The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23850
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GHOULMAN

Monday, November 15, 2004 4:52 PM

Is the "Battle for Iraq" really just ethnic cleansing?

The US media, ever thoughtful of thier beloved President "elect" are reporting the "Battle for Iraq" as if it were a grand adventure. Just listen to the words used by American media to describe the recent troop push into Fallujah - bold, brave, dareing, strong. The people living there might use different adjectives.

Of course, this latest push into Fallujah is just the mop-up after a massive bombing campaign began in April. A city of 300,000 has been reduced to rubble and it's people either killed, injured, or homeless.

The US position is that, after contractors were hung from a bridge in Fallujah a few months earlier, this attack into Fallujah is a responce to that insident, the beheadings, and the constant rocket attacks by "insurgents" into Baghdad. The insurgents are often described as being "terrorists" from neighboring countries. Note that the leader of these "insurgents" is Ayman al-Zawahri who is described as a supporter/member of al Qaeda.

However...

Ayman al-Zawahri is not a member of al Qaeda. In fact he has written against Usama bin Laden and his politics. One mans terrorist is another mans religious leader. But the White House demands the media not make such distinctions, so they don't. I guess with Saddam in a nice retirement cell America needed another "bad guy" in Iraq? Notice al-Zawahri isn't quilty of anything but he's still a "bad guy"?

The "insurgents" are not terrorrists from neighboring countries. It's not like there is a bus tour from Syria. The insurgents are the people of Iraq. They are the people of Fallujah. They are the people defending thier homes. Defending them from an American attack.

Fallujah is a Sunni town. That is, they are not Saddam supporters or even supporters of terrorists. Never were. They have only ever wanted two things... Saddam dead. And an Islamic State.

The first is a no brainer. The second is the undeclared enemy of the Bush/Cheney war machine.

This is the real reason to attack the people of Iraq - because 80% of Iraq desires an Islamic State Government. Everyone but those old pals of the USA, the Bathists in Bagdadh. This is the unspoken political objective of the White House.

With American TV no longer bothering to report even how many Iraqies are dead (well over 100,000 now, an insane number, mostly women and children who died in those ever present American bombing raids) it's easy for the White House driven murder and torture to continue without any opposition. The only thing is, there aren't any terrorists for them to fight. Only Iraqies.

If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?

If the USA is just attacking cities because of thier ethnicity then this is ethnic cleansing.

GEEZER

Monday, November 15, 2004 5:51 PM

Where to start?

Ayman al-Zawahri is profiled in a BBC article as "...Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man and the chief ideologue of al-Qaeda." and has no history of being in Iraq. Google his name and you'll find pretty much the same info a hundred times over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1560834.stm

Perhaps you're referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the hostage beheader? GlobalSecurity.org has a nice writeup on him, including his history of supporting Al-Quaeda. Note that he isn't from Iraq. Once again, google is your friend for more info. http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm

At least some of the fighters in Fallujah have been foreign, Saudi adherents of the Wahabi sect of Sunni Islam that is popular in Fallujah and the state religion in Saudi Arabia.

Quote:
(from the Weekly Standard) In a piece dated June 1, the Saudi website alsaha.com, which propounds the extremist views of the kingdom's official Wahhabi sect of Islam, proudly reported the combat deaths in Fallujah of two Saudi subjects, Faisal Sultan al-Rougi al-Otabi and Tahir ash-Shoumani. The writer, Nassim al-Islam (doubtless a pseudonym--it means "wind of Islam"), adopts a tone of adulation: "Congratulations, Faisal, the color is that of blood and the scent that of musk. I wish I were with you to win great honor as a martyr."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8387
Reports from Fallujah indicate that many of the captured fighters are not Iraqis.

Your comment about "well over 100,000 now, an insane number, mostly women and children who died in those ever present American bombing raids" appears to be loosely based on the Lancet article recently discussed here. The info about 'mostly women and children dying in bombing raids' is not supported by that article at all. If you can find a cite in the original article for your quote, please post it.

So it appears that your post is a goldmine of misinformation. Did you think no one would check?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, November 15, 2004 6:06 PM

Like the rest of the military actions in Iraq (staring with Gulf War I, which was sanitized for your viewing pleasure to a video-game view of one smart bomb) the USA Administration and it's ever-faithful press has buried (so to speak) the human toll of Iraq.

The USA CPA prevented the interim/ provisional Iraqi governments from tracking civilian deaths. (The argument in another thread was that the Iraqis were providing inflated estimates. The response to that is that the USA ITSELF should have been tracking the death toll- as required by the Geneva Convention. Since, according to the Adminsitration, we have sufficient forces and support to carry the occupation forward, what is the excuse for not doing so???)

So the first thing that the USA did is take over the hosptial in Falujah. Why?? Because their presence would reduce the number of people seeking treatment- even civilians afraid to be mistaken for insurgents- and they could also control the reported numbers. But even if each bomb dropped and each missile fired killed 1/2 Iraqi, we are in the realm of tens of thousands dead. USA troops were keeping aid OUT of Iraq. What we are talking about is planned human slaughter, deliberately expunged from the record.

On a personal note: At birth, my daughter suffered a trauma so severe that she was given a 50/50 chance of survival. We didn't know for a month whether she would live or die. I know the heartache and pain from personal experience of watching your child in mortal danger. Do you not think that Iraqis feel the same about their children? Their parents, spouses, brothers and sisters? Christ, it's enough to make me weep!

AND THEN WE WONDER WHY "THEY" HATE US SO MUCH!

Why indeed?

GHOULMAN

Monday, November 15, 2004 6:20 PM

^^^
Thanx SIGNYM for that terrific info. One thing that scares the crap outta me is that the US still withholds even water from Fallujah and cities they don't like. The cruel tactics of the US are only now beginning to be criticized. Great point regarding children too. Americans really need to understand that the affects of this will last for generations.

I'm glad you did check Geezer ... got the names totally wrong! Oops!

I might say your post is just a bunch of links to more disinformation. I'm giving you my insights and you can take 'em or leave 'em.

Yes, I got the names mixed up. Ooops!
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or Abu Massad Al-Zakawi??? It's so hard to get info straight when American sources don't even bother to spell Usama bin Laden correctly. And btw I find that the news, even the BBC, are prone to calling everyone and the cat a member of al Qaeda... it's not like they have a list. It's not like MI6 is giving them one either!

