WAR: Out of 700 dead bodies found in Fallujah, 550 were women and children

This is actually pretty irresponsible on the part of the Reuters reporter. He's claiming one source on numbers, without clarifying this man's stance. For all we know, he could be an insurgent supporter (one could certainly question why an affluent man would stay in a city he knew would be bombed to hell. I'm sure one could say for humanitarian reasons, as he's a doctor, but if that's the case, I wonder why it isn't mentioned by the reporter...???)

Actually we are awared that people has being dying in Iraq, we also know that the counts of the death from the Iraqi site has not been kept, we also know that iraqi citizens are dying everyday since US invaded that country.

So not matter what, this is something that has to be brought because is happening and is real.

Or anybody here think that is only foreign evil insurgents dying everyday in that country.

Get a reality call nobody in that country has to die, nobody.

as posted by marg
I absolutly no reason for any of those citizens to die is just murder.

Another excellent observation....
In such an applied case as 'war', justified or not, you are well aware that in all those applied cases of war and conflict, that "citizens" have been killed, be it purposely or inadvertantly? This will and does go back to the very first recorded cases of war and conflict.
To then quote and claim acts of "murder," are you willing to recognize that what the insurgents and terrorists are doing in purposely targeting (via car bombings, suicide bombers, beheadings, etc.) those "citizens" is also "murder"?




seekerof

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by amb1063
hhhmmm that is an excellent point. there WERE many civilians that were able to leave the city and passed thru our troops to relative safety....so not all of them were held hostage.........

I never said all, but many were, not to mention I don't see how the US could effectively warn all the civilians in time, I'm sure there were many who were unaware of the impending attack.

i made my statements based on my thought that............they were given the opportunity to leave fallujah before the bombing commenced and they didn't.................i felt they took a huge gamble with their lives by not leaving...........and the gamble didn't pay off.

We are all making statements based on thought, none of us were living in that city before the attack, we have no idea what they knew or didn't, we only rely on what we hear and assume.

1. The people were warned to leave, many days were allowed for this, and assistance to that end was provided.

2. If the insurgents held people hostage, then at that moment they became terrorists if they weren't already.

3. If you do not move in because of this, then you have just legitimized terrorism as an effective tactic in this particular war. You can only tip-toe around the human shield tactic so much before you basically shoot yourself in the foot.

Arguably, the Bush Administration's tactics in this war have been disastrous. The failure to secure borders, failure to make quick progress on restoring utilities, etc. has been a severe lack of judgement. But, on the other side of this, sure, Smart Bombs are great...but when a terrorist (and yes, once a "freedom fighter"/"Mujahadeen"/"insurgent" etc. crosses the line and holds civilian hostages, they are then a "terrorist" by sheer definition) purposefully hides behind innocents, you have two choices. Either let him win, or take care of him. It ain't nice, and it ain't pretty, but it is the tactic chosen. Is it the right tactic? Well, guess we have yet to see, but so far it isn't looking like it. The better bet would have been to build a case to the international community that they'd actually get behind, instead of false tales of WMD, etc. and THEN go in with others (i.e. see GW1). Did Saddam need to go? Sure.... But this is a disaster....by handling it this way.

I never said all, but many were, not to mention I don't see how the US could effectively warn all the civilians in time, I'm sure there were many who were unaware of the impending attack.

Having lived in the middle east, you should know that most Islamic countries (and Iraq was before Saddam, and the mosques were still in place), have loudspeakers EVERYWHERE for prayer call. Literally, there is NOWHERE in a city you could be and NOT hear prayer call, hehe... I'm sure these were utilized for the warnings, as well as air-dropped leaflets, etc.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by Seekerof
To then quote and claim acts of "murder," are you willing to recognize that what the insurgents and terrorists are doing in purposely targeting (via car bombings, suicide bombers, beheadings, etc.) those "citizens" is also "murder"?

I don't think murder would be accurate in the case of our soldiers because it is not intentional, I would call it manslaughter. The insurgents are murderers, but that is their only means of resistance, not that it is justified, but how would you fight if say....aliens invaded with superior technology and anytime you tried to fight them conventionally, we got crushed by their "lasers" and robots and such, there would be no point in facing them when defeat is certain. Eventually we would get desperate, just as they have. My feelings are none of this was happening before we invaded, sure they lived under an a-hole, but they are not the only ones by far, and I would rather live under a dictator than in a land of war, anarchy, and death. And that's what it will be for a long time to come.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Having lived in the middle east, you should know that most Islamic countries (and Iraq was before Saddam, and the mosques were still in place), have loudspeakers EVERYWHERE for prayer call.

