REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11034
PAGE 1 of 4

Monday, November 15, 2004 6:52 AM

GHOULMAN


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

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

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

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 7:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Where to start?

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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




"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

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

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

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

Why indeed?

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:20 AM

GHOULMAN


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


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

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

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

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

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

I even made a thread about it.

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 8:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 10:23 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



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



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 10:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


deleted.

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 10:42 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

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



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


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

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 10:45 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE


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

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

source:

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



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

Monday, November 15, 2004 10:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

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

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 1:00 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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

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

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



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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 1:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 5:42 PM

DITHER


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

And this from MSN:

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

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

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

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



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

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 5:52 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 15, 2004 6:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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


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

Monday, November 15, 2004 6:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:25 AM

DEBIJI


Quote:

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

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



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

Quote:


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



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

Quote:


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

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



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

Quote:


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


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

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

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

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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


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

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:46 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE


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

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:36 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by debiji:
Quote:

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

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



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

Quote:


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



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

Quote:


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

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



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

Quote:


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


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

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

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




You asked for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm concerned with the 100000 people murdered, tortured, and bombed by the US Army under direct orders from the White House and GWB. What are you concerned with? Tattered American honour perhaps?

And that's what happens in the discourse around here. Someone makes a point (usually Ghoulman) and no one has the balls to consider the actual point but only to redirect, reframe, reinvent, or just plain ignore (like Geezer is doing... get your head out of the sand). If you don't understand the history, people, and facts about Iraq or other parts of the world I suggest you at least try to understand that the USA murdered, tortured, and destroyed hundreds of thousands of people for no reason at all.

Deny it all you want... the dead will still speak.

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



These Guys?
Quote:


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

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

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



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

Quote:

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



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


Quote:

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



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


"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

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

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

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


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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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


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

Quote:

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



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

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

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:21 AM

DEBIJI


Ghoulman,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Respectfully,
debiji

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:17 AM

HERO


Quote:

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



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

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

Quote:


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



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

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

Quote:

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


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

H

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

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


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

Quote:

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


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

Quote:

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


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

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


THE HOSPITAL IN FALUJAH

Quote:

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

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



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


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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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

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




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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:18 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

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

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




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

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




I agree.

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

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

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

H

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:22 PM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

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





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

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

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






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

BarnStormer

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:36 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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

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



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



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:08 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Ghoulman, you are spewing verbal sewage again.

Just a couple of points:

Quote:

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


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

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

Quote:

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



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

Quote:

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


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

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

Quote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

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


Did you miss the article I posted previously?
Quote:

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



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

Quote:

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



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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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


Quote:

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

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

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

I'm not sure that our actions meet the definition of ethnic cleansing (there has to be a destruction of infrastructure and legal records, wiping out the economic and legal standing of the victims as well as their physical presence) but we are certainly fighting with less regard for for civilian casualties than we used to. Pure motives and best of intentions aside, at what point does our DISregard for civilian casualties make us morally suspect? When we're at the point of doign more harm than good? When pur victims numerically exceed the number of Saddam's victims? When we casually shoot wounded point-blank in the head?

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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




Been waiting for this one.

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

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

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

Quote:

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


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

Edit: Oh yeah.


Quote:


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



Nothing casual about it. A decision that had to be made in a split-second, given the knowledge that the insurgents had been boobytrapping their dead, that suicide bombing was one of their preferred weapons, and that many of their fighters were looking for martyrdom. And again, it is being investigated, and a good soldier will probably end his career due to the media jumping the gun with incomplete information and no concept of the realities of combat.

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



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Oops. Double post.

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:48 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by debiji:
Ghoulman,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Respectfully,
debiji


Respectfully?

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

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

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

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

Thanks for participating.

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:55 AM

BARNSTORMER


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







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

BarnStormer

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:13 AM

GHOULMAN


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

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

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

Rumsfeld should be jailed for life let alone resign.

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

How many beheadings were the work of Americans?

How many videos were fakes from the CIA?

How many kidnappings seemed suspicious?

How many hospitals did the US simply bomb?

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

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

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

Quote:

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


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

Quote:

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


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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:42 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

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



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

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

Why?

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Off topic. More misdirection.

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 7:17 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

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

Just a couple of points:

Quote:

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


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

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

Quote:

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



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

Quote:

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


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

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

Quote:

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

Nice links... it's great you try to engage my assurtion that there are no terrorists in Iraq. It would be an interesting subject. However, all your links are from American sources that have been guilty of lieing for the White House before. You even used a link to FOX.. .come on.

Besides, I often ignore links. Information has to come from good sources, not just sources that make America look good because the'd loose thier jobs if they didn't.

Anyho'...

About Ethnic Cleansing - You may think the USA could never do such a thing, but the USA has done such things in the past.

Vietnam.

Your rightious indignation at my suggestion that the USA might be guilty of a crime against humanity might make you bristil but it's an accusation I make in a war that is illegal, where US forces ARE guilty of torture, murder, and every other evil not just as isolated incidents but actually policy from the White House.

Oh and hey I'll say it again - the US has done these things before such as in Central America. The American record isn't clean, or even a little dirty... it's caked with blood and guilt over decades.

Oh but no, you have to just brand me "anti-American". That's how "patriotic Americans" always react, by attacking the person instead of the subject. That way, the subject is avoided.

If you're a soldier serving in Iraq you should be ashamed at serving in an action contradictiory to the traditions and goals of the US Military (or any honourable corps), rather like other US Military personael are! Take note, it's the White House that sent you there. Why you feel the need to attack me isn't what I'd think was prudent to your future. Think!

I love how you state you were in Iraq to remove Saddam and make the world a safer place. Utter rubbish. lol!


The USA frightened the world with story after story about a nuclear or WMD threat from Iraq (and Iraq selling WMDs to al Qaeda) and then the US Military invaded Iraq expressly to destroy the WMDs. Period.

Saying it was otherwise is a dirty lie. Please stop!

Of course, we learned the truth after that.

An there is a list of people here still denieing what happened over and over and over. You know, I used to accuse people of political agendas here but it's become clear that ignorance, lieing, and stupidity really are American traits.

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



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

Quote:

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


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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:35 AM

HERO


Quote:

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

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



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


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

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

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

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



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

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

H

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
So, when will corporate social and mass media apologize for censoring news about Hunter Biden's laptop?
Thu, January 21, 2021 14:38 - 14 posts
The Nazification of the Republican Party
Thu, January 21, 2021 13:46 - 6 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Thu, January 21, 2021 13:38 - 6382 posts
The End of Constitutional America
Thu, January 21, 2021 13:21 - 20 posts
Hunter Biden Subpoenaed Over Burisma, Two Dozen Other Entities As Part Of Four Investigations
Thu, January 21, 2021 13:13 - 5 posts
Joe Biden could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and I would not care
Thu, January 21, 2021 13:02 - 49 posts
People in England begin panic buying again for Corona, as the country enters its third Major Lockdown to stop Covid.
Thu, January 21, 2021 13:00 - 7 posts
Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
Thu, January 21, 2021 12:57 - 192 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser
Thu, January 21, 2021 12:53 - 86 posts
What if Biden wins in 2020?
Thu, January 21, 2021 12:48 - 43 posts
Parler Tries to Survive With Help From Russian Company
Thu, January 21, 2021 12:24 - 12 posts
Congress Still Jacking Off Over Unemployment
Thu, January 21, 2021 12:19 - 304 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL