The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing by Ghoulman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 17639
PAGE 4 of 4

Saturday, December 11, 2004 4:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Specifically re Falluja, given the instructions they received, it's not surprising US troops shot women and children in the back, or shot a wounded, unarmed Iraqi on-camera. Technically speaking, anyone in Falluja, and any male, fighting and equipped or not, was to be considered an insurgent, and shot. Could these orders be responsible for blurring the line between combattant and civilian? Between enemy and prisoner? Between an illegal act and a legal one?

For Geezer & Co: Do ya maybe think?

First, do you have any evidence of "Specifically re Falluja, given the instructions they received, it's not surprising US troops shot women and children in the back..." aside from an unsupported statement in a Commondreams article? Commondreams might not be the most unbiased source for that type of information.

But, anyway...

The more I read the Geneva Protocol of 1949, the more I realize that the insurgency has, by policy, violated just about any provision they are able to. They target civilians, they take and kill hostages, they torture and kill prisoners of war, they kill the wounded, they fortify and fight from mosques, hospitals, schools, and other protected areas, they do not try to limit the risk to civilians of their attacks, They do not wear uniform or some type of identification that they are combatants, they booby trap their dead and wounded, they feign incapacitation for the purpose of deception, they employ children as combatants, they attack humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, and on and on.

The Geneva Conventions and Protocols, the Hague Conventions, and the common rules of war all generally assume that both sides are at least going to make some attempt to play by the rules. They require both sides to play by the rules. Unfortunately, this is out the window in Iraq, since the insurgency doesn't go along. This leaves the coalition in the unenviable position of having to obey the rules as well as they can, without allowing the non-conforming insurgents the ability to slaughter them wholesale by use if illegal tactics. Coalition policy is formed by trying to walk this tightrope. They can't operate in a vaccuum. They have to react to the tactics of their opponents.

This is something the insurgents learn on the first day of Insurgency 101. Get as many civilians killed as you can. Cause as much destruction of protected structures as you can. Blame it on the enemy. Anyone who is against the war will ignore your greater transgessions and accuse your enemy of war crimes, brutality, etc. Seems to work, doesn't it?

I asked before and got no answer. Should the Iraqi insurgents, who by their policy routinely violate most the conventions of war, be accused of war crimes? Shouldn't both sides be held equally accountable for their actions? Should the fact that some questionable actions of the coalition are defenses against prior illegal actions by the insurgents be considered a mitigating circumstance?

So. I answered your questions. Want to answer these, or just, to quote Signym, "dodge and weave"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 7:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...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.

Couple of things about this.

First mention of this I can find in news reports have a dateline of 11/13, four days into the offensive into Fallujah. Civilians were warned well in advance to get out of town, so it's not like all military-age men in Fallujah were corralled for slaughter. After repeated warnings for non-combatants to leave, any military age man still in town could justifiably be considered a combatant, or an idiot.

Once again, the insurgent's tactics inform coalition policy. The insurgents have a habit of removing any identifying clothing or insignia and mixing with the population to carry out their attacks (a clear violation of the Geneva Protocol, BTW). They also cache arms so they can pass checkpoints posing as unarmed civilians and then re-arm for attacks in the coalition rear. Not letting possible combatants into your rear areas in a combat zone is perfectly acceptable policy.

The men, either insurgents or those dumb enough to stay behind, were warned as they were turned back to stay off the streets and take shelter. This was about all the coalition could do under the circumstances to improve their odds.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:11 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ Geezer, is there any fact, picture, or person who's opinion you will accept other than the White Houses?

Why do you protect the right wing mainstream POV even in the face of clearly informed opinions and facts presented here?

Since you are so good at coming up with opinions (usually links to mainstream media stories) that are so afield, and RUE and Signym have countered so completely imho, that perhaps we could help your enlightenment if we knew of the source for your laser straight support of bombing, torture, murder, kidnapping, lies, fear, intimidation, and all that good stuff the White House has inflicted upon the Earth?

After all, this thread had been about the crime that is the flattening of Fallujah in a criminal military attack by the USA that made Jenin look peaceful. What evidence is there to the contrary? None... but here you are, still insisting... something. What are you defending here? Who?

Oh, and try to make your links a little less go sei, dong ma?

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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 10:14 AM

RUE

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

Quote:
First, do you have any evidence of "Specifically re Falluja, given the instructions they received, it's not surprising US troops shot women and children in the back..." aside from an unsupported statement in a Commondreams article? Commondreams might not be the most unbiased source for that type of information.

I first heard about the interdiction of Falluja on ITN and BBC, weeks before it was attacked. I next heard the instructions given to troops as it was being given to them by their CO on network news (perhaps ABC). I next heard about civilians being shot, in the back, as they tried to cross the river, on ITN. That's what alerted me to these facts. I spent not much time looking for a link to reference just to have something to post, so you'd realize I wasn't just dreaming it up. But hey, Geezer, perhaps you only watch FOX. Perhaps you can't do an internet search. In that case, I can understand why you'd be so ignorant.

The first thing I'd like for you to explain is why, after a quick and relatively easy takeover, were US troops shooting at women and children at checkpoints? After that we can discuss about IHL and who broke the rules first.

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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 12:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
First, do you have any evidence of "Specifically re Falluja, given the instructions they received, it's not surprising US troops shot women and children in the back..." aside from an unsupported statement in a Commondreams article? Commondreams might not be the most unbiased source for that type of information.
I first heard about the interdiction of Falluja on ITN and BBC, weeks before it was attacked. I next heard the instructions given to troops as it was being given to them by their CO on network news (perhaps ABC). I next heard about civilians being shot, in the back, as they tried to cross the river, on ITN. That's what alerted me to these facts. I spent not much time looking for a link to reference just to have something to post, so you'd realize I wasn't just dreaming it up. But hey, Geezer, perhaps you only watch FOX. Perhaps you can't do an internet search. In that case, I can understand why you'd be so ignorant.

I had looked on the BBC and AP web archives and didn't see anything about this. I'll go around again and include the ITN site. No reason to be insulting, Rue.

Quote:
The first thing I'd like for you to explain is why, after a quick and relatively easy takeover, were US troops shooting at women and children at checkpoints?

We went over parts of this once before, but here it is again. Without being given a specific situation, I can't give a specific answer. I can guess that the change to a more agressive response at checkpoints occurred after the insurgency started using suicide car and strap-on bombs. I know that some women and children were killed in cars that failed to stop and sped up when approaching a checkpoint, just like a suicide bomber would do. Others on foot were killed when they were told to stop and continued to advance towards armed men, like a suicide bomber with a strap-on device would do. Civilians in a war zone can't reasonably expect to be treated as non-combatants when they don't act like non-combatants. Of course, if the insurgents were playing by the rules of war, this would be a moot point.

Quote:
After that we can discuss about IHL and who broke the rules first.

You mean you can tell me again about how this is an illegal and immoral war? I do you the courtesy of attempting to directly answer your questions. You may not like the answers, but I consider that a disagreement, not dissembling. Please answer mine in the same way.

For your convenience, here they are again.

1. Should the Iraqi insurgents, who by their policy routinely violate most the conventions of war, be accused of war crimes?

2. Shouldn't both sides be held equally accountable for their actions?

3. Should the fact that some questionable actions of the coalition are defenses against prior illegal actions by the insurgents be considered a mitigating circumstance?

Yes/No answers are perfectly acceptable. In fact, a Yes or No answer followed by a justification would be appreciated.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 1:50 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
After repeated warnings for non-combatants to leave, any military age man still in town could justifiably be considered a combatant, or an idiot.

American military culture is essentially nomadic. This is no accident. For a an entire culture to be conditioned to the routine extermination of other human beings, it is important to undermine any connectivity outside of the "band of brothers." Connection to the land is virtually unknown to the "military brats" I've known. The majority of American's, as a whole, have little concept of such connections. How many generations can any of us go back on this land? 4? 10? 20? Americans move, what on an average, every 4 years? People in Iraq can trace their connection to the land back literally 1000's of years and hundreds of generations. Tyrants come and go, but the land is theirs forever. So, America comes in and says get out of town or die. And a lot of people stay, out of the only kind of patriotism that means anything and you call them "idiots." Shame on you. Furthermore, since when does being an "idiot" justify your murder?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 6:10 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
After repeated warnings for non-combatants to leave, any military age man still in town could justifiably be considered a combatant, or an idiot.

American military culture is essentially nomadic. This is no accident. For a an entire culture to be conditioned to the routine extermination of other human beings, it is important to undermine any connectivity outside of the "band of brothers." Connection to the land is virtually unknown to the "military brats" I've known. The majority of American's, as a whole, have little concept of such connections. How many generations can any of us go back on this land? 4? 10? 20? Americans move, what on an average, every 4 years? People in Iraq can trace their connection to the land back literally 1000's of years and hundreds of generations. Tyrants come and go, but the land is theirs forever. So, America comes in and says get out of town or die. And a lot of people stay, out of the only kind of patriotism that means anything and you call them "idiots." Shame on you. Furthermore, since when does being an "idiot" justify your murder?

You've obviously never talked to a Southerner about the War of Northern Aggression. My great-grandfather fought the invasion of his land by the Yankees. But he was a combatant and knew the risks. And no, he never owned slaves. Just a small farmer. My family still lives on his land.

In the case of Fallujah, anyone who stayed in town after warnings to get out for their own safety, and who wasn't planning on fighting, was an idiot. They would be in danger from the coalition, who expected the enemy, based on prior experience, to dress as civilians and try to sucker them in. They would also be in danger from the insurgents, who would shoot anyone they didn't know. Staying in town and not being on one side or the other, and especially going out on the streets instead of staying under cover, is just Darwin in action. I don't question their patriotism, just their good sense.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:00 PM

RUE

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

Quote:
Want to answer these, or just, to quote Signym, "dodge and weave"?

My comment was in respnse to this. You COULD have just asked the question and left it at that, but then, you just HAD to take a swipe. So I returned the favor.
It's late, it's that crazy time of year between Thanksgiving and New Year, and aside from a busy job, there's the family and all that entails. I'll be back, but much later.

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

Sunday, December 12, 2004 3:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, this is just about as comprehensive a post as I'm going to make on the art of dodging and weaving. But first, let me say that the best summary I can make of your Real World posts is to defend George W Bush and his administration at all costs, using all means necessary. WHY you would want to do that, I'm not sure...

ON THE USA ELECTIONS
Without ever directly addressing the problems of paperless voting or exit poll discrepancies (dodge) you issue virtual dope slaps (VDS) to anyone who questions the election's validity. (weave) When it becomes obvious that right-wing Hero deserves the VDS award, you drop the subject entirely (dodge). In another thread (Ukraine elections) you once again divert attention from the USA vote/ tabulation problems and push your point about the efficacy of demonstrations. (weave) Nowhere do you ever really address our election issues. (dodge)

ON THE ISSUE OF WMD
You continue to assert that Bush' administration made a mistake, w/o ever directly discrediting the numerous direct and contradictory quotes (dodge) from Bush and his administration.

When the issue comes up again, without EVER addressing the topic directly (did Saddam have WMD) you quote a Vanguard article, conflating WMD with WMD programs with WMD program components. When called on it, you basically made fun of the distinction, then you say "well I was just wondering why it was linked" (weave). In that same thread, you pointed to the "20 tons of Sarin and blister agents" in Jordan, which was shown pointed out to be an egregious mis-statement, at which point you dropped the topic (dodge).

You attributed the war to "bad intelligence" without ever addressing why the Bush administration punished the one clear instance of reliable intelligence (yellowcake uranium) by "outing" the CIA wife of the ambassador who provided it. (Which, as I keep pointing out, is TREASON). (dodge, w/ extra points for sheer brass)

ON THE IRAQ WAR, AND THE MILITARY'S HIDING OF CIVILIAN DEATHS
You repeateldy imply or assert that "they started it" (insurgent war crimes) without ever acknowledging the fact that EVERYTHING about this war: the rationale, timing, strategy and tactics- was COMPLETELY at OUR discretion. In other words- WE started it.

Despite the fact that you repeatedly point to evidence of "their" (Iraqi) wrongdoing, you are COMPLETELY silent on the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo (major dodge) and the fact that military intelligence threatened FBI agents on the topic.

You point over and over again to the IBC's "estimate" as reliable, when even the IBC states that they are neither an estimate (they are a validated count) nor are they reliable (they are biased low- please read their home page). You link to an article that has a pic of Naomi Klein w/ a mustache for "fun"(weave) but despite repeatedly dimissing the concept of a right-wing conspiracy, you apparently have NO response to her detailed article about the complete interdiction of news from Fallujah. (dodge)

Instead, as "proof" of the military's transparency in the area, you link to an article about how the Iraqi Red Crescent was allowed in, (weave) but remain completely silent when they were kicked out five days later. (dodge) You have also remained silent on the IRC's estimate of over 6000 dead. (dodge, with points for style)

-------------

Overall, in your choice of topics and approach, I find that you deliberately mislead and misdirect discussion w/o ever addressing the MAJOR points of concern, all (apparently) in the interests of defending Bush by any means possible. It's hard for me to imagine that someone can do this all subconsciously, but if this is all really not deliberate, I think you'd better give your subconscious a good talking-to! (In fact, you prolly should enlist some help, since your subconscious mind would appear to be totally in control at this point) Now, based on your hsitory, I'm sure you will do some or all of the following (1) fail to address the main point (2) misdirect the discussion (3) make a "joke" about me (4)link to some other article and then disavow any connection to it.

The main point of this post, in case you missed it, is that you appear to be more invested in defending Bush by any an all means possible than in carrying on an honest discussion.

Have a happy and conscious holiday

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

Sunday, December 12, 2004 9:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

SignyM. Well, you do have an interesting version of things. It may take me a while to find all the things I disagree with about this post.

I did want to note that in the Voting Fraud post Hardware and I had a short discussion of voting methods and the fact that it's the people who runs the system, not the machines, that make it acceptable or not. Otherwise I didn't have much to say about it either way. Hardly a defense of Bush.

The VDS was to both Hero and Ghoulman for being so nasty, not for any particular stand. I said: "Nice1. Great way to take some gentle joshing between sides and twist it into another insult fest. Please consider yourselves the recipients of non-partisan virtual dope-slaps." Poor Unicorn was the recipient of collateral damage.

The Ukraine post was a serious question about the diference in methods of the Ukranian opposition and the Democrats here. From the results in Ukraine, it does appear that massive peaceful protest does work better than lawyers and internet innuendo.

The rest may take a while.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, December 12, 2004 10:46 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Had the intent been to ethnically cleans Fallujah, there would have been no fore- warning. No attempt to get women and children out before fighting started. Had it REALLY been the goal, a few well placed Daisy Cutters would have been dropped and that would have been the end of Fallujah.

Would be refreshing if you spread your hate filled , anti- American , baseless propaganda somewhere else.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Sunday, December 12, 2004 5:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Baseless? How do you know it's baseless if you don't know what happening in Fallujah? The only thing I find baseless here are your assumptions.

"... it's also the news behind the non-news"

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 12:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is a test of my emailer.

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 2:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

TIme enough this morning for another one or two.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ON THE ISSUE OF WMD
You continue to assert that Bush' administration made a mistake, w/o ever directly discrediting the numerous direct and contradictory quotes (dodge) from Bush and his administration.
When the issue comes up again, without EVER addressing the topic directly (did Saddam have WMD) you quote a Vanguard article, conflating WMD with WMD programs with WMD program components. When called on it, you basically made fun of the distinction, then you say "well I was just wondering why it was linked" (weave). In that same thread, you pointed to the "20 tons of Sarin and blister agents" in Jordan, which was shown pointed out to be an egregious mis-statement, at which point you dropped the topic (dodge).

You attributed the war to "bad intelligence" without ever addressing why the Bush administration punished the one clear instance of reliable intelligence (yellowcake uranium) by "outing" the CIA wife of the ambassador who provided it. (Which, as I keep pointing out, is TREASON). (dodge, w/ extra points for sheer brass)

I've said my say on WMD, and don't plan to search through months of threads, so if you want to consider the fact that I disagree with you dodging and weaving, go right ahead. I have noted that the disclosure of Valerie Plame's status was illegal, and that an investigation is ongoing. I hope that it bears fruit. I'd just rather wait for due process than form a lynch mob.

Quote:
ON THE IRAQ WAR, AND THE MILITARY'S HIDING OF CIVILIAN DEATHS
You repeateldy imply or assert that "they started it" (insurgent war crimes) without ever acknowledging the fact that EVERYTHING about this war: the rationale, timing, strategy and tactics- was COMPLETELY at OUR discretion. In other words- WE started it.

Wrong. I state directly that the insurgency uses tactics that violate the rules of war as part of their policy, and that the coalition response is informed by this. This is true regardless of who started the war. As I noted previously, (boy, I say that a lot. Why is that, I wonder?) all sides in a conflict are required to conform to the rules of war. The coalition is at least making an attempt. The insurgency is not.

Quote:
Despite the fact that you repeatedly point to evidence of "their" (Iraqi) wrongdoing, you are COMPLETELY silent on the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo (major dodge) and the fact that military intelligence threatened FBI agents on the topic.

Wrong again. I've noted several times that people are being prosecuted for and convicted of war crimes, and that I approve of this. Once again, I prefer to allow due process to work, rather than looking for a rope and a strong tree limb.

Quote:
You point over and over again to the IBC's "estimate" as reliable, when even the IBC states that they are neither an estimate (they are a validated count) nor are they reliable (they are biased low- please read their home page).

You have an amazing ability to read selectively. I believe I have noted the IBC statement that their estimates were conservative. There are many estimates out there, and I find their methodology the best. The other point I've been hitting about casualties is how quickly the Lancet report went from all casualties to just innocent women and children killed by the evil coalition. Now that was some creative editing.

Quote:
You link to an article that has a pic of Naomi Klein w/ a mustache for "fun"(weave) but despite repeatedly dimissing the concept of a right-wing conspiracy, you apparently have NO response to her detailed article about the complete interdiction of news from Fallujah. (dodge)

I wasn't actually involved in the Naomi Klein discussion. After SgtGump's suggestion about Ms. Klein, I went looking for a picture of her, just to see what she looked like, and found that one funny. Sorry that I'm not deadly serious 24/7.

Quote:
Instead, as "proof" of the military's transparency in the area, you link to an article about how the Iraqi Red Crescent was allowed in, (weave) but remain completely silent when they were kicked out five days later. (dodge) You have also remained silent on the IRC's estimate of over 6000 dead. (dodge, with points for style)

All I've seen on the Red Crescent mission is that they were told to leave for their own safety. Considering that there is still fighting going on in Fallujah, and that the insurgents have not yet guaranteed their safety (as required bt the Geneva Protocols, BTW), this seems a wise move.

I have remained silent on the IRC's estimate because I haven't seen any statistics, analysis, or process behind this figure. I keep waiting.

-------------

Quote:

Overall, in your choice of topics and approach, I find that you deliberately mislead and misdirect discussion w/o ever addressing the MAJOR points of concern, all (apparently) in the interests of defending Bush by any means possible. It's hard for me to imagine that someone can do this all subconsciously, but if this is all really not deliberate, I think you'd better give your subconscious a good talking-to! (In fact, you prolly should enlist some help, since your subconscious mind would appear to be totally in control at this point) Now, based on your hsitory, I'm sure you will do some or all of the following (1) fail to address the main point (2) misdirect the discussion (3) make a "joke" about me (4)link to some other article and then disavow any connection to it.

The main point of this post, in case you missed it, is that you appear to be more invested in defending Bush by any an all means possible than in carrying on an honest discussion.

Or in other words, If I won't agree with all of your accusations and rush out torch and pitchfork in hand, yelling "Kill the monster!" I'm a Bush front man. Sorry, I happen to believe in old-fashioned things like innocent until proven guilty, and due process. If there is as much evidence of wrongdoing as you seem to believe, there are plenty of legal avenues for the Democrats, Liberals, Anti-war activists, etc. to take.

Quote:
Have a happy and conscious holiday

And you as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 6:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sorry, I happen to believe in old-fashioned things like innocent until proven guilty, and due process.

You believe in "innocent until proven guilty" in SOME situations (Bush admin wrongdoing) but not in others (ie. the rest of the world). When Rue posted in detail the admin statements showing they lied about WMD, you plugged your ears and ran away going la-la-la-la. I will post your quotes later.

You were ready to "convict" of WMD Saddam on the basis of NO evidence. Ready enough to justify invading Iraq and all those civilian deaths. But when the admin has clearly committed treason, you want to wait until the gavel hits the bench before reacting.

You are ready to peg all sorts of atrocities on "the insurgents" but unwilling to notice that the USA military makes a GREAT effort to hide their own policy-based atrocities (dead-checking, torture, w/holding humanitarian aide) and the casualties that result therefrom. (Casualties, I might add, that far outstrip either Saddam's or the insurgents'. See the IBC website.) So, on the basis of selected information (selected for you by the Military) you are willing to believe that we're good guys just doing the best we can.

I could go on but I don't have the time right now. Suffice it to say that you have a CLEAR double standard. You bring a magnifying glass and a resistant approach to some things, but not to the nice comfortable stories about the Bush admin. I will demonstrate this in detail later, because that double standard undercuts your claim to being "just a skeptic".

If you can't see that double standard, then I can't help you. So go and reflect on your approach to issues of the day, weigh and measure your response to see if they balance.

And don't forget to have a nice day!

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 7:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You believe in "innocent until proven guilty" in SOME situations (Bush admin wrongdoing) but not in others (ie. the rest of the world). When Rue posted in detail the admin statements showing they lied about WMD, you plugged your ears and ran away going la-la-la-la. I will post your quotes later.

You were ready to "convict" of WMD Saddam on the basis of NO evidence. Ready enough to justify invading Iraq and all those civilian deaths. But when the admin has clearly committed TREASON, you want to wait until the gavel hits the bench before reacting.

Nope. Saddam was considered an imminent threat and was accused and arrested, not convicted. He'll actually get a trial and I expect that the WMD evidence fiasco and other intelligence screwups will come up in that.

I prefer that due process be involved in the Plune case because I can't think of a better solution. What would you propose instead? Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

p.s. You forgot to capitalize, bold and underline "treason" above, so I took care of that for you.

Quote:
You are ready to peg all sorts of atrocities on "the insurgents" but unwilling to notice that the USA military makes a GREAT effort to hide their own policy-based atrocities (dead-checking, torture, w/holding humanitarian aide) and the casualties that result therefrom. (Casualties, I might add, that far outstrip either Saddam's or the insurgents'. See the IBC website.) So, on the basis of selected information (selected for you by the Military) you are willing to believe that we're good guys just doing the best we can.

I'm not pegging any atrocities on the insurgents. They proudly and loudly claim them. I'm not sure how you managed to miss this. I also note that American soldiers involved in often much less atrocious atrocities are being tried and convicted, as they should be. It's all over the news. Again, you don't want to wait for a trial. You've decided they're all guilty, and are ready to pass judgment.

As to the IBC site, If you'll scan the database, you'll see that most civilian casualties attributed to the coalition where incurred during the early phases of the invasion, in military operations against the former regime army. Once the military phase ended and the occupation phase began, about a year ago, most of the deaths were attributable to car bombs, assassinations, IEDs, etc. used by the insurgents. Many of these were directly targeted at civilians.

Quote:
I could go on but I don't have the time right now. Suffice it to say that you have a CLEAR double standard. You bring a magnifying glass and a resistant approach to some things, but not to the nice comfortable stories about the Bush admin. I will demonstrate this in detail later, because that double standard undercuts your claim to being "just a skeptic".

If you can't see that double standard, then I can't help you. So go and reflect on your approach to issues of the day, weigh and measure your response to see if they balance.

And don't forget to have a nice day!

Where as you are always totally impartial and look at all sides of any issue before forming an opinion. You also infallably know right from wrong and who is innocent and who is guilty. Neat trick. Ever though of running for God?

Oh, and are Iraqi insurgents who, as declared policy, violate all the conventions of war, guilty of war crimes?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 8:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm not pegging any atrocities on the insurgents. They proudly and loudly claim them. I'm not sure how you managed to miss this. I also note that American soldiers involved in often much less atrocious atrocities are being tried and convicted, as they should be. It's all over the news. Again, you don't want to wait for a trial. You've decided they're all guilty, and are ready to pass judgment.

Well, you brought this up so this will be a good example of what I'm talking about.

Quote:
Oh, and are Iraqi insurgents who, as declared policy, violate all the conventions of war, guilty of war crimes

In your mind "they" have a policy of beheadings, direct military-style attacks, suicide bombings, mingling with the population, IEDs aimed at security forces... "their" war crimes deserve condemnation and justify "our" war crimes. Am I mischaracterizing your response?

But some of the insurgents don't participate in beheadings and suicide bombings- al Sadr, for example. In fact, it's widely acknowledged that the largest and most coordinated suicide bombings are committed by foreigners. If you look at the "locals", they tend to focus on combat troops and security forces using IEDs, RPGs, small-arms fire. Of course, they DO tend to mingle with the civilian population- possibly because they actually happen to live there and don't have the luxury of separate barracks, arms depots and command posts. But our reponse is to apply equal opprobrium (and gunfire) to all. Of course, you would say that it is impractical to separate foreign elements from local combatants from plain civilians. I should realize and so should everyone that war is rough justice, and obviously because of "their" war crimes, they deserve this war and this justice. "Innocent until proven guilty" just doesn't apply, even to civilians whose only "crime" is to live in a nation that was "believed" to have WMD. (I'll get to that later.)

Now when it comes to OUR misdeeds, you are only to ready to parse things in detail. "We" don't have a policy of torturing and killing prisoners. "We" don't kill civilians indiscriminately. "We" respect the Geneva Convention and human rights wherever possible. Where we don't, it's circumstances beyond our control, the cruel necessities of war, response to their war cimes etc. It's unfair to characterize "us" as being war criminals because of a few rogue soldiers who will be tried and found guilty.

Of course, the memo from Alberto Gonzales to Bush detailing how "we" can get away with torture, allegations and physical evidence from released detainees, complaints from (and MI threats against) the FBI, complaints from JAG, refusal to allow IRC inpsection, torture planes, pictures, and death certificates point to nothing more than just a few poorly trained underlings who will be duly punished. "We" care deeply for civilian life, which is why we interdicted Falluhjah and prevented the delivery of humanitarian aide by outside agencies (and also the outflow of information) after the city was secured. "We" respect the rules of war, which is why we don't have instructions of "dead checking" with a bullet.

For you, none of this is proof of anything. In fact, there is no evidence good enough to even raise a question in your mind as to whether the administration is fully committed to the Geneva Convention and human rights. Or, if there is a question is should be tried in a court of law with all due process. A court and process you are not willing to allow Iraqis (combatants OR civilains) and detainees. Our war crimes don't even rank moral outrage, as impotent as that might be.

This is what I mean by a double standard.

BTW- I believe I implicity answered your question about war crimes.

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 9:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

You peg atrocties on ALL the insurgents. In your mind "they" are all equally guilty of all the same crimes. "They" have a policy of beheadings, direct military-style attacks, suicide bombings, mingling with the population, IEDs aimed at security forces... And "their" war crimes justify "our" war crimes. Am I mischaracterizing your response?

Slightly. I was thinking more of the insurgents formerly headquartered in Fallujah, since that was the topic of this thread. Specifically those allied with al Queda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's forces. The ones claiming responsibility for the car bomb that killed seven Iraqi civilians in Bagdhad today.

Quote:
But some of the insurgents don't participate in beheadings and suicide bombings- al Sadr, for example.

