Robert Fisk: The cult of the suicide bomber - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#1480093
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-cult-of-the-suicide-bomber-795649.html

Robert Fisk: The cult of the suicide bomber

Few players in the 'war on terror' are more chilling, or misunderstood, than suicide bombers. Yet the true scale of their grisly activities has never been properly calculated. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Robert Fisk details the shocking extent of the most widespread campaign of self-liquidation in human history

Friday, 14 March 2008

Khaled looked at me with a broad smile. He was almost laughing. At one point, when I told him that he should abandon all thoughts of being a suicide bomber – that he could influence more people in this world by becoming a journalist – he put his head back and shot me a grin, world-weary for a man in his teens. "You have your mission," he said. "And I have mine." His sisters looked at him in awe. He was their hero, their amanuensis and their teacher, their representative and their soon-to-be-martyred brother. Yes, he was handsome, young – just 18 – he was dressed in a black Giorgio Armani T-shirt, a small, carefully trimmed Spanish conquistador's beard, gelled hair. And he was ready to immolate himself.


A sinister surprise. I had travelled to Khaled's home to speak to his mother. I had already written about his brother Hassan and wanted to introduce a Canadian journalist colleague, Nelofer Pazira, to the family. When Khaled walked on to the porch of the house, Nelofer and I both realised – at the same moment – that he was next, the next to die, the next "martyr". It was his smile. I've come across these young men before, but never one who so obviously declared his calling.

His family sat around us on the porch of their home above the Lebanese city of Sidon, the sitting room adorned with coloured photographs of Hassan, already gone to the paradise – so they assured me – for which Khaled clearly thought he was destined. Hassan had driven his explosives-laden car into an American military convoy at Tal Afar in north-western Iraq, his body (or what was left of it) buried "in situ" – or so his mother was informed.

It's easy to find the families of the newly dead in Lebanon. Their names are read from the minarets of Sidon's mosques (most are Palestinian) and in Tripoli, in northern Lebanon, the Sunni "Tawhid" movement boasts "hundreds" of suiciders among its supporters. Every night, the population of Lebanon watches the brutal war in Iraq on television. "It's difficult to reach 'Palestine' these days," Khaled's uncle informed me. "Iraq is easier."

Too true. No one doubts that the road to Baghdad – or Tal Afar or Fallujah or Mosul – lies through Syria, and that the movement of suicide bombers from the Mediterranean coasts to the deserts of Iraq is a planned if not particularly sophisticated affair. What is astonishing – what is not mentioned by the Americans or the Iraqi "government" or the British authorities or indeed by many journalists – is the sheer scale of the suicide campaign, the vast numbers of young men (only occasionally women), who wilfully destroy themselves amid the American convoys, outside the Iraqi police stations, in markets and around mosques and in shopping streets and on lonely roads beside remote checkpoints across the huge cities and vast deserts of Iraq. Never have the true figures for this astonishing and unprecedented campaign of self-liquidation been calculated.

But a month-long investigation by The Independent, culling four Arabic-language newspapers, official Iraqi statistics, two Beirut news agencies and Western reports, shows that an incredible 1,121 Muslim suicide bombers have blown themselves up in Iraq. This is a very conservative figure and – given the propensity of the authorities (and of journalists) to report only those suicide bombings that kill dozens of people – the true estimate may be double this number. On several days, six – even nine – suicide bombers have exploded themselves in Iraq in a display of almost Wal-Mart availability. If life in Iraq is cheap, death is cheaper.

This is perhaps the most frightening and ghoulish legacy of George Bush's invasion of Iraq five years ago. Suicide bombers in Iraq have killed at least 13,000 men, women and children – our most conservative estimate gives a total figure of 13,132 – and wounded a minimum of 16,112 people. If we include the dead and wounded in the mass stampede at the Baghdad Tigris river bridge in the summer of 2005 – caused by fear of suicide bombers – the figures rise to 14,132 and 16,612 respectively. Again, it must be emphasised that these statistics are minimums. For 529 of the suicide bombings in Iraq, no figures for wounded are available. Where wounded have been listed in news reports as "several", we have made no addition to the figures. And the number of critically injured who later died remains unknown. Set against a possible death toll of half a million Iraqis since the March 2003 invasion, the suicide bombers' victims may appear insignificant; but the killers' ability to terrorise civilians, militiamen and Western troops and mercenaries is incalculable.

Never before has the Arab world witnessed a phenomenon of suicide-death on this scale. During Israel's occupation of Lebanon after 1982, one Hizbollah suicide-bombing a month was considered remarkable. During the Palestinian intifadas of the 1980s and 1990s, four per month was regarded as unprecedented. But suicide bombers in Iraq have been attacking at the average rate of two every three days since the 2003 Anglo-American invasion.

And, although neither the Iraqi government nor their American mentors will admit this, scarcely 10 out of more than a thousand suicide killers have been identified. We know from their families that Palestinians, Saudis, Syrians and Algerians have been among the bombers. In a few cases, we have names. But in most attacks, the authorities in Iraq – if they can still be called "authorities" after five years of catastrophe – have no idea to whom the bloodied limbs and headless torsos of the bombers belong.

Even more profoundly disturbing is that the "cult" of the suicide bomber has seeped across national frontiers. Within a year of the Iraqi invasion, Afghan Taliban bombers were blowing themselves up alongside Western troops or bases in Helmand province and in the capital Kabul. The practice leached into Pakistan, striking down thousands of troops and civilians, killing even the principal opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto. The London Tube and bus bombings – despite the denials of Tony Blair – were obviously deeply influenced by events in Iraq.

Academics and politicians have long debated the motives of the bombers, the psychological make-up of the men and women who cold-bloodedly decide to undertake the role of suicide executioners; for they are executioners, killers who see their victims – be they soldiers or civilians – before they flick the switch that destroys them. The Israelis long ago decided that there was no "perfect" profile for a suicide bomber, and my own experience in Lebanon bears this out. The suicider might have spent years fighting the Israelis in the south of the country. Often, they would have been imprisoned or tortured by Israel or its proxy Lebanese militia. Sometimes, brothers or other family members would have been killed. On other occasions, the example of their own relatives would have drawn them into the vortex of suicide-by-example.

Khaled is – or was, for I no longer know if he is alive, since I met him a few weeks ago– influenced by his brother Hassan, whose journey to Iraq was organised by an unknown group, presumably Palestinian, and whose weapons training beside the Tigris river was videotaped by his comrades. Hassan's mother has shown me this tape – which ends with Hassan cheerfully waving goodbye from the driver's window of a battered car, presumably the vehicle he was about to ram into the American convoy at Tal Afar.

None of this addresses the issue of religious belief. While there is evidence aplenty that the Japanese suicide pilots of the Second World War were sometimes coerced and intimidated into their final flights against US warships in the Pacific, many also believed that they were dying for their emperor. For them, the fall of cherry blossom and the divine wind – the "kamikaze" – blessed their souls as they aimed their bombers at American aircraft carriers. But even an industrialised dictatorship like Japan – facing the imminent collapse of its entire society at the hands of a superpower – could only mobilise 4,615 "kamikazes". The Iraq suicide bombers may already have reached half that number.

But the Japanese authorities encouraged their pilots to think of themselves as a collective suicide unit whose insignia of imminent death – white Rising Sun headbands and white scarves – prefigured the yellow headbands imprinted with Koranic script that Hizbollah guerrillas wore when they set out to attack Israeli soldiers in the occupied zone of southern Lebanon. In Iraq, however, those who direct the growing army of suiciders do not lack inventiveness. Their bombers have arrived at the scene of their self-destruction dressed as car mechanics, soldiers, police officers, middle-aged housewives, children's sweet-sellers, worshippers and – on one occasion – a "harmless" shepherd. They have carried their bombs in Oldsmobiles, fuel trucks, garbage trucks, flat-bed trucks, on donkeys and bicycles, motor-bikes and mopeds and carts, minibuses, date-vendors' vans, mobile recruitment centres and lorries packed with chlorine. Incredibly, there appears to be no individual central "brain" behind the bombings – although "groupuscules" of bombers obviously exist. Inspiration, imitation and the globalised influence of the internet appear sufficient to empower the bombers of Iraq.

On an individual level, it is possible to see the friction and psychological trauma of families. Khaled's mother, for instance, constantly expressed her pride in her dead son Hassan and, in front of me, she looked with almost equal love at his still-living brother. But when my companion urged Khaled to remain alive for his mother's sake – reminding him that the Prophet himself spoke of the primary obligation of a Muslim man to protect his mother – the woman was close to tears. She was torn apart by her love as a mother and her religious-political duty as the woman who had brought another would-be martyr into the world. When my friend again urged Khaled to remain alive, to stay in Sidon and marry – eerily, the muezzin's call to prayer had begun during our conversation – he shook his head.

Not even a disparaging remark about those who would send him on his death mission – that they were prepared to live in this world while sending others like Khaled to their fate – could discourage him. "I am not going to become a 'shahed' [martyr] for people," he replied. "I am doing it for God."

It was the same old argument. We could produce a hundred good ways – peaceful ways – for him to resolve the injustices of this world; but the moment Khaled invoked the name of God, our suggestions became irrelevant. Rationality – humanism, if you like – simply withered away. If a Western president could invoke a war of "good against evil", his antagonists could do the same.

But is there a rational pattern to the suicide bombings in Iraq? The first incidents of their kind took place as American troops were actually advancing towards Baghdad. Near the Shia town of Nasiriyah, an off-duty Iraqi policeman, Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi al-Nomani, drove a car bomb into an American Marine roadblock. Married, with five children, he had been a soldier in Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran and had volunteered to fight the Americans after Saddam's occupation of Kuwait. Shortly afterwards, two Shia Muslim women did the same.

In its dying days, even Saddam Hussein's own government was shocked. "The US administration is going to turn the whole world into people prepared to die for their nations," Saddam's vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, warned. "All they can do now is turn themselves into bombs. If the B-52 bombs can now kill 500 or more in our war, then I'm sure that some operations by our freedom fighters will be able to kill 5,000." Ramadan even referred to "the martyr's moment of sublimity" – an al-Qa'ida-like phrase that ill befitted a secular Baathist – and it was clear that the vice-president was almost as surprised as the Americans. But only two days after the US occupation of Baghdad, a woman killed herself while trying to explode a grenade among a group of American troops outside the capital.

Throughout the five years of war, suicide bombers have focused on Iraq's own American-trained security forces rather than US troops. At least 365 attacks have been staged against Iraqi police or paramilitary forces. Their targets included at least 147 police stations (1,577 deaths), 43 army and police recruitment centres (939 deaths), 91 checkpoints (with a minimum of 564 fatalities), 92 security patrols (465 deaths) and numerous other police targets (escorts, convoys accompanying government ministers, etc). One of the recruitment centres – in the centre of Baghdad – was assaulted by suicide bombers on eight separate occasions.

By contrast, suicide bombers have attacked only 24 US bases at a cost of 100 American dead and 15 Iraqis, and 43 American patrols and checkpoints, during which 116 US personnel were killed along with at least 56 civilians, 15 of whom appear to have been shot by American soldiers in response to the attacks, and another 26 of whom were children standing next to a US patrol. Most of the Americans were killed west or north of Baghdad. Suicide attacks on the police concentrated on Baghdad and Mosul and the Sunni towns to the immediate north and south of Baghdad.

The trajectory of the suicide bombers shows a clear preference for military targets throughout the insurgency, with attacks on Americans gradually decreasing from 2006 and individual attacks on Iraqi police patrols and police recruits increasing over the past two years, especially in the 100 miles north of Baghdad. Just as the Islamist murderers of Algeria – and their military opponents – favoured the fasting month of Ramadan for their bloodiest assaults in the 1990s, so the suicide bombers of Iraq mobilise on the eve of religious festivals. There was a pronounced drop in suicide assaults during the period of sectarian liquidations after 2005, either because the bombers feared interception by the throat-cutters of tribal gangs working their way across Baghdad, or because – a grim possibility – they were themselves being used in the sectarian murder campaign.

The most politically powerful attacks occurred inside military bases – including the Green Zone in Baghdad (two in one day in October 2004) – and against the UN headquarters (in which the UN envoy Sergio de Mello was killed) and the International Red Cross offices in Baghdad in 2003. By December 2003, British officials were warning that there were more "spectacular" suicide bombings to come, and the first suicide assault on a mosque took place in January of the following year when a bomber on a bicycle blew himself up in a Shia mosque in Baquba, killing four worshippers and wounding another 39.

Scarcely a year later, another suicider attacked a second Shia mosque, killing 14 worshippers and wounding 40. In February 2004, a man blew himself up on a bus outside the Shia mosque at Khadamiyah in Baghdad, killing 17 more Shia Muslims. Only a few days earlier, a man wearing an explosives belt killed four at yet another Shia mosque in the Doura district of Baghdad. The suicide campaign against Shia places of worship continued with an attack on a Mosul mosque in March 2005, killing at least 50, two more attacks in April that killed 26, and another in May in Baghdad.

While Shia mosques were being targeted in a deliberate campaign of provocation by al-Qa'ida-type suiciders, markets and hospitals frequented by Shia Muslims were also attacked. Almost all the 600 Iraqis killed by suicide bombs in May 2005 were Shias. After the partial demolition of the Shia mosque at Samarra on 22 February 2006, the "war of the mosques" began in earnest for the suicide bombers of Iraq. A Sunni mosque was blown up, with nine dead and "dozens" of wounded, and two Shia mosques were the target of suicide bombers in the same week. In early July 2006, seven suicide killers blew themselves up in Sunni and Shia mosques, leaving a total of 51 civilians dead. During the same period, a suicide bomber launched the first attack of its kind on Shia pilgrims arriving from Iran.

Bombers were to attack the funerals of those Shia they had killed, and even wedding parties. Schools, university campuses and shopping precincts were also now included on the target lists, most of the victims yet again being Shia. Over the past year, however, an increasing number of tribal leaders loyal to the Americans – including Sattar Abu Risha, who publicly met President Bush on 13 September 2007, and former insurgents who have now joined the American-paid anti-al-Qa'ida militias – have been blown apart by Sunni bombers.

Only about 10 of the suicide bombers have been identified. One of them, who attacked an Iraqi police unit in June 2005, turned out to be a former police commando called Abu Mohamed al-Dulaimi, but the Americans and the Iraqi authorities appear to have little intelligence on the provenance of these killers. On at least 27 occasions, Iraqi officials have claimed to know the identity of the killers – saying that they had recovered passports and identity papers that proved their "foreign" origin – but they have never produced these documents for public inspection. There is even doubt that the two suicide bombers who blew themselves up in a bird market earlier this year were in fact mentally retarded young women, as the government was to allege.

Indeed, nothing could better illustrate the lack of knowledge of the authorities than the two contradictory statements made by the Americans and their Iraqi protégés in March of last year. Just as David Satterfield, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's adviser on Iraq, was claiming that "90 per cent" of suicide bombers were crossing the border from Syria, Iraq's Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was announcing that "most" of the suiciders came from Saudi Arabia – which shares a long, common border with Iraq. Saudis would hardly waste their time travelling to Damascus to cross a border that their own country shared with Iraq. Many in Baghdad, including some government ministers, believe that the nationality of the bombers is much closer to home – that they are, in fact, Iraqis.

It will be many years before we have a clearer idea of the number of bombers who have killed themselves in the Iraq war – and of their origin. Long before The Independent's total figure reached 500, al-Qa'ida's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was boasting of "800 martyrs" among his supporters. And since al-Zarqawi's death brought not the slightest reduction in bombings, we must assume that there are many other "manipulators" in charge of Iraq's suicide squads.

Nor can we assume the motives for every mass murder. Who now remembers that the greatest individual number of victims of any suicide bombing died in two remote villages of the Kahtaniya region of Iraq, all Yazidis – 516 of them slaughtered, another 525 wounded. A Yazidi girl, it seems, had fallen in love with a Sunni man and had been punished by her own people for this "honour crime": she had been stoned to death. The killers presumably came from the Sunni community.

One of George Bush's most insidious legacies in Iraq thus remains its most mysterious; the marriage of nationalism and spiritual ferocity, the birth of an unprecedentedly huge army of Muslims inspired by the idea of death.
User avatar
By Nets
#1480127
Tonic you have to stop posting a billion articles a day about the Middle East, especially when they don't have discussion starters, they are just...there.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1480689
Fisk is a pretty good discussion starter I think. For one thing he is one of the tiny few journalists not under exclusive contract to an oil-owned media company. Independent journalist reports from the Middle East are next to non-existent in the West. So at the very least we could comment on the rarity of a report like this.
User avatar
By Ideational Ontarian
#1480795
Fisk is normally a biased baboon, IMO. Just because one isn't subject to the editorial bias of a media outlet, doesn't mean they aren't subject to their own biases. In fact, they are more likely to express that bias because they know it doesn't have to pass an editor's desk.

Anyway, I liked the article. It was chilling. "I am not going to become a 'shahed' [martyr] for people," he replied. "I am doing it for God."

What does that say about these people? They aren't doing this for their people. They're using it as a cheap cop-out to escape their living situation. How easy is suicide when it's not a sin and instead of shame will bring your family honour in the community?
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1480867
...IMO. Just because one isn't subject to the editorial bias of a media outlet, doesn't mean they aren't subject to their own biases.
And therein lies the problem. If supposed journalists aren't even honest or free enough to expose the bias of their bosses and employers, how do you expect to even get to their own bias? At least Fisk is there, number one. Number two, he is not edited by an oil company so we can expect at minimum his biases to be his own. Preferably biases based on what he is doing and seeing in a place where most people calling themselves "journalist" are too chickenshit to even think about going.
How easy is suicide when it's not a sin and instead of shame will bring your family honour in the community?

I don't know. How easy is it? We'll never find out from the physical cowards who plot, plan, and 'report' this ongoing abortion that people insist on calling a "war on terror".
User avatar
By Ideational Ontarian
#1481051
At least Fisk is there, number one.

Dude, there are tons of western reporters in the Levant. I'm not going to give the guy credit for being in Lebanon, it's a pretty safe place outside of war time.

Number two, he is not edited by an oil company so we can expect at minimum his biases to be his own.

I don't really buy this at all either. I can't even think of a single publication owned by an oil company bit I'll assume you're talking about corporate conglomerates. I know there is pressure put on journalists on some controversial issues but people try to take that to the extreme to paint the news media as a slave to capitalism. Well I don't buy it, it's not that simple.

Preferably biases based on what he is doing and seeing in a place where most people calling themselves "journalist" are too chickenshit to even think about going.

Bias is bias. Every journalist has it but Fisk usually wears it on his sleeve. I guess it depends on what you're looking for when you're reading something.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1481231
Bias is bias. Every journalist has it but Fisk usually wears it on his sleeve.
The ones who are there standing in the blood tend to do that. And Fisk has been everywhere. And continues to be. Sorry you find no value in that. But you're part of a huge crowd of nappers. Just a small warning, nap time will be over soon.
User avatar
By Abood
#1481249
Bias is bias. Every journalist has it but Fisk usually wears it on his sleeve.
Fisk is more of a columnist. Columnists are allowed to be as biased as they want to be. That's why what they write is called an opinion piece.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1481253
Fisk is more of a columnist. Columnists are allowed to be as biased as they want to be. That's why what they write is called an opinion piece.
Fisk is there. To the great resentment of DC particularly, and various insurgent factions specifically. I would attribute more to him than being a columnist. He is the only consistent war journalist alive today. The fact that he is considered controversial in the least is testimony to the incredible ignorance, arrogance, and fear by the corprate media and its sleeping Western followers. And above all, testimony to his value as a reporter. Bias's and all.
User avatar
By Ash Faulkner
#1481538
The humourous entry on Fisk in one of my books that I'd thought I'd share:

FISK, ROBERT

This week in the Independent's occasional series of travel articles by star writers, we sent our Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, to visit the sleepy market town of Appleby-in-Westmoreland.

So it has come to this? A town, a whole town in northern England and not a single brown face from one end to the otehr. Not a brown face, not a black face, not a yellow face, not even a coffee-coloured face. White. All of them white. White, th drained, pallid shade of the radioactive fragments of a US Abrams tank's depleted uranium shell in the frail body of a wounded boy I once know named Hassan who'd only gone to the shops to buy a cake for his mother's birthday.

I walk on, shaking my head, more in sorrow than anger. Where is the warm, welcoming chant of the muezzin from the minaret? Where is the scent of the cumin? Where are the freedom figters with their cheery, masked faces and their oppression-battling rocket propelled grenades? Where indeed.

'You look at bit lost,' says a voice. 'Can I help you?'

Lost? Is it any wonder I feel lost in a world here big-boned US marines named Bob and Juan drive their bayonets into the eye sockets of new born babies and then use their eyeballs for games of marbles on concrete made from the ground-down bones of thirteen year old boys wrongfully arrested on trumped-up charges while their heads were bowed in prayer.

But instead, with a world-weary shake of my knowing head, I say merely: 'Where is the mosque?'

'Mosque,' he replies. 'We haven't much call for them round here. You see...'

And so you know - such is the remarkable power of the propaganda campaign being waged by Messrs Bush and Blair - I think this fellow actually believes it. I hope that I can credit my readers in the Independent with a little more intelligence by asking three key questions which, wich luck, the editor will decide to splash in 40pt typeface as he geenrally likes to do with my stuff.

FACT: Appleby is famous for its annual horse fair. Might it not well be that one of those horses was once sold to Mr George W. Bush, who would have ridden it while planning his nsane, murderous, international-law-breaking assault on the sovereign state of Iraq?

FACT: There are churches throughout northern England cunningly disguised to look as if they have been there for centuries. Is it so unreasonable to speculate that large sums of money - Big Oil money - might have created this realistic effect?

FACT: On 9/11, not a single person from Appleby was in the Twin Towers when the alleged airliners crashed into them. Coincidence? Or had they been tipped off beforehand by MOSSAD or its chums in the CIA?

Next week: Polly Toynbee visits Las Vegas and is appalled to discover that under Bush's America a once sleepy desert market town has transformed into a sleazy capitalist hellhole of female exploitation and worker degradation.[/quote]
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1481575
FACT: There are churches throughout northern England cunningly disguised to look as if they have been there for centuries. Is it so unreasonable to speculate that large sums of money - Big Oil money - might have created this realistic effect?
Wow...Is this cutting edge satire or what? Now that you've really nailed down journalist, Fisk, for not being partial to the interests of big oil, which modern giants will you take on next? I know! How about that fucking little whistle blower who exposed the federally payed, commercial communications network in San Francisco designed to intercept and record every phone call in the US? Or one of those whiny Vets against the war, all grumpy about his missing limb? Hysterical!
User avatar
By Ideational Ontarian
#1481599
Things NoRapture has failed to prove:
1. That the oil industry owns the western media.
2. That bias towards Arab "freedom fighters" is better than the supposed bias towards the oil industry.
3. That Robert Fisk is somehow unique or special in his reporting from the field.

Abood has a good point and I'll take it.
By Tonic
#1481689
NoRapture


Bias is bias. Every journalist has it but Fisk usually wears it on his sleeve.

The ones who are there standing in the blood tend to do that. And Fisk has been everywhere. And continues to be. Sorry you find no value in that. But you're part of a huge crowd of nappers. Just a small warning, nap time will be over soon.


Been everywhere? Well not really so.

Here's an example of classic Fisk guff, as reported in Private Eye, that there are some strange discrepancies in Robert Fisk's datelines:



Sunday May 18 2003



As British hacks return from Baghdad, they have been belatedly catching up on what their rivals wrote during the war. They are surveying the dispatches of the Independent's Robert Fisk with particular interest - and some amazement. On 2 April, three busloads of foreign hacks were taken by Saddam's spin-doctors to the town of Hillah to interview wounded Iraqis in the hospital. all of them - including Fisk - duly filed pieces on what they had witnessed. But the Indie's living legend sent a second report that day, datelined "from Robert Fisk in Musayyib, Central Iraq." Very vivid it was too. "Cafes and restaurants were open, shops were selling takeaway meatballs and potatoes," he wrote. "This was not a population on the edge of starvation; nor indeed did the people appear to be frightened. If the Americans are about to launch an assault through this farmland of canals and forests of palm trees and wheat fields, it looked at first glance yesterday like a country at peace." How had all the other hacks missed this? They were under the distinct impression that they had been ferried straight from Baghdad along the motorway to Hillah and then straight back again. They remembered no detours, no stops en route and no visits to Musayyib; they thought they had been allowed to leave the buses only for their chaperoned tour of the casualty ward. How had Fisk managed to visit Musayyib? And how come the picture he gave in the Indie did not quite tally with the fact that by the time he wrote his report the Americans had taken control of the main bridge at Musayyib, and hundreds of US military vehicles were already crossing the Euphrates?


Fisk seems to see himself as virtually the sole truth-teller within his debased profession.

History driven by agenda

THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILISATION by Robert Fisk
REVIEWED BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN


Michael Sheridan

Fisk tells how a Russian trooper handed him a Kalashnikov to ride shotgun on a convoy in Afghanistan. He saw shells cast shadows on the sea as they fell on the Iranian port of Abadan and he watched the lights of an Iraqi plane, which he was able to identify as an Ilyushin 28, on its bombing run in the night sky above Tehran. His technique is well honed: a vivid eyewitness account, unmatchable quotes and the killer detail that everybody else has missed.

It is disappointing, therefore, when the detail bedevils. Take the story of a visit in 1987 to the Iranian war front near Basra, a place so dangerous that to go at all was unquestionably heroic. “A few months earlier,” Fisk writes, “a ministry minder had led a Reuters photographer into a minefield. Both were blown to pieces. The Iranians proclaimed the Reuters man a ‘martyr’ and were only just prevented from sending his widow a glossy book of coloured photographs depicting other martyrs in various stages of dismemberment and putrefaction.” But no such loss is recorded in the Reuters memorial book. Fisk may be thinking of my colleague Najmul Hasan, a journalist, who was killed in August 1983, more than three years earlier and hundreds of miles away, in a minefield on the western front. Four months after his death, Reuters sent me to man the Tehran office, where I learnt that Iran officially regarded Hasan as a “martyr” for the reason that he was a Shia Muslim from India. I remember nothing about a book of putrefying martyrs.

The book mentions a brilliant Yugoslav reporter, Zoran Dogramadzijev, who helped many of us to cover Saddam’s first Gulf war from Baghdad in the early 1980s, but gets his name wrong throughout. It has Tony Walker of the Financial Times emerging across the desert from occupied Kuwait in 1990 “with a powerful story of brutality and fear” — a tribute, indeed, except that it is due to the Financial Times’s Victor Mallet.

Critics might call this a rather dodgy dossier, from one who is swift to chide The New York Times for “gutless” journalism and who fills up pages perfecting the semantics of terrorism or settling old scores with editors. That won’t worry the author’s loyal readership on the internet and in the pages of The Independent, the newspaper he adopted after years proudly representing The Times in Beirut.

The politics of the work are clear: essentially, it’s all our fault and there’s not much to choose between Bush, Blair, Sharon and Saddam. Whatever one’s opinion of this, a taut indictment would have more effect than a torrent of rhetoric. The book’s Middle East history is delivered with a bludgeon, not a rapier. It owes much to Edward Said and Noam Chomsky, arguing that Israeli crimes are exculpated by a guilty, hypocritical and oil- coveting West.

By Falx
#1482268
3. That Robert Fisk is somehow unique or special in his reporting from the field.


He has been there for the last 30 years and speaks fluent Arabic. He isn't embedded in any force and has nearly been killed by every group in the region.
By Tonic
#1482793
Falx, did you read my last post? It seems he himself created the myth you are talking about.
User avatar
By Nattering Nabob
#1482901
"I am not going to become a 'shahed' [martyr] for people," he replied. "I am doing it for God."


This isn't surrender to God...this is surrender to Satan.
By Falx
#1483214

Falx, did you read my last post? It seems he himself created the myth you are talking about.


Yes, and after you get a more reliable source than the private eye I might even take it seriously. In the mean time I'll take the word of the British Press Awards board than one lone oped piece.
By Tonic
#1483251
And Michael Sheridan

History driven by agenda

THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILISATION by Robert Fisk
REVIEWED BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN


Michael Sheridan

Fisk tells how a Russian trooper handed him a Kalashnikov to ride shotgun on a convoy in Afghanistan. He saw shells cast shadows on the sea as they fell on the Iranian port of Abadan and he watched the lights of an Iraqi plane, which he was able to identify as an Ilyushin 28, on its bombing run in the night sky above Tehran. His technique is well honed: a vivid eyewitness account, unmatchable quotes and the killer detail that everybody else has missed.

It is disappointing, therefore, when the detail bedevils. Take the story of a visit in 1987 to the Iranian war front near Basra, a place so dangerous that to go at all was unquestionably heroic. “A few months earlier,” Fisk writes, “a ministry minder had led a Reuters photographer into a minefield. Both were blown to pieces. The Iranians proclaimed the Reuters man a ‘martyr’ and were only just prevented from sending his widow a glossy book of coloured photographs depicting other martyrs in various stages of dismemberment and putrefaction.” But no such loss is recorded in the Reuters memorial book. Fisk may be thinking of my colleague Najmul Hasan, a journalist, who was killed in August 1983, more than three years earlier and hundreds of miles away, in a minefield on the western front. Four months after his death, Reuters sent me to man the Tehran office, where I learnt that Iran officially regarded Hasan as a “martyr” for the reason that he was a Shia Muslim from India. I remember nothing about a book of putrefying martyrs.

The book mentions a brilliant Yugoslav reporter, Zoran Dogramadzijev, who helped many of us to cover Saddam’s first Gulf war from Baghdad in the early 1980s, but gets his name wrong throughout. It has Tony Walker of the Financial Times emerging across the desert from occupied Kuwait in 1990 “with a powerful story of brutality and fear” — a tribute, indeed, except that it is due to the Financial Times’s Victor Mallet.

Critics might call this a rather dodgy dossier, from one who is swift to chide The New York Times for “gutless” journalism and who fills up pages perfecting the semantics of terrorism or settling old scores with editors. That won’t worry the author’s loyal readership on the internet and in the pages of The Independent, the newspaper he adopted after years proudly representing The Times in Beirut.

The politics of the work are clear: essentially, it’s all our fault and there’s not much to choose between Bush, Blair, Sharon and Saddam. Whatever one’s opinion of this, a taut indictment would have more effect than a torrent of rhetoric. The book’s Middle East history is delivered with a bludgeon, not a rapier. It owes much to Edward Said and Noam Chomsky, arguing that Israeli crimes are exculpated by a guilty, hypocritical and oil- coveting West.


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 582634.ece
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1483444
Critics might call this a rather dodgy dossier, from one who is swift to chide The New York Times for “gutless” journalism...
It is gutless journalism. For people who would rather read the lies of the Bush White House than the reporting of men who put themselves in the center of the storm. It's simple. Some people prefer Geraldo Reveira, some people actually want to know what is happening. Hard to believe. But true.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Killing people and getting brother to fight br[…]

It's the Elite of the USA that is "jealous[…]

Anomie: in societies or individuals, a conditi[…]

@FiveofSwords " black " Genetically[…]