A View From Fallujah

CoolHand: "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. "

fairuse.1accesshost.com...

Great article about the re-opening of the infamous Abu Ghraab (Ghraib) prison under the new management of the CPA

"This situation is like Guantanamo on steroids," said Stewart Vriesinga of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), a faith-based peace group. CPT has been interviewing former detainees and their families to try to shed some light on what happens to security detainees. I spoke to Vriesinga, who was also in Baghdad, over a crackling phone connection. (Land lines in Iraq are still virtually nonexistent. People communicate using satellite phones, U.S.-area code cellphones, or the new oversubscribed Iraqi cellphones. Heavy static and frequent disconnection are the norm with all three.)

Vriesinga said that former detainees regularly describe being hooded, handcuffed and left outside for hours on end (sometimes in the rain) at bases where they are initially taken for interrogation. Accusations of beatings during interrogations are also common. Given the mantle of military secrecy over the entire process, CPT fears that the stories they hear are just the tip of the iceberg....

When I spoke to Stewart Vriesinga, he told me that these numbers of detainees currently being released do not mean the situation is improving. They mean that more people are being detained than ever, he told me. And many never make it onto the detainee list at all -- they just get lost in the system. This is particularly true of those held at bases rather than prisons. Right now, the official detainee list hovers between 11,000 and 13,000 people. But CPT believes that number is by no means comprehensive. With so many detainees falling through the cracks, they feel the number is probably closer to 18,000 to 20,000. For families who cannot locate their relatives, he told me, the situation feels terribly reminiscent of the previous regime. A story on the Occupation Watch Web site quoted one Iraqi man as saying, "It was easier to get a visit under Saddam!"

Originally from a Salon.com article, I believe.

You said: "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."

I didn't use his books as evidence, I used the article I linked to as evidence. I used the fact that he's a published author as evidence he may indeed be a good source, as a part of a whole. Whatever he says or doesn't say in his specific books is irrelevant. It's the article I linked.

"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."

Do you in fact deny that anything I've been saying has any merit or are you just going to question the reliability of the articles I choose to reference?

This all started with you saying "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. "

So I referenced an article describing how hospitals in Iraq were being hit and ambulances being shot at and that this kind of poked some holes in your theory that the US military gives a crap about your average Iraqi life.

Do you want, oh, let's say 5 different links that corroborate that and then you can question each of them without actually admitting that it is in fact the case?


jako

Originally posted by Muaddib

Al-Jazeera is to the Arab world as is Fox's "Fair and Balanced" approach is to the west. Both services are heavily slanted towards a pre-determined political view.

Not so, in the US the press can say almost whatever they want about Bush, and some do, with no retaliation. Try doing that in countries where there are dictatorships, aljazeera have an agenda to sell. I would not doubt if those pictures of the dead kids were actually taken in wars they had among themselves in the past.

You are talking about the same news media that had a loyalist to Saddam say that the US forces were being routed from Baghdag and that Baghdag was secure when the US forces and coalition were already there. They kep denying that the US was winning up to the point where the reporter was caught and then he said "he was ordered to say this."

Aljazeera have never and will never, speak against the atrocities their own government have done or would do, they just want to keep blaming everything on the US.

We did cool guy remember, Germany, Japan, and we kicked there ass, and we saved frances. Remember this bitch and complain now, but say absolutely nothing if one of your family members get killed ina bombing. Kids get killed, Sadam Gassed 10's of thousands of women and children, Do you honestly think these 20 year old guys are going over there and spraying crowds of kids with bullets?

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

Agreed. I have been getting first hand accounts directly from Iraq, and they do not line up with the Al-Jazeera stories of American soldiers using candy as a lure to shoot children. Quite the opposite acutally.

The difference is amazing when you get direct info from people in the middle of the actual action as opposed to politicaly inclined, agenda-slanted stories through the media.(on both sides, I might add)

I am sure accidents do happen, but I do not believe for one second that snipers are looking for "ambulances with pregnant women about to give birth" to shoot at as Al-Jazeera reports.



.

Hey, I don't believe that U.S. troops are luring children into the open to bust some caps in them, but I also don't believe that they or the military planners do anything to avoid killing civilians.

I hear estimates of anywhere between 280 to 700 dead Iraqis in Fallujah. Do you expect me to believe they were all gunmen? Maybe 10%?

www.wmtw.com...

"Fallujah, Iraq-AP -- A hospital administrator in Fallujah says more than 280 Iraqis have been killed this week in the U-S military crackdown against insurgents in the city.

The official tells The Associated Press he thinks the figure will go higher. He says there are more victims whose bodies are buried in rubble and cannot be reached yet. He also says more than 400 Iraqis were wounded in fighting that began early Monday after U-S Marines surrounded the rebellious city."

This is why the USA will lose and will be forced to leave Iraq in droves.


jako

Originally posted by Jakomo

Hey, I don't believe that U.S. troops are luring children into the open to bust some caps in them, but I also don't believe that they or the military planners do anything to avoid killing civilians.

Then why is it over 90% of the ordnance used over there is precision?

If they did not care about civilian casualties you would have carpet bombings in place of a single bomb/single target.

Do you honestly think that the US military goes out of its way to harm civilians?

CoolHand: "Then why is it over 90% of the ordnance used over there is precision?

If they did not care about civilian casualties you would have carpet bombings in place of a single bomb/single target.

Do you honestly think that the US military goes out of its way to harm civilians? "

First off, where do you get this information that 90% of the ordnance they use is "precision"?

Secondly, HOW PRECISE CAN YOU BE WHEN YOU DROP A 400kg BOMB ON A RESIDENTIAL AREA?

I mean, if you drop it on a DIME it still explodes and causes destruction and death in a 2000 metre radius. That's frickin garbage and is a lame argument to use.

I think that the USA military specifically makes little to no effort to protect the lives of Iraqi civilians. It's been proven again and again, with the over 10,000 dead iraqis and counting.

Great article about the reporting of civilian casualties at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

www.fair.org...

"And Al Jazeera is not alone in reporting a reality very different from the one U.S. officials describe. Authorities have been able to keep a tight rein on the information flow from Fallujah, with only one small television network pool in the city that "travels and operates" under the watch of the Marines (Television Week, 4/12/04). (It's noteworthy that the U.S. has reportedly demanded, as a condition for lifting the siege of Fallujah, that Al Jazeera cameras be removed from the city-- IslamOnline.net, 4/9/04.)

But independent journalists reporting from Fallujah have described a scene consistent with the one broadcast by Al Jazeera. Rahul Mahajan, a U.S. journalist in Fallujah, estimated that of the 600 Iraqis killed in Fallujah, 200 were women and 100 young children, with many of the adult male casualties also non-combatants. He reported witnessing "a young woman, 18 years old, shot in the head" and "a young boy with massive internal bleeding" at a clinic (CommonDreams.org, 4/12/04). Mahajan recounted that during the "cease-fire," "Americans were attacking with heavy artillery but primarily with snipers"-- with ambulances among the targets. The sniper activity was also reported by U.S. journalist Dahr Jamail (NewStandardNews.net, 4/11/04): "Fallujah residents say Marines are opening fire randomly on unarmed civilians and have attacked clearly marked ambulances.""

Originally posted by Jakomo
First off, where do you get this information that 90% of the ordnance they use is "precision"?

It is available information on the WEB. You just have to go to the non-leftist sites to see it.

Secondly, HOW PRECISE CAN YOU BE WHEN YOU DROP A 400kg BOMB ON A RESIDENTIAL AREA?

Very. Do you know how the bombs work these days? You would be surprised at how little collateral damage they can cause.

I mean, if you drop it on a DIME it still explodes and causes destruction and death in a 2000 metre radius. That's frickin garbage and is a lame argument to use.

Really, where did you get that figure from? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the claims that they are using bombs that big in a residental area?

I think that the USA military specifically makes little to no effort to protect the lives of Iraqi civilians. It's been proven again and again, with the over 10,000 dead iraqis and counting.

What is the source of those numbers? If there were so many then where are all the pictures of these events happening? There is no way that the US could suppress the release of that information IF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

Great article about the reporting of civilian casualties at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

www.fair.org...

Sigh, once again I ask you to show me the proof that it is the US and not the insurgents causing this damage.

Please stop coming at me with heresay, you are starting to look like an ignorant fool.

Originally posted by Jakomo
This is why the USA will lose and will be forced to leave Iraq in droves.
jako

We are not going to leave. As much as I don't like our troops over there, the result of the US cutting and running now is full out civil war. Tribal and Ethnic war WILL happen. The vacuum create will have everyone reaching for their slice of the power pie....

I advocate bringing in the UN to help with the rebuilding.

Also, I will not willingly read Al-Jazeera anymore. They exagerate and sometimes tell boldfaced lies.(Not unlike CNN) They do not even come close to reporting the news in an unbiased fashion. (not unlike Fox)

.

