[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
no

Article is laughable.

no

I really do not see what is laughable in this article.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliff:
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."

yes

so?

nah

good

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
I really do not see what is laughable in this article.

Which is why you posted it. I'll respond later.

[Saad]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
What would you guess to be the argument I would employ in response to your post?

What is your response? I trust you have an opinon, I would be happy to hear it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by 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.

Your stating that Lind was a "strategic theorist" is an exaggeration not borne out on the bio at your supplied link.

He's an Ivy league academic who seems never to have served in the military (despite being of Viet Nam service age) and his writings seem valuable only in providing a counterpoint to the leading schools of thought on the subject of war. (This seems to be somewhat akin to the role the Washington Generals assumed for the Harlem Globetrotter.)

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.

<SNIP>

Unfortunately, our leaders do not understand the Fourth Generation, so it appears we are about to throw this opportunity away.

Mr. Lind fails to mention anything about the increased insurgent activity in Fallujah since the ill-advised withdrawal in April. The Marines didn't want to go in there in the first place (not wanting to endanger innocents), but when they went in, they wanted to finish the job. That's what we pay our troops to do...get the job done.

But in the weeks since the pull-out, Fallujah has become a sanctuary for the bad guys. Including the $25,000,000 man himself.

No, not OBL, the bounty on al Queda terrorist, Musab al-Zarqawi,
was raised from $10 million, reflecting the danger he represents to the plans for peace and stability in Iraq.

Lind fudges on admitting the suspected presence there of Zarqawi, sentenced to death for the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in 2002, in Amman, Jordan_(he's also responsible for many terrorist attacks and hundreds of deaths including being personally responsible for several beheadings). Instead, he talks about Zarqawi's "fighters" being in the town. Hardly the same thing.

Take out his fighters and his radical, bastardized religious excuse for hatred has lost a few more, 'martyrs.'

Catch or kill Zarqawi himself and there's untold benefits to be gained. The intelligence value - what interrogations might reveal. Symbolic value - the leader is gone, what do we do now? Deterrent value - "Allawi means business! He and the Americans catch or kill all our terrorist leaders. Who wants to be a leader? Not me!" Operational value - Zarqawi has planned, authorized, participated in and recruited others to commit acts of terrorism. With him out of the picture, the level of violence could be lowered.

Many Iraqis will die, the city will be wrecked (as always, we will promise to rebuild it but not do so)

Loudspeakers and leaflets have informed the residents of Fallujah for many days of the Iraqi/US intent to assault the town and that women and children should leave. Men of fighting age could escape danger as well, but they would be detained to determine whether they were responsible for acts of insurgency or terrorism. The other alternative would be to give up the wanted terrorists.

Any deaths in the assault would be the result of the people staying in the city. They will have declared themselves combatants.

This assault is the direct result of the insurgent/terrorists HIDING amongst the residents. We have been accused of indiscriminate killing of civilians. This is our attempt to separate the civilians from the bad guys.

There are BILLIONS of dollars in reconstruction money sitting unused until the on-the-ground commanders and Iraqi authorities feel it's safe to start the rebuilding process.

The insurgents purposely delay this process because they understand the Iraqi people will choose freedom and allegiance to their fledgling government if given the chance to know true peace and freedom, a restoration of basic services, employment opportunities and an earnest rebuilding.

The terrorist hope for a radical Islamic Iraq rests on the outcome of the US/Iraqi efforts to restore peace. If peace is achieved, the terrorists lose. This is why THEY fight. This is why they fight so doggedly.

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.

Our nightly bombing of Fallujah is to inflict enemy casualties. It is also to demoralize and disorient the enemy.

Lind fails to mention that the "boutique" war in Serbia was successful in halting the killing there. HALF A MILLION MUSLIMS DIED before our bombings stopped the ethnic cleansing (no one thought THAT would work, either!), stopped the war and was instrumental in permitting the arrest and trial of Slobodan Milosevic on war crimes.

Here's what the CATO Institute said BEFORE the US (NATO) bombings did the trick:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-db031099.html
"Slobodan Milosevic may be an ineffective nationalist, but his ascent to and hold on power has always been based on nationalism. He has already lost the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia. The loss of Kosovo would be far more threatening to his political future than NATO attacks, which would allow him to pose as Yugoslavia's defender against the aggressive West.

Even in the unlikely event that NATO action drove him from power, his successors are likely to be no less committed to maintaining Yugoslav sovereignty over Kosovo. Even Western oriented opposition figures, such as Vesna Pesic and Zoran Djindjic, believe Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Moreover, though they would undoubtedly rule with a far gentler hand, most Albanians appear to have moved beyond the point of accepting Serbian sovereignty in any form under anyone.

The experience in Bosnia, a nation which exists only in the imagination of Western officials, should serve as a caution. It is Bosnia that "animates our policy towards Kosovo," Nicholas Burns, U.S. ambassador to Greece, told me during a recent trip to Athens. Burns said that the Clinton administration "learned a very bitter lesson in the Bosnian War, that if diplomacy is not often coupled by the threat of force or the willingness to use force in an unstable environment like this, diplomacy is often ineffective."

Seems these lessons weren't part of the Kerry campaign discourse in regards to Iraq. Lind (if you can't tell) is a Democrat and was on Sen. Gary "Monkey Business" Hart's staff at one time.

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.

Yet, already in the history of the Iraqi war, this tactic HAS worked.

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

Yet, Lind, who has never served in the military and, apparently, never set foot in Iraq, says the tactic will not work. He says:

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.

Yet, just because Zarqawi doesn't actually SAY this doesn't mean he isn't operating under exactly that principle.

Think of the innocent civilians killed in the insurgent attacks. Think of the Iraqi policemen, soldiers and recruits murdered. Think of the innocents who die because the insurgents hide in holy places and residential areas. Think of the beheadings and the underpublicized Iraqis who've been beheaded for their association with the new govt.

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the turkey.

This statement is the only thing Mr. Lind might speak to with some authority because, IMHO he is as full of crap as the former and is regarded by many in military circles as being an example of the latter.

[Saad]

It costs quite a bit to leave your home and property for an indefinite period of time. Many residents cannot afford such an exxpense. Regardless, property will be destroyed, fighters will be martyred, and the interim government will struggle to rebuild and retain order.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Your stating that Lind was a "strategic theorist" is an exaggeration not borne out on the bio at your supplied link.

You're right. My source on that attribution was incorrect.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Lind fails to mention that the "boutique" war in Serbia was successful in halting the killing there. HALF A MILLION MUSLIMS DIED before our bombings stopped the ethnic cleansing (no one thought THAT would work, either!), stopped the war and was instrumental in permitting the arrest and trial of Slobodan Milosevic on war crimes.

The experience in Bosnia, a nation which exists only in the imagination of Western officials, should serve as a caution. It is Bosnia that "animates our policy towards Kosovo," Nicholas Burns, U.S. ambassador to Greece, told me during a recent trip to Athens. Burns said that the Clinton administration "learned a very bitter lesson in the Bosnian War, that if diplomacy is not often coupled by the threat of force or the willingness to use force in an unstable environment like this, diplomacy is often ineffective."
[/B]

Lind's comments on the "boutique" war in Serbia puzzled me, too. I remember being frustrated that the Clinton administration hadn't bombed the Serbs sooner. They were literally getting away with murder. Clinton dragged his feet on that one, and it was only the bombing that made the Serbs pause.

As for Lind's article, I posted it for the sake of discussion, not because it represents my personal viewpoint.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Is Bush committing War Crimes?

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

Is Bush committing War Crimes?

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.

Incorrect and/or misuse of "hubris" & "passed;" should be "world's..." Oh, there's too many grammar and punctuation errors to correct. I'll stick to addressing his message.

"General" Hassan knows we are going to FLATTEN the city?
He doesn't mention 90% to 95% of the residents have fled.
Our intent is not to pacify/kill the citizens, it's to capture/kill those who prevent the good, peace loving citizens from trying to get their lives back on track. His FEAR is that we are there to occupy. We will leave, but only when the job is done and the free Iraqi
government is strong enough to take care of itself and it's people. When Hassan wrote this, the supposed "massacre" hadn't even started. He's speaking from his fears and from a misguided sense of something...nationalism? Radical Islam?

He did get the election part correct.

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.

The Interim Iraqi Government has asked the US military to stay long enough for the Iraq police & military to do the job of protecting the citizens, restoring order and keeping the peace.

There are men aged 14-60 who HAVE left the city and are unharmed. Those who stay do so because they choose to fight.
The "unarmed citizens" are the people who are killing Iraqi's police, military, civilians as well as US military and foreigners. They are HARDLY defenseless. This will be proven when the US forces begin to incur casualties.

The Hospital was taken to deny the insurgents another refuge.

The bad guys know US military would not dare attack hospitals and holy places, (it's something we don't do!) so that's where the insurgents go to escape attacks and to mount attacks of their own, like they did when they hid in the mosque a few months ago.

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?

Having once lived in Manchester, I can imagine it would be terrible. Almost as bad as the general level of cuisine in that burg. Seriously though, he says there was no report of casualties. No report, as in, NO CASUALTIES? or NO REPORTERS there to report it?

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.

From what I've seen of this 'impartial' reportage so far, excuse me if I take the "1300 Iraqis, mostly innocent women and children" part with a grain of salt. The Marines were not FORCED to "capitulate" by the Iraqi insurgents.

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�.

Some of those people could have been shot by insurgents. We can't tell. But, the NPR story posted in this thread speaks to the seemingly common instances of incompetent insurgents killing or wounding innocent Iraqis.

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�.

Constant aerial bombardment since April and only 17 dead? If we were trying to massacre the people of Fallujah, there would be a few more dead than that. (Reminder- We are attacking Fallujah because THAT'S where the insurgents are causing trouble and hiding out. The insurgents are hiding out in Fallujah because they know the US/Iraqi forces are reluctant to attack residential areas.)

"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�.

In a previous paragraph Hassan wants to give the impression that US attacks have taken a greater toll on civilians because he says, only 5 military aged men showed up at the hospital. But in this paragraph he says up to 100 militants were killed, according to US sources. Maybe the militants stay away from the hospitals because they know it would be like the "ROACH MOTEL..." ('they go in, but they don't come out' - unless it's with the assistance of US Military Policemen). OR, once again, the lower casualty numbers mean the US is trying to avoid killing innocent Iraqis???

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.

Even if the scholars weren't just giving out the expected, biased, intentionally misleading statements, war is definitely hell and is very upsetting. Their emotional upset could have lead to exaggeration.

The international community they appeal to is you, me, us. The readers of this obviously biased, manipulative piece. If the efforts to stop the insurgency are halted, EVERYONE loses except hard core radical Islamics like OBL and Zarqawi.

Everyone loses. That means the Iraqi people who want freedom
lose. It means anyone who wants peace in the ME loses. (See what happened when radical Islamics won power in Algeria. They won a freely held election. Then, once they were voted into office, they abolished the electoral process. Violence ensued and it's meant YEARS of civil war.)

America loses, because the terrorists will see how, they too, can defeat America. They will be emboldened. Any future attempts to use diplomacy to resolve a potential crisis will be less effective because the other side would 'know' that America doesn't have the will or the ability to do what's necessary to win an insurgent style military campaign.

Everyone in the Western world loses because OBL & al Qaeda have vowed to bring the US down...completely.

With Iraqi oil, they will be able to ruin the US economy and if that doesn't scare you, just ask someone this question:

"What would happen to the western nations if OBL/Iraq charged us $200 per barrel for oil?"

There are more ways in which the average reader (American or not) would lose, but my fingers are getting sore.

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..

The "peaceful solution" would not have delivered Zarqawi, thus, it wouldn't have been a meaningful step towards achieving future peace. If he doesn't exist, why do we have so many photos of him? Why do we know so much about his activities and history? Why did OBL communicate with him and give him $$ to support Zarqawi's terrorist activities? Who, then assassinated US Ambassador Foley in Jordan? Who was sentenced to death for that killing? Who is it that was responsible for some of the beheadings? Who is it that has a $25 million bounty on his head?

Be real!

The Doctor knows that any residents who don't say the right things to the press will be killed by the insurgents, so he says what he has to say to save his own life or those of his family.

DUH!

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.

No, that's why we told everyone to leave the city before the attack.

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.

Yadda, yadda, yadda! BS, BS, BS!

This is the last time I intend to spend the time to discount what should be apparent to anyone with a brain. This is OBVIOUSLY a feeble and transparant attempt at propaganda.

Shame on you!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Saad:
It costs quite a bit to leave your home and property for an indefinite period of time. Many residents cannot afford such an exxpense. Regardless, property will be destroyed, fighters will be martyred, and the interim government will struggle to rebuild and retain order.

Yes, this is true. But it's a small price to pay to avoid being killed. It's a small price to pay for restoring order in Iraq and returning the country to the Iraqi people who will then decide their own destiny.

Freedom isn't free. The Iraqi people are paying a price. The US is paying a price.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spliff:
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."

You are a liar, I've never said "No, article is laughable. No."

I know you have a liberal hard-on for me (are you gay ?), but please get off my d..k.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Lind's comments on the "boutique" war in Serbia puzzled me, too. I remember being frustrated that the Clinton administration hadn't bombed the Serbs sooner. They were literally getting away with murder. Clinton dragged his feet on that one, and it was only the bombing that made the Serbs pause.

As for Lind's article, I posted it for the sake of discussion, not because it represents my personal viewpoint.

Oh.

Oh?

[aberdeenwriter]

Here's a useful site for getting news SPECIFICALLY about Fallujah and the battle. Don't know how objective they are, but it seems to feature current info and only info re: Fallujah.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/resourc...luja/index.php

OOOPS, WRONG!

This is really outdated. Sorry!

[aberdeenwriter]

double posted when hitting the back button

[Spliff]

Originally posted by PacHead:
You are a liar, I've never said "No, article is laughable. No."

I never said you said that. I said that you say pointless things like that.

[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...110702227.html

Today: November 07, 2004 at 19:58:53 PST

U.S. Forces Storm Into Western Fallujah
By JIM KRANE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) -

1107iraq-viol U.S. forces stormed into western districts of Fallujah early Monday, seizing the main city hospital and securing two key bridges over the Euphrates river in what appeared to be the first stage of the long-expected assault on the insurgent stronghold.

An AC-130 gunship raked the city with 40 mm cannon fire as explosions from U.S. artillery lit up the night sky. Intermittent artillery fire blasted southern neighborhoods of Fallujah, and orange fireballs from high explosive airbursts could be seen above the...

[Spliff]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...110702227.html

U.S. intelligence estimated about 3,000 insurgents have dug in behind defenses and booby traps in Fallujah, a city of about 300,000 that has become a symbol throughout the Islamic world of Iraqi resistance to the U.S.-led coalition.

If that estimate of the number of insurgents is accurate, this could get messy. Let's hope it doesn't.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliff:
If that estimate of the number of insurgents is accurate, this could get messy. Let's hope it doesn't.

I'm afraid it will be. Good thing the civilians are gone. Our forces can take off the 'gloves' now and do what they've been trained to do.

The outcome could prove decisive in tipping the balance of Iraqi public support in favor of the interim govt.

Say a prayer. I am.

[Saad]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yes, this is true. But it's a small price to pay to avoid being killed. It's a small price to pay for restoring order in Iraq and returning the country to the Iraqi people who will then decide their own destiny.

Freedom isn't free. The Iraqi people are paying a price. The US is paying a price.

Destroying Falluja and killing thousands of Iraqis will not contribute to the peace in Fallujah. It will turn public opinion against the interim government, the same way sending US forces in to remove insurgents from the Shiite's two shrines.

[Saad]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I'm afraid it will be. Good thing the civilians are gone. Our forces can take off the 'gloves' now and do what they've been trained to do.

They're not gone. People who have nothing more than a home will not give up their home.

[typoon]

One thing that annoys me is listening to the news media call these terrorists "insurgents" or "rebels." THEY ARE TERRORIST!!! Why is the media so afraid to use that word to describe these terrorists.

[Luca Rescigno]

Perhaps because a lot of the people fighting us are taking up arms to strike back at the Americans and the new Iraqi government. That seems to deserve a title of "insurgents" or "rebels." If they were terrorists, they would be attacking civilian populations to cause more terror.

[Troll]

Originally posted by typoon:
One thing that annoys me is listening to the news media call these terrorists "insurgents" or "rebels." THEY ARE TERRORIST!!! Why is the media so afraid to use that word to describe these terrorists.

Uh d-uh! Because they aren't terrorists.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Saad:
Destroying Falluja and killing thousands of Iraqis will not contribute to the peace in Fallujah. It will turn public opinion against the interim government, the same way sending US forces in to remove insurgents from the Shiite's two shrines.

You just can't seem to filter the fears of ABSOLUTE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION out of your brain, huh?

When the battle is over and the death and destruction is less than you feared, will you please consider the possibility that you and many other Arabs, Muslims and sympathizers have been manipulated by those who want a total Islamic world?

I know we get news that is 'spun' and yet it still registers on our brains.

There are reasons your news sources might not give you the straight truth:

Natural bias
Inability to see things objectively
Fear-based emotions skew their judgment
Forced by their bosses to adhere to a certain 'line'
Dissention & emotions = viewership, readership & revenues
Desire to help the insurgents win

Just know it's there and when you see a disparity between what was said earlier and what appears to be true afterwards, think about what caused that disparity.

Ok?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by typoon:
One thing that annoys me is listening to the news media call these terrorists "insurgents" or "rebels." THEY ARE TERRORIST!!! Why is the media so afraid to use that word to describe these terrorists.

Main Entry: 1in�sur�gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

Main Entry: ter�ror�ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter�ror�ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter�ror�is�tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

I understand your frustration, however, the use of the term insurgent is (IMHO) more accurate as it includes those who may only use conventional tactics to fight the govt. forces as well as those who use terrorism.

Whether the combatant uses methods of terror or 'only' picks up a rifle or mortar they are still revolting. Revolting against the government.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Saad:
They're not gone. People who have nothing more than a home will not give up their home.

That sounds very sensible and heart wrenching, on the face of it.

Then you ask yourself, "is the life of my family worth more than my home?"

Then ask, "how would staying in my home help save it from destruction?"

Then realize, if someone stays and dies they won't need a home.

Maybe the fact that I have to explain this is why there's a fight going on in Fallujah at all.

People there REALLY think differently.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Uh d-uh! Because they aren't terrorists.

Oh yes, some of them do use methods of terror in fighting against the government.

Some are terrorists, but ALL are insurgents.

[Spheric Harlot]

Boy, do I wish aberdeenwriter had been Bushie's security advisor in the last term.

With all the answers right there - and so simple! - I'm sure you could have avoided the whole current situation entirely.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
With all the answers right there - and so simple! - I'm sure you could have avoided the whole current situation entirely.

The whole situation would have also been avoided, had I been the security advisor.

[Troll]

Civilian Population of Falluja pre-war : 350,000
Current population of Falluja : 60,000
Estimated number of Insurgents: 3,000
% Insurgents of current population : 5%
% Foreign fighters in Insurgency : <5%
Probable number of foreign fighters in Falluja : <150
Date of last siege of Falluja : April 2004
Number of civilian deaths in April : 600
Number of coalition deaths in April : 70
Number of insurgent deaths in April : 700
Number of 500 pound bombs dropped by US 6 Nov : 5
Kill radius of a 500 pound bomb : approx 500m
Total kill area of 5 x 500 pound bombs : more than 7 square kilometres

[Spheric Harlot]

edit: addressed to pacHead:

You wouldn't know sarcasm if it came over to raid the fridge and sleep with your wife.

[Saad]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
That sounds very sensible and heart wrenching, on the face of it.

Then you ask yourself, "is the life of my family worth more than my home?"

Then ask, "how would staying in my home help save it from destruction?"

Then realize, if someone stays and dies they won't need a home.

Maybe the fact that I have to explain this is why there's a fight going on in Fallujah at all.

People there REALLY think differently.

They do think differently, though not everyone in the paths of hurricanes in Florida decided to leave.

Where would these people leaving Fallujah go? Many of them are incredibly poor, and have little more than their home, and if they loose that, they have no way of supporting their family.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yadda, yadda, yadda! BS, BS, BS!

This is the last time I intend to spend the time to discount what should be apparent to anyone with a brain. This is OBVIOUSLY a feeble and transparant attempt at propaganda.

Shame on you!

Nice argumentation.

But the insult parts are uncalled for: I have been polite with you and you respond with contempt. Difficult to believe in your intentions to help from the take over attitude...

Btw, you mispelled "transparent".

But whatever you say, the fighting will not stop.

In the end, the result of a US victory in Fallujah may very well be the next step for further escalation.

Personally, I prefer the way of the Peace. I haven't seen much of that for some time, but bullying and contempt. It is tiresome in the end.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Troll:
Civilian Population of Falluja pre-war : 350,000
Current population of Falluja : 60,000
Estimated number of Insurgents: 3,000
% Insurgents of current population : 5%
% Foreign fighters in Insurgency : <5%
Probable number of foreign fighters in Falluja : <150
Date of last siege of Falluja : April 2004
Number of civilian deaths in April : 600
Number of coalition deaths in April : 70
Number of insurgent deaths in April : 700
Number of 500 pound bombs dropped by US 6 Nov : 5
Kill radius of a 500 pound bomb : approx 500m
Total kill area of 5 x 500 pound bombs : more than 7 square kilometres

Isn't "7 square kilometres" bigger than the Hiroshima A-Bomb blast?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Boy, do I wish aberdeenwriter had been Bushie's security advisor in the last term.

With all the answers right there - and so simple! - I'm sure you could have avoided the whole current situation entirely.

Try as I might, I take little enjoyment of your sarcasm today. Sorry. I just hate that this assault is necessary. And I know you may feel completely opposed to the Americans even being there at all.

This makes your exercise of restraint even more appreciated.

Pray to Allah for both sides, won't you?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Saad:
They do think differently, though not everyone in the paths of hurricanes in Florida decided to leave.

Where would these people leaving Fallujah go? Many of them are incredibly poor, and have little more than their home, and if they loose that, they have no way of supporting their family.

I know there's a Red Crescent over there, but is there nothing else to accommodate displaced refugees? It's not like there haven't been destroyed homes in the war before this.

Anybody got links re: where the fallujans were housed when they evacuated?

Most people left, so there had to have been some kinds of provisions made available for them, right?

As far as the people who stuck it out through Florida's hurricanes, I think they all gamble by staying put in the face of an approaching 'cane. But that's what FREEDOM means. They are free to stay. If they are killed or injured, it's on them.

The Fallujans who stayed in their homes aren't going to keep from losing the home just because they stayed! But they could lose something much more important.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Nice argumentation.

But the insult parts are uncalled for: I have been polite with you and you respond with contempt. Difficult to believe in your intentions to help from the take over attitude...

Btw, you mispelled "transparent".

But whatever you say, the fighting will not stop.

In the end, the result of a US victory in Fallujah may very well be the next step for further escalation.

Personally, I prefer the way of the Peace. I haven't seen much of that for some time, but bullying and contempt. It is tiresome in the end.

Thanks for the correction.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Thanks for the correction.

The pleasure is all mine.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Anybody got links re: where the fallujans were housed when they evacuated?

Most people left, so there had to have been some kinds of provisions made available for them, right?

As far as the people who stuck it out through Florida's hurricanes, I think they all gamble by staying put in the face of an approaching 'cane. But that's what FREEDOM means. They are free to stay. If they are killed or injured, it's on them.

The Fallujans who stayed in their homes aren't going to keep from losing the home just because they stayed! But they could lose something much more important.

Actually, no, those that choose to stay in Falluja despite the evacuation-call do so, because they have nowhere to go, and don't want to die in the desert without water or food. All other people in Falluja who have family in other towns or villages or who are rich enough to have multiple homes in Iraq already left the town.

What makes the whole situation worse is that it is the month of Ramadan and even worse the last ten days of Ramadan, which have a special meaning, as in one of the last ten days of Ramadan the Quran was sent down from God to Angel Gabriel. The US-army could have at least so much repect for Islam to stop the attacks on Falluja for the whole Ramadan-month, which is holy. Instead the US-army terrorised Falluja day and especially at nights for the whole Ramadan and more, and chose the last ten days of Ramadan for a ground-assault. That's not only stupid that's downright an insult regarding Islam and muslims.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

I posted this in the other Falluja-thread, too:

I have often been asked what would be the alternative for Iraq, considering that I'm so anti-US-emperialism?
On the one hand a souvereign or should I say an ex-US-neocolony, that served US-interests from the sixties up to the beginning of the nineties of the last century, and before the sixties since the fourties up to mid fifties approximately, got invaded by the US in order to return it to the US-hegemony and as a sideeeffect to get rid of an out-of-date local governor and making life for iraqis a bit more free on the regional level, and at the same time lessening the threats and danger for Israel.

It was an illegal invasion as illegal as the economic embargoes previously and even more illegal than the first attack in 1991 against Iraq, and as illegal as the US installing Saddam Hussein and the Baath-regime in the first place, and as illegal as the deliverements of WMD's and technology regarding chemical weapons to Iraq by the US.

Ok, the illegal invasion happened, turning back time to the time before Saddam Hussein was installed is not possible and to the time before the first US-intervention after the collapse of the british empire is not possible. So what is to be done now after all the illegal things happened?

Should the US-army and secret agency just leave and let things happen as they fall, which could be civil-war and/or invasion by Iran at the worst, or should the US stay it out until Iraq can defend itself and until the iraqi population has elected a government.

I would favour the second option, if the US would really plan things in Iraq in the iraqi's best interests and help Iraq in electing a government and letting that government and the parliament to develop a constitution for Iraq that serves the interests of the iraqis and not interfere when the iraqis would want an islamic constitution, and after the iraqi forces are trained and equipped and a government and a constitution are finalised, completely withdrawing and debuilding all US-military-bases and letting out Iraq into souvereignity.

But all knowledge and information I get hint at the fact that the US is not planning and executing in Iraq's best interest but in the US' best interest, beginning with the indiscriminate emprisonment of whole families, and the from high ranks intructed torturings, to the installment of a terrorist and CIA-agent as Iraq's primeminister, to the daily and nightly airbombardments (terrorism par excellence) in civilian towns up to the fact of Donald Rumsfeld's stated plan to regroup US-military-bases around the globe including the plan to build and man permanent US-military-bases in Iraq, which means the US-army is never going to be withdrawn from Iraq completely.

In order to prevent the possibility of civil war, and at the same time ensure the complete withdrawal of US-forces from Iraq, I prefer the option that the US stays long enough in Iraq until a major resistance builds up and gains so much sympathy and trust from the iraqi-population that it can govern Iraq after the (under fire) withdrawal of the US-army. In that scenario a major political force would have to legitimise that resistance and help the resistance after the withdrawal of the US-forces in transforming into a political and governing force. Europe comes to mind.

Another possibile solution would be the immediate withdrawal of US-forces and the replacement by a UN-multinational troop that consists only of islamic soldiers, preferably from countries that are not direct neighbours of Iraq, like Morrocco, Algeria, Tunis, etc.. The US would have to finance the troops as well as the rebuilding of Iraq, with arabic or islamic firms used for it, since it "broke" Iraq, without the US interfering in the decisions that UN-force would make.

Taliesin

[Spliffdaddy]

The UN doesn't make decisions.

They pass 'mandates'.

[Mister Elf]

Originally posted by 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

1.) You Zarqawi's bunkmate?
2.) You really think you know about the American military?
3.) We'll kick their asses.
4.) Don't watch Al-jazeera or watch the BBC.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What makes the whole situation worse is that it is the month of Ramadan and even worse the last ten days of Ramadan, which have a special meaning, as in one of the last ten days of Ramadan the Quran was sent down from God to Angel Gabriel. The US-army could have at least so much repect for Islam to stop the attacks on Falluja for the whole Ramadan-month, which is holy. Instead the US-army terrorised Falluja day and especially at nights for the whole Ramadan and more, and chose the last ten days of Ramadan for a ground-assault. That's not only stupid that's downright an insult regarding Islam and muslims.

Taliesin

Maybe we should also ask the terrorists to stop their bombings and attacks on Ramadan as well. I wonder how well that would go over.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually, no, those that choose to stay in Falluja despite the evacuation-call do so, because they have nowhere to go, and don't want to die in the desert without water or food..

OR, they stayed because they're armed insurgents.

At any rate, food and water rank a bit lower on my top-10 list than dodging incoming .50 caliber machine gun fire. Call me a pansy, but I'd pray for rain and head into the desert.

All other people in Falluja who have family in other towns or villages or who are rich enough to have multiple homes in Iraq already left the town.

Rich and intelligent. How is that a bad thing?

What makes the whole situation worse is that it is the month of Ramadan and even worse the last ten days of Ramadan, which have a special meaning, as in one of the last ten days of Ramadan the Quran was sent down from God to Angel Gabriel. The US-army could have at least so much repect for Islam to stop the attacks on Falluja for the whole Ramadan-month, which is holy. Instead the US-army terrorised Falluja day and especially at nights for the whole Ramadan and more, and chose the last ten days of Ramadan for a ground-assault. That's not only stupid that's downright an insult regarding Islam and muslims.

Taliesin

Is it just me, or does the Islamic calendar adjust itself so that Ramadan coincides with the current Western military offensive against a Islamic nation?

Everytime we move a Bradley or a tank - some Muslim cleric is quick to point out that it's Ramadan, and military offensives are 'illegal' during the month-long holiday. This happened in April, May, July, and September.

We don't schedule our ass-kickings to benefit our enemy's itinerary. Or to make them love us. Bottom line. It isn't about religion and it isn't about making friends, so pardon us if we don't take religion into consideration when we kick your ass.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Pray to Allah for both sides, won't you?

arsehole.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:


arsehole.

It really bugs me that honesty and sincerity are so difficult to convey in print. I suppose it serves me right for being such an arsehole in the past...as well as for the arsehole I will, undoubtedly, again be.

[Spheric Harlot]

The insinuation that I must pray to Allah if I in any way criticize Bushadmin's approach reeked of the usual "terrorist sympathizer" ad hominem the right applies in every discussion with supposed "lefties".

If that wasn't intended, I apologize for having called you "arsehole" instead of "idiot".

-s*

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The insinuation that I must pray to Allah if I in any way criticize Bushadmin's approach reeked of the usual "terrorist sympathizer" ad hominem the right applies in every discussion with supposed "lefties".

If that wasn't intended, I apologize for having called you "arsehole" instead of "idiot".

-s*

For some strange reason I'm inclined to say 'thank you.'

LOLOL

See, I'm not sure about this, but I kinda believe there is ONE God. And, based on differences between men and cultures and environment and stuff, we developed different religions.

Each religion wants to be the ONLY one so it does things to exclude others.

I have NO problem with praying to Allah or God or Buddha or the Universal Spirit. Because I believe all spokes lead to the hub.

What I DO have a problem with are HUMANS telling me how I must worship my God.

That's why I love freedom. That's why I want freedom for others.

If they choose Islam, GREAT. If they choose Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism or atheism or whatever...I don't need there to be one religion or one belief. No belief is better than mine. Mine is no better than anyone else's.

Maybe that makes me a wierdo or something. But, I DESPERATELY want Muslims to worhip as they wish. I want EVERYONE to worship as they want or not worship at all.

The only one I've heard who respects other beliefs and wants people to do as they wish, echoing my belief, is GWB.

The guy isn't anti-Muslim. Really, he isn't.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by typoon:
Maybe we should also ask the terrorists to stop their bombings and attacks on Ramadan as well. I wonder how well that would go over.

That's only fair, but I think the insurgents think that occupation is already a violation of the holy month of Ramadan and an act of ongoing war, so it's only logical that the insurgents wouldn't stop fighting the american occupation. But the US attacks a whole town and forces half of Falluja-people to flee the town and terrorise the rest during Ramadan. That is unacceptable.

Taliesin

[Spliffdaddy]

Unacceptable?

Looks like they're accepting it.