NEWS: Scores of Civilians Killed in Fallujah

As perhaps was expected, civilian casualties are mounting in Fallujah due to the current US led offensive there to retake the city. Many have fled, but those who remain behind are likely to suffer many casualties. Civilians are unable to reach the hospital in Fallujah due to the curfews that have been enforced.



Nighttime curfews, and midnight assaults are bound to breed more stories like this. With civilians confined to their homes, if they suffer casualties they have no real way to get their loved ones treated in a hospital.

I believe that the taking of the hospital in Fallujah as the first objective was a calculation designed to lessen the amount of stories of civilian casualties being reported. This current Battle of Fallujah will undoubtedly be a blood bath for the civilians, rebels, and the US.

Related News Links:
www.reuters.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.terroranalysis.com...

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
As perhaps was expected, civilian casualties are mounting

Well, doesn't that say it all? I'm not sure that a war of any kind has been fought where civilians didn't die. However, this war has claimed far fewer civilian lives than most others throughout history. At least their have been no (known) reports of raping and pillaging by US troops, as this is usually also a part of almost every war. Things could be much worse, but I do agree that those who support and fund such wars should be made well aware of the consequences of their decisions. It's only fair.

As for the curfew... though that may also be claiming civilian lives from untreated injuries, the curfews are probably preventing far more deaths than they are causing. As soon as you set foot on the streets of an active urban war zone, you become a target.

I believe that the taking of the hospital in Fallujah as the first objective was a calculation designed to lessen the amount of stories of civilian casualties being reported. This current Battle of Fallujah will undoubtedly be a blood bath for the civilians, rebels, and the US.

This is just outright insanity. I would not doubt the current administration cruelty under such measures. I feel sorry for the soldiers and those civilians caught inbetween this 'war'..

Deep

If it was your son would you take it so easily? I just wondered if you had a heart or a slab of cement in your chest.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
This is just outright insanity. I would not doubt the current administration cruelty under such measures. I feel sorry for the soldiers and those civilians caught inbetween this 'war'..

Deep

Actually what I meant was not that they would attempt to prevent people from being treated, but rather that they wanted to stiffle the amount of information coming out of the hospital about casualty figures. Unfourtunately it has both effects.

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
If it was your son would you take it so easily? I just wondered if you had a heart or a slab of cement in your chest.

I have lost friends and family to a number of senseless accidents and crimes. IMHO, this is no different. I understand loss and sympathize for anyone who has ever been caught in the middle of any war or senseless act of violence.

We are as close to ending war as we are to ending crime. I simply try to find the bright side of stories like this, otherwise I'm not sure I'd be able to cope with just how cruel the world can often be. Sorry if you mistake that for apathy.

Wern't the civillians told to leave because of the impending assault.

I know this must be hard for people to do ,given that they would be leaving everything they have worked for, but the majority did take the advice and went. This has probably saved their lives. I would have done the same.

Possesions can be replaced, people cannot.

I'm not saying that just because they chose to stay that they deserve to die and suffer in the way they have. I'm saying that maybe something more could have been done to help with the exodus from the city.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by Bikereddie]

Originally posted by veritas93
I have lost friends and family to a number of senseless accidents and crimes. IMHO, this is no different.

I am sympathetic to this retraction of yours and the experience, but it does raise the question:

Do you see the invasion of Iraq as a senseless accident or as a senseless crime?

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Wern't the civillians told to leave because of the impending assault.

I know this must be hard for people to do ,given that they would be leaving everything they have worked for, but the majority did take the advice and went. This has probably saved their lives. I would have done the same.

Possesions can be replaced, people cannot.

I'm not saying that just because they chose to stay that they deserve to die and suffer in the way they have. I'm saying that maybe something more could have been done to help with the exodus from the city.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by Bikereddie]

Estimates are that up to 100,000 civilians remained in Fallujah. Some of the video I have seen from there has shown civilians either taking shelter, or just now choosing to leave. Yes people were asked to leave before hand, and I agree with you that I probably would have left, but neither you nor I are walking in their shoes. Perhaps they have different feelings on the matter, and feel as if, "this is my home, and you are not chasing me out no matter what!"

I find it hard to believe "Aljazeera," a known pro-terrorist site who normally has reporters where terrorist attacks will occur, before the attacks happen...is looked up as a reliable site. Other countries have seen this link before and we had coverage of this some months ago....I really find it strange that people still find Al Jazeera as a source of worthy of news.

Last week, thanks to decisive action by Iraq's interim government, the U.S. took a significant step toward winning the ever-elusive hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Iyad Allawi, Iraq's acting prime minister, announced that al-Jazeera � the Arab world's one-stop shop for Islamist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic propaganda � would be banned from operating in Iraq for 30 days.

Accusing the Qatar-based network of "inciting hatred," Allawi said that an independent panel had evaluated al-Jazeera's Iraq coverage and concluded that the station advocated violence against both Coalition and Iraqi security forces.

The al-Jazeera shutdown came just days after the French government declared that it was banning al-Manar, the official television network of the terrorist group Hezbollah, from French airwaves "due to its anti-Semitic content."

As expected, both networks loudly protested the closures. Al-Jazeera argued that it had only recently implemented a station-wide "code of ethics" that would ensure balanced reporting on Iraq. In turn, a representative from al-Manar labeled the French ban "restrictive" and a violation of "liberty and principles."

Excerpted from.
www.nationalreview.com...

Not only has Al Jazeera been accused and found of being pro-terrorist by countries like Spain, (information which I posted some months ago in these forums) but even the Dean of Shari'a and Law at Qatar University, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, has made this accusation of Al Jazeera.

The network was founded in 1996 by Sheik Hamad bin-Khalifa al-Thani, the emir of Qatar. Note that Qatar is not a democratic country and media are state-controlled there. The network gained a lot of prominence during the US war in Afghanistan because of close and longstanding ties with Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden.

Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, dean of Shar'ia and Law at Qatar University, blames the network for inciting Arab hatred and turning bin Laden and others into celebrities. He said that "there is a difference between giving different opinions an opportunity and leaving the screen open to armed murderers to spread their ideas" in Al-Raya, on January 6th, 2002.

Excerpted from.
www.thepolitic.com...




[edit on 9-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Wern't the civillians told to leave because of the impending assault.

I know this must be hard for people to do ,given that they would be leaving everything they have worked for, but the majority did take the advice and went. This has probably saved their lives. I would have done the same.

Possesions can be replaced, people cannot.

I'm not saying that just because they chose to stay that they deserve to die and suffer in the way they have. I'm saying that maybe something more could have been done to help with the exodus from the city.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by Bikereddie]

Estimates are that up to 100,000 civilians remained in Fallujah. Some of the video I have seen from there has shown civilians either taking shelter, or just now choosing to leave. Yes people were asked to leave before hand, and I agree with you that I probably would have left, but neither you nor I are walking in their shoes. Perhaps they have different feelings on the matter, and feel as if, "this is my home, and you are not chasing me out no matter what!"

fair comment phreak_of_nature, but i still think that i would choose mine & my families lives over possessions etc.
Thats my choosing.

I suppose if we were all the same , then the world be a boring place, if not maybe safer?

Iraqi Civilian Deaths Study

The suggestion that this war has resulted in less civilian lives than most is a function of a lack of objective reporting. The coopting of the media into the military structure originally obscured what is now emerging. The link above leads to a Guardian article about a medical study that shows 100,000 civilian deaths, mostly through violence at the hands of the coalition forces.

When you need 10,000 soldiers to take a city, you're not in after a few terrorists. You are facing a substantial and broadly based opposition and resistence. When you look at the number of civilians killed in this war, without any credible argument for self-defence, you really have to wonder what it is people don't understand about this being a huge mistake that is exactly the contrary of our interests.

What do we think breeds terrorism? Inherent genetic make-up or people watching their kids, wives, parents, brothers, sisters, and friends -- the innocent ones -- butchered and being told they deserved it because ... or to change the channel.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by G_Scard]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I am sympathetic to this retraction of yours and the experience,

My second statement was not a retraction of the first, and I have no desire for your sympathy. I was merely expressing that I am not cold-hearted.

Do you see the invasion of Iraq as a senseless accident or as a senseless crime?

I won't give you either of the answers that you'd like to hear. If you reread the part of my comment that you failed to quote, then you'll see my stance on this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it called WAR for a reason? I mean come on, it's called collateral damage. Now dont think that I am cold hearted because I'm not. I spent 2 years in the US Army doing whats being done in Iraq, and it ain't fun or pretty or nice. It is unpleasant, nasty, painful, and causes severe nightmares, but it is nessesary on occation. And so it is painfully called casualties of war.

Well, for every civilian that is killed, I hope it creates 2 "insurgents" in their place.

So keep killing, and defending it, and see what happens.

If your goals are truly what you say they are, then you are inadvertently achieving the opposite effect.

A favorite saying of a certain number of people on here is that "war" is ugly.

You're damn right, and it's about to get uglier.

Originally posted by theMCP

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it called WAR for a reason? I mean come on, it's called collateral damage. Now dont think that I am cold hearted because I'm not. I spent 2 years in the US Army doing whats being done in Iraq, and it ain't fun or pretty or nice. It is unpleasant, nasty, painful, and causes severe nightmares, but it is nessesary on occation. And so it is painfully called casualties of war.

Let me remind you that Iraqi "invasion" was for "liberation" of the people of that country not to "kill" the people that US was suppoused to liberated.

What most people in this country does not understand is that Iraq never attacked US and never declared war on US.

US invaded and is attacking that country as now in the false pretenses of "liberation"

The Killings in that country are an act of pure murder in the eyes of the people that US was to liberated.

Originally posted by theMCP

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it called WAR for a reason? I mean come on, it's called collateral damage. Now dont think that I am cold hearted because I'm not. I spent 2 years in the US Army doing whats being done in Iraq, and it ain't fun or pretty or nice. It is unpleasant, nasty, painful, and causes severe nightmares, but it is nessesary on occation. And so it is painfully called casualties of war.

How about if people start saying that for every US soldier that is killed?

Oh, too bad, another US soldier died...oh well, it's called casualties of war.

Originally posted by cstyle226
Oh, too bad, another US soldier died...oh well, it's called casualties of war.

Yup, that's what it's called. Death is an occupational hazard for soldiers -- not exactly news, there.

Death is also a hazard for anyone located in a war zone. Sometimes the war zone is obvious, such as in Fallujah, and sometimes it's not, such as in New York City.

I'm not sure which is worse: reading about the casualties and horrors of war, or having to sift through the endless false piety, obvious lies and sanctimonious drivel that emanates from those who hold themselves above the rest of humanity.

Both are preventable, but only one is completely unnecessary.