My Lai to Haditha, wars' turning points

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to blame the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha last November, or the killing of 11 Iraqi civilians in the village of Ishaqi back this March, on the "stress of war". After Abu Ghraib and other US "mistakes" since 2003, people are much less likely to buy such an excuse from the Americans.

What happened in Haditha can best be described as deliberate homicide committed by soldiers of the US Marine Corps, making them in a sense no different from the al-Qaeda insurgents they are combating.

It is believed that the Haditha massacre was committed to avenge the death of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, a 20-year-old soldier from Texas who had been killed in a roadside bombing in Haditha in November, triggering the backlash.

The Haditha massacre changes everything in Iraq. It changes the images, loyalties and dreams of the Iraqi people, as well as the honor of the US military. It is a turning point for the Americans, the Iraqis, President George W Bush and new Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

And it came as a blessing in disguise to Arab regimes and masses who are anti-American to the bone, and who only point toward the Haditha massacre and say, "This is what the Americans bring to the Middle East."

Haditha has received huge coverage in the main Arab dailies, particularly in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Jordan. It is prime news in Iran. The immediate implications of Haditha are yet more empowering of Arab regimes throughout the Middle East. It is another blow for all those who are betting on US intervention in the Arab world, claiming that the Americans will bring democracy to Iraq and the Arabs at large.

Inside Iraq, the Haditha massacre adds to the anti-Americanism boiling among Shi'ites and Sunnis, temporarily uniting them against the United States. Although it occurred in Haditha, a stronghold for the Sunni insurgency, the killings are being condemned by all politicians in the Shi'ite community.

As the world was fixated on Haditha, al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi released yet another troubling speech via the Internet last Friday, calling on the Sunnis to rise against the Shi'ites, whom he labeled "snakes" and criticized their Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, saying he was an "atheist". Yet to avoid stirring a sectarian outburst, the Shi'ites have shown overwhelmingly solidarity with the Iraqi Sunnis in Haditha.

The Haditha event was also loudly condemned by Maliki, a religiously driven Shi'ite whose anti-Americanism had been curbed by the nature of his job since he was sworn into office in May. Unable to remain silent any longer, he used the Haditha event to criticize the Americans, saying that "they have no respect for citizens. They smash civilian cars and kill on a suspicion of a hunch."

The New York Times described his comments as "an unusual declaration". A pro-Iranian, Maliki is not pleased with how the Americans have treated him and his boss and predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, since their team won last December's parliamentary elections. They ousted Jaafari from office, and empowered the Sunnis at the expense of the Shi'ites, vetoing any plans to appoint religiously driven Shi'ites at the ministries of Defense and Interior.

To put it simply: Maliki will exploit the Haditha event to get back at the Americans for bullying him and for withdrawing support from the Shi'ites.

What happened in Haditha?

On November 19, 2005, US Marine Corps commanders in Iraq said that 24 Iraqis had been killed in Haditha, a small town in Anbar province, as a result of a roadside bomb placed by Iraqi insurgents. Sad but common; there was nothing unusual to the story, since dozens of car bombs explode all over Iraq every single day.

At the time, a marine spokesman distorted the story in a public statement and said that 15 (not 24) Iraqis "were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately after the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small firearms. Iraqi soldiers and marines returned the fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

The incident was not reported as a "scandal" with "misconduct" until March 12. Unfortunately for the US troops who committed the massacre, living next door to the building was Taher Thabet, 43, an Iraqi journalist who runs the Hammurabi Organization for Human Rights and Democracy. He heard the bomb that killed the US soldier at 7:15am, and saw angry marines get out of their vehicles and head for four homes on either side of the road. Thabet then heard gunfire, screams - then silence.

The next morning, he visited the house rampaged by the Americans and videotaped everything he saw. He followed up with further footage at the Haditha morgue. He gave the video to Time magazine's correspondent in Iraq, who in turn contacted the marines for an explanation, receiving the same story originally given by the Americans on November 19.

The marines said this was al-Qaeda propaganda against the US. Time, however, did not buy it. Time interviewed Haditha locals, including the mayor, the morgue doctor, relatives of the victims and a lawyer who negotiated a settlement between the marines and the families of those who were killed.

The marines had paid the families, through this lawyer, up to US$2,500 per victim. Time presented all of this to the US military spokesman in Iraq, Colonel Barry Johnson.

The continued nagging of Time journalists reached General Peter Chiarelli, the newly appointed second-in-command of US troops in Iraq. He asked his aides to brief Time on updates "after the investigation" was completed. He was shocked to hear that "there had been no investigations". He ordered a speedy investigation, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was briefed with the findings on March 10.

Bush received his copy on March 11. Then, on March 19, Time's article came out, sending shock waves throughout the White House and Pentagon. Eman Waleed, a nine-year old Iraqi girl, was quoted in Time saying, "I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head."

This makes the crime all the uglier: homicide and cover-up. US investigations into the case are currently under way, headed by General Eldon Bargewell, and meanwhile, far away in Washington, former presidential candidate John Kerry has prepared a bill in Congress demanding withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

Coinciding with the loud outcry over Haditha, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi told his British counterpart Prime Minister Tony Blair that he was adamant about bringing Italian troops back home. Nobody wants to blacken their image further, and that of their country, with the continued occupation and destruction of Iraq. Nobody, that is, apparently except for Bush.

Was Bush fully informed about the Haditha massacre on March 11? One can only be amazed at how passively he has reacted to an event that could ruin not only his reputation and honor, but that of the entire US military as well.

It is equally amazing how some US commentators, such as David Reinhard of The Oregonian, rudely wrote, "Of course, nobody knows for sure what happened in that small Iraqi village last November 19."

Yet the story has come out. The entire family of Yunis Khalaf, for example, was gunned down in Haditha while he was screaming: "I am a friend. I am good!" His girls were aged 14, 10, five, three, and one year. All of them were killed in cold blood, shot in the head or chest at close range. Among the 25 Iraqis killed at Haditha were an infant and an old man in a wheelchair. He was shot nine times. One girl, aged 12, survived the massacre of her family by playing dead and lived to tell the story to Time.

As the Haditha story was making headlines from Tokyo to Washington, other troubling news was coming out of Iraq. Last Wednesday, a pregnant Iraqi woman was shot dead, along with her cousin, as she was rushing to give birth in Samarra. She entered a "prohibited area" and refused to stop when US troops asked her to do so. Regardless if she understood English, or if she was in labor and unable to stop, she was shot dead. She is survived by her husband and two children, aged two and one.

Then came new accusations against the US military, now blamed for another killing in Ishaqi village north of Baghdad. The British Broadcasting Corp last week aired images of 11 Iraqi citizens killed by the Americans on March 15. The bodies included four women and five children. The oldest was 75 years old. The youngest was six months.

The video was obtained from a Sunni resistance group opposed to the US occupation of Iraq. The US story at the time said that four Iraqis (not 11) had died as US troops raided a building trying to catch Ahmad Abdullah Mohammad Na'is al-Utaybi, a member of al-Qaeda.

Iraqi police challenged the US tale, saying that the number was 11 (including five children and four women), deliberately killed by US troops, who also deliberately blew up the building once they had finished.

Surprising the world, after leaking that 12 marines would face charges for the event, the US military declared that they were innocent on Friday, 24 hours after the BBC film was broadcast. Angry Iraqis are asking: "What kind of a verdict could be reached in 24 hours?"

Two scandals in one week, however, for Bush were simply too much to tolerate. This might explain why the Americans quickly wrapped up the Ishaqi affair, saying that all accusations of a massacre by US troops were "absolutely false".

Memories of My Lai

Daniel Henninger commented on the Haditha massacre in the Wall Street Journal: "The narrative of this story has pretty much set in already: it's another My Lai. We all know they did it, the brass covered up, and prison sentences for homicide are merely a formality."

Many in the US, like Henninger, are drawing parallels between what happened in Haditha and what happened in My Lai, Vietnam. The March 1968 massacre there, when the US Army wiped out an entire village - elderly, women and children, killing more than 300 civilians in one of the worst crimes of the Vietnam War - should be remembered to understand why the US military is acting in such a manner in Iraq.

That single act, more than all the rest, turned US public opinion against the Vietnam War. The US soldiers found no insurgents in the village on the morning of March 16. Led by Lieutenant William Calley, they killed the civilians - primarily old men, women, children and babies. Some were tortured or raped. Dozens were herded into a ditch and executed with automatic firearms.

Calley was convicted in 1971 of premeditated murder in ordering the shootings and was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, president Richard Nixon ordered him released from prison. Calley claimed that he was following orders from his captain, Ernest Medina, who denied giving the orders and was acquitted at a separate trial. Of the 26 men initially charged, Calley's was the only conviction.

Senator John Kerry gave a statement to Congress on the Vietnam massacre in 1971 regarding Calley. He said: "I think if you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same time try all those other people who have responsibility, and any aversion that we may have to the verdict as veterans is not to say that Calley should be freed, not to say that he is innocent, but to say that you can't just take him alone."

And his words ring loud and clear today, 36 years later, and can be applied verbatim with regard to Haditha and Ishaqi.

Everybody in the Bush administration is responsible for the massacres in Iraq. The officers in charge on November 19. The soldiers who pulled the triggers then lied about it. The marines who did not conduct an immediate investigation into the case. Rumsfeld for sending men with low morals or dignity to Iraq. And finally, Bush. More than anybody else, he is responsible for Haditha, just as he is responsible for Abu Ghraib, Ishaqi and all the other "mistakes" committed by the Americans since they invaded Iraq in March 2003.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF06Ak01.html

6.3 the leading German(bourgeois) magazine Der Spiegel wrote this:

Memories of My Lai

Death in Haditha

Haditha is a small, dusty city on the Euphrates River 200 kilometers (124 miles) northwest of Baghdad, in Iraq's Anbar Province. The primarily Sunni region, dominated by insurgents, is notorious for one, horrific fact: more people die here day after day than anywhere else in the country. The US Marines periodically attempt to crush the insurgency, but end up withdrawing to their bases, the only locations in Iraq where they feel relatively safe. Indeed, US troops lives are in danger the minute they set foot outside their bases.

But the region - and Haditha - isn't just dangerous for US soldiers. It is also hazardous for those who live there, primarily for farmers who often fall victim to roadside bombs set by insurgents. Avoiding civilian deaths is not much of a concern. But life in Haditha also becomes perilous when US Marines go on insurgent hunts.

Most of the soldiers in the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment have already spent quite a bit of time in Iraq. Many are already on their second tours of duty with some even on their third -- Haditha isn't the first hellhole with which they've become acquainted. Last summer, 20 Marines were killed during a three-day battle with insurgents -- 14 killed by a roadside bomb and the remaining six, all sharpshooters, shot in an ambush. A normal day in Iraq.

Like so many other days in Haditha, Nov. 19, 2005 began with an explosion. At 7:15 a.m., a convoy of four Marine Humvees was driving slowly down a main thoroughfare in Haditha. This time the bomb was so carefully placed that it hit only one Humvee and not a single civilian. Miguel Terrazas, 20, the driver of one of the Humvees, was killed immediately, while two other soldiers were wounded. None of the remaining troops from the 3rd Battalion was harmed.

For the US forces in Iraq, these kinds of attacks are as unavoidable as they are common in Anbar Province. According to the results of a preliminary investigation commissioned by the US military, however, the incident on the morning of Nov. 19, 2005 led to the biggest war crime US soldiers have committed since Vietnam - nothing less than an Iraqi My Lai. It was a massacre of the innocent, of children, women and unarmed men that even overshadows Abu Ghraib, the definitive example of barbaric prison abuse in Iraq.

Twenty-four people died in Haditha that day. An old man was killed in a wheelchair and mothers tried unsuccessfully to protect their children. The only survivors were a teenager who ran away and a girl who pretended to be dead.

After the roadside bomb detonated, a deathly silence must have fallen over Haditha. The Marines' first step was likely to recover the dead and the two wounded in the attack, while neighboring residents watched from their brick houses and small, palm tree-lined courtyards. To onlookers, the Marines standing around the burned-out Humvee seemed as if they were in shock. According to eyewitnesses, one of the Marines suddenly yelled something and the group sprang into action.

They spent the next four hours terrorizing Haditha, randomly killing anyone unlucky enough to cross their paths. This, at least, is how news magazine Time reconstructed the incidents.

The Marines first forced their way into the house of Abd al-Hamid Hassan Ali, a diabetic who had been confined to a wheelchair after his leg was amputated. Others in his house included his wife, 66, two middle-aged men, the couple's daughter-in-law and four small children between two months and eight years of age. The daughter-in-law managed to flee with the baby. The old man was found with nine gunshots to his chest and abdomen, his entrails spilling from a gaping wound in his back.

The Marines then broke into the neighboring house, shooting at close range and throwing hand grenades into the kitchen and bathroom. A married couple, 43 and 41 years of age, the wife's sister and five children between the ages of 3 and 14 were killed. Thirteen-year-old Safe Junis Salim survived when her dying mother fell on top of her and she lost consciousness, presumably leading the Marines to think that she was dead.

In a third house, the Marines killed four brothers. The last civilians killed on this day in Haditha were four students and a taxi driver who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The four students were in the taxi on their way home for the weekend. The taxi driver, probably sensing something was amiss, quickly put the car in reverse, but it was too late. The last five victims of the massacre died in much the same way as the others.

Only a few days ago, US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly conceded that their two countries had made many mistakes in Iraq. In his speech, the US president symbolically mentioned Abu Ghraib, the site of gruesome excesses committed by American soldiers. But if accusations prove to be true, Haditha would represent an even more serious act of barbarism -- a systematic murder of the innocent motivated by revenge.

Haditha will then be on par with the infamous My Lai incident. Five hundred and four Vietnamese civilians were killed on March 16, 1968 in a massacre committed by soldiers in the 11th Infantry Brigade, under the command of Lt. William Calley. It took almost two years before Life magazine first reported on the atrocities that took place in the village on the border with North Vietnam -- finally breaking the cloak of silence the US military had placed over My Lai.

Immediately prior to indications of a massacre in Haditha being made public, Iraq had just experienced a tiny flash of hope. It had taken five gut-wrenching months for the Iraqis to finally assemble a new government under President Nuri al-Maliki. In addition, the United States and Iran were cautiously moving toward the possibility of talks to address ways to achieve long-term peace in Iraq -- considered a confidence-building exercise in preparation for possible negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program.

But the Haditha incident has destroyed much of any progress made in the region. Haditha reinforced widespread suspicion that the US is not only capable of atrocities, but also that it does its best to cover them up. Should it come to an investigation, each case is merely declared an isolated incident. Haditha weakens America and is likely to bolster already staunch opposition to the now-unpopular US president's war. "Such incidents are devastating," says Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, in an interview with SPIEGEL. Arab networks Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya have reported extensively on Haditha and its consequences.

The news of the massacre was met with dismay within the Washington political establishment. John Warner, a well-respected, elderly Republican senator from Virginia, was the first to mention Haditha in the same breath as Abu Ghraib. Warner, the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which held hearings over the four-hour Nov. 19 rampage in Haditha, posed a critical question: "What was the reaction of the Marine Corps when it happened?"

John Murtha, highly decorated from his days as a Marine infantryman in the Vietnam War and now a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, has no doubts whatsoever that the Marines killed innocent civilians and then tried to cover up the incidents. He says that official sources have told him that the soldiers "cold-bloodedly" shot a woman who had bent over her child in a protective position and begged the Marines for mercy. Murtha is especially interested in finding out whether Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace "gave the order to cover up the affair."

Fittingly enough, the new Iraqi ambassador, Samir Sumaidaie, presented his credentials at the White House last Tuesday. He then gave his first interview to CNN, calling the murders "a betrayal of the American people."

After the massacre, the city's imams and tribal leaders led a protest march from the mosque to the US base, where the clerics reminded the Americans that they had "promised to bring the country peace and security, and not panic, fear and terror." The Iraqis were told that the murderous rampage had been a mistake.

Instead of launching their own investigation, the Marines tried to cover their tracks. Their official version of the incident has the 24 civilians being killed by insurgents and not by US troops. According to a communiqué issued on Nov. 20, Lance Cpl. Terrazas and 15 Iraqi civilians were initially killed by the roadside bomb, while the remaining nine victims died during an ensuing firefight with snipers.

The families of most of the victims each received $2,500, the maximum amount of compensation allowed under Marine regulations. The payments represented an initial acknowledgment that Haditha was more than just an ordinary attack with a high, but not unusual number of victims.

On the day after the Haditha massacre, Tahir Thabit, a journalism student, filmed videotape of the dead in the city's morgue, setting a process into motion that would eventually bring the affair before the public eye. US magazine Time obtained Thabit's video in January and sent a copy to Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, who launched a formal investigation. In March, the magazine published a story that refuted the Marines' official version. After interviewing 28 eyewitnesses in Haditha, the Time reporters reconstructed the events of Nov. 19.

Thabit's video has since become widely available in the Middle East, with copies turning up in mosques in Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Terrorist organization Al Qaida's far-reaching network presumably played a role in ensuring discreet distribution of the tape.

Col. Gregory Watt began questioning the 13 Marines in February. Although the Marines stood by their version of the 24 victims having been killed by the roadside bomb and in the ensuing exchange of gunfire, the facts point to a different story. The strongest piece of evidence to refute the Marines' version was the death of the four students and their taxi driver. The five victims were not carrying weapons, nor had they made any threatening moves against the soldiers.

US military investigators examined the crime scenes a total of 15 times. Dozens of bullet holes peppered the walls of the three houses. Bullets had passed completely through the victims' bodies, indicating that they were shot at close range. In addition, new photos of the corpses materialized that had apparently been deliberately kept under wraps.

The Marines' version of the incident fell apart when the investigators reconstructed the massacre. The principal suspects include Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who led the patrol, and two privates. All three will likely face murder charges. Nine of the 13 Marines probably witnessed what happened in Haditha, but failed to intervene.

The battalion commander, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, and two other officers suspected of trying to cover up the killings have since been relieved of their commands. Chessani also apparently gave the order to compensate the victims' families. Under Marine regulations, cash compensation can only be paid when innocent people are killed.

Lance Cpl. Ryan Briones, 21, was a member of the Third Battalion and was stationed in Haditha, but he is not one of the suspects in the massacre. Instead, Briones was assigned to recover the bodies of the dead. Miguel Terrazas was his friend and the two had been workout partners at the unit's gym. Briones covered his friend's body with a poncho and said a prayer. A short time later, he says, he picked up the body of a young girl who had died from a gunshot to her head. Brain matter dripped onto Briones' boots as he held the girl.

Briones will probably never forget these images. "This left something in my head and heart," he says.

----------------------------------

Yesterday I published following article(incl. my - perhaps stupid - ideas):

이라크: 학살 주말

http://www.antiwar.or.kr/maybbs/view.php?db=antipabyeong&code=board&n=7345&page=207

The first round of bilateral free trade negotiations between Korea and the United States were scheduled to begin this morning, or late yesterday evening in Seoul.
The Korean negotiating party lead by Kim Jong-hoon is the largest ever in Korea's short history of free trade talks. The Korean delegation is 158 strong, with representatives from 23 government agencies. Wendy Cutler, the U.S. chief negotiator, reportedly has a team of 178 backing her up.
But protesters got the jump on the negotiators, even if their numbers were not as large as the two trade delegations. About 40 activists from Korea joined about 250 Americans, of Korean heritage and otherwise, and some Mexican and Venezuelan protesters for good measure, in a noisy but peaceful 80-minute demonstration near the White House. Police made no arrests, perhaps a good omen but for the fact that the first day of demonstrations by Korean activists in Hong Kong in December was also peaceful, but protests turned violent on later days.
Kang Ki-kap, a Korean legislator affiliated with the radical Democratic Labor Party, was one of the demonstration's leaders. "We are here to warn U.S. congressmen of the dangers of the free trade agreement between the two countries and participate in the anti-globalization movement," he told reporters. The protesters in turn lay on the ground, chanted and waved placards, including some calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea.
The Korean negotiating team is also hoping that products manufactured in Kaesong in North Korea would be included in the free trade deal.
The work for the negotiators was to launch talks involving 17 broad sectors such as agriculture, financial services, medicine, education, legal services, accounting and government procurement. They have only about 10 months to wade through that agenda, which contains several political minefields. The U.S. president's "fast-track" trade negotiating authority expires in the summer of 2007; until then, the U.S. Congress has the right only to vote up or down on a trade agreement but not to amend it.

..in S. Korea..

Surprisingly I found following report in yesterday's Korea Times: 

Civic Group Alliance Starts Anti-World Cup Movement

Civic Groups have launched a movement against the World Cup fever sweeping the country, criticizing one of the world’s biggest sporting events for diverting public attention from urgent social and political agenda.

Culture Action, an alliance of about 100 civic groups, and other organizations said on Sunday the World Cup has been distracting the public for months from vital social issues that should be tackled to improve lives of Korean people.

This week, they plan to put stickers on World Cup sculptures, billboards and other related properties in Seoul to warn the public of harmful effects on Korean society brought about by World Cup frenzy.

Some stickers read ``Doesn’t South Korea have better things to do than cheer for World Cup?’’ and ``I am against World Cup marketing that takes advantage of my passion for soccer.’’

``We decided to launch this movement to inform the public that intense media coverage of the World Cup and reckless celebrations are distracting us from important issues that have significant impacts on our daily lives,’’ a Culture Action spokesman said.

He said that unlike spontaneous voluntary outdoor celebrations and festivities during the 2002 World Cup, this year’s events are mainly driven by private businesses looking to promote their brand images and generate profits.

``World Cup cheering and celebrations are being used commercially as well as politically by those who are seeking selfish gains. In the process, society has lost its course of action and neglected the underprivileged who desperately need our help,’’ he noted.

The group also said it is unfortunate society has lost interest in important issues such as the anti-U.S. base relocation protest, adding that posting stickers on public property is to help remind the public of the harsh reality we are living in.

They have been criticizing Seoul City for allowing a group of private companies to exclusively use the grass square in front of City Hall for marketing activities during World Cup.

The companies include SK Telecom, the country’s biggest mobile-phone carrier, KBS, the biggest television station, and the Chosun Ilbo, the most-circulated daily newspaper.

Private companies competed to secure rights to access Seoul Plaza, planning massive programs to expose their brand image to large crowds gathered for live, World Cup broadcasts from Germany.

During the last World Cup, held in Korea and Japan in 2002, Seoul Plaza became the ``cheering mecca’’ of the city, where thousands of fans gathered regularly for televised football games and cheered as the Korean national team made an unexpected advance to the semifinals.

Companies paid the city a daily fee of 5.21 million won for their planned outdoor festivities during the World Cup.

Civic groups said that by allowing selected companies to organize Seoul Plaza festivities, the city government has sapped the strength and enjoyment of outdoor fan celebrations by reducing the gatherings to marketing events for businesses.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200606/kt2006060418011910510.htm

..and in Germany

Last Friday between 200 and 300 people protested, under the slogan "kick it! putting 2006 wc apart"("kick it! fifa-wm 2006 ins abseits stellen", in German language) in Berlin against the World Cup(WC) and especialy against the conditions for workers during the WC period, the massive exploitation of workers who are producing sportswear in countries(such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam..), the commercialization of sport, culture(actually just everything of the daily human life..) and the militarization of the public life, especially during the month of 2006 WC.

But the protesters also denounced the anti-social politicy of the German government.

(Btw: during Germany's application, between 1991 and 1993, for the before last Olympic games, finally they were held in Sidney in 2000, ten thousands of people, especially in Berlin, were active to prevent this "event" here. In the case of 2006 WC only few people were concerned...)

Anti-Olympia posters(1992)

Meanwhile, while daily racists and fascists in East Germany and the eastern part of Berlin were/are hunting foreigners or just non-white people, the Berlin federal government, supported by the German govt. and many [capitalist(what else?!..^^)] companies, celebrated "multi-culturalism" in the western part of the city. About 800,000 people, better said consumers, joined yesterday and today the so-called "Carnival of the Cultures" in Berlin Kreuzberg. Of course one of the main goals of this years's event - now it was held the 11th year - was to make a good promotion for the (f...) 2006 WC.

KOTZ!! f.. sh..

A report in German about this(f..) event you can reads here:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,419663,00.html

PS.:

Events like that and the 2006 WC in the Roman Imperium - "Bred and Games" - were held to devert the poor and oppressed masses from their daily suffering. And even today, 2,000 years later, this system seems to work very well. Especially when the organizers, can make a huge profits...

A few days ago, even the German bourgeois daily newspaper Berliner Zeitung called the WC as a "Billion Game(How the FIFA is earning Billions..)".

Of course not only FIFA is winning.  A lot of the main worldwide companies are earning Billions of Dollars/Euros by maximum exploitation of manpower(in the poor countries) and mass commerce/consumption(mainy by the 'ordinary' people in the 'rich' countries).

American veterans of the war in Iraq have described a culture of casual violence, revenge and prejudice against Iraqi civilians that has made the killing of innocent bystanders a common occurrence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1789986,00.html 

As he left the soccer field after a club match in the eastern German city of Halle on March 25, the Nigerian forward Adebowale Ogungbure was spat upon, jeered with racial remarks and mocked with monkey noises. In rebuke, he placed two fingers under his nose to simulate a Hitler mustache and gave a Nazi salute.

In April, the American defender Oguchi Onyewu, playing for his professional club team in Belgium, dismissively gestured toward fans who were making simian chants at him. Then, as he went to throw the ball inbounds, Onyewu said a fan of the opposing team reached over a barrier and punched him in the face.

International soccer has been plagued for years by violence among fans, including racial incidents. But FIFA, soccer's world governing body, which is based in Zurich, said there had been a recent surge in discriminatory behavior toward blacks by fans and other players, an escalation that has dovetailed with the signing of more players from Africa and Latin America by elite European clubs.

This "deplorable trend," as FIFA has called it, now threatens to embarrass the sport on its grandest stage, the World Cup, which opens June 9 for a monthlong run in 12 cities around Germany. More than 30 billion cumulative television viewers are expected to watch part of the competition, and Sepp Blatter, FIFA's president, has vowed to crack down on racist behavior during the tournament.

The issue has been included on the agenda at FIFA's biannual congress, scheduled to be held this week in Munich. A campaign against bigotry includes "Say No to Racism" stadium banners and television commercials, and team captains will make pregame speeches during the quarterfinals of the 32-team tournament.

Players, coaches and officials have been threatened with sanctions. But FIFA has said it would not be practical to use the harshest penalties available to punish misbehaving fans - halting matches, holding games in empty stadiums and deducting points that teams receive for victories and ties.

Players and anti-racism experts said they expected offensive behavior during the tournament, including monkey-like chanting; derisive singing; the hanging of banners that reflect racist beliefs; and perhaps the tossing of bananas or banana peels, all familiar occurrences during matches in Spain, Italy, Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe.

"For us it's quite clear this is a reflection of underlying tensions that exist in European societies," said Piara Powar, director of Kick It Out, an organization against racism in soccer based in London. He said of Eastern Europe: "Poverty, unemployment, is a problem. Indigenous people are looking for easy answers to blame. Often newcomers bear the brunt of the blame."

Yet experts and players also said they believed the racist behavior would be constrained at the World Cup because of increased security, the international makeup of the crowds, higher ticket prices and the prestige of the event.

"Racism is a feature of many football leagues inside and outside Europe," said Kurt Wachter, project coordinator for the Football Against Racism in Europe, an international network of organizations. He said he expected most problems to occur outside stadiums, where crowds are less controlled. "We're sure we will see some things we're used to seeing. It won't stop because of the World Cup."

Germany has one of the world's lowest rates of violent crime. Still, an immigrant group called the Africa Council said it would publish a "No Go" guide for nonwhites during the World Cup, particularly for some areas of eastern Berlin and for surrounding towns in the state of Brandenburg.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned that "anybody who threatens, attacks or, worse, kills anybody because of the color of his skin or because he comes from another country will face the full force of the law."

The Bundesliga in Germany is one of the world's top professional soccer leagues and has not experienced widespread racism. Incidents involving racial abuse of black players are more prevalent in semiprofessional and amateur leagues in Eastern Germany.

After making a Nazi salute, which is illegal in Germany, Ogungbure of Nigeria was investigated by the authorities. But a charge of unconstitutional behavior against him was soon dropped because his gesture had been meant to renounce extremist activity.

"I regret what I did," Ogungbure said in an interview by telephone from Leipzig. "I should have walked away. I'm a professional, but I'm a human, too. They don't spit on dogs. Why should they spit on me? I felt like a nobody."

Gerald Asamoah, a forward on Germany's World Cup team and a native of Ghana, has been recounting an incident in the late 1990s when he was pelted with bananas before a club match in Cottbus. "I'll never forget that," Asamoah said during a television interview. "It's like we're not people." He has expressed anger and sadness over a banner distributed by a rightist group that admonished, "No Gerald, You Are Not Germany."

Cory Gibbs, an American defender who formerly played professionally in Germany, said there were restaurants and nightclubs in Eastern Germany - and even around Hamburg in the West - where he was told, "You're not welcome," because he was black.

"I think racism is everywhere," said Gibbs, who will miss the World Cup because of a knee injury. "But I feel in Germany racism is a lot more direct."

Racist behavior at soccer matches is primarily displayed by men and is fueled by several factors, according to experts: alcohol; the perceived "us versus them" threat of multiculturalism in societies that were once more ethnically homogeneous; the difficult economic transition of East European countries since the fall of the Berlin Wall; and crude attempts to unnerve opposing players during bitter, consuming rivalries.

Other observers say the soccer stadium in Europe has become a communal soapbox, one of the few remaining public spaces where spectators can be outrageous and where political correctness does not exist and is even discouraged.

"Nowhere else other than football do people meet someplace and have a stage for shouting things as an anonymous mass," said Gerd Dembowski, director of an anti-racist organization called Floodlight, based in Berlin. "You can shout things you would never say in your normal life, let out your frustrations."

Not all the misbehavior can be traced to fans or to Europe. Players and coaches have also been transgressors.

Luis Aragonés, Spain's World Cup coach, was fined in 2004 after making racial remarks about the French star Thierry Henry. In March, in the Brazilian league, the defender Antonio Carlos was suspended for 120 days, and four additional matches, after an incident in which he shouted "monkey" at an opposing player who is black.

But it was an incident in Spain on Feb. 25 that galvanized anti-racist sentiment and prodded FIFA into taking a tougher stand against bigoted behavior. That match, in Zaragoza, was temporarily halted in the 77th minute by the referee, who threatened to cancel the remaining 13 minutes after Samuel Eto'o, the star forward for Barcelona, was subjected to a chorus of racial taunts. Eto'o threatened to leave the field, but his coach and teammates persuaded him to continue, and last month Barcelona won the European Champions Cup.

Eto'o, who was voted European player of the year this spring, has become one of the sport's most outspoken players on the subject of racism.

"I'll continue to play," Eto'o, whose national team, Cameroon, did not qualify for the World Cup, said last week through his agent. "I'm not going to give up and hide and put my head down. I'll score goals against the teams whose fans are making rude noises."

Under pressure to curb what it acknowledged was an increase in racist incidents, FIFA announced in late March a stricter set of penalties that would apply for club and national team matches. The sanctions would include suspensions of five matches for players and officials who make discriminatory gestures, fines of $16,600 to $25,000 for each offense and two-year stadium bans for offending spectators. It also said teams, which receive three points in the standings for a victory, would have three points deducted on a first offense by misbehaving players, officials or fans.

Blatter, the FIFA president, told reporters that the three-point deduction for abhorrent fan behavior would apply during the World Cup, then backed away from his comments in April. Blatter declined to comment for this article. And it remains unclear exactly what penalties will be levied against World Cup teams for offensive behavior by fans, coaches and players.

Nicolas Maingot, a FIFA spokesman, said World Cup sanctions would be made public later. But in an e-mail response to questions, he said: "Only racist abuses in the field of play will be punished. For fans, it will be impossible, due to the multinationality of the audience.

"In other words, it would be impossible to identify from which side would potential racist abusers come."

Critics counter that spectators are supposed to have their names on their tickets, so identifying offending fans should be relatively easy.

Onyewu, the American defender who was punched by an opposing fan in Belgium, said the man was identified through an anonymous tip and was barred from attending matches for two years. Onyewu said he did not retaliate, because he believed that racist behavior reflected acts of a minority of fans.

"I'm anticipating a more professional environment in Germany because it's the World Cup," Onyewu said. Even so, he said, although anti-racist efforts could restrict public behavior, "that's only helping the exterior."

He added, "The interior mind thinking, you can't really change that."