And he...
http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm
... isn't al Qaeda (even YOUR link here suggests that!). Trust me. The other guy, the Egyptian, he sure is - as far as I know he's an old Jihad camel lover from waaay back. Where is the CIA when they're needed? Oh yea, Iraq.

Over 100000 dead Iraqi women and children. Trust me. Remember when the US troops arrived and thier was no army to fight? Who do you think were they bombing?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7774

I even made a thread about it.

SIGNYM

Monday, November 15, 2004 6:51 PM

I can't possibly express my disgust and shame at the rationalization supporting our actions. And we wonder why they hate us so much because after all we're basically such "nice" people.

GEEZER

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Over 100000 dead Iraqi women and children. Trust me.

'Fraid I can't. Your research is so sloppy. I need proof.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:39 PM

deleted.

GHOULMAN

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Over 100000 dead Iraqi women and children. Trust me.

'Fraid I can't. Your research is so sloppy. I need proof.

Geezer - there simply isn't a better source than the Lancet Medical Journal at this time. Sorry.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:45 PM

I don't know any real numbers concerning Iraqi casualties. It's too hard to tell, what with all the massive fleeing of thepeople to the Iraqi countryside, and the (hopefully) obvious actions being taken to squelch the information.

We do know however that there were over 300,000 people there to begin with, and there are now only about 60,000 remaining.

source:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/813419D5-CC95-4505-9367-0514011
1C618.htm

SIGNYM

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:51 PM

This very much reminds me of Gulf War I. When we bragging about dropping thousands of bombs per day, Saddam was admitting to eight civilian casualties and we were admitting to none. And everyone (except the victims of course) was happy with that little fantasy. But Geezer, with his vast intellect and great skepticism, can't see past that.

You see Geezer need PROOF. Photos! Body counts! Certs of death! Notes from Bush to Rumie detailing how many Iraqis need to be killed today! He needs these irrefutable facts brought to him because if he had to engage the truth then he might have to admit moral culpability. And that might make him uncomfortable. It's just so much easier to rationalize it all away....

Geezer, I'm going to stop responding to your posts for a while. I'm not sure even a note from God would satisfy you.

GEEZER

Monday, November 15, 2004 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This very much reminds me of Gulf War I. When we bragging about dropping thousands of bombs per day, Saddam was admitting to eight civilian casualties and we were admitting to none. And everyone (except the Iraq victims of course) was happy with that little fantasy. But Geezer, with his vast intellect and great skepticism, can't see past that.

You see Geezer need PROOF. Photos! Body counts! Certs of death! Notes from Bush to Rumie detailing how many Iraqis need to be killed today! He needs these irrefutable facts brought to him because if he had to engage the truth then he might have to admit moral culpability. And that might make him uncomfortable. It's just so much easier to rationalize it all away....

Geezer, I'm going to stop responding to your posts for a while. I'm not sure even a note from God would satisfy you.

Actually, A cite from the Lancet report backing up the figure Ghoulman (and you, as I recall) claim of 100,000 women and children killed by US bombing would suffice. But it's not there. So you'll retreat into name-calling and high dudgeon.

If you want to make a point, make it with the truth, not distortions and assumptions. There are plenty of facts out there you could use to support your arguments, but you'd rather resort to hyperbole.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, November 15, 2004 11:20 PM

Why should I go thru the donkey-work of finding out something that you should be looking into on your own, if you had any interest in the truth? You never contribute anything positive to these discussions anyway. So- you tell me- how many people do YOU think we killed in Iraq? I propose that YOU go find the facts and let ME reject them! Over and out.

DITHER

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:42 AM

This site has a slightly different number. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

And this from MSN:

...The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

"That's why I never kiss 'em on the mouth."

GEEZER

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why should I go thru the donkey-work of finding out something that you should be looking into on your own, if you had any interest in the truth? You never contribute anything positive to these discussions anyway. So- you tell me- how many people do YOU think we killed in Iraq? I propose that YOU go find the facts and let ME reject them! Over and out.

Okay. I have noted before that the figures on the Iraq Body Count site seem to have been verified pretty well. It trys to capture the number of civilians killed by either coalition or anti-coalition forces. It also provides, if you're willing to clean up their data (allocating prime cause of death to one side or the other when possible, cleaning up the dates into one format, etc.), the ability to actually do some research and statisitical analysis. They show 14,378 to 16,514 and figure that's conservative, but at least verifiable.

As to contributing "anything positive"...I consider that calling bullshit on your exaggerated claims is positive. I simply asked you to find, somewhere in the eight page article on Iraqi casualties published in the Lancet, any support for the allegation, stated by both you and Ghoulman as being shown by that article, that 100,000+ Iraqi women and children have been killed by (mostly) US bombing. I've looked for it and can't find it. I noted in another thread that the Lancet article doesn't even support that the number of dead they arrived at are all civilians. If you can prove this wrong, please do so, and I'll certainly apologize.

If you don't use at least verifiable figures in your argument, how do you expect folk to believe that you're not just making it all up?

Edit: "calling bullshit" is an internet term of art, meaning to cast doubt on.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:36 AM

Geezer- "This is a test". Have you actually looked at the IBC sources? What do they all have in common?

BTW- I never said that we killed 100,000 women and children mostly by bombing. Comb through my posts. You are wrong on that point, so I'm calling bullshit on THAT point!

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:38 AM

Dither- I adressed this point in another post and did my own stats to come up with a more accurate estimate. Look at the actual report, not newpaper articles.

DEBIJI

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Is the "Battle for Iraq" really just ethnic cleansing?

The "insurgents" are not terrorrists from neighboring countries. It's not like there is a bus tour from Syria. The insurgents are the people of Iraq. They are the people of Fallujah. They are the people defending thier homes. Defending them from an American attack.

As has been mentioned, many of the captured insurgents appear to have recently immigrated to Iraq. One of the hostages who had been held in Fallujah indicated that his captors were Syrian.

Quote:

Fallujah is a Sunni town. That is, they are not Saddam supporters or even supporters of terrorists. Never were. They have only ever wanted two things... Saddam dead. And an Islamic State.

Saddam is a Sunni Muslim. Fallujah is in the Sunni Triangle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_triangle) where most of top level Ba'ath party officials came from. Saddam is known to have favored Sunnis and oppressed Shiites, who make up most of the victims in the mass graves that have been discovered.

Quote:

The first is a no brainer. The second is the undeclared enemy of the Bush/Cheney war machine.

This is the real reason to attack the people of Iraq - because 80% of Iraq desires an Islamic State Government. Everyone but those old pals of the USA, the Bathists in Bagdadh. This is the unspoken political objective of the White House.

Bush has publicly stated ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3755850.stm) that an Islamic government in Iraq is acceptable.

Quote:

...
If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?

Is this hyperbole? I think you are saying that the Americans are killing everyone in the city of Fallujah. Do you mean this? Clearly, there are better ways to do such a thing, ways that prevent 38 Americans from dying and 275 from being wounded.

IMO, hyperbole contributes little to meaningful discussion. It may be cathartic, but it isn't constructive.

It is being reported that some Iraqis support the actions of the US and Iraqi military in Falluja, and some do not:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4002233.stm

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:41 PM

RE: The news article is concerned, it represents only BBC readers, which is already a large variance from most of the ppl in Iraq. And what does it say anyway? That "some" support, "some" condemn. Not much of a news item there.

But it was my understanding that all of the Sunnis in the provisional govt resigned bc of Falujah. You would prolly find that most Sunnis were against US military action and Shiites (Allawi's sect) were less against. What you WILL find in surveys is that about 90% Iraqis want the US out.

RE: Bush will tolerate ANY government, Islamic or not, that is willing to cut a deal on Iraqi oil.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:46 PM

The numbers only verify the horror.
Whether it's 100 dead or 100,000, I think we should be appalled at and held responsible for every civilian death.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by debiji:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Is the "Battle for Iraq" really just ethnic cleansing?

The "insurgents" are not terrorrists from neighboring countries. It's not like there is a bus tour from Syria. The insurgents are the people of Iraq. They are the people of Fallujah. They are the people defending thier homes. Defending them from an American attack.

As has been mentioned, many of the captured insurgents appear to have recently immigrated to Iraq. One of the hostages who had been held in Fallujah indicated that his captors were Syrian.

Quote:

Fallujah is a Sunni town. That is, they are not Saddam supporters or even supporters of terrorists. Never were. They have only ever wanted two things... Saddam dead. And an Islamic State.

Saddam is a Sunni Muslim. Fallujah is in the Sunni Triangle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_triangle) where most of top level Ba'ath party officials came from. Saddam is known to have favored Sunnis and oppressed Shiites, who make up most of the victims in the mass graves that have been discovered.

Quote:

The first is a no brainer. The second is the undeclared enemy of the Bush/Cheney war machine.

This is the real reason to attack the people of Iraq - because 80% of Iraq desires an Islamic State Government. Everyone but those old pals of the USA, the Bathists in Bagdadh. This is the unspoken political objective of the White House.

Bush has publicly stated ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3755850.stm) that an Islamic government in Iraq is acceptable.

Quote:

...
If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?

Is this hyperbole? I think you are saying that the Americans are killing everyone in the city of Fallujah. Do you mean this? Clearly, there are better ways to do such a thing, ways that prevent 38 Americans from dying and 275 from being wounded.

IMO, hyperbole contributes little to meaningful discussion. It may be cathartic, but it isn't constructive.

It is being reported that some Iraqis support the actions of the US and Iraqi military in Falluja, and some do not:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4002233.stm

You asked for it.

You accuse me of hyperbole, which is fine, but your post is nothing but trit refutations of facts you fail to understand. Take Saddam being a Sunni... that's like saying Hitler was a Christian.

You refute my essay with meaningless, perhaps I should say contextless, fact. You wouldn't get far in debate class with crap like that so please, don't go around defining my essay as meaningless until you graduate.

Refute what I've written all you want. I think your information isn't anything but shallow misdirection of the debate. Forgive me if I'm coming off as an arrogant prick, but the information from the US sources these days is often nothing but propognda perpetuated by a paralized culture of fear, greed, and CNN whores.

My information comes from the best sources online, around the world, and my own clear thinking. Geezer may be a cracking researcher but it's telling he can't find information unless it's some web page. Same with you debiji, as you are presenting mere factuals which are contradictory to historic verity.

Do you really want me to believe the GWB White House will accept an Islamic Government? You really want me to believe Iraqies are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death? What reality are you on???

Take how you redefine my point about Ethnic Cleansing and Saddam actually being Sunni just as the people of Fallujah are mostly Sunni. You have reframed my sentence into a conflict between particular sects. Well, that's not what I'm talking about at all. It is beside the point. And it isn't what's going on. But it made me seem wrong... which was all you cared about.

I'm concerned with the 100000 people murdered, tortured, and bombed

GEEZER

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- "This is a test". Have you actually looked at the IBC sources? What do they all have in common?

These Guys?

Quote:

Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards.ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.

The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.

News media of all persuasions, NGOs, charitible and activist groups. They're all pretty reliable?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- I never said that we killed 100,000 women and children mostly by bombing. Comb through my posts. You are wrong on that point, so I'm calling bullshit on THAT point!

This is from the "The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all" thread, and was posted on 11/02/2004 at 12:33.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did you read the article? The vast majority of dead are women and children, and they were bombed (deliberately targeted using "smart bomb" technology). If you're willing to accept "collateral damage" of this magnitude, what makes you better than a terrorist? (Other than the fact that we're the "good guys".)

Okay, you didn't say 100,000, just the vast majority of 100,000.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:45 PM

The point that the White House apologists are missing is that there are facts, there are statistics, and then there is the truth. And I'm not talking about facts and statistic vresus the truth, I'm not talking about a "higher" truth, or a moral truth, I'm talking about the REAL truth- whether or not you FULLY comprehend what is happening in a particular arena, in this case Iraq. Quibbling and caviling (cavil: To raise trivial or frivolous objections; to find fault without good reason) about important issues because the situation doesn't meet one's ideology doesn't further anyone's understanding of the situation.

So, without quibbling or caviling about whether the ppl were Sunnis or Shiites; or men, women or children; or whether they were killed by bombs or small-arms fire, let's accept that the United States has killed a "large" number of people- at least 20,000 and probably more. This tells me that the administration has very good control over the information flow.

Since they planned Falujah far enough in advance to take the hospital first, it tells me that they were expecting to kill many more.

Where does that lead us? Among other things, it tells me that the USA has pretty much given up on the "hearts and minds" approach in the Sunni triangle, and was just waiting until after the USA election to lower the boom. (I think they expected large number of Iraqi victims and possibly US casualties, although with such tight control of reportage, I can't imagine that there would be ANY negative feeback coming fomr the USA population). It also tells me that they don't mind Iraq holding elections under the point of a gun, because by January that's what Falujah, Mosul etc are going to be like. That leads me (once again) to the point that the Administration is NOT interested in democracy in Iraq, has pretty much given up on the Sunnis and is mainly interested in installing Allawi, a majority Shiite and CIA contact.

Now, this does make me wonder what happened to the whole neocon notion of putting Chalabi in power, the neocon versus State/CIA struggle over Iraq (I think the CIA was responsible exposing Chalabi) and whether the State/CIA success has caused the CIA to smell better to Bush. Given the number of resignations from the CIA and the elimination of all dissenting views from the Cabinet, I don't think so.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:25 PM

The vast majority ARE women and children. What's the problem?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:19 PM

Geezer, I'll egt back to your thread later- it will require a lot of detail. (apparently we posted about the same time) I have work to do so don't expect to hear from me for a while.

For those of you who STILL think that the insurgents are mostly foreigners, I direct your attention to this article in the LA Times:

Quote:
Few Foreigners Among Insurgents
Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said Monday.

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/
la-fg-fighters16nov16,1,1535265.story?coll=
la-headlines-world

I split the link so that it doesn't expand the page.

DEBIJI

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:21 AM

Ghoulman,

You typed:
"You refute my essay with meaningless, perhaps I should say contextless, fact. You wouldn't get far in debate class with crap like that so please, don't go around defining my essay as meaningless until you graduate. "

Perhaps you believe that I was characterizing your entire post as hyperbole. If so, I regret the misunderstanding, but I stand by the assertion that the following is hyperbole:
"If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?"

Specifically, the part about "...killing an entire city...".

you typed:
"Take how you redefine my point about Ethnic Cleansing and Saddam actually being Sunni just as the people of Fallujah are mostly Sunni. You have reframed my sentence into a conflict between particular sects. Well, that's not what I'm talking about at all. It is beside the point. And it isn't what's going on. But it made me seem wrong... which was all you cared about."

I disagree. I haven't reframed the sentence. I did not agree with your statements, and I presented information that I thought justified my disagreement. You type that because Falluja is a Sunni town, they do not support Hussein. But, since Saddam is a Sunni (whether or not he is a "good" Sunni is not the point, since Sunni is also an ethnic group in Iraq) himself, IMO it doesn't follow that the people of Falluja would want him dead.

On the contrary, Saddam's support was strongest in the Sunni regions of Iraq, where all his relatives and the highest officials of his party came from. If you disagree, you need only say so and state your facts and arguments. No need to be condescending ("your post is nothing but trit refutations of facts you fail to understand.")

Also, you type that the Sunnis want "an Islamic State". My understanding is that the Shiites, led by Al Sistani, really want an Islamic State, and at first the CPA tried to shut Sistani out, but realized this was impossible, they needed him to control al-Sadr.

you typed:
"Do you really want me to believe the GWB White House will accept an Islamic Government? You really want me to believe Iraqies are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death?"

Well, he did say it, and he seems to like the ones in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey just fine. As to the second sentence, I never said "Iraqis are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death" or anything like it. Perhaps you refer to the link to BBC forum that I posted. As I said, the opinions there are both for and against the action in Falluja. But they do not speak of 100000 anything, nor do they present opinions about the overall invasion, nor do they offer any way to infer how many Iraqis, percentage wise, hold these opinions.

You typed:
"...until you graduate."
"shallow"
"CNN whores"
"What reality are you on???"
"What are you concerned with? Tattered American honour perhaps?"
"no one has the balls to"

Sticks and stones, Sir. I fail to see how the 6 strings above contribute to the discourse in a constructive way. If you can, please enlighten me.

Respectfully,
debiji

HERO

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The point that the White House apologists are missing is that there are facts, there are statistics, and then there is the truth. And I'm not talking about facts and statistic vresus the truth, I'm not talking about a "higher" truth, or a moral truth, I'm talking about the REAL truth

So facts and statistics should be ignored because you have already decided what the TRUTH is. Thats prejudice. I say that because you have pre-judged the events.

Thats kind of how I watch the Browns play. I often find ways to declare victory despite the final score. I also see the NFL conspiracy against the Browns. Yup, I'm as much a Browns lover as you are a Bush hater.

Quote:

Since they planned Falujah far enough in advance to take the hospital first, it tells me that they were expecting to kill many more.

Maybe. Another possibility, and I'm just throwing this wacky idea out here...maybe they took the hospitals first to SAVE AS MANY LIVES AS THEY COULD. Naw, you hate Bush, so that can't be true.

Seems if they were expecting to kill so many people they would have taken the graveyards first and bombed the hospitals to hell and gone.

Quote:
It also tells me that they don't mind Iraq holding elections under the point of a gun, because by January that's what Falujah, Mosul etc are going to be like.

Thats what all of Iraq was like during the last election. Vote or Die in Iraq meant vote for Saddam or Die. I don't think P-Diddy was involved with that one, but it was far more effective, Saddam got 98% of the vote with a 5% margin of error from the firing squads...er...exit polls.

H

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:57 PM

Quote:
So facts and statistics should be ignored because you have already decided what the TRUTH is. Thats prejudice. I say that because you have pre-judged the events.

Not at all. I use statistics every day in my job, and facts are part ofg the trtuh. What I don't like is when facts and statistics are misused to hide the truth.

Quote:
Maybe. Another possibility, and I'm just throwing this wacky idea out here...maybe they took the hospitals first to SAVE AS MANY LIVES AS THEY COULD. Naw, you hate Bush, so that can't be true.

When they took over the Falujah hosptial, did they equip it? Set up a generator or two, bring in meds and supplies and doctors to treat the wounded?

Quote:
Thats what all of Iraq was like during the last election. Vote or Die in Iraq meant vote for Saddam or Die.

I guess if Saddam did it, it must be OK. It certainly is an EFFECTIVE way to hold an election!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:36 PM

THE HOSPITAL IN FALUJAH

Quote:
In terms of the information war, the hospital was indeed the most strategic of targets. During the first siege of Fallujah in April, doctors told independent media the real story about the suffering of civilian victims. So this time the Pentagon took no chances: no gory, disturbing photos of the elderly, women and children - the thousands unable to leave Fallujah in advance of this week's offensive, the civilian victims of the relentless bombing.

But this did not prevent the world from seeing doctors and patients at the hospital handcuffed to the floor - as if they were terrorists. Hospital director Dr Salih al-Issawi told Agence France-Presse that the Americans blocked him and other doctors from going to the center of Fallujah to help another clinic in distress; he also said an ambulance that tried to leave the hospital was shot at by the Americans - just like in April, when all ambulances were targeted. The Geneva Convention is explicit: in a war situation, hospitals and ambulances are neutral.

www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html

GEEZER

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Geneva Convention is explicit: in a war situation, hospitals and ambulances are neutral

www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html

True. Unfortunately, the anti-coalition forces have a history of turning hospitals, mosques, schools and the like into either strongpoints or boobytraps. This requires the coalition forces to be more careful around these buildings. For example, handcuffing people until they can identify them, rather than taking the chance that they'll pop up later with cached weapons or to set off bombs.

The anti-coalition forces have also used ambulances as carbombs. If coalition troops can't tell the real ambulances from the carbombs, they can either shoot to stop them all, or risk getting blown up. Safer for everyone just to keep them off the streets when major fighting is going on.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Geneva Convention is explicit: in a war situation, hospitals and ambulances are neutral

www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html

True. Unfortunately, the anti-coalition forces have a history of turning hospitals, mosques, schools and the like into either strongpoints or boobytraps. This requires the coalition forces to be more careful around these buildings. For example, handcuffing people until they can identify them, rather than taking the chance that they'll pop up later with cached weapons or to set off bombs.

The anti-coalition forces have also used ambulances as carbombs. If coalition troops can't tell the real ambulances from the carbombs, they can either shoot to stop them all, or risk getting blown up. Safer for everyone just to keep them off the streets when major fighting is going on.

I agree.

What the Bush Haters fail to mention is all the innocent terrorists handcuffed and on the floor as if they were Doctors and civilians. All the poor insurgents who are killed every day along side of the women and children that are the target of the evil American marines.

Killing unarmed Doctors and civilians is one thing, but killing those who are shooting at our Marines and executing hostages, that just going too far.

Maybe we should let the terrorists have that City. We can build a wall and anyone who wants in can go in. Then the Iraqi women and children would have a place to go and be safe from Freedom and democracy. They would not have to worry about being bombed or used as a human shield for the terrorists who decide that they can't face war in the open field. It would be a place free from humanitarian aid workers, foriegn doctors, private investment, and reconstruction. No more schools, jews, or rock and roll. Just women, children, terrorists, severed heads, Oil for Food vouchers, rubble, Michael Moore, and Allah. Radical Islamic paradise, just like the Taliban.

H

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:25 PM

So you agree that taking the hospital was not a life-saving action?

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you agree that taking the hospital was not a life-saving action?

I believe that the taking of the hospital at the beginning of the strike in Falluja was done to verify that all personel in the hospital were not insurgents. Hospitals , schools, mosques, women, children have all been used by the insurgents (and the iraqi army for that matter prior to the fall of baghdad)as shields (All against the Geneva convention).

In addition, the Geneva convention states what you cannot do. However, if your enemy starts using chemical weapons against you, then the Geneva convention cannot sanction you for responding in kind.

Or if your enemy starts using Churches or Mosques or whatever else is protected by the convention as an attack position, the Church, Mosque or whatever is no longer exempt from return fire or for that matter, total destruction.

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

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:11 PM

I'm just trying to lay one proposal to rest, and that was the opinion that we took the hospital to save Iraqi lives.

Is that deader'n a doornail then? I don't want to have to revisit that opinion.

GEEZER

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm just trying to lay one proposal to rest, and that was the opinion that we took the hospital to save Iraqi lives.

Is that deader'n a doornail then? I don't want to have to revisit that opinion.

If taking the hospital early in the action prevented anti-coalition forces from occupying it and fighting from it later, then I'd say it did save Iraqi lives, those of the patients and staff of the hospital. Given the anti-coalition force's past track record, this wouldn't be an unexpected situation.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:46 PM

Oh please Geezer- the opinion was that the hospital would be used to treat Iraqi casualties- not that taking the hospital might save Iraqi lives in some indirect way.

Is that opinion dead? Unless someone brings evidence by tomorrow that the hospital was equipped by, and used by the US military to treat Iraqi casulties I'm going to assume that contention is dead.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:39 AM

Quote:
If taking the hospital early in the action prevented anti-coalition forces from occupying it and fighting from it later, then I'd say it did save Iraqi lives, those of the patients and staff of the hospital. Given the anti-coalition force's past track record, this wouldn't be an unexpected situation.

Are you saying that we took the hospital first to save Iraqi lives? Well... OK, I'm game. Then, there are the other possibilities: They took the hospital to control information flow, or they took the hospital because they thought it MIGHT have been occupied by insurgents.

The only way to tell what the point was is to look at what the military did with the hospital once it was occupied. How long did it take to process doctors and patients? Once it was determined that doctors were not insurgents, were they allowed to treat their patients? Was the hospital re-opened for incoming patients? How long did that take? And probably most importantly- Is the hopsital still occupied? If so- WHY? And is the hospital allowed to communicate with the press and aid agencies WITHOUT military approval, or is the USA military in control of all outbound hospital communication?

So Geezer, go check out IBC or any sources that you can find, and see if reports of civilian deaths are coming directly from the main Falujah hospital. In fact, see if there are any estimates of civilian deaths coming from any source other than the military. In fact, see if there are any estimates of civilian deaths at all.

This is what I mean by facts and the truth. A fact is something you can point to and prove, but sometimes a series of facts is just a trail of breadcrumbs. You need to look up from those crumbs long enough to see if anyone is laying that trail. LACK of information, or a shift in sources of information, can be just as revealing as the information itself.

But hell, why would you want to get so terribly exacting about this particular instance anway? Clinics, mosques, schools and homes were bombed and you've justified these actions. In effect, you proved my point- the military has given up on the "hearts and minds" approach, has given up on the "lifesaving" approach and is going full-bore for military occupation.

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Thursday, November 18, 2004 7:08 AM

Ghoulman, you are spewing verbal sewage again.

Just a couple of points:

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Ayman al-Zawahri is not a member of al Qaeda.

Zawahiri is a member of Al Qaida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htm

You may have had a moment of stupidity (not uncommon for you) and confused him with Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. He is also aligned with Bin Ladin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268680/

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The "insurgents" are not terrorrists from neighboring countries.

Well, they may not be primarily foreign fighters, but they are there. Apparently the Marines have been treating injured foreign fighters.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/10197113.htm?1c
There may not be a bus tour to Fallujah, but Iraq is the jihad-du-jour, and jihadists from all over are converging there, just like they did in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Afghanistan before that, Kashmir, and other hot spots.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Fallujah is a Sunni town. That is, they are not Saddam supporters or even supporters of terrorists.

Saddam is a Sunni muslim. That's the reason that the sunnis (the minority in Iraq) held positions of power. Consequently, a lot of Sunnis are pretty peeved that they don't have the influence they used to.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/biography_saddam_hussein.htm

Also, lest you should think that there are no terrorists or supporters of terrorists or even any bad locals, think twice about the news of torture chambers there. Nick Berg was beheaded there. I saw the video. Not pleasant. Margeret Hassan was shot there. I'm pretty sure that the Koran has some specific things to say about that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138524,00.html
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=1899
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=98909®ion=6

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
If the USA is just attacking cities because of thier ethnicity then this is ethnic cleansing.

Of all the stupid things to say...Can you come up with even a scrap of evidence to support that? If that were the goal, why did the U.S. drop millions of leaflets warning civilians to get out? If they'd wanted to do some "ethnic cleansing" keeping the civilians there would have made more sense.

I'm a veteran of the Iraq conflict. I was there. On the ground. Being shot at and returning fire. I can tell you that we are not there to conduct "ethnic cleansing". We were there to remove Hussein in an effort to make the world a safer place.

You've obviously made up your mind to hate the U.S., the President, and the war, so I can't convince you otherwise. But I do know this: you don't know the first thing about Iraq. You don't know the situation there, or the U.S. strategy, or even basic facts like who the Sunnis support or who Ayman al-Zawahiri is. As an intelligence analyst who has spent the last 10 years studying Iraq, and who has done a combat tour there, allow me to invite you to shut your hole. Stop running off at the mouth concerning topics that you know nothing about. You're embarassing decent, well informed Canadians everywhere.

Edit:
I realize that you will no doubt lambast me for using some U.S. news sources, or cast aspersions on the U.S. intelligence community.

I also realize that you are so committed to your position that facts have no bearing, experience can be dismissed, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is misinformed or part of the conspiracy.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:57 AM

Quote:
Well, they may not be primarily foreign fighters, but they are there.

Did you miss the article I posted previously?

Quote:
Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said Monday.... But despite an intense focus on the network of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab Zarqawi by U.S. and Iraqi officials, who have insisted that most Iraqis support the country's interim government, American commanders said their best estimates of the proportion of foreigners among their enemies is about 5%.

Just in case you think this might be a geographic anomaly or a temporal glitch (Foreign fighters, having no allegience to Falujah, might have left before the USA arrived) here is another article- dated May

Quote:
U.S. officials have for months publicly promoted the notion that foreign fighters and terrorists are playing a major role in the anti-American insurgency in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq. By blaming foreigners, U.S. authorities hope to quash the idea that Iraqis are rising up against military occupation and frame the conflict as part of the wider war on terror. However, foreigners play a tiny role in Iraq's insurgency, many military experts say.
In Fallujah, U.S. military leaders say around 90 percent of the 1,000 or more fighters battling the Marines are Iraqis. To date, there have been no confirmed U.S. captures of foreign fighters in Fallujah...
Elsewhere, U.S. military commanders say foreigners have an even smaller role in the insurgency. In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey has said foreigners account for just 1 percent or so of guerrillas. Of 8,000 guerrilla suspects jailed across Iraq, only 127 hold foreign passports, the U.S. military said. In the south, no one has suggested that foreigners pack the ranks of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army. The group, which has fought U.S. and allied troops across southern Iraq, is made up of Shiite Muslim radicals, many of whom hail from the slums of Baghdad. In March, Dempsey called the idea that foreign fighters were flooding Iraq "a misconception."

www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resist/2004/0503fighters.htm
I'm not sure whether you think 0.5-5% foreign fighters is worth even mentioning. I'm sure if you looked at the totality of our occupation forces and support personnel, you'd find 0.5-5% of "foreign" fighters there too. i.e. non-coalition people carrying guns, including Israelis and South Africans. Does their presence indicate a world-wide Israeli conspiracy to destroy Iraq?

Quote:
Also, lest you should think that there are no terrorists or supporters of terrorists or even any bad locals, think twice about the news of torture chambers there.

What is the point of this statement? I could just as easily say "lest you should think that there are no terrorists or supporters of terrorists or even any bad USA soldiers, think twice about the news of torture chambers in Abu Ghraib" I'm sure you would say Abu Ghraib represented just a small fraction of US soldiers. I would say the same thing of Falujah.

Quote:
Can you come up with even a scrap of evidence to support that (the USA is just attacking cities because of their ethnicity)?

I'm not sure I can, but you did.

Quote:
Consequently, a lot of Sunnis are pretty peeved that they don't have the influence they used to.

Quote:
We were there to remove Hussein in an effort to make the world a safer place.

We were there, according to W&Co, to remove the "imminent" threat of WMD, which is the ONLY moral and legal justification for pre-emptive action.

And finally- who really cares if Zarqawi is part of Al Qaida or not? Even if we capture or kill him we can hardly claim to have made a major dent in al Qaida, and given the number of foreign fighters and terrorists in Iraq (by the military's estimation

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is the point of this statement? I could just as easily say "lest you should think that there are no terrorists or supporters of terrorists or even any bad USA soldiers, think twice about the news of torture chambers in Abu Ghraib" I'm sure you would say Abu Ghraib represented just a small fraction of US soldiers. I would say the same thing of Falujah.

Been waiting for this one.

You forget to note that people are going to jail for the crimes at Abu Ghraib, that investigations are on-going, and that procedures have been put in place to prevent recurrences.

On the other hand, your "freedom fighters", as part of their policy, take hostages, torture them, execute them, publish videos of those executions, kill prisoners of war, kidnap and kill police and government officers, remove wounded Iraqi soldiers from hospitals and kill them, place bombs with the intent of maximizing civilian casualties, sabotage infrastructure necessary to the health and safety of the civilian population, etc.

Looks like they hit just about everything prohibited by the Geneva Convention you seem so interested in citing.

Quote:
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

And there's no doubt about their leadership's complicity when the top "freedom fighter" in the country is shown in a video beheading hostage Nicholas Berg. Maybe al-Zarqawi should resign.

Edit: Oh yeah.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
When we casually shoot wounded point-blank in the head?

Nothing casual about it. 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. And again, it is being investigated, and a good soldier will probably end his career due to the media jumping the gun with incomplete information and no concept of the realities of combat.

Contrast this with the carefully staged execution of Margaret Hassan. Now which side was morally suspect again?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:16 PM

Oops. Double post.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, November 18, 2004 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by debiji:
Ghoulman,

You typed:
"You refute my essay with meaningless, perhaps I should say contextless, fact. You wouldn't get far in debate class with crap like that so please, don't go around defining my essay as meaningless until you graduate. "

Perhaps you believe that I was characterizing your entire post as hyperbole. If so, I regret the misunderstanding, but I stand by the assertion that the following is hyperbole:
"If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?"

Specifically, the part about "...killing an entire city...".

you typed:
"Take how you redefine my point about Ethnic Cleansing and Saddam actually being Sunni just as the people of Fallujah are mostly Sunni. You have reframed my sentence into a conflict between particular sects. Well, that's not what I'm talking about at all. It is beside the point. And it isn't what's going on. But it made me seem wrong... which was all you cared about."

I disagree. I haven't reframed the sentence. I did not agree with your statements, and I presented information that I thought justified my disagreement. You type that because Falluja is a Sunni town, they do not support Hussein. But, since Saddam is a Sunni (whether or not he is a "good" Sunni is not the point, since Sunni is also an ethnic group in Iraq) himself, IMO it doesn't follow that the people of Falluja would want him dead.

On the contrary, Saddam's support was strongest in the Sunni regions of Iraq, where all his relatives and the highest officials of his party came from. If you disagree, you need only say so and state your facts and arguments. No need to be condescending ("your post is nothing but trit refutations of facts you fail to understand.")

Also, you type that the Sunnis want "an Islamic State". My understanding is that the Shiites, led by Al Sistani, really want an Islamic State, and at first the CPA tried to shut Sistani out, but realized this was impossible, they needed him to control al-Sadr.

you typed:
"Do you really want me to believe the GWB White House will accept an Islamic Government? You really want me to believe Iraqies are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death?"

Well, he did say it, and he seems to like the ones in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey just fine. As to the second sentence, I never said "Iraqis are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death" or anything like it. Perhaps you refer to the link to BBC forum that I posted. As I said, the opinions there are both for and against the action in Falluja. But they do not speak of 100000 anything, nor do they present opinions about the overall invasion, nor do they offer any way to infer how many Iraqis, percentage wise, hold these opinions.

You typed:
"...until you graduate."
"shallow"
"CNN whores"
"What reality are you on???"
"What are you concerned with? Tattered American honour perhaps?"
"no one has the balls to"

Sticks and stones, Sir. I fail to see how the 6 strings above contribute to the discourse in a constructive way. If you can, please enlighten me.

Respectfully,
debiji

Respectfully?

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.

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.

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 ab

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:09 PM

YOU know Geezer, on the issue of morally suspect, it doesn't have to be either/or. It can also be both or neither.

I'll be interested in your findings on the number of civilians killed in Fallujah. Please let us know what you find.

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:55 PM

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.

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??????

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

BarnStormer

GHOULMAN

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:13 PM

Don't belittle the tortures and murders commited by the US military. It is policy. Saying it's a crime commited by a few is a bald faced lie. You can white wash all you like and yes, the White House and thier CNN/FOX propagandists present this watered down version of events all the time.

Truth isn't on the TV or CNNs website. In fact, these sources have been forced to take down outright lies over and over in the past few years because they were caught in terible lies. The truth about the POLICY of torture from the White House cannot be denied.

The USA is white washing a prison system wide policy of torture, rape, and murder from Iraq to GITMO (some murdered by American forces in captivity were children). The few soldiers on trial now are but sacrificial lambs.

Rumsfeld should be jailed for life let alone resign.

The truth is it wasn't a few soldiers but paid for assassins and torturerers "contracted" from the CIA. CIA that support the White House policies of course *snark*!

How many beheadings were the work of Americans?

How many videos were fakes from the CIA?

How many kidnappings seemed suspicious?

How many hospitals did the US simply bomb?

People desperately defending thier homes from a massive military attack from the worlds only super power don't have a policy Geezer.

What's your point here? That the people of Fallujah are evil or just as bad as Americans?

It's fun to say the other side is just as bad but that only works in 6 year old court. We are concerned with how American forces act. And they act like Nazi storm troopers. Disgusting.

Quote:
.. video beheading hostage Nicholas Berg. Maybe al-Zarqawi should resign.

Was he the one in the mask? LOL! Proof please?

Quote:
Nothing casual about it. A decision that had to be made in a split-second, given the knowledge that the insurgents had been boobytrapping their dead, ...

Oh man. Is it really acceptable behaviour from a Marine? Is this how Marines deal with things?

Maybe, but it's not how professional soldiers do it. That Marine should be up for murder, that's the law. But American troops don't obey any laws, the White House made sure of that. You know, even the Nazis obeyed the Geneva Convention.

Making excuses for a murderer shows how far some will go.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:42 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:46 PM

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

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?

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.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:53 PM

Barnstormer- What are you saying? That because the UN didn't stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Sudan, that makes it somehow OK for us to practice? Is that your point? If not- what is?

GHOULMAN

Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Ghoulman, you are spewing verbal sewage again.

Just a couple of points:

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Ayman al-Zawahri is not a member of al Qaeda.

Zawahiri is a member of Al Qaida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htm

You may have had a moment of stupidity (not uncommon for you) and confused him with Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. He is also aligned with Bin Ladin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268680/

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The "insurgents" are not terrorrists from neighboring countries.

Well, they may not be primarily foreign fighters, but they are there. Apparently the Marines have been treating injured foreign fighters.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/10197113.htm?1c
There may not be a bus tour to Fallujah, but Iraq is the jihad-du-jour, and jihadists from all over are converging there, just like they did in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Afghanistan before that, Kashmir, and other hot spots.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Fallujah is a Sunni town. That is, they are not Saddam supporters or even supporters of terrorists.

Saddam is a Sunni muslim. That's the reason that the sunnis (the minority in Iraq) held positions of power. Consequently, a lot of Sunnis are pretty peeved that they don't have the influence they used to.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/biography_saddam_hussein.htm

Also, lest you should think that there are no terrorists or supporters of terrorists or even any bad locals, think twice about the news of torture chambers there. Nick Berg was beheaded there. I saw the video. Not pleasant. Margeret Hassan was shot there. I'm pretty sure that the Koran has some specific things to say about that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138524,00.html
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=1899
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=98909®ion=6

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
If the USA is just attacking cities because of thier ethnicity then this is ethnic cleansing.

Of all the stupid things to say...Can you come up with even a scrap of evidence to support that? If that were the goal, why did the U.S. drop millions of leaflets warning civilians to get out? If they'd wanted to do some "ethnic cleansing" keeping the civilians there would have made more sense.

I'm a veteran of the Iraq conflict. I was there. On the ground. Being shot at and returning fire. I can tell you that we are not there to conduct "ethnic cleansing". We were there to remove Hussein in an effort to make the world a safer place.

You've obviously made up your mind to hate the U.S., the President, and the war, so I can't convince you otherwise. But I do know this: you don't know the first thing about Iraq. You don't know the situation there, or the U.S. strategy, or even basic facts like who the Sunnis support or who Ayman al-Zawahiri is. As an intelligence analyst who has spent the last 10 years studying Iraq, and who has done a combat tour there, allow me to invite you to shut your hole. Stop running off at the mouth concerning topics that you know nothing about. You're embarassing decent, well informed Canadians everywhere.

Edit:
I realize that you will no doubt lambast me for using some U.S. news sources, or cast aspersions on the U.S. intelligence community.

I also realize that you are so committed to your position that facts have no bearing, experience can be dismissed, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is misinformed or part of the conspiracy. [

InevitableBetrayal, we already got the names corrected. Why don't you ever bother to read what is written before you attack what is said?

Nice links... it's great you try to engage my assurtion that there are no terrorists in Iraq. It would be an interesting subject. However, all your links are from American sources that have be

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
YOU know Geezer, on the issue of morally suspect, it doesn't have to be either/or. It can also be both or neither.

Okay. You tell me, which is more morally suspect; shooting a wounded but still potentially dangerous enemy combatant during the heat of battle, or executing a bound and blindfolded woman hostage and videotaping it for propaganda? If you tell me there's no difference, the you are just as morally suspect as the terrorists.

Quote:
I'll be interested in your findings on the number of civilians killed in Fallujah. Please let us know what you find.

It usually takes IBC a week or so to verify and post their figures. It may be longer in Fallujah since anyone on the street is still subject to fire from the remaining insurgents. Just for perspective, analysis of the IBC figures for October shows 121 civilians dead due to coalition action, mostly from bombing of "insurgent positions" in Fallujah and Samarra, and 163 civilians killed by insurgents, mostly by car bombs and gunfire, in Baghdad and Mosul.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh please Geezer- the opinion was that the hospital would be used to treat Iraqi casualties- not that taking the hospital might save Iraqi lives in some indirect way.

Is that opinion dead? Unless someone brings evidence by tomorrow that the hospital was equipped by, and used by the US military to treat Iraqi casulties I'm going to assume that contention is dead.

I did some research and you are correct. The hospital was not closed to civilians, just cut off. Here from an AFP article:

Quote:

The military had allowed them to enter the general hospital on the western edge of the battle-scarred city on Saturday, but forbade the aid workers from going further for security reasons.

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.

"The Red Crescent vehicles... were rerouted back to their origin because Fallujah General has no patients," she said.

"All patients are being diverted to the Ramadi and Jordanian hospitals until the bridge leading to the Fallujah General is completely clear of improvised explosive devices and the security of the area can provide safe passage of ambulances with patients," she told AFP.

So its not US soldiers denying use of the hospital, it was the insurgents and their mines and booby traps. US forces secured the hospital early on to deny its use to the enemy and make it available as soon as the approaches were cleared. Until then provisions had been made to treat wounded civilians in Ramadi, the Provicial capital, and the Jordanian hospital located near the US base just outside the City.

So now, instead of a ruined hulk of a building, the hospital is standing, waiting to be resupplied and the approaches opened to allow the liberated people of the city to get the treatment they need because of the terrorists and insurgents choosing to make this fight in their city. But you hate Bush...so the the hospital stands enpty amidst the ruins of a once peaceful City filled with dead and wounded women and children and occupied by terrorist US Marines hunting down the survivors on the express order of a US President determined to kill as many innoncent civilians as possible to make way for US annexation of Iraq's oilfields.

H

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 7:29 PM

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 7:43 PM

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.

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 7:46 PM

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"

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 7:56 PM

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"

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 7:57 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:04 PM

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!

HERO

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:21 PM

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:25 PM

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

Going offline- TTUL.

HERO

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:30 PM

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

Supposedly...

H

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:47 PM

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"

GHOULMAN

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:48 PM

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.

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:59 PM

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"

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:10 PM

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

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:13 AM

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.

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:43 AM

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"

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 6:09 AM

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.

RUE

Friday, November 19, 2004 6:49 AM

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

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 12:02 PM

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"

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 12:29 PM

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"

DEBIJI

Friday, November 19, 2004 1:00 PM

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

DEBIJI

Friday, November 19, 2004 1:32 PM

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

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 1:52 PM

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"

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 5:11 PM

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"

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 5:36 PM

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.

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 6:16 PM

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"

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 6:25 PM

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????

BARNSTORMER

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:11 PM

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

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:21 PM

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"

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:54 PM

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.

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 8:22 PM

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"

BARNSTORMER

Friday, November 19, 2004 8:48 PM

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

GHOULMAN

Friday, November 19, 2004 9:05 PM

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 ...

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 11:56 PM

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?

GEEZER

Saturday, November 20, 2004 1:25 AM

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"

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:21 AM

"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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 20, 2004 5:07 AM

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.

RUE

Saturday, November 20, 2004 5:39 AM

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, November 20, 2004 2:57 PM

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"

GEEZER

Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:15 PM

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"

RUE

Sunday, November 21, 2004 6:24 PM

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.

GEEZER

Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:18 PM

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"

GHOULMAN

Monday, November 22, 2004 1:23 PM

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?

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:11 PM

Pictures you will never see on US TV.

http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:38 PM

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."

TAUSETIPRIME

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:39 PM

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.

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:40 PM

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

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:49 PM

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?

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:54 PM

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.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:10 PM

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.

TAUSETIPRIME

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:12 PM

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.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE