CHOLERA, "FRIENDLY FIRE", ATHEISM

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
~ James Madison.

It looks like there have been outbreaks of cholera in Silêmanî and Kerkuk. Özgür Gündem first had some news on the matter over the weekend. ÖG reported that 700 people were showing symptoms of cholera. It also reported that five people had died of the disease which caused the populations of the cities to become fearful. The KRG issued information on the sanitization of water and how to properly handle food.

Kerkuk poses a different problem with regard to any outbreak of disease because it falls under the control of the central Baghdad government. So far, Baghdad has done nothing with regard to the cholera outbreak in Kerkuk, which prompted the KRG to take over public health duties in the city with regard to the outbreak.

Today, news of the cholera outbreaks appeared in English-language media through Arab media, with one report at Uruknet, another at Informed Comment--in which KTV was cited--and another from Alsumaria.

Note the discrepancy between the number of infected persons mentioned at Alsumari and ÖG: 2,000 to 700. According to both Alsumaria and ÖG, investigations into the source of the infections continue. Since Kerkuk is approaching the date of the referendum, it's not out of the question that the outbreak may be the result of sabotage by the usual suspects.

There's more background information on cholera at the WHO, but cholera generally occurs as a result of a contaminated water supply. Given that the infrastructure of South Kurdistan is dated, and that cities like Silêmanî have undergone population booms since 2003--of village Kurds as well as refugees from Arab Iraq--this is an example of the critical attention that a clean, secure public water system should receive.

US forces have killed more Kurdish security forces in another so-called "friendly fire" incident, this time in Diyala province. Naturally, the Americans claim they don't have any idea what anyone is talking about nor do they know which unit of their courageous armed forces have committed this crime. The last "friendly fire" incident was in February.

Actually, I just think that these trigger-happy cowboys don't know what in the hell they're supposed to be doing. There's probably a big streak of cowardice involved, too.

Finally, here's something different to think about. . .The top ten least religious countries and the social implications thereof:

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

[ . . . ]

The survey concluded that "high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe , atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world – particularly nations with high birth rates – atheism is barely discernable."

A study by the University of Michigan showed the US to be one of the most religious countries in the world, with researchers there hypothesizing that American religionism may derive from the fact that the US "has a less comprehensive social welfare safety net than most other economically developed countries, leading many Americans to experience the kind of existential insecurity and economic uncertainty characteristic of highly religious populations."


Interesting. Very interesting.

MORE "FRIENDLY" FIRE

With Tuesday's post in mind, this from the AP on Yahoo:

U.S. helicopters targeting insurgents mistakenly killed at least five allied Kurdish militiamen in the northern city of Mosul early Friday. The military also reported three more American soldiers killed in combat, pushing the U.S. death toll to 33 in the first eight days of the month.

Officials said the Kurds were killed about midnight as they guarded a branch of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a political party led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a key supporter of U.S. efforts in Iraq.

The U.S. military said the strike was launched after American ground forces spotted armed men in a bunker near a building they thought was being used to make bombs for al-Qaida in Iraq. The troops called out in Arabic and Kurdish telling the men to put down their weapons and also fired warning shots before the helicopters opened fire, the military said.

Five men later determined to be Kurdish police officers were killed and nine others were detained, the U.S. military said, offering condolences to the families of those who died. Kurdish officials put the casualty toll at eight killed and six wounded.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman denounced the airstrike. "This is not a good sign for the new security plan that they (U.S. forces) have started," he said.

However, a spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Azad Jundiyan, said the party realized the airstrike was a mistake. "We are allied with the coalition; it was a friendly fire incident, not an intentionally hostile act," he said.

Jundiyan identified the dead as peshmerga — Kurdish militiamen who once battled Saddam Hussein's regime. Many peshmerga have been incorporated into the Iraqi army since the U.S.-led invasion.

The incident far from Baghdad underlined a rise in violence in northern Iraq, where it is feared some insurgents are fleeing to avoid the security crackdown in the capital.

U.S. and British forces also face mounting casualties as they step up their presence to shore up Iraqi forces.

So, the cowboys continue to fire up their "allies."


UPDATE: From the NYTimes:

An American military helicopter killed as many as nine Kurdish militia fighters early Friday in the northern city of Mosul when the aircraft mistakenly attacked a guard post.

The guard post protected the local offices of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the political party of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani. The attack stunned Patriotic Union officials, whose leadership and militia are close allies of United States forces. They said their base and the surrounding guard posts were well known to the American military in Mosul.

“Everybody knows that it is a P.U.K. base and is used for protecting the main road between Mosul and Erbil,” said Kabir Goran, a senior Patriotic Union official, who added that the guard post was less than a mile from the party offices. “We have daily contacts with the Americans and they have been to the base.”

An aide to Mr. Talabani said he had asked the American military for information about the mistake.

The United States command in Baghdad said American troops erroneously believed that they had identified insurgents near the hide-out of a bomb-making cell linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The command said the strike killed five Kurds, described as policemen; Kurdish officials said as many as nine were killed.

[ . . . ]

The American helicopter attack in Mosul struck members of a militia force that is a crucial ally of the United States. The Kurds and their fighters, known as pesh merga, live in mountainous northeastern Iraq, but their control extends west to the Tigris River and Mosul, a city of close to two million. Sunni Arabs make up most of western Mosul, but Kurds dominate the eastern half.

In a statement, the American military said that after observing armed men near the guard post, American troops fired warning shots and called out in Arabic and Kurdish for the men to put down their arms.

An American helicopter then “observed hostile intention” and fired on the guard post. The military statement did not describe specifically what the soldiers saw the Kurdish troops do. But it said that as the helicopter attacked, American ground troops took fire from the bunker. Kurdish officials said six other pesh merga were wounded, some cared for later by American troops.

The Americans were in a helicopter, and therefore better able to see their target than in a jet--even though they could clearly see the British convoy they fired up back in 2003--and what, exactly, does it mean to "fire warning shots?" I mean, if you're in Mûsil and you hear shots, how do you know if they're warning or not? What, exactly, does it mean to "observe[d] hostile intention?" Why was "hostile intention" not specifically described?

According to the LATimes, the Americans claim the pêşmerge fired on US forces, while the IHT quotes a pêşmerge survivor of the American attack as saying that the Kurds did not fire "so we wouldn't be considered terrorists — we did not even shoot a bullet."

The LATimes reports a Mûsil resident's account of the attack:

Ali Sourchi, a 30-year-old grocer, said he had been watching a movie shortly before midnight when the power suddenly went out. He went outside to check his generator and saw the airstrike. He fled inside, fearing what might happen next, he said.

"Sounds of the bombings continued until 2 a.m.," he said. "In the morning, we found stone and rubble where the guards' position used to be."

Therefore the Americans fired on the checkpoint for some 2 hours, reducing it to rubble. The LATimes report continues with a statement from a member of the Kurdish security forces saying, "We are not satisfied with an apology."

From the IHT:

There have been accidental attacks on pesh merga fighters before, according to Mahmoud Othman, an influential Kurdish member of the Iraqi national assembly. But he said that they have not caused frictions between Kurdish and American forces, and he predicted that the incident Friday would not do so either.

"Many of these things have happened in the past four years — it's quite unfortunate," Othman said. "But I don't think it will seriously affect any relations."

But it ought to seriously affect relations.

The Americans are behaving like cowards because "insurgents" have downed five American helicopters in three weeks and they are deliberately vague in their explanation of the attack on Kurds in an attempt to hide their cowardice. They'd be in a world of hurt if they had to engage in a real war.

This is the second known friendly fire incident against Kurds by the Americans. If there were a free and independent media in South Kurdistan, we'd have news of other friendly fire incidents. With the exposure of such cowardice and carelessness on the part of the Americans, there would be a good chance of creating "frictions" that would force the Americans to end their wanton killing of friendly forces.

No more cooperation.

MORE FROM WASHINGTON

"Those who forget history are doomed to testify before congressional committees."
~ Andy Kessler.

What's new at the Pentagon, you ask? Well, a couple of things.

First, they've finally been forced to release a video from two American A-10 aircraft that fired up a British convoy, killing one Tommy and wounding a number of others, way back in 2003. Apparently the video had been leaked to the media, but as part of the deal to release a DVD copy of the video to the UK government, it cannot be aired publicly. According to the Independent, this is not the first time the Pentagon has engaged in an attempted cover-up of friendly fire incidents.

This reminds me of the friendly fire incident from early April 2003 in which a number of Kurdish pêşmerge were killed and wounded by the Americans, again by aircraft. The reason that the Pentagon couldn't attempt to cover-up this incident was because there happened to be a BBC film crew on scene, with cameras rolling, and they managed to capture the bombing and aftermath.

Anybody remember Pat Tillman? He was a believer in the system until a tour in Iraq, when it appears his belief in the system began to change. During a subsequent tour in Afghanistan, the system caught up to him and put him away . . . permanently. Then it lied to cover-up.

Kinda makes you wonder, don't it, Bubba, just how many more friendly fire incidents have been hushed up? Or how many individual instances of collateral damage have been perpetrated by the anti-terror warriors? But, as they say, what you don't know won't hurt you. Right?

The other interesting news from the Pentagon is that it's got big plans for Africa, from the NYTimes:

The Pentagon will establish a new military command to oversee its operations in Africa, President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced Tuesday.

Creation of the United States Africa Command, which had been expected, will “strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa,” Mr. Bush said.

Really? They have "security cooperation" with Africa? I didn't even know the US knew there was an Africa. I guess Rwanda missed that part about "security cooperation" back in the 90's, eh? But, wait; it gets funny:

The man who is about to become the head of the Central Command, Adm. William J. Fallon, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 30 that he favored establishment of an Africa Command, in light of the humanitarian crises and instability across much of the continent and its strategic importance.

Is this Fallon guy for real? Since when does the US give a damn about "humanitarian crises and instability" anywhere, much less in Africa? Since when does the US consider Africa of "strategic importance"? For how many centuries have there been "humanitarian crises and instability" in Africa? The US is a big cause of "humanitarian crises and instablity" itself, and all over the globe--Indonesia, Indochina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Turkey, Iraq, soon Iran. If everything goes according to script, expect to see severe "humanitarian crises and instability in Central Asia, too. About the only place the US hasn't been concerned about "humanitarian crises and instability" is Africa.

And the only place where a high-ranking member of the system could get away with intoning "humanitarian crises and instability" without being greeted with howls of laughter is the US Senate.

Come on, now, Admiral Fallon, are you absolutely certain your sudden twinge of conscience has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that China's been in the Sudan for some time, for the oil, thus the concern for "strategic importance"? Are you absolutely certain that Lockheed Martin didn't whip up that little fantasy of concern for "humanitarian crises and instability" so that it could horn in on China's aircraft sales? After all, a couple of years ago, the Washington Post took the sanctimonious and utterly hypocrital tone about who was on the receiving end of China's arms sales to Sudan, but has not the least concern about who might be on the receiving end of American arms sales to anyone.

Concerns over China's spreading sphere of influence and concerns over acquiring new arms markets are the real reasons for the Bush administration's sudden concern to "eliminate an 'outdated arrangement left over from the cold war.'" Forget about the politically-correct hogwash pouring forth from the mouth of Admiral Fallon; someone in Africa is now in the process of aiming the shit at the fan. When a region becomes of "strategic importance" to the US, that means it's time for all hell to break loose.

The "experts" at The Intelligence Summit have just figured out that Iran has been trying to lure Turkey into its corner. Too bad they still haven't figured out that the luring has been mutual. Of course, they are only saying this as part of the manufactured consent necessary to start yet another war and, for that reason, it just wouldn't do to talk bad about a NATO ally--Turkey--whose national foundation is genocide and state terror, two habits for which NATO has been a willing enabler for decades. Besides, all the NATO countries would have to admit their own guilt as state-sponsors of terror and accomplices in the genocide of the Kurdish people.

Besides, Turkey and Iran have engaged in joint military operations against the Kurdish freedom movement last year, so how can anyone be certain that this story of Iran luring Turkey away from the West is not a joint political strategy?

TNA reports that two Turkish parliamentary deputies are hysterically proclaiming that "PKK is flowing into Kerkuk." They also appear to be hysterical that Armenians are flowing into the US Congress. Remember what Heval Cuma said? If it's true that "PKK is flowing into Kerkuk," I have only two words: Bijî HPG! That place needs to be cleaned out anyway, especially of all the MIT/JITEM/ITF trash. Seriously, give that one a read. It's very funny. A teaser:

Comez, claiming the presence of PKK militants in Kirkuk, said, "Turkmens whom I regularly communicate with are reporting that scores of PKK terrorists are coming from Mahmur and other camps into Kirkuk and are carrying IKDP and IPUK identity cards."

"The terrorists were armed with heavy weapons and planned provocative attacks in Kirkuk. He did not elaborate where or when the terrorists might stage these attacks."

Hilarious!

The Washington Times' resident Kurdish "expert" has a column out today to let us know that Abdullah Gul is going to tell Condoleeza Rice just how bad the situation in Iraq has become . . . as if she didn't know. I mean, they all know; they just refuse to admit it publicly.

Poor Gul! He has to make the case that "Turkey is trying desperately not to be pulled into the war" in Iraq which, of course, is absurd. If Turkey doesn't want to be pulled into the war, don't be pulled into the war. That was Turkey's choice in 2003, when the US was desperately trying to pull Turkey into the war with billions of dollars in bribes, so Turkey can choose not to become involved in the war again.

It would probably help Turkey not to be involved if it would remove all of its MIT agents, JITEM agents, and mercenaries from South Kurdistan, but then it would not be able to easily manufacture an environment that could properly be used as an excuse to annex the Mosul Vilayet--and all of its lucrative oil--plus extend its magnificent human rights record to the Kurds of the South.

The Syrian ambassador to the US is quoted as agreeing that a break up of Iraq would be "catastrophic." It should be noted that Syrians are keen Kurd-killers themselves, so getting the opinion of the Syrian ambassador is like getting another fox to help guard the hen house.

What is interesting is that the Syrian ambassador talks about "Kurds [are] feeling emboldened by the autonomous Kurdistan of Iraq and we see how Turkey is not very comfortable . . ." Notice that word: emboldened. It's the current fashion to use "embolden" with "terrorists." Anything that anyone suggests that deviates in the slightest from official US policy in the Middle East is tarred with the phrases "emboldening terrorists" or "emboldening terrorism," meaning that the Syrian ambassador is clearly equating Kurds with terrorists.

It's kind of ironic that an official of the same government that has been funneling terrorists into Iraq since 2003 should equate Kurds with terrorists. On the other hand, I guess a Syrian official could easily be considered an expert on terrorism.

The Washington Times' resident Kurdish "expert" closes by saying that Turkey needs to get closer to Damascus. Now this "expert" is well-known for pushing Turkish propagand and that is why she implies that Turkey has a distant relationship with Damascus. However, the truth is that Turkey has been cozy with Damascus since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. We might consider this something of a regional ménage à trois since Syria is the client of Iran and Turkey has been working closely with Iran. This lends credibility to the assertion: "Turkey is trying to achieve good standing with as many countries as possible . . . "

To paraphrase, as a friend is fond of saying, "Turkey plays the whore," and there's probably no better place to do that than in the qehbexane that is Washington.

Unsurpisingly, throughout this entire Washington Times piece there is not one reference to Turkey's outstanding human rights record vis-à-vis the Kurdish people, nor a reference to the Ankara regime's continued military operations against the PKK during the PKK's ceasefire . . . with support for such continued operations from Washington.