REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 17703
PAGE 2 of 4

Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:29 AM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Ethnic cleansing by the U.S. in Iraq is a ridiculous and irresponsible accusation!!!
Given that, it is not suprising in the least who started this thread, and who is supporting the statement.



I think it's completely fair. Especially when we have undeniable proof of American forces commiting murder, torture, and rape of prisoners as policy as opposed to mere isolated "incidents".

Why not ethnic cleansing? It may not be that particularly but it's plain Fallujah was wipped from the Earth from April to about yesterday in a murderous campaign that involved months of bombing followed by house to house, building to building destruction.

Why?

The USAs record so far is horrific, you can deny it all you want but guess what... the rest of the world isn't American and has no problem seeing the actions into Fallujah as nothing short of a scorched earth policy directly from the criminals in the White House.

Proof - Fallujah is no more. It's a ruin.

Quote:

If you want to talk about Ethnic cleansing, look at Bosnia and Milosivic. The U.N. did nothing except look upon it with alarm, and say "Gee, what your doing is bad, we think you should stop the rape, murder, genocide.

It was the U.S. that led the fight with NATO that stopped that atrocity. Where was the U.N.?

Or, more current events make you look at the Sudan situation. Again, what is the U.N. doing?

The U.N. is doing nothing except look upon it with alarm, and say "Gee, what your doing is bad, we think you should stop the rape, murder, genocide. How would you like some sanction put on you?"

Give us all a break, and at least try to temper
your blatant partisan rhetoric with even a tiny modicum of intelligent thought.

By the way, where is you outrage for France invading the Ivory Coast, wiping out there military. Oh my goodness, they did'nt even have the support of the U.N. to do this. Are they Crazy? Are they NeoFacist Nazi scum?

By your arguments they certianly are. Where is the outrage??????


Off topic. More misdirection.






You overstate your arguments in such a way as to lead me to believe that you are so out of touch with reality that you might actually believe what you submit.

There is not one thing that you have stated that supports your charge of ethnic cleansing. Do you even know what "ethnic cleansing" is??????

I gave you two examples in Bosnia and the Sudan. What is so hard for you to understand. Including this in my post was not in the least "off topic", it was not in the least "more misdirection". It was meant to educate you into the meaning of the term "ethnic cleansing" using real world actual events, rather than your half baked statements that are meant to do nothing but slam the coalition fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda.

It's quite plain you have a great sympathy towards these poor peaceful terrorist groups, but your mangling and omitting of the actual facts and blatant propogandizing is'nt helping your cause in the least on the threads.

Please do us all a favor and get off your self agrandizing, pseudo intelectual, self proclaimed winner of all debates in all threads, high horse.

You and your five member "mutual admiration society" can be, and are, more than a bit embarassing.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The hospital also had no patients to treat as a bridge leading to it was littered with roadside bombs, making entry perilous, said a military spokeswoman


Hero- Supposedly, there are pix of doctors and patients handcuffed in the hospital. There were also supposedly phone calls (I think cell phone) from doctors at the hospital describing the hospital occupation. That seems to be in contradiction to the Army statements. Can you clarify- either find and validate the pix/ phone calls or the Army statement? I don't necessarly believe what the Army says just bc they say it. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- After this, I'll be off-line for a while so I'll try to fully respond in this post.

Apparently, the city of Falujah has been bombed to rubble. Mosques, schools, clinics, homes, hospitals, ambulances, water distribution... no service or home was spared from bombing. We dispatch wounded enemy in the field. You manage, somehow, to rationalize it all: The schools, mosques, homes' clinics, hospitals, wounded and dead MIGHT be used to attack, MIGHT be booby trapped, MIGHT house insurgents.



Wrong. Parts of Fallujah have been damaged. The photos I've seen show anything from intact building to broken windows to individual houses reduced to rubble. Military civil affairs teams tasked with restoring infrastructure have found that much of the water, sewer, and electrical system is in good shape and just needs to be repaired and restarted. The buildings targeted during the attack were those from which fire was being received. If the insurgents were using mosques, schools, homes, etc. those buildings were destroyed, but no wholesale destruction occurred.

BTW, I was in Hue, Vietnam, three years after the media reported it "totally destroyed" during the '68 Tet offensive. There were some vacant lots where buildings had been, and bullet holes in some others, but life was going on just fine. Sometimes the media gets a little carried away.

Quote:

How do you justify- if you can- w/holding water and aid from even the occupied parts of the city for a week? Keeping the only hospital from functioning?


I justify it the same way I did above. Given the insurgents propensity for blowing up innocent civilians and using ambulances and aid vehicles as suicide bombs, it was safer overall to keep them out of the city until some sort of security was in place. And as Hero noted above, the hospital was functioning, but insurgent explosives and boobytraps prevented use of the Euphrates bridges. US and iraqi troops are providing food and water to the few people left in town. the latest estimate I saw was that around 1,000 civilians had stayed.


Quote:

Can you justify shooting down a group of Iraqi women strolling towards a checkpoint? What about making a group of kids run and then using them for target practice? Throwing prisoners down a well? I'd like to hear you rationalize that... I'm confident that you'll find a way.

But if you DO have a limit, where is it? Waiting for your reply.



Without knowing more about these particular incidents, I can't say. How do you justify beheading hostages and using the images as propaganda? Capturing and executing 50+ unarmed members of the Iraqi army? Shooting a bound, blindfolded woman in the back of the head, and again proudly broadcasting the images? Are these guys your heroes?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

The hospital also had no patients to treat as a bridge leading to it was littered with roadside bombs, making entry perilous, said a military spokeswoman


Hero- Supposedly, there are pix of doctors and patients handcuffed in the hospital. There were also supposedly phone calls (I think cell phone) from doctors at the hospital describing the hospital occupation. That seems to be in contradiction to the Army statements. Can you clarify- either find and validate the pix/ phone calls or the Army statement? I don't necessarly believe what the Army says just bc they say it. Thanks.



Been over this, too. Immediately after the hospital was secured, doctors and patients were handcuffed until their identities could be established. Your heroic insurgents are apt at blending in with the population and then popping up with weapons or suicide bombs. handcuffing the occupants and checking them out seems appropriate in these circumstances.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


That's OK. I understand that there is a lag - in our lab, where results are sometimes used for prosecution, review and validation takes the longer than actually analyzing the sample.

As far as the rationalizing thing- I'm just trying to get a bead on where you draw the line. Sure, if someone is shooting at me, I'll shoot back. That's heat of the battle/ self defense. Been in a situations myself where I almost shot someone (sight unseen) because I was still jangled from being victimized the day before.

So maybe six hours later your adrenalin is still pumping and you find a wounded guy crawling around- clearly no threat- and blow him away bc you're still "primed". Still acceptable? Or you're at a checkpoint and women approach you and won't stop when you tell them to, you feel threatened so you shoot. Still acceptable? Or you are facing someone who is clearly a civilian and they get in the way and you shoot, although you did not feel particularly threatened. Still acceptable? You gave a couple of examples, yes they are on different parts of the spectrum, but I still don't know whaere YOU would divide that spectrum between acceptable and not acceptable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, but as best as I can tell from the Army statement, the hospital was never occupied at all- just basically cut off. So they DID occupy the hospital, at least for SOME period of time. Are they still in control of the hospital? The communications from the hospital?

The other point- my understanding is that aid was cut off even from supposedly secured parts of the city. If that was the case- why would they do that?

Quote:

The photos I've seen show anything from intact building to broken windows to individual houses reduced to rubble. Military civil affairs teams tasked with restoring infrastructure have found that much of the water, sewer, and electrical system is in good shape and just needs to be repaired and restarted.


Quote:

The buildings targeted during the attack were those from which fire was being received.
Ummm.. says who? Do you have a personal in with the general where you can get the straight stuff? And if at least some of the soldiers are blowing away the wounded point-blank, and a functioning hospital was occupied (BTW, how DID we get past all those bombs and boobytraps on the bridge?) how can you say with confidence that some missions similarly didn't go astray? EDITED TO ADD: ESPECIALLY WHEN THE POLICY SEEMS TO BE SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER.

If Falujah is indded mainly intact, then it's good news for the ppl. But again I don't believe what the military says just because they say it. I've been hearing for... how long?... that electrical production is getting better and better every day in every way. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I've learned to take military statements with a BIG- a VERY big- grain of salt!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:21 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

The hospital also had no patients to treat as a bridge leading to it was littered with roadside bombs, making entry perilous, said a military spokeswoman


Hero- Supposedly, there are pix of doctors and patients handcuffed in the hospital. There were also supposedly phone calls (I think cell phone) from doctors at the hospital describing the hospital occupation. That seems to be in contradiction to the Army statements. Can you clarify- either find and validate the pix/ phone calls or the Army statement? I don't necessarly believe what the Army says just bc they say it. Thanks.



No. I stand on the statement. I leave it to you to find "supposedly" this and "supposedly" that. I found the evidence to support my case, now you find your own or shut the hell up. If you do find some credible evidence then I'll discuss its merits and dig more on my end. Till then, I win.

I find it interesting that they can talk to the Red Crescent (Croissant) aid workers who were there and not find room to mention "supposedly" anything. The international press usually bends over backwards to mention the "supposedly" and all.

I heard that hospital was supposedly closed because some supposedly credible doctors were supposedly handcuffed by supposedly US Marines. Supposedly there is a video and it supposedly shows Jimmy Hoffa and three alien Greys supposedly dancing with Elvis. Military spokesman deny the report.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Fortunately for me, Geezer found the pix, so you can go tell HIM to shut hell up!


Going offline- TTUL.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:30 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Fortunately for me, Geezer found the pix, so you can go tell HIM to shut hell up!
.



Supposedly...

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
That's OK. I understand that there is a lag - in our lab, where results are sometimes used for prosecution, review and validation takes the longer than actually analyzing the sample.

As far as the rationalizing thing- I'm just trying to get a bead on where you draw the line. Sure, if someone is shooting at me, I'll shoot back. That's heat of the battle/ self defense. Been in a situations myself where I almost shot someone (sight unseen) because I was still jangled from being victimized the day before.

So maybe six hours later your adrenalin is still pumping and you find a wounded guy crawling around- clearly no threat- and blow him away bc you're still "primed". Still acceptable?

Or you're at a checkpoint and women approach you and won't stop when you tell them to, you feel threatened so you shoot. Still acceptable?



Having lost friends to boobytrapped enemy wounded and dead, I might consider a wounded man still a threat. I wasn't there, and neither were you, so we don't know the exact circumstances.

A woman, or a man in women's clothes, can get a lot of explosives under a head to toe robe. Check IBC and you'll see suicide bombing is a weapon of choice for the insurgents. You might also ask why any rational person would walk towards people with guns telling them to stop and go away. Once again, not being there, or having more than cursory information, I can't give a better answer.

of course, these wouldn't be issues if the insurgents played by the acepted rules of war.

Quote:

Or you are facing someone who is clearly a civilian and they get in the way and you shoot, although you did not feel particularly threatened. Still acceptable?


Huh? Not in the midst of a firefight or something? Just a guy on the street? And obviously no threat? Why would I shoot him? I do note that apparently the insurgents would have no problem with blowing him up.

Quote:

You gave a couple of examples, yes they are on different parts of the spectrum, but I still don't know whaere YOU would divide that spectrum between acceptable and not acceptable.


I find civilian casualties during combat regrettable. If it was possible, I, and I bet the military, would like nothing more than to get only the bad guys. This just isn't doable, especially in urban combat when the bad guys use occupied homes and buildings as fighting positions. I am also aware that mistakes come under review and people are often charged if they violate the rules of war. Even in instances where civilian casualties are considered unavoidable and there are no charges, doctrine and training are often changed to reduce repeats.

What I do not find acceptable is policy and doctrine that encourages taking, torture and murder of hostages, killings taped for propaganda, mass murder of prisoners, indiscriminate bombing with no attempt to limit civilian casualties, the use of mosques, schools, etc. as fighting positions and weapons caches. I'm also not so hot on the "hostage slaughterhouses" and civilians found shot execution-style in Fallujah.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:48 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
You overstate your arguments in such a way as to lead me to believe that you are so out of touch with reality that you might actually believe what you submit.

There is not one thing that you have stated that supports your charge of ethnic cleansing. Do you even know what "ethnic cleansing" is??????

I gave you two examples in Bosnia and the Sudan. What is so hard for you to understand. Including this in my post was not in the least "off topic", it was not in the least "more misdirection". It was meant to educate you into the meaning of the term "ethnic cleansing" using real world actual events, rather than your half baked statements that are meant to do nothing but slam the coalition fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda.

It's quite plain you have a great sympathy towards these poor peaceful terrorist groups, but your mangling and omitting of the actual facts and blatant propogandizing is'nt helping your cause in the least on the threads.

Please do us all a favor and get off your self agrandizing, pseudo intelectual, self proclaimed winner of all debates in all threads, high horse.

You and your five member "mutual admiration society" can be, and are, more than a bit embarassing.



I'm embarassing? My point of view isn't uncommon among people who aren't American. Not that Americans care what the world thinks of them.

In case you are curious...

I know what Ethnic Cleansing is. Remember, I didn't say that was the case in Fallujah... only that it was a possiblity. Considering the level of destruction and my assurtion that there is no terrorist enemy there I don't see it as being beyond the realm of the possible.

Especially considering the history of the USA. A history of lies, death, and destruction. What I mean is, compared to other countries the USA is a very aggressive nation that often... OFTEN, ignores human rights in favour of it's own interests. Americans might not understand this but we in the rest of the world do. Our world perspective once again.

You can argue I'm wrong and that there are indeed terrorists coming in by the truck load to Fallujah... but I don't believe that to be true.

You can argue the US Military is acting in the best interests of Iraqis... but no one believes that is true.

And you can argue the USA is there, in your own words, " ...fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda." ... but that doesn't make it true.

Do me a favour and get off your trojan horse.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Fortunately for me, Geezer found the pix, so you can go tell HIM to shut hell up!
.



Supposedly...

H



Well, actually I was basing this on news reports and not pictures. Also, the hospital interior was secured by Iraqi forces, with the Marines holding the perimeter of the hospital grounds.

And for the third time, I consider that handcuffing doctors and patients for a short time until they can be identified is a sound tactical decision. That way they stay on-site so once cleared they can get back to bed or to work. The only other option would be removing them to a camp for identification, which would be more risky for patients, and would take doctors away from their work.

If you ever watch a hostage rescue on the news, or "World's Wildest Police Videos" you'll notice that the police usually handcuff everyone who comes out of the building, rather than trying to sort out hostages and hostage-takers first. It's just good practice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:10 PM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
You overstate your arguments in such a way as to lead me to believe that you are so out of touch with reality that you might actually believe what you submit.

There is not one thing that you have stated that supports your charge of ethnic cleansing. Do you even know what "ethnic cleansing" is??????

I gave you two examples in Bosnia and the Sudan. What is so hard for you to understand. Including this in my post was not in the least "off topic", it was not in the least "more misdirection". It was meant to educate you into the meaning of the term "ethnic cleansing" using real world actual events, rather than your half baked statements that are meant to do nothing but slam the coalition fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda.

It's quite plain you have a great sympathy towards these poor peaceful terrorist groups, but your mangling and omitting of the actual facts and blatant propogandizing is'nt helping your cause in the least on the threads.

Please do us all a favor and get off your self agrandizing, pseudo intelectual, self proclaimed winner of all debates in all threads, high horse.

You and your five member "mutual admiration society" can be, and are, more than a bit embarassing.



I'm embarassing? My point of view isn't uncommon among people who aren't American. Not that Americans care what the world thinks of them.

In case you are curious...

I know what Ethnic Cleansing is. Remember, I didn't say that was the case in Fallujah... only that it was a possiblity. Considering the level of destruction and my assurtion that there is no terrorist enemy there I don't see it as being beyond the realm of the possible.

Especially considering the history of the USA. A history of lies, death, and destruction. What I mean is, compared to other countries the USA is a very aggressive nation that often... OFTEN, ignores human rights in favour of it's own interests. Americans might not understand this but we in the rest of the world do. Our world perspective once again.

You can argue I'm wrong and that there are indeed terrorists coming in by the truck load to Fallujah... but I don't believe that to be true.

You can argue the US Military is acting in the best interests of Iraqis... but no one believes that is true.

And you can argue the USA is there, in your own words, " ...fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda." ... but that doesn't make it true.

Do me a favour and get off your trojan horse.





No one believes that is true? I know you have a sky high opinion of yourself, but exactly when was it that you took upon the task of speaking for the entire world population?

Your personal level of self importance is to say the least, astounding!!!!!!!

And lets face it Ghoulman, Just because you don't believe what is widely reported on the vast majority of all news services does not in anyway make it false.

And please, don't tell me again how the U.S. Neo Fascist Government controls the world press. If you do, I might vomit.





Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Actually, I don't have a problem with people being handcuffed in that situation provided that they weren't handcuffed in painful positions for long periods of time. My point here was that the Army implies that the hospital was not occupied- just interdicted- but photographs of handcuffed doctors and patients would be proof to the contrary. It IS possible that the Army skated the truth because the hospital was "techncially" occupied by Iraqi forces... that would be pretty typcial of military lack of transparency.

The military also provides a pretty upbeat assessment of the situation (although they have not addressed civilian deaths as far as I know). But bowing to Geezer's first-hand experience in military affairs, I find a contradictions between what he says and... what he says. According to Geezer
Quote:

The photos I've seen show anything from intact building to broken windows to individual houses reduced to rubble. Military civil affairs teams tasked with restoring infrastructure have found that much of the water, sewer, and electrical system is in good shape and just needs to be repaired and restarted. The buildings targeted during the attack were those from which fire was being received. If the insurgents were using mosques, schools, homes, etc. those buildings were destroyed, but no wholesale destruction occurred.
. But at the same time, he clearly and repeatedly says that, given the nature of the insurgency, the best course is to SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. Indeed, a military description of the "mopping up" operation in Falujah says that because the warren of alleyways and homes is too dangerous to go house to house, suspected homes are just being reduced by tank fire. It seems to me that pretty much describes the whole invasion- suspected mosques, clinics, schools, homes, wounded... whatever... were blown away first. The invasion of Falujah was not a nice clean operation where only the "bad guys" got hurt- given the situtation that's not possible (as Geezer has made amply clear) and so I tend to discount happy-face military announcments- especially since they have totally avoided the topic of civilian casualites.

Oops- gotta go.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:43 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I don't have a problem with people being handcuffed in that situation provided that they weren't handcuffed in painful positions for long periods of time. My point here was that the Army implies that the hospital was not occupied- just interdicted- but photographs of handcuffed doctors and patients would be proof to the contrary. It IS possible that the Army skated the truth because the hospital was "techncially" occupied by Iraqi forces... that would be pretty typcial of military lack of transparency.

The military also provides a pretty upbeat assessment of the situation (although they have not addressed civilian deaths as far as I know). But bowing to Geezer's first-hand experience in military affairs, I find a contradictions between what he says and... what he says. According to Geezer
Quote:

The photos I've seen show anything from intact building to broken windows to individual houses reduced to rubble. Military civil affairs teams tasked with restoring infrastructure have found that much of the water, sewer, and electrical system is in good shape and just needs to be repaired and restarted. The buildings targeted during the attack were those from which fire was being received. If the insurgents were using mosques, schools, homes, etc. those buildings were destroyed, but no wholesale destruction occurred.
. But at the same time, he clearly and repeatedly says that, given the nature of the insurgency, the best course is to SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. Indeed, a military description of the "mopping up" operation in Falujah says that because the warren of alleyways and homes is too dangerous to go house to house, suspected homes are just being reduced by tank fire. It seems to me that pretty much describes the whole invasion- suspected mosques, clinics, schools, homes, wounded... whatever... were blown away first. The invasion of Falujah was not a nice clean operation where only the "bad guys" got hurt- given the situtation that's not possible (as Geezer has made amply clear) and so I tend to discount happy-face military announcments- especially since they have totally avoided the topic of civilian casualites.

Oops- gotta go.




I give up. You take bits of information out of context. You put words in peoples mouths. You ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions. You have no concept of military operations. You apparently have no problem with your heroic freedom fighters kidnapping, torturing, and executing hostages, but can't understand that securing unknown individuals in a combat zone is preferable to killing them.

I can understand that you don't like the war, but going to such lengths to demonize the Americans and Iraqis who are fighting it, while ignoring the proudly broadcast barbarity of the terrorists (Sorry, but that's the word for people who would shoot a bound and blindfolded woman in the head.) is incomprehensible to me.

An army is a group of individuals, and some will do horrible things. The difference is that in our army, you go to jail for doing them, in the insurgency, you get to be a hero on TV.

Per IBC, so far in November, 23 civilians have died as a result of Coalition action. 126 have died as a result of insurgent action. So who's shooting first most?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I can't address the insurgent actions because I have no control over them. But as an American citizen I have some measure of control over our actions, if only to understand what's going on and vote accordingly. And the way I handle the information is not to focus my attention on "them" and how bad "they" are, but on us.

I'm sorry that you feel that I took your words out of context, but you stated repeatedly and persuasively that we try our best to save civilian lives but we shoot first and ask questions later. There is an inherent contradiction in what you say, I didn't put it there and I can't take it away.















NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I've been quietly following the thread. I wonder if Geezer realizes just how, well, lame he looks.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I've been quietly following the thread. I wonder if Geezer realizes just how, well, lame he looks.



Ah, the usual Rue insult. From you, I take this as a complement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't address the insurgent actions because I have no control over them. But as an American citizen I have some measure of control over our actions, if only to understand what's going on and vote accordingly. And the way I handle the information is not to focus my attention on "them" and how bad "they" are, but on us.

I'm sorry that you feel that I took your words out of context, but you stated repeatedly and persuasively that we try our best to save civilian lives but we shoot first and ask questions later. There is an inherent contradiction in what you say, I didn't put it there and I can't take it away.



The way the insurgents act does matter, because our forces have to take it into account in their own actions. If insurgents boobytrap their dead and wounded, it makes it much more risky to check them and see if they need aid. If insurgents shoot at you from a mosque or hospital, you shoot back, or you die, and you quite correctly are more suspicious of mosques and hospitals. If insurgents dressed in civilian clothes make suicide bomb attacks, you have to take more precautions about civilians. If insurgents are willing to kill prisoners of war as a matter of policy, you have to be sure to limit their ability to take prisoners.

BTW, I never said anything about "shoot first and ask questions later". I said you have to react to the actions of the enemy, while trying to keep from injuring the innocent. When the enemy has no concern for the innocent, that becomes harder.

You must know that there are any number of American forces on trial right now for violating the military's code of conduct regarding treatment of prisoners and civilians. How does this square with your assumption of a "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy?


And once again, do the terrorist acts of the insurgents even bother you? I've asked this several times and gotten no answer. I bet I won't this time either.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 3:00 AM

DEBIJI


SignyM:

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
... But at the same time, he clearly and repeatedly says that, given the nature of the insurgency, the best course is to SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER.



I have looked back through the thread and I can find the string "SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER" in only one post.

It is not a Geezer post.

It is your post:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ummm.. says who? Do you have a personal in with the general where you can get the straight stuff? And if at least some of the soldiers are blowing away the wounded point-blank, and a functioning hospital was occupied (BTW, how DID we get past all those bombs and boobytraps on the bridge?) how can you say with confidence that some missions similarly didn't go astray? EDITED TO ADD: ESPECIALLY WHEN THE POLICY SEEMS TO BE SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER.



Was it in another thread that Geezer made this comment? Also, when the comment was made, was it shouted? Geezer doesn't seem to shout much in his posts here.

Respectfully,
debiji

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 3:32 AM

DEBIJI


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Respectfully?


Quite.

Quote:


The thing is I don't make statments like ""...killing an entire city...". lightly. I've seen the shots of Fallujah yesterday. Looks like the Warsaw Getto on a bad day. You know, when the Nazis burned it down building by building.


I saw shots like that too, in newspapers, and various online sources. But, these shots are not proof that it has been burned down building by building. Certainly, some parts have been destroyed, but other parts have not. There is evidence that up until Nov 5, no destruction on the scale that you claim has occurred:
Edited: www.digitalglobe.com
/images/qb/al_fallujah_nov5_2004_ov_dg.jpg

This imagery seems to show that since April, the US military has not wiped the city off the Earth (how you put it I think.)

I admit, it predates the bulk of the ground offensive, but it is still good data and can be compared to future data to actually quantify the damage to the city.

Quote:


America is murdering, torturing, and raping innocent people in an insane war. You can go around twisting facts to prop up your opinion all you want, but it doesn't change the reality. Fallujah is a war crime on a scale not seen since Vietnam.


Which facts did I "twist"?

Quote:


About Saddam being a Sunni. Sure he was, by birth. But that isn't what he was as the Iraq tyrant. His supporters were a criminal gang of various people, many family oriented. It was like the mafia. Making a connection from the entire Sunni population to Saddam is specious at best. What you have done is use a speck of truth as proof to your opinion about Saddam and the Sunnis. But it isn't true and what's more that's common knowledge about Saddam (I've seen this subject talked about).


Saddam's supporters were (and are) more than a criminal gang. He and they controlled and entire country and put down a popular uprising by the majority ethnic group. It takes alot of people to do that and many, not all, came from the cities and towns of the Sunni triangle, including Falluja. I do not think all Sunnis support Hussein, but I do think that many did and some still do.

Quote:


Besides, what could your point actually be? That if the city of Fallujah was traditionally a Saddam stronghold it should be raised? America still looking like ethnic cleansing in that scenario too you see.


No, I do not think Fallujah should be razed, and further, I do not think it is being razed. I think that US military forces are moving through the city on foot and in vehicles. They are fighting insurgents and disarming various explosive devices. Sometimes, they are killing civilians, unintentionally. Sometimes, they are destroying structures that are suspected to be too dangerous to enter and search. They are destroying and damaging many buildings, but not unnecessarily. They are finding torture and execution locations and caches of weapons. They are seeing very few civilians, but the ones they see are being aided and transported out of the city.

I believe that it is (was now) an insurgent stronghold, and that if Iraq is to ever become peaceful again, most of the insurgents must be a) convinced to join the political process or b) eliminated (killed or captured) through the military process. Convincing was tried in Falluja, and failed.

And I see no evidence of "ethnic cleansing". If it exists, I would like to see it. Please post sources. If you do not like to post webpages, then please post whatever cites you have, including personal communication. My access to paper editions of English language newspapers and journals is limited, but I will do the best I can.

Respectfully,
debiji

Edited: Crap! Didn't mean for the image to be in the post like that! Sorry.
Edited (again): Crud! Still not right

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 3:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A portly Shiite cleric, Abu Qusai sheds his black robe for a training suit and exchanges his white turban for a baseball cap, an effort to mask his identity for a risky trip through what has become known as the "triangle of death."

The region has become a death zone for many Shiite Muslims, Westerners and members of the Iraqi security services, many of whom have become the victims of Sunni Muslim insurgents and gunmen _ some who receive bounties of several thousand dollars.



http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=336120

So who was it doing the ethnic cleansing, again?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Militants Try to Stir Arab-Kurd Violence
Updated: Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 - 3:43 AM

By MARIAM FAM
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Insurgents battling U.S. and Iraqi forces in the northern city of Mosul have been trying to drag the Kurdish minority into their fight and set off a sectarian war, Kurdish and Arab officials say.

Violence against Kurds has escalated in recent days, officials say. The offices _ and officials _ of Kurdish political parties have been attacked. Insurgents fired on a truck carrying Kurdish peshmerga fighters. And at least one Kurd was said to have been beheaded in Mosul, a largely Sunni Arab city.



http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=336126

Got your ethnic cleansing right here.

Damn. Ghoul was right. There is ethnic cleansing in Iraq.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer (et al) I was attempting to summarize an entire series of posts that Geezer made into one cogent sentence. I capitalized the sentence merely to make clear that it was edited in afterwards. (SHEESH!!) Here are the quotes:

"Unfortunately, the anti-coalition forces have a history of turning hospitals, mosques, schools and the like into either strongpoints or boobytraps" (hospitals, mosques, schools = potential targets)

"If coalition troops can't tell the real ambulances from the carbombs, they can either shoot to stop them or..."

"Nothing casual about it (i.e. shooting a wounded man point-blank). A decision that had to be made in a split-second, given the knowledge that the insurgents had been boobytrapping their dead, that suicide bombing was one of their preferred weapons, and that many of their fighters were looking for martyrdom."

"If it was possible, I, and I bet the military, would like nothing more than to get only the bad guys. This just isn't doable, especially in urban combat when the bad guys use occupied homes and buildings as fighting positions."

He also justified w/holding water and aid to Falujah using the same reasons.

The best summation I can make of the situation is : Shoot first and ask question later. When the enemey is fighting a guerrilla war and is part of (mingled with, supported by) the non-combatant population, this is probably the only rational thing to do. Inevitably, non-combatants are going to be killed.

I wasn't making this point to blame the soldier, who is only responding the the situation. I have a couple of points that I'm trying to make:

Even without the INTENT of killing every single person in Falujah, under the best of circumstances a "large" number of civilians were killed. The USA and Iraqi military also have a critical interest in controlling those civilian casualty figures in order to maintain support for the war. Falujah is a good case study for examining how the casualty figures are reported, which can develop a better idea of how well the reporting is working overall in terms of accuracy.

The other point is to question why we are fighting a population in the first place. Clearly, we aren't wanted and we are not viewed as "liberators".

Off-line now.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 8:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Even without the INTENT of killing every single person in Falujah, under the best of circumstances a "large" number of civilians were killed.



Since no figures have been released yet, this must just be an assumption on your part. The Red Cross won't enter the city without some assurance of safety from the insurgents, and haven't been able to get it. They're probably remembering the car bomb attack on their headquarters last year.

Quote:

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Friday that its aid teams could not enter Falluja without contacting insurgents fighting US-led forces for control of the city.

"To enter the city we must be sure that all the warring parties accept our presence," ICRC spokeswoman Antonella Notari told AFP news agency.

"But one party to conflict is out of our reach - we cannot establish contact."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4025171.stm

The only info about civilian casualties is from a military briefing, so you won't believe it, but here it is anyway.

Quote:

GEN. SATTLER: Casualties among the civilians. We have treated probably somewhere in the area of 25 to 30 who have been injured. I don't have -- we did not have any that have gotten up to me -- that we have actually any civilians that have been killed during the fighting. But once again, we're still moving through the town and there's a number of buildings that are in fact rubbled. But I can honestly say at this point, I know of none that were killed and only a handful that have been treated. We treat those right at our medical facility, and then the Iraqi interim government made ambulances available and doctors available, so there is a procedure for the civilians to be moved into the Iraqi medical system.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/11/mil-041118-dod
01.htm




Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The other point is to question why we are fighting a population in the first place. Clearly, we aren't wanted and we are not viewed as "liberators".
Off-line now.



Another assumption on your part. We don't have any firm info on the makeup of insurgent forces in Fallujah, except that their leader is Jordanian and some foreigners have been captured or killed. We did find the "hostage slaughterhouses" and locations for making car bombs and other IEDs, which would indicate that there were terrorists there, not just outraged Fallujahns wanting to protect their homes. Combat reports indicate many of them were uniformed, trained fighters; again, not just locals grabbing guns. "Human Interest" newspaper articles I've seen about the insurgents in Fallujah mentioned many Wahabi Sunnis coming from all over looking for martyrdom.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 8:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Dang- I peeked!

Geezer, the military has said, repeatedly, despite the fact that this is contrary to what the Administration is trying to protray, that the number of foreign fighters in Falujah is small (no more than 5%) and even samller in other areas of Iraq. They said this is May, they said this just a week ago. Will you PLEASE stop repeating something that is clearly wrong????


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 9:11 AM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Dang- I peeked!

Geezer, the military has said, repeatedly, despite the fact that this is contrary to what the Administration is trying to protray, that the number of foreign fighters in Falujah is small (no more than 5%) and even samller in other areas of Iraq. They said this is May, they said this just a week ago. Will you PLEASE stop repeating something that is clearly wrong????






Signym,

5% of what number?

5% of the estimated enemy forces in Fallujah after the coalition dropped leaflets warning the civilian population we were coming in (est 5000 insurgents and foreign fighters) comes out to about 250.

But lets not forget that we were human enough to give them all this warning before the fight began after trying to convince the Fallujah population to give up the insurgents and foreign fighters themselves.

It is known that the warning that was given made the vast majority of said foriegn fighters leave fallujah before the battle began. That includes Zarqawi himself.

So when you say 5%, I ask 5% of what population?
Give me some real numbers and your sources please.




Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 9:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Dang- I peeked!

Geezer, the military has said, repeatedly, despite the fact that this is contrary to what the Administration is trying to protray, that the number of foreign fighters in Falujah is small (no more than 5%) and even samller in other areas of Iraq. They said this is May, they said this just a week ago. Will you PLEASE stop repeating something that is clearly wrong????




That some of the fighters are foreign? But isn't that what you just said? Did I say "most of the fighters are foreign", or even "many"? Let's review.

Quote:

We don't have any firm info on the makeup of insurgent forces in Fallujah, except that their leader is Jordanian and some foreigners have been captured or killed.


Nope. No "many" or "most" there. How'd those words get put in my mouth? Patooey!

How many of the insurgents were Fallujahns? Who knows? Not all of them. There's lots of other places in Iraq they could come from. The total of killed and captured so far is about 2,200. Many of the dead were not carrying any ID, just weapons, so final identification may be difficult. It'll probably be a while until they're sorted out.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 9:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Barnstormer- That's why I referred to a statement made in MAY- to eliminate the fact that non-natives might have left Falujah before the invasion. The military has repeatedly made these statements on a number of occasions reagrding many locations in the Sunni triangle. What is your problem? Is is that you can't read or can't think? If you don't like what the military says, take it up with them, OK?

Geezer- You don't know the Jordanian was "their leader". In fact, I doubt that you would find a single leader anyway- my guess is that there are several insurgencies and they may not be coordinated. One of the movements is a terrorist movement related to big, coordinated bombings and kidnappings, some unknown portion headed by Zarqawi. (But often with the collusion of local police and security.) Then there are smaller incidents involving IEDs, sabotage, RPGS and small-arms firefights that are probably just locally-based.

You're right that my statement about many civilian casualities is an assumption. Actually, it's a hypothesis based on what you said and is being tested.

I have another hypothesis, which is that the military lies like a rug when it comes to civilian casualites in Iraq. So far, the evidence points in that direction, and I'll give you the latest example (of which there are many):

As far the military briefing about civilian casulties ("I don't know of any") you said I probably wouldn't believe them and you're right. This is again partly based on what you said, which was "The total of killed and captured so far is about 2,200. Many of the dead were not carrying any ID, just weapons, so final identification may be difficult."

The military seems to have detailed knowledge on combat casualties, but they have NO IDEA of civilians casualties? Not even- "We know of at least XX number dead but there may be more"? Please, use your common sense. It doesn't take Einstein to count up the number of women and children's bodies that you can casually see. I'll bet there was AT LEAST ONE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 10:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It doesn't take Einstein to count up the number of women and children's bodies that you can casually see. I'll bet there was AT LEAST ONE.



Well, there was that one Caucasian woman, found shot in the head and mutilated, but you wouldn't care about that, since the evil Americans didn't do it.

Come on. You know that the news media worldwide are just champing at the bit, wanting to report civilian casualty figures. If they got even an inkling from any source at all, cell phone call, eye-witness, escaping insurgent, it would be all over the news. I haven't seen it yet.

I'm sorry, but we are currently unable to provide you with a bunch of dead Fallujahn women and children so you can have the pleasure of railing against the horrible US war machine. Wouldn't you be brokenhearted if there weren't many and it spoiled all your righteous indignation?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 10:48 AM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It doesn't take Einstein to count up the number of women and children's bodies that you can casually see. I'll bet there was AT LEAST ONE.



Well, there was that one Caucasian woman, found shot in the head and mutilated, but you wouldn't care about that, since the evil Americans didn't do it.

Come on. You know that the news media worldwide are just champing at the bit, wanting to report civilian casualty figures. If they got even an inkling from any source at all, cell phone call, eye-witness, escaping insurgent, it would be all over the news. I haven't seen it yet.

I'm sorry, but we are currently unable to provide you with a bunch of dead Fallujahn women and children so you can have the pleasure of railing against the horrible US war machine. Wouldn't you be brokenhearted if there weren't many and it spoiled all your righteous indignation?



"Keep the Shiny side up"





Geezer,

I wish you would stop confusing the issue by omitting information and giving incomplete examples to your own advantage!!!!

Are you referencing the Caucasian woman who was running the Iraqi Care facility, who was an Iraqi citizen and had spent the last 30 years helping the Iraqi people who was shot in the head while being videotaped for the visual consumption of the rest of the world?

Or are you refering to the unidentified blond Caucasion woman who was found recently in Fallujah DISEMBOWELED and with her arms and legs cut off that was thrown into the street? and

Which one Geezer, Which one? Lets try to be accurate here!!!!!




Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 11:05 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by debiji:
... SNIP! ...
And I see no evidence of "ethnic cleansing". If it exists, I would like to see it. Please post sources. If you do not like to post webpages, then please post whatever cites you have, including personal communication. My access to paper editions of English language newspapers and journals is limited, but I will do the best I can.

Respectfully,
debiji


I think you make great points and I'm not going to jump up and try to convince you of what I believe, because that's all it is.

The only truth I know for sure is that all information coming out of Iraq is controlled by the US Military and the White House. OK, pretty much the White House - and any opinion about what is actually going on in Iraq can only be called speculation.

So let's agree on that. Thus you will not find me posting links. This is comming from ME. I don't have evidence, just precedent.

Our beliefs differ a lot.

My position is that the US is not trust worthy. The US in Iraq has proven itself to be criminal, so when I suspect the US of criminal activity such as raising an entire city I can't think of a reason to believe the US would not.

Criminal acts are the legacy of the USA in Iraq.

Now, the way Fallujah has been bombed and shot up since April, APRIL (!)... lends me to believe there isn't anything left. This is how Iraq is going? I think your above assurtions of US help for Fallujah are meat for the CNN grill and people like you who need to be reasured the US is a nation of good people and values instead of the reality of murder, torture, rape... etc.

You believe, if I may, the USA couldn't possibly murder, torture, or declare an entire nation of people "terrorists" or "insurgents" and simply bomb them to death, sending soldiers on Vietnam style "search and destroy" missions.

But I believe it. The US has done it before.

See, we in other countries are respected because we don't go around lieing, killing, and torturing people.. bad foriegn policy thing. Something Bush/Cheney don't give a tiny pink rat's arse about.

Time will prove ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 1:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm sorry, but we are currently unable to provide you with a bunch of dead Fallujahn women and children so you can have the pleasure of railing against the horrible US war machine. Wouldn't you be brokenhearted if there weren't many and it spoiled all your righteous indignation?


Well Geezer, there are already plenty to fuel righteous indignation. Unless, of course, you don't care.

So, to recap the points on which we agree-

The US did NOT take the Falujah hospital to "save lives".

The insurgents are NOT primarily(per military statements) or even necessarily "headed by" (unsupported assumption) foreigners.

When dealing with an insurgency comingled with a population, it is "undoable" to kill only the "bad guys". (Geezer, you said this yourself)

The US Army at this point does not have ANY civilian casualties to report.

Are we agreed so far?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 3:25 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Well Geezer, there are already plenty to fuel righteous indignation. Unless, of course, you don't care.


Actually, I do care. I hate seeing most anyone get killed, Coalition forces, Iraqis who actually believe they're fighting for their homes, especially innocent civilians. People who execute hostages and prisoners, not so much.

You, on the other hand, seem to want civilian casualties in Fallujah. I assume this is because you need lots of dead women and children to support your preconceptions about the blood-thirsty Americans. I expect that if there are not sufficient dead reported in Fallujah, you will blame the low body-count on a cover-up and continue your teeth-gnashing.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So, to recap the points on which we agree-

The US did NOT take the Falujah hospital to "save lives".

The Fallujah hospital could have been taken for a combination of reasons. If the insurgents hadn't mined the bridges which are the only access to it from the city proper, it could have been used to treat anyone injured. Having it under coalition protection also preventd the insurgents from taking it. Since the insurgents tend to be rather indiscriminate about who they shoot, I assume that this would have saved lives.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The insurgents are NOT primarily(per military statements) or even necessarily "headed by" (unsupported assumption) foreigners.



Nothing to indicate the insurgents were from Fallujah either. And the headquarters of Abu Musab Zarqawi were found in the city. He's Jordanian, BTW.

Quote:

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 18 -- U.S. soldiers discovered a house in southern Fallujah on Thursday believed by U.S. military officials to be a main headquarters for the network of the Jordanian guerrilla leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose group has claimed responsibility for numerous bombings, kidnappings and beheadings across Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59519-2004Nov18.html

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
When dealing with an insurgency comingled with a population, it is "undoable" to kill only the "bad guys". (Geezer, you said this yourself)


Unfortunately, this may be true. If the insurgents have no qualms about endangering civilians, it is quite possible that some could be killed.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The US Army at this point does not have ANY civilian casualties to report.


The last I saw they reported 30 or 35 wounded that they had treated (casualties = killed and wounded, btw, not just killed.) I had forgotten the 5 (I think) civilians found by the coalition forces, shot execution-style, but since they were killed by the insurgents and can't be counted against the American savages, I guess you don't want to know about them.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Are we agreed so far?



Not really, but I'm interested in seeing how you twist these tidbits into another tirade.

BTW, earlier you said "I can't address the insurgent actions because I have no control over them." But the truth is, you do. Whether you agree with US policy or not, your failure to condemn, or even show any dismay over, the insurgency's barbaric actions can only be taken as an implicit approval of their methods. You, and people like you, provide them with endless propaganda. So you could actually be seen as supporting their actions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 5:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


"Whether you agree with US policy or not, your failure to condemn, or even show any dismay over, the insurgency's barbaric actions can only be taken as an implicit approval of their methods. You, and people like you, provide them with endless propaganda. {How?} So you could actually be seen as supporting their actions."

Quick! Geezer, maybe you should inform Gonzales that someone might be thinking double plus ungood thoughts!! But before you do, you might want to know that I was protesting against the Taliban in Afghanistan while we were negotiating pipeline deals. I hate the Saudi Royal family (I happen to know someone whose nephew was murdered by a Saudi Prince after having been raped). I wasn't a big supporter of Saddam (like Bush was), and I'm against oppression and terrorism in ANY form- even the Zarqawi form. But I can't feel ashamed of Zarqawi because I don't identify with him. I can, and do, feel ashamed of our wrongdoings.

To address your points specifically-

"Nothing to indicate the insurgents were from Fallujah either."
So what? A number of extended families are split between cities in the Sunni triangle and one of the things about Iraqi families is that they feel deeply about their extended members. And don't forget- if you hurt a family member their culture demands revenge.

"And the headquarters of Abu Musab Zarqawi were found in the city."

Are you implying that he was head of the city and in charge of the insurgency? Then it's good that he was routed out of the city, it's very unfortunate that we didn't catch him and sad that we apparently had to attack a whole city to get at one evil foreign terrorist.

"I'm interested in seeing how you twist these tidbits into another tirade."
For an example of a tirade, please see Geezer's post (Above).

Geezer, I'm offended that you question my patriotism when you had no good arguments to offer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- I think this is where my discussion with you needs to end. I urge you to reflect on where your assumption that we can do no wrong has led you. AT one time, our goal in Iraq was to eliminate WMD. Then it was the rid the country of Saddam Hussein. Then it was to turn that country into "flypaper" for our enemies. (Did anyone ask the Iraqis if they wanted to be bait, and have a war fought on its soild between the USA and its enemies?) Then we said we wanted to install democracy. Where are we now?

For what it's worth, I believe in the principles of freedom amd equality that our nation was founded on. I feel strongly that people should be able to control their future, and not be oppressed by religious, economic, or political tyranny. In a bit of cultural chuavinsim, Sharia law drives me nuts because of its intense oppression of women. I believe that we should not support tyranny for short-term gains, and when we do it comes back to haunt us decades later.

Those are my ethics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


According to an AP story, about 1,200 Fallujan insurgents have been killed:
Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4625783,00.html
Friday November 19, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) An estimated 1,200 insurgents have been killed ... the military said.

As reported on network news (no reference) appx half of those killed were identified by origin, and they came from Fallujah and neighboring villages.

The Daily Star (Lebanon) carried an AFP report, and Al-Jazeera and other foreign news services reported on the US Centcom count of 24 out of 1,000 foreign fighters among the insurgents:
Quote:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&artic
le_id=10233

U.S. overstated foreign fighter numbers in Iraq
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Friday, November 19, 2004
DAMASCUS: Washington exaggerated numbers of foreign fighters in Iraq to justify the assault on Fallujah, an official Syrian daily claimed Thursday.
"The question of foreign fighters crossing Iraqi (borders) has been exaggerated, given that only 24 of the 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah are foreign," Ath-Thawra said.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/194BA8A5-2DAF-461A-A101-5965D01
56D17.htm

Thursday 18 November 2004
Al-Jazeera
(O)f the more than 1000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in Fallujah last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, General George Casey, the top US ground commander in Iraq, said on Monday.
Also on Monday, Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi acknowledged that anti-US fighters were largely made up of his countrymen.

US Centcom has explained the low number of identified foreign insurgents, saying they must have left Fallujah before the US attack, and are (still) a major force in Iraq in general:
Quote:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11433633
%255E1702,00.html

"A lot of the foreign fighters left Fallujah in the early days," said Lieutenant-general Lance Smith, deputy commander of Centcom, noting it had been a "well advertised campaign". "A lot of them moved out of there. Some suicidal types stayed behind, but others moved out. Some went back home, others went to Ramdi (Ramadi?), Mosul and most likely Baghdad to fight another day," he said. Of the some 1000 people detained by the US military after fighting in Fallujah fewer than two per cent are of foreign origin, Lt-Gen Smith said. "Up to 1000 (in Iraq) could (emphasis mine) be foreign fighters," he said, noting that "suicide jihad is not particular to the Iraqi way".



So how does one explain news reports of hundreds of foreign insurgents like this one:
Quote:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41540
GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT INTELLIGENCE BRIEF
Saddam loyalists hire Arabs to fight U.S.
Hundreds of foreign nationals captured in Fallujah
Posted: November 19, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Loyalists to ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein have hired thousands of Arab nationals to fight the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence information service.
Officials said hundreds of foreign nationals have been captured in Fallujah during the past week. They said the fighters were from Afghanistan, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria.

A quick check indicates Bill Gertz, a (former?) journalist for the Washington Times (not the Wash Post) is a major contributor. Besides being an author, there is no obvious qualification that indicates he is 'in the know'. The lesson is, one needs to look at news sources carefully.

"You, and people like you, provide them with endless propaganda. So you could actually be seen as supporting their actions."

Geezer, I said you looked lame. And you replied: "Ah, the usual Rue insult. From you, I take this as a complement." Later you said SignyM could be seen as a supporter of barbaric insurgents. Try looking in the mirror for the source of the unsually vile insults.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2004 4:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- I think this is where my discussion with you needs to end. I urge you to reflect on where your assumption that we can do no wrong has led you.



The topic of this thread was ethnic cleansing, specifically relating to the attack on Fallujah. The premise that the coalition forces, primarily the Americans, showed no regard for civilian casualties, and in fact wanted to kill Sunnis.

My position is that the American forces have gone to great lengths to reduce civilian casualties as far as possible, while the insurgents have not, and in fact are currently causing far more casualties among the civilian population.

I don't think that "we" can do no wrong. I'm aware that members of the American forces have committed crimes under our military's code of conduct (one of the strictest in the world concerning treatment of civilians and prisoners, I might add). I'm also aware that these people are being prosecuted and punished. And we don't have to wait for some international court to do it.

I do note that the types of actions that would result in prosecution for an American, and worse, are standard policy for the insurgents. I note that the way the insurgents are fighting is responsible for much of the risk civilians face from coalition fire. I note that this is also their policy. I also note the double standard applied to these actions by some here because they "can't control" the insurgents, as though they had to be in control of something before they could have an opinion about it.

I think I provided a pretty good case that the coalition isn't involved in "ethnic cleansing" or uncontrolled killing of civilians, and that if anyone is, it's the insurgents.

And as usual, you want to turn the whole thing into a referendum on the war. That poor horse has been beat to steak tartar. You can have whatever opinion about the rightness or wrongness of the war, but we are where we are, and that can't be changed. How we deal with it now is the issue.

You say that you believe that people should be able to control their future, so which one do you like? The one with an election in January, or the one with either Baathists or Wahabis running the show from the barrel of a gun? Thats pretty much the choices.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2004 5:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Rue. Let me correct your creative editing. (the dropped text is in bold and italics.)

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/194BA8A5-2DAF-461A-A101-5965D01
56D17.htm

Thursday 18 November 2004
Al-Jazeera
(O)f the more than 1000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in Fallujah last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, General George Casey, the top US ground commander in Iraq, said on Monday.
Several senior commanders agree that the overwhelming majority of fighters are drawn from tens of thousands of former government employees whose sympathies lie with Saddam Hussein, unemployed criminals who find work laying roadside bombs, and Iraqi "religious extremists".
Also on Monday, Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi acknowledged that anti-US fighters were largely made up of his countrymen.But he maintained that foreign fighters had often been responsible for car bombings and other spectacular attacks that he said were designed to derail elections scheduled for January.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2004 8:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Let it be said here that Al-Jazeera actually DOES carry extended quotes and information from the 'other side' (the US). It could be argued they are less biased, less controlled, and more 'fair' than US media, which doen't carry extended quotes from the 'other side', not even from internal critics.

But it doesn't make those quotes neccesarily believable all the same. Just b/c several military people (not quoted and apparently off the record) and Alawi 'said' something, is it true?

BTW, I do think you owe SignyM an apology at the very least. And as for my comment (you looked lame) which was the MILDEST of personal observations, it doesn't even come close to your standard of insult that you throw around without guilt. So my next observation is that you also look like a hypocrite.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:18 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
BTW, I do think you owe SignyM an apology at the very least. And as for my comment (you looked lame) which was the MILDEST of personal observations, it doesn't even come close to your standard of insult that you throw around without guilt. So my next observation is that you also look like a hypocrite.



I will admit that in the heat of the moment, I have allowed some comments to become personal. I will try to keep it on a higher level. I am sure that Signym, and yourself, are sincere in your beliefs, as I am in mine. If my opinions offend you, so be it, but I will stop the name-calling.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 22, 2004 3:23 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Rue. Let me correct your creative editing. (the dropped text is in bold and italics.)

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/194BA8A5-2DAF-461A-A101-5965D01
56D17.htm

Thursday 18 November 2004
Al-Jazeera
(O)f the more than 1000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in Fallujah last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, General George Casey, the top US ground commander in Iraq, said on Monday.
Several senior commanders agree that the overwhelming majority of fighters are drawn from tens of thousands of former government employees whose sympathies lie with Saddam Hussein, unemployed criminals who find work laying roadside bombs, and Iraqi "religious extremists".
Also on Monday, Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi acknowledged that anti-US fighters were largely made up of his countrymen.But he maintained that foreign fighters had often been responsible for car bombings and other spectacular attacks that he said were designed to derail elections scheduled for January.



"Keep the Shiny side up"


I guess I am right when I say that there are no terrrorists in Iraq.

There are no "foreign fighters".

I guess this explains why the White House told the media to use the word "insurgents" to describe "the enemy"

Ghoulman is right again.

How long will it take for people to realize Fallujah was leveled by a lawless occupation force bent on terrifying the population by destroying thier entire city.

Maybe "Ethnic Cleansing" isn't the correct word, but what word do we have for a force who is so morally bankrupt they feel they can destroy a whole city to put down resistance?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:11 AM

GHOULMAN



Pictures you will never see on US TV.

http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:38 AM

GHOULMAN


A 35 year-old merchant from Fallujah, Abu Hammad, starts telling us what he experienced, and barely breathes while doing so because he is so enraged.

"The American warplanes came continuously through the night and bombed everywhere in Fallujah! It did not stop even for a moment! If the American forces did not find a target to bomb, they used sound bombs just to terrorize the people and children. The city stayed in fear; I cannot give a picture of how panicked everyone was."

He is shaking with grief and anger. "In the mornings I found Fallujah empty, as if nobody lives in it. Even poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah-they used everything-tanks, artillery, infantry, poison gas. Fallujah has been bombed to the ground. Nothing is left."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:39 AM

TAUSETIPRIME


You dont like this board Ghoul....you said so yourself.

Yet, you come here and post more than a few times a day, and its never talking about the show, cast, or things remotely related to the movie.

You constantly argue about being labeled a 'Troll', but you seem intent on creating thread after thread that strays completely from the interest in which the site was designed.

From now on I'm going to call all threads/topics relating to the Firefly TV show & Serenity movie "Ghoulman kryptonite".



They didnt call it the dark ages because it was dark.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:40 AM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Pictures you will never see on US TV.

http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/





Yep,

There a bit over the top for public consumption over public airwaves, huh?

By the way, do these sort of pictures appear on Irish or Canadian TV?

I hope not. I don't like the idea of kids seeing this stuff. After a while, they get used to it and the idea of the horror of war gets diluted.

IMHO




Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:49 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

The topic of this thread was ethnic cleansing, specifically relating to the attack on Fallujah. The premise that the coalition forces, primarily the Americans, showed no regard for civilian casualties, and in fact wanted to kill Sunnis.

My position is that the American forces have gone to great lengths to reduce civilian casualties as far as possible, while the insurgents have not, and in fact are currently causing far more casualties among the civilian population.




Witnesses say US forces killed unarmed civilians
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=586045
By Kim Sengupta in Baghdad
24 November 2004
Allegations of widespread abuse by US forces in Fallujah, including the killing of unarmed civilians and the targeting of a hospital in an attack, have been made by people who have escaped from the city.


They said, in interviews with The Independent, that as well as deaths from bombs and artillery shells, a large number of people including children were killed by American snipers. US forces refused repeated calls for medical aid for injured civilians, they said.


Some of the killings took place in the build-up to the assault on the rebel stronghold, and at least in one case - that of the death of a family of seven, including a three-month baby - the American authorities have admitted responsibility and offered compensation.


Quote:

I don't think that "we" can do no wrong. I'm aware that members of the American forces have committed crimes under our military's code of conduct (one of the strictest in the world concerning treatment of civilians and prisoners, I might add). I'm also aware that these people are being prosecuted and punished. And we don't have to wait for some international court to do it.

The White House has given the OK to ignore the Geneva Convention. US personael are guilty of murder, torture, and every other crime. Makes one pine for the days when Saddam was in power - fewer deaths!

That's the thing about a pro-American stance regarding Iraq... it's a lie. The US lied to the world, invaded, bombed, tortured, and on and on. The USA is a lawless aggressor. What are the people of Iraq to think?

Until the US Army is held accountable to even the most basic human rights laws (ask the UN, have been begging the USA to honour this for decades) one can't but treat the US Military, at least in Iraq, and anyone involved with this organisation, as criminals. BTW, it isn't the Military that came up with this evil... it was the White House.

See the problems Bush/Cheney cause? Their brilliant plan to bring peace to Iraq has brought about the undeniable conclusion that Americas are all murders, torturers, and liars who should be killed on site. Not because they are hated, but for simple self preservation!

SELF PRESERVATION!

The point is that currently the US Military operates without any legal impediments. None! The Bush/Cheney White House has been bullying the UN and the Hague to keep American Military murderers free from the law.

Then - Abu Ghraib.

But this is all academic.. the point of my original post is to point out that the US Military is, seemingly, operating lawlessly. At least this is a perception held by anyone in Iraq.

And if this is the case, the only thing to do is defend yourself - kill all the Americans.. there isn't any other choice!

How insane is that?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:54 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Pictures you will never see on US TV.
http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/


Yep,
There a bit over the top for public consumption over public airwaves, huh?

By the way, do these sort of pictures appear on Irish or Canadian TV?

I hope not. I don't like the idea of kids seeing this stuff. After a while, they get used to it and the idea of the horror of war gets diluted.

IMHO


Thank you for those comments Dr. Phil.

Oh, because there is a forward slash before your /QUOTE anchor your post is a little messed up. Just key a space between the forward slash in your URL and the /QUOTE anchor.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 7:10 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by TauSetiPrime:
You dont like this board Ghoul....you said so yourself.

Yet, you come here and post more than a few times a day, and its never talking about the show, cast, or things remotely related to the movie.

You constantly argue about being labeled a 'Troll', but you seem intent on creating thread after thread that strays completely from the interest in which the site was designed.

From now on I'm going to call all threads/topics relating to the Firefly TV show & Serenity movie "Ghoulman kryptonite".



They didnt call it the dark ages because it was dark.


? Hey, if you feel that's a fair and mature thing to do, go right ahead. I'm sure you will be applauded for your vitriol by the people on this BBS.

And yea, I do hate this board and most of the people who post here but I'm so constantly amazed at how ignorant, spiteful, and childish people are just because I start my own threads in the proper forum. Sorry for all the logic.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:12 AM

TAUSETIPRIME


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

? Hey, if you feel that's a fair and mature thing to do, go right ahead. I'm sure you will be applauded for your vitriol by the people on this BBS.

And yea, I do hate this board and most of the people who post here but I'm so constantly amazed at how ignorant, spiteful, and childish people are just because I start my own threads in the proper forum. Sorry for all the logic.




After stating your utter distaste for the people, and the board.......some might logically conclude that "The proper forum" in your case is one belonging to another site. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

They didnt call it the dark ages because it was dark.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:11 - 7514 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:02 - 46 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL