBC was shining a bit of light on the topic, despite its previous record.

The reaction from both governments suggests the prime suspects might be groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad - the main Islamic militant groups, who have been blamed for many high-profile bombings, says the BBC's Jill McGivering.

They further added:

Recent attacks on Delhi, Mumbai and Varanasi, for example, seemed designed to damage India's image abroad and stoke anti-Pakistan feeling inside India. But the fact that so many of the dead on the train were Pakistani Muslims may indicate that the devices were intended for a different target, or exploded prematurely, she says.

For sure, I must appreciate the BBC's lead in this coverage, for accepting the truth of Islamic militancy, but is name-mangling a solution to Islam-o-phobia? Is it helping the world to fight global terrorism? Is it a crime if you openly blame Wahhabi or Salafi ideology instead of covering up things in tags like "South Asian"? Let's connect various news sources to understand why Panipat was chosen.

Dissecting Panipat Geographically

Panipat lies in Indian State Haryana, bordering another Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

This area is also famous for high crime rates; since criminals found it a haven in escaping to the neighbouring state of Uttar Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh and Haryana are divided by river Yamuna). The crime rate in that area soars even higher than that of Jammu and Kashmir. The 2003 records are available here from across the Yamuna region. From 2003 onwards, there were some new promotion policies under which a police officer is promoted if the crime rate goes down. This started a new trend, and if you go to police station in western UP (trans-Yamuna from Panipat) to report a crime, they will be reluctant to register your report. As soon as a criminal cross this river, he in a different state, served by different rules, observed by different police, and also a different kind of lawlessness. In short, if you do a crime one side of the river, just go to the other side and it becomes the rhetorical completion of a pilgrimage to Mecca; you are sin-free again. There are open borders, so there is no fear of border agents controlling militants crossing inside Haryana. The ability to return back to the other state is applicable; it may vary from a few months or sometimes a year. Indian police usually stores its data in registers (not electronic, but paper registers), and after few years these registers are dumped in some preservative room to store the data of crime for future use, perhaps for some statistical survey. Unlike western Islamofascists, Indian Islamofascists don't have to flee the country, but rather just have to cross the state borders to secure themselves. If you are in India, and break some rule, now you know the trick as to how to get off scot-free. In discussing Godhra riots, we came across the Deobandi sect of Islam. If one crosses the river Yamuna from Panipat, you are in a stronghold of Deobandis, the Indian district of Muzaffarnagar. This district also came to light last year with the Imrana rape case. Deoband, the origin of Deobandi sect of Islam, is one of the neighbouring cities to Muzaffarnagar. This district also came in light last year with Imrana Rape case. Deoband, the origin place of Deobandi sect of Islam, is one of neighbouring cities from Muzaffarnagar.

Historical significance of Panipat and neighbourhood

Panipat in itself is famous for various historical battles, but the historical significance here is with respect to Deobandi, which lies on the other side of Yamuna, and is a stronghold in the neighbouring areas of Panipat. These areas are Sonipat, Muzaffarnagar, Deoband, Meerut and so on. In recent years it has been observed that various Deobandi madrassas have popped up in this area, including in Panipat.

Note: You may have also observed Deobandi Madrassas popping up in your cities too. The Mega Mosque Project from London is also a Deobandi project, as Tablighi Jammat is an umbrella group from the Deobandi sect.

In fact, the Deobandi movement in itself started from among neighbouring areas of Panipat, like the Saharanpur district (holding Deoband city), or Muzaffarnagar (an active participant in the 1857 mutiny) or Meerut. The Deobandi movement was an outcome after failure of 1857 Mutiny to save the Mughal Caliphate, which also started from this localized zone. More about this can be found here. (BBC; Sepoy Mutiny)

Joining the data available from various news sources about the Samjhauta incident

Samjhauta Express, which the media has advertised as the "Friendship Express" has one more meaning. Samjhauta also means deal. But these differences are merely of words, like that of Islam's meaning: does it mean peace (or does it mean surrender?).

In any case, the necessary condition you must fulfil to board on "Deal Express" is to get a passport (valid or fake) with a visa stamped in it (i.e. visa of the country you are bound to travel).

Hindustan Times

These conditions can be easily fulfilled by general passengers, as well as terrorists. The terrorist is then welcome to board the train to enter the country of Kufirs, the gateway of Paradise.

Some ex-terrorists have previously revealed how they travelled across the border using valid passports through the Samjhauta Express. This news from 6th January 2006 is still available in archives here:

Daily Excelsior NDTV

With the "war on terror" taking its hold over south Asia, Pakistan seems to be serious for the first time about holding a peace deal. We may never know: is it due to intense international pressure or because now Pakistanis slowly understanding that radical Muslims are enemies of whole human civilizations?

With this in mind, on 18 February 2007, some terrorist (we don't know the nationality, nor religion as yet), with all documents (valid or fake), joined the journey of Samjhata Express which was packed with a majority of Pakistani Muslims, a minority of Indian Muslims and six security personnel. The train was set bound towards Atari with one technical halt in between (it is not clear whether it was Ambala or Ludhiana).

Yahoo News

The terrorist managed to enter the train with 4 or 5 suitcase-bombs (it is difficult to get exact figure from documentations, as some say five suitcases). Each suitcase-bomb includes an electronic timer encased in clear plastic and packed next to more than a dozen plastic bottles containing a cocktail of fuel oils and chemicals. Of these, two exploded.

Reuters

Before the blast, two men (or perhaps even as many as five) managed to jump out of the train near Dewana (which falls under Panipat district) as the train slowed down near Dewana station. These two suspects engaged in a heated argument with the personnel of Railway Protection Force for about 20 minutes. This took place 15 minutes before the blast.

DDI News

After going through Dewana station, the train speeds up the engines. The man controlling the signals at Dewana station noticed a fire in the back compartments of the train and ran to the control signals to stop the train.

AP wire quoted: "Alerted to the blast by a railway worker, assistant station manager Vinod Kumar Gupta emerged from his trackside house and said he "saw flames leaping out of the windows.""

The train was already in speed of around 80-100 kms/hr, and then the sudden breaking induced a loud noise. Due to this noise, villagers from near by area gathered and had tried to extinguish the fire. The train halted about 1 km away from when the noise first started.

Awakened by the screeching of brakes, villagers in Sewah, just up the tracks from Dewana, rushed to douse the fire and save whomever they could.

"I opened my shop and grabbed buckets," said Satish Sharma, a 33-year-old store owner who sprinted up the dirt road toward the tracks, past the small temple to the Hindu god Shiva.

"We threw bucket and bucket on the train but the flames grew higher - we could do nothing," he said. "I could smell the people being burned - I wanted to vomit."

The intense heat had sealed shut at least one door in the forward coach, and the windows were barred, trapping passengers inside. At least another dozen died in the rear coach, from whom authorities said 20 to 25 people managed to escape through an open door, some jumping out with their clothes on fire.

"Fire trucks arrived about 45 minutes later. Within two hours, the two damaged coaches - now little more than blackened hulls on wheels - were pushed off to a siding."

Miami News

What was left behind was the death of many innocents, and for sure moderate Muslims. But the incident has raised many other questions too.

MOVING BACK TO GODHRA

By now we know that a suitcase packed with kerosene bottles can burn a train compartment.

A big suitcase can carry 10 to 15 bottles (1 litters Bottles as shown by police officials).

Thus the outcome is: two suitcases carrying less then 25 liters of kerosene (each) were enough to burn a whole train compartment.

The Fire brigade was also arrived after 45 minutes, and when the fire was extinguished.

The BBC further describes the scene by quote :

The BBC's Soutik Biswas, at the scene, said the heat of the flames had peeled the blue paint off the coaches, and oil and cinders covered the tracks.

But in case of Godhra, Mr. Laloo Parsad (Railway Minister) presented a enquiry report, says that the train coaches are designed as “fire-proof”. Tribune India

A Tribune archive from above quoted links says..

“The team, headed by Justice U.C. Bannerjee, held meetings with the General Manager, Mr Mohammad Sirajjudin. The team members were given details about the chemicals and procedures involved in making fire-proof coaches. The members discussed the factors that could have been responsible for the fast spread of fire in the coaches of Sabarmati Express.”

Further another archive information about Godhra (located here) says:

“With the elimination of the ‘petrol theory’, ‘miscreant activity theory’ as well as ruling out of any possibility of ‘electrical fire’, the fire in S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express can at this stage be ascribed as an ‘accidental fire’,” the committee said in its interim report which was submitted by Justice Banerjee to the Railway Board Chairman R.K. Singh. The committee was appointed by the UPA Government in September last year at the instance of Railway Minister Laloo Prasad.”

Unfortunately, the description of the Samjhauta Express with regards to peeled-off blue paint, oil and cinders speak volumes about the fire-proof standards of Indian trains. Perhaps the Fraud section under this link describing fire-proofing explains it well.

Some more important points to notice are:

• The Godhra incident includes burning of one train compartment with 120 to 140 litres of petroleum. In the case of Samjhauta Express it took less than 25 litres of kerosene.
• There were attempts to extinguish the flames by villagers and they were joined by fire brigade after 45 minutes. In the case of Godhra, there was no fire brigade for a long time. The first thing security personnel were concerned with was with moving Muslim mobs back. By this time groups of Hindus had burnt to death in the Godhra train burning incident.

We do know that Laloo is giving a compensation of one million Indian rupees ($22,690) to each victim, which is perhaps the largest sum of money any terror victim has received from the Indian government. We also know that Laloo vote bank is Muslim. We don't say that he should not contribute this way in helping victims, or that he should not think of his vote bank; however, can't he provide a bit of respect to those who died in Godhra train burning incident also? Bloomberg

Although terrorists are trying their best to provoke Hindu Muslims into fighting, what is especially troubling is what Indian politicians are trying to prove by brutally cleaning history. When they speak cautiously, why not also take caution that victims of Godhra also don't get hurt due to their dirty politics?

Some questions that arise

Owing to the proximity of the Samjhauta bombing to the Kasuri Peace visit, it seems quite likely that someone really against this peace process undertook the Samjhauta bombing. The organizations most to lose from this peace process are the terrorist organisations from Kashmir. When the "war on terror" gets close and tight, the terrorist outlet finds it hard to sustain their activities.

JKLF have openly protested: Hindustan Times Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are already pointed by the BBC.

And everything else roams around a region, which is close to the hub of Deobandis. Questions to ask: why do terrorist usually take shelter in mosques? In this case, why had terrorist choosen this specific location for escaping, a location which takes them only towards the hub of Deobandis?

Are the terrorists radical Hindus? If the government says it can't be ruled out, then who am I to say anything against it? But a logical question still remains: why would radical Hindus choose 18th Feburary 2007, when waiting a week would provide a reason in the form of the 5th anniversary of Godhra riots?

Some more data to be concerned with

The Tablighi Jammat is now expanding its work in the West. The Indian counterpart is given to SIMI. With the help of corrupted Indian politicians, SIMI don't need to feast at all. SIMI was believed to be linked to the Mumbai bomb blast last year. The terrorist organisation SIMI has had to face terrible shocks due to their linkage with that bombing, but ever since then, why have Indian politicians taken all charges back against radical organisations like SIMI (in Hindi only)?

We will never know really what the majority of politicians around South Asia are cooking up, but we do know that this will affect our lives, as well as lives of moderate Muslims.

This is a question for the sake of survival. After every Islamic terrorist attack, news channels broadcast a special series of article, which are typically entitled "Muslims feel the heat". Instead of condemning the terror openly, the media always tries to give a shelter to terrorists so they can hide behind words of ambiguity. Under the unknown truth about Samjhauta Express, questions still prevail:

Was it a Hindu radical who utilised the gateway, the same gateway Indian politicians had provided to terrorists via "Deal Express", so that he could check terrorist inflow inside India?

Or was it an Islamofascist, who was devastated with "war on terror" and the "peace process", and thus looked to attack the "Friendship Express"?

Whomever it was, I am sure that now Muslims feel the heat. I hope that Moderate Muslim world got a lesson, a lesson that our society is really polarized. The polarisation of society started from Islamic mosques and madrassas, which are making the world unsafe for all. If they really want to live in peace, then they should stop promoting radical mentalities inside their mosques, by speaking loudly against radical mullahs.

As for Indian politicians, please stop brutally cleaning the history of India. We do know what "Samjhauta" means in Islam. So before making any "Peace Deal", do read Koran SURA 9:5

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I hope that Pakistan's approach for peace is really meant for peace instead of "Samjhauta" (deal). But what they call peace, we call it surrender. The democratic world wants the Muslim world to throw away those Hate Suras, if they are really looking forward towards a peaceful world. But before signing the new peace pact book, you may need to actually stop teaching your children hate.