Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:12 AM
BARNSTORMER
Quote:Originally posted by 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.
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
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Pictures you will never see on US TV. http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:25 AM
GHOULMAN
Quote:Originally posted by 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.
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.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BarnStormer: War Sucks. And thats the truth. I just wish that everyone on the planet could believe it all at the same time.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:07 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote:Originally posted by BarnStormer: War Sucks. And thats the truth. I just wish that everyone on the planet could believe it all at the same time. Right... it's too bad the USA believes war to be a solution to every frellin' problem it has. War on Poverty. War on Crime. War on Drugs. War on Terrorism. War is the most popular word in American polemics. and hey, you can kiss me... I'm Irish!
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:04 PM
TAUSETIPRIME
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Well, *chuckle*, telling someone to leave a public forum has so much irony I can't even begin to fathom the hypocracy and, frankly, little shit status you have achieved. Congrats, you've managed to say the one thing that is completely the opposite purpose of BBS technology. You should get a medal (pinned into your eye). lol! You really made my day... can't wait to show this one to the gf. Amazing!
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:27 PM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Thursday, November 25, 2004 7:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by TauSetiPrime: Forums are designed to bring people together, at least that much we can agree upon. But, thats not what you do. At least, not by calling the majority of people on this site names.
Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:34 AM
Quote: Originally posted by GHOULMAN: I tried to be nice to ya Connerflynn but you and the rest have consistantly shown yourselves to be the very worst sort. So bad, in fact, you are all coming together to troll everyone you don't like off this BBS.
Quote:Originally posted by GHOULMAN: 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.
Friday, November 26, 2004 4:53 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BarnStormer: Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote:Originally posted by BarnStormer: War Sucks. And thats the truth. I just wish that everyone on the planet could believe it all at the same time. Right... it's too bad the USA believes war to be a solution to every frellin' problem it has. War on Poverty. War on Crime. War on Drugs. War on Terrorism. War is the most popular word in American polemics. and hey, you can kiss me... I'm Irish! Hah, snort! What replacement words would you feel better with? Parley on Poverty? Curmudgenly on Crime? Despondent on Drugs? Turn tail on Terrorism? Sometimes you crack me up Ghoulman Oh, and forgive me for bastardizing a phrase used by Ebonezer but... 5 out of 5 Dentist know that BarnStormer is a Heterosexual Male. Irish or not, there will be no kissin' happening here Sorry pal
Friday, December 3, 2004 10:37 AM
Friday, December 3, 2004 10:45 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Remember - The USA gassed civilians, it's been reported.
Friday, December 3, 2004 11:46 AM
CONNORFLYNN
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: The War on Drugs, for example, has done little but waste billions of your tax dollars, destroyed countless families, and put millions in US jails in what amounts to political imprisonment.
Tuesday, December 7, 2004 7:12 AM
Tuesday, December 7, 2004 9:47 AM
Tuesday, December 7, 2004 10:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BarnStormer: This from Thomas Friedman of the NY times. Notice the paragraphs dedicated to the Lancet article.... Admittedly, the security situation is dire, but look at these figures. In October, the number of Iraqis killed was 775 from acts of war and murder; American troops suffered 63 casualties and 691 wounded. This is too many, but at a time of a major military offensive against insurgents, those numbers are not gigantic. Or how about the constantly cited figure of 100,000 Iraqis killed by Americans since the war began, a statistic thrown about with total and irresponsible abandon by war opponents. That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq, came from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine The Lancet (search). It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize. As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts. Iraq’s Health Ministry estimates by comparison that all told, 3,853 Iraqis have been killed and 15,517 wounded. The fact is that 40 percent of Iraqis say their country is better off since the war, and 65 percent are optimistic about the future. Iraqis are intending to vote in the upcoming elections to the tune of 85 percent, and 45 percent currently support Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Many are unhappy with the U.S. troops' presence there, but at least 35 percent want the United States to stay. We still have a rocky road ahead, beyond doubt, but these figures do not add up to the unmitigated failure that critics of the Bush administration have been painting.
Tuesday, December 7, 2004 11:29 AM
Tuesday, December 7, 2004 4:16 PM
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 6:05 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BarnStormer: Ghoulman, The POINT here is that the Lancet estimated the number of deaths by using an invalid statistical sampling method. I myself am quite familiar with the use of statistics, and how using the wrong method, or a small sample size can and will give erronous data. Kind of a Statistical GIGO law.
Quote:But then again, I regret resurrecting this thread. After all, your not interested in the facts here. You'd rather just vent your spleen by calling all US citizens Neo Fascist Nazi, child gassing, murdering imperialist warmongers. Is'nt that right?
Quote:You know, maybe you should have at least considered taking the "red pill". A little dose of reality would do you some good.
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:53 AM
Quote:Originally posted by some ass: But then again, I regret resurrecting this thread. After all, your not interested in the facts here. You'd rather just vent your spleen by calling all US citizens Neo Fascist Nazi, child gassing, murdering imperialist warmongers.
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 11:22 AM
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:15 PM
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:55 PM
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 6:33 PM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:03 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by rue: I did some quick checking. The Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and the Hague Protocol clearly forbid the destruction, targeting, commandeering and occupation of hospitals, medical facilities, and medical personnel. They forbid the targeting of civilians, and forbid selected portions of the population from being targets on the basis of, for example, sex. They forbid the blocking of civilian relief agencies. They also clearly put the onus on the army to maintain peace and order, and normal civilian services. Haven't looked up yet whether or not violations of the above are subject to war crimes prosecutions.
Quote:Chapter III. Medical Units and Establishments Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units. The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety. Art. 20. Hospital ships entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, shall not be attacked from the land. Art. 21. The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: (1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge. (2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort. (3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment. (4) That personnel and material of the veterinary service are found in the unit or establishment, without forming an integral part thereof. (5) That the humanitarian activities of medical units and establishments or of their personnel extend to the care of civilian wounded or sick. Art. 23. In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital zones and localities so organized as to protect the wounded and sick from the effects of war, as well as the personnel entrusted with the organization and administration of these zones and localities and with the care of the persons therein assembled. Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the hospital zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary. The Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross are invited to lend their good offices in order to facilitate the institution and recognition of these hospital zones and localities.
Quote:Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:40 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Naomi Klein's response to US Ambassadoor deserves to be posted here as well. SNIP!
Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:40 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:58 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:03 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:12 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Geezer- "So would the occupation of a hospital by the forces of the legitimate government and its allies for it's protection from insurgents, and the continued operation of that hospital after verifying the identity of the staff and patients violate this rule?" The VERY first part of your statement- "legitimate government {of Iraq}"- is very much in question. If a government is installed by an illegally invading force, is it a legitimate government? Find me some evidence or point of law to provide even a shred of justification for your statement.
Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:19 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:44 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:45 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:01 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:06 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:42 AM
Quote:the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.
Thursday, December 9, 2004 8:04 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 9:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Basically, the world bowed to an illegal act by the USA, and it will come back to haunt us. In fact, it's aready haunting us- check out the arms deals between China and Germany, France, and between Russai and Brazil. (Get used to the feeling of that knife in your back, Geezer, it's gonna happen a lot in the forseeable future.) What I don't understand is why a straight-up kind of guy like you will defend the obviously illegal and immoral. Why do you do that? What fundamental justification do you tell yourself?
Quote:Part of your sentence is missing... please complete.
Quote:So, any comments on my other two points, and the entirety of my previous posts?
Thursday, December 9, 2004 9:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now!
Thursday, December 9, 2004 10:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Barnstormer:Quote:the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number. This is the most outrageous LIE I have EVER seen posted. I challenge you to post the quote that supports your claim.
Thursday, December 9, 2004 10:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now! So Siggy (may I call you Siggy?). Why was it that you were responding to my post to Rue anyway? And if you were responding to my post, why didn't you address the points in it? And why should I feel a moral obligation to respond to each and every one of the points in your unsolicited post? Did you ever think that I might have been going to lunch and would get back to the rest of them later (but not now, after your "dodge and weave" digs.) And should I spend the time to retrace all the points I've brought up that you have either ignored or mis-interpreted? I think not. Barnstormer - The only up-side to beating your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop. "Keep the Shiny side up"
Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:00 AM
Quote:(Thomas Friedman) That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq, came from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine The Lancet (search). It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize. As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts.
Quote: the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.
Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:09 AM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:33 PM
Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:59 PM
Quote:the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number
Friday, December 10, 2004 6:21 PM
Quote:... civilian casualties were frequent and often systematic, rather than rare and exceptional ... In breach of the Geneva Conventions, for example, U.S. troops refused to allow males of "military-age" (16 to 55)-- defining them all as potential enemy combatants--to flee Falluja. Given the heavy American bombardment of the city, one wonders how many of these men are among the estimated 1,200 to 1,600 categorized by U.S. authorities as dead insurgents. Similar to the free-fire zones of Vietnam, U.S. forces in Falluja had instructions that they could shoot anyone under the assumption that those left in the city were hostile.
Quote: More recently, the Iraqi Red Crescent estimated that more than 6,000 people may have died in the battle.
Friday, December 10, 2004 9:37 PM
Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:59 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL