The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23826
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:12 PM

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

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

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

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

IMHO

Thank you for those comments Dr. Phil.

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

Yeeechchhh!!!!
Keep the kisses to yourself bigboy

It may be just an emoticon but I have an insistant desire to scrub my cheek with lye soap.

Yes, the pictures do speak.

Alot of dead and wounded insurgents, killed by soldiers probably.

Alot of dead and wounded soldiers, killed by insurgents probably.

And a couple or so kids, killed by who knows.
Any innocent noncombatant sucks but The kids are the ones that truly hurt the heart.

War Sucks. And thats the truth. I just wish that everyone on the planet could believe it all at the same time.

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

BarnStormer

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TauSetiPrime:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

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

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

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

Wow, you just avoid speaking on topic or even attacking me with lies and venom... you just tell me to leave.

Well, *chuckle*, telling someone to leave a public forum has so much irony I can't even begin to fathom the hypocracy and, frankly, little shit status you have achieved.

Congrats, you've managed to say the one thing that is completely the opposite purpose of BBS technology. You should get a medal (pinned into your eye). lol!

You really made my day... can't wait to show this one to the gf. Amazing!

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
War Sucks. And thats the truth. I just wish that everyone on the planet could believe it all at the same time.

Right... it's too bad the USA believes war to be a solution to every frellin' problem it has.

War on Poverty.
War on Crime.
War on Drugs.
War on Terrorism.

War is the most popular word in American polemics.

and hey, you can kiss me... I'm Irish!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:07 PM

Geezer- I really don't mind if you call me an idiot, a hypocrite, a buffoon, or... well, I DO mind but not really because I udnerstand that we all get pissed off from time to time. I myself have fallen prey to that particular malady. I hope you'll accpet my apologies for that.

Where I start to get real twitchy is when someone questions my patriotism or starts linking me to terrorists. Having been blown in the the FBI (or whoever) and followed around for a couple of days bc of something utterly harmless (but just a little too predictive) that I posted on the inet I get REAL nervous when people start taking that tack. At this point, I have a file. I don't trust Gonzales (He of the "It's OK to torture ppl" memo) any farther than I throw a piano. I hope you understand. Thanks.

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
War Sucks. And thats the truth. I just wish that everyone on the planet could believe it all at the same time.

Right... it's too bad the USA believes war to be a solution to every frellin' problem it has.

War on Poverty.
War on Crime.
War on Drugs.
War on Terrorism.

War is the most popular word in American polemics.

and hey, you can kiss me... I'm Irish!

Hah, snort!

What replacement words would you feel better with?

Parley on Poverty?
Curmudgenly on Crime?
Despondent on Drugs?
Turn tail on Terrorism?

Sometimes you crack me up Ghoulman

Oh, and forgive me for bastardizing a phrase used by Ebonezer but...
5 out of 5 Dentist know that BarnStormer is a Heterosexual Male.

Irish or not, there will be no kissin' happening here

Sorry pal

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

BarnStormer

TAUSETIPRIME

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Well, *chuckle*, telling someone to leave a public forum has so much irony I can't even begin to fathom the hypocracy and, frankly, little shit status you have achieved.

Congrats, you've managed to say the one thing that is completely the opposite purpose of BBS technology. You should get a medal (pinned into your eye). lol!

You really made my day... can't wait to show this one to the gf. Amazing!

Actually, I was going back to your "sorry about the logic" statement. Here is what I mean:

I visit dozens if not hundreds of websites each week for work, entertainment, etc.. Each one of these, I enjoy visiting.

Is it logical to constantly go to a site for which you have openly voiced your dislike? Some sort of penance? Forced Attrition for a evil past life or something? If I had to check out sites I didnt like everyday......I would probably just go nuts.

Does it make any sense to post dozens of times a day on said site? To constantly make degrading comments about the majority of that site's members?

You mentioned "BBS technology". Its a website with a well-designed forum. There are millions of forums designed, and often centered, around the kind of comments you choose to post. I was simply suggesting you might find another forum you dont already hate and try your luck there. Forums are designed to bring people together, at least that much we can agree upon. But, thats not what you do. At least, not by calling the majority of people on this site names.

Do you go to forums designed for discussions on Iraq and spew stuff about Firefly? At least that I could find amusing.

Find a good "I hate GWB and the USA" forum. You would certainly be able to agree with everyone there.

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

RUE

Thursday, November 25, 2004 3:27 AM

Geezer,

I'm sorry, I lost track of this thread over the several days I couldn't make it here.

I see SignyM replied. I too have serious misgivings about sticking people with the label of 'terrorist supporters'. That's why I felt I had to speak up.

I was going to say earlier that I can't accept the apology for Signy, but I do appreciate the graciousness with which it was offered, and the kind words to us both. I hope now is not too late.

Rue

GHOULMAN

Thursday, November 25, 2004 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TauSetiPrime:
Forums are designed to bring people together, at least that much we can agree upon. But, thats not what you do. At least, not by calling the majority of people on this site names.

Oh brother... That's not what a forum is and I didn't agree, piss off... and I don't go around calling "the majority" of people names.

You are a troll and a liar.

TAUSETIPRIME

Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:34 PM

You dont call people names?

Quote:

Originally posted by GHOULMAN:
I tried to be nice to ya Connerflynn but you and the rest have consistantly shown yourselves to be the very worst sort. So bad, in fact, you are all coming together to troll everyone you don't like off this BBS.

the worst sort?

Quote:
Originally posted by GHOULMAN:
And yea, I do hate this board and most of the people who post here but I'm so constantly amazed at how ignorant, spiteful, and childish people are just because I start my own threads in the proper forum.

most of the people who post here are ignorant, spiteful, and childish?

Again...is it logical to visit sites you obviously do not like?

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

GHOULMAN

Friday, November 26, 2004 2:53 PM

^^^ wow, shamless trolling on fireflyfans.net yet again... *yawn*, it must amuse the peanut gallery. Anyho...

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
War Sucks. And thats the truth. I just wish that everyone on the planet could believe it all at the same time.

Right... it's too bad the USA believes war to be a solution to every frellin' problem it has.

War on Poverty.
War on Crime.
War on Drugs.
War on Terrorism.

War is the most popular word in American polemics.

and hey, you can kiss me... I'm Irish!

Hah, snort!

What replacement words would you feel better with?

Parley on Poverty?
Curmudgenly on Crime?
Despondent on Drugs?
Turn tail on Terrorism?

Sometimes you crack me up Ghoulman

Oh, and forgive me for bastardizing a phrase used by Ebonezer but...
5 out of 5 Dentist know that BarnStormer is a Heterosexual Male.

Irish or not, there will be no kissin' happening here Sorry pal

Sooo a blow job is completely out of the question? Kidding!

Anyho', your responce is confusing. I only ment to point out that this fear mongering in American politics is an obvious example of what's wrong with policy... any policy. War never solved anything, but only in the USA is war considered the solution to everything.

Note that all these "War ons..." never solved anything and have in fact made things worse. The War on Drugs, for example, has done little but waste billions of your tax dollars, destroyed countless families, and put millions in US jails in what amounts to political imprisonment.

Hmm... don't I talk sexy? Not even a stroke?

GHOULMAN

Friday, December 3, 2004 8:37 PM

So, the US is only barely letting in medical help over a week after the fighting "died down" and they are still picking up bodies.

Remember - The USA gassed civilians, it's been reported.

UN fears for refugees who fled attack on Falluja
Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Friday December 3, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1365163,00.html
Aid agencies and UN officials are growing increasingly concerned about the fate of more than 200,000 Iraqis who fled their homes before the US-led assault on Falluja.

At least 210,000 Iraqis are now living as refugees in deteriorating conditions and are unlikely to be able to return to their badly damaged city for several weeks, according to reports compiled by a UN-led emergency working group.

HERO

Friday, December 3, 2004 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Remember - The USA gassed civilians, it's been reported.

Remember - Elvis is alive and living with aliens in Area 51, its been reported.

H

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, December 3, 2004 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The War on Drugs, for example, has done little but waste billions of your tax dollars, destroyed countless families, and put millions in US jails in what amounts to political imprisonment.

Gotta agree with ya on that one Ghoul. Too many folks in jail for using. Temperance never worked.

Personally, it would've made more sense to legalize it and regulate it. Folks die by the 1000's everyday from cigarettes..and they are legal. Hell, folks die every day from second hand smoke and cigs are still legal.

As for wars never solving anything. I disagree. Some wars solve problems. It's the foolish wars that don't solve anything. I look forward to my friends coming home from Iraq safe and sound. I support them for the job they are doing. One of my best friends is home now after almost losing his life. He is not adjusting as well as would be hoped. He almost lost his marriage due to the difficulties that arise from dealing with a horrific injury and the psychological damage that they caused as well. He's doing better now, but it still leaves a heavy mark on me to know how close I came to losing a good friend, just so we could establish a base to attack Iran, (The true reason we went into Iraq IMHO).

I look upon Iraq now more as a poorly timed and poorly thought out war. Did the Iraqi's need help? Absolutely! Did we need to help the Iraqi's remove Saddam? Absolutely! Did we need to have the support of the world? Yes..and to a degree we did. Though not the support we should have had to truly make the mission successful. Did we have a plan to help the Iraqis and deal with the ethnic divisions that exist due to 40 years of tyranny once we got Saddam out of power? Not so much. With the major combat over, I hope to see more countries come on board to help Iraq adjust to the new found liberty, and find a way to mend ties between the various factions.

I hope all the world has the opportunity to someday experience the freedoms I have come to know and take for granted.

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 5:12 PM

This from Thomas Friedman of the NY times.

Notice the paragraphs dedicated to the Lancet article....

Admittedly, the security situation is dire, but look at these figures. In October, the number of Iraqis killed was 775 from acts of war and murder; American troops suffered 63 casualties and 691 wounded. This is too many, but at a time of a major military offensive against insurgents, those numbers are not gigantic.

Or how about the constantly cited figure of 100,000 Iraqis killed by Americans since the war began, a statistic thrown about with total and irresponsible abandon by war opponents. That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq, came from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine The Lancet (search).

It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize.

As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts. Iraq’s Health Ministry estimates by comparison that all told, 3,853 Iraqis have been killed and 15,517 wounded.

The fact is that 40 percent of Iraqis say their country is better off since the war, and 65 percent are optimistic about the future. Iraqis are intending to vote in the upcoming elections to the tune of 85 percent, and 45 percent currently support Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Many are unhappy with the U.S. troops' presence there, but at least 35 percent want the United States to stay.

We still have a rocky road ahead, beyond doubt, but these figures do not add up to the unmitigated failure that critics of the Bush administration have been painting.

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

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 7:47 PM

Couple of comments

It is a dodge of the right to label anything they don't like as "controversial". It's easy to raise controversy, just look at Ken Star- he was a master of making something out of nothing. The method used in the Lancet to estimate the number if Iraqi dead is the same method used to estimate the number of dead in Kosovo and Rwanda, and I didn't hear any objections raised then.

The other point is that the Iraq’s Health Ministry has already been caught fudging estimates. The instance where they were caught was in the first abortive invasion of Fallujah; it wasn't until the US military told the IHM to report the REAL numbers at Fallujha that they did so. This allowed the Iraq Body Count (IBC) to "resolve discrepancies" (I've referenced the link to this further up in this thread.) That tells me a couple of things: (1) The IHM reports to the US military, and (2) the IHM prolly fudges numbers routinely.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
This from Thomas Friedman of the NY times.

Notice the paragraphs dedicated to the Lancet article....

Admittedly, the security situation is dire, but look at these figures. In October, the number of Iraqis killed was 775 from acts of war and murder; American troops suffered 63 casualties and 691 wounded. This is too many, but at a time of a major military offensive against insurgents, those numbers are not gigantic.

Or how about the constantly cited figure of 100,000 Iraqis killed by Americans since the war began, a statistic thrown about with total and irresponsible abandon by war opponents. That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq, came from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine The Lancet (search).

It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize.

As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts. Iraq’s Health Ministry estimates by comparison that all told, 3,853 Iraqis have been killed and 15,517 wounded.

The fact is that 40 percent of Iraqis say their country is better off since the war, and 65 percent are optimistic about the future. Iraqis are intending to vote in the upcoming elections to the tune of 85 percent, and 45 percent currently support Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Many are unhappy with the U.S. troops' presence there, but at least 35 percent want the United States to stay.

We still have a rocky road ahead, beyond doubt, but these figures do not add up to the unmitigated failure that critics of the Bush administration have been painting.

I'll say it again.

There is no other estimate of Iraqi deaths that is more trustworthy than the Lancet Medical Journal at this time.

The US Occupation Forces simply do not allow body counts so this is, effectively, the ONLY FOCKIN' SOURCE. All other sources rely entirely on media reports (from a media not allowed anywhere).

It's cute some bozo at the NYT decided to diss this report as "irrisponsible" (shows how scared the NYT staff is to tell the truth) rather like the dozens of other reports out there in the US media.

Shows what a scared nation America has become and the creeping fascism within the USA. Even the NYT is afraid.

Make no mistake... I'm sure you can find 5 links to stories that contradict what I've posted here.

But I posted the best source of that info... period.

Rememeber - no one has any valid numbers BUT the Lancet. The Lancet got it's numbers on the ground in Iraq.

So of course, this is what the neofascists do - they troll every fact that comes along, causeing the very same thing that happens in this BBS to happen on your TV. Everyone is argueing if the facts are facts. A vicious circle where the media leaves the people without any facts at all.

That's why most Americans still believe the false facts Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was helping al Qaeda.

Sick.

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 9:29 PM

Ghoulman,

The POINT here is that the Lancet estimated the number of deaths by using an invalid statistical sampling method. I myself am quite familiar with the use of statistics, and how using the wrong method, or a small sample size can and will give erronous data. Kind of a Statistical GIGO law.

But then again, I regret resurrecting this thread. After all, your not interested in the facts here. You'd rather just vent your spleen by calling all US citizens Neo Fascist Nazi, child gassing, murdering imperialist warmongers.

Is'nt that right?

You know, maybe you should have at least considered taking the "red pill". A little dose of reality would do you some good.

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

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 2:16 AM

Meanwhile, the Marines have just expelled the Iraqi Red Crescent- their Red Cross- from Fallujah. Please note: IRC was expelled, it didn't "pull out" of Fallujah as previously reported by the western Press.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1274

I cannot find reference to ANY aide agency operating in Fallujah, can you? So all we have is the military's word on how well they are handling the situation ... not that they have ever lied before

PSYOPS and the USA disinformation campaign
www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/12/05/5411656

Pat Tillman's death a friendly fire horror:
www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/12/06/8433343

... and how that $100 million is in the pipeline to Falujah. All I can say is- I hope for the 60,000 ppl left in the city, the military does a MUCH better job than so far because right now those ppl have no other source of food, water, or medical attention.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:05 PM

Classic troll...

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Ghoulman,
The POINT here is that the Lancet estimated the number of deaths by using an invalid statistical sampling method. I myself am quite familiar with the use of statistics, and how using the wrong method, or a small sample size can and will give erronous data. Kind of a Statistical GIGO law.

That's your opinion which is based on nothing. You can't tell me, or anyone with a brain, that a world leading medical organization fucked up it's math. You get that little logic right? Oh wait... you refuse too...

Quote:
But then again, I regret resurrecting this thread. After all, your not interested in the facts here. You'd rather just vent your spleen by calling all US citizens Neo Fascist Nazi, child gassing, murdering imperialist warmongers.

Is'nt that right?

Because my opinion doesn't matter.
Because the opinion of one of the worlds leading medical associations doesn't matter.
Because what the Red Cross reports doesn't matter.
Because refugees reporting US troops using gas doesn't matter.

You have made that clear. You and your trolling pals have made that clear over and over and over.

Your behavior is despicable.

Quote:
You know, maybe you should have at least considered taking the "red pill". A little dose of reality would do you some good.

The reality I subscribe to isn't the reality being "manufactured" in the USA right now. A manufactured reality you believe in so much you are willing to shit on me, lie about your math knowledge, and refuse to accept the only ... THE ONLY ... trusted, scientific, non-partisan, source of information about this subject.

I can't do anything more.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 7:53 PM

I want to make a point about why fascists all over America attack individuals and whole nations as "anti-American" and why that's fascistic crap.

Quote:
Originally posted by some ass:
But then again, I regret resurrecting this thread. After all, your not interested in the facts here. You'd rather just vent your spleen by calling all US citizens Neo Fascist Nazi, child gassing, murdering imperialist warmongers.

The entire world is against the Bush White House ... yet ... you insist people are simply "anti-American".

That's a lie.

And this is what passes for political commentary in US media. Take the recent visit by Bush to Canada. All over Canadian TV the protests against Bush were just that, protests against Bush. In the USA - Canadians were branded anti-American like the Germans and French.

See the switcheroo?

It's sad that Americans are subjected to this fascist rubbish. Be aware that your TV is lieing for the White House.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:22 PM

Naomi Klein's response to US Ambassadoor deserves to be posted here as well. It documents the deliberate intediction of Fallujah: doctors, reporters, and clerics, amounting to a total news blackout in which ANYTHING might be happening in the city. Taking the hospital, initally excused as having been done because the "bridge was litterd with explosives", was repeated in MosulSo, what was the military's excuse THAT time?

So we are dependent on what the military tells us... or choses not to tell us. (Not that they have ever lied before ) And there has been d*mn little about Fallujah in the news lately, hasn't there? REMEMBER: It's not just the news behind the news, it the news behind the non-news.

W/o further ado, here is an excerpt from Naomi Klein's latest:
-------------------------------

Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.

Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.

Eliminating journalists
The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job," the IFJ stated.

It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.

On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.

Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the cle

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:15 AM

For what it's worth....

"The tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of Fallujans who fled the western Baghdad city before the US-led onslaught have more to be concerned about than just flattened houses, devastated infrastructure and bullet-ridden mosques.

The US occupation forces are planning a set of police state measures to be strictly applied to any of the battle-scarred city’s residents yearning to come back, reported the Boston Globe Saturday, Sunday December.

This includes funneling Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and scanning, according to the American paper. (This assumes that Marines will have complete perimeter control of the city- building a wall, perhaps?? SignyM)

Fallujans would also be forced to wear, at all times, badges displaying their home addresses while the use of cars would be banned inside the city, added the Globe. (Why don't they just make them wear a yellow star? SignyM)

...The successive air strikes have caused huge damage in the western Baghdad city, with dead bodies littering the streets.

Slave-Like

Another humiliating proposal, which even triggered debate among Marine officers in control of the city, is to force all Fallujan men to work in military-style battalions, reported the Globe.

They would work in such fields as construction, waterworks, or rubble-clearing platoons and get paid, it added...

Model City

The US occupation forces and the interim government repeatedly said they wanted to make Fallujah a “model city,” where they can maintain the security that has eluded them elsewhere, according to the Globe.

The US forces maintain that the use of such coercive measures is allowed by the martial law imposed last month by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

“It's the Iraqi interim government that's coming up with all these ideas,” Major General Richard Natonski, who commanded the Fallujah assault, said of the plans for identity badges and work brigades.

The interim government declared on Sunday, November 7, a state of emergency across the war-torn country, except for the Kurdish-run north, which gives it sweeping powers.

In an unusual criticism of the bloody situation in war-torn Iraq, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) lambasted Friday, November 19, “utter contempt” for humanity shown by all parties.

“As hostilities continue in Fallujah and elsewhere, every day seems to bring news of yet another act of utter contempt for the most basic tenet of humanity: the obligation to protect human life and dignity,” said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, the ICRC's director of operations.

Red Crescent Forced Out

The Iraqi Red Crescent complained Sunday it had been forced to leave the war-battered city on US military orders.

“Multinational forces asked the IRC to withdraw from Fallujah for security reasons and until further notice,” the organization's spokeswoman Ferdus al-Ibadi told Agence France-Presse.

The IRC distributed food, water and blankets to around 1,500 people in the city, whose population was around 300,000 before a massive assault by US-led forces began on November 8.

The US military had since Thursday been interviewing military-age males who came to the IRC for food aid as well as testing them for gun powder, an AFP correspondent said.

There had been friction between the IRC and the US military as the agency was prevented from distributing aid throughout the city.

US occupation forces have for many days banned relief teams from entering war-battered Fallujah to help the wounded and bury the dead."

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2551

RUE

Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:44 AM

Well that's a heck of a way to avoid anyone doing a body count. Just let 'em die and rot where no one can see them. Mission Accomplished!

RUE

Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:55 AM

The fact is that 40 percent of Iraqis say their country is better off since the war, at least 35 percent want the United States to stay.

Hearts and minds in the bag. Way impressive numbers. Yawn.

RUE

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:33 AM

I did some quick checking. The Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and the Hague Protocol clearly forbid the destruction, targeting, commandeering and occupation of hospitals, medical facilities, and medical personnel. They forbid the targeting of civilians, and forbid selected portions of the population from being targets on the basis of, for example, sex. They forbid the blocking of civilian relief agencies. They also clearly put the onus on the army to maintain peace and order, and normal civilian services.
Haven't looked up yet whether or not violations of the above are subject to war crimes prosecutions.

GEEZER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did some quick checking. The Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and the Hague Protocol clearly forbid the destruction, targeting, commandeering and occupation of hospitals, medical facilities, and medical personnel. They forbid the targeting of civilians, and forbid selected portions of the population from being targets on the basis of, for example, sex. They forbid the blocking of civilian relief agencies. They also clearly put the onus on the army to maintain peace and order, and normal civilian services.
Haven't looked up yet whether or not violations of the above are subject to war crimes prosecutions.

Geneva Convention:

Quote:
Chapter III. Medical Units and Establishments

Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.

Art. 20. Hospital ships entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, shall not be attacked from the land.

Art. 21. The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: (1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge. (2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort. (3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment. (4) That personnel and material of the veterinary service are found in the unit or establishment, without forming an integral part thereof. (5) That the humanitarian activities of medical units and establishments or of their personnel extend to the care of civilian wounded or sick.

Art. 23. In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital zones and localities so organized as to protect the wounded and sick from the effects of war, as well as the personnel entrusted with the organization and administration of these zones and localities and with the care of the persons therein assembled.

Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the hospital zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.

The Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross are invited to lend their good offices in order to facilitate the institution and recognition of these hospital zones and localities.

Nothing in here about occupying a hospital, just about attacking one.

So would the occupation of a hospital by the forces of the legitimate

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:40 PM

Geezer- "So would the occupation of a hospital by the forces of the legitimate government and its allies for it's protection from insurgents, and the continued operation of that hospital after verifying the identity of the staff and patients violate this rule?"

The VERY first part of your statement- "legitimate government {of Iraq}"- is very much in question. If a government is installed by an illegally invading force, is it a legitimate government? Find me some evidence or point of law to provide even a shred of justification for your statement.

The second part "for it's {the hospital's} protection from insurgents" is pure supposition on your part and contradicts the military's own explanation. The official military reason for occupying and intedicting the hospital was NOT what you stated, it was because the bridge to the hospital was supposedly littered with explosives. Now, if the real reason had been to protect the hospital from insurgents, why didn't the military just say so? Why make up some cock-and-bull about the bridge? (I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself. )

The third part- about continued operation- is something I have not seen evidence of. True, patients and doctors were not dumped out on the street (they were just handcuffed to the floor and the doctors' cell phones were confiscated... I know, because they "might have been" insurgents calling home, right?) but on the other hand, the hospital could not accept patients during the initial part of the invasion. I honestly do not have a fix on when the hospital started accepting patients again... do you? And if it's unavailable it's out of operation, especially during the time it would have been most needed. Since there is next to no news coming out of Fallujah, I personally don't know whether the hospital is in operation even now. Provide a timeline with evidence please.

However, you did manage to skate around the entire point of my posts. I think you're fighting a rear-guard action here, Geezer.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, December 9, 2004 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Naomi Klein's response to US Ambassadoor deserves to be posted here as well. SNIP!

Sure does! And my thanx once again.

It's sad that bodies are still being picked up in Fallujah while the US Military, following White House orders (and hey, the new Intel Bill will make that even easier for Der Fuhrer in Washington to order troops directly), refused to let aid into a city "cleansed" of "insurgents".

That's the thing, we can see Fallujah is little more than a crater now but no one questions this act. Tell me, why is destroying an entire city, making refugees or 200,000 people, considered an acceptable solution to America?

Shame.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 9, 2004 3:40 PM

At this point Geezer, they're not being "picked", they're being shoveled, swept or hosed. I tell you, if the military is going to make a "model city" of Fallujah, they first must get rid of that smell. Leave a body lying around long enough, and the smell just permeates whatever it touches. Can't wash it out, that's for sure.

GEEZER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 3:58 PM

QUOTE]Originally posted by SignyM:
At this point Geezer, they're not being "picked", they're being shoveled, swept or hosed. I tell you, if the military is going to make a "model city" of Fallujah, they first must get rid of that smell. Leave a body lying around long enough, and the smell just permeates whatever it touches. Can't wash it out, that's for sure.

Not sure I understand the genesis of this post. Are you mistaking Ghoul's post above for mine?

GEEZER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:03 PM

Double post strikes again.

GEEZER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- "So would the occupation of a hospital by the forces of the legitimate government and its allies for it's protection from insurgents, and the continued operation of that hospital after verifying the identity of the staff and patients violate this rule?"

The VERY first part of your statement- "legitimate government {of Iraq}"- is very much in question. If a government is installed by an illegally invading force, is it a legitimate government? Find me some evidence or point of law to provide even a shred of justification for your statement.

Well, you mean aside from the interim government being recognized as legitimate by the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the Arab League, the EU, Muqtada al-Sadr, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, etc.? There's also UN Resolution 1546 (2004) that endorses the formation of a sovereign interim government in Iraq. Seems to be de facto evidence that the current Iraqi interim government is legitimate.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:19 PM

Basically, the world bowed to an illegal act by the USA, and it will come back to haunt us. In fact, it's aready haunting us- check out the arms deals between China and Germany, France, and between Russai and Brazil. (Get used to the feeling of that knife in your back, Geezer, it's gonna happen a lot in the forseeable future.) What I don't understand is why a straight-up kind of guy like you will defend the obviously illegal and immoral. Why do you do that? What fundamental justification do you tell yourself?

Part of your sentence is missing... please complete.

So, any comments on my other two points, and the entirety of my previous posts?

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:44 PM

Geezer,

Give it up. Arguing with these idiot trolls is pointless.

You just had your post glossed over by SignyM concerning the Geneva Convention. All your points were skipped over because SignyM can't argue against the real facts. So SignyM just ignores them.

I had a previous post concerning the Lancet article estimated 100,000 Iraqi deaths glossed over in the same way by Ghoulman. He completely ignored the statement about how the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.

This point was completely ignored by Ghoulman because again, he can't argue against the real facts, so he just ignores them. They have used this Lancet article as if it was gospel, but when the Lancet refutes its own article, they can't deal with it (it must be a Bushite conspiracy or something. Rumsfeld must have threatened the Lancet writers with death if they did'nt change the article). Sheesh, what idiots.

Then of course, Ghoulman follows up with a string of insults.

I'm out of here. I'm going back to the fun threads about Firefly and leave these idiot trolls to bask in their own ignorance.

Edit
My parting insults above were intentional, but do not neccesarily reflect the opinions of the author of this webpage. Direct all replies to these parting insults into the bit bucket.

Adios

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

BarnStormer

RUE

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:45 PM

No time to respond, but look up GC Protocols I and II, which are page on page of civilian protections, including medical facilities, personnel, etc. They're far too long to post here.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:01 PM

Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now!

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:06 PM

shoveled, swept or hosed... yup, intened for Ghoulman. But as a previous battlefield medical person (right?) you'd understand this too.

RUE

Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:42 PM

Barnstormer:

Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.

This is the most outrageous LIE I have EVER seen posted. I challenge you to post the quote that supports your claim.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:04 PM

The right-wing apparently has no problems lying... after all, the Bush administration has turned it into a policy!

BTW, Bush's MOST SUCCESSFUL WAR has been, as far a I can tell, the "War on Truth". And Barnstormer is a just one footsoldier in that war. Don't expect an answer from BS (Barnstormer), he's just following orders.

GEEZER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Basically, the world bowed to an illegal act by the USA, and it will come back to haunt us. In fact, it's aready haunting us- check out the arms deals between China and Germany, France, and between Russai and Brazil. (Get used to the feeling of that knife in your back, Geezer, it's gonna happen a lot in the forseeable future.) What I don't understand is why a straight-up kind of guy like you will defend the obviously illegal and immoral. Why do you do that? What fundamental justification do you tell yourself?

1. "Illegal act" is your opinion, and Kofi Annan's. Generally, to be guilty of an illegal act, you have to be prosecuted and convicted. This hasn't happened, so it remains just your opinion.

2. Even if I grant you, for the sake of argument, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, the interim government has since been recognized by most of the world. They also recognize governemts that have come into being by revolution and coup. Recognition doesn't mean that everyone approves of how the government came into power, it just means that they realize there has been a change in the people they need to deal with.

3. Even if I go farther, and grant that the invasion of Iraq was both illegal and immoral, it doesn't negate the fact that it happened. at this point, for the people of Iraq or the coalition forces on the ground, it doesn't matter in any practical way whether Bush lied, or there were WMD, or if Halliburton wanted to bump up the bottom line, or whatever. They are stuck with what they have, and need to deal with it.

4. Coalition combat doctrine must be responsive to the tactics that their opposition employs. That opposition has shown no hesitancy in using tactics that violate all the rules or war, Geneva Conventions, Hague Protocols, etc. in the books. The Coalition has to try as well as they can to follow those same rules, while being aware that blind obedience to them will get their people killed.

5. Rue seems to be insinuating in her post that the actions of coalition troops in relation to Iraqi hospitals are war crimes and should be prosecuted. This is what I don't agree with. I believe that, given the character of their enemy, they are quite within the protocols in their actions.

Quote:
Part of your sentence is missing... please complete.

Huh?

Quote:
So, any comments on my other two points, and the entirety of my previous posts?

Not really, I was originally responding to Rue. However, if you'd like to respond to my previous question about war crimes prosecutions for the insurgents who've violated the Geneva, Hague, and other conventions, go right ahead.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now!

So Siggy (may I call you Siggy?). Why was it that you were responding to my post to Rue anyway? And if you were responding to my post, why didn't you address the points in it? And why should I feel a moral obligation to respond to each and every one of the points in your unsolicited post? Did you ever think that I might have been going to lunch and would get back to the rest of them later (but not now, after your "dodge and weave" digs.) And should I spend the time to retrace all the points I've brought up that you have either ignored or mis-interpreted? I think not.

Barnstormer - The only up-side to beating your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Barnstormer:
Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.

This is the most outrageous LIE I have EVER seen posted. I challenge you to post the quote that supports your claim.

Look up Rue ^^^^^^^^^^

My December 7 posts. There are two of them. One shows the article, and the second one on December 7 is a response to Ghoulmans "Glossing over of the facts" that I posted.

Read the article, and research it yourself!!!! I will NOT do your research for you when you obviously DON'T WANT to find anything that refutes your precious preconceptions of what YOU want the truth to be!!!!!!!!

Oh, and by the way.....I may be an AssH*le, and I might be a Moderate conservative leaning Populist, but I am NOT a Liar. So Piss Off

Can't you read my Sig below?????

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

BarnStormer

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, December 9, 2004 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now!

So Siggy (may I call you Siggy?). Why was it that you were responding to my post to Rue anyway? And if you were responding to my post, why didn't you address the points in it? And why should I feel a moral obligation to respond to each and every one of the points in your unsolicited post? Did you ever think that I might have been going to lunch and would get back to the rest of them later (but not now, after your "dodge and weave" digs.) And should I spend the time to retrace all the points I've brought up that you have either ignored or mis-interpreted? I think not.

Barnstormer - The only up-side to beating your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Geezer,

I know what you mean. I'm starting to feel much better all ready.

I think I'm done posting in the forum for awhile. These people can be so irritating at times (well, most of the time actually).

I'm sure they will have a field day with the insults and such while I'm gone, since they will feel safe I won't respond.

Kind of like working at a company, then someone leaves or is fired, so everyone starts blaming all the new problems on that person who left since they can't defend themselves. It's really pitifull to watch.

So, have a good day....

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

BarnStormer

RUE

Thursday, December 9, 2004 9:00 PM

BarnStormer,
Respectfully, I have read the Lancet publication several times. I have read your postings. I don't want to create really long msgs, so here's just the essence of Dec 7

Quote:
(Thomas Friedman) That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq, came from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine The Lancet (search). It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize. As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts.

If I have missed something essential, please point it out. There are no specifics and no links. Perhaps you intended to post specifics but accidentally left them off. However, what you actually posted were the assertions of a columnist who is not an epidemiologist or statistician (his education is in Mediterranean Studies and Modern Middle Eastern Studies http://www.nato.int/docu/conf/2003/031016_bxl/cv-friedman.htm), and your opinions about those opinions (you yourself are apparently not a epidemiologist or statistician). So I am still waiting to find out what SPECIFICALLY were the statistical errors the study authors now think were faulty (as per your comment)

Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, December 9, 2004 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Barnstormer:
Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.

This is the most outrageous LIE I have EVER seen posted. I challenge you to post the quote that supports your claim.

lol! THE most outrageous lie???

Oh come on, you've been around this BBS too long to think this is the worst lie ever. These people have been trolling you for months with little tiny lies and great big lies while you have been a constant gentleman. My hat is off to you sir.

Barny there is just pissed, like all the other lieing neofascists, that there is simply NO OTHER SOURCE OF CASUALTIES FROM IRAQ.

The US military blocks and censors all that info. But the neofascists conveniently forget this fact. Gen. Franks stated that no casualities will be reported. None have. So the Lancet Report is the only valid one.

So of course, the neofascists must dismiss it with lies and counter trolling. It's all over the US media too.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 10, 2004 12:33 AM

Stormer- The one thing you can count on is for Rue to have read the original documents in detail (unlike you, perhaps?). You can't make sloppy, fourth hand arguments and expect to get away with them. Go away in a huff if you like, but don't say it was because we ignored the truth.

RUE

Friday, December 10, 2004 3:59 AM

Hi Ghoulman,

I do try to maintain a level of politeness.

But I have to say: having read the Lancet article, having read that "surveys or census based estimates of crude mortality" were not performed in Iraq for over a decade, reading their own description of their assumptions as "conservative", their data as "valid", and their conclusions that "the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably about 100 000 people, and may be much higher", having read the pains they took to analyze BOTH their study AND their data - this

Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number

was finally far too blatant, arrogant, and mendacious for me to ignore.

But I agree with you on this: it was not the most outrageous lie. The WMD flack might fall into that category.

RUE

Saturday, December 11, 2004 4:21 AM

SignyM:
There were several specific items I was wondering about re US war crimes in Falluja. I wanted to provide references and didn't have time to look for them until now. Here is one item:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1210-23.htm

Quote:
... civilian casualties were frequent and often systematic, rather than rare and exceptional ... In breach of the Geneva Conventions, for example, U.S. troops refused to allow males of "military-age" (16 to 55)-- defining them all as potential enemy combatants--to flee Falluja. Given the heavy American bombardment of the city, one wonders how many of these men are among the estimated 1,200 to 1,600 categorized by U.S. authorities as dead insurgents.
Similar to the free-fire zones of Vietnam, U.S. forces in Falluja had instructions that they could shoot anyone under the assumption that those left in the city were hostile.

In fact, the instructions broadcast on TV as they were being given to the troops were even more specific: any fighting-age male, shooting or not, armed or not, wearing protective gear or not, was to be considered a target and was to be shot. And US troops were observed by reporters shooting obvious civilians - women and children, who were trying to escape the city. What I want to emphasize is that the troops are not just some crazy 'baby killing' grunts run amok. This is policy, formulated and transmitted by people who know what they're doing. The fact that these were given as 'instructions, rather than 'orders' is, IMO, an attempt to break the chain of responsibility going UP the chain of command. If anyone is going to pay for these actions, the Prez-dent and Pentagon will make sure it will most definitely be the soldiers.

Other examples include the targeting of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, which I hope to get to later.

Finally, I recall that either Geezer, or perhaps another of that crowd, mentioned that there are MANY organizations that provide civilian casualty estimations, and, by gosh, there were no Falluja numbers, so the casualty rate must be low. In fact (same url)

Quote:
More recently, the Iraqi Red Crescent estimated that more than 6,000 people may have died in the battle.

RUE

Saturday, December 11, 2004 7:37 AM

SignyM,

And I just wanted to expound on this general topic a little bit more.

A lot of noise was made about how the Iraqi insurgents were responsible for blurring the lines between civilians and combatants. But there is much disinformation being spread around on that topic.

The very first images after the attack of the US on Baghdad were of US soldiers casually roaming the streets. But that changed within hours.

Early after the war, though no women had participated in armed actions, and serious suicide bombing had not yet begun, women and children were perceived as threats and shot at checkpoints. Why was that? The soldiers were reacting from some kind of information that made women and children into threats. It wasn't field experience. Was it what the soldiers had been instructed? Could it be b/c the Pentagon got its pointers and training from Israel?

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

For Geezer & Co: Do ya maybe think?

To skip briefly into a related topic, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with you SignyM, and the more outraged I become at the Prez-dent and Pentagon's cynical, perverse, outrageous, Hitler-esque actions. Yes, the hospitals were targeted FIRST to specifically prevent casualty information from getting out. (A contravention of codes together known as the IHL.) Aid agencies were kept out after Falluja was 'pacified' (another violation of IHL). After being briefly let back in, the IRC was evicted by the military, again. With an estimated 6000 dead, and uncounted thousands without water, food, or medical aid for weeks, it brings to mind, more than anything, an extermination camp in-place.

The US can't afford to let anyone in at this point. If the civilian casualties from pre-fight bombing, shelling etc weren't bad enough, if civilian casualties from the fighting weren't bad enough, the post-fight deaths will top off the horror, and are absolutely inexcusable. Word must NEVER get out. How can the lid be kept on? My mind goes to the obvious 'ultimate' solution: the witnesses must be silenced. And, as was pointed out to me, that's what you hear out of Falluja now. Silence.

SIGNYM

Saturday, December 11, 2004 12:59 PM

Rue- I have no idea how you find this info, but I certainly appreciate it.

Geezer- I will respond to your previous post with the comprehensiveness it deserves, but that will take some time. I stand by my comment- your ability to dodge and weave never ceases to amaze me. It was not meant as an insult, it is my true perception of your nature.

GEEZER

Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

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

For Geezer & Co: Do ya maybe think?

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

But, anyway...

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

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, December 11, 2004 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...for example, U.S. troops refused to allow males of "military-age" (16 to 55)-- defining them all as potential enemy combatants--to flee Falluja.

Couple of things about this.

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GHOULMAN

Saturday, December 11, 2004 6:11 PM

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

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

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

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

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

RUE

Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:14 PM

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

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

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

GEEZER

Saturday, December 11, 2004 10:17 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

For your convenience, here they are again.

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, December 11, 2004 11:50 PM

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

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

HKCavalier

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

GEEZER

Sunday, December 12, 2004 4:10 AM

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:00 AM

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

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, December 12, 2004 1:41 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, in your choice of topics and approach, I find that you deliberately mislead and misdirect discussion w/o ever addressing the MAJOR points of concern, all (apparently) in the interests of defending Bush by any means possible. It's hard for me to imagine that someone can do this all subconsciously, but if this is all really not deliberate, I think you'd better give your subconscious a good talking-to! (In fact, you prolly should enlist some help, since your subconscious mind would appear to be totally in control at this point)

GEEZER

Sunday, December 12, 2004 7:52 PM

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

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

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

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

The rest may take a while.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Sunday, December 12, 2004 8:46 PM

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

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

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

SIGNYM

Monday, December 13, 2004 3:41 AM

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

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

SIGNYM

Monday, December 13, 2004 10:49 AM

This is a test of my emailer.

GEEZER

Monday, December 13, 2004 12:55 PM

TIme enough this morning for another one or two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIGNYM

Monday, December 13, 2004 4:23 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

And don't forget to have a nice day!

GEEZER

Monday, December 13, 2004 5:44 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And don't forget to have a nice day!

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, December 13, 2004 6:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I mean by a double standard.

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

GEEZER

Monday, December 13, 2004 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's those words in my mouth again.

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

This is what I mean by a double standard.

Anyone charged with war crimes should be tried. I'm not particularly happy abou

GEEZER

Monday, December 13, 2004 7:39 PM

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, December 13, 2004 7:44 PM

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

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

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

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

I will have to take this up post-holiday.

Happy holidays to you all!

EDITED TO ADD: New thread- good idea!

RUE

Friday, December 31, 2004 10:05 PM

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

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, December 10, 2024 9:54 PM

mohammedan Sharia Laws

arriving soon in Iraq?

Scenes of Islamic Rule in the New Syria

https://gellerreport.com/2024/12/scenes-of-islamic-rule-in-the-new-syr
ia.html/

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, June 22, 2025 1:22 AM

Iran threatens 'more devastating' response to Israel's attacks

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/564803/iran-threatens-more-devastatin
g-response-to-israel-s-attacks

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2