REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11062
PAGE 3 of 4

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:12 AM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Quote:

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


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

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

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

IMHO


Thank you for those comments Dr. Phil.

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





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

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

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:25 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by TauSetiPrime:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

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

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




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


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!

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

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:30 AM

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!

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

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.




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

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:20 AM

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





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

BarnStormer

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

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:04 PM

TAUSETIPRIME


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:


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

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

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




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.

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

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:27 PM

RUE

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


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

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

Thursday, November 25, 2004 7:03 AM

GHOULMAN


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.

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

Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:34 AM

TAUSETIPRIME


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.

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

Friday, November 26, 2004 4:53 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ 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?

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

Friday, December 3, 2004 10:37 AM

GHOULMAN


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.


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

Friday, December 3, 2004 10:45 AM

HERO


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

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

Friday, December 3, 2004 11:46 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

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



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.

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

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 7:12 AM

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.





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

BarnStormer

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

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 9:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.


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

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 10:17 AM

GHOULMAN


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.

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

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 11:29 AM

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.

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

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

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 4:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 6:05 AM

GHOULMAN


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.

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

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:53 AM

GHOULMAN


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.

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

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 11:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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 clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".


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

I will add AIDE WORKERS to this list. Aide agencies had been kept out of Fallujah through November, and were allowed in only briefly (for five days or so) before being expelled by the Marines. Not that the Marines have anything to hide, they just prefer doing all their "good works" (restoring infrastructure, distributing food and water, providing medical assistance, RECOVERING BODIES AND BURYING THE DEAD, and in general "preventing humanitarian disaster") in secret.

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

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM

RUE

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


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!

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

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:55 PM

RUE

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


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.

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

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 6:33 PM

RUE

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


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



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 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?

Would a clinic being used as a firing position by the insurgents be exempt from this provision, after warning that the city where the clinic was located was to be captured?


Hague Convention of 1907 (There's a bunch of Hague conventions and protocols. This the one you mean?)

Quote:

Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.



Once again, hospitals used as hospitals, (along with mosques used as mosques, etc.) are protected. If they are being used for military purposes, all bets are off.

So are you proposing that the insurgents be prosecuted for war crimes for their repeated use of hospitals and religious structures for military purposes, as well as targeting selected portions of the population for being, say, Shi'a?






"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 4:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:03 AM

GHOULMAN


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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?

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Double post strikes again.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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"

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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?


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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:44 AM

BARNSTORMER


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

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 6:45 AM

RUE

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


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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!


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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:42 AM

RUE

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


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 8:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 9:23 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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"

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 9:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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"

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 10:04 AM

BARNSTORMER


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

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 10:15 AM

BARNSTORMER


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

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:00 AM

RUE

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


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.


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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:09 AM

GHOULMAN


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 2:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

Thursday, December 9, 2004 5:59 PM

RUE

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


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.

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

Friday, December 10, 2004 6:21 PM

RUE

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


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.


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

Friday, December 10, 2004 9:37 PM

RUE

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


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.


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

Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trumptard terrorists thread
Sun, January 24, 2021 19:54 - 333 posts
Joe Biden could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and I would not care
Sun, January 24, 2021 19:51 - 52 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sun, January 24, 2021 19:37 - 6418 posts
Maybe it's time we stopped talking to them
Sun, January 24, 2021 19:32 - 15 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sun, January 24, 2021 19:24 - 4660 posts
The Recipe Thread
Sun, January 24, 2021 18:01 - 269 posts
Some Covid-19 thoughts
Sun, January 24, 2021 16:04 - 2003 posts
Biden* destroys womens' sports
Sun, January 24, 2021 15:31 - 13 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Sun, January 24, 2021 15:21 - 113 posts
The End of Constitutional America
Sun, January 24, 2021 15:08 - 35 posts
Reddit kicks out damaged knuckle draggers, planet cheers
Sun, January 24, 2021 15:05 - 43 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, January 24, 2021 09:02 - 908 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL