Tunisia Attack -Thirty-eight innocent People Slaughtered inlcuding 30 British

2015 Sousse attacks

Never Forgotten

Tunisia Terror Attack: New Footage Of Rampage

——————————————————————————————————————-

BBC Panorama – Terror on the Beach (2015)

——————————————————————————————————————-

Some of the Victims

Most were with friends, family, spouses or partners. Tributes have been paid.

:: Christopher And Sharon Bell

Christopher and Sharon Bell

The couple from Leeds were on holiday together in Sousse when they were killed, with their family saying they are “deeply saddened” by their deaths.

:: Patrick and Adrian Evans

Adrian Evans and Patrick Evans

Sandwell Council gas department worker Adrian Evans was killed along with his 78-year-old father, Patrick, and nephew Joel Richards.

:: Joel Richards

Joel Richards

A talented referee and footballer, the Birmingham County Football Association said the 19-year-old had “the world at his feet”.

:: Trudy Jones

Trudy Jones

Trudy Jones, a 51-year-old divorced single mother-of-four, had been on holiday with her friends.

:: Bruce Wilkinson

Tunisia

The 72-year-old was on holiday with his wife, Rita, when he was shot dead.

:: Lisa Burbidge

Lisa Burbidge

A regular visitor the Hotel Riu Imperial Marhaba, the grandmother-of-four was on holiday with her family.

:: Billy and Lisa Graham

Billy and Lisa Graham

The Perth couple’s family had initially appealed for information about their whereabouts, before revealing the pair were among the victims.

:: Carly Lovett

Carly Lovett

The 24-year-old fashion and beauty blogger from Lincolnshire was staying in Tunisia with her fiance, Liam Moore.

:: Lorna Carty

Lorna Carty

Lorna Carty, from County Meath in Ireland, was on holiday with her husband, Declan, who was recovering from heart surgery.

:: Sue Davey and Scott Chalkley

Scott Chalkley and Sue Davey

Ms Davey and Mr Chalkley were both Severn Trent Water employees.

:: Laurence (Larry) and Martina Hayes

Martina and Laurence Hayes

(Pic: Irish Independent)

Laurence and Martina Hayes, from Athlone, County Westmeath, were both in their 50s.

:: Claire Windass

Claire Windass

Claire Windass was next to her husband, Jim, on the beach when she was killed.

:: Jim and Ann McQuire

Jim and Ann McQuire

Jim and Ann McQuire, aged 66 and 63, were from Cumbernauld, in north Lanarkshire, Scotland.

:: Stuart Cullen

Stuart Cullen

Stuart Cullen was with his wife on holiday in Tunisia and died instantly after being shot.

:: Philip Heathcote

Philip Heathcote

Philip Heathcote was with wife Allison in Tunisia for a holiday to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary

:: Denis and Elaine Thwaites

Denis and Elaine Thwaites

Both retired, Denis and Elaine Thwaites were from Blackpool in Lancashire and had arrived in Sousse two days before the attack.

:: Stephen Mellor

Stephen Mellor

Stephen Mellor was in Sousse with wife Cheryl, who he was shielding from bullets when he was killed on the beach.

:: John Welch and Eileen Swannack

Eileen Swannack and John Welch.

John Welch, 74, and Eileen Swannack, 70, were confirmed as dead by Eileen’s granddaughter, Lucie Marie.

:: John and Janet Stocker

John and Janet Stocker.

The family of John and Janet Stocker paid tribute to the “happiest, most loving couple” after it was confirmed they were killed in the Tunisia beach attack.

:: David Thompson

David Thompson, one of the British victims of the Tunisia terror attack.

David Thompson, 80, was a retired scientist from Tadley in Hampshire.

:: John Stollery

John Stollery

John Stollery, a 58-year-old social worker from Nottinghamshire, was on holiday with his wife Cheryl and their son.

:: Chris Dyer

Chris Dyer

The 32-year-old engineer from Watford was on holiday with his wife, Gina Van Dort, when he was shot dead.

:: Angie and Ray Fisher

Ray and Angie Fisher

Leicester couple Ray and Angie Fisher remained unaccounted for until almost a week after the atrocity.

2015 Sousse attacks
Part of 2015 Ramadan attacks
Hotel Pool (375738567).jpg
Location Riu Imperial Marhaba and Soviva, Port El Kantaoui, Sousse, Tunisia[1][2]
Coordinates 35°54′43.52″N 10°34′48.1″E / 35.9120889°N 10.580028°E / 35.9120889; 10.580028Coordinates: 35°54′43.52″N 10°34′48.1″E / 35.9120889°N 10.580028°E / 35.9120889; 10.580028
Date 26 June 2015[1]
12:00[3] (GMT+1)
Target European tourists staying at a hotel[1][2]
Weapons Kalashnikov rifle[4]
Deaths 39 (including the perpetrator) [5]
Non-fatal injuries
39[1]
Perpetrators
Assailant Seifeddine Rezgui Yacoubi

On 26 June 2015, there was an Islamic terror attack at the tourist resort at Port El Kantaoui, about 10 kilometres north of the city of Sousse, Tunisia.[1][2]

Thirty-eight people, thirty of whom were British, were killed when an armed gunman attacked a hotel.[8] It was the deadliest non-state attack in the history of modern Tunisia, with more fatalities than the twenty-two killed in the Bardo National Museum attack three months before.[9]

Background

In October 2013, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a botched attack on a Sousse beach while security forces foiled another planned attack nearby.[10] The post-Tunisian revolution led to the 2014 parliamentary election in which the principal secularist party gained a plurality but was unable to govern alone, and ultimately formed a national unity government. Secularist Beji Caid Essebsi was elected president in the Tunisian presidential election, 2014.[11] Since the overthrow of Ben Ali, terrorism has increased leading to 60 victims among security and military troops. Other attacks targeted civilians and tourists. Despite this, Tunisia was considered to be a secure country.[12] On 18 March 2015 the Bardo National Museum in Tunis was attacked by three terrorists, leading to the deaths of twenty-two people, including twenty foreigners visiting the museum. Two of the gunmen, Tunisian citizens Yassine Labidi and Saber Khachnaoui, were killed by police, while the third attacker is currently at large.[13] Police treated the event as a terrorist attack.[14][15] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed responsibility for the attack, and threatened to commit further attacks.[16] However, the Tunisian government blamed a local splinter group of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, called the Okba Ibn Nafaa Brigade, for the attack. A police raid killed nine members on 28 March.[17] After the Bardo attack, the government announced new security measures and declared the country safe again.[18]

Attack

Seifeddine Rezgui
Rot in Helll

Sousse is located in Tunisia

Sousse
Sousse

Sousse within Tunisia

On 26 June 2015 the Spanish-owned five-star Riu Imperial Marhaba Hotel at Port El Kantaoui, a tourist complex situated on the coast about ten kilometres north of Sousse, Tunisia, was hosting 565 guests mainly from Western Europe, 77% of its capacity.[19] Tourists from the hotel as well as from the Soviva Hotel located nearby went to the beach to swim and sunbathe.[20]

At around noon, Seifeddine Rezgui Yacoubi, disguised as a tourist,[21] socialised with others, and then took out a Kalashnikov assault rifle concealed in a beach umbrella and fired at the tourists on the beach. He entered the hotel, shooting at people he came across.[19] He was killed by security forces during an exchange of fire.[4][19][22] All bullets were found to have been fired from the one weapon; the attacker had four magazines of ammunition.[23][24] The attacker had spoken to his father on a mobile telephone which he then threw into the sea just before the attack; it was retrieved.[24]

An Interior Ministry spokesman said that they were sure that others helped, but did not participate directly, providing the Kalashnikov, and helping Rezgui to the scene.[24]

Victims

Nationality Deaths Wounded Total Ref.
 United Kingdom 30 26 55 [25]
 Ireland 3 0 3 [26][27]
 Germany 2 1 3 [28][29]
 Belgium 1 3 4 [30]
 Russia 1 1 2 [31][32]
 Portugal 1 0 1 [33][34]
 Tunisia 0 7 7 [30]
 Ukraine 0 1 1 [35]
Total 38 39 77 [31]

Thirty-eight people were killed, thirty of whom were British.[2][22] Among the fatalities was Denis Thwaites, a former professional footballer for Birmingham City, and his wife, Elaine.[36] Thirty-nine others were wounded.[19][37][38][39]

Perpetrator and associates

The killer, Seifiddine Rezgui Yacoubi, also known as Abu Yahya al-Qayrawani,[40] (born 1992 in Gaafour[41]) was a 23-year-old electrical engineering student at University of Kairouan from Gaafour, in northwest Tunisia.[42] He did not have the typical traits of an extremist: he had a girlfriend, drank alcohol and was a local break-dancing star. He was also believed to be high on cocaine during his rampage.[42][43] He is believed to have been radicalized over such issues as the Libyan Civil War and Western inaction against the savagery of the Assad government during the Syrian Civil War.[44]

Rezgui is thought to have been recruited by Ajnad al-Khilafah,[45] an outgrowth of the Tunisian branch of Ansar al-Sharia, which was founded by Saifallah Ben Hassine, who had lived in the UK in the 1990s and whose mentor during that time was Abu Qatada.[46] High Court papers relating to a control order placed on a British-based suspect state that Ben Hassine “aimed to recruit new members and send them to Afghanistan for training”.[45] The control order documents add that: “Abu Qatada appears as a watermark running through the whole of this case as being the mastermind.”[45]

Ben Hassine is reported to have been killed by the USAF near Adjabiya in eastern Libya on 14 June 2015. The strike was designed to kill Mokhtar Belmokhtar in an Ansar meeting. After the overthrow of Tunisia’s President Zine el-Abedine Ben Ali in 2011, Ben Hassine was released from jail in March 2011 under an amnesty, and later founded Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, which resisted proscription until 2013 arguing it was carrying out humanitarian work, even though Ben Hassine personally had led the storming of the US Embassy in Tunis on 14 September 2012, three days after Ansar’s Libyan counterparts killed US ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya. When Ansar was finally outlawed in August 2013, after the murders of two secular leftist MPs, he was listed as a proscribed terrorist by the United States, and he fled to Libya.[47][48]

Qatada wrote in a letter published online in January 2014 that Ben Hassine “is among the best of those I have known in intellect” and “the most knowledgeable of people of my intentions … for he was the closest of people to me”.[45]

Aftermath

Immediately after the attack, the flight JAF5017 on its way to Enfidha-Hammamet International Airport was redirected to Brussels.[19] German tour operator TUI offered German tourists the opportunity to fly back to Germany and to cancel or adjust their bookings in Tunisia.[49] British tour operator Thomson announced that flights to Tunisia will be cancelled until at least 9 July 2015,[50][51] with ten flights departing on the evening of the attacks to bring 2,500 customers in the resort back to the United Kingdom.[52] EasyJet and Thomas Cook announced that customers planning to visit Tunisia would be able to change their travel plans free of charge.[53] First Choice also announced the same.

Hotels were to be targeted in future attacks both to undermine tourism and because they were considered “brothels” by ISIS.[54] Both tourism and the related industries accounted for up to 14.9% of the Tunisian economy in 2014.[55]

The United Kingdom‘s Home Secretary Theresa May and Foreign Office Minister Tobias Ellwood visited the site of the shooting on 29 June 2015. It was also announced that a Royal Air Force aircraft would be sent in order to repatriate bodies and evacuate the injured back to the United Kingdom.[56] On 29 June an RAF Boeing C-17 Globemaster III flew from RAF Brize Norton to Tunisia to recover four British victims, with the C17 returning via Birmingham Airport to unload one patient, and returning to Brize Norton with the other three.[57]

Football scarves and shirts were laid as a tribute outside Bescot Stadium, home of Walsall F.C., the team which three of the British victims supported.

On 29 June, the House of Commons chamber observed a minute of silence shortly before the Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a national minute of silence would be held on 3 July 2015 at 12:00 local time to remember the victims, exactly one week on from the attacks.[58] Cameron later led several COBRA meetings.[59] The Foreign Office sent a team to the hotel to support British survivors and know more about the British victims. The Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner announced an heightened police presence and security for Armed Forces Day and Pride London events taking place in London over the weekend.[60] On 28 June 2015, Her Majesty The Queen said she and the Duke of Edinburgh were shocked by the attack and also offered their deepest sympathy to the injured.[61] Scotland Yard‘s SO15 Counter Terrorism Command (CTC) launched their largest anti-terrorism investigation since the 7 July 2005 London bombings, involving 600 police officers and support staff.[62] 16 British counter-terrorism police were deployed to Tunisia in the direct aftermath of the attacks, and almost 400 officers were sent to British airports to identify potential witnesses to the attack who had returned home.[63]

On 1 July, the bodies of eight British nationals who were killed in the attacks were flown from Tunisia to RAF Brize Norton.[64] On 2 July, the bodies of a further nine British nationals who were killed in the attacks were flown to RAF Brize Norton[65] and the Prime Minister David Cameron and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon began making calls for airstrikes in Syria, believing the Sousse attacks to have been coordinated from there.[66] On 3 July, the United Kingdom held a nationwide minute’s silence at 12:00 local time to remember the victims of the attacks as government buildings and Buckingham Palace flew the Union Jack at half mast. A further eight bodies of British victims were repatriated back to RAF Brize Norton.[67] On 4 July, the final five bodies of the British victims were repatriated back to the United Kingdom.[68]

Reactions

Domestic

 Tunisia – President Beji Caid Essebsi called for a global strategy against terrorism[69] and visited Sousse with Prime Minister Habib Essid,[22][55] who promised to close 80 mosques within the week.[70][71] The government also plans to crack down on financing for certain associations as a countermeasure against another attack.[72] Essid announced new anti-terrorism measures, including the deployment of reserve troops to reinforce security at “sensitive sites … and places that could be targets of terrorist attacks.” The “exceptional plan to better secure tourist and archaeological sites” will include “deploying armed tourist security officers all along the coast and inside hotels from 1 July,”[10] and that:

The country is under threat; the government is under threat. Without the cooperation of everyone and a show of unity, we cannot win this war. We have won some battles and lost others, but our objective is to win the war… Some mosques continue to spread their propaganda and their venom to promote terrorism. No mosque that does not conform to the law will be tolerated.[71]

Beji Caid Essebsi also denounced the “cowardly” attacks, promising “painful but necessary” measures to fight extremism in the country. He called for a firm response: “No country is safe from terrorism, and we need a global strategy of all democratic countries,”[71]

On 4 July, Essebsi removed from his post the provincial Governor of Sousse and at least five senior police officers. Among the policemen dismissed were three from Sousse, one from Gaafour (the home city of Rezgui) and one from Kairouan, where Rezgui was studying.[73]

On 22 July, Tunisian MPs began a three day debate on new counter-terrorism legislation. The legislation would allow the courts to impose deaths sentences to those convicted of terrorism related offences. The legislation would also make public support of terrorism a jailable offence. If passed, the bill would allolw law enforcement and security services to tap phone calls of individuals suspected of terrorism.[74]

Affected countries

  •  Belgium – Prime Minister Charles Michel said his “thoughts are with the relatives and victims in Tunisia”.[75]
  •  Germany – Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that “attempts to knock Tunisia off its courageous path through terrorist attacks such as in Sousse … will not and must not succeed.”[76]
  •  Ireland – Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan said “I condemn unreservedly the terrorist attacks in Tunisia, Kuwait and France today” and added that “Attacks like these sow fear and prompt revulsion, but they advance no political cause”.[77] In light of the UK’s FCO 8 July change to advice to nationals re travel to Tunisia, Ireland updated its advice to a warning against “all non-essential travel”.[78]
  •  Russia – President Vladimir Putin offered his condolences and the Kremlin said they have “confirmed readiness to cooperate most closely with the Tunisian leadership in fighting terror threat”.[53]
  •  United Kingdom – Prime Minister David Cameron criticised the perpetrators and supported the Tunisian Government following the attack.[19] On 8 July, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office changed the advised status of Tunisia to “Advise against all but essential travel”, resulting from 9 July in the planned return home of the estimated 3,000 British nationals in Tunisia at that time. Habib Essid said the country had “done everything it can” to protect tourists, and that he planned to speak to counterpart David Cameron about the decision. ABTA and travel organisations First Choice, TUI and Thomson’s have stated that they plan to send no further British tourists to Tunisia until post 31 October 2015.[78]

Other Islamist attacks

Four other Islamist attacks took place on the same day in France, Kuwait, Syria and Somalia. The attacks followed an audio message released three days earlier by ISIL senior leader Abu Mohammad al-Adnani encouraging militants everywhere to attack during the month of Ramadan. No definitive link between the attacks has yet been established. One attack, at a French factory, resulted in the beheading of one person; another bombing at a Shia mosque in Kuwait City killed at least 27; and the other attack on an African Union base in Somalia undertaken by Al-Shabaab, killed at least 70.[79] Another attack on the day took place in Hasakeh in Syria. A suicide bomber blew himself up and killed 20 people.

See also

 

17th August Deaths & Events in Northern Ireland Troubles

17th August

Key Events & Deaths on this day in Northern Ireland Troubles

Monday 17 August 1981

Jackie McMullan, then an Irish Republican Army (IRA) prisoner, joined the hunger strike. [ 1981 Hunger Strike.]

Friday 17 August 1984

Clive Soley, then Labour Party spokesperson on Northern Ireland, called for ‘harmonisation’ of Northern Ireland society to that in the Republic of Ireland in preparation for the reunification of the island.

Wednesday 17 August 1994

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) carried out two bomb attacks on public houses in Belfast. One bomb exploded and badly damaged a bar on York Road. The second bomb in a pub on the Shankill Road was defused. Ian Paisley, then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), said that his party would not take part in any fresh round of political talks.

Thursday 17 August 1995

Gerry Adams, then President of Sinn Féin (SF), said that the Republican Movement was ready to make “critical compromises” to achieve peace. He appealed to Unionists to enter all-party talks.

Thursday 17 August 1995

Gerry Adams, then President of Sinn Féin (SF), said that the Republican Movement was ready to make “critical compromises” to achieve peace. He appealed to Unionists to enter all-party talks.

Monday 17 August 1998

The Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) issued a statement calling upon the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) to announce a ceasefire. The IRSP said that it felt, in the light of the Omagh bombing, that the ‘armed struggle’ could no longer be justified. The IRSP also felt that the INLA would call a ceasefire in the near future.

Tuesday 17 August 1999

Marjorie (Mo) Mowlam, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, met the Martin McGuinness, then Vice-President of Sinn Féin (SF), at Stormont. She was seeking further information from US and Irish authorities on the attempt to import arms from Florida and the recent murder in west Belfast of Charles Bennett, before deciding if the Irish Republican Army (IRA) had broken its ceasefire.

Friday 17 August 2001 Policing Implementation Plan Published

A number of shots were fired at a house in the Westacres area of Craigavon, County Armagh. Nobody was injured in the attack which happened at around 12.20am (0020BST). A gang of seven or eight masked men broke into a house at Donegore Drive in Antrim shortly after midnight. They were armed with a handgun, a machete, and knives. There were seven people in the house at the time and all were assaulted and injured. The revised proposals for the policing service were published. Entitled ‘The Patten Report | Updated Implementation Plan 2001‘ [PDF document; 366KB] the report was issued by the British government. John Reid, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, urged everyone to back the Implementation Plan and said it offered “unprecedented opportunities for a new start, a real partnership to policing”. He set a deadline of midday on Tuesday (21 August 2001) for the political parties to respond to the plan. The Northern Ireland Police Federation welcomed the fact that many of the recommendations in the plan were dependent on an assessment of the security situation. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) rejected the plan stating that the measures it contained went far beyond the Patten Report. The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) said it would consider the plan in detail before responding. [Some of the pro-Agreement political parties had been shown a copy of the plan prior to its publication. Sinn Féin (SF) had rejected the document for not going far enough and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) stated that it would not consider the issue of policing without IRA decommissioning.] The Irish government called on the SDLP and SF to support the Implementation Plan and to nominate representatives to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Nuala O’Loan, then Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, announced that her office would investigate claims that security sources had prior warning about the Omagh bomb (15 August 1998). The claim was made by former British Army informant who uses the pseudonym Kevin Fulton. Ronnie Flanagan, then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), welcomed the investigation but said the claim was “preposterous”.

Friday 17 August 2001 Policing Implementation Plan Published

A number of shots were fired at a house in the Westacres area of Craigavon, County Armagh. Nobody was injured in the attack which happened at around 12.20am (0020BST). A gang of seven or eight masked men broke into a house at Donegore Drive in Antrim shortly after midnight. They were armed with a handgun, a machete, and knives. There were seven people in the house at the time and all were assaulted and injured. The revised proposals for the policing service were published. Entitled ‘The Patten Report | Updated Implementation Plan 2001‘ [PDF document; 366KB] the report was issued by the British government. John Reid, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, urged everyone to back the Implementation Plan and said it offered “unprecedented opportunities for a new start, a real partnership to policing”. He set a deadline of midday on Tuesday (21 August 2001) for the political parties to respond to the plan. The Northern Ireland Police Federation welcomed the fact that many of the recommendations in the plan were dependent on an assessment of the security situation. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) rejected the plan stating that the measures it contained went far beyond the Patten Report. The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) said it would consider the plan in detail before responding. [Some of the pro-Agreement political parties had been shown a copy of the plan prior to its publication. Sinn Féin (SF) had rejected the document for not going far enough and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) stated that it would not consider the issue of policing without IRA decommissioning.] The Irish government called on the SDLP and SF to support the Implementation Plan and to nominate representatives to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Nuala O’Loan, then Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, announced that her office would investigate claims that security sources had prior warning about the Omagh bomb (15 August 1998). The claim was made by former British Army informant who uses the pseudonym Kevin Fulton. Ronnie Flanagan, then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), welcomed the investigation but said the claim was “preposterous”.

Saturday 18 August 2001

UDA Logo
UDA Logo

The Ulster Defence Association (UDA) held a parade down the Shankill Road in Belfast. The paramilitary march involved an estimated 15,000 members of the organisation. Around 100 masked members of the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), a cover name used by the UDA, together with 16 bands took part in the parade. The event was held to commemorate Jackie Coulter (46) who was shot dead during the Loyalist feud on 21 August 2000.

Sunday 19 August 2001

Catholic bishops in Northern Ireland issued a statement calling on people to support the latest proposals on policing in the region: “We believe the time is now right for all those who sincerely want a police service that is fair, impartial and representative to grasp the opportunity that is presented and to exercise their influence to achieve such a service.”

Monday 20 August 2001 SDLP Support Policing Plan

The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) held a meeting to decide on whether or not to accept the ‘Patten Report – Updated Implementation Plan 2001’ that was issued on 17 August 2001. Following the meeting the party announced that it would nominate representatives to the proposed 19 member Policing Board which would oversee the new Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). John Hume, then leader of the SDLP, said: “We will respond positively to an invitation to join the Policing Board and we will be encouraging people from all sections of the community to join the new police service.” The SDLP issued a document outlining its reasons for the change in policy. [The decision represented a historic shift in SDLP policy given that the party had withheld support from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) since 1970. The decision was welcomed by the Irish government, the British government, the Catholic Church, and the Department of Sate in the United States of America (USA).] There was a gun attack on a house at Mounthill Drive, Cloughmills, County Antrim, at approximately 10.30pm (2230BST). Two shots were fired at a bedroom window of the dwelling but none of the family of five in the house at the time were injured. The estate where the shooting happened was mixed and the house was owned by a Protestant family. [The RUC have not established a motive for the attack.] A ‘paint-bomb’ was thrown at the home of a Protestant man in Hesketh Park, north Belfast. The bottle of paint broke a window and caused paint damage to fittings and furnishings. The man had taken part in a Loyalist stand-off in Ardoyne in June which prevented primary school-children from going to the Catholic Holy Cross Girls’ Primary School. Nelson McCausland, then Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) councillor, accused Republicans of being responsible for the attack. There were two security alerts in west Belfast. One suspect device was thrown at a house in Tullymore Gardens in Andersonstown, while the other device was discovered on the Hannahstown Road. Sinn Féin accused the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) of being responsible for the attacks. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland published an annual report on the religions composition of the workforce in the region: A Profile of the Workforce in Northern Ireland, Summary of 2000 Monitoring Returns. The report showed that the overall composition of the monitored workforce was 60.4 per cent Protestant and 39.6 per cent Catholic. Other surveys showed that the economically active population is 58 per cent Protestant and 42 per cent Catholic. The imbalance between Catholic and Protestant employment rates has narrowed over the past 10 years. However the last year saw the smallest improvement at 0.1 per cent.


17th August

Key Events & Deaths on this day in Northern Ireland Troubles

Today is the anniversary of the follow  people killed as a results of the conflict in Northern Ireland

To the innocent on the list – Your memory will live forever

– To  the Paramilitaries  –

“There are many things worth living for, a few things worth dying for, but nothing worth killing for.

4 people lost their lives on the 17th August between 1972 – 1991

————————————————————–

17 August 1972


Michael Boddy, (24) nfNI
Status: British Army (BA),

Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Shot by sniper while on British Army (BA) foot patrol, Selby Street, off Grosvenor Road, Belfast.

————————————————————–

17 August 1978
Robert Miller, Robert (22) nfNI
Status: British Army (BA),

Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Killed by remote controlled bomb hidden in parked car, detonated when British Army (BA) foot patrol passed, Forkhill, County Armagh.

————————————————————–

17 August 1988

Frederick Otley,  (44)

Protestant
Status: ex-Ulster Volunteer Force (xUVF),

Killed by: Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)
Shot at his shop, Shankill Road, Belfast.

————————————————————–

17 August 1991


Simone Ware,   (22) nfNI
Status: British Army (BA),

Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Killed in land mine attack on British Army (BA) foot patrol, Carrickrovaddy, near Cullyhanna, County Armagh.

————————————————————–

The Glorious 12th of July – Extracts from Belfast Child

Belfast Child

Chapter Four

The Glorious 12th

protestant boys

Extracts from Belfast Child.

See above for additional chapters  

See The Siege Of Derry what’s it all about

Like the vast majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland apart from my Birthday, Christmas and our family holiday to Ballyferris, the 12th of July was the biggest and most important day of the year. In 1663 the Protestant King Billy defeated the Catholic King James at the Battle of Boyne and changed the course of Irish history forever. Three hundred years later on the 12th of July every year Northern Ireland came to a standstill as the Protestant majority took to the streets and celebrated the most sacred day in the Protestant calendar. As a child I loved the whole 12th experience and counted the days down until the great day arrived. For weeks before the 12th all the children, with the help of adults would gather all sorts of burnable material for the bonfire that would be lit the night before, to signal the beginning of the celebrations. After school we would rush home, have something to eat and head of in the hunt for wood and whatever else we could find that would burn. Sometimes there would be dozens of us going back and forth to the gel carrying whatever we could find and placing it on the ever growing bonfire in the middle of the square. In Glencairn alone there would be about five or six bonfires and it was always very competitive to see which area could collect the most wood and have the biggest bonfire. Competition between the various parts of the estate were fierce and as the eleventh grew closer, the older boys would be allowed to stay out all night with suitable adults and guard the wood from raids from those at the top or bottom of the estate. As the day grew closer, the excitement was almost tangible and in the early evening sunshine we would gather around the ever-growing tower of wood and play until darkness. There was always a hunt, the command centre and if we were lucky the older boys would let us go inside and wait until they returned from another hunt for wood. One day when there was only myself and a few of the other younger children guarding the wood , the boys from the top of the estate came charging through the square in a bare faced raid on our precious wood. There were only about five of us and there was about fifteen of them and they were all older than us and there was little we could do but stand by and watch as they made off with their precious bounty. Taking control I told David to run as fast as he could and find the rest of our gang. Picking up stones from the ground I began pelting the enemy with missiles. The others soon joined in and before long the enemy had to duck and hide as we threw everything we could find at them. But we were well out numbered and it was only a matter of time before they had over powered us and decided to take me prisoner, as I seemed to be in charge.

Shankill Road Bonefire

Panic and terror washed over me as I was lead away to the enemy camp at the top of the estate. To add insult to injury a boy named Y forced me to help him carry a door stolen from our bonfire. I was threatened with a dig in the face if I tried to run away or do anything stupid, so I decided self preservation was the best course of action and was a model prisoner. As we marched in single file towards the top of the estate and the enemy bonfire, I wondered with dread what fate awaited me when we arrived there. A few weeks before John Jackson had also been captured in a raid and when he was finally set free he had a black eye and a busted lip. As I marched on all sorts of thoughts of pain and torture were going through my mind, when suddenly I heard the sound of running feet and raised voices. As I turned I was delighted to see my brother and about ten of our gang running towards us. Panic set into the enemy as they realized what was happening and some of them dropped what they were carrying and fled. Before I knew what was happening my rescuers had caught up with us and a massive fight broke out between the two warring sides. I dropped my end of the door I was carrying and jumped on Y terrorising him with a blood curdling scream that rose from deep within me. I was free! The noise was deafening as the two sides fought a running battle, but reinforcements had arrived from our gang and before long we had beaten the enemy into retreat. When they had all fled, we gathered up our stolen wood and sang as we made our way back to our camp.

I was a hero and that night guarding the bonfire I wallowed as all those present praised my heroic deeds of the day and I now had access to the hut whenever I liked.

dad  and margaret

Why Ireland split into the Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland

As the great day drew closer our house was always in a state of complete chaos. Dad was busy making sure everything was ready for the bands biggest and most important march of the year. There were over forty people in the band and they all had to have uniforms that fitted perfectly and instruments that were at the peak of their working year. While dad got on with that, Granny took us down town and rigged us out with new clothes and shoes for the big day. Image was everything and regardless of how scruffy and dirty we looked the rest of the year, on the 12th of July we would be immaculately turned out. Granny had an old friend called Isaac who lived in Ballysillan and although he was half blind, deaf and always drunk, he had in his day been a competent barber and Granny saw no reason not to continue sending me and David over to Isaac whenever a hair cut was in order, even though he had been retired for over thirty years. Besides he only charged £1.50 and as money was always tight it made perfect sense. Unfortunately for us he would give us a cut that would have shamed a corpse and eventually I came up with the idea that we should cut each other’s hair and pocket the money for ourselves.

111 coffin

These plans went well for a few months until one-day granny give us the money to go and get our hairs cut. When we got back, Granny was stood by the door waiting for us, which was most unusual and asked us had Isaac cut our hair? When we answered yes, she asked us how he was. By now we were both starting to get a bit suspicious and nervously answered ok. How were we to know that he had died the night before from a sudden heart attached and was now in the morgue having the final hair cut of his life. Needless to say Granny went ape and we got a good thumping for the lies. From that day on Granny personally escorted us to the barbers and watched with a critical eye as we had our hairs cut.

————————————————–

The Sash my Father Wore

SHANKILL PROTESTANT BOYS FLUTE BAND, SINGING THE SASH

——————————————————————————————————————–

Growing up in loyalist Belfast every child knew the words to the Sash and it was our national anthem.

————————————————–

Lyrics

So sure l’m an Ulster Orangeman, from Erin’s isle I came,
To see my British brethren all of honour and of fame,
And to tell them of my forefathers who fought in days of yore,
That I might have the right to wear, the sash my father wore!

Chorus:
It is old but it is beautiful, and its colours they are fine
It was worn at Derry, Aughrim, Enniskillen and the Boyne.
My father wore it as a youth in bygone days of yore,
And on the Twelfth I love to wear the sash my father wore.

Chorus

For those brave men who crossed the Boyne have not fought or died in vain
Our Unity, Religion, Laws, and Freedom to maintain,
If the call should come we’ll follow the drum, and cross that river once more
That tomorrow’s Ulsterman may wear the sash my father wore!

Chorus

And when some day, across the sea to Antrim’s shore you come,
We’ll welcome you in royal style, to the sound of flute and drum
And Ulster’s hills shall echo still, from Rathlin to Dromore
As we sing again the loyal strain of the sash my father wore!

————————————————–

As the 12th grew closer and closer there was always an atmosphere of excitement and anticipation whilst everyone counted the days down. The various bonfires were now mountains of burnable material that towered high above the houses and flats that surrounded the area. Apart from the hundreds of bands and orange lodge’s from Northern Ireland that would be marching on the day, dozen’s more would travel over from Scotland, Mainland England and as far afield as Canada & Australia. This was the most sacred day in the Loyalist calendar. Loyalist’s from across the world would make the pilgrimage back to Northern Ireland to celebrate their culture and age old traditions. Even at nine years old I felt a tremendous sense of pride and loyalty and passion at the Protestant culture and traditions that governed my daily life in Loyalist West Belfast. I was no different from any other child from a working class Protestant family in Northern Ireland. Although unlike my peers I had a secret Catholic mother.

Like all other Loyalist areas of Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland Glencairn was awash with Loyalist flags, red, white and blue bunting, murals and countless houses had Union Jacks and Red Hand of Ulster flag’s flying proudly from the front. As the twelfth of July approached this visual proclamation of Protestant pride took on a new meaning and the paving stones would be painted red, white and blue whilst almost every house in the estate flew a Loyalist or Protestant flag of some description. As a child this added to the sense of excitement for me and I took this as a sign of the glorious party that everyone would take part in to celebrate the twelfth.

When the 11th of July finally arrived Granny would come round to our house first thing and sort dad and us all out and make sure we had enough food to see us over the holiday period. We would be almost bursting with excitement and as soon as breakfast was over, David, Shep and I were out the door and heading towards the bonfire, where we would meet up with our mates and spend the day collecting last minute material for the fire and generally playing around. As evening approached adults would gradually start to gather around the bonfire and the celebrations would get in to full swing. Loud Loyalist music would be blaring from various houses around the square and as the night wore on more and more people would gather and the whole square came alive with the sound of laughter and people enjoying themselves. Everybody took part in the celebrations and the whole community mucked in to make sure the occasion was really special and a night to remember. Local women would prepare loads and loads of food for the party and this would be distributed throughout the day to anyone who needed a bite to eat. As the evening wore on the music got louder, the adults would become very loud and funny as the drink kicked in and as darkness engulfed Belfast the time to light the children’s bonfire would arrive. Finally when everyone was in place, to cries of delight from the gathered crowds, an Effie of the pope was placed on the top of the bonfire. On this night more than any other, the two communities of Northern Ireland were divided more than ever, as the Protestant majority noisily celebrated its supremacy over the Catholic minority. Surrounded by all my family and friends I watched in awe as the bonfire was lit and the flames, slowly at first, then faster licked their way up towards the top and the pope. As the flames grew higher and higher and finally reached the pope and engulfed him in flames, screams of joy rang out through the summer’s nights and echoed around the estate and Protestant Northern Ireland. Shouts of encouragement egged the flames on until finally the pope disintegrated in front of our eyes and we all took great joy from the fact the he was obviously suffering a terrible death.

Pope John

As grew older & wiser my hatred of the Pope and all things Catholic  diminished ,but my hatred of Republicans & The IRA is as strong today as it was when I was a Child. I blamed them for the misery & slaughter they unleased in their quest for a United Ireland and the 1000’s of innocent victims now in too early graves. 

We had killed and burned to cinders the father of the hated Catholic Church and her people and we sang and yelled with pleasure as the ritual the stirred in us. As the fire burned the crackle of the wood and the spit of the flames filled the air and children would dance round the fire, laughing and singing with the adults until it was time for bed. Eventually Granny would come and find David, Shep and me and bring us home in protest to bed. As soon as we were settled down she would go out into the square again and David and I would climb out of bed and watch from our bedroom window, the antics of the drunken adults as they sang and danced the night away around the burning bonfire.

First thing next morning Granny would be round at the crack of dawn and yell for us to get up as she busied herself making everyone a full Ulster Fry and getting us ready. Before long the house was in complete chaos as Granny washed and fed us and made sure we were smartly turned out for the day. As the morning wore on members of the band would arrive for last minute preparation and before long the whole street was out and about, as the band nervously got in a few last minutes of practice. At about eight thirty the whole band would start to gather outside the shops and take up their places. By now the route out of the estate was lined with hundreds of people, regardless of age or hangovers, who had come to see them off. When everyone was in place dad took up his position at the right of the procession and after one last check shouted, “March” and they would strike up a tune and begin to march. Every year a loyal crowd of followers would fall in beside them and accompany them on the 26 mile march to the field. Much to my annoyance I was too young to be allowed to go with them and I longed for the day when I would be old enough. As we stood on the kerb watching them go my heart was full of pride as I watched dad in his uniform lead them down the Road and out of the estate. When they were out of sight we would all travel down to Ormeau Road, where hundreds of bands and Orange men would meet before making their way to the field. Tens of thousands lined the route and as a child it seemed to me the whole world had gathered to celebrate with 12th of July. Our family always sat outside the garage on the lower Ormeau road and watched as hundred of bands, of all shapes and colours, lead thousands of bowler hatted Orangemen and women to the field.

Orange Men

Throughout Northern Ireland dozens of similar parades were taking place, but the march in Belfast was always by far the biggest and the most important of the day. We watched with mounting excitement as various bands passed and waited with baited breath for dad’s band to come into view, so we could cheer them on.

Each band would be attached to an Orange lodge that marched in front of them all the way to the field. They all had a unique uniform that extinguished them from the other bands marching. The hardcore Loyalist and paramilitary flute bands always got the loudest cheers and when a talented leader came into view everyone watched with nervous anticipation as he done various tricks with his pole, flinging it high into the sky, before catching it on the way down and immediately throwing it over his neck or under his legs before going into an routine.. Although dad’s band was an accordion band and we all took great pride in them being part of the parade, the flute and hardcore Loyalist bands were the crowds favourite and when they played a familiar tune huge cheers arose from the gathered crowd and people would join in and sing a long at the top of their voices until the band passed and another came into view. I always loved the sound of the Lambeg drums as they made their way to where we were standing and their mournful tunes drifted far over our heads and echoed through the streets of Belfast, as a warning to the Catholic people that today was our day and we were the masters of Northern Ireland. A sea of colour washed past as band after band marched by us on their way to the field. Apart from local and famous flute bands getting the loudest cheers , bands from the Shankill Road brought the loudest cheers of encouragement and joy , these were our people, come to our shore to support us in our never ending war against the IRA and Catholic people and we made sure they knew we appreciated their commitment. When dad’s band finally came into sight a huge cheer rang out from all of us and those among the spectators from Glencairn and the surrounding areas. As they passed us we would call dad’s name and when he and the other’s from the band noticed us they would all turn and salute us as they marched past. I almost burst with pride as I watched them move off and disappear in to the distance and always regretted that I was not going with them. The parade took about two hours to pass us and when it was all over, Granny would take us home. Exhausted from shouting and singing after dinner we would while away the time until 17:30, when we would go back to town to cheer them on their homeward journey from the field. When it was all over there would always be lots of parties in the estate as we clung desperately to the day and never wanted it to end. By the time we eventually got to bed I would be counting down the days until next year and the time I was old enough to take part in the parade and go all the way to the mystical field with dad and the rest of the band. Sleep came easily and I dreamt I was the leader of one of the more famous bands and the best leader in the whole wide world.

Every year on the 13th July the entire Chambers clan, aunties, uncles, grandparents, cousin’s, close friends and an assortment of animals would descend on Ballyferris Caravan Park to start the annual holidays. Ballyferris is a small seaside town on the east coast of County Down and like all other aspects of our life it was a Protestant town and a favourite destination for Protestants throughout Belfast and the Shankill road area. It was like a home from home and we all loved and looked forward to our yearly visits there. In the early years we never had a car and would travel down on the bus or train, depending on how much money we had. We must have looked like a Sunday school outing as 9 adults shepherded over a dozen kids through the centre of Belfast towards the train or bus station. When we finally arrived in Ballyferris we would all help unpack the luggage and settle into various caravans that stood side by side looking out towards the sea. There were that many of us that it must have looked as though we had taken over the whole caravan site and the other children always sought us out as they wanted to become part of our massive gang. There was a huge green in the centre of the site and at every opportunity two teams were rustled together and a football match would get under way. I used to love it if I got picked to play on the same side as dad and other members of the family and the rest of the family cheered on from the touchline. I dreamt that I was George Best, playing for Manchester United. When we weren’t playing football or flying our kites David, wee Sam , Pickle and me would go down to the beach in search of crabs and other sea life and if they were lucky to survive being captured , we would bring them up to the green and race them for packets of sweets and crisps etc. Once wee Sam and I got separated from the other as we climbed further and further over the rocks until we were right by the sea’s edge. We lost all sense of time as we cast our crab lines out as far as possible in our quest to catch the biggest crab. Gradually it started to rain and as it began to fall heavier and heavier we decided to pack up and head back to the caravan with our bucket of nervous crabs. As we turned to leave we noticed with mounting panic that the tide had come in and we were completely surrounded by the rising sea water. Our frantic cries finally caught the attention of a man walking his dog on the beach and before long the whole family and most of the other people staying at the caravan site were gathered at the edge of the water telling us not to move and the coastguards were on their way. Panic turned to excitement as a dot appeared in the distance sea and the coast boat came slowly into view. Wee Sam and I were pleased as punch as the boat drew up and the coastguard helped us into the boat. As the boat made its way to the beach we waved like royalty to the gathered crowds on the beachfront. Sadly our joy was short lived as when we arrived on the beach we got a severe ticking off from our parents and any other adult who felt like having a go. Not that we let this spoil our new found fame and at every opportunity for the rest of the holiday we boasted to our peers about our daring rescue by the coast guard from the jaws of certain death.

In the evening if the weather was good we would all gather as much food and drink as we could carry and go down to the beach to have a BBQ or picnic. We would collect wood from the beach and before long we would have a fire going and cook baked potatoes and roast sausages round the edge. As darkness rolled in we would sit around the fire singing Loyalist song and telling stories and before long I would fall asleep on dad’s knee and the next thing I knew I was waking up the next morning, in the caravan to the sounds and smells of Granny making breakfast. The best part of the whole holiday for me and the other children was when we would all be gathered up and went to Millisle , a seaside town about two miles away with a huge funfair. Sometime’s when the weather was really good we would walk to Millisle along the beach front and as it came into view we would race over the sand dunes in a scramble to see who could get there first. The day would be spent going from one ride to another and although I loved it all, I enjoyed the dodgem cars best of all and I drove like a kamikaze pilot as I crashed into dad and anyone else I could catch. Dad always seemed to enjoy our time at the funfair and he took part in loads of different games until he had won us all a present of some description. After exhausting ourselves on the rides we would join our grandparents and others on the beach for a picnic and if we were really lucky we were treated to fish and chips from one of the many chippies along the seas front. After dinner dad and his brothers would go for a pint in one of the local bars and we kids would amuse ourselves by burying each other in the sand and paddling by the water’s edge. It was always with great sadness for me when these days came to an end and I would feel heartbroken as we packed up our things for the bus back to the caravan site. I never wanted these holidays to end and when the day came that we would be travelling back to Belfast I would take long walks along the beach and through the caravan site and considered hiding until everyone else had left and I could stay there forever. Dad and the others were used to my wander lust and a search party was soon despatched to find me and bring me back into the fold. As the bus pulled away from the caravan site, taking us home, I fought to hold back my tears as I said a silent goodbye to Ballyferris and the bright lights of the fun fair.

Years later as a teenager, with my life in tatters and on the brink of suicide, I ran away from home and ended up back in Ballyferris. But this time I was all alone and it was mid winter, snowing, freezing cold and the funfair was in complete darkness. And my beloved father was dead.

See autobiography page for the first 7 chapters of my story Belfast Child

Sharia Law- Islamic Justice – What’s it all about ?

Sharia Law

34 Things About Sharia Law That You may not  Know

 ————————————————————————————————

The views and opinions expressed in this page and  documentaries are soley intended to educate and provide background information to those interested in Sharia Law

They in no way reflect my own opinions and I take no responsibility for any inaccuracies or factual errors.

————————————————————————————————

1- Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

A Muslim woman receiving Sharia justice. She is about to be stoned to death.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

——————————————————————————

Shariah Law – Islamic Justice – Pure Evil.

——————————————————————————

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim, but will get it for killing a Muslim.

——————————————————————————

Muslims Enforcing Sharia Law on the streets of London

——————————————————————————

11- Sharia never abolished slavery, sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

A Muslim man receiving Sharia justice – a public flogging which more than likely killed him.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law.

They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But Muslims can curse non-Muslims.

——————————————————————————

London’s Holy Turf War

——————————————————————————

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

A young boy in Iran got caught stealing bread in a market, and this was his punishment…
…having his hand crushed under the wheel of a moving truck….
Is this “justice” to you? Or is it barbaric cruelty? You will notice the man with the microphone on the right, holding the boy’s arm in place while the truck rides over it.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule — even over a non-Muslim minority.

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

A series of photos from 2005 shows the hanging of two terrified teenage Iranian boys, allegedly for their “crime” of homosexuality. The photos are of Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni,

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and can be consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

——————————————————————————

BAN SHARIA LAW WORLDWIDE

——————————————————————————

Women who live under Sharia law are not much more than a possession, bound and hidden behind a head to toe mask.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

——————————————————————————

American Student Brutally Beaten by Muslim Sharia Gang in London

——————————————————————————

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and none of them have a right to divorce him — even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Not all Sharia schools allow the face of a woman exposed.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women, since the man “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

34-It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory. That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying. source – WND – Nonie Darwish

——————————————————————————-

Sharia Law

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur’an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

Sharia Law

Shariah law

Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari’a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called “Sunnah,” and the Quran, which he authored.

The Sharia law itself cannot be altered, but the interpretation of the Sharia law, called “figh,” by imams is given some leeway.

As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam’s Sharia law is the most intrusive and strict, especially against women.

According to the Sharia law:

•  Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
•  Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
•  Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
•  Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
•  A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
•  A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
•  A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
•  A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
•  Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad‘s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
•  A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
•  A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
•  A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
•  Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
•  A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
•  A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
•  A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
•  A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
•  A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
•  Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah – i.e., be Halal.
•  Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
•  The list goes on.

Which countries use the Sharia law?

Muslims’ aspired Sharia state is Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Muhammad that has no legal code other than the Sharia and enforces it without mercy (see Sharia law in Saudi Arabia). But as detailed herewith, the Sharia law is also used in full or in part, nationally or regionally in:

•  United States of America*
•  United Kingdom*
•  Canada*

•  Afghanistan (89%)**
•  Algeria
•  Austria*
•  Bahrain
•  Bangladesh (82%)**
•  Brunei
•  Comoros
•  Djibouti (82%)**
•  Egypt (74%)**
•  Eritrea
•  Ethiopia
•  France*
•  Gambia
•  Germany*
•  Ghana
•  India
•  Indonesia (72%)**
•  Iran
•  Iraq (91%)**
•  Jordan (71%)**
•  Kenya
•  Kuwait
•  Libya
•  Lebanon
•  Malaysia (86%)**
•  Maldives
•  Mauritania
•  Morocco (83%)**
•  The Netherlands*
•  Nigeria
•  Oman
•  Pakistan (84%)**
•  Palestinian territories (Gaza strip & the West Bank – 89%)**
•  Qatar
•  Saudi Arabia
•  Somalia
•  Spain*
•  Sudan
•  Sri Lanka
•  Syria
•  Tanzania
•  Thailand (77%)**
•  Uganda
•  United Arab Emirates (UAE)
•  Yemen

* In the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, and other European countries that resist the penetration of Sharia law, it has proven adept at infiltrating elements of the society that are left vulnerable (see Sharia law in America and the Islamization of America).

** Percent of Muslims who favor making Sharia the official law in their country (source: Pew Forum Research, 2013). In many countries where an official secular legal system exists alongside Sharia, the vast majority of their Muslim citizens favor making Sharia the official law. For example, while the Egyptian military may have blocked the Muslim Brotherhood‘s efforts in this direction, 74% of Egypt’s Muslims still favor it. Even in Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia – Muslim countries with progressive images – the relatively secular ruling elite sit atop Muslim masses, 71%, 72% and 86% respectively of whom want their countries to be ruled by Sharia. And in Iraq, where the United States shed blood and money for over a decade to try to plant democracy, 91% of its Muslims want to live under Sharia.

The number of countries that adopt (elements of) the Sharia law continues to grow around the world, as does the depth of its penetration in the countries that already use it. This penetration is not by happenstance; it is managed to occur in five phases: see Spread of Islam and how to Stop Islam.

16th August Deaths & Events in Northern Ireland Troubles

16th August

Key Events & Deaths on this day in Northern Ireland Troubles

Monday 16 August 1971

Over 8,000 workers went on strike in Derry in protest at Internment. Joe Cahill, then Chief of Staff of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), held a press conference during which he claimed that only 30 IRA men had been interned.

Thursday 16 August 1973

Two members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) died when a mortar bomb exploded prematurely during an attack on the join British Army / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base in Pomeroy, County Tyrone.

Monday 16 August 1976

Two Catholic civilians were killed in a bomb planted by Loyalist paramilitaries outside the Step Inn, Keady, County Armagh.

Thursday 16 August 1984

Loyalist paramilitaries opened fire on Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers on the Shankill Road as riots continued in Protestant areas of Belfast.

Friday 16 August 1985

There were more disturbances in Portadown, County Armagh, following a Loyalist band parade. Some shops were looted and set on fire.

Friday 16 August 1991

Thomas Donagh (38), then a Sinn Féin (SF) member, was shot dead by the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), a cover name (pseudonym) used by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), in Kilrea, County Derry.

Martin O’Prey (28), then a member of the Irish People’s Liberation Organisation (IPLO), was shot dead by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) in the lower Falls area of west Belfast.

[These killings were part of an upsurge in Loyalist violence following the ending of the CLMC ceasefire on the 4 July 1991.]

Monday 16 August 1993

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) carried out a bomb attack in the centre of Strabane, County Tyrone.

Saturday 16 August 1997

An Irish Republican Army (IRA) ‘bomb factory’ was discovered by Garda Síochána (the Irish police) at a farmhouse in Crosskeys, near Cavan. The factory was not believed to have been operational for some weeks.

Sunday 16 August 1998

The 32-County Sovereignty Committee issued a statement denying that the organisation was associated with those responsible for the Omagh bombing.

Thursday 16 August 2001

The body of a man was discovered in west Belfast at 4.30am (0430BST) at the junction of Shankill Road and Lanark Way. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) said that the man had suffered extensive head wounds.

[Police were trying to establish a motive for the killing.]

A pipe-bomb exploded in the garden of a house belonging to a Catholic family living in Ingledale Park in north Belfast. There were no injuries during the attack.

[Loyalist paramilitaries were thought to have carried out the attack.]

There was a ‘nail-bomb’ attack on the home of a Protestant family in Westland Road in north Belfast. There were no injuries during the attack.

[Republican paramilitaries were thought to have been responsible for the attack.]

At around 11.00pm (2300BST) a gang of four masked men broke into a flat in Maralin Avenue, Lisburn, County Antrim. A man who was in the flat was beaten with wooden batons. He suffered bruising to the arms, legs and body.

Arsonists broke into St Peter’s Catholic Church in Stoneyford, near Belfast, and started a fire. A retired fireman entered the building and brought the fire under control. Loyalists from the Lisburn area were believed to have been responsible for the attack.

John Reid, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced that he was providing an additional £10 million available for policing which would bring the total buget for the current financial year to £645 million. The additional spending was to cover a short-term deficit.

Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), took a break from his holiday in County Kerry, Republic of Ireland, to travel back to Dublin for a meeting with John Hume, then leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP). The two men were expected to discuss the recent setbacks in the peace process. Before the meeting Hume had called on the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to “restore immediately its contact with General de Chastelain and its commitment to a scheme for resolving the decommissioning issue”.#

 16 August 2008

The Continuity IRA (CIRA) fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a police patrol in Lisnaskea, County Fermanagh. Three officers required hospital treatment.


Remembering all innocent victims of the Troubles

Today is the anniversary of the follow  people killed as a results of the conflict in Northern Ireland

To the innocent on the list – Your memory will live forever

– To  the Paramilitaries  –

“There are many things worth living for, a few things worth dying for, but nothing worth killing for.

9 people lost their lives on the 16th August between 1972 – 1991

————————————————————–

 16 August 1972


William Spence,   (32)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF)
Barman. Shot while in Long Bar, Shankill,

————————————————————–

 16 August 1973


Daniel McAnallen,   (27)

Catholic
Status: Irish Republican Army (IRA),

Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Killed when mortar bomb exploded prematurely, during attack on Pomeroy British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base, County Tyrone.

————————————————————–

16 August 1973


Patrick Quinn,  (18)

Catholic
Status: Irish Republican Army (IRA),

Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Killed when mortar bomb exploded prematurely, during attack on Pomeroy British Army (BA) / Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base, County Tyrone.

————————————————————–

 16 August 1976


Ellizabeth McDonald,   (38)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: non-specific Loyalist group (LOY)
Killed when car bomb exploded outside Step Inn, Keady, County Armagh.

————————————————————–

16 August 1976


Gerard McGleenan,   (22)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: non-specific Loyalist group (LOY)
Killed when car bomb exploded outside Step Inn, Keady, County Armagh.

————————————————————–

 16 August 1980


Colette Meek,   (47)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Shot outside her home, during sniper attack on Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) mobile patrol, Alliance Avenue, Ardoyne, Belfast.

————————————————————–

 16 August 1981


Charles Armstrong,  (55)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Abducted shortly after leaving his home, Crossmaglen, County Armagh. His remains eventually found by information supplied anonymously, buried in bogland, Aughrim More, near Inniskeen, County Monaghan, on 29 July 2010.

————————————————————–

16 August 1991


Thomas Donaghy,  (38)

Catholic
Status: ex-Irish Republican Army (xIRA),

Killed by: Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)
Sinn Fein (SF) member. Shot as he arrived at his workplace, Portna Fisheries, Kilrea, County Derry

————————————————————–

 16 August 1991


Martin O’Prey,   (28)

Catholic
Status: Irish People’s Liberation Organisation (IPLO),

Killed by: Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF)
Shot at his home, Ardmoulin Terrace, Lower Falls, Belfast.

————————————————————–

Burma Campaign – WW2

Burma Campaign – WW2

Vera Lynn with British troops in Burma in 1944

Burmese Campaign in World War II – The Stilwell Road (1945)

The Burma Campaign in the South-East Asian theatre of World War II was fought primarily between the forces of the British Empire and China, with support from the United States, against the forces of the Empire of Japan, Thailand, and the Indian National Army. British Empire forces peaked at around 1,000,000 land, naval and air forces, and were drawn primarily from British India, with British Army forces, 100,000 East and West African colonial troops, and smaller numbers of land and air forces from several other Dominions and Colonies.[4] The Burmese Independence Army was trained by the Japanese and spearheaded the initial attacks against British Empire forces.

The campaign had a number of notable features. The geographical characteristics of the region meant that factors like weather, disease and terrain had a major effect on operations. The lack of transport infrastructure placed an emphasis on military engineering and air transport to move and supply troops, and evacuate wounded. The campaign was also politically complex, with the British, the United States and the Chinese all having different strategic priorities.

It was also the only land campaign by the Western Allies in the Pacific Theatre which proceeded continuously from the start of hostilities to the end of the war. This was due to its geographical location. By extending from Southeast Asia to India, its area included some lands which the British lost at the outset of the war, but also included areas of India wherein the Japanese advance was eventually stopped.

The climate of the region is dominated by the seasonal monsoon rains, which allowed effective campaigning for only just over half of each year. This, together with other factors such as famine and disorder in British India and the priority given by the Allies to the defeat of Nazi Germany, prolonged the campaign and divided it into four phases: the Japanese invasion which led to the expulsion of British, Indian and Chinese forces in 1942; failed attempts by the Allies to mount offensives into Burma, from late 1942 to early 1944; the 1944 Japanese invasion of India which ultimately failed following the battles of Imphal and Kohima; and, finally, the successful Allied offensive which reoccupied Burma from late-1944 to mid-1945.

The Last Queen Supayalat

 

Japanese conquest of Burma

Japanese objectives in Burma were initially limited to the capture of Yangon (known at the time as “Rangoon”), the capital and principal seaport. This would close the overland supply line to China and provide a strategic bulwark to defend Japanese gains in British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. The Japanese Fifteenth Army under Lieutenant General Shōjirō Iida, initially consisting of only two infantry divisions, moved into northern Thailand (which had signed a treaty of friendship with Japan), and launched an attack over jungle-clad mountain ranges into the southern Burmese province of Tenasserim (now Tanintharyi Region) in January 1942.

The Japanese successfully attacked over the Kawkareik Pass, and captured the port of Mawlamyine (formerly Moulmein) at the mouth of the Salween River after overcoming stiff resistance. They then advanced northwards, outflanking successive British defensive positions. Troops of the 17th Indian Infantry Division tried to retreat over the Sittaung River, but Japanese parties reached the vital bridge before they did. On 22 February, the bridge was demolished to prevent its capture, a decision that has since been extremely contentious.

General Archibald Wavell,

The loss of two brigades of 17th Indian Division meant that Yangon could not be defended. General Archibald Wavell, the commander-in-chief of the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command, nevertheless ordered Yangon to be held as he was expecting substantial reinforcements from the Middle East. Although some units arrived, counterattacks failed and the new commander of Burma Army (General Harold Alexander), ordered the city to be evacuated on 7 March after its port and oil refinery had been destroyed. The remnants of Burma Army broke out to the north, narrowly escaping encirclement.

Japanese advance to the Indian frontier

After the fall of Yangon in March 1942, the Allies attempted to make a stand in the north of the country (Upper Burma), having been reinforced by a Chinese Expeditionary Force. The Japanese had also been reinforced by two divisions made available by the capture of Singapore, and defeated both the newly organised Burma Corps and the Chinese force. The Allies were also faced with growing numbers of Burmese insurgents and the civil administration broke down in the areas they still held. With their forces cut off from almost all sources of supply, the Allied commanders finally decided to evacuate their forces from Burma.

The retreat was conducted in very difficult circumstances. Starving refugees, disorganised stragglers, and the sick and wounded clogged the primitive roads and tracks leading to India. Burma Corps managed to make it most of the way to Imphal, in Manipur in India just before the monsoon broke in May 1942, having lost most of their equipment and transport. There, they found themselves living out in the open under torrential rains in extremely unhealthy circumstances. The army and civil authorities in India were very slow to respond to the needs of the troops and civilian refugees.

Due to lack of communication, when the British retreated from Burma, almost none of the Chinese knew about the retreat. Realising that they could not win without British support, some of the X Force committed by Chiang Kai-shek made a hasty and disorganised retreat to India, where they were put under the command of the American General Joseph Stilwell. After recuperating they were re-equipped and retrained by American instructors, the rest of the Chinese troops tried to return to Yunnan through remote mountainous forests and out of these, at least half died.

Thai army enters Burma

In accordance with the Thai military alliance with Japan that was signed on 21 December 1941, On 21 March, the Thais and Japanese also agreed that Kayah State and Shan State were to be under Thai control. The rest of Burma was to be under Japanese control.

The leading elements of the Thai Phayap Army crossed the border into the Shan States on 10 May 1942. Three Thai infantry and one cavalry division, spearheaded by armoured reconnaissance groups and supported by the air force, engaged the retreating Chinese 93rd Division. Kengtung, the main objective, was captured on 27 May.

On 12 July, General Phin Choonhavan, the Thai military governor of Shan State, ordered the 3rd Division of the Phayap Army from south of Shan State to occupy Kayah State and expel the Chinese 55th Division from Loikaw. The Chinese troops could not retreat because the routes to Yunnan were controlled by the Thais and Japanese. The Thais captured many Chinese soldiers.

Allied setbacks, 1942–1943

The Japanese did not renew their offensive after the monsoon ended. They installed a nominally independent Burmese government under Ba Maw, and reformed the Burma Independence Army on a more regular basis as the Burma National Army under Aung San. In practice, both government and army were strictly controlled by the Japanese authorities.

On the Allied side, operations in Burma over the remainder of 1942 and in 1943 were a study of military frustration. Britain could only maintain three active campaigns, and immediate offensives in both the Middle East and Far East proved impossible through lack of resources. The Middle East was accorded priority, being closer to home and in accordance with the “Germany First” policy in London and Washington.

The Allied build up was also hampered by the disordered state of Eastern India at the time. There were violent “Quit India” protests in Bengal and Bihar,[14] which required large numbers of British troops to suppress. There was also a disastrous famine in Bengal, which may have led to 3 million deaths through starvation, disease and exposure. In such conditions of chaos, it was difficult to improve the inadequate lines of communication to the front line in Assam or make use of local industries for the war effort. Efforts to improve the training of Allied troops took time and in forward areas poor morale and endemic disease combined to reduce the strength and effectiveness of the fighting units.

Nevertheless, the Allies mounted two operations during the 1942–1943 dry season. The first was a small offensive into the coastal Arakan Province of Burma. The Indian Eastern Army intended to reoccupy the Mayu peninsula and Akyab Island, which had an important airfield. A division advanced to Donbaik, only a few miles from the end of the peninsula but was halted by a small but well entrenched Japanese force. At this stage of the war, the Allies lacked the means and tactical ability to overcome strongly constructed Japanese bunkers. Repeated British and Indian attacks failed with heavy casualties. Japanese reinforcements arrived from Central Burma and crossed rivers and mountain ranges which the Allies had declared to be impassable, to hit the Allies’ exposed left flank and overrun several units. The exhausted British were unable to hold any defensive lines and were forced to abandon much equipment and fall back almost to the Indian frontier.

The second action was controversial. Under the command of Brigadier Orde Wingate, a long-range penetration unit known as the Chindits infiltrated through the Japanese front lines and marched deep into Burma, with the initial aim of cutting the main north-south railway in Burma in an operation codenamed Operation Longcloth. Some 3,000 men entered Burma in many columns. They damaged communications of the Japanese in northern Burma, cutting the railway for possibly two weeks but they suffered heavy casualties. Though the results were questioned the operation was used to propaganda effect, particularly to insist that British and Indian soldiers could live, move and fight as effectively as the Japanese in the jungle, doing much to restore morale among Allied troops.

The Balance Shifts 1943–1944

Main article: Burma Campaign 1944

From December 1943 to November 1944 the strategic balance of the Burma campaign shifted decisively. Improvements in Allied leadership, training and logistics, together with greater firepower and growing Allied air superiority, gave Allied forces a confidence they had previously lacked. In the Arakan, XV Indian Corps withstood, and then broke, a Japanese counterstrike, while the Japanese invasion of India resulted in unbearably heavy losses and the ejection of the Japanese back beyond the Chindwin River.

Allied plans

Lord Louis Mountbatten

Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Allied Commander, seen during his tour of the Arakan Front in February 1944.

In August 1943 the Allies created South East Asia Command (SEAC), a new combined command responsible for the South-East Asian Theatre, under Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten. The training, equipment, health and morale of Allied troops under British Fourteenth Army under Lieutenant General William Slim was improving, as was the capacity of the lines of communication in North-eastern India. An innovation was the extensive use of aircraft to transport and supply troops.

SEAC had to accommodate several rival plans, many of which had to be dropped for lack of resources. Amphibious landings on the Andaman Islands (Operation “Pigstick”) and in Arakan were abandoned when the landing craft assigned were recalled to Europe in preparation for the Normandy Landings.

The major effort was intended to be by American-trained Chinese troops of Northern Combat Area Command (NCAC) under General Joseph Stilwell, to cover the construction of the Ledo Road. Orde Wingate had controversially gained approval for a greatly expanded Chindit force, which was given the task of assisting Stilwell by disrupting the Japanese lines of supply to the northern front. Chiang Kai-shek had also agreed reluctantly to mount an offensive from the Yunnan.

Under British Fourteenth Army, the Indian XV Corps prepared to renew the advance in Arakan province, while IV Corps launched a tentative advance from Imphal in the centre of the long front to distract Japanese attention from the other offensives.

Japanese plans

Lieutenant General Kawabe

About the same time that SEAC was established, the Japanese created Burma Area Army under Lieutenant General Masakazu Kawabe, which took under command the Fifteenth Army and the newly formed Twenty-Eighth Army.

The new commander of Fifteenth Army, Lieutenant General Renya Mutaguchi was keen to mount an offensive against India. Burma Area Army originally quashed this idea, but found that their superiors at Southern Expeditionary Army Group HQ in Singapore were keen on it. When the staff at Southern Expeditionary Army were persuaded that the plan was inherently risky, they in turn found that Imperial General Headquarters in Tokyo was in favour of Mutaguchi’s plan.

The Japanese were influenced to an unknown degree by Subhas Chandra Bose, commander of the Indian National Army. This was composed largely of Indian soldiers who had been captured in Malaya or Singapore, and Indians (Tamils) living in Malaya. At Bose’s instigation, a substantial contingent of the INA joined in this Chalo Delhi (“March on Delhi”). Both Bose and Mutaguchi emphasised the advantages which would be gained by a successful attack into India. With misgivings on the part of several of Mutaguchi’s superiors and subordinates, Operation U-Go was launched.[15]

Northern and Yunnan front 1943/44

Stilwell’s forces (designated X Force) initially consisted of two American-equipped Chinese divisions with a Chinese-manned M3 Light Tank battalion and an American long-range penetration brigade known as “Merrill’s Marauders“.

In October 1943 the Chinese 38th Division led by Sun Li-jen began to advance from Ledo, Assam towards Myitkyina and Mogaung while American engineers and Indian labourers extended the Ledo Road behind them. The Japanese 18th Division was repeatedly outflanked by the Marauders and threatened with encirclement.

In Operation Thursday, the Chindits were to support Stilwell by interdicting Japanese communications in the region of Indaw. A brigade began marching across the Patkai mountains on 5 February 1944. In early March three other brigades were flown into landing zones behind Japanese lines by the Royal Air Force and the USAAF established defensive strongholds around Indaw.

Meanwhile, the Chinese forces on the Yunnan front (Y Force) mounted an attack starting in the second half of April, with nearly 40,000 troops crossing the Salween river on a 300 kilometres (190 mi) front. Soon some twelve Chinese divisions of 72,000 men, under General Wei Lihuang, were attacking the Japanese 56th Division. The Japanese forces in the North were now fighting on two fronts in northern Burma.

On 17 May, control of the Chindits passed from Slim to Stilwell. The Chindits now moved from the Japanese rear areas to new bases closer to Stilwell’s front, and were given additional tasks by Stilwell for which they were not equipped. They achieved several objectives, but at the cost of heavy casualties. By the end of June, they had linked up with Stilwell’s forces but were exhausted, and were withdrawn to India.

Also on 17 May, a force of two Chinese regiments, Unit Galahad (Merrill’s Marauders) and Kachin guerrillas captured the airfield at Myitkyina.[16] The Allies did not immediately follow up this success and the Japanese were able to reinforce the town, which fell only after a siege which lasted until 3 August. The capture of Myitkyina airfield nevertheless immediately helped secure the air link from India to Chongqing over the Hump.

By the end of May, the Yunnan offensive, though hampered by the monsoon rains and lack of air support, succeeded in annihilating the garrison of Tengchong and eventually reached as far as Longling. Strong Japanese reinforcements then counterattacked and halted the Chinese advance.

Southern front 1943/44

In Arakan, Indian XV Corps under Lieutenant General Philip Christison renewed the advance on the Mayu peninsula. Ranges of steep hills channelled the advance into three attacks each by an Indian or West African division. The 5th Indian Infantry Division captured the small port of Maungdaw on 9 January 1944. The Corps then prepared to capture two railway tunnels linking Maungdaw with the Kalapanzin valley but the Japanese struck first. A strong force from the Japanese 55th Division infiltrated Allied lines to attack the 7th Indian Infantry Division from the rear, overrunning the divisional HQ.

Sikhs of the 7th Indian Division at an observation post in the Ngakyedauk Pass, February 1944.

Unlike previous occasions on which this had happened, the Allied forces stood firm against the attack and supplies were dropped to them by parachute. In the Battle of the Admin Box from 5 to 23 February, the Japanese concentrated on XV Corps’ Administrative Area, defended mainly by line of communication troops but they were unable to deal with tanks supporting the defenders, while troops from 5th Indian Division broke through the Ngakyedauk Pass to relieve the defenders of the box. Although battle casualties were approximately equal, the result was a heavy Japanese defeat. Their infiltration and encirclement tactics had failed to panic Allied troops and as the Japanese were unable to capture enemy supplies, they starved.

Over the next few weeks, XV Corps’ offensive ended as the Allies concentrated on the Central Front. After capturing the railway tunnels, XV Corps halted during the monsoon.

The Japanese invasion of India 1944

Imphal and Kohima Campaign

IV Corps, under Lieutenant-General Geoffrey Scoones, had pushed forward two divisions to the Chindwin River. One division was in reserve at Imphal. There were indications that a major Japanese offensive was building. Slim and Scoones planned to withdraw and force the Japanese to fight with their logistics stretched beyond the limit. However, they misjudged the date on which the Japanese were to attack, and the strength they would use against some objectives.

The Japanese Fifteenth Army consisted of three infantry divisions and a brigade-sized detachment (“Yamamoto Force”), and initially a regiment from the Indian National Army. Mutaguchi, the Army commander, planned to cut off and destroy the forward divisions of IV Corps before capturing Imphal, while the Japanese 31st Division isolated Imphal by capturing Kohima. Mutaguchi intended to exploit the capture of Imphal by capturing the strategic city of Dimapur, in the Brahmaputra River valley. If this could be achieved, the lines of communication to General Stilwell’s forces and the airbases used to supply the Chinese over the Hump would be cut.

The Japanese troops crossed the Chindwin River on 8 March. Scoones (and Slim) were slow to order their forward troops to withdraw and the 17th Indian Infantry Division was cut off at Tiddim. It fought its way back to Imphal with aid from Scoones’s reserve division, supplied by parachute drops. North of Imphal, 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was defeated at Sangshak by a regiment from the Japanese 31st Division on its way to Kohima. Imphal was thus left vulnerable to an attack by the Japanese 15th Division from the north but because the diversionary attack launched by Japanese in Arakan had already been defeated, Slim was able to move the 5th Indian Division by air to the Central Front. Two brigades went to Imphal, the other went to Dimapur from where it sent a detachment to Kohima.

View of the Garrison Hill battlefield, the key to the British defences at Kohima.

By the end of the first week in April, IV Corps had concentrated in the Imphal plain. The Japanese launched several offensives during the month, which were repulsed. At the start of May, Slim and Scoones began a counter-offensive against the Japanese 15th Division north of Imphal. Progress was slow, as movement was made difficult by monsoon rains and IV Corps was short of supplies.

Also at the beginning of April, the Japanese 31st Division under Lieutenant-General Kotoku Sato reached Kohima. Instead of isolating the small British garrison there and pressing on with his main force to Dimapur, Sato chose to capture the hill station. The siege lasted from 5 to 18 April, when the exhausted defenders were relieved. A new formation HQ, the Indian XXXIII Corps under Lieutenant-General Montagu Stopford, now took over operations on this front. The 2nd British Infantry Division began a counter-offensive and by 15 May, they had prised the Japanese off Kohima Ridge itself. After a pause during which more Allied reinforcements arrived, XXXIII Corps renewed its offensive.

By now, the Japanese were at the end of their endurance. Their troops (particularly 15th and 31st Divisions) were starving, and during the monsoon, disease rapidly spread among them. Lieutenant-General Sato had notified Mutaguchi that his division would withdraw from Kohima at the end of May if it were not supplied. In spite of orders to hold on, Sato did indeed retreat. The leading troops of IV Corps and XXXIII Corps met at Milestone 109 on the Dimapur-Imphal road on 22 June, and the siege of Imphal was raised.

Mutaguchi (and Kawabe) continued to order renewed attacks. 33rd Division and Yamamoto Force made repeated efforts, but by the end of June they had suffered so many casualties both from battle and disease that they were unable to make any progress. The Imphal operation was finally broken off early in July, and the Japanese retreated painfully to the Chindwin River.

A view of the 1,100ft Bailey bridge across the Chindwin River as it nears completion, less than 12 hours after the 14th Army captured Kalewa, 2 December 1944.

It was the greatest defeat to that date in Japanese history. They had suffered 50-60,000 dead,[17] and 100,000 or more casualties[18] Most of these losses were the result of disease, malnutrition and exhaustion. The Allies suffered 12,500 casualties, including 2,269 killed.[19] Mutaguchi had already relieved all his divisions’ commanders, and was himself subsequently relieved of command.

During the monsoon from August to November, Fourteenth Army pursued the Japanese to the Chindwin River. While the 11th East Africa Division advanced down the Kabaw Valley from Tamu, the 5th Indian Division advanced along the mountainous Tiddim road. By the end of November, Kalewa had been recaptured, and several bridgeheads were established on the east bank of the Chindwin.

The Allied Reoccupation of Burma 1944–1945

The Allies launched a series of offensive operations into Burma during late 1944 and the first half of 1945. The command on the front was rearranged in November 1944. Eleventh Army Group HQ was replaced by Allied Land Forces South East Asia and NCAC and XV Corps were placed directly under this new headquarters. Although the Allies were still attempting to complete the Ledo Road, it was apparent that it would not materially affect the course of the war in China.

The Japanese also made major changes in their command. The most important was the replacement of General Kawabe at Burma Area Army by Hyotaro Kimura. Kimura threw Allied plans into confusion by refusing to fight at the Chindwin River. Recognising that most of his formations were weak and short of equipment, he withdrew his forces behind the Irrawaddy River, forcing the Allies to greatly extend their lines of communication.

Southern Front 1944/45

British troops in a landing craft make their way ashore on Ramree Island, 21 January 1945.

In Arakan, XV Corps resumed its advance on Akyab Island for the third year in succession. This time the Japanese were far weaker, and retreated before the steady Allied advance. They evacuated Akyab Island on 31 December 1944. It was occupied by XV Corps without resistance on 3 January 1945 as part of Operation Talon, the amphibious landing at Akyab.

After Battle

Landing craft had now reached the theatre, and XV Corps launched amphibious attacks on the Myebon peninsula on 12 January 1945 and at Kangaw ten days later during the Battle of Hill 170 to cut off the retreating Japanese. There was severe fighting until the end of the month, in which the Japanese suffered heavy casualties.

An important objective for XV Corps was the capture of Ramree Island and Cheduba Island to construct airfields which would support the Allies’ operations in Central Burma. Most of the Japanese garrison died during the battle of Ramree Island. XV Corps operations on the mainland were curtailed to release transport aircraft to support Fourteenth Army.

Northern Front 1944/45

NCAC resumed its advance late in 1944, although it was progressively weakened by the flyout of Chinese troops to the main front in China. On 10 December 1944, the 36th British Infantry Division on NCAC’s right flank made contact with units of Fourteenth Army near Indaw in Northern Burma. Five days later, Chinese troops on the command’s left flank captured the city of Bhamo.

NCAC made contact with Chiang’s Yunnan armies on 21 January 1945, and the Ledo road could finally be completed, although by this point in the war its value was uncertain. Chiang ordered the American General Daniel Isom Sultan, commanding NCAC, to halt his advance at Lashio, which was captured on 7 March. This was a blow to British plans as it endangered the prospects of reaching Yangon before the onset of the monsoon, expected at the beginning of May. Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, appealed directly to American chief of staff George Marshall for the transport aircraft which had been assigned to NCAC to remain in Burma.[20] From 1 April, NCAC’s operations stopped, and its units returned to China and India. A US-led guerrilla force, OSS Detachment 101, took over the remaining military responsibilities of NCAC.

Central Front 1944/45

An RAF Hawker Hurricane Mk IIC flies alongside Aya Bridge, which spans the Irrawaddy River near Mandalay, Burma, during a low-level reconnaissance sortie, March 1945.

The Fourteenth Army, now consisting of IV Corps and XXXIII Corps, made the main offensive effort into Burma. Although the Japanese retreat over the Irrawaddy forced the Allies to completely change their plans, such was the Allies’ material superiority that this was done. IV Corps was switched in secret from the right to the left flank of the army and aimed to cross the Irrawaddy near Pakokku and seize the Japanese line-of-communication centre of Meiktila, while XXXIII Corps continued to advance on Mandalay.

Sherman tanks and trucks of 63rd Motorised Brigade advancing on Meiktila, March 1945.

During January and February 1945, XXXIII Corps seized crossings over the Irrawaddy River near Mandalay. There was heavy fighting, which attracted Japanese reserves and fixed their attention. Late in February, the 7th Indian Division leading IV Corps, seized crossings at Nyaungu near Pakokku. 17th Indian Division and 255th Indian Tank Brigade followed them across and struck for Meiktila. In the open terrain of Central Burma, this force outmanoeuvered the Japanese and fell on Meiktila on 1 March. The town was captured in four days, despite resistance to the last man.

The Japanese tried first to relieve the garrison at Meiktila and then to recapture the town and destroy its defenders. Their attacks were not properly coordinated and were repulsed. By the end of March the Japanese had suffered heavy casualties and lost most of their artillery, their chief anti-tank weapon. They broke off the attack and retreated to Pyawbwe.

XXXIII Corps had renewed its attack on Mandalay. It fell to 19th Indian Division on 20 March, though the Japanese held the former citadel which the British called Fort Dufferin for another week. Much of the historically and culturally significant portions of Mandalay were burned to the ground.

Race for Yangon

An M3 Stuart of an Indian cavalry regiment during the advance on Yangon, April 1945

Though the Allied force had advanced successfully into central Burma, it was vital to capture the port of Yangon before the monsoon to avoid a logistics crisis. In the spring of 1945, the other factor in the race for Yangon was the years of preparation by the liaison organisation, Force 136, which resulted in a national uprising within Burma and the defection of the entire Burma National Army to the allied side. In addition to the allied advance, the Japanese now faced open rebellion behind their lines.

XXXIII Corps mounted Fourteenth Army’s secondary drive down the Irrawaddy River valley against stiff resistance from the Japanese Twenty-Eighth Army. IV Corps made the main attack down the “Railway Valley”, which was also followed by the Sittaung River. They began by striking at a Japanese delaying position (held by the remnants of the Japanese Thirty-Third Army) at Pyawbwe. The attackers were initially halted by a strong defensive position behind a dry waterway, but a flanking move by tanks and mechanised infantry struck the Japanese from the rear and shattered them.

From this point, the advance down the main road to Yangon faced little organised opposition. An uprising by Karen guerillas prevented troops from the reorganised Japanese Fifteenth Army from reaching the major road centre of Taungoo before IV Corps captured it. The leading Allied troops met Japanese rearguards north of Bago, 40 miles (64 km) north of Yangon, on 25 April. Heitarō Kimura had formed the various service troops, naval personnel and even Japanese civilians in Yangon into the 105 Independent Mixed Brigade. This scratch formation held up the British advance until 30 April and covered the evacuation of the Yangon area.

Operation Dracula

Unloading a landing craft of troops and vehicles of the 15th Indian Corps at Elephant Point, south of Yangon at the beginning of operation ‘Dracula’, 2 May 1945.

The original conception of the plan to re-take Burma had envisaged XV Corps making an amphibious assault on Yangon well before Fourteenth Army reached the capital, in order to ease supply problems. This operation, codenamed Operation Dracula, was postponed several times as the necessary landing craft were retained in Europe and finally dropped in favour of an attack on Phuket Island, off the west coast of Thailand.

Slim feared that the Japanese would defend Yangon to the last man through the monsoon, which would put Fourteenth Army in a disastrous supply situation. He therefore asked for Operation Dracula to be re-mounted at short notice. The naval forces for the attack on Phuket were diverted to Operation Dracula, and units of XV Corps were embarked from Akyab and Ramree.

On 1 May, a Gurkha parachute battalion was dropped on Elephant Point, and cleared Japanese rearguards from the mouth of the Yangon River. The 26th Indian Infantry Division landed by ship the next day. When they arrived they discovered that Kimura had ordered Yangon to be evacuated, starting on 22 April. After the Japanese withdrawal, Yangon had experienced an orgy of looting and lawlessness similar to the last days of the British in the city in 1942. On the afternoon of 2 May 1945 the monsoon rains began in full force. The Allied drive to liberate Yangon before the rains had succeeded with only a few hours to spare.

The leading troops of the 17th and 26th Indian divisions met at Hlegu, 28 miles (45 km) north of Yangon, on 6 May.

Final operations

Following the capture of Yangon, a new Twelfth Army headquarters was created from XXXIII Corps HQ to take control of the formations which were to remain in Burma.

The Japanese Twenty-Eighth Army, after withdrawing from Arakan and resisting XXXIII Corps in the Irrawaddy valley, had retreated into the Pegu Yomas, a range of low jungle-covered hills between the Irrawaddy and Sittang rivers. They planned to break out and rejoin Burma Area Army. To cover this break-out, Kimura ordered Thirty-Third Army to mount a diversionary offensive across the Sittang, although the entire army could muster the strength of barely a regiment. On 3 July, they attacked British positions in the “Sittang Bend”. On 10 July, after a battle for country which was almost entirely flooded, both the Japanese and the Allies withdrew.

The Japanese had attacked too early. Sakurai’s Twenty-Eighth Army was not ready to start the break-out until 17 July. The break-out was a disaster. The British had placed ambushes or artillery concentrations on the routes the Japanese were to use. Hundreds of men drowned trying to cross the swollen Sittang on improvised bamboo floats and rafts. Burmese guerrillas and bandits killed stragglers east of the river. The break-out cost the Japanese nearly 10,000 men, half the strength of Twenty-Eighth Army. British and Indian casualties were minimal.

Fourteenth Army (now under Lieutenant General Miles Dempsey) and XV Corps had returned to India to plan the next stage of the campaign to re-take Southeast Asia. A new corps, the Indian XXXIV Corps, under Lieutenant-General Ouvry Lindfield Roberts was raised and assigned to Fourteenth Army for further operations.

This was to be an amphibious assault on the western side of Malaya codenamed Operation Zipper. The dropping of the atomic bombs forestalled this operation, but it was undertaken post-war as the quickest way of getting occupation troops into Malaya.

Results

East African troops in Burma, 1944. The experience of African soldiers during the war would stimulate early development of African nationalism

The military and political results of the Burma campaign have been contentious on the Allied side. In military terms, the Japanese retained control of Burma until the result of the campaign was irrelevant to the fate of Japan. It was recognised by many contemporary US authorities and later American historians that the campaign was a “sideshow” and (apart from distracting some Japanese land forces from China or the Pacific) did not contribute to the defeat of Japan, although the recovery of Burma was reckoned a triumph for the British Indian Army. After the war ended, a combination of the pre-war agitation among the Burman population for independence and the economic ruin of Burma during the four years’ campaign made it impossible for the former regime to be resumed. Within three years, both Burma and India were independent.

Against these criticisms, the attempted Japanese invasion of India in 1944 was launched on unrealistic premises and resulted in the greatest defeat the Japanese armies had suffered to that date. After the Singapore debacle and the loss of Burma in 1942, the British were bound to defend India at all costs, as a successful invasion by Japanese Imperial forces would have been disastrous. The defence operations at Kohima and Imphal in 1944 have since taken on huge symbolic value as the turning of the tide in British fortunes in the war in the East.

The American historian Raymond Callahan concluded “Slim’s great victory … helped the British, unlike the French, Dutch or, later, the Americans, to leave Asia with some dignity.”[21]

American goals in Burma had been to aid the Nationalist Chinese regime. Apart from the “Hump” airlift, these bore no fruit until so near the end of the war that they made little contribution to the defeat of Japan. These efforts have also been criticised as fruitless because of the self-interest and corruption of Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime.

5 Strangest Photos of World War II

See also

29 Innocent People Slaughtered – Omagh Bombing – 15th August 1998 . Never Forgotten

15 August 2015

NEVER FORGOTTEN

Today is the 17th university of the Omagh Bombing when 29  INNOCENT people , including women, children and  visitors from other countries were slaughtered by Republican Terrorists on the streets of Omagh.

This was among the  worse attacks on Civilians throughout the Troubles and the images of that day are embedded ( along with the Shankill Bomb ) in my soul.

I grew up on the Shankill Road and surrounding areas during the worst years of the Troubles and like many from my generation I  have seen more than my fair share of  misery and bloodbaths ,  as  Republicans terrorists dragged Northern  Ireland to hell and back in their quest for a United Ireland and loyalist paramilitaries waged a sectarian war of soul destroying attrition . I’ve  lost count of how many friends and family I have seen destroyed as a direct result of the conflict , either killed, imprisoned or emotionally crippled by the things they have seen and done.

But for some reason  The Omagh Bombing struck me hard and has a permanent place in my heart and soul.

Things have moved on and Northern Ireland is painfully, slowly crawling towards a better future.These things take time , but one day in the distant future, when we are all dust in the wind , our children’s grandchildren  will wonder what-it-was–all-about and the names of dead and their brutal slaughter will fade into the dark  corridors of time .

But we will never forget

The Victims

Some of the Victims

Never Forgotten

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


 James Barker,   (12) nfNI
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
From County Donegal. Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998

Fernando Blasco  Bacelga,  (12) nfNI
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Spanish visitor. Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998

Geraldine Breslin,   (43)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998

Debra Ann Cartwright,  (20)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998

Gareth Conway,  (18)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998

Breda Devine,   (1)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998

Oran Doherty,   (8) nfNI
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
From County Donegal. Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Adrian Gallagher,  (21)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Esther Gibson,  (36)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Mary Grimes,  (65)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Olive Hawkes,  (60)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Julia Hughes,  (21)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given

————————————————————————

15 August 1998

Brenda Logue,  (17)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Anne McCombe,  (48)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Brian McCrory,  (54)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Samantha McFarland, (17)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Sean McGrath,  (61)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Injured in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given. He died 5 September 1998.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Sean McLaughlin,  (12) nfNI
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
From County Donegal. Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Jolene Marlow,  (17)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Avril Monaghan, (30)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Maura Monaghan, (1)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Alan Radford,  (16)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Rocia Abad Ramos,  (23) nfNI
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Spanish visitor. Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Elizabeth Rush,   (57)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Veda Short,  (56)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Philomena Skelton,  (39)

Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Fred White,  (60)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Bryan White,  (26)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given.

————————————————————————

15 August 1998


Lorraine Wilson , (15)

Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ),

Killed by: real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)
Killed in car bomb explosion, Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone. Inadequate warning given

————————————————————————

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Omagh Bombing – The IRA’s Deadliest Massacre of Civilians

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Omagh Bombing

 
 
Omagh bombing
Part of the Troubles
Omagh imminent.jpg
The red Vauxhall Cavalier containing the bomb. This photograph was taken shortly before the explosion; the camera was found afterwards in the rubble. The Spanish man and child seen in the photo both survived.[1]
Location Omagh, Northern Ireland
Coordinates 54°36′1.0116″N 7°17′55.9674″W / 54.600281000°N 7.298879833°W / 54.600281000; -7.298879833Coordinates: 54°36′1.0116″N 7°17′55.9674″W / 54.600281000°N 7.298879833°W / 54.600281000; -7.298879833
Date 15 August 1998
3.10 pm (BST)
Target Courthouse[2]
Attack type
Car bomb
Deaths 29 including 2 unborn[3][4][5]
Non-fatal injuries
About 220 initially reported,[6] later stories say over 300.[4][7][8]
Perpetrators Real IRA (RIRA)[4][5]

The Omagh Bombing 15 August 1998

The Omagh bombing (Irish: Buamáil an Ómaigh) was a car bombing that took place on 15 August 1998 in Omagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland.[6] It was carried out by the ‘Real IRA‘, an IRA splinter group who opposed the IRA’s ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement. The bombing killed 29 people and injured about 220 others.[3][4][5][9] This was the highest death toll from a single incident during the Troubles. Telephoned warnings had been sent about 40 minutes beforehand, but they were inaccurate and police had inadvertently moved people toward the bomb.

The bombing caused outrage both locally and internationally,[8][10] spurred on the Northern Ireland peace process,[3][4][11] and dealt a severe blow to the ‘dissident’ republican campaign. The Real IRA apologized and called a ceasefire shortly after.[11] The victims included people from many backgrounds: Protestants, Catholics, a Mormon teenager, five other teenagers, six children, a woman pregnant with twins, two Spanish tourists,[12][13] and other tourists on a day trip from the Republic of Ireland.[7]

It has been alleged that the British, Irish and American intelligence agencies had information which could have prevented the bombing; most of which came from double agents inside the Real IRA.[14] This information was not given to the local police; the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).[14] In 2008 it was revealed that British intelligence agency GCHQ was monitoring conversations between the bombers as the bomb was being driven into Omagh.[15]

A 2001 report by the Police Ombudsman said that the RUC’s Special Branch failed to act on prior warnings and slammed the RUC’s investigation of the bombing.[16] The RUC has obtained circumstantial and coincidental evidence against some suspects, but it has not come up with anything to convict anyone of the bombing.[17] Colm Murphy was tried, convicted, and then released after it was revealed that the Gardaí forged interview notes used in the case.[18] Murphy’s nephew Sean Hoey was also tried and found not guilty.[19] In June 2009, the victims’ families won a £1.6 million civil action against four defendants.[20] In April 2014, Seamus Daly was charged with the murders of those

Background

Negotiations to end the Troubles had failed in 1996 and there was a resumption of political violence. The peace process later resumed, and it reached a point of renewed tension in 1998, especially following the deaths of three Catholic children in Orange Order-related riots in mid-July.[22] Sinn Féin had accepted the Mitchell Principles, which involved commitment to non-violence, in September 1997 as part of the peace process negotiations.[23] Dissident members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), who saw this as a betrayal of the republican struggle for a united Ireland, left to form the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) in October 1997.[23][24]

The RIRA began its paramilitary campaign against the Agreement with an attempted car bombing in Banbridge, County Down on 7 January 1998, which involved a 300 pounds (140 kg) explosive that was defused by security forces.[24] Later that year, it mounted attacks in Moira, Portadown, Belleek, Newtownhamilton and Newry, as well as bombing Banbridge again on 1 August, which caused thirty-five injuries and no deaths.[24] The attack at Omagh took place 13 weeks after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, which had been intended to be a comprehensive solution to the Troubles and had broad support both in Ireland and internationally.[25][26]

Omagh had been targeted in 1973 twice:

  • 17 May 1973 – Arthur Place (29), Derek Reed (28), Sheridan Young (26), Barry Cox (28) and Frederick Drake (25), all off duty members of the British Army, were killed by a Provisional Irish Republican Army booby trap bomb while getting into a car, outside the Knock-na-Moe Castle Hotel, Omagh. Drake died on 3 June 1973.
  • 25 June 1973 – Sean Loughran (37), Patrick Carty (26) and Dermot Crowley (18), all Catholics and members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, were killed in a premature bomb explosion while travelling in a car, Gortin Road, near Omagh.

The attack

Preparation and warnings

 

Lower Market Street, site of the bombing, 2001. The courthouse is in the background

On 13 August, a maroon Vauxhall Cavalier was stolen from outside a block of flats in Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, in the Republic of Ireland.[27] At that time it bore the County Donegal registration number of 91 DL 2554. The perpetrators replaced its Republic of Ireland number plates with false Northern Ireland plates and the car was loaded with a bomb.[13][27] On the day of the bombing, they drove the car across the Irish border and at about 14:19 parked the vehicle filled with 230 kilograms (510 lb) of fertiliser-based explosives outside S.D. Kells’ clothes shop in Omagh’s Lower Market Street, on the southern side near the crossroads with Dublin Road.[13] They could not find a parking space near the intended target, the Omagh courthouse.[28] The car (with its false registration number MDZ 5211) had arrived from an easterly direction. The two male occupants then armed the bomb and upon exiting the car, walked east down Market Street towards Campsie Road. Some Spanish tourists stopped beside the car, and were photographed. The photographer died in the bombing.

Three phone calls were made warning of a bomb in Omagh, using the same codeword that had been used in the Real IRA’s bomb attack in Banbridge two weeks earlier.[29] At 14:32, a warning was telephoned to Ulster Television saying, “There’s a bomb, courthouse, Omagh, main street, 500lb, explosion 30 minutes.”[29] One minute later, the office received a second warning saying, “Martha Pope (which was the RIRA’s code word), bomb, Omagh town, 15 minutes”. The caller claimed the warning on behalf of “Óglaigh na hÉireann”.[29] The next minute, the Coleraine office of the Samaritans received a call stating that a bomb would go off on “main street” about 200 yards (180 m) from the courthouse.[29] The recipients passed on the information to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).[29]

The BBC News stated that police “were clearing an area near the local courthouse, 40 minutes after receiving a telephone warning, when the bomb detonated. But the warning was unclear and the wrong area was evacuated”.[9] The warnings mentioned “main street” when no street by that name existed in Omagh, although Market Street was the main shopping street in the town.[27] The nature of the warnings led the police to place a cordon across the junction of High Street and Market Street at Scarffes Entry. They then began to evacuate the buildings and move people down the hill from the top of High Street and the area around the courthouse to the bottom of Market Street where the bomb was placed.[4][9][27][29][30] The courthouse is roughly 400 metres (1,300 ft) from the spot where the car bomb was parked.[30][31]

Explosion

 

The scene in Market Street minutes after the bomb went off. Survivors are shown helping the injured

The car bomb detonated at about 15:10 BST in the crowded shopping area,[9] killing outright 21 people who had been in the vicinity of the vehicle. Eight more people would die on the way to or in hospital. The deceased victims included a pregnant woman, six children, and six teenagers, most of whom had died on the spot.[12] Those who were killed were James Barker (12), Seán McLaughlin (12) and Oran Doherty (8), from County Donegal, Fernando Blasco Baselga (12) and Rocío Abad Ramos (23) from Spain, Geraldine Breslin (43), Gareth Conway (18), Breda Devine (1), Aidan (or Aiden) Gallagher (21), Mary Grimes (65), Brenda Logue (17), Brian McCrory (54), Seán McGrath (61), Jolene Marlow (17), Avril Monaghan (30; pregnant with twins), Maura Monaghan (1), Elizabeth Rush (57), Philomena Skelton (39), all Catholics,; Deborah-Anne Cartwright (20), Esther Gibson (36), Olive Hawkes (60), Julia Hughes (21), Ann McCombe (48), Samantha McFarland (17), Alan Radford (16), Veda Short (56), Fred White (60), Bryan White (26), Lorraine Wilson (15), all Protestants, were killed. (Seán McGrath died from his injuries on 5 September 1998.) [12][32]

Injured survivor Marion Radford described hearing an “unearthly bang”, followed by “an eeriness, a darkness that had just come over the place”, then the screams as she saw “bits of bodies, limbs or something” on the ground while she searched for her 16-year-old son, Alan. She later discovered he had been killed only yards away from her, the two having become separated minutes before the blast.[27][33]

In a statement on the same day as the bombing, RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan accused the RIRA of deliberately trying to direct civilians to the bombing site.[31] British government prosecutor Gordon Kerr QC called the warnings “not only wrong but… meaningless” and stated that the nature of the warnings made it inevitable that the evacuations would lead to the bomb site.[34] The RIRA strongly denied that it intended to target civilians.[29][35] It also stated that the warnings were not intended to lead people to the bombing site.[29] During the 2003 Special Criminal Court trial of RIRA director Michael McKevitt, witnesses for the prosecution stated that the inaccurate warnings were accidental.[28]

Aftermath

 

Tyrone County Hospital, where many of the bomb victims were taken.

The BBC News stated that those “who survived the car bomb blast in a busy shopping area of the town described scenes of utter carnage with the dead and dying strewn across the street and other victims screaming for help”.[9] The injured were initially taken to two local hospitals, the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital.[30] A local leisure centre was set up as a casualty field centre, and Lisanelly Barracks, an army base served as an impromptu morgue.[30][31] The Conflict Archive on the Internet project has stated that rescue workers described the scene as “battlefield conditions”.[30] Tyrone County Hospital became overwhelmed, and appealed for local doctors to come in to help.[9][31]

Because of the stretched emergency services, people used buses, cars and helicopters to take the victims to other hospitals in Northern Ireland,[9][31] including the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast and Altnagelvin Hospital in Derry.[30] A Tyrone County Hospital spokesman stated that they treated 108 casualties, 44 of whom had to be transferred to other hospitals.[31] Paul McCormick of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service said that, “The injuries are horrific, from amputees, to severe head injuries to serious burns, and among them are women and children.”[9]

The day after the bombing, the relatives and friends of the dead and injured used Omagh Leisure Centre to post news.[30] The Spanish Ambassador to Ireland personally visited some of the injured[30] and churches across Northern Ireland called for a national day of mourning.[36] Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh Robin Eames stated on BBC Radio that, “From the Church’s point of view, all I am concerned about are not political arguments, not political niceties. I am concerned about the torment of ordinary people who don’t deserve this.”[36]

Reactions

 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Omagh days after the bombing. This photograph shows Blair addressing a crowd in Armagh several weeks later.

The nature of the bombing created a strong international and local outcry against the RIRA and in favour of the Northern Ireland peace process.[3][4] British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the bombing an “appalling act of savagery and evil.”[8][9] Queen Elizabeth II expressed her sympathies to the victim’s families, while the Prince of Wales paid a visit to the town and spoke with the families of some of the victims.[9][37] The Pope and US President Bill Clinton, who shortly afterwards visited Omagh with his wife Hillary, also expressed their sympathies.[30] Social Democratic and Labour Party leader John Hume called the perpetrators of the bombing “undiluted fascists”.[38]

Sinn Féin leader Martin McGuinness said that, “This appalling act was carried out by those opposed to the peace process”.[9] Party president Gerry Adams said that, “I am totally horrified by this action. I condemn it without any equivocation whatsoever.”[10] McGuinness mentioned the fact that both Catholics and Protestants alike were injured and killed, saying, “All of them were suffering together. I think all them were asking the question ‘Why?’, because so many of them had great expectations, great hopes for the future.”[10] Sinn Féin as an organization initially refused to co-operate with the investigation into the attack, citing the involvement of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.[39] On 17 May 2007, Martin McGuinness stated that Irish Republicans would co-operate with an independent, international investigation if one is created.[40]

On 22 August 1998, the Irish National Liberation Army called a ceasefire in its operations against the British government.[30][41][42] The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism has accused the republican paramilitary organisation of providing supplies for the bombing.[42] The INLA continued to observe the ceasefire although it remains opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. It recently began decommissioning its arms.[42] The RIRA also suspended operations for a short time after the Omagh bombing before returning to violence.[30] The RIRA came under pressure from the Provisional Irish Republican Army after the bombing; PIRA members visited the homes of 60 people connected with the RIRA and ordered them to disband and stop interfering with PIRA arms dumps.[24] The BBC News stated that, “Like the other bombings in the early part of 1998 in places like Lisburn and Banbridge, Omagh was a conscious attempt by republicans who disagreed with the political strategy of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, to destabilise Northern Ireland in that vulnerable moment of hope. It failed—but there is a terrible irony to the way in which the campaign was halted only by the wave of revulsion triggered by the carnage at Omagh.”[3]

Responsibility

Allegations

No group claimed responsibility on the day of the attack, but the RUC suspected the RIRA.[9][31] The RIRA had carried out a car bombing in Banbridge, County Down, two weeks before the Omagh bombing.[31] Three days after the attack, the RIRA claimed responsibility and apologised for the attack.[11][35] On 7 February 2008, a RIRA spokesman stated that, “The IRA had minimal involvement in Omagh. Our code word was used; nothing more. To have stated this at the time would have been lost in an understandable wave of emotion” and “Omagh was an absolute tragedy. Any loss of civilian life is regrettable.”[43]

On 9 October 2000, the BBC’s Panorama programme aired the special Who Bombed Omagh? hosted by journalist John Ware.[27] The programme quoted RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan as saying, “sadly up to this point we haven’t been able to charge anyone with this terrible atrocity”.[27] The programme alleged that the police on both sides of the Irish border knew the identity of the bombers.[27] It stated that, “As the bomb car and the scout car headed for the border, the police believe they communicated by mobile phone. This is based on an analysis of calls made in the hours before, during and after the bombing. This analysis may prove to be the key to the Omagh bomb investigation.”[27] Using the phone records, the programme gave the names of the four prime suspects as Oliver Traynor, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy, and Seamus Daly.[27] The police had leaked the information to the BBC since it was too circumstantial and coincidental to be used in court.[17]

Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Mandelson praised the Panorama programme, calling it “a very powerful and very professional piece of work”.[44] Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern criticised it, saying that “bandying around names on television” could hinder attempts to secure convictions.[44] First Minister David Trimble stated that he had “very grave doubts” about it.[44] Lawrence Rush, whose wife Elizabeth died in the bombing, tried legally to block the programme from being broadcast, saying, “This is media justice, we can’t allow this to happen”.[45] Democratic Unionist Party assembly member Oliver Gibson, whose niece Esther died in the bombing, stated that the government did not have the will to pursue those responsible and welcomed the programme.[45]

The police believe that the bombing of BBC Television Centre in London on 4 March 2001 was a revenge attack for the broadcast.[46] On 9 April 2003, the five RIRA members behind the BBC office’s bombing were convicted and sentenced for between 16 and 22 years.[47]

Prosecutions and court cases

On 22 September 1998, the RUC and Gardaí arrested twelve men in connection with the bombing.[40] They subsequently released all of them without charge.[40] On 25 February 1999, they questioned and arrested at least seven suspects.[40] Builder and publican Colm Murphy, from Ravensdale, County Louth, was charged three days later for conspiracy and was convicted on 23 January 2002 by the Republic’s Special Criminal Court.[40] He was sentenced to fourteen years.[18] In January 2005, Murphy’s conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, on the grounds that two Gardaí had falsified interview notes, and that Murphy’s previous convictions were improperly taken into account by the trial judges.[18]

On 28 October 2000, the families of four children killed in the bombing – James Barker, 12, Samantha McFarland, 17, Lorraine Wilson, 15, and 20-month-old Breda Devine – launched a civil action against the suspects named by the Panorama programme.[40] On 15 March 2001, the families of all twenty-nine people killed in the bombing launched a £2-million civil action against RIRA suspects Seamus McKenna, Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy, and Seamus Daly.[40] Former Northern Ireland secretaries Peter Mandelson, Tom King, Peter Brooke, Lord Hurd, Lord Prior, and Lord Merlyn-Rees signed up in support of the plaintiffs’ legal fund.[40] The civil action began in Northern Ireland on 7 April 2008.[48]

On 6 September 2006, Murphy’s nephew Sean Hoey, an electrician from Jonesborough, County Armagh, went on trial accused of 29 counts of murder, and terrorism and explosives charges.[49] Upon its completion, Hoey’s trial found on 20 December 2007 that he was not guilty of all 56 charges against him.[50]

On 24 January 2008, former Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan apologised to the victims’ families for the lack of convictions in relation to the Omagh bombing.[51] This apology was rejected by some of the victims’ families.[51] After the Hoey verdict, BBC News reporter Kevin Connolly stated that, “The Omagh families were dignified in defeat, as they have been dignified at every stage of their fight for justice. Their campaigning will go on, but the prospect is surely receding now that anyone will ever be convicted of murdering their husbands and brothers and sisters and wives and children.”[3] Police Service of Northern Ireland Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde stated that he believed there would be no further prosecutions.[19]

On 8 June 2009, the civil case taken by victims’ relatives concluded, with Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly being found to have been responsible for the bombing.[20] Seamus McKenna was cleared of involvement.[20] The others were held liable for £1.6 million of damages. It was described as a “landmark” damages award internationally.[52] Murphy and Daly appealed and were granted a retrial, but this second trial also found them responsible for the bombing, with the judge describing the evidence as overwhelming.[53]

On 10 April 2014 Daly was charged with murdering the 29 victims of the Omagh bombing and with other offences.[54] Daly lived in Cullaville, County Monaghan, in the Republic of Ireland and was arrested in Newry by police after he crossed the Border into Northern Ireland.[55]

Independent bombing investigation

On 7 February 2008, the Northern Ireland Policing Board decided to appoint a panel of independent experts to review the police’s investigation of the bombing. Some of the relatives of the bombing victims criticised the decision, saying that an international public inquiry covering both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should be established instead. The review is to determine whether enough evidence exists for further prosecutions. It is also to investigate the possible perjury of two police witnesses made during Sean Hoey’s trial.[56] Sinn Féin Policing Board member Alex Maskey stated that, “Sinn Féin fully supports the families’ right to call for a full cross-border independent inquiry while the Policing Board has its clear and legal obligation to scrutinise the police handling of the investigations.” He also stated that, “We recognise that the board has a major responsibility in carrying out our duty in holding the PSNI to account in the interests of justice for the Omagh families”.[57]

Allegations against the security forces

It has been alleged that the British, Irish and American intelligence agencies had information which could have prevented the bombing. This information was not given to the local police; the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). The RUC’s investigation into the bombing has also been widely criticized.

Police Ombudsman report

Police Ombudsman Nuala O’Loan published a report on 12 December 2001 that strongly criticised the RUC over its handling of the bombing investigation.[16][58][59] Her report stated that RUC officers had ignored the previous warnings about a bomb and had failed to act on crucial intelligence.[31][58][59] She went on to say that officers had been uncooperative and defensive during her inquiry.[59] The report concluded that, “The victims, their families, the people of Omagh and officers of the RUC were let down by defective leadership, poor judgement and a lack of urgency.”[16] It recommended the setting up of a new investigation team independent of the new Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), which had since replaced the RUC, led by a senior officer from an outside police force.[16]

Initially, the Police Association, which represents both senior officers and rank and file members of the Northern Ireland police, went to court to try to block the release of the O’Loan report.[31][59] The Association stated that, “The ombudsman’s report and associated decisions constitute a misuse of her statutory powers, responsibilities and functions.”[59] The group later dropped its efforts.[31][60] RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan called the report “grossly unfair” and “an erroneous conclusion reached in advance and then a desperate attempt to find anything that might happen to fit in with that.”[16] Other senior police officers also disputed the report’s findings.[58][59] Flanagan issued a 190 page counter-report in response, and has also stated that he has considered taking legal action.[16][61] He argued that the multiple warnings were given by the RIRA to cause confusion and lead to a greater loss of life.[31][62] Assistant Chief Constables Alan McQuillan and Sam Kincaid sent affidavits giving information that supported the report.[59]

The families of the victims expressed varying reactions to the report.[63] Kevin Skelton, whose wife died in the attack, said that, “After the bomb at Omagh, we were told by Tony Blair and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, that no stone would be left unturned … It seems to me that a lot of stones have been left unturned,” but then expressed doubt that the bombing could have been prevented.[63] Lawrence Rush, whose wife also died in the attack, said that, “There’s no reason why Omagh should have happened – the police have been in dereliction of their duty.”[63] Other Omagh residents said that the police did all that they could.[63] The Belfast Telegraph called the report a “watershed in police accountability” and stated that it “broke the taboo around official criticism of police in Northern Ireland”.[58] Upon leaving office on 5 November 2007, Nuala O’Loan stated that the report was not a personal battle between herself and Sir Ronnie, and did not lead to one.[58] She also stated that the “recommendations which we made were complied with”.[58]

Advance warning allegations

Throughout the conflict in Northern Ireland, the security forces used double agents to infiltrate the paramilitary groups. In 1998 the British, Irish and American intelligence agencies had agents connected to the Real IRA.

In 2001, a double agent known as Kevin Fulton claimed he told his MI5 handlers three days before the bombing that the RIRA was about to bring a “huge bomb” across the border.[64] Fulton claims he also told them who he believed was making it and where it was being made.[64] He said that MI5 did not pass his information over to the police.[64][65][66] RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan called the allegations “preposterous” and said the information Fulton gave his handlers was full of “distortions and inaccuracies”.[64] However, Flanagan admitted that some of Fulton’s information was not passed to RUC Special Branch, due to “an administrative error”.[64] In September 2001, British security forces informer Willie Carlin said the Ombudsman had obtained evidence confirming Fulton’s allegations.[65] A spokesman for the Ombudsman neither confirmed nor denied Carlin’s assertion when asked.[65]

David Rupert, an American citizen, was jointly run as an agent by MI5 and the FBI. He worked as a fundraiser for the RIRA. On 11 August 1998, four days before the bombing, Rupert informed his MI5 handlers that the RIRA was planning a car bomb attack in Omagh or Derry. It is not known whether this information was passed to the RUC Special Branch.[67]

The Republic of Ireland’s police force, the Gardaí, also had an agent close to the RIRA at the time. The agent, Paddy Dixon, stole cars for the RIRA, who used them to transport bombs.[64] Days before the bombing, the RIRA had Dixon steal the maroon Vauxhall Cavalier it would use in the attack.[64] Dixon immediately told his handler; Detective Sergeant John White. On 12 August, White passed this on to his superior; Detective Chief Superintendent Dermot Jennings.[64] According to White, Jennings told him that they would let the bomb go through, mainly so that the RIRA would not become suspicious of Dixon.[64] Dixon fled the Republic of Ireland in January 2002. The following year, a transcript of a conversation between Dixon and White was released. In it, Dixon confirms that Gardaí let the bomb go through and says that “Omagh is going to blow up in their faces”.[68] In February 2004, PSNI Chief Constable Hugh Orde called for the Republic of Ireland to hand over Dixon.[31] In March 2006, Chief Constable Orde stated that “security services did not withhold intelligence that was relevant or would have progressed the Omagh inquiry”.[69] He also stated that the dissident republican militants investigated by MI5 were members of a different cell than the perpetrators of the Omagh bombing.[69]

A 2013 independent report concluded that the British, Irish and American intelligence agencies “starved” police in Omagh of intelligence that could have prevented the bombing. The report was commissioned by the victims’ families and produced by Rights Watch (UK).[70]

GCHQ monitoring

A BBC Panorama documentary, named “Omagh: What the police were never told”, was aired in September 2008. It revealed that the British intelligence agency GCHQ was monitoring mobile phone calls between the bombers as the bomb was being driven into Omagh.[71] Ray White, former Assistant Chief of RUC Special Branch, said GCHQ had been monitoring mobile phones at their request. He said he believed GCHQ were listening to the phonecalls ‘live’, rather than merely recording them for later.[71] Panorama’s John Ware also claimed that a listening device had been hidden in the car and that GCHQ had recordings of what was said.[71] None of this information was given to the RUC in Omagh at the time.[71] Transcripts of the phone calls were later handed over to RUC Special Branch.[9]

Victims’ support group

The families of the victims of the bomb created the Omagh Support and Self Help Group after the bombing.[72] The organisation is led by Michael Gallagher, who lost his 21-year-old son Aidan in the attack.[73] Its web site provides over 5000 newspaper articles, video recordings, audio recordings, and other information sources relating to the events leading up to and following the bombing as well as information about other terrorist attacks.[74] The group’s five core objectives are “relief of poverty, sickness, disability of victims”, “advancement of education and protection”, “raising awareness of needs and experiences of victims, and the effects of terrorism”, “welfare rights advice and information”, and “improving conditions of life for victims”.[72] The group also provides support to victims of other bombings in Ireland, as well other terrorist bombings, such as the 2004 Madrid train bombings.[72] The group has protested outside meetings of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, an Irish republican political activist group opposed to the Good Friday Agreement that the families believe is part of the RIRA.[75]

In April 2000, the group argued that the attack breached Article 57 of the Geneva Convention and stated that they will pursue the alleged bombers using international law.[76] Michael Gallagher told BBC Radio Ulster that, “The republican movement refused to co-operate and those people hold the key to solving this mystery. Because they have difficulty in working with the RUC and Gardaí, we can’t get justice.”[76] In January 2002, Gallagher told BBC News that, “There is such a deeply-held sense of frustration and depression” and called the anti-terrorist legislation passed in the wake of the Omagh bombing “ineffective”.[77] He expressed support for the controversial Panorama programme, stating that it reminded “people that what happened in Omagh is still capable of happening in other towns”.[45] In February 2002, Prime Minister Tony Blair declined a written request by the group to meet with him at Downing Street.[78] Group members accused the Prime Minister of ignoring concerns about the police’s handling of the bombing investigation.[78] A Downing Street spokesman stated that, “The Prime Minister of course understands the relatives’ concerns, but [he] believes that a meeting with the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office is the right place to air their concerns at this stage.”[78]

The death of Michael Gallagher’s son along with his and other families’ experiences in the Omagh Support and Self Help Group formed the story of the television film Omagh, a Channel 4RTÉ co-production.[73] Film-maker Paul Greengrass stated that “the families of the Omagh Support and Self Help Group have been in the public eye throughout the last five years, pursuing a legal campaign, shortly to come before the courts, with far reaching implications for all of us and it feels the right moment for them to be heard, to bring their story to a wider audience so we can all understand the journey they have made.”[73] In promotion for the film, Channel 4 stated that the group had pursued “a patient, determined, indomitable campaign to bring those responsible for the bomb to justice, and to hold to account politicians and police on both sides of the border who promised so much in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity but who in the families’ eyes have delivered all too little.”[73]

Memorials

Media memorials

The bombing inspired the song “Paper Sun” by British hard rock band Def Leppard.[79]

Another song inspired by the bombings was “Peace on Earth” by rock group U2.[80] It includes the line, “They’re reading names out over the radio. All the folks the rest of us won’t get to know. Sean and Julia, Gareth, Ann, and Breda.”[80] The five names mentioned are five of the victims from this attack.[80] Another line, “She never got to say goodbye, To see the colour in his eyes, now he’s in the dirt,” was about how James Barker, a victim, was remembered by his mother Donna Maria Barker in an article in the Irish Times after the bombing in Omagh.[80] The Edge has described the song as “the most bitter song U2 has ever written”.[81] The names of all 29 people killed during the bombing were recited at the conclusion of the group’s anti-violence anthem “Sunday Bloody Sunday” during the Elevation Tour; one performance is captured on the concert video U2 Go Home: Live from Slane Castle, Ireland.[82]

Omagh memorial

 

Omagh Memorial at the bomb site

In late 1999, Omagh District Council established the Omagh Memorial Working Group to devise a permanent memorial to the bombing victims.[7] Its members come from both public and private sectors alongside representatives from the Omagh Churches Forum and members of the victims’ families.[7] The chief executive of the Omagh Council, John McKinney, stated in March 2000 that, “we are working towards a memorial. It is a very sensitive issue.”[83] In April 2007, the Council announced the launch of a public art design competition by the Omagh Memorial Working Group.[7] The group’s goal was to create a permanent memorial in time for the tenth anniversary of the bombing on 15 August 2008.[7][84] It has a total budget of £240,000.[7]

Since space for a monument on Market Street itself is limited, the final memorial was to be split between the actual bombing site and the temporary Memorial Garden about 300 metres away.[85] Artist Sean Hillen and architect Desmond Fitzgerald won the contest with a design that, in the words of the Irish Times, “centres on that most primal yet mobile of elements: light.”[85] A heliostatic mirror was to be placed in the memorial park tracking the sun in order to project a constant beam of sunlight onto 31 small mirrors, each etched with the name of a victim.[84][85] All the mirrors were then to bounce the light on to a heart-shaped crystal within an obelisk pillar that stands at the bomb site.[84][85]

In September 2007, the Omagh Council’s proposed wording on a memorial plaque — “dissident republican car bomb” — brought it into conflict with several of the victims’ families.[84] Michael Gallagher has stated that “there can be no ambiguity over what happened on 15 August 1998, and no dancing around words can distract from the truth.”[84] The Council appointed an independent mediator in an attempt to reach an agreement with those families.[84] Construction started on the memorial on 27 July 2008.[86]

On 15 August 2008, a memorial service was held in Omagh.[87] Senior government representatives from the UK, the Republic of Ireland and the Stormont Assembly were present, along with relatives of many of the victims.[87] A number of bereaved families, however, boycotted the service and held their own service the following Sunday.[87] They argued that the Sinn Féin-dominated Omagh council would not acknowledge that republicans were responsible for the bombing.[87]

Main source wiki 

Buy Me A Coffee

Kayla Mueller – Killed and abused by IS & Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

 (August 14, 1988 – c. February 6, 2015)

R.I.P

Islamic State leader Baghdadi ‘raped’ Kayla Mueller

Islamic State group Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a screen grab of a photo posted on a militant website on 5 July 2014
PERVERTED KILLER Burn in hell!

An American aid worker who was killed in February while held hostage by Islamic State (IS) militants in Syria, was sexually abused by the group’s top leader, US officials tell ABC news.

Kayla Mueller, 26, was repeatedly raped by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, they said.

Counterterrorism officials made her family aware of the abuse in June.

Mueller was abducted while working in Aleppo, Syria, in 2013. IS said she was killed in a Jordanian air strike, but the US blames IS for her death.

“We were told Kayla was tortured, that she was the property of Baghdadi. We were told that in June by the government,” her parents, Carl and Marsha, told ABC News.

Baghdadi personally took the humanitarian aid worker to the home of another senior IS member – Abu Sayyaf – who was in charge of IS oil and gas until his death in a US special forces operation in May, ABC news, citing US officials, reports.

US special forces raid

The channel said he regularly visited the compound where she was being held and repeatedly assaulted her.

Officials said they had obtained information about the abuse from at least two teenage Yazidi girls who were held hostage as sex slaves and found inside the Sayyaf compound at the time of the US attack.

Mueller was reportedly held for some time by Sayyaf and his wife, Umm Sayyaf, who was also captured by US special forces in May.

At the time, the Pentagon said Umm was suspected of being an IS member and of being complicit in the enslavement of a young Yazidi woman who was rescued in the raid.

Hundreds of young women and girls – many of them Yazidis captured in northern Iraq – are believed to be held as sex slaves by IS militants in areas under their control.

The Yazidi girls provided intelligence used by the US to interrogate Sayyaf’s wife, who “spilled everything” about several IS leaders and their whereabouts, a counterterrorism official told ABC.

Umm Sayyaf was handed over to the Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq last week to face trial.

The information that has come to light appears to contradict speculation that Mueller was treated well in captivity, as a letter written in 2014 and smuggled out to her family implied.

In it, Mueller tried to reassure her family, saying that she had been treated with “utmost respect + kindness”.

The humanitarian aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, travelled to the Turkey-Syria border in 2012 to work with refugees.

—————————————————————

Kayla Mueller’s letter from captivity before her death

Kayla Mueller and her family

Kayla Mueller’s family have released a letter sent by the IS hostage before her death in what the jihadist group says was a coalition air strike in Syria.

Everyone,if you are receiving this letter it means I am still detained but my cell mates (starting from 11/2/2014) have been released. I have asked them to contact you +send you this letter.

It’s hard to know what to say.

Please know that I am in a safe location, completely unharmed + healthy (put on weight in fact); I have been treated w/ the utmost respect + kindness.

I wanted to write you all a well thought out letter (but I didn’t know if my cell mates would be leaving in the coming days or the coming months restricting my time but primarily) I could only but write the letter a paragraph at a time, just the thought of you all sends me into a fit of tears.

If you could say I have “suffered” at all throughout this whole experience it is only in knowing how much suffering I have put you all through; I will never ask you to forgive me as I do not deserve forgiveness.

I remember mom always telling me that all in all in the end the only one you really have is God.

I have come to a place in experience where, in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our creator b/c literally there was no else…. + by God + by your prayers I have felt tenderly cradled in freefall.

I have been shown in darkness, light + have learned that even in prison, one can be free. I am grateful.

I have come to see that there is good in every situation, sometimes we just have to look for it. I pray each each day that if nothing else, you have felt a certain closeness + surrender to God as well + have formed a bond of love + support amongst one another…

I miss you all as if it has been a decade of forced separation. I have had many a long hour to think, to think of all the things I will do w/ Lex, our first family camping trip, the first meeting @ the airport.

I have had many hours to think how only in your absence have I finally @ 25 years old come to realize your place in my life.

Kyla Mueller's letter to family and friends
Kyla Mueller sent the letter via other hostages who were released

The gift that is each one of you + the person I could + could not be if you were not a part of my life, my family, my support.

I DO NOT want the negotiations for my release to be your duty, if there is any other option take it, even if it takes more time. This should never have become your burden.

I have asked these women to support you; please seek their advice. If you have not done so already, [REDACTED] can contact [REDACTED] who may have a certain level of experience with these people.

None of us could have known it would be this long but know I am also fighting from my side in the ways I am able + I have a lot of fight left inside of me.

I am not breaking down + I will not give in no matter how long it takes.

I wrote a song some months ago that says “The part of me that pains the most also gets me out of bed, w/out your hope there would be nothing left…” aka ­‐ the thought of your pain is the source of my own, simultaneously the hope of our reunion is the source of my strength.

Please be patient, give your pain to God.

I know you would want me to remain strong. That is exactly what I am doing.

Do not fear for me, continue to pray as will I + by God’s will we will be together soon.

All my everything,

Kayla


Kayla Mueller

Kayla Mueller in 30 May 2013 photo

August 14, 1988 – c. February 6, 2015

Kayla Jean Mueller (August 14, 1988 – c. February 6, 2015) was an American human rights activist and humanitarian aid worker from Prescott, Arizona. She was taken captive in August 2013 in Aleppo, Syria, while leaving a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital.

Media had long reported that a 26-year-old American aid worker was being held by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) without naming her at her family’s request. Her captivity and death were widely reported upon confirmation of her death.

Activism and humanitarian aid

Mueller was a native of Prescott, Arizona, where she graduated from Tri-city College Prep High School. She attended Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff in 2007. She supported a variety of causes at home and abroad, in various areas and with many different services including humanitarian aid, human rights, youth mentorship, environmental activism, journalism, and English teaching. Her human rights activism and humanitarian aid included working in India with Tibetan refugees, supporting Tibet cause.[1] Her work in the Middle East included volunteering for Palestinian humanitarianism with the International Solidarity Movement and helping African refugees in Israel with the African Refugees Development Center.[2][3]

Her activism and humanitarian aid involved work with the following organizations:[2][3]

  • African Refugees Development Center, for whom she volunteered at a summer camp in Israel.
  • America’s Promise, an organization which facilitates volunteer action for children and youth
  • Amnesty International, for whom she founded a student chapter at Northern Arizona University.
  • Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, a one-on-one youth mentorship organization in the United States.
  • Contact Magazine, a Tibetan publication for whom she served as a journalist and an editor.
  • Danish Refugee Council, for whom she worked to help Syrian refugees in Turkey.
  • Food For Life Vrindavan, a local branch of Food For Life, which provides free food, education, and medical care for those in need in the region, for whom she taught English and kindergarten students.[4][5]
  • Food Not Bombs, during college.[6]
  • International Solidarity Movement, with whom she accompanied Palestinian families and children going to school.
  • Just Peace, a social justice project of United Campus Ministries at Northern Arizona University, with whom she went on a humanitarian aid trip to Guatemala and with whom she advocated against torture and Guantanamo Bay.
  • LHA Charitable Trust in Dharamsala, India, for whom she volunteered as an English teacher.
  • New Day Peace Center in Flagstaff, Arizona, for whom she helped to establish services for veteran students at Northern Arizona University and at Coconino Community College.
  • Northern Arizona University Center for Intercultural Education, which provides services to international students at Northern Arizona University.
  • Plum Village, the French monastery of Thích Nhất Hạnh, for whom she volunteered in the center.
  • Prescott Area Women’s Shelter, where she worked during the nights to help meet the needs of homeless women, children, and families.
  • Save Darfur Coalition, with whom she volunteered for three years, for whom she conducted multiple letter-writing campaigns and led two silent walks.
  • STAND, for whom she served as the President of STAND:NAU, a local chapter at Northern Arizona University, as well as the Southwest Regional Outreach Coordinator of the parent organization.
  • Support to Life, an international aid organization, for whom she worked to help Syrian refugees in Turkey
  • Tibetan Hope Center, an organization that helps Tibetan refugees to gain life skills to live independently in India, for whom she taught English and compiled a monthly newsletter.
  • Youth Count, where she volunteered in Prescott, Arizona participating in multiple environmental and inter-generational projects.

Capture and death

Mueller started working in southern Turkey in December 2012, where she was assisting Syrian refugees. On August 3, 2013, she drove to the northern Syrian city of Aleppo with a coworker/friend who was traveling to the Spanish Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Aleppo to work for a day.[7] She worked with international aid agency Support to Life.[8][9] On her departure from Aleppo to return to Turkey, militants abducted her.[10]

According to anonymous sources of American reporter Catherine Herridge, the location of Mueller and other American hostages was known by the White House in May 2014, but a decision on a rescue mission was not made for seven weeks. By that time, the hostages had been dispersed.[11]

A media account affiliated with ISIS released a statement on February 6, 2015 claiming that a female American hostage held by the group was killed by one of around a dozen Jordanian airstrikes in ar-Raqqah, Syria. The statement came just days after the release of a video showing the burning of Jordanian fighter pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh by the militant group and the subsequent execution of Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi and other prisoners of Jordan. The statement was later translated by the SITE Intelligence Group, identifying the hostage as Mueller.[12]

Mueller had been in ISIS custody for 18 months. A US mission to rescue her and several others in northern Syria in July 2014 failed when ISIS moved the prisoners. The US was unaware of her location since, though her family was told negotiations were underway to swap her for Aafia Siddiqui, according to Arizona House Representative Paul Gosar.[13] ABC News and CBS News reported that sources in the intelligence community believe Mueller may have been “given over” to an ISIS commander in a “forced marriage” and the group did not view her as a bargainable hostage. In a letter to her family, she spoke of being healthy, well-fed and treated with the utmost kindness and respect in a safe place. ISIS members corresponding with the Muellers referred to Kayla as their “guest”.[14][15]

On February 6, 2015, ISIS published a photo of a damaged building, named Mueller and her home town and alleged she had been killed in a Jordanian airstrike in the building where she was left alone with no guards, but no proof of death was provided.[8] The Pentagon agreed the building was one hit in the bombings, but disputed that Mueller, or any civilian, was inside. The site had been bombed by the coalition twice before, and was targeted again because ISIS soldiers sometimes return to bombed sites, thinking the coalition won’t return, according to Pentagon spokesman John Kirby. After this, Mueller’s name was released by American and other media with the family’s consent.[7][not in citation given]

On February 10, 2015, Mueller’s family announced ISIS had confirmed her death to them in an e-mail, with three photographs of her dead body, bruised on the face and wearing a black hijab.[16][17] National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said this message was authenticated by the intelligence community. President Barack Obama offered his condolences to Mueller’s family.[18]

It is reported Mueller was a “personal captive” of Abu Sayyaf.[19]

Reactions

Family

Mueller’s parents reportedly implored ISIS to contact them as they hoped their daughter may still be alive. “We have sent you a private message and ask that you respond to us privately”, Carl and Marsha Mueller said in a statement. They said they had not talked to the media as ISIS warned them not to.[20]

Government

An American official cautioned that without proof of Mueller’s death, the statement by ISIS could be a ploy to cause the Jordanians and the rest of the American-led coalition to refrain from any heavier airstrikes.[7]

Jordan’s Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh called ISIS’s claim “an old and sick trick” on Twitter. “So they behead innocent #US #UK & Japan hostages & BURN a brave #Jordan pilot ALIVE & now a hostage is killed by an airstrike? Sure! Sick!”, he said.[21][22] He further tweeted: “An old and sick trick used by terrorists and despots for decades: claiming that hostages human shields held captive are killed by air raids.”[23] Later upon confirmation of Mueller’s death he tweeted: “Saddened & angered to hear news confirming killing of #US hostage #kaylaMueller. Yet another ugly example of these terrorists’ brutality.”[24]

After many Western news outlets cast doubt on the claim of the hostage death and the extremists’ ability to identify Jordanian and U.S. made F-16s flying at high altitudes, Jordan dismissed the claim of a killed hostage as an ISIS publicity stunt and a lie, as the group is known for its propaganda techniques.[25]

After Mueller’s family confirmed her death, President Obama said “[Mueller] represents what is best about America, and expressed her deep pride in the freedoms that we Americans enjoy, and that so many others strive for around the world.” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement saying “ISIL, and ISIL alone, is the reason Kayla is gone.”[26]

The Pentagon declined to investigate whether Mueller was killed by the coalition airstrike. Policy dictates the US only investigates reports of civilian casualties when they come from a “credible source”, which ISIS is not.[27]

Media

Time magazine named Kayla Mueller as an ideal role model for Millennials, citing her selfless desire to end suffering, her activism, and her humanitarian aid work, praising her desire not to be seen, but to genuinely help people, and lauding her possession of Millennials’ positive good qualities of idealism, optimism, and love of families without troublesome qualities also associated with the Millennial generation.[28]

On February 23, 2015 the Mueller family was interviewed on The Today Show by Savannah Guthrie. Carl Mueller expressed his frustration with the Obama administration over the way it conducted negotiations with their daughter’s captors and their policy of not paying ransom money for hostages. “We understand the policy about not paying ransom, but on the other hand, any parents out there would understand that you would want anything and everything done to bring your child home,” Carl Mueller said. “And we tried, and we asked. But they put policy in front of American citizens’ lives. And it didn’t get it changed.”[29]

R.I.P

Capital Punishment – Where & Why? History & Background

Capital Punishment

5 Surprising Facts About the Death Penalty Worldwide

An execution chamber.

Bullet holes are visible in the wood panel behind the execution chair at Utah State Prison, where convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in June 2010.

1. The United States ranked fifth for the highest number of executions.

The U.S. takes a spot behind China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia for the most executions in the world last year, sitting ahead of Yemen and the Sudan.

This ranking comes as no surprise to Brian Evans, Amnesty International’s acting director on the Death Penalty Abolition Campaign, who said the same countries are in the top eight every year. (See video: “Inside Death Row.”)

But why is the U.S.—which seems like somewhat of an outlier politically, culturally, and geographically—always in the top five?

According to Evans, the U.S. has a strict attitude toward punishment in general. Having a severe attitude toward the death penalty is only natural when you consider that the U.S. leads the world in mass incarceration of prisoners and holds records for solitary confinement and sentences to life in prison.

2. Saudia Arabia saw the execution of one man by “crucifixion.”

Methods of execution vary between regions based on culture and available technology, and they usually include standard tactics, such as hanging, beheading, firing squad, and lethal injection. In Saudi Arabia, however, one accused man was put on display after being beheaded in a practice known as crucifixion, according to the country’s state news agency, SPA.

The reasoning behind executions also vary around the world. In Papua New Guinea, for example, a woman and her two daughters are currently being held captive with charges of sorcery and risk a death sentence. It’s common in the Pacific country for those accused of sorcery, especially women, to face horrific acts of violence that often end in death.

3. China keeps its execution numbers secret.

The Chinese government is notorious for keeping statistics about their criminal executions secret, and in past years, Amnesty International was forced to rank China based on the minimum number of executions that researchers could confirm. Since that number was always drastically lower than the assumed reality, researchers now use reliable media sources and human rights groups—rather than official government sources—to estimate the number of executions in China.

Using this data, the 2012 report estimates that thousands of criminals were killed in China last year alone, while the tally for the rest of the world combined stands at 682.

4. Japan’s executions actually increased in 2012 after a long hiatus.

While the global trend for the death penalty is actually declining around the world, Japan—and other notable countries such as India and Pakistan—resumed executing criminals after a long stint of being execution-free. At least seven death row inmates were killed in Japan last year, ending a 20-month period without executions.

Why the change? “It all depends on which political party is in power,” Evans said. One prime minister will come into power and abolish the practice, then the next will just reinstate it, leaving the lives of criminals in the hands of changing political whims.

5. Just 21 countries in the world carried out the death penalty last year.

In the broad scope of things, only a fraction of the world’s total countries (the total being 195 by National Geographic’s count) actually used execution as a means of punishment last year. That number is down from 28 countries just a decade earlier, suggesting a downward trend in the global practice.

The few countries that do still practice execution are situated in “regional pockets” around the world, Evans noted. Just four countries in the Middle East, for example, are responsible for all the executions in the region. And in the U.S., death penalty laws differ by state, with hotbeds of execution in the U.S. South, Ohio, and Arizona.

In December 2012, 111 countries—or more than half the world’s countries—voted in favor of a United Nations resolution that would declare a global moratorium on executions.

As for the other countries? “They’ll come around when they take a longer look at their death penalties,” Evans said, “but it’ll be a while.”

——————————————————————————————————————

Syrian Adulteress Survives Stoning Punishment, Jurist Spares Her From Death

Stoning to Death        Militants from Hizbul Islam haul Mohamed Ibrahim, 48, from a pit after stoning him to death for illicit sexual intercourse with a woman in the Afgoye district, December 13, 2009. Ibrahim was sentenced to death by a local Islamic court after he was found guilty of infidelity. Reuters

Similar to a Biblical event when Jesus Christ spared an adulteress from stoning, a Syrian woman with a similar crime and sentence miraculously survived the stoning that a male juror spared her from further death.

IJReview reports that the incident happened on Friday in northern Syria which is controlled by the Islamic State (IS). The source of the report is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

According to the observatory, the sentence – an example of the IS brutality – was carried out in Raqqa by a group of gunmen who pelted the woman with heavy stones. They thought she was dead, but the adulteress stood up and started to walk away.

One of the jihadists prevent the woman from leaving and tried to capture her. He attempted to shoot her, but an Islamic jurist stopped him and said, “Her sentence is done, let her go and repent to her God,” quotes the observatory.

The jurist added that it was a miracle from God that she didn’t die.

Adultery and homosexuality are among the crimes that the IS, citing sharia law, punishes by stoning. The observatory said that of the 15 people stoned by the IS since July in Syria, 9 were women. Also punishable by stoning are blasphemy and apostasy.

In one of the stonings held in October 2014, the father of the sentenced woman even helped stone his daughter to death, reports The Clarion Project, which challenges extremism but promotes dialogue.

By stoking fear in the hearts of residents of the caliphate through brutal interpretation of Islamic laws, IS further holds parts of Syria and Iraq on its iron grip.

——————————————————————————————————————

Capital Punishment

CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT OVER THE YEARS – Discovery History Crime (full documentary)

——————————————————————————————————————

Capital punishment, death penalty or execution is punishment by death. The sentence that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latincapitalis, literally “regarding the head” (referring to execution by beheading).[1]

Capital punishment has, in the past, been practiced by most societies, as a punishment for criminals, and political or religious dissidents. Historically, the carrying out of the death sentence was often accompanied by torture, and executions were most often public.[2]

36 countries actively practice capital punishment, 103 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, 6 have abolished it for ordinary crimes only (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 50 have abolished it de facto (have not used it for at least ten years and/or are under moratorium).

Nearly all countries in the world prohibit the execution of individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes; since 2009, only Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan have carried out such executions.[3] Executions of this kind are prohibited under international law.[3]

Capital punishment is a matter of active controversy in various countries and states, and positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region. In the European Union member states, Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment.[4] The Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, also prohibits the use of the death penalty by its members.

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014[5] non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition.[6] Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world’s population live in countries where executions take place, such as China, India, the United States and Indonesia, the four most-populous countries in the world, which continue to apply the death penalty (although in many US states it is rarely employed). Each of these four nations has consistently voted against the General Assembly resolutions.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

History

Anarchist Auguste Vaillant guillotined in France in 1894

Execution of criminals and political opponents has been used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. In most countries that practice capital punishment it is reserved for murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery, incest and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy in Islamic nations (the formal renunciation of the state religion). In many countries that use the death penalty, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny.[16]

The use of formal execution extends to the beginning of recorded history. Most historical records and various primitive tribal practices indicate that the death penalty was a part of their justice system. Communal punishment for wrongdoing generally included compensation by the wrongdoer, corporal punishment, shunning, banishment and execution. Usually, compensation and shunning were enough as a form of justice.[17] The response to crime committed by neighbouring tribes or communities included an aformal apology, compensation or blood feuds.

A blood feud or vendetta occurs when arbitration between families or tribes fails or an arbitration system is non-existent. This form of justice was common before the emergence of an arbitration system based on state or organized religion. It may result from crime, land disputes or a code of honour. “Acts of retaliation underscore the ability of the social collective to defend itself and demonstrate to enemies (as well as potential allies) that injury to property, rights, or the person will not go unpunished.”[18] However, in practice, it is often difficult to distinguish between a war of vendetta and one of conquest.

Severe historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism, necklacing or blowing from a gun.

The Christian Martyrs’ Last Prayer, by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1883). Roman Colosseum.

Ancient history

Elaborations of tribal arbitration of feuds included peace settlements often done in a religious context and compensation system. Compensation was based on the principle of substitution which might include material (for example, cattle, slave) compensation, exchange of brides or grooms, or payment of the blood debt. Settlement rules could allow for animal blood to replace human blood, or transfers of property or blood money or in some case an offer of a person for execution. The person offered for execution did not have to be an original perpetrator of the crime because the system was based on tribes, not individuals. Blood feuds could be regulated at meetings, such as the Norsemen things.[19] Systems deriving from blood feuds may survive alongside more advanced legal systems or be given recognition by courts (for example, trial by combat). One of the more modern refinements of the blood feud is the duel.

Giovanni Battista Bugatti, executioner of the Papal States between 1796 and 1865, carried out 516 executions (Bugatti pictured offering snuff to a condemned prisoner). Vatican City abolished its capital punishment statute in 1969.

In certain parts of the world, nations in the form of ancient republics, monarchies or tribal oligarchies emerged. These nations were often united by common linguistic, religious or family ties. Moreover, expansion of these nations often occurred by conquest of neighbouring tribes or nations. Consequently, various classes of royalty, nobility, various commoners and slave emerged. Accordingly, the systems of tribal arbitration were submerged into a more unified system of justice which formalized the relation between the different “classes” rather than “tribes”. The earliest and most famous example is Code of Hammurabi which set the different punishment and compensation, according to the different class/group of victims and perpetrators. The Torah (Jewish Law), also known as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Christian Old Testament), lays down the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, magic, violation of the Sabbath, blasphemy, and a wide range of sexual crimes, although evidence suggests that actual executions were rare.[20]

A further example comes from Ancient Greece, where the Athenian legal system was first written down by Draco in about 621 BC: the death penalty was applied for a particularly wide range of crimes, though Solon later repealed Draco’s code and published new laws, retaining only Draco’s homicide statutes.[21] The word draconian derives from Draco’s laws. The Romans also used death penalty for a wide range of offenses.[22]

Tang dynasty

Although many are executed in the People’s Republic of China each year in the present day, there was a time in the Tang dynasty when the death penalty was abolished.[23] This was in the year 747, enacted by Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (r. 712–756). When abolishing the death penalty Xuanzong ordered his officials to refer to the nearest regulation by analogy when sentencing those found guilty of crimes for which the prescribed punishment was execution. Thus depending on the severity of the crime a punishment of severe scourging with the thick rod or of exile to the remote Lingnan region might take the place of capital punishment. However, the death penalty was restored only 12 years later in 759 in response to the An Lushan Rebellion.[24] At this time in the Tang dynasty only the emperor had the authority to sentence criminals to execution. Under Xuanzong capital punishment was relatively infrequent, with only 24 executions in the year 730 and 58 executions in the year 736.[23]

The two most common forms of execution in the Tang dynasty were strangulation and decapitation, which were the prescribed methods of execution for 144 and 89 offenses respectively. Strangulation was the prescribed sentence for lodging an accusation against one’s parents or grandparents with a magistrate, scheming to kidnap a person and sell them into slavery and opening a coffin while desecrating a tomb. Decapitation was the method of execution prescribed for more serious crimes such as treason and sedition. Interestingly, and despite the great discomfort involved, most of the Tang Chinese preferred strangulation to decapitation, as a result of the traditional Tang Chinese belief that the body is a gift from the parents and that it is, therefore, disrespectful to one’s ancestors to die without returning one’s body to the grave intact.

Some further forms of capital punishment were practiced in the Tang dynasty, of which the first two that follow at least were extralegal. The first of these was scourging to death with the thick rod which was common throughout the Tang dynasty especially in cases of gross corruption. The second was truncation, in which the convicted person was cut in two at the waist with a fodder knife and then left to bleed to death.[25] A further form of execution called Ling Chi (slow slicing), or death by/of a thousand cuts, was used from the close of the Tang dynasty (around 900) to its abolition in 1905.

When a minister of the fifth grade or above received a death sentence the emperor might grant him a special dispensation allowing him to commit suicide in lieu of execution. Even when this privilege was not granted, the law required that the condemned minister be provided with food and ale by his keepers and transported to the execution ground in a cart rather than having to walk there.

Nearly all executions under the Tang dynasty took place in public as a warning to the population. The heads of the executed were displayed on poles or spears. When local authorities decapitated a convicted criminal, the head was boxed and sent to the capital as proof of identity and that the execution had taken place.

[25]

Middle Ages

The burning of Jakob Rohrbach, a leader of the peasants during the German Peasants’ War.

An Aztec adulterer being stoned to death; Florentine Codex.

Criminal executed by an elephant, Baroda.

In medieval and early modern Europe, before the development of modern prison systems, the death penalty was also used as a generalized form of punishment. During the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed.

During early modern Europe, a massive moral panic regarding witchcraft swept across Europe and later the European colonies in North America. During this period, there were widespread claims that malevolent Satanic witches were operating as an organized threat to Christendom. As a result, tens of thousands of women were prosecuted and executed through the witch trials of the early modern period (between the 15th and 18th centuries).

The death penalty also targeted sexual offenses such as sodomy. In England, the Buggery Act 1533 stipulated hanging as punishment for “buggery“. James Pratt and John Smith were the last two Englishmen to be executed for sodomy in 1835.[27]

Despite the wide use of the death penalty, calls for reform were not unknown. The 12th century Jewish legal scholar, Moses Maimonides, wrote, “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death.” He argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely “according to the judge’s caprice”. Maimonides’ concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of omission.[28]

Islam on the whole accepts capital punishment,[29] and the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad, such as Al-Mu’tadid, were often cruel in their punishments.[30] For hudud crimes such as zina (consensual extramarital or homosexual sex) and apostasy (leaving Islam and converting to another religion), Sharia requires capital punishment in public, while for crimes such as murder and manslaughter, the victim’s family can either seek execution (Qisas) or can choose to spare the life of the killer in exchange for blood money restitution (Diyya).[31][32]

The breaking wheel was used during the Middle Ages and was still in use into the 19th century.

Modern era

Mexican execution by firing squad, 1916

The last several centuries have seen the emergence of modern nation-states. Almost fundamental to the concept of nation state is the idea of citizenship. This caused justice to be increasingly associated with equality and universality, which in Europe saw an emergence of the concept of natural rights. Another important aspect is that emergence of standing police forces and permanent penitential institutions. The argument that deterrence, rather than retribution, is the main justification for punishment is a hallmark of the rational choice theory and can be traced to Cesare Beccaria whose well-known treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764), condemned torture and the death penalty and Jeremy Bentham who twice critiqued the death penalty.[33] Moving executions there inside prisons and away from public view was prompted by official recognition of the phenomenon reported first by Beccaria in Italy and later by Charles Dickens and Karl Marx of increased violent criminality at the times and places of executions.

By 1820 in Britain, there were 160 crimes that were punishable by death, including crimes such as shoplifting, petty theft, stealing cattle, or cutting down trees in public place.[34] The severity of the so-called Bloody Code, however, was often tempered by juries who refused to convict, or judges, in the case of petty theft, who arbitrarily set the value stolen at below the statutory level for a capital crime.[35]

Contemporary era

Polish women being led to a Nazi execution site in the Palmiry forest, near Warsaw.

The execution of Stanislaus Lacroix, 21 March 1902, Hull, Quebec. At top right, onlookers watch from telephone poles.

Old Sparky, the electric chair used at Sing Sing prison

The 20th century was a violent period. Tens of millions were killed in wars between nation-states as well as genocide perpetrated by nation states against political opponents (both perceived and actual), ethnic and religious minorities; the Turkish assault on the Armenians, Hitler’s attempt to exterminate the European Jews, the Khmer Rouge decimation of Cambodia, the massacre of the Tutsis in Rwanda, to cite four of the most notorious examples. A large part of execution was the summary execution of enemy combatants. In Nazi Germany there were three types of capital punishment; hanging, decapitation and death by shooting.[36] Also, modern military organisations employed capital punishment as a means of maintaining military discipline. The Soviets, for example, executed 158,000 soldiers for desertion during World War II.[37] In the past, cowardice, absence without leave, desertion, insubordination, looting, shirking under enemy fire and disobeying orders were often crimes punishable by death (see decimation and running the gauntlet). One method of execution, since firearms came into common use, has almost invariably been firing squad.

Various authoritarian states— for example those with fascist or communist governments—employed the death penalty as a potent means of political oppression. According to Robert Conquest, the leading expert on Stalin’s purges, more than 1 million Soviet citizens were executed during the Great Terror of 1937–38, almost all by a bullet to the back of the head.[38] Mao Zedong publicly stated that “800,000” people had been executed after the Communist Party’s victory in 1949. Partly as a response to such excesses, civil rights organizations have started to place increasing emphasis on the concept of human rights and an abolition of the death penalty.

Among countries around the world, almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada have abolished capital punishment. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment while some countries, such as Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States (the federal government and 31 of the states), Guatemala, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (for example, Japan and India) and Africa (for example, Botswana and Zambia) retain it. South Africa’s Constitutional Court, in judgment of the case of State v Makwanyane and Another, unanimously abolished the death penalty on 6 June 1995.[39][40]

Abolition was often adopted due to political change, as when countries shifted from authoritarianism to democracy, or when it became an entry condition for the European Union. The United States is a notable exception: some states have had bans on capital punishment for decades (the earliest is Michigan, where it was abolished in 1846), while others actively use it today. The death penalty there remains a contentious issue which is hotly debated.

In abolitionist countries, the debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders though few countries have brought it back after abolishing it. However, a spike in serious, violent crimes, such as murders or terrorist attacks, has prompted some countries (such as Sri Lanka and Jamaica) to effectively end the moratorium on the death penalty. In retention countries, the debate is sometimes revived when a miscarriage of justice has occurred though this tends to cause legislative efforts to improve the judicial process rather than to abolish the death penalty.

Modern-day public opinion

Cesare Beccaria, Dei delitti e delle pene

The public opinion on the death penalty varies considerably by country and by the crime in question, despite the evidence against its power as a deterrent.[41] Countries where a majority of people are against execution include New Zealand, where 55 percent of the population oppose its use,[42] Australia where only 23 percent support the death penalty,[43] and Norway where only 25 percent are in favour.[44] Most French, Finns and Italians also oppose the death penalty.[45] A 2010 Gallup poll shows that 64% of Americans support the death penalty for someone convicted of murder, down from 65% in 2006 and 68% in 2001.[46][47]

Use of capital punishment is growing in India in the 2010s[48] due to both a growth in right wing politics and due to anger over several recent brutal cases of rape.[48] While support for the death penalty for murder is still high in China executions have dropped precipitously, with only 3000 executed in 2012 versus 12,000 in 2002.[49] A poll in South Africa found that 76 percent of millennium generation South Africans support re-introduction of the death penalty, which is abolished in South Africa.[50]

Movements towards painless execution

Death Row The Final 24 Hours Documentary & Discovery HD Channel (Official) – documentary latest

————————————-

————————————————————————–

Further information: Cruel and unusual punishment

A gurney in the San Quentin State Prison in the United States on which prisoners are restrained during an execution by lethal injection.

Trends in most of the world have long been to move to less painful, or more humane, executions. France developed the guillotine for this reason in the final years of the 18th century, while Britain banned drawing and quartering in the early 19th century. Hanging by turning the victim off a ladder or by kicking a stool or a bucket, which causes death by suffocation, was replaced by long drop “hanging” where the subject is dropped a longer distance to dislocate the neck and sever the spinal cord. Shah of Persia introduced throat-cutting and blowing from a gun as quick and painless alternatives to more tormentous methods of executions used at that time.[51] In the U.S., the electric chair and the gas chamber were introduced as more humane alternatives to hanging, but have been almost entirely superseded by lethal injection, which in turn has been criticised as being too painful. Nevertheless, some countries still employ slow hanging methods, beheading by sword and stoning.

In early New England, public executions were a very solemn and sorrowful occasion, sometimes attended by large crowds, who also listened to a Gospel message[52] and remarks by local preachers and politicians. The Connecticut Courant records one such public execution on 1 December 1803, saying, “The assembly conducted through the whole in a very orderly and solemn manner, so much so, as to occasion an observing gentleman acquainted with other countries as well as this, to say that such an assembly, so decent and solemn, could not be collected anywhere but in New England.”[53]

Abolition of capital punishment

Peter Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, by Joseph Hickel (de), 1769

Many countries have abolished capital punishment either in law or in practice. Since World War II there has been a trend toward abolishing capital punishment. 103 countries have abolished capital punishment altogether, 6 have done so for all offences except under special circumstances and 50 have abolished it in practice because they have not used it for at least 10 years or are under a moratorium.

The death penalty was banned in China between 747 and 759. In Japan, Emperor Saga abolished the death penalty in 818 under the influence of Shinto and it lasted until 1156.[54]

In England, a public statement of opposition was included in The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, written in 1395. Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, published in 1516, debated the benefits of the death penalty in dialogue form, coming to no firm conclusion. More recent opposition to the death penalty stemmed from the book of the Italian Cesare Beccaria Dei Delitti e Delle Pene (“On Crimes and Punishments“), published in 1764. In this book, Beccaria aimed to demonstrate not only the injustice, but even the futility from the point of view of social welfare, of torture and the death penalty. Influenced by the book, Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg, famous enlightened monarch and future Emperor of Austria, abolished the death penalty in the then-independent Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the first permanent abolition in modern times. On 30 November 1786, after having de facto blocked capital executions (the last was in 1769), Leopold promulgated the reform of the penal code that abolished the death penalty and ordered the destruction of all the instruments for capital execution in his land. In 2000, Tuscany’s regional authorities instituted an annual holiday on 30 November to commemorate the event. The event is commemorated on this day by 300 cities around the world celebrating Cities for Life Day.

The Roman Republic banned capital punishment in 1849. Venezuela followed suit and abolished the death penalty in 1854[55] and San Marino did so in 1865. The last execution in San Marino had taken place in 1468. In Portugal, after legislative proposals in 1852 and 1863, the death penalty was abolished in 1867.

Abolition occurred in Canada in 1976 (except for some military offences, with complete abolition in 1998), in France in 1981, and in Australia in 1973 (although the state of Western Australia retained the penalty until 1984). In 1977, the United Nations General Assembly affirmed in a formal resolution that throughout the world, it is desirable to “progressively restrict the number of offenses for which the death penalty might be imposed, with a view to the desirability of abolishing this punishment”.[56]

In the United Kingdom, it was abolished for murder (leaving only treason, piracy with violence, arson in royal dockyards and a number of wartime military offences as capital crimes) for a five-year experiment in 1965 and permanently in 1969, the last execution having taken place in 1964. It was abolished for all peacetime offences in 1998.[57]

In the United States, Michigan was the first state to ban the death penalty, on 18 May 1846.[58] The death penalty was declared unconstitutional between 1972 and 1976 based on the Furman v. Georgia case, but the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia case once again permitted the death penalty under certain circumstances. Further limitations were placed on the death penalty in Atkins v. Virginia (death penalty unconstitutional for people with an intellectual disability) and Roper v. Simmons (death penalty unconstitutional if defendant was under age 18 at the time the crime was committed). In the United States, 18 states and the District of Columbia ban capital punishment, with Maryland the most recent state to ban the practice.[59]

One of the latest countries to abolish the death penalty for all crimes was Gabon, in February 2010.[60]

Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it “cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment”. Amnesty International considers it to be “the ultimate, irreversible denial of Human Rights”.[61]

Contemporary use

Public execution

Public execution of a woman, known as Zarmeena, by the Taliban at the Ghazi Sports Stadium in Kabul, Afghanistan (November 16, 1999)[62]

A public execution is a form of capital punishment in which “members of the general public may voluntarily attend”. The standard definition normally excludes the presence of a limited number of “passive citizens” that “witness the event to assure executive accountability”.[63] While today the great majority of the world considers public executions to be uncivilized and distasteful and most countries have outlawed the practice, throughout much of history executions were performed publicly as a means for the state to demonstrate “its power before those who fell under its jurisdiction be they criminals, enemies, or political opponents”. Additionally, it afforded the public a chance to witness “what was considered a great spectacle”.[64]

According to Amnesty International, in 2012 “public executions were known to have been carried out in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Somalia“.[65] Public executions have also taken place in Hamas-controlled Gaza.[66] Mass public executions in accordance with an arguably radical form of Sharia law, occur occasionally within the vast swathes of territory occupied by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[67]

Global distribution

Legend

  Abolished for all crimes – 103 (53%)
  Abolished for all crimes except under exceptional/special circumstances (such as crimes committed in wartime) – 6 (3%)
  Not used in practice (under a moratorium or have not used capital punishment in at least 10 years) – 50 (26%)
  Retainers of the death penalty in law and practice – 36 (18%)

*Note – Accurate as of March 2015 when Suriname abolished capital punishment.

A map showing the use of the death penalty in the United States by individual states. Note that the death penalty is used throughout the United States for certain federal crimes.

  State does not use the death penalty.
  State uses the death penalty.

Many countries have abolished capital punishment either in law or in practice. Since World War II there has been a trend toward abolishing the death penalty. 36 retained the death penalty in active use, 103 countries had abolished capital punishment altogether, 6 had done so for all offences except under special circumstances and 50 have abolished it in practice because they had not used it for at least 10 years or were under a moratorium (see Use of capital punishment by country for details). According to Amnesty International, 22 countries were known to have had executions carried out in 2013.[68] There are countries which do not publish information on the use of capital punishment, most significantly China and North Korea.[69] At least 23,392 people worldwide were under sentence of death at the end of 2013.[68]

Rank Country Number executed in 2013[70]
1 China People’s Republic of China 7003240000000000000♠2,400 (estimate, official number not released)[71]
2 North Korea North Korea 5000000000000000000♠0+(official number not released)
3 Iran Iran 7002369000000000000♠369+
4 Iraq Iraq 7002169000000000000♠169+
5 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 7001790000000000000♠79+
6 United States United States 7001390000000000000♠39
7 Somalia Somalia 7001340000000000000♠34+
8 Sudan Sudan 7001210000000000000♠21+
9 Yemen Yemen 7001130000000000000♠13+
10 Japan Japan 7000800000000000000♠8
11 Vietnam Vietnam 7000700000000000000♠7+
12 Taiwan Republic of China (Taiwan) 7000600000000000000♠6
13 Indonesia Indonesia 7000500000000000000♠5
14 Kuwait Kuwait 7000500000000000000♠5
15 South Sudan South Sudan 7000400000000000000♠4+
16 Nigeria Nigeria 7000400000000000000♠4
17 State of Palestine Palestine 7000300000000000000♠3
18 Malaysia Malaysia 7000200000000000000♠2+
19 Afghanistan Afghanistan 7000200000000000000♠2
20 Bangladesh Bangladesh 7000200000000000000♠2
21 Botswana Botswana 7000100000000000000♠1
22 India India 7000100000000000000♠1

The use of the death penalty is becoming increasingly restrained in some retentionist countries including Taiwan and Singapore.[72] Indonesia carried out no executions between November 2008 and March 2013.[73] Japan and 31 states in the United States are the only developed countries that are classified by Amnesty International as ‘retentionist’ (South Korea is classified as ‘abolitionist in practice’).[74] Nearly all retentionist countries are situated in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.[74] The only retentionist country in Europe is Belarus. The death penalty was overwhelmingly practised in poor and authoritarian states, which often employed the death penalty as a tool of political oppression. During the 1980s, the democratisation of Latin America swelled the ranks of abolitionist countries.

This was soon followed by the fall of Communism in Europe. Many of the countries which restored democracy aspired to enter the EU. The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practise the death penalty (see Capital punishment in Europe). Public support for the death penalty in the EU varies.[75] The last execution on the present day territory of the Council of Europe has taken place in 1997 in Ukraine.[76][77] On the other hand, rapid industrialisation in Asia has been increasing the number of developed retention countries. In these countries, the death penalty enjoys strong public support, and the matter receives little attention from the government or the media; in China there is a small but growing movement to abolish the death penalty altogether.[78] This trend has been followed by some African and Middle Eastern countries where support for the death penalty is high.

Some countries have resumed practicing the death penalty after having suspended executions for long periods. The United States suspended executions in 1972 but resumed them in 1976, then again on 25 September 2007 to 16 April 2008; there was no execution in India between 1995 and 2004; and Sri Lanka declared an end to its moratorium on the death penalty on 20 November 2004,[79] although it has not yet performed any executions. The Philippines re-introduced the death penalty in 1993 after abolishing it in 1987, but abolished it again in 2006.

Japan and the US are the only developed countries to have carried out executions. The US is the only Western country in the Americas to have carried out executions.[70] 31 states in the United States carry out capital punishment. In 2012, there were 43 executions in the US, which have taken place in nine states: Arizona (6), Delaware (1), Florida (3), Idaho (1), Mississippi (6), Ohio (3), Oklahoma (6), South Dakota (2), Texas (15).[70] Of the states where the death penalty is permitted, California has the largest number of inmates on death row. Texas has performed the most executions (since the US Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976, 40% of all US executions have taken place in Texas),[80] and Oklahoma has had (through mid-2011) the highest per capita execution rate.[81]

The most recent country to abolish the death penalty was Suriname in March 2015 .[82]

Juvenile offenders

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni being prepared for execution by hanging.

The death penalty for juvenile offenders (criminals aged under 18 years at the time of their crime) has become increasingly rare. Considering the Age of Majority is still not 18 in some countries, since 1990 nine countries have executed offenders who were juveniles at the time of their crimes: The People’s Republic of China (PRC), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United States (see List of juvenile offenders executed in the United States), and Yemen.[83] The PRC, Pakistan, the United States, Yemen and Iran have since raised the minimum age to 18.[84][85] Amnesty International has recorded 61 verified executions since then, in several countries, of both juveniles and adults who had been convicted of committing their offenses as juveniles.[86] The PRC does not allow for the execution of those under 18, but child executions have reportedly taken place.[87]

Starting in 1642 within British America, an estimated 365[88] juvenile offenders were executed by the states and federal government of the United States.[89] The United States Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for offenders under the age of 16 in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), and for all juveniles in Roper v. Simmons (2005). In addition, in 2002, the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the execution of individuals with an intellectual disability, in Atkins v. Virginia.[90]

Between 2005 and May 2008, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen were reported to have executed child offenders, the most being from Iran.[91]

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids capital punishment for juveniles under article 37(a), has been signed by all countries and ratified, except for Somalia and the United States (notwithstanding the latter’s Supreme Court decisions abolishing the practice).[92] The UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights maintains that the death penalty for juveniles has become contrary to a jus cogens of customary international law. A majority of countries are also party to the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (whose Article 6.5 also states that “Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age…”).

In Japan, the minimum age for the death penalty is 18 as mandated by the internationals standards. But under Japanese law, anyone under 20 is considered a juvenile. There are three men currently on death row for crimes they committed at age 18 or 19.

Iran

Iran, despite its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was the world’s largest executioner of juvenile offenders, for which it has received international condemnation; the country’s record is the focus of the Stop Child Executions Campaign. But on 10 February 2012, Iran’s parliament changed the controversial law of executing juveniles. In the new law, the age of 18 (solar year) would be for both genders considered and juvenile offenders will be sentenced on a separate law than of adults.[84][85] Based on the Islamic law which now seems to have been revised, girls at the age of 9 and boys at 15 of lunar year (11 days shorter than a solar year) were fully responsible for their crimes.[84]

Iran accounted for two-thirds of the global total of such executions, and currently[dated info] has roughly 140 people on death row for crimes committed as juveniles (up from 71 in 2007).[93][94] The past executions of Mahmoud Asgari, Ayaz Marhoni and Makwan Moloudzadeh became international symbols of Iran’s child capital punishment and the judicial system that hands down such sentences.[95][96]

Saudi Arabia

Further information: Execution of Rizana Nafeek

Saudi Arabia also executes criminals who were minors at the time of the offense.[97][98] In 2013, Saudi Arabia was the center of an international controversy after it executed Rizana Nafeek, a Sri Lankan domestic worker, who was believed to have been 17 years old at the time of the crime.[99]

Somalia

There is evidence that child executions are taking place in the parts of Somalia controlled by the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). In October 2008, a girl, Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow was buried up to her neck at a football stadium, then stoned to death in front of more than 1,000 people. The stoning occurred after she had allegedly pleaded guilty to adultery in a shariah court in Kismayo, a city controlled by the ICU. According to a local leader associated with the ICU, she had stated that she wanted shariah law to apply.[100] However, other sources state that the victim had been crying, that she begged for mercy and had to be forced into the hole before being buried up to her neck in the ground.[101] Amnesty International later learned that the girl was in fact 13 years old and had been arrested by the al-Shabab militia after she had reported being gang-raped by three men.[102]

Somalia’s established Transitional Federal Government announced in November 2009 (reiterated in 2013)[103] that it plans to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This move was lauded by UNICEF as a welcome attempt to secure children’s rights in the country.[104]

Methods

The following methods of execution permitted for use in 2010:[105][106][107][108][109]

Capital crime

Murder

One crime which capital punishment is used for is murder. Supporters of the death penalty argued that death penalty is morally justified when applied in murder especially with aggravating elements such as for multiple murder, child murder, serial killing, torture murder, mass murder, terrorism, massacre or genocide. It is said that capital punishment for murder is and should be “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth“.

Drug trafficking

A sign at the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport warns arriving travelers that drug trafficking is a capital crime in the Republic of China (photo taken in 2005)

Some countries that retain the death penalty for murder and other violent crimes do not execute offenders for drug-related crimes. Countries that have statutory provisions for the death penalty for drug-related offences as of 2012[update] include:

Notes
* The capital punishment was not used in the last 10 years (or has a moratorium in effect)

Other offences

Other crimes that are punishable by death include terrorism, adultery (Saudi Arabia, Iran), sodomy, religious offences such as apostasy (Saudi Arabia, Iran) and blasphemy (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), sorcery (Saudi Arabia), economic crimes (China), rape (Saudi Arabia), forms of aggravated robbery (Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Zambia), treason, acts against national security and other crimes against the state (Iran, Gambia, Kuwait, Lebanon, North Korea, Palestinian Authority, Somalia).[70]

Controversy and debate

Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane[113] and criticize it for its irreversibility[114] and assert that it lacks a deterrent effect,[115] as have several studies[116] and debunking studies that claim to show a deterrent effect.[117] There are many organizations worldwide, such as Amnesty International, and country-specific, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that have abolition of the death penalty as a fundamental purpose.[118][119]

Advocates of the death penalty argue that it deters crime,[120][121] is a good tool for police and prosecutors (in plea bargaining for example),[122] makes sure that convicted criminals do not offend again and is a just penalty for atrocious crimes such as child murders, serial killers or torture murderers.[123][124] Opponents of capital punishment argue that not all people affected by murder desire a death penalty, that execution discriminates against minorities and the poor, and that it encourages a “culture of violence” and that it violates human rights.[125]

Retribution

Ling Chi – execution by slow slicing – was reserved for crimes viewed as especially severe, such as killing one’s parents.

Supporters of the death penalty argued that death penalty is morally justified when applied in murder especially with aggravating elements such as for multiple homicide, child murderers, cop killers, torture murder and mass killing such as terrorism, massacre, or genocide. Some even argue that not applying death penalty in latter cases is patently unjust. This argument is strongly defended by New York Law School‘s Professor Robert Blecker,[126] who says that the punishment must be painful in proportion to the crime. 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant sums it up as following;

But whoever has committed murder, must die. There is, in this case, no juridical substitute or surrogate, that can be given or taken for the satisfaction of justice. There is no likeness or proportion between life, however painful, and death; and therefore there is no equality between the crime of murder and the retaliation of it but what is judicially accomplished by the execution of the criminal.[127]

Abolitionists argue that retribution is simply revenge and cannot be condoned. Others while accepting retribution as an element of criminal justice nonetheless argue that life without parole is a sufficient substitute. It is also argued that the punishing of a killing with another killing is a relatively unique punishment for a violent act, because in general violent crimes are not punished by subjecting the perpetrator to a similar act (e.g. rapists are not punished by being sexually assaulted).[128]

Human rights

Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it “cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment“. Amnesty International considers it to be “the ultimate irreversible denial of Human Rights”.[61] Albert Camus wrote in a 1956 book called Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death:

An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. […] For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.[129]

In the classic doctrine of natural rights as expounded by for instance Locke and Blackstone, on the other hand, it is an important idea that the right to life can be forfeited.[130] As John Stuart Mill explained in a speech against an amendment to abolish capital punishment for murder in 1868;

And we may imagine somebody asking how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting it? But to this I should answer – all of us would answer – that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice. Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.[131]

Wrongful execution

Capital punishment was abolished in the United Kingdom in part because of the case of Timothy Evans, an innocent man who was hanged in 1950.

Main article: Wrongful execution

It is frequently argued that capital punishment leads to miscarriage of justice through the wrongful execution of innocent persons.[132] Many people have been proclaimed innocent victims of the death penalty.[133][134][135]

Some have claimed that as many as 39 executions have been carried out in the face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt in the US from 1992 through 2004. Newly available DNA evidence prevented the pending execution of more than 15 death row inmates during the same period in the US,[136] but DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases.[137] However, since the death penalty reinstatement in the United States during the 1970s, no inmate executed has been granted posthumous pardon.[138]

Improper procedure may also result in unfair executions. For example, Amnesty International argues that in Singapore “the Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”.[139] This refers to a situation when someone is being caught with drugs. In this situation, in almost any jurisdiction, the prosecution has a prima facie case.

Racial, ethnic and social class bias

Opponents of the death penalty argue that this punishment is being used more often against perpetrators from racial and ethnic minorities and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, than against those criminals who come from a privileged background; and that the background of the victim also influences the outcome.[140][141][142] Researchers have shown that white Americans are more likely to support the death penalty when told that it is mostly applied to African Americans.[143]

International views

The United Nations introduced a resolution during the General Assembly’s 62nd sessions in 2007 calling for a universal ban.[144][145] The approval of a draft resolution by the Assembly’s third committee, which deals with human rights issues, voted 99 to 52, with 33 abstentions, in favour of the resolution on 15 November 2007 and was put to a vote in the Assembly on 18 December.[146][147][148]

Again in 2008, a large majority of states from all regions adopted a second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee) on 20 November. 105 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution, 48 voted against and 31 abstained.

A range of amendments proposed by a small minority of pro-death penalty countries were overwhelmingly defeated. It had in 2007 passed a non-binding resolution (by 104 to 54, with 29 abstentions) by asking its member states for “a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.[149]

Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirms the prohibition on capital punishment in the EU

A number of regional conventions prohibit the death penalty, most notably, the Sixth Protocol (abolition in time of peace) and the 13th Protocol (abolition in all circumstances) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The same is also stated under the Second Protocol in the American Convention on Human Rights, which, however has not been ratified by all countries in the Americas, most notably Canada and the United States. Most relevant operative international treaties do not require its prohibition for cases of serious crime, most notably, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This instead has, in common with several other treaties, an optional protocol prohibiting capital punishment and promoting its wider abolition.[150]

Several international organizations have made the abolition of the death penalty (during time of peace) a requirement of membership, most notably the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The EU and the Council of Europe are willing to accept a moratorium as an interim measure. Thus, while Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, and the death penalty remains codified in its law, it has not made use of it since becoming a member of the Council – Russia has not executed anyone since 1996. With the exception of Russia (abolitionist in practice), Kazakhstan (abolitionist for ordinary crimes only), and Belarus (retentionist), all European countries are classified as abolitionist.[74]

Latvia abolished de jure the death penalty for war crimes in 2012, becoming the last EU member to do so.[151]

The Protocol no.13 calls for the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (including for war crimes). The majority of European countries have signed and ratified it. Some European countries have not done this, but all of them except Belarus and Kazakhstan have now abolished the death penalty in all circumstances (de jure, and Russia de facto). Poland is the most recent country to ratify the protocol, on 28 August 2013.[152]

A map showing country votes on the 2008 UN death penalty moratorium.

  In favour (106)
  Against (46)
  Abstained (34)

The Protocol no.6 which prohibits the death penalty during peacetime has been ratified by all members of the European Council, except Russia (which has signed, but not ratified).

There are also other international abolitionist instruments, such as the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has 81 parties;[153] and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (for the Americas; ratified by 13 states).[154]

Turkey has recently, as a move towards EU membership, undergone a reform of its legal system. Previously there was a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in Turkey as the last execution took place in 1984. The death penalty was removed from peacetime law in August 2002, and in May 2004 Turkey amended its constitution in order to remove capital punishment in all circumstances. It ratified Protocol no. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights in February 2006. As a result, Europe is a continent free of the death penalty in practice, all states but Russia, which has entered a moratorium, having ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, with the sole exception of Belarus, which is not a member of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been lobbying for Council of Europe observer states who practise the death penalty, the U.S. and Japan, to abolish it or lose their observer status. In addition to banning capital punishment for EU member states, the EU has also banned detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.[155]

Sub-Saharan African countries that have recently abolished the death penalty include Burundi, which abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 2009,[156] and Gabon which did the same in 2010.[157] On 5 July 2012, Benin became part of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the use of the death penalty.[158]

The newly created South Sudan is among the 111 UN member states that supported the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly that called for the removal of the death penalty, therefore affirming its opposition to the practice. South Sudan, however, has not yet abolished the death penalty and stated that it must first amend its Constitution, and until that happens it will continue to use the death penalty.[159]

Among non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are noted for their opposition to capital punishment. A number of such NGOs, as well as trade unions, local councils and bar associations formed a World Coalition Against the Death Penalty in 2002.

Religious views

The world’s major religions have mixed opinions on the death penalty, depending on the sect, the individual believer, and the time period.

Buddhism

There is disagreement among Buddhists as to whether or not Buddhism forbids the death penalty. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states:

Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore you do not kill or cause to be killed.[160]

Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states, “Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill.” These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, as is often the case with the interpretation of scripture, there is dispute on this matter. Historically, most states where the official religion is Buddhism have imposed capital punishment for some offenses. One notable exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions continued to be conducted as a form of retaliation. Japan still imposes the death penalty, although some recent justice ministers have refused to sign death warrants, citing their Buddhist beliefs as their reason.[161] Other Buddhist-majority states vary in their policy. For example, Bhutan has abolished the death penalty, but Thailand still retains it, although Buddhism is the official religion in both. Mongolia abolished the death penalty in 2012.

Many stories in Buddhist scripture stress the superior power of the Buddha’s teaching to rehabilitate murderers and other criminals. The most well-known example is Angulimala in the Theravadan Pali canon who had killed 999 people and then attempted to kill his own mother and the Buddha, but under the influence of the Buddha he repented and entered the monkhood. The Buddha succeeded when the King and all his soldiers failed to eliminate the murderer by force.[162]

A Mongolian woman condemned to die of starvation, c. 1913

Without one official teaching on the death penalty, Thai monks are typically divided on the issue with some favoring abolition of the death penalty while others see it as bad karma stemming from bad actions in the past. [163]

In the edicts of the great Buddhist king Ashoka (ca. 304–232 BC) inscribed on great pillars around his kingdom, the King showed reverence for all life by giving up the slaughtering of animals and many of his subjects followed his example. King Ashoka also extended the period before execution of those condemned to death so they could make a final appeal for their lives.

A close reading of texts in the Pali canon reveals different attitudes towards violence and capital punishment. The Pali scholar Steven Collins finds Dhamma in the Pali canon divided into two categories according to the attitude taken towards violence. In Mode 1 Dhamma the use of violence is “context-dependent and negotiable”. A King should not pass judgement in haste or anger but the punishment should fit the crime, with warfare and capital punishment acceptable in certain situations. In Mode 2 Dhamma the use of violence is “context-independent and non-negotiable” and the only advice to kings is to abdicate, renounce the world and leave everything to the law of karma. Buddhism is incompatible with any form of violence especially warfare and capital punishment. [164]

In the world that humans inhabit there is a continual tension between these two modes of Dhamma. This tension is best exhibited in the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta (Digha Nikaya 26 of the Sutta Pitaka of the Pāli Canon), the story of humanity’s decline from a golden age in the past. A critical turning point comes when the King decides not to give money to a man who has committed theft but instead to cut off his head and also to carry out this punishment in a particularly cruel and humiliating manner, parading him in public to the sound of drums as he is taken to the execution ground outside the city. In the wake of this decision by the king, thieves take to imitating the King’s actions and murder the people from whom they steal to avoid detection. Thieves turn to highway robbery and attacking small villages and towns far away from the royal capital where they won’t be detected. A downwards spiral towards social disorder and chaos has begun. [165]

Christianity

Execution of Mariana de Carabajal (converted Jew), accused of a relapse into Judaism, Mexico City, 1601

Views on the death penalty in Christianity run a spectrum of opinions, from complete condemnation of the punishment, seeing it as a form of revenge and as contrary to Christ’s message of forgiveness, to enthusiastic support based primarily on Old Testament law.

Among the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, the message to his followers that one should “Turn the other cheek” and his example in the story Pericope Adulterae, in which Jesus intervenes in the stoning of an adulteress, are generally accepted as his condemnation of physical retaliation (though most scholars[166][167] agree that the latter passage was “certainly not part of the original text of St John’s Gospel”[168]) More militant Christians consider Romans 13:3–4 to support the death penalty. Many Christians have believed that Jesus’ doctrine of peace speaks only to personal ethics and is distinct from civil government’s duty to punish crime.

In the Old Testament, Leviticus Leviticus 20:2–27 provides a list of transgressions in which execution is recommended. Christian positions on these passages vary.[169] The sixth commandment (fifth in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches) is translated as “Thou shalt not kill” by some denominations and as “Thou shalt not murder” by others. As some denominations do not have a hard-line stance on the subject, Christians of such denominations are free to make a personal decision.[170]

Eastern Orthodox Christianity does not officially condemn or endorse capital punishment. It states that it is not a totally objectionable thing, but also that its abolition can be driven by genuine Christian values, especially stressing the need for mercy.[171]

The Rosicrucian Fellowship and many other Christian esoteric schools condemn capital punishment in all circumstances.[172][173]

Roman Catholic Church

St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, accepted the death penalty as a deterrent and prevention method but not as a means of vengeance. (See Aquinas on the death penalty.) The Roman Catechism stated this teaching thus:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.[174]

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II suggested that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, opining that punishment “ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”[175] The most recent edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church restates this view.[176] That the assessment of the contemporary situation advanced by John Paul II is not binding on the faithful was confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote in 2004 that,

if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[177]

The 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia suggested that Catholics must hold that “the infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians”, but that the matter of “the advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.”[178]

Protestants

Southern Baptists support the fair and equitable use of capital punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts, so long as it does not constitute as an act of personal revenge or discrimination.[179]

The Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops condemned the death penalty in 1988:

This Conference: … 3. Urges the Church to speak out against: … (b) all governments who practise capital punishment, and encourages them to find alternative ways of sentencing offenders so that the divine dignity of every human being is respected and yet justice is pursued;….[180]

The United Methodist Church, along with other Methodist churches, also condemns capital punishment, saying that it cannot accept retribution or social vengeance as a reason for taking human life.[181] The Church also holds that the death penalty falls unfairly and unequally upon marginalised persons including the poor, the uneducated, ethnic and religious minorities, and persons with mental and emotional illnesses.[182] The General Conference of the United Methodist Church calls for its bishops to uphold opposition to capital punishment and for governments to enact an immediate moratorium on carrying out the death penalty sentence.

In a 1991 social policy statement, the ELCA officially took a stand to oppose the death penalty. It states that revenge is a primary motivation for capital punishment policy and that true healing can only take place through repentance and forgiveness.[183]

Community of Christ, the former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), is opposed to capital punishment. The first stand against capital punishment was taken by the church’s Presiding High Council in 1995. This was followed by a resolution of the World Conference in 2000. This resolution, WC 1273, states:

[W]e stand in opposition to the use of the death penalty; and … as a peace church we seek ways to achieve healing and restorative justice. Church members are encouraged to work for the abolition of the death penalty in those states and nations that still practise this form of punishment.[184]

Several key leaders early in the Protestant Reformation, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, followed the traditional reasoning in favour of capital punishment, and the Lutheran Church‘s Augsburg Confession explicitly defended it. Some Protestant groups have cited Genesis 9:5–6, Romans 13:3–4, and Leviticus 20:1–27 as the basis for permitting the death penalty.[185][186]

Mennonites, Church of the Brethren and Friends have opposed the death penalty since their founding, and continue to be strongly opposed to it today. These groups, along with other Christians opposed to capital punishment, have cited Christ‘s Sermon on the Mount (transcribed in Matthew Chapter 5–7) and Sermon on the Plain (transcribed in Luke 6:17–49). In both sermons, Christ tells his followers to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies, which these groups believe mandates nonviolence, including opposition to the death penalty.

The Church of Scotland considers that capital punishment is unacceptable and does not provide an answer for even the most serious crimes.[187]

Mormonism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints neither supports nor opposes capital punishment, although the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, supported it.[188] However, today the church officially states that it is a “matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law.”[189]

Hinduism

A basis can be found in Hindu teachings both for permitting and forbidding the death penalty. Hinduism preaches ahimsa (or ahinsa, non-violence), but also teaches that the soul cannot be killed and death is limited only to the physical body. The soul is reborn into another body upon death (until Moksha), akin to a human changing clothes. The religious, civil and criminal law of Hindus is encoded in the Dharmaśāstras and the Arthasastra. The Dharmasastras describe many crimes and their punishments and call for the death penalty in several instances, including murder and righteous warfare.[190]

Islam

“Execution of a Moroccan Jewess (Sol Hachuel)” a painting by Alfred Dehodencq

Sharia, the religious law in Islam, requires capital punishment for certain crimes.[31][191] For example, the Quran states,

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.— Qur’an, Sura 5, ayat 33[192]

Similarly, capital punishment by stoning for zina (extramarital sex) is prescribed in Hadiths, the books most trusted in Islam after Quran, particularly in Kitab Al-Hudud.[193][194]

‘Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah’s Messenger as saying: Receive teaching from me, receive teaching from me. Allah has ordained a way for those women. When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female, they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.— Sahih Muslim, 17:4191

Allah’s Messenger awarded the punishment of stoning to death to the married adulterer and adulteress and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people may forget it and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession.— Sahih Muslim, 17:4194

In the four primary schools of Sunni fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and the two primary schools of Shi’a fiqh, certain types of crimes mandate capital punishment. Certain hudud crimes, for example, are considered crimes against Allah and require capital punishment in public.[31] These include apostasy (leaving Islam to become an atheist or convert to another religion such as Christianity),[195][196] fasad (mischief in the land, or moral corruption against Allah, social disturbance and creating disorder within the Muslim state)[197][198] and zina (consensual heterosexual or homosexual relations not allowed by Islam).[193]

The right to be convinced and to convert from Islam to another religion is held by only a minority of Muslim scholars. This view of religious freedom is, however, not shared by the vast majority of Muslim scholars both past as well as present. Most classical and modern Muslim jurists regard apostasy (riddah), defined by them as an act of rejection of faith committed by a Muslim whose Islam had been affirmed without coercion, as a crime deserving the death penalty.— Abdul Rashied Omar[195]

Qisas is another category of sentencing where sharia permits capital punishment, for intentional or unintentional murder.[199] In the case of death, sharia gives the murder victim’s nearest relative or Wali (ولي) a right to, if the court approves, take the life of the killer.[200][201]

O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.— Quran 2:178

Further, in case of Qisas-related capital punishment, sharia offers the victim’s guardian the option of Diyya (monetary compensation).[22] In several Islamic countries such as Sunni Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as well as Shia Iran, both hudud and qisas type capital punishment is part of the legal system and in use. In others, there is variation in the use of capital punishment.

Capital punishment for apostasy in Islam and stoning to death in Islam are controversial topics. Similarly, the discriminatory option between capital punishment and monetary compensation for crimes such as murder is controversial, where jurists have asked if poor offenders face trial and capital punishment while wealthy offenders avoid even a trial by paying off Qisas compensation.[202] Another historic and continuing controversy is the discrimination between the death of a Muslim and a non-Muslim dhimmi, as well as discrimination between the death of a man and a woman, used in sharia-ruled states. Woman’s life is considered half the worth of a man, while Christians and Jews are worth half of a Muslim, and the life of Buddhist, Hindu, folk religion or atheist is considered 1/16th the worth of a Muslim.[203] This has led certain Islamic nations to discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims while imposing capital punishment and compensation, for both intentional murder and manslaughter, depending on whether the victim is Muslim or non-Muslim, as well as based on the religion of the individual who has committed the crime.[204]

Lethal stoning and beheading in public under sharia is controversial for being a cruel form of capital punishment.[205][206] These forms of execution remain part of the religious law enforced in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Pakistan and Mauritania.[1][207][208]

Judaism

The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent. In practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. A capital case could not be tried by a normal Beit Din of three judges, it can only be adjudicated by a Sanhedrin of a minimum of 23 judges.[209] Forty years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in approximately the year 70 CE,[210] i.e. in approximately 30 CE, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment,[211] making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible people.

The 12th-century Jewish legal scholar, Maimonides said:

“It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”[212]

Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely “according to the judge’s caprice”. Maimonides was concerned about the need for the law to guard itself in public perceptions, to preserve its majesty and retain the people’s respect.[213]

The state of Israel retains the death penalty only for Nazis convicted of crimes against humanity.[214] The only execution in Israeli history occurred in 1961, when Adolf Eichmann, one of the principal organizers of the Holocaust, was put to death after his trial in Jerusalem.

See China’s Death Vans

Please consider making a small or large donation as I am very poor and every donation is most welcome and goes towards the cost of running this blog.

Make a small donation

paypal donation button

Thank you!

Nanking Massacre – Japanese War Crimes

Nanking Massacre

 Japanese War Crimes

Flag of Japan.svg

Rape of Nanking

The Nanking Massacre

The Nanking Massacre or Nanjing Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking or Rape of Nanjing, was an episode during the Second Sino-Japanese War of mass murder and mass rape by Japanese troops against the residents of Nanjing (then spelled Nanking), then capital of the Republic of China.

The massacre occurred over six weeks starting December 13, 1937, the day that the Japanese captured Nanjing. During this period, soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army murdered an estimated 40,000 to over 300,000 Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants, and perpetrated widespread rape and looting.

Several key perpetrators were tried and found guilty at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, and were executed. A key perpetrator, Prince Asaka of the Imperial Family, escaped prosecution by having earlier been granted immunity by the Allies.

Extremely rare evidence of Nanjing Massacre filmed by US pastor in 1937

Since most Japanese military records on the killings were kept secret or destroyed shortly after the surrender of Japan in 1945, historians have not been able to accurately estimate the death toll of the massacre. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated in 1948 that over 200,000 Chinese were killed in the incident.

China’s official estimate is more than 300,000 dead based on the evaluation of the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal in 1947. The death toll has been actively contested among scholars since the 1980s.

The event remains a contentious political issue, as aspects of it have been disputed by historical negationists and Japanese nationalists who assert that the massacre has been either exaggerated or fabricated for propaganda purposes.

The controversy surrounding the massacre remains a stumbling block in Sino-Japanese relations and in Japanese relations with other Asia-Pacific nations such as South Korea and the Philippines.

 

Sword Killing Contest!!! First To 100 Wins – Death By Cold Steel Report

Military situation

In August 1937, the Japanese army invaded Shanghai where they met strong resistance and suffered heavy casualties. The battle was bloody as both sides faced attrition in urban hand-to-hand combat. By mid-November the Japanese had captured Shanghai with the help of naval bombardment. The General Staff Headquarters in Tokyo initially decided not to expand the war due to heavy casualties and low troop morale. Nevertheless, on December 1, headquarters ordered the Central China Area Army and the 10th Army to capture Nanjing, then-capital of the Republic of China.

Relocation of the capital

Chiang Kai-shek(蔣中正).jpg

After losing the Battle of Shanghai, Chiang Kai-shek knew that the fall of Nanjing was a matter of time. He and his staff realized that they could not risk the annihilation of their elite troops in a symbolic but hopeless defense of the capital. To preserve the army for future battles, most of it was withdrawn. Chiang’s strategy was to follow the suggestion of his German advisers to draw the Japanese army deep into China and use China’s vast territory as a defensive strength. Chiang planned to fight a protracted war of attrition to wear down the Japanese in the hinterland of China.

Leaving General Tang Shengzhi in charge of the city for the Battle of Nanking, Chiang and many of his advisors flew to Wuhan, where they stayed until it was attacked in 1938.

Strategy for the defense of Nanking

In a press release to foreign reporters, Tang Shengzhi announced the city would not surrender and would fight to the death. Tang gathered about 100,000 soldiers, largely untrained, including Chinese troops who had participated in the Battle of Shanghai. To prevent civilians from fleeing the city, he ordered troops to guard the port, as instructed by Chiang Kai-shek. The defense force blocked roads, destroyed boats, and burnt nearby villages, preventing widespread evacuation.

The Chinese government left for relocation on December 1, and the president left on December 7, leaving the fate of Nanking to an International Committee led by John Rabe.

The defense plan fell apart quickly. Those defending the city encountered Chinese troops fleeing from previous defeats such as the Battle of Shanghai, running from the advancing Japanese army. This did nothing to help the morale of the defenders, many of whom were killed during the defense of the city and subsequent Japanese occupation.

Approach of the Imperial Japanese Army

Japanese war crimes on the march to Nanking

An article on the “Contest to kill 100 people using a sword” published in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun. The headline reads, “‘Incredible Record’ (in the Contest to Cut Down 100 People) —Mukai 106 – 105 Noda—Both 2nd Lieutenants Go Into Extra Innings”.

 

Sword used in the “contest” on display at the Republic of China Armed Forces Museum in Taipei, Taiwan

Although the massacre is generally described as having occurred over a six-week period after the fall of Nanjing, the crimes committed by the Japanese army were not limited to that period. Many atrocities were reported to have been committed as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanjing.

According to one Japanese journalist embedded with Imperial forces at the time,

“The reason that the [10th Army] is advancing to Nanking quite rapidly is due to the tacit consent among the officers and men that they could loot and rape as they wish.”

Novelist Tatsuzō Ishikawa vividly described how the 16th Division of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force committed atrocities on the march between Shanghai and Nanjing in his novel Ikiteiru Heitai (Living Soldiers), which was based on interviews that Ishikawa conducted with troops in Nanjing in January 1938.

Perhaps the most notorious atrocity was a killing contest between two Japanese officers as reported in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun and the English language Japan Advertiser. The contest — a race between the two officers to see which could kill 100 people first using only a sword — was covered much like a sporting event with regular updates on the score over a series of days.

In Japan, the veracity of the newspaper article about the contest was the subject of ferocious debate for several decades starting in 1967.

In 2000, a historian concurred with certain Japanese scholars who had argued that the contest was a concocted story, with the collusion of the soldiers themselves for the purpose of raising the national fighting spirit.

In 2005, a Tokyo district judge dismissed a suit by the families of the lieutenants, stating that “the lieutenants admitted the fact that they raced to kill 100 people” and that the story cannot be proven to be clearly false. The judge also ruled against the civil claim of the plaintiffs because the original article was more than 60 years old.

The historicity of the event remains disputed in Japan.

Flight of Chinese civilians

As the Japanese army drew closer to Nanjing, panicked Chinese civilians fled in droves, not only because of the dangers of the anticipated battle but also because they feared the deprivation inherent in the scorched earth strategy that the Chinese troops were implementing in the area surrounding the city.

The Nanjing garrison force set fire to buildings and houses in the areas close to Xiakuan to the north as well as in the environs of the eastern and southern city gates. Targets within and outside of the city walls—such as military barracks, private homes, the Chinese Ministry of Communication, forests and even entire villages—were burnt to cinders, at an estimated value of 20 to 30 million (1937) US dollars.

Establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone

Many Westerners were living in the city at that time, conducting trade or on missionary trips. As the Japanese army approached Nanking, most of them fled the city, leaving 27 foreigners. Five of these were journalists who remained in the city a few days after it was captured, leaving the city on December 16. Fifteen of the remaining 22 foreigners formed a committee, called the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone in the western quarter of the city.

German businessman John Rabe was elected as its leader, in part because of his status as a member of the Nazi Party and the existence of the German-Japanese bilateral Anti-Comintern Pact.

The Japanese government had previously agreed not to attack parts of the city that did not contain Chinese military forces, and the members of the Committee managed to persuade the Chinese government to move their troops out of the area.

On December 1, 1937, Nanking Mayor Ma Chao-chun ordered all Chinese citizens remaining in Nanking to move into the “Safety Zone”. Many fled the city on December 7, and the International Committee took over as the de facto government of Nanking.

Prince Asaka appointed as commander

Prince Yasuhiko Asaka in 1940

 

In a memorandum for the palace rolls, Hirohito singled Prince Yasuhiko Asaka out for censure as the one imperial kinsman whose attitude was “not good”. He assigned Asaka to Nanjing as an opportunity to make amends.

It appears that Hirohito had never learned about, or had refused to admit, Asaka’s role in the ensuing massacre.

Nakajima Kesago.jpg

Kesago Nakajima

On December 5, Asaka left Tokyo by plane and arrived at the front three days later. He met with division commanders, lieutenant-generals Kesago Nakajima and Heisuke Yanagawa, who informed him that the Japanese troops had almost completely surrounded 300,000 Chinese troops in the vicinity of Nanjing and that preliminary negotiations suggested that the Chinese were ready to surrender.

Prince Asaka is alleged to have issued an order to “kill all captives”, thus providing official sanction for the crimes which took place during and after the battle.

Some authors record that Prince Asaka signed the order for Japanese soldiers in Nanking to “kill all captives”.Others assert that lieutenant colonel Isamu Chō, Asaka’s aide-de-camp, sent this order under the Prince’s sign manual without the Prince’s knowledge or assent.

Nevertheless, even if Chō took the initiative, Asaka was nominally the officer in charge and gave no orders to stop the carnage. When General Matsui arrived four days after it had begun, he issued strict orders that resulted in its eventual end.

While the extent of Prince Asaka’s responsibility for the massacre remains a matter of debate, the ultimate sanction for the massacre and the crimes committed during the invasion of China were issued in Emperor Hirohito‘s ratification of the Japanese army’s proposition to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners on August 5, 1937.

Battle of Nanking

Siege of the city

The Japanese military continued to move forward, breaching the last lines of Chinese resistance, and arriving outside the walled city of Nanking on December 9.

Demand for surrender

At noon on December 9, the military dropped leaflets into the city, urging the surrender of Nanking within 24 hours, promising annihilation if refused.

Meanwhile, members of the Committee contacted Tang and suggested a plan for three-day cease-fire, during which the Chinese troops could withdraw without fighting while the Japanese troops would stay in their present position.

General Tang

General Tang agreed with this proposal if the International Committee could acquire permission of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who had already fled to Hankow to which he had temporarily shifted the military headquarters two days earlier.

John Rabe boarded the U.S. gunboat Panay on December 9 and sent two telegrams, one to Chiang Kai-shek by way of the American ambassador in Hankow, and one to the Japanese military authority in Shanghai. The next day he was informed that Chiang Kai-shek, who had ordered that Nanking be defended “to the last man,” had refused to accept the proposal.

Assault and capture of Nanking

Iwane Matsui enters Nanking

 

The Japanese awaited an answer to their demand for surrender but no response was received from the Chinese by the deadline on December 10. General Iwane Matsui waited another hour before issuing the command to take Nanking by force. The Japanese army mounted its assault on the Nanking walls from multiple directions; the SEF’s 16th Division attacked three gates on the eastern side, the 6th Division of the 10A launched its offensive on the western walls, and the SEF’s 9th Division advanced into the area in-between.

On December 12, under heavy artillery fire and aerial bombardment, General Tang Sheng-chi ordered his men to retreat. What followed was nothing short of chaos. Some Chinese soldiers stripped civilians of their clothing in a desperate attempt to blend in, and many others were shot by the Chinese supervisory unit as they tried to flee.

On 13 December, the 6th and the 116th Divisions of the Japanese Army were the first to enter the city, facing little military resistance. Simultaneously, the 9th Division entered nearby Guanghua Gate, and the 16th Division entered the Zhongshan and Taiping gates. That same afternoon, two small Japanese Navy fleets arrived on both sides of the Yangtze River.

Pursuit and mopping-up operations

Japanese troops pursued the retreating Chinese army units, primarily in the Xiakuan area to the north of the city walls and around the Zijin Mountain in the east. Although most sources suggest that the final phase of the battle consisted of a one-sided slaughter of Chinese troops by the Japanese, some Japanese historians maintain that the remaining Chinese military still posed a serious threat to the Japanese. Prince Yasuhiko Asaka told a war correspondent later that he was in a very perilous position when his headquarters was ambushed by Chinese forces that were in the midst of fleeing from Nanking east of the city. On the other side of the city, the 11th Company of the 45th Regiment encountered some 20,000 Chinese soldiers who were making their way from Xiakuan.

The Japanese army conducted its mopping-up operation both inside and outside the Nanking Safety Zone. Since the area outside the safety zone had been almost completely evacuated, the mopping-up effort was concentrated in the safety zone. The safety zone, an area of 3.85 square kilometres, was packed with the remaining population of Nanking. The Japanese army leadership assigned sections of the safety zone to some units to separate alleged plain-clothed soldiers from the civilians.

Massacre

Rape of Nanking Part I Atrocities in Asia Nanjing Massacre

Eyewitness accounts of Westerners and Chinese present at Nanking in the weeks after the fall of the city say that, over the course of six weeks following the fall of Nanking, Japanese troops engaged in rape, murder, theft, arson, and other war crimes. Some of these accounts, including the diaries of John Rabe and American Minnie Vautrin, came from foreigners who opted to stay behind to protect Chinese civilians from harm. Other accounts include first-person testimonies of Nanking Massacre survivors, eyewitness reports of journalists (both Western and Japanese), as well as the field diaries of military personnel. American missionary John Magee stayed behind to provide a 16 mm film documentary and first-hand photographs of the Nanking Massacre.

A group of foreign expatriates headed by Rabe had formed the 15-man International Committee on November 22 and mapped out the Nanking Safety Zone in order to safeguard civilians in the city, where the population numbered from 200,000 to 250,000. Rabe and American missionary Lewis S. C. Smythe, secretary of the International Committee and a professor of sociology at the University of Nanking, recorded the actions of the Japanese troops and filed complaints to the Japanese embassy.

Massacre contest

In 1937, the Osaka Mainichi Shimbun and its sister newspaper, the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, covered a “contest” between two Japanese officers, Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda of the Japanese 16th Division.

 

The two men were described as vying to be the first to kill 100 people with a sword before the capture of Nanking. From Jurong to Tangshan (two cities in Jiangshu Province, China), Mukai had killed 89 people while Noda had killed 78 people. The contest continued because neither had killed 100 people.

By the time they had arrived at Zijin Mountain, Noda had killed 105 people while Mukai had killed 106 people. Both officers supposedly surpassed their goal during the heat of battle, making it impossible to determine which officer had actually won the contest. Therefore (according to journalists Asami Kazuo and Suzuki Jiro, writing in the Tokyo Nichi-Nichi Shimbun of December 13), they decided to begin another contest to kill 150 people.[43] The Nichi Nichi headline of the story of December 13 read “‘Incredible Record’ [in the Contest to] Behead 100 People—Mukai 106 – 105 Noda—Both 2nd Lieutenants Go Into Extra Innings”.

After Japan surrendered, Mukai and Noda were arrested, each charged as a “Civilized Public Enemy”, and executed at gunpoint in Nanking

Rape

Photo taken in Xuzhou, showing the body of a woman who was profaned in a way similar to the teenager described in case 5 of John Magee‘s movie.

 

Case 5 of John Magee‘s film: on December 13, 1937, about 30 Japanese soldiers murdered all but two of 11 Chinese in the house at No. 5 Xinlukou. A woman and her two teenaged daughters were raped, and Japanese soldiers rammed a bottle and a cane into her vagina.

An eight-year-old girl was stabbed, but she and her younger sister survived. They were found alive two weeks after the killings by an elderly woman shown in the photo. Bodies of the victims can also be seen in the photo.

 

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated that, in a addition to children and the elderly, 20,000 women were raped.

A large portion of these rapes were systematized in a process in which soldiers would go from door to door, searching for girls, with many women being captured and gang raped. The women were often killed immediately after being raped, often through explicit mutilationor by pentetrating vaginas with bayonets, long sticks of bamboo, or other objects. Young children were not exempt from these atrocities and were cut open to allow Japanese soldiers to rape them.

On 19 December 1937, the Reverend James M. McCallum wrote in his diary:

I know not where to end. Never I have heard or read such brutality. Rape! Rape! Rape! We estimate at least 1,000 cases a night and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disapproval, there is a bayonet stab or a bullet … People are hysterical … Women are being carried off every morning, afternoon and evening. The whole Japanese army seems to be free to go and come as it pleases, and to do whatever it pleases.

On March 7, 1938, Robert O. Wilson, a surgeon at the American-administered University Hospital in the Safety Zone, wrote in a letter to his family,

“a conservative estimate of people slaughtered in cold blood is somewhere about 100,000, including of course thousands of soldiers that had thrown down their arms”.

Here are two excerpts from his letters of 15 and 18 December 1937 to his family:

The slaughter of civilians is appalling. I could go on for pages telling of cases of rape and brutality almost beyond belief. Two bayoneted corpses are the only survivors of seven street cleaners who were sitting in their headquarters when Japanese soldiers came in without warning or reason and killed five of their number and wounded the two that found their way to the hospital.

Let me recount some instances occurring in the last two days. Last night the house of one of the Chinese staff members of the university was broken into and two of the women, his relatives, were raped. Two girls, about 16, were raped to death in one of the refugee camps. In the University Middle School where there are 8,000 people the Japs came in ten times last night, over the wall, stole food, clothing, and raped until they were satisfied. They bayoneted one little boy of eight who [had] five bayonet wounds including one that penetrated his stomach, a portion of omentum was outside the abdomen. I think he will live.

In his diary kept during the aggression against the city and its occupation by the Imperial Japanese Army, the leader of the Safety Zone, John Rabe, wrote many comments about Japanese atrocities. For 17 December:

JohnRabe.jpg

John Rabe

Two Japanese soldiers have climbed over the garden wall and are about to break into our house. When I appear they give the excuse that they saw two Chinese soldiers climb over the wall.

When I show them my party badge, they return the same way. In one of the houses in the narrow street behind my garden wall, a woman was raped, and then wounded in the neck with a bayonet. I managed to get an ambulance so we can take her to Kulou Hospital … Last night up to 1,000 women and girls are said to have been raped, about 100 girls at Ginling College. . . alone. You hear nothing but rape. If husbands or brothers intervene, they’re shot. What you hear and see on all sides is the brutality and bestiality of the Japanese soldiers.

There are also accounts of Japanese troops forcing families to commit incestuous acts. Sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers were forced to rape their daughters. One pregnant woman who was gang-raped by Japanese soldiers gave birth only a few hours later; although the baby appeared to be physically unharmed (Robert B. Edgerton, Warriors of the Rising Sun).

Monks who had declared a life of celibacy were also forced to rape women.

Massacre of civilians

A boy killed by a Japanese soldier with the butt of a rifle because he did not take off his hat.

 

Following the capture of Nanking, a massacre, which was perpetrated by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA), led to the deaths of up to 60,000 residents in the city, a figure difficult to precisely calculate due to the many bodies deliberately burnt, buried in mass graves, or deposited in the Yangtze River by the IJA.

Japanese ultra-nationalists have strongly disputed such death tolls, with some stating that only several hundred civilians were killed during the massacre. B. Campbell, in an article published in the journal Sociological Theory, has described the Nanking Massacre as a genocide considering the fact that the residents were still unilaterally killed en masse during the aftermath, despite the successful and certain outcome in battle.

On 13 December 1937, John Rabe wrote in his diary:

It is not until we tour the city that we learn the extent of destruction. We come across corpses every 100 to 200 yards. The bodies of civilians that I examined had bullet holes in their backs. These people had presumably been fleeing and were shot from behind. The Japanese march through the city in groups of ten to twenty soldiers and loot the shops … I watched with my own eyes as they looted the café of our German baker Herr Kiessling. Hempel’s hotel was broken into as well, as [was] almost every shop on Chung Shang and Taiping Road.

On 10 February 1938, Legation Secretary of the German Embassy, Rosen, wrote to his Foreign Ministry about a film made in December by Reverend John Magee to recommend its purchase. Here is an excerpt from his letter and a description of some of its shots, kept in the Political Archives of the Foreign Ministry in Berlin.

During the Japanese reign of terror in Nanking – which, by the way, continues to this day to a considerable degree – the Reverend John Magee, a member of the American Episcopal Church Mission who has been here for almost a quarter of a century, took motion pictures that eloquently bear witness to the atrocities committed by the Japanese … One will have to wait and see whether the highest officers in the Japanese army succeed, as they have indicated, in stopping the activities of their troops, which continue even today.

On December 13, about 30 soldiers came to a Chinese house at #5 Hsing Lu Koo in the southeastern part of Nanking, and demanded entrance. The door was open by the landlord, a Mohammedan named Ha. They killed him immediately with a revolver and also Mrs. Ha, who knelt before them after Ha’s death, begging them not to kill anyone else. Mrs. Ha asked them why they killed her husband and they shot her. Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her 1 year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby was killed with a bayonet. Some soldiers then went to the next room, where Mrs. Hsia’s parents, aged 76 and 74, and her two daughters aged 16 and 14 [were]. They were about to rape the girls when the grandmother tried to protect them. The soldiers killed her with a revolver. The grandfather grasped the body of his wife and was killed. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2–3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed in her vagina. The younger girl was bayoneted also but was spared the horrible treatment that had been meted out to her sister and mother. The soldiers then bayoneted another sister of between 7–8, who was also in the room. The last murders in the house were of Ha’s two children, aged 4 and 2 respectively. The older was bayoneted and the younger split down through the head with a sword.

Bodies of Chinese massacred by Japanese troops along a river in Nanjing.

Pregnant women were targeted for murder, as their stomachs were often bayoneted, sometimes after rape. Tang Junshan, survivor and witness to one of the Japanese army’s systematic mass killings, testified:

The seventh and last person in the first row was a pregnant woman. The soldier thought he might as well rape her before killing her, so he pulled her out of the group to a spot about ten meters away. As he was trying to rape her, the woman resisted fiercely … The soldier abruptly stabbed her in the belly with a bayonet. She gave a final scream as her intestines spilled out. Then the soldier stabbed the fetus, with its umbilical cord clearly visible, and tossed it aside.

According to Navy veteran Sho Mitani, “The Army used a trumpet sound that meant ‘Kill all Chinese who run away'”. Thousands were led away and mass-executed in an excavation known as the “Ten-Thousand-Corpse Ditch”, a trench measuring about 300 m long and 5 m wide. Since records were not kept, estimates regarding the number of victims buried in the ditch range from 4,000 to 20,000. However, most scholars and historians consider the number to be more than 12,000 victims.

An elderly Hui man.

The Hui people, a minority Chinese group who are mainly Muslim, also suffered during the massacre, after which one mosque was found destroyed and others found to be “filled with dead bodies”. Hui volunteers and imams buried over 100 Hui following Muslim ritual.

Extrajudicial killing of Chinese prisoners of war

On August 6, 1937, Hirohito had personally ratified his army’s proposition to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners. This directive also advised staff officers to stop using the term “prisoner of war” (POW).

A Chinese POW about to be beheaded by a Japanese officer with a shin gunto during the Nanking Massacre.

 

Immediately after the fall of the city, Japanese troops embarked on a determined search for former soldiers, in which thousands of young men were captured. Many were taken to the Yangtze River, where they were machine-gunned. What was probably the single largest massacre of Chinese troops occurred along the banks of the Yangtze River on December 18 in the Straw String Gorge Massacre.

Japanese soldiers took most of the morning tying all of the POWs’ hands together; in the dusk, the soldiers divided POWs into four columns and opened fire. Unable to escape, the POWs could only scream and thrash in desperation. It took an hour for the sounds of death to stop and even longer for the Japanese to bayonet each individual. Most were dumped into the Yangtze. It is estimated that at least 57,500 Chinese POWs were killed.

The Japanese troops gathered 1,300 Chinese soldiers and civilians at Taiping Gate and killed them. The victims were blown up with landmines, then doused with petrol before being set on fire. Those who were alive afterward were killed with bayonets.

F. Tillman Durdin and Archibald Steele, American news correspondents, reported that they had seen bodies of killed Chinese soldiers forming mounds six feet high at the Nanking Yijiang gate in the north. Durdin, who was working for The New York Times, toured Nanking before his departure from the city. He heard waves of machine-gun fire and witnessed the Japanese soldiers gun down some two hundred Chinese within ten minutes. Two days later, in his report to The New York Times, he stated that the alleys and street were filled with civilian bodies, including women and children.

According to a testimony delivered by missionary Ralph L. Phillips to the U.S. State Assembly Investigating Committee, he was “forced to watch while the Japs disembowled a Chinese soldier” and “roasted his heart and liver and ate them”.[71]

Theft and arson

One-third of the city was destroyed as a result of arson. According to reports, Japanese troops torched newly built government buildings as well as the homes of many civilians. There was considerable destruction to areas outside the city walls. Soldiers pillaged from the poor and the wealthy alike. The lack of resistance from Chinese troops and civilians in Nanking meant that the Japanese soldiers were free to divide up the city’s valuables as they saw fit. This resulted in the widespread looting and burglary.

On 17 December, chairman John Rabe wrote a complaint to Kiyoshi Fukui, second secretary of the Japanese Embassy. The following is an excerpt:

In other words, on the 13th when your troops entered the city, we had nearly all the civilian population gathered in a Zone in which there had been very little destruction by stray shells and no looting by Chinese soldiers even in full retreat … All 27 Occidentals in the city at that time and our Chinese population were totally surprised by the reign of robbery, raping and killing initiated by your soldiers on the 14th. All we are asking in our protest is that you restore order among your troops and get the normal city life going as soon as possible. In the latter process we are glad to cooperate in any way we can. But even last night between 8 and 9 p.m. when five Occidental members of our staff and Committee toured the Zone to observe conditions, we did not find any single Japanese patrol either in the Zone or at the entrances!

Nanking Safety Zone and the role of foreigners

The Japanese troops did respect the Zone to an extent; until the Japanese occupation, no shells entered that part of the city except a few stray shots. During the chaos following the attack of the city, some were killed in the Safety Zone, but the crimes that occurred in the rest of the city were far greater by all accounts.

The Japanese soldiers committed actions in the Safety Zone that were part of the larger Nanking Massacre. The International Committee appealed a number of times to the Japanese army, with Rabe using his credentials as a Nazi Party member, but to no avail. Rabe wrote that, from time to time, the Japanese would enter the Safety Zone at will, carry off a few hundred men and women, and either summarily execute them or rape and then kill them.

By February 5, 1938, the International Committee had forwarded to the Japanese embassy a total of 450 cases of murder, rape, and general disorder by Japanese soldiers that had been reported after the American, British and German diplomats had returned to their embassies.

“Case 5 – On the night of December 14th, there were many cases of Japanese soldiers entering houses and raping women or taking them away. This created panic in the area and hundreds of women moved into the Ginling College campus yesterday.”
“Case 10 – On the night of December 15th, a number of Japanese soldiers entered the University of Nanking buildings at Tao Yuen and raped 30 women on the spot, some by six men.”
“Case 13 – December 18, 4 p.m., at No. 18 I Ho Lu, Japanese soldiers wanted a man’s cigarette case and when he hesitated, one of the soldier crashed in the side of his head with a bayonet. The man is now at the University Hospital and is not expected to live.”
“Case 14 – On December 16, seven girls (ages ranged from 16 to 21) were taken away from the Military College. Five returned. Each girl was raped six or seven times daily- reported December 18th.”
“Case 15 – There are about 540 refugees crowded in #83 and 85 on Canton Road … More than 30 women and girls have been raped. The women and children are crying all nights. Conditions inside the compound are worse than we can describe. Please give us help.”
“Case 16 – A Chinese girl named Loh, who, with her mother and brother, was living in one of the Refugee Centers in the Refugee Zone, was shot through the head and killed by a Japanese soldier. The girl was 14 years old. The incident occurred near the Kuling Ssu, a noted temple on the border of the Refugee zone …”
“Case 19 – January 30th, about 5 p.m. Mr. Sone (of the Nanking Theological Seminary) was greeted by several hundred women pleading with him that they would not have to go home on February 4th. They said it was no use going home they might just as well be killed for staying at the camp as to be raped, robbed or killed at home. … One old woman 62 years old went home near Hansimen and Japanese soldiers came at night and wanted to rape her. She said she was too old. So the soldiers rammed a stick up her. But she survived to come back.”

It is said that Rabe rescued between 200,000 and 250,000 Chinese people.

Causes

Jonathan Spence writes “there is no obvious explanation for this grim event, nor can one be found. The Japanese soldiers, who had expected easy victory, instead had been fighting hard for months and had taken infinitely higher casualties than anticipated. They were bored, angry, frustrated, tired. The Chinese women were undefended, their menfolk powerless or absent. The war, still undeclared, had no clear-cut goal or purpose. Perhaps all Chinese, regardless of sex or age, seemed marked out as victims.”

Matsui’s reaction to the massacre

 

Iwane Matsui 01.jpg

On December 18, 1937, as General Iwane Matsui began to comprehend the full extent of the rape, murder, and looting in the city, he grew increasingly dismayed. He reportedly told one of his civilian aides:

“I now realize that we have unknowingly wrought a most grievous effect on this city. When I think of the feelings and sentiments of many of my Chinese friends who have fled from Nanking and of the future of the two countries, I cannot but feel depressed. I am very lonely and can never get in a mood to rejoice about this victory.”

 

He even let a tinge of regret flavor the statement he released to the press that morning:

“I personally feel sorry for the tragedies to the people, but the Army must continue unless China repents. Now, in the winter, the season gives time to reflect. I offer my sympathy, with deep emotion, to a million innocent people.”

On New Year’s Day, Matsui was still upset about the behavior of the Japanese soldiers at Nanking. Over a toast he confided to a Japanese diplomat:

“My men have done something very wrong and extremely regrettable.”

End of the massacre

In late January 1938, the Japanese army forced all refugees in the Safety Zone to return home, immediately claiming to have “restored order”.

After the establishment of the weixin zhengfu (the collaborating government) in 1938, order was gradually restored in Nanking and atrocities by Japanese troops lessened considerably.

On February 18, 1938, the Nanking Safety Zone International Committee was forcibly renamed “Nanking International Rescue Committee“, and the Safety Zone effectively ceased to function. The last refugee camps were closed in May 1938.

Recall of Matsui and Asaka

In February 1938 both Prince Asaka and General Matsui were recalled to Japan. Matsui returned to retirement, but Prince Asaka remained on the Supreme War Council until the end of the war in August 1945. He was promoted to the rank of general in August 1939, though he held no further military commands.

Death toll estimates

 

Estimates of the number of victims vary based on the definitions of the geographical range and the duration of the event.

The extent of the atrocities is debated,  with numbers ranging from some Japanese claims of several hundred,  to the Chinese claim of a non-combatant death toll of 300,000. Historian Tokushi Kasahara states “more than 100,000 and close to 200,000, or maybe more”, referring to his own book.  This estimation includes the surrounding area outside of the city of Nanking, which is objected by a Chinese researcher (the same book, p. 146). Hiroshi Yoshida concludes “more than 200,000” in his book.[Tomio Hora writes of 50,000–100,000 deaths.

Mainstream scholars consider figures from 40,000 to over 300,000 to be an accurate estimate. According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was up to 200,000. These estimates are borne out by the figures of burial societies and other organizations, which testify to over 155,000 buried bodies. These figures do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, drowning or by other means, or whose bodies were interred in mass graves.

According to the verdict of the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal on 10 March 1947, there are

“more than 190,000 mass slaughtered civilians and Chinese soldiers killed by machine gun by the Japanese army, whose corpses have been burned to destroy proof. Besides, we count more than 150,000 victims of barbarian acts buried by the charity organizations. We thus have a total of more than 300,000 victims.”

 

However, this estimate includes an accusation that the Japanese Army murdered 57,418 Chinese POWs at Mufushan, though the latest research indicates that between 4,000 and 20,000 were massacred, and it also includes the 112,266 corpses allegedly buried by the Chongshantang, a charitable association, though today mainstream historians agree that the Chongshantang’s records were at least greatly exaggerated if not entirely fabricated.

Bob Wakabayashi concludes from this that estimates over 200,000 are not credible. Ikuhiko Hata considers the number of 300,000 to be a “symbolic figure” representative of China’s wartime suffering and not a figure to be taken literally.

Some researchers estimate that between 40,000 and 60,000 people were killed, which corresponds to the figures from three sources; one is the Red Army’s official journal of the time, Hangdibao and another is that of Miner Searle Bates of the International Safety Zone Committee, and the third is the aforementioned figure written by John Rabe in a letter.

John Rabe, Chairman of the International Committee and Nanking Safety Zone, estimated that between 50,000 and 60,000 (civilians) were killed  However, Erwin Wickert, the editor of The diaries of John Rabe, points out that

“It is likely that Rabe’s estimate is too low, since he could not have had an overview of the entire municipal area during the period of the worst atrocities. Moreover, many troops of captured Chinese soldiers were led out of the city and down to the Yangtze, where they were summarily executed. But, as noted, no one actually counted the dead.”

The casualty count of 300,000 was first promulgated in January 1938 by Harold Timperley, a journalist in China during the Japanese invasion, based on reports from contemporary eyewitnesses.  Other sources, including Iris Chang‘s The Rape of Nanking, also conclude that the death toll reached 300,000. In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking. According to the archives research

“The telegrams sent by the U.S. diplomats [in Berlin] pointed to the massacre of an estimated half a million people in Shanghai, Suzhou, Jiaxing, Hangzhou, Shaoxing, Wuxi and Changzhou”.

Range and duration

The most conservative viewpoint is that the geographical area of the incident should be limited to the few km2 of the city known as the Safety Zone, where the civilians gathered after the invasion. Many Japanese historians seized upon the fact that during the Japanese invasion there were only 200,000–250,000 citizens in Nanking as reported by John Rabe, to argue that the PRC’s estimate of 300,000 deaths is a vast exaggeration.

However, many historians include a much larger area around the city. Including the Xiaguan district (the suburbs north of Nanking, about 31 km2 in size) and other areas on the outskirts of the city, the population of greater Nanking was running between 535,000 and 635,000 civilians and soldiers just prior to the Japanese occupation.[93]

Some historians also include six counties around Nanking, known as the Nanking Special Municipality.

The duration of the incident is naturally defined by its geography: the earlier the Japanese entered the area, the longer the duration. The Battle of Nanking ended on December 13, when the divisions of the Japanese Army entered the walled city of Nanking. The Tokyo War Crime Tribunal defined the period of the massacre to the ensuing six weeks. More conservative estimates say that the massacre started on December 14, when the troops entered the Safety Zone, and that it lasted for six weeks.

Historians who define the Nanking Massacre as having started from the time that the Japanese Army entered Jiangsu province push the beginning of the massacre to around mid-November to early December (Suzhou fell on November 19), and stretch the end of the massacre to late March 1938.

Various estimates

Japanese historians, depending on their definition of the geographical and time duration of the killings, give wide-ranging estimates for the number of massacred civilians, from several thousand to upwards of 200,000. The lowest estimate by a Japanese historian is 40,000.

Chinese language sources tend to place the figure of massacred civilians upwards of 200,000.

For example, a postwar investigation by the Nanking District Court put the number of dead during the incident as 295,525, 76% of them men, 22% women and 2% children.

A 42-part Taiwanese documentary produced from 1995 to 1997, entitled An Inch of Blood For An Inch of Land  (一寸河山一寸血), asserts that 340,000 Chinese civilians died in Nanking City as a result of the Japanese invasion: 150,000 through bombing and crossfire in the five-day battle, and 190,000 in the massacre, based on the evidence presented at the Tokyo Trials.

War crimes tribunals

Shortly after the surrender of Japan, the primary officers in charge of the Japanese troops at Nanking were put on trial. General Matsui was indicted before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East for “deliberately and recklessly” ignoring his legal duty “to take adequate steps to secure the observance and prevent breaches” of the Hague Convention. Hisao Tani, the lieutenant general of the 6th Division of the Japanese army in Nanking, was tried by the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal.

Other Japanese military leaders in charge at the time of the Nanking Massacre were not tried. Prince Kan’in, chief of staff of the Imperial Japanese Army during the massacre, had died before the end of the war in May 1945. Prince Asaka was granted immunity because of his status as a member of the imperial family.[97] Isamu Chō, the aide of Prince Asaka, and whom some historians believe issued the “kill all captives” memo, had committed suicide during the defense of Okinawa.[98]

Grant of immunity to Prince Asaka

On May 1, 1946, SCAP officials interrogated Prince Asaka, who was the ranking officer in the city at the height of the atrocities, about his involvement in the Nanking Massacre and the deposition was submitted to the International Prosecution Section of the Tokyo tribunal. Asaka denied the existence of any massacre and claimed never to have received complaints about the conduct of his troops.[101] Whatever his culpability may have been, Asaka was not prosecuted before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East at least in part because under the pact concluded between General MacArthur and Hirohito, the Emperor himself and all the members of the imperial family were granted immunity from prosecution.

Evidence and testimony

Harold John Timperley‘s telegram of 17 January 1938 describing the atrocities.

The prosecution began the Nanking phase of its case in July 1946. Dr. Robert O. Wilson, a surgeon and a member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, took the witness stand first.

Other members of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone who took the witness stand included Miner Searle Bates and John Magee. George A. Fitch, Lewis Smythe and James McCallum filed affidavits with their diaries and letters.

Another piece of evidence that was submitted to the tribunal was Harold Timperley’s telegram regarding the Nanking Massacre which had been intercepted and decoded by the Americans on January 17, 1938.

One of the books by Hsü, Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, was also adduced in court.

According to Matsui’s own diary, one day after he made the ceremonial triumphal entry into the city on December 17, 1937, he instructed the chiefs of staff from each division to tighten military discipline and try to eradicate the sense of disdain for Chinese people among their soldiers.

On February 7, 1938, Matsui delivered a speech at a memorial service for the Japanese officers and men of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force who were killed in action. In front of the high-ranking officers, Domei News Agency reported, he emphasized the necessity to “put an end to various reports affecting the prestige of the Japanese troops.”

The entry for the same day in Matsui’s diary read, “I could only feel sadness and responsibility today, which has been overwhelmingly piercing my heart. This is caused by the Army’s misbehaviors after the fall of Nanking and failure to proceed with the autonomous government and other political plans.”

Matsui’s defense

Matsui’s defence varied between denying the mass-scale atrocities and evading his responsibility for what had happened. Eventually he ended up making numerous conflicting statements.

In the interrogation in Sugamo prison preceding the trial Matsui admitted that he heard about the many outrages committed by his troops from Japanese diplomats when he entered Nanking on December 17, 1937.

In court, he contradicted the earlier testimony and told the judges that he was not “officially” briefed at the consulate about the evildoings, presumably to avoid admitting any contact with the consulate officials such as Second Secretary (later Acting Consul-General) Fukui Kiyoshi and Attaché Fukuda Tokuyasu who received and dealt with the protests filed by the International Committee.

In the same interrogation session before the trial Matsui said one officer and three low-ranking soldiers were court-martialled because of their misbehavior in Nanking and the officer was sentenced to death.

In his affidavit Matsui said he ordered his officers to investigate the massacre and to take necessary action. In court, however, Matsui said that he did not have jurisdiction over the soldiers’ misconduct since he was not in the position of supervising military discipline and morals.

Matsui asserted that he had never ordered the execution of Chinese POWs. He further argued that he had directed his army division commanders to discipline their troops for criminal acts, and was not responsible for their failure to carry out his directives. At trial, Matsui went out of his way to protect Prince Asaka by shifting blame to lower ranking division commanders.[102]

Verdict

In the end the Tribunal convicted only two defendants to the Rape of Nanking.

Matsui was convicted of count 55, which charged him with being one of the senior officers who “deliberately and recklessly disregarded their legal duty [by virtue of their respective offices] to take adequate steps to secure the observance [of the Laws and Customs of War] and prevent breaches thereof, and thereby violated the laws of war.”

Kōki Hirota, who had been the Foreign Minister when Japan conquered Nanking, was convicted of participating in “the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy” (count 1), waging “a war of aggression and a war in violation of international laws, treaties, agreements and assurances against the Republic of China” (count 27) and count 55.

Matsui was convicted by a majority of the judges at the Tokyo tribunal who ruled that he bore ultimate responsibility for the “orgy of crime” at Nanking because, “He did nothing, or nothing effective, to abate these horrors.”

Organized and wholesale murder of male civilians was conducted with the apparent sanction of the commanders on the pretext that Chinese soldiers had removed their uniforms and were mingling with the population. Groups of Chinese civilians were formed, bound with their hands behind their backs, and marched outside the walls of the city where they were killed in groups by machine gun fire and with bayonets. — From Judgment of the International Military Tribunal

Radhabinod Pal, the member of the tribunal from India, dissented from the conviction arguing that the commander-in-chief must rely on his subordinate officers to enforce soldier discipline. “The name of Justice,” Pal wrote in his dissent, “should not be allowed to be invoked only for … vindictive retaliation.”

Sentence

On November 12, 1948, Matsui and Hirota, along with five other convicted Class-A war criminals, were sentenced to death by hanging. Eighteen others received lesser sentences. The death sentence imposed on Hirota, a six-to-five decision by the eleven judges, shocked the general public and prompted a petition on his behalf, which soon gathered over 300,000 signatures but did not succeed in commuting the Minister’s sentence.[103][104]

General Hisao Tani was sentenced to death by the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal.[102]

Memorials

In 1985, the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall was built by the Nanking Municipal Government in remembrance of the victims and to raise awareness of the Nanking Massacre. It is located near a site where thousands of bodies were buried, called the “pit of ten thousand corpses” (wàn rén kēng).

In 1995, Daniel Kwan held a photograph exhibit in Los Angeles titled, “The Forgotten Holocaust”.

In 2005, John Rabe’s former residence in Nanking was renovated and now accommodates the “John Rabe and International Safety Zone Memorial Hall“, which opened in 2006.

On December 13, 2014, China held its first Nanjing Massacre memorial day.[105]

Controversy

China and Japan have both acknowledged the occurrence of wartime atrocities. Disputes over the historical portrayal of these events continue to cause tensions between Japan on one side and China and other East Asian countries on the other side.

Cold War

Before the 1970s, China did relatively little to draw attention to the Nanking massacre. In her book Rape of Nanking Iris Chang asserted that the politics of the Cold War encouraged Mao to stay relatively silent about Nanking in order to keep a trade relationship with Japan. In turn, China and Japan occasionally used Nanking as an opportunity to demonize one another.[citation needed]

Debate in Japan

The major waves of Japanese treatment of these events have ranged from total cover-up during the war, confessions and documentation by the Japanese soldiers during the 1950s and 1960s, minimization of the extent of the Nanking Massacre during the 1970s and 1980s, official Japanese government distortion and rewriting of history during the 1980s, and total denial of the occurrence of the Nanking Massacre by some government officials in 1990.[106]

The debate concerning the massacre took place mainly in the 1970s. During this time, the Chinese government’s statements about the event were attacked by the Japanese because they were said to rely too heavily on personal testimonies and anecdotal evidence. Aspersions were cast regarding the authenticity and accuracy of burial records and photographs presented in the Tokyo War Crime Court, which were said to be fabrications by the Chinese government, artificially manipulated or incorrectly attributed to the Nanking Massacre.[107]

During the 1970s, Katsuichi Honda wrote a series of articles for the Asahi Shimbun on war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers during World War II (such as the Nanking Massacre).[108] The publication of these articles triggered a vehement response from Japanese right-wingers regarding the Japanese treatment of the war crimes. In response, Shichihei Yamamoto[109] and Akira Suzuki[110] wrote two controversial yet influential articles which sparked the negationist movement.

In 1984, in an attempt to refute the allegations of war crimes in Nanking, the Japanese Army Veterans Association (Kaikosha) interviewed former Japanese soldiers who had served in the Nanking area from 1937 to 1938. Instead of refuting the allegations, the interviewed veterans confirmed that a massacre had taken place and openly described and admitted to taking part in the atrocities. The results of the survey were published in the association’s magazine, Kaiko, in 1985 along with an admission and apology that read, “Whatever the severity of war or special circumstances of war psychology, we just lose words faced with this mass illegal killing. As those who are related to the prewar military, we simply apologize deeply to the people of China. It was truly a regrettable act of barbarity.”[111]

Apology and condolences by the Prime Minister and Emperor of Japan

On August 15, 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the Surrender of Japan, the Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama gave the first clear and formal apology for Japanese actions during the war. He apologized for Japan’s wrongful aggression and the great suffering that it inflicted in Asia. He offered his heartfelt apology to all survivors and to the relatives and friends of the victims. That day, the prime minister and the Japanese Emperor Akihito pronounced statements of mourning at Tokyo’s Nippon Budokan. The emperor offered his condolences and expressed the hope that such atrocities would never be repeated. Iris Chang, author of The Rape of Nanking, criticized Murayama for not providing the written apology that had been expected. She said that the people of China “don’t believe that an… unequivocal and sincere apology has ever been made by Japan to China” and that a written apology from Japan would send a better message to the international community.[18]

Denials of the massacre by public officials in Japan

In May 1994, Justice Minister Shigeto Nagano called the Nanjing Massacre a “fabrication”.[112]

On June 19, 2007, a group of around 100 Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lawmakers again denounced the Nanjing Massacre as a fabrication, arguing that there was no evidence to prove the allegations of mass killings by Japanese soldiers. They accused Beijing of using the alleged incident as a “political advertisement”.[113] [114]

On February 20, 2012, Takashi Kawamura, mayor of Nagoya, told a visiting delegation from Nanjing that the massacre “probably never happened”. Two days later he defended his remarks, saying, “Even since I was a national Diet representative, I have said [repeatedly] there was no [Nanjing] massacre that resulted in murders of several hundred thousands of people.”[115][116] On April 1, 2013, Kawamura said his position remained unchanged when the issue came up during an election debate.[117]

On February 24, 2012, Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara said that he also believes that the Nanjing massacre never happened. He reportedly claims it would have been impossible to kill so many people in such a short period of time.[118] He believes the actual death toll was 10,000.[119]

On February 3, 2014, Naoki Hyakuta, a member of the board of governors of Japan’s public broadcasting company, NHK, was quoted as saying the massacre never occurred.[120] He said that there were isolated incidents of brutality but no widespread atrocity, and criticized the Tokyo Trials figure of 200,000.[121]

Legacy

Effect on international relations

The memory of the Nanking Massacre has been a stumbling block in Sino-Japanese relations since the early 1970s. Bilateral exchanges on trade, culture and education have increased greatly since the two countries normalized their bilateral relations and Japan became China’s most important trading partner.[122] Trade between the two nations is worth over $200 billion annually. Despite this, many Chinese people still have a strong sense of mistrust and animosity toward Japan that originates from the memory of Japanese war crimes such as the Nanking Massacre. This sense of mistrust is strengthened by the belief that Japan is unwilling to admit to and apologize for the atrocities.[123]

Takashi Yoshida described how changing political concerns and perceptions of the “national interest” in Japan, China, and Western countries have shaped collective memory of the Nanking massacre. Yoshida asserted that over time the event has acquired different meanings to different people.[124]

Many Japanese prime ministers have visited the Yasukuni Shrine, a shrine for dead Japanese soldiers of World War II, including some war criminals of the Nanking Massacre. In the museum adjacent to the shrine, a panel informs visitors that there was no massacre in Nanjing, but that Chinese soldiers in plain clothes were “dealt with severely”. In 2006 former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi made a pilgrimage to the shrine despite warnings from China and South Korea. His decision to visit the shrine regardless sparked international outrage. Although Koizumi denied that he was trying to glorify war or historical Japanese militarism, The Chinese Foreign Ministry accused Koizumi of “wrecking the political foundations of China-Japan relations”. An official from South Korea said they would summon the Tokyo ambassador to protest.[125][126][127][128]

As a component of national identity

Takashi Yoshida asserts that, “Nanking has figured in the attempts of all three nations [China, Japan and the United States] to preserve and redefine national and ethnic pride and identity, assuming different kinds of significance based on each country’s changing internal and external enemies.”[129]

Japan

In Japan, the Nanking Massacre touches upon national identity and notions of “pride, honor and shame”. Yoshida argues that “Nanking crystallizes a much larger conflict over what should constitute the ideal perception of the nation: Japan, as a nation, acknowledges its past and apologizes for its wartime wrongdoings; or … stands firm against foreign pressures and teaches Japanese youth about the benevolent and courageous martyrs who fought a just war to save Asia from Western aggression.”[130] Recognizing the Nanking Massacre as such can be viewed in some circles in Japan as “Japan bashing” (in the case of foreigners) or “self-flagellation” (in the case of Japanese).[citation needed]

The majority of Japanese acknowledge that Japanese troops committed atrocities during the Nanking Massacre. Some Japanese officials and writers have openly denied the incident, claiming it to be propaganda designed to spark an anti-Japan movement. In many ways, how “atrocious” the massacre was is the touchstone of left–right divide in Japan; i.e., leftists feel this is a defining moment of the Imperial Japanese Army; rightists believe Perry’s opening of Japan and the atomic bombings are far more significant events.[citation needed]

The government of Japan believe it can not be denied that the killing of a large number of noncombatants, looting and other acts by Japanese army occurred. However, the actual number of victims is hard to be determined according to government of Japan.[131]

China

The Nanking massacre has emerged as a fundamental keystone in the construction of the modern Chinese national identity.[132] Modern Chinese (including citizens of the PRC, Taiwan, and overseas) will refer to the Nanking Massacre to explain certain stances they hold or ideas they have; this ‘national unifying event’ holds true to middle-school educated peasants and to senior government officials alike.

Although the Japanese government has admitted to the killing of a large number of non-combatants, looting, and other violence committed by the Imperial Japanese Army after the fall of Nanking,[17][18] and Japanese veterans who served there have confirmed that a massacre took place, a small but vocal minority within both the Japanese government and society have argued that the death toll was military in nature and that no such crimes ever occurred. Denial of the massacre and revisionist accounts of the killings have become a staple of Japanese nationalism.[19] In Japan, public opinion of the massacres varies, but few deny outright that it happened.[19]

Please consider making a small or large donation as I am very poor and every donation is most welcome and goes towards the cost of running this blog.

Make a small donation

paypal donation button

Thank you!