Originally posted by Jakomo
"Americans were attacking with heavy artillery but primarily with snipers"-- with ambulances among the targets. The sniper activity was also reported by U.S. journalist Dahr Jamail (NewStandardNews.net, 4/11/04):

American reporter? I smell heavy bias.

Do you think for one second that commanders are actually ordering their snipers and marines to fire on civilians and ambulances??

please.

War is hell. Terrible things happen. People having firefights in heavily populated civilian areas will usually result in civilian casualties.

What is the US going to do? Ask the insurgents to "come out of town and fight with us on the outskirts so we don't hurt any non-coms....please?"

It aint gonna happen. The insurgents know that by staying in a populated area is good for them. Every civilian that gets killed when the coalition returns fire is good for their cause. That is a tactic. That IMO, makes those fighters evil. They know that by starting firefights with the coalition, that noncoms are going to get killed, therefore helping their cause.


Disgusting.



.




[Edited on 20-4-2004 by Facefirst]

Sorry, but you people are blind, and fooling yourselves. Militaries KILL. They KILL so they won't get killed in return.

Have you ever heard of Vietnam? Ever heard of some of the inhuman things the soldiers did?

Well the same is happening now, to a lesser extent, whether you refuse to believe it or not.

www.wsws.org...

www.iraqbodycount.com

www.csmonitor.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

What do you want to know specifically? The amount of Iraqi civilians killed by the US or the various methods?

Let me know, it would be my pleasure to educate you.


jako

Jakomo

Pu-leaze... comparing Iraq to Vietnam is simply a way for people to put the stigma of Vietnam onto the Iraq war, it has nothing to do with facts. It's a bait and switch argument. North Vietnam was not invaded and captured. Ho chi mien was not arrested and the war supply lines from China and the USSR were never halted. Vietnam started when we sent "advisors" over to help the South. You could go on and on and on, the only way you could compare the two conflicts is that it has combatants who want to kill each other.
If you actually gather facts from all sides about the conflict, you'll see that there are many reasons WHY people there are fighting but, they are all fighting FOR power and/or money. You have a lot of spin doctors wrapping up some facts and glossing over others, to make a statement that fits their already preconceived ideals; notably that, they dislike America and hope they (US) fail in Iraq.
Even rabid anti-American zealots who are imbedded with the US troops always speak in good terms about the US troops conduct.. All this is geared to paint the US soldier as "evil" because that's a tried a proven way of ignoring truth for the sake of emotion and demonizing people. You people, who look at the US troops and think they, are out to kill innocents obviously, have a complete lack of contact with any people serving in the US military. That's why you will never be right because you lack the ability to see facts as they are. As others have said, pointing to photos of dead children with no context and no free press to report it is meaningless to this argument. How can you point to photos and make cogent arguments about what happened? All we know is that the children are dead and that�s tragic. War is hell but, it is a fact that in war innocent people die.
Let me ask you this Jakomo, how do you feel about the Palestinian fight with Israel? They purposively target civilians. Do you show the same vehemence against the PLO and their ilk I wonder?

variable: "You people, who look at the US troops and think they, are out to kill innocents obviously, have a complete lack of contact with any people serving in the US military. That's why you will never be right because you lack the ability to see facts as they are."

Propaganda. I know they're not out there to kill innocents but they also don't give a crap if they do. WHY would the Pentagon refuse to even REPORT civilian casualties? What does that say to you?

www.boston.com...

"THE WHITE HOUSE always said it would never count how many Iraqi parents we killed to liberate their children. We would never count how many toddlers we blew to pieces to free their elders. We would never count how many nuclear families we vaporized. We would never know if we razed a village to save a child.

This is the most disgusting and least discussed aspect of President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. In the early days of his war Bush said, "The citizens of Iraq are coming to know what kind of people we have sent to liberate them. American forces and our allies are treating innocent civilians with kindness."

No one could possibly know the truth or lie of that statement, since the mantra of the military from Tommy Franks down to his spokespeople was, "We don't do body counts." The most bald-faced expansion on that policy was given in April by Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of Central Command. "In all cases, we inflict a considerable amount of destruction on whatever force comes into contact with us," Brooks said. "It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. Frankly, if we are going to be honorable by the warfare, we are not out there trying to count up bodies.""

So if they are not willing to even ACKNOWLEDGE or count how many "innocent" lives they destroy, how do you think that speaks to your average Iraqi? Use your head.

Look at Fallujah. Collective punishment on an entire CITY for the killing of 4 mercenaries. How do you think that plays in Iraq?

As for the Palestinians, I'm actually more on their side than on Israel's. Not with the Palestinian militants, but with the actual Palestinian people, who have suffered for over 30 years under an Illegal Occupation and are constantly being killed by their Aggressor, Israel. The same Israel that conducts military raids in the LARGEST OPEN AIR PRISON CAMP in the world (West Bank and Gaza).

And siding with the terrorists in the Israeli government is really not helping the US with it's public image...


jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
Sorry, but you people are blind, and fooling yourselves. Militaries KILL. They KILL so they won't get killed in return.

What do you want to know specifically? The amount of Iraqi civilians killed by the US or the various methods?
Let me know, it would be my pleasure to educate you.

Ok, your holier than thou arrogance aside......

Of course civilians get killed! That is war! War is a bloody, messy experience. You don't scream out the Geneva convention rules and hope that the enemy is obeying them while someone is unloading an AK47 in your direction! No one wants to kill civilians, but it happens. Especially when Insurgents are waging the fight from inside a populated area. Real good guys, freedom fighters my ass ....they knowingly shoot from a populated area, with the knowledge that they are going to get a considerable response from the coalition that has a high possiblilty of noncom casualties. Yeah, real good people. They are using civilians as their ammo! Every civilian that the Insurgents help to get killed, it helps their cause and they know it.

The coalition is on orders to only shoot if shot at first! The troops do not go out looking to fight. Trust me, no one wants to get into a firefight. Anyone who says they want to get into a firefight is either crazy or a moron.

I talk to my brother in Tikrit and he has told me a few times that they only fire when they are fired on first. Like when they are sleeping at night and mortar rounds start falling on their base. Do you expect them to sit there and take it? What are they going to respond with, harsh lanquage?

There are always soldiers who are going to do horrible things. In all wars and all armies. That is a fact of life. That being said, have there been mass rapes and murders like the Russians did to the Germans at the end of WWII?
Or concentration camps? Or executions? Civillians randomly lined up and shot? No, there hasn't been.

Any soldiers that commit crimes should be court-martialed and dealt with accordingly.

I am not a fan of the Bush Administration and I also am highly suspect of the reasons that sent our troops there, but I am going to give a fair look at both sides, not some pre-determined political slant. I don't like alot of our foreign policy, but I am not going to paint our troops as mindless, blood lustful murderers.

It sounds to me like you have it in for the US and that does not allow you to look at the facts objectively.


.

Just my 2 cents regarding the link to the children photos, if no one has mentioned it... Maybe these children/civilians were killed not by the U.S., but by the opposition. If one person is ashamed of it, I imagine more would be ashamed too and not purposly target civilians.

FaceFirst: "Of course civilians get killed! That is war! War is a bloody, messy experience. "

And yet, knowing this, The United States of America illegally invaded Iraq.

So every single death is on your hands. Every single one, from soldiers to civilians.

If you hadn't have unilaterally declared war none of these people would be getting killed by U.S. troops, that's a guarantee.

What makes me laugh so hard is when people say

"Well maybe things aren't perfect yet, but it's better than it was under Saddam"

LOL

Why not just say, "Well we're better than the Nazis. Or the Red Army."

You started the war, you are responsible for ALL the blood spilled, whether it's yours or theirs.

jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
FaceFirst: "Of course civilians get killed! That is war! War is a bloody, messy experience. "

And yet, knowing this, The United States of America illegally invaded Iraq.

So every single death is on your hands. Every single one, from soldiers to civilians.

If you hadn't have unilaterally declared war none of these people would be getting killed by U.S. troops, that's a guarantee.
What makes me laugh so hard is when people say
"Well maybe things aren't perfect yet, but it's better than it was under Saddam"
LOL
Why not just say, "Well we're better than the Nazis. Or the Red Army."
You started the war, you are responsible for ALL the blood spilled, whether it's yours or theirs.
jako

It seems you failed to read the part where I said I am not a fan of the Bush Administration or the reasons that sent our troops there.

I am very happy Saddam is gone. But I don't like the way the US went about it. It could and should have been done better.

Better? Yes. Perfect? No. Those Iraqis protesting out in the streets nowadays would have been lined up and shot for doing that very same thing a few years ago. I guarantee that.

But you do not seem to acknowledge why the coalition cannot just cut and run, leaving a power vacuum. A Civil war. It most likely would be very similar to Afgahnistan anarchy after the Soviets left.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, we are in there and need to follow through re-building what was destroyed and stabilize the country. And I advocate bringing in the UN.

.

FaceFirst: "Regardless of what anyone thinks, we are in there and need to follow through re-building what was destroyed and stabilize the country. And I advocate bringing in the UN. "

I think the UN should get in too, to at least give more of a multi-national flavour to the whole mess.


And unfortunately, when I say "You are to blame for the deaths" as an American, I am saying it accurately according to most of the rest of the world.

Even though YOU as an American might have nothing to do with the war, or were even against it, the rest of the world will see you when you travel as "an American" and pro-war because of the idiocy your President espouses.

And THAT is almost as sad as all this senseless death and despair. I know MANY fine Americans who don't deserve to be painted with such a wide brush, but unfortunately they will.

To all of you who have criticized me for being a disgrace and a traitor and whatever else your weak little minds come up with, let me just say this:

I joined the US Army when I was 19 years-old. I served proudly and honorably with the 101st Airborne Division and I willingly fought in the Persian Gulf War.

I have been in combat, in IRAQ, no less; therefore, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not speaking out of my racist, spoiled rotten, coddled ass, like some of you here on this thread. And you know who you are.

You infantile, pro-war, bomb the F**k out everyone neandrathols think war is some kind of video game. HAVE YOU EVER FOUGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY? WHAT THE F**k HAVE YOU EVER DONE BESIDES RUN YOUR MOUTH FROM THE SAFETY OF THE USA? YOU PUFFED UP LITTLE COWARDS ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO LET OTHER PEOPLE GO FIGHT AND DIE FOR YOU.

PATHETIC. It is YOU and YOUR ilk who should get off your lazy azzes and go fight. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS or STFU.

This war is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL.

Don't give me this 'war is hell' 'civilians die' BU#. You have no concept of what war feels like, smells like, tastes like, hurts like..

YOU ARE AN INHUMANE, BLINDE FOOL to support this madness. It was started under false pretenses because of the NAZI NEO CON/BIG OIL AGENDA.

You know though, you folks arguing (to no effect) with Jakomo are so brainwashed and afraid it would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that people are dying and being maimed each and every day on both sides. You are terrified of the truth, so you cling desperately to the BS flag-waving propaganda the US education system fed you with. BRAVO. It's sickening.

BUSH is the traitor. Get that straight.

And for the record, although I was against the Iraq invasion, I would willingly go back in the Army and take my brother's place in Iraq or anywhere else if they would let him serve the remainder of his time stateside. He has a baby and another on the way. I have no kids. I would go in his place in a heartbeat. I'm working to contact the appropriate authorities as we speak, although I know they'll never go for it. If he has to go, it'll be a damn shame. He was born 2 months after our father died. So he never knew dad. It would kill me if the same fate awaited his children.

I never claimed to know what combat is like and nor would I ever try to claim to know what it's like. And I never called you a traitor.

What I do understand is that civillians and soldiers get killed. That is horrible.

I was not for the invasion of Iraq. But we are there now and we cannot just pack up and leave. That would most likely result in a bloody civil war.

We need to bring in the UN and other countries to re-build and stabilize.

That is my opinion.

.

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by Facefirst
I was mainly addressing a few people, in particular, who have checked their brains at the door. I do appreciate your reasoned comments.

What I do understand is that civillians and soldiers get killed. That is horrible.

The horrible thing is that this whole thing was completely unnecessary. COUNTLESS innocent lives have been devastated because of the greed and corruption of a handful of warped warmongers. The war's defenders are truly in the dark and have no concept of reality. They merely do as they're told and say what they are programmed to say. LET THEM GO. Until they're willing to put their own flesh on the line, don't pay a damn bit of attention to them.

I was not for the invasion of Iraq. But we are there now and we cannot just pack up and leave. That would most likely result in a bloody civil war.

I'm afraid we're about to experience something far worse. But I do understand what you're saying. At this point, with the Sunnis and the Shi'ites forming an alliance against us, we're walking the tightrope from hell. We may actually have to scrap all of those grandiose NEO CON pipe dreams and get the hell outta there. If they decide that is what they want, there isn't much of anything we can do to stop the avalanche. Rumsfeld can't get it through his thick head that we've got to have at least, 250,000-300,000 troops there if we're EVER gonna hope to secure the country. We can't even control Baghdad currently, let alone the entire country! This something we are just not gonna win. I hate to say that, but everything- Iraqi history especially informs us of that.

We need to bring in the UN and other countries to re-build and stabilize.

I completely agree. That is the only hope. But good luck convincing the Vulcans to let go of the reigns of power. The day that happens will be the day Santa Clause invites me to visit the North Pole!!



.

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by Facefirst]