[Isaac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
We're not discussing Venezuela (I think that's what you mean) in this thread, that's another matter for another discussion, feel free to start up a fresh topic on that if you like.

probalby should of issued as a general question... but the issue of the Iraqi's being terrorist is absolutly trite if the US itself supports terrorist.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
What war is being taken into civilian areas? Are you Iraq is engaged in a civil war?

Simey, I think you need to get certain concepts clear in your head. Are these people terrorists or are they Insurgents? You refer loosely to terrorists and guerillas. They're not the same thing.

There really is no semantic term to cover exactly what these people are. In a sense they are guerillas, but that is an insult to guerillas because guerillas classically wear some semblance of a uniform, and in general, tend to operate more or less according to the laws of war. These people don't.

Terrorists probably does fit the tactics being used here. Random bombings, attacks on civilian police, kidnappings, sawing people's heads off with knives. All of those things seem to be designed to create terror for a political end. In other words, terrorism.

However, you could also call them rebels, insurgents, or whatever. Those names seem to give them more dignity than I think they deserve given what they do, but even dignified woirds don't give them any legal status when what they do violates every norm. So it is meaningless.

What they are is murderous yet cowardley assholes who are hiding in a middle of a city because they are counting on people like you to demand that they be not attacked because of your concern about their (in effect) hostages. Well, tough sh1t. We are going after them anyway. The Marines and Army will be as careful as possible. But I'm confident they will do their jobs.

[Isaac]

well, the hanging of three US mercinarys was a popular thing in the city... so, maybe they the people don't want american troops there...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Isaac:
probalby should of issued as a general question... but the issue of the Iraqi's being terrorist is absolutly trite if the US itself supports terrorist.

No, that's not very accurate on your part. However, so as not to derail this discussion, perhaps this could be brought up in another thread?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Isaac:
many provisions of the laws of war give unfair and deffinate advantage to those with more money... such as chemical weapons, like chlorine gas, aren't going to inflict more damage then an equal volume or weight (which ever is less) of say, nitroglycerin or tetranitrotorlean (though these chemicals aren't offten used, cept for dynomite, because of there high sensitivity to vibrations and heat)..... sarin nerve gas probably inflicts a higher casuality rate then an equal volume or weight of ng or tnt... furthermore, the laws of war require that all combatants wear a uniform, bear arms openly and anwsers to a comander who is responsible for there actions, but what if the local army surplus store doesn't have enough to go around?... and anwsering to a commander requires greater centralization (a negative for a guerilla or otherwise materilla disadvantaged fighting force) and also defines any true anarchist militia as terrorist by deffintion.

On your first point: nobody is using chlorine gas or for that matter, any type of chemical weapon.

Secondly, the standard for a uniform is a distinctive mark visible at a distance. It doesn't have to be a full uniform. It can be anything. If they all decided to wear a red scarf (as Mao's forces did), that would be enough. So would carrying arms openly, not hiding in civilian areas, not using Mosque's as fortresses, etc. In all of those things, they are basically taking the prohibitions of international law that are designed to mitigate the effects of war on civilians, and using them to give themselves advantages.

Suppose US troops went into combat with 5 year olds strapped to their chests, and old people strapped to the sides of their tanks. Would that be an acceptable way to fight? That's in effect what the terrorists in Falluja are doing, and what you guys are defending.

[spatterson]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What they are is murderous yet cowardley assholes who are hiding in a middle of a city because they are counting on people like you to demand that they be not attacked because of your concern about their (in effect) hostages. Well, tough sh1t. We are going after them anyway. The Marines and Army will be as careful as possible. But I'm confident they will do their jobs.

As a former soldier, I support the soldiers, may not support the war, but I support the soldiers. I also belive that these terrorists, insurgants, or whatever you want to call them need a little spanking. The soldiers will be as careful as posible.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
On your first point: nobody is using chlorine gas or for that matter, any type of chemical weapon.

Secondly, the standard for a uniform is a distinctive mark visible at a distance. It doesn't have to be a full uniform. It can be anything. If they all decided to wear a red scarf (as Mao's forces did), that would be enough. So would carrying arms openly, not hiding in civilian areas, not using Mosque's as fortresses, etc. In all of those things, they are basically taking the prohibitions of international law that are designed to mitigate the effects of war on civilians, and using them to give themselves advantages.

Suppose US troops went into combat with 5 year olds strapped to their chests, and old people strapped to the sides of their tanks. Would that be an acceptable way to fight? That's in effect what the terrorists in Falluja are doing, and what you guys are defending.

now, it's a question of are the insurgents in Falluja gaurding the city of hiding in the city... judging by the fact that US troops or other coalition troops are opperating mainly outside of the city, rather then patroling the street, it would seem that they are keeping US and coalition forces out, hence guarding the city... the point about cholrine gas isn't about if it's being used, but the rules of war ban it... there's no reason to ban it... there alot of convential weapons that do far more damage then cholorine gas... and if you did notice, alot of the insurgent fighters, wear scarfs of some sort... and most of the pictures I've seen of Falluja fighters, they are seen bearing arms as openly as any... and they aren't exactly the kind of weapons that are easy to conceal...

