It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A View From Fallujah

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegsLOL, you have to resort to cultural stereotypes? That says a lot. What the hell has me being Scottish got to do with anything? But lets see anyway.. the Scots have contributed nothing? Well apart from forming the U.S navy and the fact that well over a third, and by some estimations as many as three-quarters, of the fifty-six signatories for the declaration of independence were Scots-born or had some Scots ancestry we've invented the steam engine, the bicycle, tarmacadam roads, the telephone, television, the transistor, the motion picture, penicillin, electromagnetics, radar, insulin, calculus, the first cloned animal, Anaesthetics, Antiseptics, the Decimal Point, fax machines, Geosciences, golf, Iron Bridges, the Kelvin scale, Logarithms, paraffin, adhesive postage stamps, economics, hypodermic syringes, Pneumatic Tyres, quinine, refrigerators, thermos flasks, sulphuric acid, telegraph and of course, whisky.
And there's lots more; as well as being world famous for philosophy and journalism. Not bad for a country of less than 5 million.


Perhaps it wouldnt be to churlish to point out that you obviously dont know what youre talking about, whereas youre just guessing as to what I know. Don't you hate it when assumptions bite you in the ass?


Ummm what exactly are you smoking over there? You went to nosing into things you're not informed on to making up facts.

Inventor of television: Philo Taylor Farnsworth, born
August 19, 1906 in Indian Springs,
Utah to Lewis

Alexander Graham Bell was from England.

Motion Picture? Thomas Edison was not from scotland lol.

I could go on but frankly you're wasting my time and this is way off topic, if you're born in America that makes you an AMERICAN, you're siting here calming that things made and invented by AMERICANS were made by the scottish. (do I sense some american envy here?) Bottom line, you're ignorant and a liar. Although on the bright side that would make you a great Al-Jezzara reporter.




posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Yes this is very off topic (I wonder why
) and your insults are rather cheap, but I won't lower myself to that.

Alexander Graham Bell was born in Edinburgh in 1847.
sln.fi.edu...

Even before motion pictures were invented, Scots were involved in leading areas of what would become cinema. The world's first Panorama was created by Robert Barker in Edinburgh in 1784. The French-born Scot William Kennedy Laurie Dickson, working with Thomas Edison in America, brought about the Kinetiscope and other devices, which gave birth to the medium of motion picture in the early 1890's

www.tartans.com...

The Television one is admittedly debatable, I think the Italians have a claim to it too. they were all very close together and it's to do with the mechanical or electrical versions. The guy you quoted as inventing it must have been way behind though if he was born in 1906. John Logie Baird (Scotsman) first publicly demonstrated television on 26 January 1926.

www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/FINE/juhde/hills961.htm


Anyway, how could we be jealous of America when we did so much in inventing it in the first place? Why do you think you have a day devoted to us? Maybe you should check out your own history sometime.







[Edited on 18-4-2004 by kegs]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Condorcet
I'm guessing the massacre of civilians at Fallujah is part of a deliberate attempt by the US to provoke a violent reaction by Iraqis.


WTF!????? Did you say what I think you said!? I call that, "The Crap of the Day."

Change US to Sadrs militia and then you will be right on.

It's funny how everyone easily blames the United States for all the civilian casualties.

Sadr's militiamen are more to blame then anyone.....

*Sadr knows most of the time United States troops don't shoot unless shot at, so Sadr's men will attack and then hide with civilians.

So of course civilians will be killed when Americans shoot back, but it's not intentional.

*Sadr's militiamen are using ambulances to mainly transfer militiamen and weapons.

That's why they are getting blown up.

*Sadr's militiamen...

"Hey let me and my men shoot American troops from the top of your house...don't worry you're family will be safe. DEATH TO THE AMERICANS!!!! JIHAD!!!!!"

Minutes later...American troops walk down the street and get shot at, some possibly critically injured.

Of course, rather then storming the house and possibly losing more men, American troops call in for air support.

Moments later an F16 drops a bomb and the house turns into charcoal.....who's at fault?

Sadr's militiamen.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
i agree with the above poster. alot of you anti-war people are just bent on critisising EVERY single move of our troops.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
To Eastcoastkid.

You are a disgrace to America. Spreading around enemy propoganda would have gotten you hanged not too long ago. Be glad that people in the United states have pity on uneducated morons who practice treason in this country like you. You are a disgrace.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Okay let's review.

The US military, contrary to the United Nations internationally recognized rules of warfare, ILLEGALLY INVADES Iraq. The Iraqis don't request this, nor do any of Iraq's immediate neighbors (save, of course, poor frightened Israel).

Based on a LIE that Saddam has WMDs and will use them against the US (how is uncertain), the US military moves in an OCCUPIES Iraq, putting it's own provisional government in power after a few days and weeks of utter lawlessness.

Then they fire everyone in the Iraqi Army. Then they set up shop in all of Saddam's former opulent palaces.

The US military uses FORCE and VIOLENCE to achieve it's ends. Of course it does, since it's a military, not a diplomatic force. What do you expect?

So, if you try to subjugate people into doing what you tell them to do by violence, you will eventually have to deal with violent repercussions.

If you use your military to mete out collective punishment on a civilian population then you run the risk of having the civilian population turn against you. Ask Israel.

Explain to me how lobbing mortars and airstrikes into Fallujah, a huge civilian population centre, does ANYTHING other than murder innocents and create more hatred against the US.

If YOU were in Fallujah, and you were peaceful and pro-US, and suddenly a jet drops 400 kg of ordnance on your house by mistake, killing most of your family, do you say "Aw I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt".

Personally I applaud Al Jazeera for showing the ACTUAL results of war. Dismemberment, terrible loss of life, and pain. Not sanitized for Western audiences but full in-your-face.

You can change the channel and look away, imagine LIVING with it. Not just SEEING the death but smelling it, hearing it.


As for those who say "hey it's just collateral damage, civilians die in war" :

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STARTED THIS WAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND CONTRARY TO WORLD OPINION. EVERY SINGLE CIVILIAN AND MILITARY DEATH IS ON YOUR GOVERNMENT'S HEADS. IF IT WASN'T FOR BUSH, NONE OF THESE IRAQIS WOULD'VE BEEN VIOLENTLY KILLED BY U.S. TROOPS.

War kills innocents, so if you start the war, you take responsibility for that.

Your tax dollars at work.

jako



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Treason......

You people amaze me with your paranoia and insanity. I hope you realize that those muslims would kill your women and children if they had the chance. Its amazing at your refusal to see that. I hope that when they do get to some of us...that it is people like you that they kill and torture. The ones who think it is OK. I hope it is your children and not mine that pay for your lack of insite and intelligence. I really hope that you suffer the consequences for your stupidity.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
War kills innocents, so if you start the war, you take responsibility for that.


When he we not taken responsibility over there? I seem to recall seeing US military medical personnel in the area taking care of the civilians, regardless of who bombed them.

Do you ever see the insurgents attempt to do that?



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Seapeople: "I hope you realize that those muslims would kill your women and children if they had the chance. Its amazing at your refusal to see that. I hope that when they do get to some of us...that it is people like you that they kill and torture. The ones who think it is OK. I hope it is your children and not mine that pay for your lack of insite and intelligence. I really hope that you suffer the consequences for your stupidity. "

Well, seeing as how you're wishing pain and suffering on those of us who disagree with you, let me respond by saying:

Take your cowardly misinformed fear and stick it into your rectum.

Muslims will kill your women and children if they get the chance? What? How many Muslims exactly do you know? Even read any of their holy books? Do you know what their main tenets are? Then your opinion is not needed since it's uninformed.

COOLHAND: "When he we not taken responsibility over there? I seem to recall seeing US military medical personnel in the area taking care of the civilians, regardless of who bombed them"

I guess we read different news sources.

www.counterpunch.org...

"When the United States began the siege of Fallujah, it targeted civilians in several ways. The power station was bombed; perhaps even more important, the bridge across the Euphrates was closed. Fallujah's main hospital stands on the western bank of the river; almost the entirety of the town is on the east side. Although the hospital was not technically closed, no doctor who actually believes in the Hippocratic oath is going to sit in an empty hospital while people are dying in droves on the other bank of the river. So the doctors shut down the hospital, took the limited supplies and equipment they could carry, and started working at a small three-room outpatient clinic, doing operations on the ground and losing patients because of the inadequacy of the setup. This event was not reported in English until April 14, when the bridge was reopened...

...The United States has also impeded the operation of hospitals in other ways. Although the first Western reports of U.S. snipers shooting at ambulances caused something of a furor, two days ago at a press conference the Iraqi Minister of Health, Khudair Abbas, confirmed that U.S. forces had shot at ambulances not just in Fallujah but also in Sadr City, the sprawling slum in East Baghdad. He condemned the acts and said he had asked for an explanation from his superiors, the Governing Council and Paul Bremer...

...While the American media talks of the great restraint and "pinpoint precision" of the American attack, over 700 people, at least half of them civilians, have been killed in Fallujah. And, according to the Ministry of Health, in the last two weeks, at least 290 were killed in other cities, over 30 of them children. Many of those who died because of the hospital closures will never be added in to the final tally of the "liberation."

By any reasonable standard, these hospital closings (and, of course, the shooting at ambulances) are war crimes. However afraid the Plus Ultra garrison may have been of attack from the rooftops, they didn't have to close the hospital; they could simply have screened entrants. In the case of Fallujah, it's clear that one of the reasons the mujahideen were willing to talk about ceasefire was to get the hospital open again; in effect, the United States was holding civilians (indirectly) hostage for military ends...

...In fact, it's fairly simple: the United States has its military goals and simply does not care how many Iraqi civilians have to be killed in order to maximize the military efficiency of their operations. A senior British army commander recently criticized the Americans for viewing the Iraqis as Untermenschen -- a lower order of human being. He also said the average soldier views all Iraqis as enemies or potential enemies. That is precisely the case. I have heard the same thing from dozens of people here -- "They don't care what happens to Iraqis.""



Check out the link for yourself.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I guess we read different news sources.



Don't come to me with that garbage. They have no eyewitness accounts that I would take as the truth.

Try again. I have friends over there, and I will take their words over the word of that website any day.

Better luck next time.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
attrition is a small price to pay in order to win a war. besides, terrorists sure have no problem killing innocent civilians.

and i know that drill segeants say things like that to toughen people up. they treat their men like # to make them obedient and desensitize them. it's a psychological thing.

But it's still not right to kill innocent people.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Coolhand: "Don't come to me with that garbage. They have no eyewitness accounts that I would take as the truth.

Try again. I have friends over there, and I will take their words over the word of that website any day. "


Er, why don't you check out the author's credentials before you slam him.

"Rahul Mahajan is the publisher of Empire Notes and serves on the Administrative Committee of United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest antiwar coalition. His first book, "The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism," has been called "mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a handle on the war on terrorism," and his most recent book, "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond," has been described as "essential for those who wish to continue to fight against empire." He can be reached at rahul@empirenotes.org "


And check out his Iraq blog

www.empirenotes.org...






[Edited on 19-4-2004 by Jakomo]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Er, why don't you check out the author's credentials before you slam him.

I did.

"Rahul Mahajan is the publisher of Empire Notes and serves on the Administrative Committee of United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest antiwar coalition. His first book, "The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism," has been called "mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a handle on the war on terrorism," and his most recent book, "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond," has been described as "essential for those who wish to continue to fight against empire." He can be reached at rahul@empirenotes.org "

I have read it, have you? I was not at all impressed with his writings. He cleary showed a one sided view of the war on terrorism.


And check out his Iraq blog

www.empirenotes.org...

[Edited on 19-4-2004 by Jakomo]


There should be a rule here that you cannot use websites that end in .org to provide opjective information on the war in Iraq. I have yet to find one that accurately reports what is going on over there without adding their own slant to the story.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
CoolHand: "I have yet to find one that accurately reports what is going on over there without adding their own slant to the story."

Yeah, it's called "being human". Nobody can write a 100% non-biased article, it's against human nature.

What you CAN do is read what you can from many different sources and then decide for yourself which are most relevant.

I tend to believe the stuff I see over and over again on different newswires. Like the brutality against Iraqis I read about every single day.


What do you specifically see on this site that makes you believe this is, as you put it, one-sided?

If someone doesn't have the same opinion as you, you call it a one-sided argument? Your argument is far more one-sided than his. And much less understandable.

jak0


[Edited on 19-4-2004 by Jakomo]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
What do you specifically see on this site that makes you believe this is, as you put it, one-sided?

Umm, the first line alone:
"America's best Political Newsletter" By Out of Bounds Magazine. That doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy that I am about to get unbiased reporting. That article is full of heresay, as is his books. Notice that he himself have not seen any of these things actually happen, just the people who refuse to have names printed.


If someone doesn't have the same opinion as you, you call it a one-sided argument? Your argument is far more one-sided than his. And much less understandable.

No, I call it one sided because that is how he presents his articles (and books). Have you read either of the books that you pointed out. I asked you that last time and you dodged it.

jak0


[Edited on 19-4-2004 by Jakomo]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
CoolHand: ""America's best Political Newsletter" By Out of Bounds Magazine. That doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy that I am about to get unbiased reporting. That article is full of heresay, as is his books. Notice that he himself have not seen any of these things actually happen, just the people who refuse to have names printed."

Er, right. Heresay?

"On the other hand, on the way to Fallujah, at a checkpoint near Abu Ghraib prison (used first by Saddam, now by the United States), we saw truckloads and truckloads of lumber and other materials being driven in vehicles that clearly belonged to the U.S. military. It was all for building detention facilities. Since 9/11, the United States has embarked on the building of a global Gulag Archipelago; Guantanamo has gotten the most attention, but the number detained in Iraq is far greater. An administration that can build prisons but not schools or hospitals in the United States can build prisons but not schools or hospitals in Iraq."

Your friend in Iraq would corroborate this, as do other sources on the net.

"Nobody respects the Iraqi police. The problem is not, as some of the left might think offhand, that they are a super-repressive element of a police state. Not at all. The military occupation acts in some ways as a police state would. People who are even suspected of having the vaguest connnection to the resistance have no rights at all. The U.S. military has no legal restraints on what it can do. But in civil and small-scale political affairs, the military generally plays no role; that is in fact left to the police.

But the police are far too few in number and more lightly-armed than the average Iraqi. In Saddam's day, you obeyed the traffic laws because of fear of any entanglement with the police. Now, nobody does. The police are afraid to arrest actual criminals -- it's too easy for the criminals to retaliate. There is essentially no prosecution of crime, from petty theft to kidnapping and murder, and so criminals act with complete license. Far from a force able to control a country's internal affairs, the United States has created a force that cannot even control the average Iraqi motorist. This is a persistent complaint from Iraqis of all walks of life."


I don't know about you, but I see this as an eye-opener. And, again, corroborated all over the place on the Internet, and not in just blogs, but by respected newswires.

And no I haven't read his books.

And when he says stuff is secondhand knowledge he says "it's secondhand knowledge" or "I am working on corroborating this", he doesn't try to mislead.

jako



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
"On the other hand, on the way to Fallujah, at a checkpoint near Abu Ghraib prison (used first by Saddam, now by the United States), we saw truckloads and truckloads of lumber and other materials being driven in vehicles that clearly belonged to the U.S. military. It was all for building detention facilities. Since 9/11, the United States has embarked on the building of a global Gulag Archipelago; Guantanamo has gotten the most attention, but the number detained in Iraq is far greater. An administration that can build prisons but not schools or hospitals in the United States can build prisons but not schools or hospitals in Iraq."

Your friend in Iraq would corroborate this, as do other sources on the net.

No, my friends do not corroborate on that. Plus, did he see the final destination for that material? No, he made a guess. You can't deny that. I am sure that if he saw all of these prisons for himself he would have put pictures of them in his book or site. Alas they are not there.

I don't know about you, but I see this as an eye-opener. And, again, corroborated all over the place on the Internet, and not in just blogs, but by respected
newswires.

Then please post some links to those places.

And no I haven't read his books.

How can you defend him against what I am saying? You haven't even read the books that you used as evidence.

And when he says stuff is secondhand knowledge he says "it's secondhand knowledge" or "I am working on corroborating this", he doesn't try to mislead.

Funny, he never says that in his books.

jako


Please, before the debate goes any further pick up one of those books and read his stuff for yourself. Trust me, you will not be relying on him in the future. He is a terrible author.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   

"On the other hand, on the way to Fallujah, at a checkpoint near Abu Ghraib prison (used first by Saddam, now by the United States), we saw truckloads and truckloads of lumber and other materials being driven in vehicles that clearly belonged to the U.S. military. It was all for building detention facilities."


Shot in the dark here.....
but truckloads of lumber and other materials,
well,
that couldn't have anything to do with, I dunno,
REBUILDING/REPAIRING DAMAGED BUILDINGS?
Y'know, like all those thousands of people are over there doing?

Occam's razor. Look it up.

-B.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
"To Eastcoastkid.

You are a disgrace to America. Spreading around enemy propoganda would have gotten you hanged not too long ago. Be glad that people in the United states have pity on uneducated morons who practice treason in this country like you. You are a disgrace. "

well said, glad this forum isnt COMPLETLY full of insane pro-terrorist freaks.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
how is not wanting people blown to bits a disgrace?
you are a disgrace to the human race for wanting such things
treason, pro terrorists? thats the paranoid ramblings of a minority.
remember we live in a free country so you can say what you like(cough), but you would rather we all agreed with you so i guess you should go live in a country with only one choice. You do not seem to like that people can form an opinion beyond "nuke the terrorists" and actually imagine the human suffering.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join