Mosul, 18 maanden na ‘de bevrijding’

Door
recente droogte is Mosul weer onder de aandacht gekomen van de
internationale media, daar die droogte ervoor zorgde dat een oude ruïne bloot kwam te liggen van een 3.400 jaar oud paleis.

De
aandacht van de reguliere westerse media voor Mosul was tijdens ‘de
bevrijding’ van die stad vooral wat het VS leger en het Iraakse
bewind daarover te zeggen hadden. Zo was Hans Jaap Melissen* één
van de ‘journalisten’ die embedded waren bij de VS/Irak coalitie en
die verboden werd de stad in te gaan…… Deze zogenaamde oorlogscorrespondenten lepelden braaf op wat hen was voorgekauwd door de propaganda machine van die
coalitie……

Met name
‘de bevrijding’ van West-Mosul heeft een enorm aantal doden
gekost en waarbij de historische binnenstad werd vernietigd door
bombardementen van de VS…… Diverse mensenrechtenorganisaties en
zelfs de VN hebben de VS destijds gesmeekt te stoppen met die
bombardementen, daar de bewoners van de oude stad zo hutjemutje op elkaar woonden….. (de VS trok zich daar niets van aan….) Dit was dan ook de oorzaak voor het enorme aantal omgekomen burgers bij die bombardementen…….

Na ‘de
bevrijding’ van Mosul heeft het Iraakse leger niet gepoogd
slachtoffers te bergen, nee men koos ervoor de ruïnes te bulldozeren,
met de slachtoffers nog onder het puin. Er moeten tienduizenden
burgers zijn omgekomen (men houdt het officieel op het ongeloofwaardig aantal van 10.000; zie de links onder het hieronder opgenomen artikel), echter door het bulldozeren van de ruïnes zullen we nooit weten hoeveel slachtoffers terreurentiteit VS
heeft gemaakt met haar terreurbombardementen…..

Intussen
leven de teruggekeerde inwoners nog steeds tussen ruïnes en is er een
gebrek aan zaken als sanitaire voorzieningen waardoor ziekten de kop
opsteken, die de zo geplaagde bevolking nog verder in de ellende
storten……

In het
hieronder opgenomen artikel gaat de schrijver, T.J. Coles dieper in
op deze zaak, o.a. met het noemen van het enorme aantal bommen dat de
VS op Irak en Syrië heeft doen neerkomen, waarvan een aanzienlijk
deel op Mosul (en later op Raqqa in Syrië), voorts stelt hij nogmaals
dat de VS de hoofdverantwoordelijke is voor het ontstaan van IS, de
terreurgroep aan wie de VS zelf meermaals wapens en ander militair
tuig heeft geleverd…. (zie ook daarvoor weer de links onder het hieronder opgenomen artikel) Het artikel van Coles werd gisteren gepubliceerd op
CounterPunch:

Life
Among the Rubble: Mosul 18 Months after “Liberation”

by T.J.
COLES

Photograph
Source: Mstyslav Chernov – 
CC
BY-SA 4.0

Recent
news of drought has brought Mosul, Iraq, to the attention of Western
media; for the drought has led to the discovery of ancient ruins of
archaeological significance. But let’s not forget the other news:
the UN report on returnees. The refugees are returning to the carnage
wrought upon the city by the US and its allies under the pretext of
“liberating” it from Daesh: carnage that transformed much of the
city to modern ruins.

ANCIENT
RUINS DISCOVERED

Mosul
is a city in Iraqi Kurdistan with a 
population of
1.3 million; 60% of whom are Sunni Arabs, around 25% of whom are
Kurds. Ongoing drought has brought Mosul to the attention of Western
media, as receding water levels at Kemune reservoir reveals the ruin
of a 3,400 year-old palace. Researchers from the University of
Tübingen and the Kurdistan Archaeology Organization 
reckon that
the palace was part of the Mittani Empire (circa 1450-1350 BCE).
According to 
onearchaeological
history, “[Mittani’s] end as independent realm can be dated to
the time of Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I in the middle of the 14th
century BC.”

Echoes
of the conquests and rivalry of the ancient past haunt both recent
history and the present. The so-called 
Mosul
Question
 was
a territorial dispute in the early-20th century between the British
and Ottoman empires, with both parties wanting a share of the
region’s oil. In the latter-part of the 20th century, Iraq’s
one-time 
US-British-backed dictator
Saddam Hussein launched the Anfal genocide against Kurds who have
historic and ongoing links to the region. A couple of years ago, the
US-approved leaders of the central Iraqi government and the regional
Kurdish authorities 
squabbled over
control of Mosul, anticipating that Daesh would be defeated.

But
the discovery of ancient Mittani ruins coincides with darker news.
recent
report
 by
the UN International Organization for Migration documents the effects
of the US-led coalition bombardment of the city. It begins: “Entire
neighborhoods have not yet been rebuilt, basic services are
insufficient in some areas, and poor sanitation is contributing to
serious public health problems and the spread of diseases.
Furthermore,” the report continues, “reports of harassment and
violence against civilians by state as well as non-state actors are
undermining efforts to build trust in state institutions and
authorities.” Western-led humanitarian intervention is the price
that Iraqis pay for being an oil-rich, militarily vulnerable nation.

MAKING
ENEMIES

Daesh
(a.k.a., Islamic State) was largely the by-product of US-British
savagery in Iraq. Having left the nation politically and
infrastructurally 
decimated by
decades of unprecedented sanctions, military occupation, and
divide-and-conquer strategizing, the more extreme Islamic elements in
Iraq—backed by foreign powers for their own geostrategic
interests—sprouted from fertile ground. The US Army’s Strategic
Studies Institute launched an unusually scathing attack on the Bush
II administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and how it and
the succeeding Obama administration handled the occupation. Ignoring
moral questions and focusing solely on tactics, as well as blaming
the US-backed politician Ahmed Chalabi, the report (worth quoting at
length) 
says that
the growth of the Islamic State Organization (ISO):

did
not occur in a vacuum … The ISO would not exist, or at this level
of severity at least, had the ruling Shia elements in Iraq following
the USG [US Government] occupation made the essential, painful
choices required to pursue a new social compact with the nation’s
Sunni population. Or, had the USG not operationalized Ahmad Chalabi’s
long-dreamt of goal of imposing a punitive de-Ba’athification,”

meaning
the dismantling of Iraq’s political, military, and policing
infrastructure. It goes on:

Or,
had the USG not imposed the disastrous policy of dissolving the Iraqi
armed forces and security forces, numbering in the hundreds of
thousands; or had been prepared for a Sunni insurgency; or had
developed a realistic post-occupation, longer-term stabilization
policy based in a keen and learned awareness that the USG’s
decapitation, occupation, and empowerment of Iraq’s Shia would
profoundly destabilize an existing equilibrium in Iraq; or understood
that the decapitation of the Iraqi regime would profoundly alter the
terms of the broader Sunni-Shia rivalry inaugurated by the emergence
of a Shia revolutionary State in 1979, and thereby further energizing
proponents and antagonists who view this schism as a difference so
wide as that between God and the Devil; or, finally, had the USG not
first gone into Iraq the wrong way, and later repeated the error by
disengaging from Iraq the wrong way.”

Even
though US-British violence created Daesh, the US-British answer to
defeating Daesh was more violence.

AIR
AND GROUND WAR

In
June 2014, Daesh took Mosul, triggering a refugee flight of half a
million. According to the 
timeline, by
September ten Arab majority states announced their participation in
the US-led anti-Daesh coalition. Britain started bombing Iraq, again,
on September 30th with Paveway IV and Brimstone missiles. As well as
using Reaper drones in its anti-Daesh operations, the UK supplied 275
ground troops. By the end of the destruction of Mosul, the UK had 600
personnel on the ground in Iraq. Maj. Gen. Rupert Jones 
boasted that
“the UK was the second biggest contributor from a military
perspective in the campaign.” According to 
Forces.Net,
the British Army 
trained 75,000
Iraqi military personnel at Camp Taji and other bases. Many of those
who fought in Mosul committed war crimes, including 
torturing
and murdering
 alleged
Daesh members. In particular, the US-trained 16th Division
executed suspects, 
including
children.

These
atrocities pale in comparison to the devastation of the aerial
bombardments.

In
2016, the US-led coalition 
dropped 30,743
bombs on Iraq and Syria. In 2017, it dropped 39,577. In 2018, the
coalition dropped over 6,800 bombs. In February 2018, Pehr Lodhammar
of the UN Mine Action Service 
reported that
the “liberation” of Mosul had left 11 million tonnes of debris,
burying two-thirds of the unexploded bombs (UXB). The anti-mine,
anti-UXB operations will take the UN a decade to complete; assuming
that their budget isn’t reduced. It took the agency 12 months to
remove 25,000 explosive remnants in Mosul alone. The
BBC 
reported that
UK Ministry of Defence bombs “malfunctioned and strayed off target”
sometimes by “hundreds of metres,” adding to the civilian death
toll which reached up to 10,000; 11,000, according to the
same 
Forces.Net source
noted above. Mosul resident and civilian, Abdel Rahman Ali, lost five
children to the blitz. “Nobody destroyed us except the coalition,”
he told the BBC.

In
its written evidence to the British government, Amnesty
International 
says: “Our
field research constitutes 
prima
facie
evidence
that Coalition strikes, which killed and injured civilians in Syria
and Iraq, violated International Humanitarian Law (IHL).”
Criticizing what it calls a “crisis in accountability,” Save the
Children’s written evidence 
notes that
$700 million-worth of damage was wrought on each of Mosul’s 54
residential districts. Save the Children concludes: “In Mosul, the
UN Security Council also found that at least 4200 civilians were
killed by EWIPA [explosive weapons with wide-area effects in
populated areas] between October 2016 and July 2017. Research
undertaken by the UN suggests that in such settings, over 90 percent
of the casualties are civilians.”

IN
CONCLUSION

Instead
of being decapitated and immolated by Daesh, thousands of inhabitants
of Mosul were blown to pieces and incinerated by US-British bombs. UN
International Organization for Migration’s recent
report 
notes that,
at its peak, nearly one million residents fled the city. By now,
350,000 or so remain “internally displaced persons” (IDPs). “Many
IDPs are unable to return because their houses have been destroyed,
either by [Daesh] or during the battle, and renting or buying new
property is prohibitively expensive.” They are some of the millions
of refugees generated by the US-British imperial war machine. Mosul
is a small part of a much larger tragedy: one of US global hegemony
in the age of Full Spectrum Dominance.

More
articles by: 
T.J.
COLES

Dr.
T. J. Coles
 is
director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author
of several books, including 
Voices
for Peace
 (with
Noam Chomsky and others) and the forthcoming 
Fire
and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks
Nuclear War in Asia
 (both
Clairview Books).

====================================

Nog even over de gifgasaanvallen in de 80er jaren van de vorige eeuw door Saddam Hoessein: zakenman van Anraat werd veroordeeld voor het leveren van grondstoffen voor dat gifgas, echter zijne VVD kwaadaardigheid Bolkestein, die destijds tegen advies van deskundigen in, toestemming gaf voor de export van die grondstoffen, een oorlogsmisdaad van formaat, waarvoor deze VVD ploert nooit werd vervolgd……

* Melissen blaast nu weer regelmatig op Radio1 over zijn bezoeken aan Syrië, waar deze plork eerder embedded was bij een terreurorganisatie, die hij loofde als gematigde oppositie, maar die later door de mand vielen als een afschuwelijke terreurorganisatie……. Onbegrijpelijk dat er nog iemand is die deze zakkenwasser serieus neemt….. (voor meer berichten met Melissen, klik op het label met zijn naam, direct onder dit bericht)

Zie ook:

Misvormde kinderen in Irak door gebruik van verarmd uranium in VS munitie

9/11 voorkennis verzwegen in officiële rapporten‘ (deze link daar de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Afghanistan, in feite de voorloper is van die tegen Irak; zie ook de andere links in dat bericht naar 9/11)

The massacre of Mosul: 40,000 feared dead in battle to take back city from Isis as scale of civilian casualties revealed

Iraakse strijdmacht gaf grif toe dat tot hun orders voor West-Mosul ook het vermoorden van vrouwen en kinderen behoorde……..

CIA valt nogmaals door de mand als wapenleverancier van IS…….‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht over VS wapenleveranties en training van terreurgroepen >> je gelooft je ogen niet…)

Kinderen in Irak vermoord middels VS terreur…….

Mosul: minstens 40.000 gedode burgers in 9 maanden tijd, ofwel VS terreur op grote schaal…..

Mosul, stad van lijken: vele honderden doden onder het puin

Mosul verwoest door VS………

Mosul, het verschil in berichtgeving vergeleken met de bevrijding van Oost-Aleppo………..

Raqqa, een strijd als om West-Mosul, echter met geheel andere media aandacht……….

Bombarderen was een probleem in Mosul, maar niet bij het nieuwe Iraakse/VS offensief…….

Mosul ‘zal met precisie ontdaan worden van de terroristen, inclusief een minimum aan burgerslachtoffers…….’‘ (een ongelofelijk en ongeloofwaardige belofte….)

VS vermoordde met bombardementen in augustus 433 burgers in Raqqa………. Westerse media alweer stil…….

Hennis-Plasschaert hoopte nog zo, dat IS de bevolking van Mosul niet als schild zou gebruiken……..

Honderden burgerslachtoffers in Mosul door VS bombardementen, ofwel grootschalige terreur……

Mass Media Siege: Comparing Coverage Of Mosul and Aleppo‘ (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

After Mosul’s “Liberation,” Horror of US Siege Continues to Unfold‘ (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

Mosul (bijna) bevrijd: ‘een positief verslag’ van de BBC

Mosul ‘bevrijd’ en BBC anti-Assad propaganda……….

Mosul is ‘bevrijd’ zo stelt de VS, daar zijn echter wel wat aanmerkingen op te maken………

Arabieren en Afghanen zijn bepaald niet bedroefd om de dood van McCain……

In
een opiniestuk van
As’ad
AbuKhalil in Consortium News (door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media),
beschrijft hij hoe anders arabieren en een volk als de Afghanen
kijken naar de dood van oorlogsmisdadiger, oorlogshitser en
grootlobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex McCain.

In
een voorbeeld geeft hij aan hoe verschillend alleen al een uitspraak
van McCain wordt geïnterpreteerd door westerlingen of arabieren. Een
vrouw in een zaal waar hij vanwege z’n presidentscampagne van 2008
sprak, kreeg van McCain als reactie op haar uitlating dat Obama een
arabier is, dat Obama geen arabier is, hij is een nette familieman.
Westerse media jubelden ‘t uit, wat een fantastische man die McCain,
immers hij zou als republikein Obama hebben verdedigd…… 


Deze ontkenning van McCain zal iemand die goed geïnformeerd is over WOII, doen denken
aan ontkenningen in en na de oorlog, de ontkenning dat iemand geen fanatieke nazi
kan/kon zijn, daar hij een ‘nette familieman’ was…… Zoals men na de oorlog maar al te
vaak ontdekte van fanatieke psychopathische nazi’s die in concentratiekampen
tekeergingen, zoals kampcommandanten, die thuis de brave huisvader uithingen…. 


Hoe een arabier over deze uitspraak zal oordelen is wel
duidelijk, hij of zij ziet in de uitspraak van McCain een bevooroordeelde
westerse klootzak, die stelt dat een arabier geen nette persoon kan
zijn……..

Uiteraard
zien arabieren McCain zoals hij was, een smerige oorlogsmisdadiger
door wie tienduizenden mensen om het leven zijn gekomen, zo stond de
schoft ook achter de illegale oorlog tegen Irak (intussen meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden…), sterker nog, daar
was hij al meteen na 9/11 voorstander van, zoals hij ook voorstander
was van de illegale oorlog tegen Syrië (al vanaf 2006 voorbereid door
de VS, natuurlijk met hulp van McCain….), verder was hij voor een oorlog
tegen Iran….. 


Waarbij dit alles nog opgeteld moet worden, dat hij terreurstaat Israël
zwaar steunde en alle bloedvergieten door die fascistische
apartheidsstaat niet eens bekritiseerde, neem het grote aantal
moorden begaan door Israëlische scherpschutters, die sinds maart dit
jaar aan de grens met de Gazastrook een groot aantal ongewapende, vreedzaam
demonstrerende Palestijnen hebben doodgeschoten*, terwijl ze zich NB op
‘Palestijns grondgebied’ bevonden…… Daarbij vermoordden deze
psychopaten zelfs kinderen, invaliden, duidelijk herkenbare
journalisten en als zodanig herkenbare medisch hulpverleners…… McCain was veel eerder zelfs tegen de onderhandelingen van Israël met Yasser Arafat (PLO)……..

Lees
het uitstekende stuk van AbuKhalil voor veel meer duidelijkheid (zo vertelt hij dat de directeur van Human Rights Watch een lovend stuk over McCain schreef….), voorts zie de berichten over McCain onder de links, die weer onderaan in dit bericht terug zijn te vinden:

Being
on the deadly end of his policies, many Arabs view John McCain in a
very different way than the U.S. mass media has presented him.

The
destruction of Mosul. (Wikimedia Commons)

(CN Op-ed) — It
is not unusual that Arabs and Americans look at the same event from
divergent lenses. Take, for instance, a scene from John McCain’s
2008 presidential campaign when he told  a woman in the audience
who had called Obama an Arab: “No, Ma`am. He is not an Arab. He’s
a decent family man.”

That
brief exchange has been tweeted and retweeted thousands of time in
the last few days following McCain’s death. It has been promoted by
people in mainstream media (and think tanks and academia) as evidence
of the civility, “classiness”, and lack of prejudice of McCain. 
Yet, Arabs saw something entirely different in that exchange. 
They saw bigotry from McCain, who was denying that Obama was Arab
in the same way one denies that someone is a Nazi.  He
clearly implied that an Arab can’t be a decent family man.  In
fact, Gen. Colin Powell was the only U.S. politician who pointed this
out at the time.  But a new image of McCain is being formulated
before our eyes.

For
Arabs in the Middle East and in the U.S., the view of McCain does not
conform to the hagiography of U.S. media.  People in the region
remember well that McCain supported every U.S. and Israeli war,
invasion, or attack against any Arab target. They remember that he
was a major proponent of invading Iraq and argued for the expansion
of U.S. wars into Iran, Libya and Syria in the wake of Sep. 11.

While
the Washington director of Human Rights Watch was writing tributes to
McCain
,
Arabs were remembering him as a champion of Middle East dictators
(except those on bad terms with the U.S. and Israel.) It was not a
coincidence that both the official Saudi regime lobby in DC and AIPAC
promptly released emotional eulogies for McCain. The
English-language, 
Arab
Times
 (a
mouthpiece of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman) dedicated a
special issue to him.

McCain
never wavered in his conformity with AIPAC’s agenda.  He never
had disagreements with the Israeli government except in outbidding
them in his hostility to Palestinian rights and the usefulness of
negotiations with Arabs.

Yet in
the context of Washington politics, McCain was not regarded as the
anti-Arab/anti-Muslim that he was, perhaps because there were Arabs
and Muslims that he approved of. He championed, for instance, Iraqi
opposition figure Ahmad Chalabi (a key fabricator in the buildup to
the U.S. invasion of Iraq) and the Afghan Muhajedeen. He was very
close to Arab despots and approved arms sales to their repressive
armies and intelligence apparatuses. He spoke of democracy but in the
way that invading and colonizing states glorify “freedom” to
justify conquest.

McCain
was a champion of Syrian rebels and pictures of him with Jihadi
extremists (in Libya and in Syria) were circulated by Arabs on social
media in the last week. while the Washington press corps and Human
Rights Watch were paying tribute him as “a defender of democracy.”

Schooled
by Scoop

McCain
was 
mentored on
the Middle East, according to his biographies, by Henry “Scoop”
Jackson, who for years was the dean of ardent Zionists in the U.S.
Congress. Those were in the days when a few members—mostly
Republicans—dared to challenge AIPAC. McCain’s first trip to
Israel was a member of a delegation led by Jackson when McCain was
the Navy’s liaison to the Senate.  Typically, like all
U.S. politicians who visit Israel, McCain became convinced by 
the view from Israeli military helicopters of the vulnerability of
“little Israel” and that Israel needed to continue to occupy,
invade, attack and assassinate.

Self-propelled
howitzers of the Gaddafi forces, destroyed by French Rafale airplanes
at the west-southern outskirts of Benghazi, Libya, in March 2011 in
another war backed by McCain. (Wikimedia Commons)

In
Congress, McCain managed to become associated with AIPAC’s agenda
more than his colleagues. He always argued for more support for
Israel. And when Israel and the U.S. both accepted negotiations with
Yasser Arafat, he remained skeptical, raising doubts about the
intentions of the Palestinians.

After
his election to Congress, McCain quickly set himself up as an expert
on defense and foreign policy. His first foreign policy posture in
Congress was in 1983, when he opposed U.S. intervention in Lebanon,
but not on humanitarian grounds. Instead he basically argued that far
more force was needed against Syria and its allies in Lebanon. This
became a pattern for the Vietnam veteran: that more force is always
needed wherever U.S. troops are deployed. Some attribute the “surge”
to him, as if the surge really salvaged American fortunes in Iraq.

In
an 
article written
during his 2008 presidential campaign, 
The
New York Times
 talked
about the McCain Doctrine and referred to his reaction to Sep. 11,
when he argued for war on Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan.  For
McCain, war was the only recourse for dealing with foes of the U.S.
and Israel. And war was not effective for McCain without massive
force and heavy troop deployments.

The
Senator and the 
Ikhwan

McCain
was a champion of the Muslim Brotherhood (
Jam’iyat
al-Ikhwan
 al-Muslimin),
even if that put him at odds with Gulf rulers who he also supported.
 This position may seem uncharacteristic given his longstanding
fealty to AIPAC and its agenda, and his general unfriendliness to
Arabs and Muslims. But McCain may have undertaken this role at the
behest of AIPAC.

Homs,
Syria

In
the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, McCain negotiated with leaders
of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. 
It was after a series of visits from leaders of those movements to
Washington that they basically reversed their traditional position on
Israel. Leaders of 
An-Nahda rescinded
their plan to criminalize normalization with Israel, while leaders of
the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood pledged commitment to the
Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. 

Similarly,
the stance of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood abandoned any hostility
toward Israel and even toward its occupation of the Golan heights. 
McCain’s confidence in the ability of the 
Ikhwan to
deliver the interests of Israel and U.S., led him to oppose Sisi’s
coup as he trusted that Mohammed Morsi would be able to guard U.S.
interests and the interests of the Egyptian-Israeli
military-intelligence alliance.

McCain
became, in this manner, an unabashed champion of what is called in
the West (and in the Gulf regimes’ media) the “Syrian
revolution”.  He also trusted the Islamists in the
“revolution” and hoped that Israeli interests would be served by
a change of regime that would be aligned with the U.S. and Israel. The risk of promoting Jihadi Islamist rebels was, for McCain and the
Israeli lobby, worth the effort.  For that, McCain’s death was
mourned by leaders of the “liberal” exile opposition and by
Jihadis of the Syrian rebels, including Huthaifah `Azzam, the son of
`Abdullah `Azzam (the mentor of Usamah bin Laden). (Huthaifah `Azzam
later deleted his post after I drew attention to it).

The
career of McCain intersected with the rise of AIPAC on Capitol Hill. 
He also benefited from the Reagan and Bush Doctrines, both of which
relied on the use of massive force against the enemies of U.S. and
Israel.

The
assessment of McCain can’t hope to achieve a measure of balance
given the adulation by mainstream media for a man whose political
sins were always instantly forgotten.  His reference to
Vietnamese by a pejorative term was seen as an example of his frank
talk—not of his prejudice. His involvement with Charles Keating was
seen as an example of a minor error and not of the corruption of an
influential senator.  His endorsement of war, the Israeli
occupation, and his embrace of tyrants (especially in the Gulf and
North Africa) have not been perceived as inconsistent with the
media’s image of a champion of human rights.

In
the end, John McCain was a major face of American empire, just as
were two people who attended his funeral–Obama and Bush –and one
who did not, Trump.

By
As’ad AbuKhalil / Republished with permission / 
Consortium
News
 / Report
a typo

==========================================

* Het totale aantal doden sinds maart dit jaar, Palestijnse mensen die door ‘heldhaftige scherpschutters werden vermoord) lag op 13 augustus jl. op 168 waaronder 23 kinderen….. Het aantal gewonden (van licht- tot zwaargewond) lag op meer dan 20.000….. (waarbij 68 Palestijnen een amputatie moesten ondergaan…)

Zie
ook:

McCain terminaal ziek: vier als het zover is zijn dood luidruchtig, niets om je voor te schamen

McCain oorlogsmisdadiger >> massaal ten onrechte geëerd na z’n dood

John McCaine: politieke helden zijn op den duur meestal teleurstellend

Begrafenis McCain: onbeschaamde verering van een massamoordenaar en oorlogshitser