Western media dirty tricks ( Part II )

“What I am applying here is a basic principle in logic. When someone makes what seems to be an exhorbitant claim, one need not get defensive and reject it outright because it is contrary to one’s position. The more effective way is to subject the assertion of the other to internal criticism and expose its fallacies.”
___________

By Nalin Swaris

(July 18, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) On the 29th of May 2009 London TimesOnline carried a news story under the screaming headline, ”The hidden massacre: Sri Lanka’s final offensive against Tamil Tigers.” “More than 20,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the final throes of the Sri Lankan civil war, most as a result of government shelling, an investigation by The Times has revealed. The number of casualties is three times the official figure. The Sri Lankan authorities have insisted that their forces stopped using heavy weapons on April 27 and observed the no-fire zone where 100,000 Tamil men, women and children were sheltering.” The Times went on to claim that its calculation was based on an analysis of "aerial photographs, official documents, witness accounts and expert testimony" and on "confidential United Nations documents" provided by an unnamed United Nations source.

The Times report was reproduced by all major newspapers world wide. It was a big scoop for those who were licking their wounds after their attempt to indict the Sri Lanka for war crimes was thwarted. The 20,000 figure and Nick Paton Walsh allegations of sexual harassment and rape of Tamil women in IDP by Sinhalese soldiers were uncritically repeated two weeks ago, by a correspondent writing to a leading Dutch daily newspaper

GOSL Reactions

Questioned by the BBC on The Times allegations Dr Palitha Kohona, Foreign Ministry Secretary said the paper might be acting out of spite, since Sri Lanka had deported one of its correspondent. “I am bemused that The Times, like a jilted old woman, is continuing a bitter campaign against Sri Lanka based on unverified figures and unsubstantiated assertions.” Kohona’s was a cliché response. It was also needlessly sexist. Kohona did not show cause why the figures were unverified and the assertions unsubstantiated, Lakshman Hulugalle. Director General, Media Centre for National Security (MCNS) told the BBC that there had been no shelling by government forces in this area and added that the photographs were “totally unbelievable and might be fake”. Obviously Hulugalle had not seen the photographs, otherwise he would not have been caught unawares and resorted to bluff. The photographs were not “fakes”. The Times could have been hoisted on its own petard, it was using genuine photographs taken during a Government organised tour!

Questionable Methodology – Manipulated Evidence

I must begin by stating begin by clearly stating that as an outsider I have no way of proving or disproving the number claimed by the Times. What I am applying here is a basic principle in logic. When someone makes what seems to be an exhorbitant claim, one need not get defensive and reject it outright because it is contrary to one’s position. The more effective way is to subject the assertion of the other to internal criticism and expose its fallacies. Then one can say, “What you say may be true, but not one the basis of this argument or evidence”. So let’s examine the bases of The London Times sensational accusation. Robert Mackey writes regularly to the New York Times NewsBlog, the Lede. Intrigued by The Times body count he made inquiries from a journalist colleagues. I quote from his blog of 29 May 2009. “A coordinator for U.N. humanitarian relief, Elizabeth Byrs, told one of his colleagues, Lydia Polgreen, that any estimate of the death toll must have been based on extrapolation and guesswork. The Guardian had reported much the same from Colombo. U.N. Under-Secretary-General Sir John Holmes had noted that the Times figure was based on an unofficial and unverified U.N. estimate of around 7,000 civilian deaths in April.” The Times used that as a departure point and surmised about 1,000 deaths per day for the period beginning from end April to 19th May, when the war ended. The Times said it relied on "confidential United Nations documents". But Robert Mackey writes that U.N. staff privately admitted to a colleague, they were puzzled by the methodology used to achieve the death toll, “Someone has made an imaginative leap and that is at odds with what we have been saying before. It is a very dangerous thing to do, to start making extrapolations.”
But, the Times was not merely extrapolating. The Times claims it had photographic evidence too. This is presented in two parts. The first is a video presentation of three aerial photographs. The second is a slide show of 13 aerial photographs. Damning? Let’s see.

VIDEO PPRESENTATION

The video is accompanied by a spoken analysis by Richard Beeston, The Times Foreign News Editor. This is what he says:

“In the first photograph we can see 1) the remains of what was a refugee camp for some 100,000 Tamil civilians. In the centre you can see the destroyed dwellings these wretched people were trying to live in. To the south, out of the shot is the sea. Between them and the sea are 2) Tamil Tiger gun emplacements you can see them, a mortar pit, circular, bottom centre. 3) Bottom right you see what we believe is a LTTE command centre, and an ammunition truck. So effectively, you had an area the size of a large football stadium packed with civilians trapped for weeks upon weeks under the merciless bombardment of the government offensive”.

Comment Swaris ad 1. Beeson insinuates that this is what remains of a refugee camp for 100,000 refugees, mercilessly bombarded for weeks. The camp with a few hundred tents is in a large beach area. Signs are the camp has been hastily evacuated not destroyed. Most of the tents are still standing. Some look wind blown. Scattered rubbish. If the camp had been mercilessly bombarded for weeks, the tents made of inflammable material would have been reduced to ashes; not 20,000, but almost all the 100,000 in the camp would have been killed. But not only the tents but even the coconut trees in the area are standing, still untouched and unscorched. So are the large trees in the background. An area subjected to intense bombardment would have been devastated, covered with craters.

But one looks in vain for such evidence.

ad 2 and 3 Beeson concedes the LTTE had positioned heavy guns among the civilians., but is not outraged it. The Times is targeting the Sri Lankan army. The gun has been removed from the mortar pit. But there is no indication it had been heavily pounded by the army. The ‘ammunition truck’ and ‘command centre’ seem abandoned, but not destroyed.

Picture 2. Beeson: “In this picture, we can see what looks like a strange crop. These are in fact, we believe, are Tamil Tiger graves. The graves neatly rowed in a field, buried where they fell, hundreds of them.”

Comment The low mounds could be graves. But the ‘graveyard’ shows no sign of having been bombarded. The graves look unscathed. If the area was being “mercilessly bombarded” when did the Tigers have time to “neatly” bury their dead? Surrounding trees are untouched and unscorched. The whole area looks like any wide sandy stretch of beach.

Picture 3 Beeson: “In contrast to the Tamil Tiger graves, in this photograph we see what we believe are the graves of men women and children, hurriedly buried in between the onslaught”.

Comment ad 3. Same comment as for 2. The area shows no sign having been shelled. The total number of ‘graves’ in both areas counted together would not add up to even a thousand, let alone 20,000!

SLIDE SHOW: 13 aerial photographs with name and agency of photographer. The Times cleverly gives the 29 May, story date, as the date of each photograph, so no one could know when they we actually taken. But, since these are all aerial pictures, the photographers could not have flown over the area on their own. They must have been taken been taken during a fly over on Defence Ministry invitation by the Air Force. All pictures have been taken after the fighting had been finished and no civilians were in the former No Fire Zone. Defence Ministry can match photographer and agency and pin point the real date.

1. John Heilprin/AP: Wider and clearer view of the same camp in video picture 1. Rows of neatly planted coconut trees, right hand corner, as in a small plantation. Large trees at the back. undamaged unscorched. Tents abandoned but no signs of heavy artillery fire or aerial bombardment

2.John Heilprin/AP): Tamil Tiger ‘graves’ as in video picture 2. This provides a long view shot of the landscape behind Tamil Tiger ‘graves’ No sign of bombardment. Few trees between the ‘graves’ also undamaged. The edge of the field and beyond is visible: cluster of trees. Red gravel road running diagonally from the right top corner to the left top corner of picture. No evidence of bombardment

3. Kirsty Wigglesworth A/P: Another pix of the area to right of camp. Coconut trees standing undestroyed, branches unscorched

4. Kirsty Wigglesworth A/P: A devastated area looks - a large compound, burnt Hiace van, Ground covered with ash and charcoal black coloured sand. This might be the area where the LTTE set fire to their ammunition dumps, few days before the end..

5.Louis Charbonneau/Reuters: Long shot across a built up area with view of sea in the distance. One sees a red tiled house, still standing. No damage. No tile shifted. What looks like cadjan houses in the foreground. Undamaged. Between the rows of houses are straight gravel roads running parallel to each other. No sign of bombardment.

6. John Heilprin /AP: Another long shot across coconut trees and an undisturbed beach with Farah II in the distance.

Comment Times “Beach packed with home-made bunkers where civilians huddled to protect themselves from the shells that the Government denies having launched in the final weeks of the war”

Comment N.S. Times hallucinating. No sign of heavy bombardment. No sign that beach area was “packed with home made bunkers”

7. Kirsty Wigglesworth A/P: Another place where a conflagration has taken place. There is a slightly damaged bus and a lorry. At the back two pick-up trucks. Two trees look slightly scorched. Two others not.

8. Kirsty WigglesworthA/P: Brick houses with tile roofs, centre left. All undamaged

9. John Heilprin A/P: Another stretch of beach area. No evidence of bombardment.

10. Louis Charbonneau/Reuters: An abandoned area. Some tents.Intact. In the foreground small piles of debris and rubbish. Some damage but not from heavy artillery. Coconut and other large trees look luxuriously green

11. Kirsty Wigglesworth A/P: Area with collapsed tents. Brick houses with tile roofs, buildings and roofs intact.

12. Kirsty Wigglesworth A/P: Three abandoned buses. Gutted bus top left. Tents and thatched roof houses. Area does do not look as if it had been bombarded

13. Kirsty WigglesworthA/P: Another long shot with sea in the distance. Landscape thick with green trees. Coconut trees standing undamaged, unscorched.

The entire London Times story is a dirty tricks exercise to prove a “Hidden Massacre” . All the photographs are aerial photographs. These journalists could not have done this on their own, from a rented aircraft. The Times suggests they were taken by smart investigative journalists. My guess is that the photographs published by The Times were most probably taken by journalists who accompanied Mr. Ban Ki Moon when he was flown over the former No Fire Zone by the Air Force. The failure of the MCNS to demolish this spurious charge is inexplicable.

Did those photographers aid and abet this fraud? The Times allegation of a massacre and of twenty thousand civilian deaths is based on questionable extrapolation and on photographs which provide no evidence of a massacre due to heavy shelling of the No Fire Zone. But the number twenty thousand civilians killed is repeated by pro LTTE diaspora Tamils and even by dissident Tamils.

TimesOnline in its latest report (July 10 2009) claimed that, “senior international aid sources (not named) have told The Times that about 1,400 people are dying every week at the giant Manik Farm internment camp set up in Sri Lanka to detain Tamil refugees from the nation’s bloody civil war.” TimeOnline then repeated its early charge: “An investigation by The Times uncovered evidence that more than 20,000 civilians were killed, mostly by the army”. On 16 July 2009 guardian.co.uk regurgitated the 20,000 deaths allegation. The dubious grounds on which this accusation was made must make one question the credibility of the unnamed sources used for the 1,500 deaths per week allegation.

-Sri Lanka Guardian