Aside from the "Religious Court" in Najif containing a few dead bodies, al Sadr has been playing by the rules pretty well.

Quote:
In fact, it's widely acknowledged that the largest and most coordinated suicide bombings are committed by foreigners.

But a little while everyone was saying that there are hardly any foreign fighters in Iraq at all. So which is it?

Quote:
If you look at the "locals", they tend to focus on combat troops and security forces using IEDs, RPGs, small-arms fire.

If so, they're not doing too good a job, as they tend to kill mostly civilians.

Quote:
Of course, they DO tend to mingle with the civilian population- possibly because they actually happen to live there and don't have the luxury of separate barracks, arms depots and command posts. Of course, you would say that it is impractical to separate our response to foreign elements from local combatants from plain civilians. I should realize and so should everyone that war is rough justice, and obviously they "deserve" this war and this justice.

Mingling is one thing. Using them as cover is another.

Quote:
Now when it comes to OUR misdeeds, you are only to ready to parse things in detail. "We" don't have a policy of torturing and killing prisoners. "We" don't kill civilians indiscriminately. "We" respect the Geneva Convention and human rights wherever possible. Where we don't, it's circumstances beyond our control, the cruel necessities of war, response to their war cimes etc. It's unfair to characterize "us" as being war criminals because of a few rogue soldiers who will be tried and found guilty.

Well, you got that part right. Sorry that I don't believe that our troops are baby eating monsters out to kill everything they can. If they were, they're not doing a very good job either, given their numbers and firepower.

Quote:
Of course, the memo from Alberto Gonzales to Bush detailing how "we" can get away with torture, allegations and physical evidence from released detainees, complaints from (and MI threats against) the FBI, complaints from JAG, refusal to allow IRC inpsection, torture planes, pictures, and death certificates point to nothing more than just a few poorly trained underlings who will be duly punished. "We" care deeply for civilian life, which is why we interdicted Falluhjah and prevented the delivery of humanitarian aide by outside agencies (and also the outflow of information) after the city was secured. "We" respect the rules of war, which is why we don't have instructions of "dead checking" with a bullet.

There's those words in my mouth again.

Quote:
For you, none of this is proof of anything. In fact, there is no evidence good enough to even raise a question in your mind as to whether the administration is fully committed to the Geneva Convention and human rights. Or, if there is a question is should be tried in a court of law with all due process.
A court and process you are not willing to allow Iraqis (combatants OR civilains) and detainees.

This is what I mean by a double standard.

Anyone charged with war crimes should be tried. I'm not particularly happy about the detainee situation, I'd like to see that cleaned up. But you never asked about that, did you? Just another assumption on your part. The only reason you know about allegations of torture or mistreatment is because people within the system you hate so much are quite correctly following the rules of that system to report such instances, and any coersion they received about it.

So, Should Iraqi insurgents who commit acts contrary to the Geneva Protocols be accused of and tried for war crimes? Or are your accusations only for coalition forces?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 9:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

This thread has gotten so big it takes forever to load on my computer. What say we either start a new Ethnic Cleansing thread or take this to another existing one?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, December 13, 2004 9:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Anyone charged with war crimes should be tried... So, Should Iraqi insurgents who commit acts contrary to the Geneva Protocols be accused of and tried for war crimes? Or are your accusations only for coalition forces?.

I believe I answered your last question. The answer is, "Yes, of course". That includes Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, as well as Zarqawi and bin Laden. If we were to tally up the number of civilian dead each was responsible for, who do you think would "win"?

FYI- I ALSO don't think our troops are baby eating monsters. (There's those words in my mouth again!) I'm pegging the responsibility much, much further up.

BTW, altho you have addressed the detainee issue, you have avoided (dodged?) the whole interdiction of Fallujah and the expulsion of the Iraqi Red Crscent several times.

I will have to take this up post-holiday.

Happy holidays to you all!

EDITED TO ADD: New thread- good idea!

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

Friday, December 31, 2004 12:05 PM

RUE

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

See:
The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing part deux
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=8407

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE