Sinjar: les Yézidis dans la tourmente
LES YÉZIDIS DANS LA TOURMENTE
Les chefs de guerre kurdes veulent annexer le Djebel Sinjar
par Gilles Munier
http://gmunier.blogspot.com/2007/09/sinjar-les-yzidis-dans-la-tourmente.html
Le 14 août 2003, quatre camions-citernes ont explosé à quelques minutes de distance à Qahtaniya, Al-Jazeera et Tell Uzair, gros villages situés au nord ouest de l’Irak, dans le district de Sinjar, près de la frontière avec la Syrie. Les déflagrations ont fait près de 500 morts et plus d’un millier de blessés, en majorité des Yézidis, adeptes d’une religion les plus anciennes de l’humanité.
Ces attentats, les plus meurtriers depuis le 11 septembre à New York, n’ont pas été revendiqués. Comme ceux qui visaient Tell Afar le 27 mars dernier – 152 morts, 347 blessés - et le village turcoman d’Amirli le 7 juillet – 140 morts, plus de 250 blessés - l’ « Etat islamique en Irak » – regroupement comprenant Al-Qaïda en Irak (AQI) – a aussitôt été accusé du massacre par les Américains et Nouri Al-Maliki, « Premier-ministre » irakien.
Selon l’armée US, le cerveau des attentats anti-yézidis serait un certain Abou Mohammad Al-Afri, présenté comme un proche d’Abou Ayyoud al-Masri, le chef d’AQI. Mais beaucoup de gens dans le Sinjar pensent qu’il s’agit d’une provocation du Parastin, le terrible service secret kurde. De toutes manières, l’accusé ne parlera pas. Il a été tué le 3 septembre dans un bombardement US. En Irak, c’est toujours ce qui arrive au suspect désigné après des attentats d’origine controversée.
Crime d’honneur et vengeance
Les seuls indices accréditant l’hypothèse salafiste sont des tracts distribués dans la région de Sinjar une semaine plus tôt. Ils accusaient les Yézidis d’être des « adorateurs du Diable », des « infidèles », des « anti musulmans », et les prévenaient de l’imminence d’un attentat. Le texte était signé « Etat islamique en Irak ».
L’AQI s’était déjà manifestée dans la région, le 7 avril 2007, après la lapidation de Doua Khalil Aswad, une Yézidie de 17 ans, par un groupe de Yézidis opposés à son union avec un Irakien sunnite. Les deux amants résidaient à Bahzani et Badhiqa, deux villages au nord-est de Mossoul. La police, présente sur les lieux, n’était pas intervenue, considérant qu’il s’agissait d’un « crime d’honneur » !
L’assassinat de la jeune fille, filmé avec un téléphone portable, avait été diffusé sur Internet et retransmis par plusieurs chaînes de télévision. Le Prince Tahsin Beg – chef spirituel des Yézidis - avait condamné le meurtre et déclaré que la lapidation n’existe pas dans les textes sacrés yézidis. Selon lui, Doua n’avait pas été assassinée parce qu’elle allait se convertir à l’islam, mais simplement parce qu’elle aimait un jeune homme, issu d’une autre communauté que la sienne. Et dans ce secteur, il y en a plusieurs : kurde, chaldéenne, jacobite, shabak… Qu’à cela ne tienne : la résidence du Prince et le centre culturel yézidi d’Aïn Sifni dans le Cheikhan ont été attaqués par des Kurdes musulmans déchaînés, et brûlés.
Al Qaïda en Irak avait averti qu’elle vengerait la jeune fille, au nom de l’islam. Mais est-ce bien un de ses commandos qui, le 22 avril, a stoppé un minibus ramenant à Bashiqa les ouvriers d’une usine de textile mossouli ? Après avoir effectué le tri des passagers, des fanatiques – ou des agents provocateurs - avaient fait descendre les musulmans et les chrétiens. Vingt trois Yézidis qui s’y trouvaient avaient été emmenés près de Mossoul, alignés le long d’un mur et assassinés. Selon les passagers descendus, les terroristes n’étaient pas arabes, mais kurdes.
Jésus et les guerriers aux yeux bleus
Les Yézidis qui ont manifesté leur colère quelques jours plus tard à Khana Sor et à Al-Jazeera – où a eu lieu un des attentats du 14 août – auraient pu conspuer des villageois arabes ou accuser Ansar Al Sunna (1) d’avoir commis les meurtres. Non, ils ont brûlé des drapeaux kurdes et attaqué les bureaux du Parti Démocratique du Kurdistan (2). Ils accusaient le Parastin d’avoir commis les assassinats.
Karim Sinjari – chef du Parastin depuis 1992, « ministre » de l’Intérieur du Gouvernement régional kurde - est bien connu des montagnards du Djebel Sinjar. Il a été un des chefs de la rébellion barzaniste des années 70 dans la région. C’est aussi lui qui a organisé, avec la CIA, l’accueil des troupes américaines à Sinjar en 2003, en faisant croire à ses habitants qu’une vieille prophétie yézidie allait se réaliser : Jésus, accompagné de guerriers aux yeux bleus , arrivait pour les libérer ! Selon le Colonel MacFarland qui commandait la Task Force 1-37 Bandits, les GI’s y ont été fêtés « comme à Paris en 1944 ».
Il fallait bien connaître les Yézidis pour savoir que Qahtaniya, Al-Jazeera et Tell Uzair, les villages choisis pour les attentats, étaient habités par de nombreux Faqirs, la caste des prêtres et donc qu’ils auraient des répercussions importantes dans la communauté. Il fallait aussi savoir que les terres des familles yézidies qui avaient participé à la rébellion barzaniste avaient été confisquées en 1976 et attribuées à des paysans arabes de la région de Qahtaniya et d’Al-Jazeera. Ces terres ont, bien sûr, été récupérées en 2003 par leurs anciens propriétaires et les Arabes expulsés à Ba’aj, un village du désert alimenté en eau par un oléoduc contrôlé par les peshmerga. Aucune compensation ne leur a été versée.
A qui les attentats ont-ils profité ? Au Gouvernement régional kurde. Le massacre n’a pas grand chose à voir avec le yézidisme. Il est lié au « référendum » qui doit être organisé d’ici la fin décembre dans la région de Kirkouk et dans un certain nombre de « territoires disputés » - et pétroliers - pour les rattacher à la Région autonome.
Comme prévu, le massacre a jeté les Yézidis dans les bras de Massoud Barzani. Désormais, selon un sondage, 80% d’entre eux opteraient pour l’annexion du Sinjar à condition que la Région autonome respecte leurs droits et les protège. Le chef kurde a aussitôt envoyé 350 peshmerga assurer la sécurité des villages martyrs, ce qui a contraint le Prince Tahsin à dire que les « terroristes islamiques veulent faire couler des rivières de sang yézidi » et que « la seule protection possible pour les Yézidis est de faire partie de la zone autonome kurde » (3).
Israël, le pétrole, l’eau
La revendication du Sinjar par les chefs de guerre kurdes ne repose sur aucune base historique sérieuse. La région n’a été incorporée dans une province kurde qu’au Moyen Age et très brièvement (4). Après la Première guerre mondiale et la création de l’Irak, le Sinjar s’est révolté pour échapper à la conscription, et non pour aider les nationalistes kurdes. A l’époque, les Yézidis soutenaient le projet d’« Etat libre non-musulman » dans le nord de l’Irak rejeté par la SDN, proposé par l’Iraq minorities rescue comittee de l’archéologue assyrien Hormuzd Rassam.
Le Sinjar est revendiqué parce qu’il est - comme Tell Afar – sur le tracé d’un nouveau projet d’oléoduc Kirkouk-Haïfa (5) et en bordure des régions syriennes peuplées de Kurdes et de Yézidis qui, de ce fait, font partie du « Grand Kurdistan » (6). Les grandes manœuvres ont débuté le 22 mai, quand les « guerriers aux yeux bleus » de la Task Force Bandits ont quitté la région, laissant les Yézidis en tête à tête avec les séparatistes kurdes. On a appris le 22 septembre, grâce au quotidien israélien Haaretz que le ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères avait reçu un télégramme du Pentagone demandant à Tel-Aviv de relancer le projet de pipeline Kirkouk-Haïfa.
Yosef Paritzky, ministre israélien des Infrastructures, va se rendre à Washington pour en discuter. L’idée de réparer l’ancien oléoduc semble pour l’instant abandonnée. Il voudrait construire un pipeline de plus gros diamètre, passant inévitablement dans le Sinjar, qui longerait la frontière syrienne et traverserait la Jordanie.
Le Mossad est-il déjà à pied d’œuvre ? La résistance irakienne le dit. Elle lui impute les attentats du 14 août. Toujours selon Haaretz, mais du 2 septembre dernier, 250 israéliens se rendraient tous les ans en Irak depuis 2003, via l’aéroport d’Amman. Ces « hommes d’affaires » - parmi lesquels des représentants du ministère israélien de l’Armement - et ces « touristes » avaient une nationalité autre qu’israélienne pour passer la frontière sans se faire remarquer.
Que font certains d’entre eux, depuis quelques mois au bord de l’Euphrate, près de la frontière syrienne ? Le Cheikh Ahmad Al-Khandjar, qui dirige une confédération de 13 tribus, en a vu – en tenue civile et sous protection américaine - à Hadittah, Al Qaïm, Jubbah. Est-ce un hasard s’ils s’activent dans la région que devrait traverser le nouveau pipeline ?
(25 septembre 2007)
Notes:
(1) Ansar Al-Sunna (Partisans des préceptes du Prophète) est un groupe de résistance kurdo-arabe islamique radical issu de Ansar Al-Islam, organisation djihadiste kurde basée dans la région de Halabja jusque fin mars 2003. Abou Musab Al Zarqaoui en était membre.
(2) Yazidi rioters attack KDP offices, Iraq News Monitor, 2/5/07
http://iraqnewsmonitor.blogspot.com/search/label/Yazidi%20Reform%20and%20Progress%20Movement
(3) They won't stop until we are all wiped out, par Michael Howard, The Guardian (18/8/07)
(4) La ville de Sinjar est une ancienne place forte du limes romain. Elle a fait partie de la province du Kurdistan créée en l’an 1150 par le Sultan turcoman Sandjar, souverain de la dynastie seldjoukide.
(5) Lire: L’oléoduc kurde, par Gilles Munier http://gmunier.blogspot.com/2006/01/loleoduc-kurde.html
(6) Massoud Barzani a accusé les « services secrets de pays voisins », d’être derrière les attentats du 14 août, laissant à ses proches le soin de préciser – selon Al Qods Al Arabi du 20 août – que la Syrie est impliquée dans le carnage. Selon eux, Damas cherche à vider le Sinjar irakien de ses habitants. Cela ne tient pas debout.
mercredi 26 septembre 2007
ACTA DE LA CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE BUSH Y AZNAR - CRAWFORD, TEJAS, 22 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2003
Bush avisó a Aznar de que estaría en Bagdad en marzo con o sin resolución de la ONU
El presidente del Gobierno pidió ayuda para superar la oposición de la opinión pública española
ERNESTO EKAIZER - Madrid –
25/09/2007
El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain, today published what it said was the transcript of a private talk between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on February 22, 2003, concerning the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The conversation took place on the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain’s ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq in March "if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not…. We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Bush/aviso/Aznar/estaria/Bagdad/marzo/resolucion/ONU/elpepuint/20070925elpepuint_17/Tes
Cuatro semanas antes de la invasión de Irak, que se produjo en la noche del 19 al 20 de marzo de 2003, George W. Bush mantenía en público su exigencia a Sadam Hussein en los siguientes términos: desarme o guerra. A puerta cerrada, Bush reconocía que la guerra era inevitable. Durante una larga conversación privada con el entonces presidente español, José María Aznar, celebrada el sábado 22 de febrero de 2003 en el rancho de Crawford, Tejas, Bush dejó claro que había llegado el momento de deshacerse de Sadam. "Quedan dos semanas. En dos semanas estaremos militarmente listos. Estaremos en Bagdad a finales de marzo", le dijo a Aznar. [CONSULTA el acta de la reunión]
Dentro de este plan, Bush había terminado por aceptar, el 31 de enero de 2003 -tras una entrevista con el primer ministro británico, Tony Blair-, introducir una última maniobra diplomática: la propuesta de una segunda resolución del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas. Su objetivo: abrir la puerta legal a la guerra unilateral que EE UU se aprestaba a desencadenar con más de 200.000 soldados preparados en la región para atacar.
Bush era consciente de las dificultades internas de Blair y no desconocía las de Aznar. Sólo siete días antes de esa reunión en el rancho de Crawford, tres millones de personas se manifestaban en varias ciudades de España contra la guerra inminente. "Necesitamos que nos ayudéis con nuestra opinión pública", pide Aznar.
Bush le explica el alcance de la nueva resolución que piensa presentar: "La resolución estará hecha a la medida de lo que pueda ayudarte. Me da un poco lo mismo el contenido". A lo que Aznar responde: "Nos ayudaría ese texto para ser capaces de copatrocinarlo y ser sus coautores y conseguir que mucha gente lo patrocine".
Aznar, pues, se ofrece a dar cobertura política europea a Bush, en unión con Blair. El sueño de Aznar de cimentar una relación con EE UU, siguiendo el ejemplo del Reino Unido, estaba a punto de hacerse realidad.
Aznar había viajado el 20 de febrero con su esposa, Ana Botella, a EE UU haciendo una escala en México para persuadir (infructuosamente) al presidente Vicente Fox de la necesidad de apoyar a Bush. El 21, la pareja, acompañada por los colaboradores del presidente, llegó a Tejas. Aznar y su esposa se alojaron en la casa de invitados del rancho.
En la reunión del día siguiente, sábado, participaron el presidente Bush, su entonces asesora de Seguridad Nacional, Condoleezza Rice, y el responsable de asuntos europeos del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional, Daniel Fried. Por su parte, acompañan a Aznar su asesor de política internacional, Alberto Carnero, y el embajador de España en Washington, Javier Rupérez. Bush y Aznar mantuvieron, como parte del encuentro, una conversación telefónica a cuatro bandas con el primer ministro británico, Tony Blair, y el presidente del Gobierno italiano, Silvio Berlusconi.
El embajador Rupérez tradujo del inglés para Aznar y también del italiano para Condoleezza Rice; otras dos intérpretes hicieron su trabajo para Bush y sus colaboradores.
Fue Rupérez quien se encargó de elaborar el acta-resumen de la conversación en un memorándum que ha permanecido secreto hasta hoy.
La conversación impresiona por su tono directo, amigable y hasta amenazador, cuando, por ejemplo, se refiere a la necesidad de que países como México, Chile, Angola, Camerún y Rusia, miembros del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, voten la nueva resolución como una muestra de amistad hacia EE UU o se atengan a las consecuencias.
Se advierte la nula expectativa en el trabajo de los inspectores, cuyo jefe, Hans Blix, había desmontado hacía sólo una semana, el 14 de febrero, los argumentos expuestos por el secretario de Estado norteamericano, Colin Powell, ante el Consejo de Seguridad el 5 de febrero de 2003, con "datos sólidos" apoyados calurosamente por la ministra de Exteriores española, Ana Palacio. Unos datos que el propio Powell calificó, más tarde, como un conjunto de falsedades.
El informe de Blix
Según Blix, Irak estaba dando pasos hacia una cooperación activa para resolver los temas de desarme pendientes. Su tono había sido menos crítico que el de su informe del 27 de enero de 2003. "Desde que llegamos a Irak hace tres meses hemos realizado más de 400 inspecciones sin previo aviso en unos 300 lugares.
Hasta ahora, los inspectores no han encontrado ninguna de las armas prohibidas... Si Irak se decide a cooperar todavía más estrechamente el periodo de desarme a través de las inspecciones puede todavía ser breve", señalaba el jefe de inspectores.
El director general del Organismo Internacional de la Energía Atómica (OIEA), Mohamed El Baradei, informó el 14 de febrero de que todavía quedaban por aclarar algunas cuestiones técnicas; pero, añadió, "no quedan ya problemas de desarme por resolver". Según dijo, no se había hallado prueba alguna de que en Irak se estuvieran llevando a cabo actividades nucleares o relativas a la energía nuclear, otro claro mentís de lo que afirmó Powell sobre el programa nuclear iraquí.
Tanto los primeros frutos de la labor de inspección como la finalización de los preparativos de EE UU llevaron a Bush a fijar el comienzo de la operación militar hacia la fecha del 10 de marzo de 2003, a la cual se añadieron nueve días para obtener la segunda resolución. El proceso de persuasión moral al cual se abocaron Aznar y Palacio a golpe de teléfono y en reuniones bilaterales no logró reunir más que cuatro votos: los tres promotores y Bulgaria. Eran necesarios 9 votos.
El fracaso de esta cobertura legal de la guerra inminente llevó a Bush a acordar con Blair y Aznar la celebración, el 16 de marzo de 2003, de una cumbre en las Islas Azores, lugar sugerido por Aznar como alternativa a las islas Bermudas por una razón que él mismo explicó a Bush: "El solo nombre de esas islas va asociado a una prenda de vestir que no es precisamente la más adecuada para la gravedad del momento en que nos encontramos".
Allí, ese 16 de marzo, Bush, Blair y Aznar decidieron sustituir al Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas y usurparon sus funciones para declarar por su cuenta y riesgo la guerra contra Irak.
En la mañana del 17 de marzo, el embajador del Reino Unido ante la ONU anunciaba en Nueva York la retirada de la segunda resolución. Una derrota en la votación hubiera complicado más la carrera hacia la guerra.
EL PAÍS ofrece a sus lectores en exclusiva el acta-resumen de la conversación.
TEXTO DE REFERENCIA: ACTA DE LA CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE GEORGE W. BUSH Y JOSÉ MARÍA AZNAR - CRAWFORD, TEJAS, 22 DE FEBRERO DE 2003
"Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam"
26/09/2007
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepuint/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes
El presidente del Gobierno pidió ayuda para superar la oposición de la opinión pública española
ERNESTO EKAIZER - Madrid –
25/09/2007
El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain, today published what it said was the transcript of a private talk between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on February 22, 2003, concerning the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The conversation took place on the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain’s ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq in March "if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not…. We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Bush/aviso/Aznar/estaria/Bagdad/marzo/resolucion/ONU/elpepuint/20070925elpepuint_17/Tes
Cuatro semanas antes de la invasión de Irak, que se produjo en la noche del 19 al 20 de marzo de 2003, George W. Bush mantenía en público su exigencia a Sadam Hussein en los siguientes términos: desarme o guerra. A puerta cerrada, Bush reconocía que la guerra era inevitable. Durante una larga conversación privada con el entonces presidente español, José María Aznar, celebrada el sábado 22 de febrero de 2003 en el rancho de Crawford, Tejas, Bush dejó claro que había llegado el momento de deshacerse de Sadam. "Quedan dos semanas. En dos semanas estaremos militarmente listos. Estaremos en Bagdad a finales de marzo", le dijo a Aznar. [CONSULTA el acta de la reunión]
Dentro de este plan, Bush había terminado por aceptar, el 31 de enero de 2003 -tras una entrevista con el primer ministro británico, Tony Blair-, introducir una última maniobra diplomática: la propuesta de una segunda resolución del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas. Su objetivo: abrir la puerta legal a la guerra unilateral que EE UU se aprestaba a desencadenar con más de 200.000 soldados preparados en la región para atacar.
Bush era consciente de las dificultades internas de Blair y no desconocía las de Aznar. Sólo siete días antes de esa reunión en el rancho de Crawford, tres millones de personas se manifestaban en varias ciudades de España contra la guerra inminente. "Necesitamos que nos ayudéis con nuestra opinión pública", pide Aznar.
Bush le explica el alcance de la nueva resolución que piensa presentar: "La resolución estará hecha a la medida de lo que pueda ayudarte. Me da un poco lo mismo el contenido". A lo que Aznar responde: "Nos ayudaría ese texto para ser capaces de copatrocinarlo y ser sus coautores y conseguir que mucha gente lo patrocine".
Aznar, pues, se ofrece a dar cobertura política europea a Bush, en unión con Blair. El sueño de Aznar de cimentar una relación con EE UU, siguiendo el ejemplo del Reino Unido, estaba a punto de hacerse realidad.
Aznar había viajado el 20 de febrero con su esposa, Ana Botella, a EE UU haciendo una escala en México para persuadir (infructuosamente) al presidente Vicente Fox de la necesidad de apoyar a Bush. El 21, la pareja, acompañada por los colaboradores del presidente, llegó a Tejas. Aznar y su esposa se alojaron en la casa de invitados del rancho.
En la reunión del día siguiente, sábado, participaron el presidente Bush, su entonces asesora de Seguridad Nacional, Condoleezza Rice, y el responsable de asuntos europeos del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional, Daniel Fried. Por su parte, acompañan a Aznar su asesor de política internacional, Alberto Carnero, y el embajador de España en Washington, Javier Rupérez. Bush y Aznar mantuvieron, como parte del encuentro, una conversación telefónica a cuatro bandas con el primer ministro británico, Tony Blair, y el presidente del Gobierno italiano, Silvio Berlusconi.
El embajador Rupérez tradujo del inglés para Aznar y también del italiano para Condoleezza Rice; otras dos intérpretes hicieron su trabajo para Bush y sus colaboradores.
Fue Rupérez quien se encargó de elaborar el acta-resumen de la conversación en un memorándum que ha permanecido secreto hasta hoy.
La conversación impresiona por su tono directo, amigable y hasta amenazador, cuando, por ejemplo, se refiere a la necesidad de que países como México, Chile, Angola, Camerún y Rusia, miembros del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, voten la nueva resolución como una muestra de amistad hacia EE UU o se atengan a las consecuencias.
Se advierte la nula expectativa en el trabajo de los inspectores, cuyo jefe, Hans Blix, había desmontado hacía sólo una semana, el 14 de febrero, los argumentos expuestos por el secretario de Estado norteamericano, Colin Powell, ante el Consejo de Seguridad el 5 de febrero de 2003, con "datos sólidos" apoyados calurosamente por la ministra de Exteriores española, Ana Palacio. Unos datos que el propio Powell calificó, más tarde, como un conjunto de falsedades.
El informe de Blix
Según Blix, Irak estaba dando pasos hacia una cooperación activa para resolver los temas de desarme pendientes. Su tono había sido menos crítico que el de su informe del 27 de enero de 2003. "Desde que llegamos a Irak hace tres meses hemos realizado más de 400 inspecciones sin previo aviso en unos 300 lugares.
Hasta ahora, los inspectores no han encontrado ninguna de las armas prohibidas... Si Irak se decide a cooperar todavía más estrechamente el periodo de desarme a través de las inspecciones puede todavía ser breve", señalaba el jefe de inspectores.
El director general del Organismo Internacional de la Energía Atómica (OIEA), Mohamed El Baradei, informó el 14 de febrero de que todavía quedaban por aclarar algunas cuestiones técnicas; pero, añadió, "no quedan ya problemas de desarme por resolver". Según dijo, no se había hallado prueba alguna de que en Irak se estuvieran llevando a cabo actividades nucleares o relativas a la energía nuclear, otro claro mentís de lo que afirmó Powell sobre el programa nuclear iraquí.
Tanto los primeros frutos de la labor de inspección como la finalización de los preparativos de EE UU llevaron a Bush a fijar el comienzo de la operación militar hacia la fecha del 10 de marzo de 2003, a la cual se añadieron nueve días para obtener la segunda resolución. El proceso de persuasión moral al cual se abocaron Aznar y Palacio a golpe de teléfono y en reuniones bilaterales no logró reunir más que cuatro votos: los tres promotores y Bulgaria. Eran necesarios 9 votos.
El fracaso de esta cobertura legal de la guerra inminente llevó a Bush a acordar con Blair y Aznar la celebración, el 16 de marzo de 2003, de una cumbre en las Islas Azores, lugar sugerido por Aznar como alternativa a las islas Bermudas por una razón que él mismo explicó a Bush: "El solo nombre de esas islas va asociado a una prenda de vestir que no es precisamente la más adecuada para la gravedad del momento en que nos encontramos".
Allí, ese 16 de marzo, Bush, Blair y Aznar decidieron sustituir al Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas y usurparon sus funciones para declarar por su cuenta y riesgo la guerra contra Irak.
En la mañana del 17 de marzo, el embajador del Reino Unido ante la ONU anunciaba en Nueva York la retirada de la segunda resolución. Una derrota en la votación hubiera complicado más la carrera hacia la guerra.
EL PAÍS ofrece a sus lectores en exclusiva el acta-resumen de la conversación.
TEXTO DE REFERENCIA: ACTA DE LA CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE GEORGE W. BUSH Y JOSÉ MARÍA AZNAR - CRAWFORD, TEJAS, 22 DE FEBRERO DE 2003
"Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam"
26/09/2007
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepuint/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes
Average Daily Casualties in Iraq (June 2004-August 2007)
click on graphic to enlarge
Published in Mother Joneshttp://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/09/iraq-casualties-august-2007-chart-full.html
Turkey, Iraq in 'Kurd rebel deal'
Turkey and Iraq have agreed on a deal to allow Turkish forces to cross into Iraq to pursue Kurdish rebels, media reports say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7014800.stm
A security accord would be signed on Thursday, an Iraqi official confirmed.
Turkey has warned Iraq to crack down on the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) within its borders or face a possible incursion by Turkish troops.
Tens of thousands of people have died in the insurgency, including at least 80 Turkish troops this year.
'Hot pursuit'
A deal was hammered out in talks between Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Bolani and his Turkish counterpart Besir Atalay in the Turkish capital, Ankara.
Iraqi and Turkish officials confirmed the agreement would be signed on Thursday, but would not elaborate on the details.
Local Turkish television station NTV reported that under the accord, Turkish forces could cross into Iraq for small-scale "hot-pursuit" operations to chase the armed rebels after seeking permission from Iraqi authorities.
"The security agreement covers many issues related to the extradition of wanted suspects and activating security co-operation," Mr Bolani said.
"An enemy of the Turkish people and democracy in Turkey is an enemy of the Iraqi people and democracy in Iraq."
Turkey says about 4,000 PKK fighters are in Iraq's north.
In August, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on security, agreeing to "expend all efforts" to oust the fighters from Iraqi Kurdistan.
The PKK has been labelled a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the US and the EU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7014800.stm
A security accord would be signed on Thursday, an Iraqi official confirmed.
Turkey has warned Iraq to crack down on the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) within its borders or face a possible incursion by Turkish troops.
Tens of thousands of people have died in the insurgency, including at least 80 Turkish troops this year.
'Hot pursuit'
A deal was hammered out in talks between Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Bolani and his Turkish counterpart Besir Atalay in the Turkish capital, Ankara.
Iraqi and Turkish officials confirmed the agreement would be signed on Thursday, but would not elaborate on the details.
Local Turkish television station NTV reported that under the accord, Turkish forces could cross into Iraq for small-scale "hot-pursuit" operations to chase the armed rebels after seeking permission from Iraqi authorities.
"The security agreement covers many issues related to the extradition of wanted suspects and activating security co-operation," Mr Bolani said.
"An enemy of the Turkish people and democracy in Turkey is an enemy of the Iraqi people and democracy in Iraq."
Turkey says about 4,000 PKK fighters are in Iraq's north.
In August, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on security, agreeing to "expend all efforts" to oust the fighters from Iraqi Kurdistan.
The PKK has been labelled a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the US and the EU.
lundi 24 septembre 2007
U.S. Aims To Lure Insurgents With 'Bait'
Snipers Describe Classified Program
By Josh White and Joshua Partlow - Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 24, 2007; A01
A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.
The classified program was described in investigative documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers who are accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.
"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. "Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces."
In documents obtained by The Washington Post from family members of the accused soldiers, Didier said members of the U.S. military's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later passed along ammunition boxes filled with the "drop items" to be used "to disrupt the AIF [Anti-Iraq Forces] attempts at harming Coalition Forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."
Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a baiting program should be examined "quite meticulously" because it raises troubling possibilities, such as what happens when civilians pick up the items.
"In a country that is awash in armaments and magazines and implements of war, if every time somebody picked up something that was potentially useful as a weapon, you might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back," Fidell said.
Soldiers said that about a dozen platoon members were aware of the program, and that numerous others knew about the "drop items" but did not know their purpose. Two soldiers who had not been officially informed about the program came forward with allegations of wrongdoing after they learned they were going to be punished for falling asleep on a sniper mission, according to the documents.
Army officials declined to discuss the classified program, details of which appear in unclassified investigative documents and in transcripts of court testimony. Criminal investigators wrote that they found materials related to the program in a white cardboard box and an ammunition can at the sniper unit's base.
"We don't discuss specific methods targeting enemy combatants," said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman. "The accused are charged with murder and wrongfully placing weapons on the remains of Iraqi nationals. There are no classified programs that authorize the murder of local nationals and the use of 'drop weapons' to make killings appear legally justified."
It is unclear whether the program reached elsewhere in Iraq and how many people were killed through the baiting tactics.
Members of the sniper platoon have said they felt pressure from commanders to kill more insurgents because U.S. units in the area had taken heavy losses. The sniper unit -- dubbed "the painted demons" because of the use of tiger-stripe face paint -- often went on missions into hostile areas to intercept insurgents going to and from hidden weapons caches.
"It's our job out here to lay people down who are doing bad things," Spec. Joshua L. Michaud testified in Iraq in July, discussing the unit's numerous casualties. "I don't want to call it revenge, but we needed to find a way so that we could get the bad guys the right way and still maintain the right military things to do."
Within months of the program's introduction, three snipers in Didier's platoon were charged with murder for allegedly using those items and others to make shootings seem legitimate. Though it does not appear that the three alleged shootings were specifically part of the classified program, defense attorneys argue that the program may have opened the door to the soldiers' actions because it blurred the legal lines of killing in a complex war zone.
James D. Culp, a civilian attorney for one of the snipers, Sgt. Evan Vela, said the soldiers became "battle-fatigued pawns in a newfangled concept of 'baiting' warfare that, like an onion, perhaps looked good on the surface, but started stinking to high hell the minute the layers were pulled back and scrutinized."
Spec. Jorge Sandoval and Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley are accused by the military of placing a spool of wire into the pocket of an Iraqi man Sandoval had shot on April 27 on Hensley's order. The man had been cutting grass with a rusty sickle when he was shot, according to court documents.
The military alleges that the killing of the man carrying the sickle was inappropriate. Hensley and Sandoval have been charged with murder and with planting evidence.
As Sandoval and Hensley approached the corpse, according to testimony and court documents, they allegedly placed a spool of wire, often used by insurgents to detonate roadside bombs, into the man's pocket in an attempt to make the case for the kill ironclad.
One soldier who came forward with the allegations, Pfc. David C. Petta, told the same court that he believed the classified items were for dropping on people the unit had killed, "to enforce if we killed somebody that we knew was a bad guy but we didn't have the evidence to show for it." Petta had not been officially briefed about the program.
Two weeks after that killing, Sandoval and his sniper team stopped for the night in a concealed "hide" in the village of Jurf as Sakhr along the Euphrates River. While other snipers slept, Hensley watched as an Iraqi man, Genei Nesir Khudair, slowly approached the hide. He radioed to Didier, then a first lieutenant, for permission to go for a "close kill."
"I told him that as the ground forces commander, I would authorize that if it was necessary," Didier testified. "And about five minutes later, he told me that he had indeed killed the individual."
The U.S. military alleges that Vela, on Hensley's order, shot the Iraqi man twice in the head with a 9mm pistol after he had been taken into custody. It was Vela's first kill, and he was visibly shaken. "He looked weird," Sgt. Robert Redfern testified. "Just messed up from it. How would you feel if you had to shoot someone?"
At the time the two shots rang out, Sandoval was on guard duty about 20 meters away, out of sight of Vela, inside a broken-down pump house along the Euphrates River, soldiers testified.
Vela and Hensley told investigators that the man had an AK-47 with him and that he posed a threat, but other soldiers have alleged that the AK-47 was planted next to Khudair after he was shot.
Hensley's attorney could not be reached to comment. Sandoval's attorney, Capt. Craig Drummond, thinks his client is innocent in both deaths.
"Literally, they have charged this guy with two murders when on both occasions he was just doing his job," Drummond said.
Drummond said Sandoval did not have anything to do with placing an AK-47 in the pump-house killing. Sandoval made a statement to investigators discussing his involvement in planting the command wire on the first victim.
"That was done by one of the soldiers at the scene basically out of stupidity. The guys were trying to ensure that there were no questions at all about this kill," Drummond said. "It was done to overly justify a kill that didn't need justification."
Hensley is also charged with killing an Iraqi man whom he approached after the sniper team noticed the man placing wires on a road. Hensley shot him outside his home, maintaining that the man appeared to be moving for a weapon.
Two and a half months after the shooting near the pump house, authorities seized Sandoval while he was vacationing at his mother's house in Laredo, Tex. The charges have baffled family members, who describe Sandoval as a caring and honest young man who is being punished for following orders.
"This has been a shock to all of us," said his eldest sister, Norma Vasquez. "He's been in shock, too, he doesn't know what . . . is going on."
Sandoval, a former high school ROTC member, is scheduled to face a court-martial in Baghdad on Wednesday.
Vela's father, Curtis Carnahan, said he thinks the military is rushing the cases and is holding the proceedings in a war zone to shield facts from the U.S. public.
"It's an injustice that is being done to them," Carnahan said. "I feel like you can't prosecute our soldiers for acts of war and threaten them with years and years of confinement when this program, if it comes to the light of day, was clearly coming from higher levels. . . . All those people who said 'go use this stuff' just disappeared, like they never sanctioned it."
Partlow reported from Baghdad. Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301431_pf.html
By Josh White and Joshua Partlow - Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 24, 2007; A01
A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.
The classified program was described in investigative documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers who are accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.
"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. "Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces."
In documents obtained by The Washington Post from family members of the accused soldiers, Didier said members of the U.S. military's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later passed along ammunition boxes filled with the "drop items" to be used "to disrupt the AIF [Anti-Iraq Forces] attempts at harming Coalition Forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."
Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a baiting program should be examined "quite meticulously" because it raises troubling possibilities, such as what happens when civilians pick up the items.
"In a country that is awash in armaments and magazines and implements of war, if every time somebody picked up something that was potentially useful as a weapon, you might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back," Fidell said.
Soldiers said that about a dozen platoon members were aware of the program, and that numerous others knew about the "drop items" but did not know their purpose. Two soldiers who had not been officially informed about the program came forward with allegations of wrongdoing after they learned they were going to be punished for falling asleep on a sniper mission, according to the documents.
Army officials declined to discuss the classified program, details of which appear in unclassified investigative documents and in transcripts of court testimony. Criminal investigators wrote that they found materials related to the program in a white cardboard box and an ammunition can at the sniper unit's base.
"We don't discuss specific methods targeting enemy combatants," said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman. "The accused are charged with murder and wrongfully placing weapons on the remains of Iraqi nationals. There are no classified programs that authorize the murder of local nationals and the use of 'drop weapons' to make killings appear legally justified."
It is unclear whether the program reached elsewhere in Iraq and how many people were killed through the baiting tactics.
Members of the sniper platoon have said they felt pressure from commanders to kill more insurgents because U.S. units in the area had taken heavy losses. The sniper unit -- dubbed "the painted demons" because of the use of tiger-stripe face paint -- often went on missions into hostile areas to intercept insurgents going to and from hidden weapons caches.
"It's our job out here to lay people down who are doing bad things," Spec. Joshua L. Michaud testified in Iraq in July, discussing the unit's numerous casualties. "I don't want to call it revenge, but we needed to find a way so that we could get the bad guys the right way and still maintain the right military things to do."
Within months of the program's introduction, three snipers in Didier's platoon were charged with murder for allegedly using those items and others to make shootings seem legitimate. Though it does not appear that the three alleged shootings were specifically part of the classified program, defense attorneys argue that the program may have opened the door to the soldiers' actions because it blurred the legal lines of killing in a complex war zone.
James D. Culp, a civilian attorney for one of the snipers, Sgt. Evan Vela, said the soldiers became "battle-fatigued pawns in a newfangled concept of 'baiting' warfare that, like an onion, perhaps looked good on the surface, but started stinking to high hell the minute the layers were pulled back and scrutinized."
Spec. Jorge Sandoval and Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley are accused by the military of placing a spool of wire into the pocket of an Iraqi man Sandoval had shot on April 27 on Hensley's order. The man had been cutting grass with a rusty sickle when he was shot, according to court documents.
The military alleges that the killing of the man carrying the sickle was inappropriate. Hensley and Sandoval have been charged with murder and with planting evidence.
As Sandoval and Hensley approached the corpse, according to testimony and court documents, they allegedly placed a spool of wire, often used by insurgents to detonate roadside bombs, into the man's pocket in an attempt to make the case for the kill ironclad.
One soldier who came forward with the allegations, Pfc. David C. Petta, told the same court that he believed the classified items were for dropping on people the unit had killed, "to enforce if we killed somebody that we knew was a bad guy but we didn't have the evidence to show for it." Petta had not been officially briefed about the program.
Two weeks after that killing, Sandoval and his sniper team stopped for the night in a concealed "hide" in the village of Jurf as Sakhr along the Euphrates River. While other snipers slept, Hensley watched as an Iraqi man, Genei Nesir Khudair, slowly approached the hide. He radioed to Didier, then a first lieutenant, for permission to go for a "close kill."
"I told him that as the ground forces commander, I would authorize that if it was necessary," Didier testified. "And about five minutes later, he told me that he had indeed killed the individual."
The U.S. military alleges that Vela, on Hensley's order, shot the Iraqi man twice in the head with a 9mm pistol after he had been taken into custody. It was Vela's first kill, and he was visibly shaken. "He looked weird," Sgt. Robert Redfern testified. "Just messed up from it. How would you feel if you had to shoot someone?"
At the time the two shots rang out, Sandoval was on guard duty about 20 meters away, out of sight of Vela, inside a broken-down pump house along the Euphrates River, soldiers testified.
Vela and Hensley told investigators that the man had an AK-47 with him and that he posed a threat, but other soldiers have alleged that the AK-47 was planted next to Khudair after he was shot.
Hensley's attorney could not be reached to comment. Sandoval's attorney, Capt. Craig Drummond, thinks his client is innocent in both deaths.
"Literally, they have charged this guy with two murders when on both occasions he was just doing his job," Drummond said.
Drummond said Sandoval did not have anything to do with placing an AK-47 in the pump-house killing. Sandoval made a statement to investigators discussing his involvement in planting the command wire on the first victim.
"That was done by one of the soldiers at the scene basically out of stupidity. The guys were trying to ensure that there were no questions at all about this kill," Drummond said. "It was done to overly justify a kill that didn't need justification."
Hensley is also charged with killing an Iraqi man whom he approached after the sniper team noticed the man placing wires on a road. Hensley shot him outside his home, maintaining that the man appeared to be moving for a weapon.
Two and a half months after the shooting near the pump house, authorities seized Sandoval while he was vacationing at his mother's house in Laredo, Tex. The charges have baffled family members, who describe Sandoval as a caring and honest young man who is being punished for following orders.
"This has been a shock to all of us," said his eldest sister, Norma Vasquez. "He's been in shock, too, he doesn't know what . . . is going on."
Sandoval, a former high school ROTC member, is scheduled to face a court-martial in Baghdad on Wednesday.
Vela's father, Curtis Carnahan, said he thinks the military is rushing the cases and is holding the proceedings in a war zone to shield facts from the U.S. public.
"It's an injustice that is being done to them," Carnahan said. "I feel like you can't prosecute our soldiers for acts of war and threaten them with years and years of confinement when this program, if it comes to the light of day, was clearly coming from higher levels. . . . All those people who said 'go use this stuff' just disappeared, like they never sanctioned it."
Partlow reported from Baghdad. Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301431_pf.html
فهم ما يُقال يختلف عن أصل المقال) ....تصريحات الرئيس الطالباني – رغبة أصلاح أم أصلاح الرغبة
ايدن اقصو
بتاريخ 16/9/2007 نشرت جريدة (الاتحاد) العراقي اللقاء الموسع مع السيد رئيس الجمهورية جلال الطالباني الذي اجراه الصحفي (حسني محلي) في جريدة (الخليج) الاماراتية تم التطرق من خلاله الى تفصيلات الواقع العراقي والتأثير الاقليمي والارتدادات الدولية بخصوص ما وصلت اليه العملية السياسية في العراق على الاتجاهات كافة وما يكتنف هذه العملية من ضياع وتردد...فكان اللقاء ناجحاً سياسياً وأعلامياً لكنه يبدو عليه الفشل الاجرائي والحركي عند التطبيق على الارض...وبغية تغطية هذا اللقاء الرئاسي المهم في كافة جوانبه المعقولة منها والسفسطائية نرى من الضروري والمهم جداً محاولة تبويب مقالتنا هذه ولقائهم بنقاط مفصلية واضحة
بتاريخ 16/9/2007 نشرت جريدة (الاتحاد) العراقي اللقاء الموسع مع السيد رئيس الجمهورية جلال الطالباني الذي اجراه الصحفي (حسني محلي) في جريدة (الخليج) الاماراتية تم التطرق من خلاله الى تفصيلات الواقع العراقي والتأثير الاقليمي والارتدادات الدولية بخصوص ما وصلت اليه العملية السياسية في العراق على الاتجاهات كافة وما يكتنف هذه العملية من ضياع وتردد...فكان اللقاء ناجحاً سياسياً وأعلامياً لكنه يبدو عليه الفشل الاجرائي والحركي عند التطبيق على الارض...وبغية تغطية هذا اللقاء الرئاسي المهم في كافة جوانبه المعقولة منها والسفسطائية نرى من الضروري والمهم جداً محاولة تبويب مقالتنا هذه ولقائهم بنقاط مفصلية واضحة
ان السيد رئيس الجمهورية يبدو عليه قد نسى او تناسى من كونه رئيس لكل العراقيين وليس للأخوة الاكراد فقط
وهذا مانستشفيه من المعاني الباطنة لمدلولات حديثه حول مجمل القضايا التي تم تناولها في اللقاء
وجدنا هناك خلطاً متعمداً لمفهومي المقاومة والارهاب ومفهومي الحزبية والنقابية ومفهومي الاكثرية والأقلية... وهذه المفاهيم المزدوجة نرى من الضروري والمهم على مقام السيد الرئيس ان يتفهم معناها السياسي والايديولوجي قبل طرحها للمداولات والتحليل من خلال الصحف المقروءة وأجهزة الاعلام المختلفة لئلا يقوم البعض من ذوي النوايا السيئة بحرفها عن معناها
نحن نعلم بأنكم ليس من غلاة القوميين الاكراد وانكم تودون اصلاح ذات البين، ولكن هل بمقدوركم كشخص
وكحزب وكرئيس ايقاف الموجة الكردية العاتية القادمة من شمال العراق والتي تحلم بالكل ولن ترضى بالمعقول
سيدي الرئيس... أن حال التركمان كجبهة وكجماهير يشبه كثيراً حال القومية المغلوبة على أمرها من حيث
الاستحقاقات الوزارية والادارية والوظيفية فهم عندما دخلوا بتحالف مع الكتلة الشيعية بعد الانتخابات الاولى في البرلمان لم يحصلوا إلا على وزير واحد... وحينما أبقوا انفسهم خارج الائتلاف الشيعي لم يحصلوا الا على حقيبة واحدة ايضاً ذهبت الى نفس الوزير..!! اي انهم لم يستفادوا قيد أنملة من مشاركتهم هذه... وهذا الحال يذكرنا بالمثل العراقي الشائع... تريد ارنب خذ ارنب، تريد غزال خذ ارنب... فالنتيجة واحدة لاغير باسيادة الرئيس.
وجدنا من خلال اللقاء كثرة ترديد مفردة (المعارضة) ولانعلم ان السيد الرئيس يقصد مَنْ في ذلك؟ هل هي:
أ – القوى الرافضة للأحتلال
ب – القوى الرافضة للطائفية والعرقية
ج – القوى الرافضة للمادة 140د
بقايا البعثيين والصداميينام مَنْ على وجه التحديد حتى يتسنى لنا معرفة معسكر الخير من جند الشر فنختار أحد
الفريقيين
BİZ TÜRKMENİZ يرجى قراءة بقية المقال في موقع
ناقوس الخطر دق في ديالى والموصل بعد كركوك
http://www.albasrah.net/index.php
شبكة البصرة
عامر قره ناز
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
(وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ)
صدق الله العظيم
لا ريب ان ساسة الاكراد يبحثون اليوم في العراق الى ايجاد سبل استعادة بعض مما فقدوها من جراء سياستهم الشوفينية الانفصالية وبعدما ان سقط قناع الوطنية المزيفة التي كانوا يختفون بها، ونجحوا من خلالها برهة من الزمن في اخفاء وجههم التوسعي والانفصالي ولكن الايام والاحداث مزقت قناعهم وزالت الغشاوة عن عيون بعض ممن كان يرفض ان يرى الى حقيقة السياسة الكردية تجاه العراق والعراقيين
ونجحت سياستهم الى حد ما في الاوساط المستفيدة او المخدوعة، في تقديم (ميليشاتهم -البيشمركة) على انهم من حماة العراق ورافعة الراية الوطنية ضد كل من يكمن العداء للعراق والعراقيين وكانت هدفهم تجميل صورتهم لزيادة نفوذهم في مناطق اخرى من العراق، معتمدين على شعارات زائفة ومواقف كلامية لم يرافقها فعل واحد يثبث بانهم مهتمون بمصلحة العراق العليا
وكما بات من الضروريات ان يتفهم ساسة العراقيين الجدد طبيعة السياسات الكردية وان يشخصوا اهدافها وان يكبحوا اثارها السلبية على مستقبل العراق، وهنا علينا ان نفرق بين الشعب الكردي المغضوب على امره وبين ساستهم وميليشاتهم وليس مطلوبا من احد ان يعادي الشعب الكردي لانه بات واضحا ان ساسة الاكراد ليسوا معنيون اطلاقا لا بالمصلحة الوطنية ولا بالشعب الكردي اطلاقا بل معنيون فقط باطماعهم ومصالحهم الفئوية والحزبية
واصبح المطلب الاساسي من ساسة العراق ايضا ان يحثوا ساسة الاكراد على الكف عن سياستهم العدوانية والهدامة ويواجهوا اطماعهم بكل جدية وايجاد توازن من خلالها يمكن بناء علاقات طبيعية مع الاحزاب الساسية الكردية.
وللتوصل الى مثل هذه العلاقات على ساسة الاكراد اولا ان تتوقف عن جهودها في توسيع نفوذ ميليشاتها في المدن التركمانية والعربية حفاظا على مصلحة العراقيين جميعا بكافة اطيافه لان فتنة الفرقة باتت خطر على الجميع وتعرض كل العراقيين الى خسائر فادحة من جراء تجذر الطائفية وبات من السهل استخدامها من البعض سلاحا لتعميق الفرقة واضعاف العراق
فالكل يعلم ان لساسة الاكراد وميليشاتهم المسلحة نفوذا واسعا في العراق وسيطرة تامة على ثلاث من المحافظات العراقية ونفوذ شبه تامة على بعض الاراضي في الموصل وكركوك وديالى وصلاح الدين مستغلين الوضع المتدهور في العراق والانفلات الامني والمناصرة التي حصدوها جراء تعاونهم مع الامريكان في احتلاله للعراق
وان قراءة سريعة للصفقة السريعة التي تمت بين التحالف الكردي مع الائتلاف تبين ان الطرف الكردي هو الطرف الرابح بالتاكيد منها و حققت جملة من المكاسب، واخرها اعطاء فرصة وصلاحية ذهبية للمليشيات الكردية بحقها في التوغل في المدن العراقية والسيطرة عليها وبحجة واهية (للسيطرة على الامن، ومحاربة المقاومة العراقية من جهة او مكافحة الارهاب من جهة اخرى)
وبالفعل توجه قبل ايام قوة من لواء من قوات البيشمركة الكردية، نحو ضواحي جلولاء وخانقين (شرق ديالى)، وكما تم ارسال قوات من المليشيات الكردية الى ضواحي الموصل بحجة حفظ الامن لبضع الالاف من الكرد هناك، وان العملية تمت بالاتفاق مع القوات الامريكية
اذا كان حججهم الواهية بانهم قوات نظامية توجهوا الى تلك المدن للحفاظ على الامن واستثباتها فهم كذابون ودجالون والدليل!!!!!!
اذا كان المئات من الالاف من الجيش العراقي الجديد والحرس الوطني و180 الف امريكي مدججون باحدث الاسلحة المتطورة غير قادرون على الحفاظ على الامن في تلك المدن!!!
هل ببضع من الالوية التابعة للمليلشيات الكردية الغير النظامية مزودين ببضع من اسلحة الجيش العراقي السابق سيعيدون الامن والامان الى تلك المدن؟
وماذا فعلوا في كركوك من ايجابيات ليفعلوه في المدن الاخرى؟
بعد مرور اكثر من ثلاثة سنوات من سيطرة المليشيات الكردية على كافة المرافق الامنية والخدمية في كركوك ما زال الوضع هناك ماساوي، فالاوضاع الامنية والسياسية والحياتية متدهورة ويمكن وصفه بالكارثية، والقوي ياكل الضعيف، وتسرح الذئاب من ميليشاتهم ومن كافة الاصناف معلنة هيمنتها على المواطن التركماني والعربي والمسيحي وحقوقهم لا زالت مهضومة،وتمارس سياسة الارهاب عبر ميليشياتها وعصابتها الارهابية،مما يشعر المواطن العراقي بمعاناة متزايدة من جراء العدوان وانعدام الامن والشعور بتخلي الحكومة عنه في كافة الممارسات والأنشطة منها الأمنية والخدماتية
بل ان اعمالهم دلت خلال السنوات الماضية في كركوك انهم لايتقيدون بالنظام ولا بالقانون وليسوا سوى عصابات منظمة فوق القانون والقانون عندهم اسميا وليس فعليا
لذا على ساسة العراق ان يحددوا اولوياتهم ووجهاتهم في مواجهة الوضع الذي فرضه علينا المحتل الامريكي، وايقاف العمليات العسكرية والسياسية للاكراد تمهيدا لعملية غزو مدن عربية وتركمانية اضافية
وعلينا نحن العراقيين ان نحدد موقفنا بصورة وبما لا تقبل التاويل، باننا سنقف صفا واحدا ضد اي غزو للمليشيات الكردية للمدن في كركوك والموصل وديالى وصلاح الدين ومهما كانت مبرراتهم ومسبباتها، وان ناخد الحيطة منهم ومن شرهم وخطرهم الكبير قبل ان يستفحل؛لانهم لا يرعون اي حرمة للانسان العراقي فهم في غيهم وعنادهم ملتزمون حتى الموت واثبثوا وبجدارة بانهم اشد اعداء وحدة العراق ومن اخطر الاخطار لانهم يستمدون قوتهم من قوة اسيادهم الغزاة، وكما على العراقيين ان يكونوا حذرين من جحافل الشر ومن بدعتهم الجديدة بانهم حماتنا واعلموا ان خطر وحدة العراق ارضا وشعبا تكمن في حماتها القادمون من شمال العراق لانهم ليس وحدويين بل انفصاليون
وتعوذوا بالله من كيدهم
شبكة البصرة
عامر قره ناز
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
(وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ)
صدق الله العظيم
لا ريب ان ساسة الاكراد يبحثون اليوم في العراق الى ايجاد سبل استعادة بعض مما فقدوها من جراء سياستهم الشوفينية الانفصالية وبعدما ان سقط قناع الوطنية المزيفة التي كانوا يختفون بها، ونجحوا من خلالها برهة من الزمن في اخفاء وجههم التوسعي والانفصالي ولكن الايام والاحداث مزقت قناعهم وزالت الغشاوة عن عيون بعض ممن كان يرفض ان يرى الى حقيقة السياسة الكردية تجاه العراق والعراقيين
ونجحت سياستهم الى حد ما في الاوساط المستفيدة او المخدوعة، في تقديم (ميليشاتهم -البيشمركة) على انهم من حماة العراق ورافعة الراية الوطنية ضد كل من يكمن العداء للعراق والعراقيين وكانت هدفهم تجميل صورتهم لزيادة نفوذهم في مناطق اخرى من العراق، معتمدين على شعارات زائفة ومواقف كلامية لم يرافقها فعل واحد يثبث بانهم مهتمون بمصلحة العراق العليا
وكما بات من الضروريات ان يتفهم ساسة العراقيين الجدد طبيعة السياسات الكردية وان يشخصوا اهدافها وان يكبحوا اثارها السلبية على مستقبل العراق، وهنا علينا ان نفرق بين الشعب الكردي المغضوب على امره وبين ساستهم وميليشاتهم وليس مطلوبا من احد ان يعادي الشعب الكردي لانه بات واضحا ان ساسة الاكراد ليسوا معنيون اطلاقا لا بالمصلحة الوطنية ولا بالشعب الكردي اطلاقا بل معنيون فقط باطماعهم ومصالحهم الفئوية والحزبية
واصبح المطلب الاساسي من ساسة العراق ايضا ان يحثوا ساسة الاكراد على الكف عن سياستهم العدوانية والهدامة ويواجهوا اطماعهم بكل جدية وايجاد توازن من خلالها يمكن بناء علاقات طبيعية مع الاحزاب الساسية الكردية.
وللتوصل الى مثل هذه العلاقات على ساسة الاكراد اولا ان تتوقف عن جهودها في توسيع نفوذ ميليشاتها في المدن التركمانية والعربية حفاظا على مصلحة العراقيين جميعا بكافة اطيافه لان فتنة الفرقة باتت خطر على الجميع وتعرض كل العراقيين الى خسائر فادحة من جراء تجذر الطائفية وبات من السهل استخدامها من البعض سلاحا لتعميق الفرقة واضعاف العراق
فالكل يعلم ان لساسة الاكراد وميليشاتهم المسلحة نفوذا واسعا في العراق وسيطرة تامة على ثلاث من المحافظات العراقية ونفوذ شبه تامة على بعض الاراضي في الموصل وكركوك وديالى وصلاح الدين مستغلين الوضع المتدهور في العراق والانفلات الامني والمناصرة التي حصدوها جراء تعاونهم مع الامريكان في احتلاله للعراق
وان قراءة سريعة للصفقة السريعة التي تمت بين التحالف الكردي مع الائتلاف تبين ان الطرف الكردي هو الطرف الرابح بالتاكيد منها و حققت جملة من المكاسب، واخرها اعطاء فرصة وصلاحية ذهبية للمليشيات الكردية بحقها في التوغل في المدن العراقية والسيطرة عليها وبحجة واهية (للسيطرة على الامن، ومحاربة المقاومة العراقية من جهة او مكافحة الارهاب من جهة اخرى)
وبالفعل توجه قبل ايام قوة من لواء من قوات البيشمركة الكردية، نحو ضواحي جلولاء وخانقين (شرق ديالى)، وكما تم ارسال قوات من المليشيات الكردية الى ضواحي الموصل بحجة حفظ الامن لبضع الالاف من الكرد هناك، وان العملية تمت بالاتفاق مع القوات الامريكية
اذا كان حججهم الواهية بانهم قوات نظامية توجهوا الى تلك المدن للحفاظ على الامن واستثباتها فهم كذابون ودجالون والدليل!!!!!!
اذا كان المئات من الالاف من الجيش العراقي الجديد والحرس الوطني و180 الف امريكي مدججون باحدث الاسلحة المتطورة غير قادرون على الحفاظ على الامن في تلك المدن!!!
هل ببضع من الالوية التابعة للمليلشيات الكردية الغير النظامية مزودين ببضع من اسلحة الجيش العراقي السابق سيعيدون الامن والامان الى تلك المدن؟
وماذا فعلوا في كركوك من ايجابيات ليفعلوه في المدن الاخرى؟
بعد مرور اكثر من ثلاثة سنوات من سيطرة المليشيات الكردية على كافة المرافق الامنية والخدمية في كركوك ما زال الوضع هناك ماساوي، فالاوضاع الامنية والسياسية والحياتية متدهورة ويمكن وصفه بالكارثية، والقوي ياكل الضعيف، وتسرح الذئاب من ميليشاتهم ومن كافة الاصناف معلنة هيمنتها على المواطن التركماني والعربي والمسيحي وحقوقهم لا زالت مهضومة،وتمارس سياسة الارهاب عبر ميليشياتها وعصابتها الارهابية،مما يشعر المواطن العراقي بمعاناة متزايدة من جراء العدوان وانعدام الامن والشعور بتخلي الحكومة عنه في كافة الممارسات والأنشطة منها الأمنية والخدماتية
بل ان اعمالهم دلت خلال السنوات الماضية في كركوك انهم لايتقيدون بالنظام ولا بالقانون وليسوا سوى عصابات منظمة فوق القانون والقانون عندهم اسميا وليس فعليا
لذا على ساسة العراق ان يحددوا اولوياتهم ووجهاتهم في مواجهة الوضع الذي فرضه علينا المحتل الامريكي، وايقاف العمليات العسكرية والسياسية للاكراد تمهيدا لعملية غزو مدن عربية وتركمانية اضافية
وعلينا نحن العراقيين ان نحدد موقفنا بصورة وبما لا تقبل التاويل، باننا سنقف صفا واحدا ضد اي غزو للمليشيات الكردية للمدن في كركوك والموصل وديالى وصلاح الدين ومهما كانت مبرراتهم ومسبباتها، وان ناخد الحيطة منهم ومن شرهم وخطرهم الكبير قبل ان يستفحل؛لانهم لا يرعون اي حرمة للانسان العراقي فهم في غيهم وعنادهم ملتزمون حتى الموت واثبثوا وبجدارة بانهم اشد اعداء وحدة العراق ومن اخطر الاخطار لانهم يستمدون قوتهم من قوة اسيادهم الغزاة، وكما على العراقيين ان يكونوا حذرين من جحافل الشر ومن بدعتهم الجديدة بانهم حماتنا واعلموا ان خطر وحدة العراق ارضا وشعبا تكمن في حماتها القادمون من شمال العراق لانهم ليس وحدويين بل انفصاليون
وتعوذوا بالله من كيدهم
The real story of Baghdad's Bloody Sunday
Six days ago, at least 28 civilians died in a shooting incident involving the US security company Blackwater. But what actually happened?
Kim Sengupta reports from the scene of the massacre
By Kim Sengupta
09/23/07 "The Independent"
The eruption of gunfire was sudden and ferocious, round after round mowing down terrified men women and children, slamming into cars as they collided and overturned with drivers frantically trying to escape. Some vehicles were set alight by exploding petrol tanks. A mother and her infant child died in one of them, trapped in the flames.
The shooting on Sunday, by the guards of the American private security company Blackwater, has sparked one of the most bitter and public disputes between the Iraqi government and its American patrons, and brings into sharp focus the often violent conduct of the Western private armies operating in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, immune from scrutiny or prosecution.
Blackwater's security men are accused of going on an unprovoked killing spree.
Hassan Jabar Salman, a lawyer, was shot four times in the back, his car riddled with eight more bullets, as he attempted to get away from their convoy. Yesterday, sitting swathed in bandages at Baghdad's Yarmukh Hospital, he recalled scenes of horror. "I saw women and children jump out of their cars and start to crawl on the road to escape being shot," said Mr Salman. "But still the firing kept coming and many of them were killed. I saw a boy of about 10 leaping in fear from a minibus, he was shot in the head. His mother was crying out for him, she jumped out after him, and she was killed. People were afraid."
At the end of the prolonged hail of bullets Nisoor Square was a scene of carnage with bodies strewn around smouldering wreckage. Ambulances trying to pick up the wounded found their path blocked by crowds fleeing the gunfire.
Yesterday, the death toll from the incident, according to Iraqi authorities, stood at 28. And it could rise higher, say doctors, as some of the injured, hit by high-velocity bullets at close quarter, are unlikely to survive.
With public anger among Iraqis showing no sign of abating, the US administration has suspended all land movement by officials outside the heavily fortified Green Zone.
The Iraqi government has revoked Blackwater's licence to operate but it still remains employed by the US government. The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has, however, promised a "transparent" inquiry into what happened. Blackwater and the US State Department maintain that the guards opened fire in self-defence as they reacted to a bomb blast and then sniper fire.
Amid continuing accusations and recriminations, The Independent has tried to piece together events on that day. The reports we got from members of the public, Iraqi security personnel and government officials, as well as our own research, leads to a markedly different scenario than the American version.
There was a bomb blast. But it was too far away to pose any danger to the Blackwater guards, and their State Department charges. We have found no Iraqi present at the scene who saw or heard sniper fire. Witnesses say the first victims of the shootings were a couple with their child, the mother and infant meeting horrific deaths, their bodies fused together by heat after their car caught fire. The contractors, according to this account, also shot Iraqi soldiers and police and Blackwater then called in an attack helicopter from its private air force which inflicted further casualties. Blackwater disputes most of this. In a statement the company declared that those killed were "armed insurgents and our personnel acted lawfully and appropriately in a war zone protecting American lives".
The day after the killings, Mirenbe Nantongo, a spokeswoman for the US embassy, said the Blackwater team had " reacted to a car bombing". The embassy's information officer, Johann Schmonsees, stressed " the car bomb was in proximity to the place where State Department personnel were meeting, and that was the reason why Blackwater responded to the incident" .
Those on the receiving end tell another story. Mr Salman said he had turned into Nisoor Square behind the Blackwater convoy when the shooting began. He recalled: "There were eight foreigners in four utility vehicles, I heard an explosion in the distance and then the foreigners started shouting and signalling for us to go back. I turned the car around and must have driven about a hundred feet when they started shooting. My car was hit with 12 bullets it turned over. Four bullets hit me in the back and another in the arm. Why they opened fire? I do not know. No one, I repeat no one, had fired at them. The foreigners had asked us to go back and I was going back in my car, so there was no reason for them to shoot."
Muhammed Hussein, whose brother was killed in the shooting, said: "My brother was driving and we saw a black convoy ahead of us. Then I saw my brother suddenly slump in the car. I dragged him out of the car and saw he had been shot in the chest. I tried to hide us both from the firing, but then I realised he was already dead." Jawad Karim Ali was on his way to pick up his aunt from Yarmukh Hospital when shooting started and the windscreen exploded cutting his face. " Then I was hit on my left shoulder by bullets, two of them another one went past my face. Now my aunt is out of hospital and I am sitting here. There was a big bang further away but no shots before the security people fired, and they just kept firing."
Baghdad's "Bloody Sunday" has become a test of sovereignty between the powers of the Iraqi government and the US. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said: "We will not tolerate the killing of our citizens in cold blood." The shooting was, he said, the seventh of its kind involving Blackwater. The company, which has its headquarters in North Carolina, is one of the largest beneficiaries of the lucrative occupation dividend, holding the contract to provide security for top-level American officials. Its reputation in Iraq is particularly controversial. It was the lynching of four of the company's employees in 2004 which led to the bloody confrontation in Fallujah. The men's bodies were set on fire, dragged through the streets and then hung from a bridge.
Blackwater personnel are recognisable from their "uniform" of wraparound sunglasses and body armour over dark coloured sweatshirts and helmets. Employees are thought to earn about $600 (£300) per day. Sunday's shooting happened at Mansour, once one of the most fashionable districts of Baghdad, with roads flanked by shops selling expensive goods, restaurants and art galleries. In the height of the sectarian bloodletting between Shias and Sunnis earlier this year dead bodies would be regularly strewn in the streets. A semblance of safety has returned since, and Mansour was held up as an example of how the US military "surge" was cutting the violence. We were in Mansour on Sunday when we heard the sound of a deafening explosion just after midday. Black plumes of smoke rose from a half-blasted National Guard (army) post near a mosque. Five or six minutes afterwards there was the sound of prolonged shooting towards the south. Police Captain Ali Ibrahim, who was on duty near Nisoor Square, said: " We heard the bomb go off, it was very loud, but it wasn't at the square. The police were, in fact, trying to clear the way for the contractors when they became agitated, they opened fire. No one was shooting at them." Asked about the witness accounts, Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, confirmed: "The traffic policemen were trying to open the road for them. It was a crowded square and one small car did not stop, it was moving very slowly. They started shooting randomly, there was a couple and their child inside the car and they were hit."
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
Kim Sengupta reports from the scene of the massacre
By Kim Sengupta
09/23/07 "The Independent"
The eruption of gunfire was sudden and ferocious, round after round mowing down terrified men women and children, slamming into cars as they collided and overturned with drivers frantically trying to escape. Some vehicles were set alight by exploding petrol tanks. A mother and her infant child died in one of them, trapped in the flames.
The shooting on Sunday, by the guards of the American private security company Blackwater, has sparked one of the most bitter and public disputes between the Iraqi government and its American patrons, and brings into sharp focus the often violent conduct of the Western private armies operating in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, immune from scrutiny or prosecution.
Blackwater's security men are accused of going on an unprovoked killing spree.
Hassan Jabar Salman, a lawyer, was shot four times in the back, his car riddled with eight more bullets, as he attempted to get away from their convoy. Yesterday, sitting swathed in bandages at Baghdad's Yarmukh Hospital, he recalled scenes of horror. "I saw women and children jump out of their cars and start to crawl on the road to escape being shot," said Mr Salman. "But still the firing kept coming and many of them were killed. I saw a boy of about 10 leaping in fear from a minibus, he was shot in the head. His mother was crying out for him, she jumped out after him, and she was killed. People were afraid."
At the end of the prolonged hail of bullets Nisoor Square was a scene of carnage with bodies strewn around smouldering wreckage. Ambulances trying to pick up the wounded found their path blocked by crowds fleeing the gunfire.
Yesterday, the death toll from the incident, according to Iraqi authorities, stood at 28. And it could rise higher, say doctors, as some of the injured, hit by high-velocity bullets at close quarter, are unlikely to survive.
With public anger among Iraqis showing no sign of abating, the US administration has suspended all land movement by officials outside the heavily fortified Green Zone.
The Iraqi government has revoked Blackwater's licence to operate but it still remains employed by the US government. The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has, however, promised a "transparent" inquiry into what happened. Blackwater and the US State Department maintain that the guards opened fire in self-defence as they reacted to a bomb blast and then sniper fire.
Amid continuing accusations and recriminations, The Independent has tried to piece together events on that day. The reports we got from members of the public, Iraqi security personnel and government officials, as well as our own research, leads to a markedly different scenario than the American version.
There was a bomb blast. But it was too far away to pose any danger to the Blackwater guards, and their State Department charges. We have found no Iraqi present at the scene who saw or heard sniper fire. Witnesses say the first victims of the shootings were a couple with their child, the mother and infant meeting horrific deaths, their bodies fused together by heat after their car caught fire. The contractors, according to this account, also shot Iraqi soldiers and police and Blackwater then called in an attack helicopter from its private air force which inflicted further casualties. Blackwater disputes most of this. In a statement the company declared that those killed were "armed insurgents and our personnel acted lawfully and appropriately in a war zone protecting American lives".
The day after the killings, Mirenbe Nantongo, a spokeswoman for the US embassy, said the Blackwater team had " reacted to a car bombing". The embassy's information officer, Johann Schmonsees, stressed " the car bomb was in proximity to the place where State Department personnel were meeting, and that was the reason why Blackwater responded to the incident" .
Those on the receiving end tell another story. Mr Salman said he had turned into Nisoor Square behind the Blackwater convoy when the shooting began. He recalled: "There were eight foreigners in four utility vehicles, I heard an explosion in the distance and then the foreigners started shouting and signalling for us to go back. I turned the car around and must have driven about a hundred feet when they started shooting. My car was hit with 12 bullets it turned over. Four bullets hit me in the back and another in the arm. Why they opened fire? I do not know. No one, I repeat no one, had fired at them. The foreigners had asked us to go back and I was going back in my car, so there was no reason for them to shoot."
Muhammed Hussein, whose brother was killed in the shooting, said: "My brother was driving and we saw a black convoy ahead of us. Then I saw my brother suddenly slump in the car. I dragged him out of the car and saw he had been shot in the chest. I tried to hide us both from the firing, but then I realised he was already dead." Jawad Karim Ali was on his way to pick up his aunt from Yarmukh Hospital when shooting started and the windscreen exploded cutting his face. " Then I was hit on my left shoulder by bullets, two of them another one went past my face. Now my aunt is out of hospital and I am sitting here. There was a big bang further away but no shots before the security people fired, and they just kept firing."
Baghdad's "Bloody Sunday" has become a test of sovereignty between the powers of the Iraqi government and the US. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said: "We will not tolerate the killing of our citizens in cold blood." The shooting was, he said, the seventh of its kind involving Blackwater. The company, which has its headquarters in North Carolina, is one of the largest beneficiaries of the lucrative occupation dividend, holding the contract to provide security for top-level American officials. Its reputation in Iraq is particularly controversial. It was the lynching of four of the company's employees in 2004 which led to the bloody confrontation in Fallujah. The men's bodies were set on fire, dragged through the streets and then hung from a bridge.
Blackwater personnel are recognisable from their "uniform" of wraparound sunglasses and body armour over dark coloured sweatshirts and helmets. Employees are thought to earn about $600 (£300) per day. Sunday's shooting happened at Mansour, once one of the most fashionable districts of Baghdad, with roads flanked by shops selling expensive goods, restaurants and art galleries. In the height of the sectarian bloodletting between Shias and Sunnis earlier this year dead bodies would be regularly strewn in the streets. A semblance of safety has returned since, and Mansour was held up as an example of how the US military "surge" was cutting the violence. We were in Mansour on Sunday when we heard the sound of a deafening explosion just after midday. Black plumes of smoke rose from a half-blasted National Guard (army) post near a mosque. Five or six minutes afterwards there was the sound of prolonged shooting towards the south. Police Captain Ali Ibrahim, who was on duty near Nisoor Square, said: " We heard the bomb go off, it was very loud, but it wasn't at the square. The police were, in fact, trying to clear the way for the contractors when they became agitated, they opened fire. No one was shooting at them." Asked about the witness accounts, Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, confirmed: "The traffic policemen were trying to open the road for them. It was a crowded square and one small car did not stop, it was moving very slowly. They started shooting randomly, there was a couple and their child inside the car and they were hit."
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