I've never lived there, but I'm sure you mean you lived there. My question is if the city was held by insurgent/terrorists, how would we gain access to those loudspeakers? And, alot of the leaflets were probably intercepted by the insurgents as alot of the civilians were probably staying in as much as they could have. I think it would be extremely difficult to effectively warn the civilians in that situation.


[edit on 6-1-2005 by 27jd]

If I were to take this article at face value, I would believe that U.S. forces were attacking nothing but women, children and old men in Fallujah.

Um... right.

Folks, this isn't even good disinformation. Frankly, it's pathetic. The best lies have the advantage of at least making a lick of sense.

What I find distressing is how so many of my fellow ATSers seem willing to jump on any piece of questionable, uncorroborated and patently absurd piece of disinformation that supports their preexisting prejudices and worship it as gospel.

I suppose that makes people feel good, but on ATS it does nothing but promote ignorance and ensure that no one need worry about taking anything we post here seriously.

After all, we're just the lunatic fringe, right? As long as we act like it, we are.

People will believe what they want to believe, there's nothing new about that. But if you want to Deny Ignorance, I urge you to be skeptical of all sources of "news", especially those which discredit themselves on their face.

Or, if you prefer, you can take positions that make it easy to wave you off as a "sicko conspiracy theorist."

The choice is yours. Please, choose wisely and have a little self-respect.


And for those who may have missed it amid all the hand-wringing and finger pointing:

From the source article:
Ministry of Health officials told IRIN that they are in the process of investigating the number of deaths, but claim that a very small number of women and children were killed, contrary to what doctors in Fallujah have said.

Originally posted by Gazrok
While no fan of Bush...

One should add, that these numbers are from ONE man, a Dr. and we do NOT know his political ideals, agenda, etc. nor why he stayed in Fallujah when the residents were warned to leave for their safety over the period of many days prior to the battle. I'd wait until we get some figures from the Red Crescent, etc. and the article also states that the Minister of Health is disputing that ratio.

Thank You Gaz !! At least one person here with some sense of reason..


everyone else... blame Bush, blame Bush.. it's his fault...

ahhhh BULL...

Originally posted by Simulacra
Doctors at the hospital claim that many bodies had been found in a mutilated condition, some without legs or arms. Two babies were found at their homes, who are believed to have died from malnutrition, according to a specialist at the hospital

Terrible

Thank you George Bush.

What in the world makes you think that this is because of bush??

The civilians were ordered to leave Falluja so that this sort of thing would be avoided. Why would americans run around chopping off the legs of women and children? Why don't you think that this was the work of the insurgents who have no problem blowing up iraqi citizens???

aceofbase
When people see footage of bombs hitting buildings, some don't think of the people who were in those buildings when they were hit.

What in the world were they still doing there then? The city had become an insurgent stronghold, and the US was going to attack it. They were given warning and allowed to leave. Anyone staying was probably an insurgent or insurgent supporter, so why should anyone be concerned with their deaths? ANd as for these women and children, why start off with the assumption that they were killed by americans? The insurgents don't do this? They're not the ones cutting people's heads off?

27jd
You probably would, but if you lived there, one little problem would be the insurgents that would kill you and your family if you run for the hills.

It didn't seem to be enough of a problem for the thousands that did evacuate the city. And this just illustrates that these bodies might very well have been executed by the insurgents, who obviously have no problem killing female civilians

The civilians were held hostage

The were able to leave. Its reasonable enough to assume that everone in the city was either an insurgent or a collaborator. These insurgents need food, shelter, and supplies, they are not operating without 'civilian' support. The boers couldn't do it, the french partisans couldn't do it, and the vietnamese couldn't do it, these jihadis are no different.

aceofbase
Some are already saying they will attack in the US.

And now the US is supposed to have its foreign policy dictated to it by terrorists in iraq who murder women and civilians? The united states stayed out of mass intervention in the middle east long enough, and it resulted in hijakcings, hostage taking, the twin embassy bombings, the cole attack, and finally 911. Going back to September 10th is unthinkable at this point.

kriz_4
This war can never be won,

Wars are only lost when people start backing out and fighting insensibly. THe british beat the boer commandos, and arab/islamic armies across the world, the US can certianly defeat this disorganized one.

kidfinger
Iraq is not a threat to us, it has never been, and it will never be a threat to us

The post war data has shown that they were attemping to reconstiute their WMD programs and that they were harbouring terrorists. The only thing the prevented them from having these weapons was the first gulf war and the inspectors that it allowed in along with the sanctions that the world was getting ready to lift. Iraq certainly was a threat, it was just a threat that was moderately contained. Besides, after 911, everyone wanted to go after the terrorists around the world, not just card carrying members of al qaida, obviously all active jihadis have to be fought. Iraq was allowing other jihadis to operate, so what else did anyone think was going to happen? What else does anyone actually think is going to happen? This war isn't over in iraq, its obviously moving to iran sometime this year and then into syria and with actions in other countries that allow terrorists to operate.


[edit on 6-1-2005 by Nygdan]

1. The people were warned to leave, many days were allowed for this, and assistance to that end was provided.

2. If the insurgents held people hostage, then at that moment they became terrorists if they weren't already.

3. If you do not move in because of this, then you have just legitimized terrorism as an effective tactic in this particular war. You can only tip-toe around the human shield tactic so much before you basically shoot yourself in the foot.

Arguably, the Bush Administration's tactics in this war have been disastrous. The failure to secure borders, failure to make quick progress on restoring utilities, etc. has been a severe lack of judgement. But, on the other side of this, sure, Smart Bombs are great...but when a terrorist (and yes, once a "freedom fighter"/"Mujahadeen"/"insurgent" etc. crosses the line and holds civilian hostages, they are then a "terrorist" by sheer definition) purposefully hides behind innocents, you have two choices. Either let him win, or take care of him. It ain't nice, and it ain't pretty, but it is the tactic chosen.


thanks for making a very clear statemnt..........one i was having trouble getting in to words. but that was what at some point i could have gotten around to saying!

also the loud speakers in the mosques..........excellent point. i THOUGHT that we had given plenty of notice for the civilians to escape the city but couldn't once again get the appropriate words out.

thanks!

angie

So, when are we going into Northern Ireland Nygdan. We allow the terrorist groups there to operate do we not? I know this is an old argument.

The car bombers in Iraq are murderers I agree. But so are we for killing civilians. Naming the civilians killed as "casualties of war" is a pathetic cop out.

We must except responsability for what we have done, we have destroyed a country. Why have we done this? For our own disillusioned belief in reducing a non-exsistent threat.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Kriz_4]

While I do not personally believe this particular source or the numbers given, the main issue for me is that we ARE killing innocent civilians, a poster above stated everybody in the city was a collaborator, that is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have seen made on this thread. Children are not collaborators, and I'm sure many adults were not as well, they were just trying to live in what was once their homes. Where would they have gone? Are there shelters set up for families trying to escape, or were they just supposed to flee into the desert? It seems so easy to say they could've evacuated and that we gave them plenty of warning, but how can anybody here say that? Were you there? Was anybody posting here living in that city? I doubt it.

Once again, it comes down to the fact that we had NO BUSINESS invading that country, at all. It's not the soldiers faults, they are just being soldiers. That's why we blame Bush, it IS his fault. Iraq was trying to reconstitute it's weapons programs? There is little evidence of that and even if it were so, there are other more capable hostile nations that DO HAVE weapons programs, for sure. This war was wrong, period. All the hyperpatriotic Bush zombies can try as they will, but there is no justifying this mess.

I've never lived there, but I'm sure you mean you lived there. My question is if the city was held by insurgent/terrorists, how would we gain access to those loudspeakers? And, alot of the leaflets were probably intercepted by the insurgents as alot of the civilians were probably staying in as much as they could have. I think it would be extremely difficult to effectively warn the civilians in that situation.

Yes, that is what I meant, it's what I get for typing too fast, hehe...

Good points, but the mosques have likely been used for prayer call for ages, so if even a quarter of them were utilized, I guarantee you would have heard something from just about anywhere, hehe... The insurgents did not hold the entire city, nor is it likely they could stop many mosques from broadcasting a warning.

Another good point on the leaflets, but the amount dropped was likely mind-boggling, as our standard MO... I'm sure that anyone could have found one at some point during those days. I didn't even mention that the local radio stations would have been taken over or their signals overridden, to include the warnings as well. (and it wouldn't have been necessary to be in the city to do this).

Originally posted by Gazrok
Yes, that is what I meant, it's what I get for typing too fast, hehe...

Good points, but the mosques have likely been used for prayer call for ages, so if even a quarter of them were utilized, I guarantee you would have heard something from just about anywhere, hehe... The insurgents did not hold the entire city, nor is it likely they could stop many mosques from broadcasting a warning.

Another good point on the leaflets, but the amount dropped was likely mind-boggling, as our standard MO... I'm sure that anyone could have found one at some point during those days. I didn't even mention that the local radio stations would have been taken over or their signals overridden, to include the warnings as well. (and it wouldn't have been necessary to be in the city to do this).

Also good points, but we must keep in mind a few things, these folks are not rocket scientists and probably aren't too keen on what's best for them, the problem is their little ones are the ones suffering most, and they have no choice. Also, again I wonder where they could've gone if they did want to leave, on foot into the desert with their families? Most probably did not have vehicles or a means to escape other than the old heel toe express. I live in the desert and I know I would not want to take my family out into it on foot with only what we could carry.

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
This is the reality of war folks....regardless of how precise our weapons may be, occasionally they make a mistake....It's a sad day for those innocent victims, but this is (insert "my") war! And I'll find Osama and I'll smoke him out! Jesus loves you but he loves me more...God Bless America...
by EnronOutrunHomerun]

Its sad how you say that, this is a bigger crime then WTC, but to you its ok and fine... This is the reason i sometimes hope for someone to take america out of power to stop this mass murder going on

Originally posted by P Amaru
Its sad how you say that, this is a bigger crime then WTC, but to you its ok and fine... This is the reason i sometimes hope for someone to take america out of power to stop this mass murder going on

Enron was not serious, he was being sarcastic, he was just saying that is what ignorant Americans would say, sometimes we Americans (and others) use sarcasm to express how much we disagree with something, like this war.

Originally posted by 27jd
While I do not personally believe this particular source or the numbers given, the main issue for me is that we ARE killing innocent civilians, a poster above stated everybody in the city was a collaborator, that is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have seen made on this thread.

Why? Whenever insurgents have been in existence before they have only done so with collaborators from the general public. They cannot operate with out public support.

Children are not collaborators,

Since when? A 13 year old can kill one just as dead as a 20 year old.

and I'm sure many adults were not as well

I'm sure they weren't either, thats probably why they were shot and mutilated, because they wouldn't work with the insurgents.

, they were just trying to live in what was once their homes. Where would they have gone?

The same place the majority of the city went during the raid.

Are there shelters set up for families trying to escape, or were they just supposed to flee into the desert?

I have no idea what the setup was, but the people that left did well enough.

It seems so easy to say they could've evacuated

They were ordered to evacuate, and told that the US was going to come in and start killing insurgents.

and that we gave them plenty of warning, but how can anybody here say that? Were you there?

By that reasoning we shouldn't beleive anything we hear, why, there might not even be a war at all, heck there might not even be a place called iraq.

Once again, it comes down to the fact that we had NO BUSINESS invading that country, at all.

Too late, the US is there.

This war was wrong, period.

That hardly means that the americans were the ones who killed and mutliated all those women and children

p amaru
Its sad how you say that, this is a bigger crime then WTC

700 dead iraqis is a greater crime than over 2,000 dead americans? Iraqis are worth more than americans now? And, agian, there is nothing indicating that americans did this. More likely the insurgents killed off the people that they felt were cooperating with the americans and itnerim government, which is something that they've been doing during most of the insurgency.

now we have created several new groups that have vowed to see us fall, and we have created far more would be terrorists than we have killed, and we continue to create more.

They kill because they are raised to believe that is what their futures hold. Establishment of a democratic sytem and a capitalist system is the only cure for the chasm that currently exists between our cultures. They hate us no more now than they did before. That is propaganda telling you that. And it is not just Iraqi we are fighting in Iraq. Iraq is merely the ball field.

We are all making statements based on thought...

Nope. I do what my cat tells me to.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by cjane]

Again I have to bring out that nobody is lying about the deaths in Iraq, everyday people are dying, everyday children become casualties and everyday women will die also.

Yes is not a lie more people than you can imagine has already die or a about to die in Iraq.

US brought it their country and so all the foreigners that US allowed to come freely through their borders, yes US is responsible for the death of people in Iraq.

Now can everybody kindly denied ignorance now?