[Taliesin]

The cowardly american army was bombing Falluja every day for months, killing many civilians and rebels. Now, after the election and after the months-long daily and nightly air-bombardments, it seems the american ground army sees itself fit to go in. I think it is about time, then at least the Fallujan rebels have a chance to strike back and kill a few american soldiers. Airplanes were too high to shoot down.

To see how bad the situation in Falluja is you can read this report of BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3986085.stm

Taliesin

[Kilbey]

Hmm... if you were going to go to war, would you take a knife into a gun fight, or would you take your most powerful artillery?

To expect the US military to descend to to the insurgents level they would have to kidnap civilians and behead them on national TV.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Hmm... if you were going to go to war, would you take a knife into a gun fight, or would you take your most powerful artillery?

Then why not taking nukes, that would be the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the US-army?

Taliesin

[PacHead]

Fallujah has been a joke for way too long now. This is what happens when one makes silly peace deals and treaties/cease-fires with islamic terrorists/insurgents. What a huge waste of time. I said on this forum a long time ago that Fallujah needed to be flattened, and there's currently 10,000 US troops surrounding the place ready to go in and hunt out Zarqawi & co, and get the rabid dog, dead or alive, preferably dead if you ask me.

The game is soon up for the goons, and from the latest figures I heard on the news, it looks like there's about to be some major action taking place in paradise. (6000 x 72 virgins = 432,000 virgins). Sounds like a massive orgy is soon to take place.

[typoon]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Fallujah has been a joke for way too long now. This is what happens when one makes silly peace deals and treaties/cease-fires with islamic terrorists/insurgents. What a huge waste of time. I said on this forum a long time ago that Fallujah needed to be flattened, and there's currently 10,000 US troops surrounding the place ready to go in and hunt out Zarqawi & co, and get the rabid dog, dead or alive, preferably dead if you ask me.

The game is soon up for the goons, and from the latest figures I heard on the news, it looks like there's about to be some major action taking place in paradise. (6000 x 72 virgins = 432,000 virgins). Sounds like a massive orgy is soon to take place.

I agree. IMO, We should have cordoned off the city, dropped leaflets telling civilians they have 72 hours to leave. Then called in the B-52's. That is probably not an option. I'm glad to see we are finally doing something about it now.

We should have sent in as many troops as we can months ago to hunt this animal and his terrorists down. This assault should have taken place many months ago. We probably would have saved many more American soldiers lives by doing that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by typoon:
I agree. IMO, We should have cordoned off the city, dropped leaflets telling civilians they have 72 hours to leave. Then called in the B-52's. That is probably not an option. I'm glad to see we are finally doing something about it now.

I guess it's finally sunk into even the thickest skulls that the Battle for the Hearts and Minds is lost, and that there will be no Dancing In the Streets�.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Then why not taking nukes, that would be the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the US-army?

Taliesin

Because then the developed land and infrastructure would be ruined eliciting unnecessary costs to rebuild. I would think this would be obvious.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Because then the developed land and infrastructure would be ruined eliciting unnecessary costs to rebuild. I would think this would be obvious.

Actually it would be cost-saving, as everyone in Falluja would die because of the nukes, therefore there would be no need for rebuilding it.

But interesting that you look on that topic from the point of view of costs.

Taliesin

[Logic]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Because then the developed land and infrastructure would be ruined eliciting unnecessary costs to rebuild. I would think this would be obvious.

Interesting to see how you focus on the economic aspect and not on any human suffering at all.

[thunderous_funker]

Just proves that the war was being stage-managed for the election.

Generals were arguing months and months ago that the longer they waited to storm cities like Fallujah, the worse things would be. The administration insisted that they weren't holding off on ugly urban warfare beccause of the election.

Now, the day after the election, they get ready to storm the castles.

I'm reluctant to make sweeping Vietnam comparisons, but in one regard the comparison is apt. Soldiers are being killed because the war is being stage-managed to protect politicians here at home.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Now, the day after the election, they get ready to storm the castles.

The fallujah assault was planned long before the election took place.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The fallujah assault was planned long before the election took place.

In that case, what were they waiting for? You seem to proving my point for me.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
In that case, what were they waiting for? You seem to proving my point for me.

It should have been levelled months ago, as I stated months ago, but it's been hard when there's terrorist friendly goons such as Kofi Annan trying to do everything they can to protect the terrorists.

[An Alias]

Let's pray that the insurgents give a good fight when it comes to the crunch. Show those invading bastards what you can do when up against it. Let the people of Iraq, who support you and see the carnage that the US is doing, be proud of your valiant struggle.

Do not waiver in the face of the enemy, do not listen to the propoganda that you are the ones who kill innocents, the non-combatants, the US troops do far worse.

Remember, over 100,00 dead civilians so far, yuor nation reduced to rubble, your wealth stolen by America, your good nane slandered. Stand proud, and let your brethren gain support in the fight against US imperialsm. Don't forget that the enemy also beheaded innocents in Vietnam, they are no better than the Zarqawi mob, but you are better than them, both of them.

You are out of line sport. I suggest you tone it down a little with the name calling and language.

[CreepingDeth]

You guys are so dumb!

Let's see:
We can risk more American casualties
or
We can use air power first, then move the troops in

Taliesin & Logic: I know you guys are terrorist sympathizers spouting off their rhetoric. Don't hide it. It's obvious
I don't see you guys fighting the "cowardly American army." After all, Iraqis for democracy are traitors.

It's war. People die. The objective isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other bastard die for his country. We leveled beautiful monasteries, churches, and cities in WWII to drive Mussolini and Hitler back. I don't see why we shouldn't now. Maybe they need to learn a little lesson in war.

[thunderous_funker]

Ok. Let's say the US just stop trying to worry about civilians and starts just leveling shyt.

How exactly does that help the long term goals?

The number one problem with this war is we don't know who the enemy is, our troops cannot differentiate friend from foe. So how exactly do you solve that problem?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Taliesin & Logic: I know you guys are terrorist sympathizers spouting off their rhetoric. Don't hide it. It's obvious
I don't see you guys fighting the "cowardly American army." After all, Iraqis for democracy are traitors.

It's war. People die. The objective isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other bastard die for his country. We leveled beautiful monasteries, churches, and cities in WWII to drive Mussolini and Hitler back. I don't see why we shouldn't now. Maybe they need to learn a little lesson in war.

The obvious (well, obvious to everyone else, apparently) difference being that Hitler and Mussolini were the aggressors back then.

-s*

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Ok. Let's say the US just stop trying to worry about civilians and starts just leveling shyt.

How exactly does that help the long term goals?

The number one problem with this war is we don't know who the enemy is, our troops cannot differentiate friend from foe. So how exactly do you solve that problem?

I recall major terrorists occupying the city. That's not a target, I guess!

[thunderous_funker]

What a completely retarded over-simplification.

I'm not talking about morality or ethics, I'm talking about military strategy.

If the US simply starts carpet bombing cities to spare politicians at home the ugliness of high casualties, how does that total disregard for civilians losses help the long term goal of creating an ally in a future Iraqi state?

We'll be forced to once again support an Iraqi government that is allied with the west while is brutally subjegates an anti-US population. How is this an improvement from before?

Our troops cannot tell friend from foe. How do we rectify that? How do you win a guerilla, urban war but not end up with a hostile population?

[swrate]

i'm sad sad sad,

proportion 1/50? what will it be at the end?
collateral dammage....
why erase Falluja off the map? is this democracy?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What a completely retarded over-simplification.

I'm not talking about morality or ethics, I'm talking about military strategy.

If the US simply starts carpet bombing cities to spare politicians at home the ugliness of high casualties, how does that total disregard for civilians losses help the long term goal of creating an ally in a future Iraqi state?

We'll be forced to once again support an Iraqi government that is allied with the west while is brutally subjegates an anti-US population. How is this an improvement from before?

Our troops cannot tell friend from foe. How do we rectify that? How do you win a guerilla, urban war but not end up with a hostile population?

Bombing can also be done with pretty decent precision. I just hope we kick the **** out of them.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Bombing can also be done with pretty decent precision. I just hope we kick the **** out of them.

I predict the US will destroy more buildings than insurgents.

In fact, the bulk of the insurgency is probably casually walking out of the city with the civilians to set up shop elsewhere.

What seriously concerns me is that our strategy hasn't really changed in over a year and yet the situation is worse now than ever. I'm not sure what stepping up the bombing runs is going to accomplish.

Sucks to be a soldier in Iraq. I think they are being setup to fail because the leadership really don't know how to "win". Right now "winning" is defined in a way that might be impossible to achieve.

[Logic]

To those who suggest carpet bombing Fallujah, destroying Al Aqsa, and propose a complete disregard for innocent civilians in the ME I want you to think about this.

At the moment you are fighting a couple of thousand(tens of thousands at most) highly motivated and fierce resistance that you are having problems with. Doing what you propose will bring upon you the wrath of 2 billion Muslims. You will never live in peace, safety or even a status quo if your wish is fulfilled. You will have to pull every American back from the outside world and barricade your borders. The wrath of these thousands of young men that have had enough will be nothing compared to 2 billion Muslims taking the fight to you. Nothing.

[swrate]

I fear it will become a ghost city like Groznji, a city under occupation rebelling episodically until most civilians definitely move. The US has probably a few compounds planed for in that area and they are expecting people to leave, nonobstanding the rituals and commemorations held there since centuries.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
I recall major terrorists occupying the city.

Yeah, but then the resistance won it back, some time ago.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
The wrath of these thousands of young men that have had enough will be nothing compared to 2 billion Muslims taking the fight to you. Nothing.

We'll just ban muslims. Problem solved.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by PacHead:
We'll just ban muslims. Problem solved.

Oh man!! Why didn't we think of that months ago?? Quick, call the President and tell him. I'm sure as soon as he signs that into law all of our problems will be solved!!

You're a Hero!

Hey, are they still giving away those Thousand Points of Light thingies? Maybe you can buy on on eBay for yourself.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Oh man!! Why didn't we think of that months ago??

Because Logic's dream scenario hasn't taken place yet, that's why.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by PacHead:
We'll just ban muslims. Problem solved.

Just because there are a few bad apples in the basket, you don't throw out the whole basket.

You through the bad ones out while you can. Before they infect the good ones.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Because Logic's dream scenario hasn't taken place yet, that's why.

Still don't get it, do you? That's ok, I'm not sure the president does either.

Hope you're enjoying the war. Looks like it will be almost endless.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Logic:
To those who suggest carpet bombing Fallujah, destroying Al Aqsa, and propose a complete disregard for innocent civilians in the ME I want you to think about this.

At the moment you are fighting a couple of thousand(tens of thousands at most) highly motivated and fierce resistance that you are having problems with. Doing what you propose will bring upon you the wrath of 2 billion Muslims. You will never live in peace, safety or even a status quo if your wish is fulfilled. You will have to pull every American back from the outside world and barricade your borders. The wrath of these thousands of young men that have had enough will be nothing compared to 2 billion Muslims taking the fight to you. Nothing.

So if the US were to blow up the temple, Muslims across the world would rise up in violence against the US?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Just because there are a few bad apples in the basket, you don't throw out the whole basket.

You through the bad ones out while you can. Before they infect the good ones.

I agree with that. Logic is the one who is mumbling something about 2 billion.

[aberdeenwriter]

The US adheres to the principles of fighting a "Just War." (look it up, or google it, I've posted it on these pages enough times) This prevents our carpet bombing ANY city with non-combatants.

The war ISN'T endless. Once the people in Fallujah and elsewhere get tired of the violence they will recognize that the US & Iraqi Govt. forces will NOT be deterred, and that the only other way to achieve peace is to oust the terrorist insurgents who bring violence to their cities and neighborhoods.

Make NO mistake, once the fighting stops, reconstruction will begin and THAT will be very persuasive in winning the hearts and minds of the average Iraqi.

The insurgents are not a homgeneous group. They are home grown radical Islamics, criminal thugs, outside agitators who've come to Iraq to fight the Americans as well as domestic secular types who errantly view the US as oppressors and occupiers and idle young people who have no jobs and will perform acts of insurgency for $$.

Listen to this report:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4127537


U.S. Initiates Reconstruction Program in Baghdad Slum

Listen

All Things Considered, October 26, 2004 � The vast slum of Sadr City in Baghdad was the scene of heavy fighting in August and September between U.S. troops and supporters of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The district is largely quiet now, and U.S. commanders are preparing to launch a major reconstruction program that will give jobs to thousands of slum-dwellers. NPR's Anne Garrels reports.

[efuseakay]

WARMONGERS!

[Luca Rescigno]

So how do we beat the insurgents? They blend in with the general populace and Iraq is a big country. They can set up a base anywhere. If we level Falluja, more cells will crop up elsewhere.

The only way to defeat all the Iraqi insurgents is to capture and defend every square meter of Iraqi soil, and kill every single Iraqi who dares oppose us.

Meh, should be easy enough. We have lots of weapons and troops.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
So how do we beat the insurgents? They blend in with the general populace and Iraq is a big country. They can set up a base anywhere. If we level Falluja, more cells will crop up elsewhere.

The only way to defeat all the Iraqi insurgents is to capture and defend every square meter of Iraqi soil, and kill every single Iraqi who dares oppose us.

Meh, should be easy enough. We have lots of weapons and troops.

Of course we all know how wonderful it is if we turn around and run like little girls.

Just ask the South Vietnamese.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
So how do we beat the insurgents? They blend in with the general populace and Iraq is a big country. They can set up a base anywhere. If we level Falluja, more cells will crop up elsewhere.

The only way to defeat all the Iraqi insurgents is to capture and defend every square meter of Iraqi soil, and kill every single Iraqi who dares oppose us.

Meh, should be easy enough. We have lots of weapons and troops.

The way to fight a war like this really is to win the hearts and minds of the people. But we all have to recognize that, as opposed to conventional war, where battles are decisive and clear cut, fighting this kind of war is different.

Slower. Partially military force. Partially eroding the support of the insurgents.

I criticize our military for not recognizing this sooner and revising their strategy. However, it is being revised and training, based on this new model is taking place as we speak.

Victory is not measured in geography or body count, but by reducing the opponent's will to fight.

Once order is restored in one neighborhood or city at a time, the people are given a choice: Violence or Peace & Progress, people will choose peace and progress.

That's the way to win and we can only present the people that choice by eliminating the violence. One neighborhood or one city at a time.

[Luca Rescigno]

It seems we're not doing a great job winning the hearts and minds of the people. I mean, we're killing a lot of them, and a good portion of those we don't kill take up arms to fight us. If my family was killed by troops from another country, I'd probably listen to some crazed religious nutcase if doing so gave me an opportunity to fight back and get revenge. How can we possibly win the war at this rate?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
It seems we're not doing a great job winning the hearts and minds of the people. I mean, we're killing a lot of them, and a good portion of those we don't kill take up arms to fight us. If my family was killed by troops from another country, I'd probably listen to some crazed religious nutcase if doing so gave me an opportunity to fight back and get revenge. How can we possibly win the war at this rate?

I don't even think people would need to listen to some crazed religious nutcase.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
It seems we're not doing a great job winning the hearts and minds of the people. I mean, we're killing a lot of them, and a good portion of those we don't kill take up arms to fight us. If my family was killed by troops from another country, I'd probably listen to some crazed religious nutcase if doing so gave me an opportunity to fight back and get revenge. How can we possibly win the war at this rate?

Luca, I posted a link (5 posts up from yours) to an NPR news report. It's only 4 minutes and 35 seconds, but it could help expand your vision of what's possible. I humbly urge you to take 5 minutes and give it a listen.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
We'll just ban muslims. Problem solved.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Fallujah has been a joke for way too long now. This is what happens when one makes silly peace deals and treaties/cease-fires with islamic terrorists/insurgents. What a huge waste of time. I said on this forum a long time ago that Fallujah needed to be flattened, and there's currently 10,000 US troops surrounding the place ready to go in and hunt out Zarqawi & co, and get the rabid dog, dead or alive, preferably dead if you ask me.

Originally posted by typoon:
I agree. IMO, We should have cordoned off the city, dropped leaflets telling civilians they have 72 hours to leave. Then called in the B-52's. That is probably not an option. I'm glad to see we are finally doing something about it now.

We should have sent in as many troops as we can months ago to hunt this animal and his terrorists down. This assault should have taken place many months ago. We probably would have saved many more American soldiers lives by doing that.

I strongly agree.

I have been saying similar for many months now whenever people ask me "What are your faults with Bush?", I say that I am somewhat uncomfortable with how Fallujah is being handled. I think that the needed solution of mowing down Fallujah is the only way to resolve this ever-growing menace has been known for a while. I realize that there is a political track to this, and I hope the goal is achieved with the best possible results.

If this were a project under my direction...

1b) Design and build a community
In cooperation with the Iraqi government , giving them yet more experience at managing communities: Set up housing, schools, medical services, food services, and emergency personnel for verified Fallujah residents outside the city. I highly recommend that the housing should consist of permanent structures while leaving open the possibility that this could become a long lasting community. Encourage small business and enterprises to move into this new, protected area.

and/or...

1b) Relocation assistance programs
In conjunction with the Iraqi goverment: Implement a program to assist all verified Fallujah civilians with their mandated move.

2) Safe passage transportation programs
Guard outgoing roads. Set up a local border partrol on the perimeter of Fallujah

3) Massive PR campaigns
Publicize and market these programs while, at the same time, communicating the goals of the upcoming law enforcement operation (as per the Iraqi constitution). Begin mass communications effort (radio, TV (w/ entertainment) and regular leaflet droppings) 4 months prior to the law enforcement operation's start date.

4) Mow down Fallujah
Military- planned, coordinated, and carried out.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Interesting to see how you focus on the economic aspect and not on any human suffering at all.

It's interesting how you ignored the question of why they shouldn't use nukes.

And it is a great human burden to rebuild. Human suffering will result from people losing all they have.

Let's not forget fallout.

See what happens when YOU jump to conclusions.

[Spliff]

Fallujah and the Moral Level of War by William S. Lind (a former strategic theorist for the US Marine Corps). I came across this today and decided to add it to this discussion.

In recent weeks, the indirect approach the Marines adopted in April in Fallujah, when they withdrew instead of storming the city, began to pay off. A reduction of American pressure allowed fissures within the Iraqi resistance to appear and grow. Fallujah natives were beginning to turn against outsiders, most of whom represent extreme Islamism, America's real enemy. Such splits are of the utmost importance in Fourth Generation war, because they operate at war's most powerful level, the moral level. There is a vast moral difference between us killing fighters for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Fallujah and the locals doing so.

If American military leaders understood Fourth Generation war, they would slowly, patiently encourage the local Iraqi resistance to go after the outsiders, providing rewards and even assistance, if that was wanted (all done covertly, of course). The first genuine American victory in Iraq would be the day the local resistance asked for our (again, covert) help.

Unfortunately, our leaders do not understand the Fourth Generation, so it appears we are about to throw this opportunity away. We continue to bomb and shell Fallujah, which pushes our enemies toward each other. We seem to be readying an all-out assault on the city, which will have the usual result when Goliath defeats David: a moral defeat for Goliath. Many Iraqis will die, the city will be wrecked (as always, we will promise to rebuild it but not do so), and any losses the insurgents suffer will be made up many times over by a flood of new recruits. Never was it more truly said that, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Our nightly bombing of Fallujah illustrates another important point about 4GW: to call it "terrorism" is a misnomer. In fact, terrorism is merely a technique, and we use it too when we think it will benefit us. In Madam Albright's boutique war on Serbia, when the bombing campaign against the Serbian Army in Kosovo failed, we resorted to terror bombing of civilian targets in Serbia proper. Now, we are using terror bombing on Fallujah.

Of course, we claim we are hitting only Mr. al-Zarqawi's fighters, but anyone who knows ordinance knows that is a lie. The 500, 1000 and 2000-pound bombs we drop have bursting radii that guarantee civilian casualties in an urban environment. More, it appears we see those civilian casualties as useful.

The October 12 New York Times offered this interesting quote from "one Pentagon official:"

If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the local as some point have to make a decision...Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer the consequences that come with that, or do they want to get rid of the insurgents and have the benefit of not having them there?

As the article goes on to make clear, American officials believe such terror bombing will split the resistance. In fact, the whole history of air warfare says it will have the opposite effect.

The point here is not merely that in using terrorism ourselves, we are doing something bad. The point is that, by using the word "terrorism" as a synonym for anything our enemies do, while defining anything we do as legitimate acts of war, we undermine ourselves at the moral level - which, again, is the decisive level in Fourth Generation war.

Imagine Mr. al-Zarqawi himself said the following about the suicide car bombs his group uses, bombs that have killed many Iraqi civilians:

If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the locals at some point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the Americans and suffer the consequences that come with that, or do they want to get rid of the Americans and have the benefits of not having them there?
Would we denounce that as "justifying terrorism?" Of course we would - and rightly so.

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the turkey. Obvious double standards put us on the moral low ground. The rest of the world can see the hypocrisy, even if what passes for America's "leaders" cannot. As the old saying goes, it is worse than a crime; it is a blunder.

[Saad]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Fallujah has been a joke for way too long now. This is what happens when one makes silly peace deals and treaties/cease-fires with islamic terrorists/insurgents. What a huge waste of time. I said on this forum a long time ago that Fallujah needed to be flattened, and there's currently 10,000 US troops surrounding the place ready to go in and hunt out Zarqawi & co, and get the rabid dog, dead or alive, preferably dead if you ask me.

That solution would be an easy and opbious one were it not for the interim government's publicity problems. Allawi seems to control little more than Baghdad, and his authorization to destroy (or attack) a densely populated city will not endear the people to him, nor will it balance the elections in the American's favor.

[SimpleLife]

Is Bush committing War Crimes?

The Psychopaths and Fallujah Resistance

By Ghali Hassan

11/06/04 "ICH" -- As the hubris of the American election is passed, the people of Fallujah are under new massive US assault. The world �only� superpower is posed to flatten the city of 300,000 people in order to pacify (kill) its citizens because of their opposition to US Occupation. This new massacre is sold by the Bush Administration and mainstream Western media as a �necessary step to hold election� in Iraq.

The US took over the main hospital and converted to a military hospital. In other words, the people of Fallujah no longer have a hospital to treat injured men, women and children. The US Occupation forces are currently preventing men of age 14-60 years from leaving the city. It is a crime against humanity to massacre unarmed civilians. US forces are also preventing journalists from entering the city to report on the ongoing massacre of innocent civilians.

As I write, the BBC reports that the US strikes on the centre of Fallujah have completely destroyed the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city. There are no reports on casualties of a criminal attack on a hospital in the centre of the city. Can you imagine this happening in Manchester or Boston?

In April 2004, the first US massive attacks on Fallujah killed more than 1300 Iraqis, mostly innocent women and children, reported by AFP. The heroic Iraqi Resistance forced the Marines to capitulate, and Fallujah became the symbol of Iraqi Resistance to US Occupation._

According to Rahul Mahajan of Empire Notes, who was in Fallujah at the time of the siege in April 2004, �[o]f 20 people I saw come into the clinic I observed in a few hours, only five were "military-age males." I saw old women, old men, a child of 10 shot through the head; terminal, the doctors told me, although in Baghdad they might have been able to save him�.

Since then, the city has been under constant aerial bombardments by US forces killing many more innocent civilians. Reuter�s news agency reported on September 02, 2004, the US killed 17 people, including 3 children, a woman and an elderly man. Reuters reported on the night of September 07, 2004, US warplanes and helicopters �pounded Fallujah all night and killed �up to 100 militants� according to US military; though local hospital sources reported �only� 6 dead and 23 wounded�.

The new assault comes even as Iraqi Muslim Scholars denounced the aerial bombardments as �terrorist acts�. In a statement to Aljazeera, they pointed out that the victims of the US air strikes were �women and children, most of them less than 10-years old�. They urged the international community to earnestly work for an end to the US acts of aggression in Iraq._

The Fallujah community leaders tried to negotiate a peaceful solution, but the US forces refused any negotiation. Instead, the US forces through their spokesman, Iyad Allawi, tried to paint a distorted picture of the people of Fallujah and opted for �military solution�.

The pretext for this barbarity is that the US intended to kill a �terrorist� by the name of al-Zarqawi. According to the people of Fallujah, �al-Zarqawi does not exist. He is a made-up figure�. The US Occupation forces in Iraq have been claiming that al-Zarqawi and his Arab and non-Iraqi Muslim fighters are hiding out in Fallujah. Dr Muhammad al-Hamadani, a Fallujah resident told Aljazeera News that he had no knowledge about any non-Iraqi fighters in the town.

It appears that al-Zarqawi is replacing the old and elusive pretext of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Unlike the WMD pretext, the al-Zarqawi pretext is dangerous because the one-leg elusive man can move site. In other word, if al-Zarqawi is not found in Fallujah, the Bush Administration can say that he run to another city.

However, according to Article 50 of the Geneva Conventions, �[t]he presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character�. The Bush Administration is committing war crimes in violations of international law.

The Iraqi Resistance has revealed the limits of the US superpower. Fallujah is the symbol of resistance to US hegemony. Fallujah is an example the Bush and his gang of terror are obsessed with and they want to destroy it. Bush and his gang of terror na�vely think that if they succeed in Fallujah, they will succeed in the rest of Iraq. Fortunately, they proved to be dead wrong.

The election hubris is over, but the fight must continue to get the Bush and his gang of terror out of Iraq. A true progressive and anti-war movement must not allow these crimes to continue. The aims should be to stop the war and the true liberation of the Iraqi people from the Bush tyranny.

Is it possible thet US Military strategy is actually making it worse in Fallujah?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Under what circumstances would you feel US military action was justified?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Is Bush committing War Crimes?


Is it possible thet US Military strategy is actually making it worse in Fallujah?

no

Article is laughable.

no

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Saad:
That solution would be an easy and opbious one were it not for the interim government's publicity problems. Allawi seems to control little more than Baghdad, and his authorization to destroy (or attack) a densely populated city will not endear the people to him, nor will it balance the elections in the American's favor.

What would you guess to be the argument I would employ in response to your post?

Seems to control only Baghdad?

Well, if he controlled fallujah, the assualt wouldn't be necessary there. The assault will establish Govt. control over that insurgent hide out. The civilians have evacuated the city. Anyone remaining does so by choice. The people will perhaps start to realize Allawi actually will do what's necessary to stop the chaos. This will help his "PR."

Elections in the "American's favor" isn't the point, FREEDOM is.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
no

Article is laughable.

no

That's your rebuttal? How lame. If you're going to respond, then try picking apart the article.

We've already got Pachead in this forum to say things like "No, article is laughable. No."