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And just a reminder also that the legitimate government of Iraq has ordered this offensive. Governments always have the authority to put down rebellions.

Legitimate government of Iraq?!?!?!!? Give me a break!

[Isaac]

authority?... authority is held by who ever will use the most violence to subjegate others to there will... police are authority because they use violence against those who don't do as told... politicians are authority because they tell cops and soilders to use violence against those who don't do as told...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Allawi is calling this shot purely for PR reasons. He is showing strength in the decision and has the full support of the US/Iraqi military.

It's rare that I ever take issue with any of your posts, ebuddy. However, I believe you may have misspoken. While Allawi undoubtedly recognizes the need to show the Iraqi people that he is calling the shots, I would say his decisions to declare martial law (or whatever they're calling it) and the assault on Fallujah are both well advised and very much what any responsible leader would do who is interested in restoring order. They are much more than JUST P.R. motivated moves.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Isaac:
now, it's a question of are the insurgents in Falluja gaurding the city of hiding in the city... judging by the fact that US troops or other coalition troops are opperating mainly outside of the city, rather then patroling the street, it would seem that they are keeping US and coalition forces out, hence guarding the city... the point about cholrine gas isn't about if it's being used, but the rules of war ban it... there's no reason to ban it... there alot of convential weapons that do far more damage then cholorine gas... and if you did notice, alot of the insurgent fighters, wear scarfs of some sort... and most of the pictures I've seen of Falluja fighters, they are seen bearing arms as openly as any... and they aren't exactly the kind of weapons that are easy to conceal...

The chemical weapon ban goes back a long way, along with other bans on weapons that seem calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. For example, the ban on "dum dum" rounds. Yes, you could argue that a 120mm if it hits you will do more damage than a dum dum bullet. But that still isn't an argument for allowing dum dum bullets. Still less a crude chemical weapon like Chlorine.

In fact any chemical weapon would be a problem even if there wasn't a ban because chemical weapons are indiscriminate. A rifle can be aimed at a combatant and not at a civilian. Chemical weapons just kind of drifts where the wind takes it. But anyway, nobody is using that kind of weapon.

I haven't seen any evidence that the terrorists, insurgents, heroic Minutemen, or whatever you want to call them are wearing uniforms. But if they are, that's great. It will reduce civilian casualties when the Marines and Soldiers come to kill or capture the terrorists. However, wearing a distinctive mark is only one of the requirements. Operating according to the laws of war is another. That means among other things, not hiding behind civilians.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Legitimate government of Iraq?!?!?!!? Give me a break!

So says the UN.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
... any responsible leader would do who is interested in restoring order...

or what any responsible leader would do who is interest in restoring hegemny to there authority

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There really is no semantic term to cover exactly what these people are. In a sense they are guerillas, but that is an insult to guerillas because guerillas classically wear some semblance of a uniform, and in general, tend to operate more or less according to the laws of war. These people don't.

...

What they are is murderous yet cowardley assholes who are hiding in a middle of a city because they are counting on people like you to demand that they be not attacked because of your concern about their (in effect) hostages. Well, tough sh1t. We are going after them anyway. The Marines and Army will be as careful as possible. But I'm confident they will do their jobs.

What hostages? There are 60,000 civilians in Falluja. Down from 350,000 people that lived there before the US started bombing them. These people live there, as in they play in the streets, they go to work, they go to school. It's not a military base. It's not a deserted ghost town. 60,000 people are still left in there!

The Insurgency apparently numbers 3,000. Less than 1% of the total population of Falluja at the start and about 5% of the population now. And your Airforce is strafing the town and dropping 500 pound bombs on it! You're going after 5% of the population using the airforce and tanks and you think that's justified. In one day you killed everything in a 7 square metre area with 5 bombs alone and you try to tell us you're minimising civilian casualties!

You're not even interested in what the people are that you're fighting. You don't care because you think it's justified applying military force to further any number of interests. 1% of the population of Fallujah is resisting the American population, so screw them all!

Besides where are you getting your information on the Insurgency from? You have no idea what is going on in Fallujah. You have no idea whether the combatants inside there are wearing uniforms or not or how they are fighting or where they are.

The cowardly assholes are in the White House. They're the assholes who :

1) Still don't have a clue why they ever got themselves in to a position where they need to kill Americans and Iraqi in Falluja;

2) Can't handle the political fallout of the casualties that would result from doing the job properly so they bomb a residential area where 60,000 innocent people live and own property and knowingly let those innocent civilians die no other reasons than their own political expediency;

3) Have talked themselves into believing that they can use their military force to kill anyone, anywhere and thousands of innocent people who die in the process are justified too.

It breaks my heart to know that American kids are going to die committing these war crimes for George W. Bush. But not more than it breaks my heart to see the images of the children that are being burned and having their limbs blown off by American bombs. The US has completely mismanaged Iraq. This was entirely avoidable.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Secondly, the standard for a uniform is a distinctive mark visible at a distance.

I've always wondered though: What about US special forces? I've seen movies and they always just wear black. Seriously though. Everyone I think recognizes that special forces are an important part of modern warfare, and aren't they without uniform? It's not like we have to march like the 18th century British wearing bright red and walking in straight lines into battle.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
It breaks my heart to know that American kids are going to die committing these war crimes for George W. Bush.

I am so happy that people like you have so little influence (kisses ground).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I've always wondered though: What about US special forces? I've seen movies and they always just wear black. Seriously though. Everyone I think recognizes that special forces are an important part of modern warfare, and aren't they without uniform? It's not like we have to march like the 18th century British wearing bright red and walking in straight lines into battle.

Black uniforms are uniforms. So is camouflage. But not if you are trying to camouflage yourself as a civilian. That would endanger civilians because the other side wouldn't know who they can and cannot lawfully shoot.


To answer an earlier point, notice that there are in fact no distinctive marks visible.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3992263.stm

So let me get this straight.....

Bush and Co. went into Iraq to replace a guy who (supposedly) ordered indiscriminate attacks on his own people....

....and they've now replaced this guy with a new guy who authorizes/orders attacks on his own people?

Also, since when did the US military take it's marching orders from a foreign leader?

So let me get this straight, you started this new Fallujah thread (even though there was already an existing "Falluja" thread) so YOU could be the thread starter?

Or you just missed seeing the other one (even though it has enough action/attendance that it was close to the top of the page for the past day or so)?

Or that because there were already so many posts in it that you would have had to do too much reading to catch up?

Or, you wanted to try to 'spin' the thread in your direction from the start?

Or, that you couldn't refute the points made in the other thread and by starting a new one, you could successfully perform a MOLE HOLE? (To escape being trapped by insecapable logic, you go to another thread and make your flawed posts, leaving your opponents to feel they're in an amusement park, "WHACK A MOLE" game.)

Or, you feel that by starting a new thread you will frustrate the opponents of your flawed pov and they may not want to make the same points all over again in a different thread?

Grrr!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mithras:
eklipse, you're being so disingenuous it's disgusting. The criminals and terrorists in Falluja are not Allawi's "own people." Remember: just because someone is fighting against Bush, does not mean they deserve your support.

As idiotic as I think Bush's march to war and failure to plan were, I'm praying (or the secular equivalent) for success in Falluja, as a prelude to successful democratic elections, and the institution of workable civil society. You should be doing the same.

I am proud of, and inspired by, your sentiments, Mithras!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
It's their country as much as any other Iraqi's - they are entitled to pursue their best interests in ways they see fit.

I mean "supposedly" in that I have yet to see any evidence that the dead masses were not guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the established government, any evidence that the dead masses were targeted indiscriminately (not just unfortunate victims of collateral damage) or any evidence that the mass killings were not carried out by rogue elements that were subsequently discipline for their crimes by the Iraqi government.

I hear/see a lot of rhetoric - I hear/see very little proof.

Your tactics here are despicable. They remind me of something Arafat might have done.

Yes, and as the legal head of the interim Iraqi government, Allawi is entitled, no, REQUIRED, to do whatever is necessary to restore order. If that means killing all the insurgents, so be it. Eklipse you just go ahead and encourage their opposition. But know that their insurgency will lead to their (or, sadly, those of innocents) deaths or imprisonment.

BTW, the numbers of outside instigators is not to be discounted.
Without them, thousands of innocents might still be alive.

You will get no proof of anything regarding your latter disengenuous assertions from me. You are being obstinate and ridiculous.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Falluja is a fairly large town, the entire population is unlikely to be involved in the hostilities - if they were, the occupiers would have a much bigger problem on their hands - ordering the targeting of a well populated town with artillery and bombing-runs is the same as ordering the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi citizens. Saddam Hussein also referred to his enemies as 'terrorists and criminals' - why? Because they opposed him and his system of government. Now Allawi is doing the same. There is nothing disingenuous about what I am saying - I'm merely highlighting the hypocrisy.

Personally, I hope the Fallujan resistance pull off a Mogadishu-style victory - that would be a greater success and an important step towards an Iraq that is free from foreign involvement which I believe is key to a workable, civil, society in Iraq.

In the other "Falluja" thread (look it up yourself!) the idiotic notion of US trying to indiscriminately bomb and destroy civilians is refuted.

Well, in considering your brand of FUZZY LOGIC, maybe everyone would be better off with Saddam in power, yes?

Then all your little fuzzy buddies could get the treatment they deserve and your hypocritical, disingenuous remarks would matter even less than they do now.

OBL and alQaeda were responsible for the Mogadishu massacre. The Clinton administration and UN ineptitude were contributing factors. But, you show your true colors in referring to that event with longing and admiration. We were in Somalia to help make sure FOOD got to the starving Somalis.

How many died after we left, because the warlord, Aidid kept the food for himself and his fighters and he used the foreign aid as a form of currency.

THAT is what you applaud.

You are the lowest of the low.

Don't try to hide your real intentions and hopes behind PC lingo. You want Iraq to become a Muslim state.

It will not be so.

Get it through your fuzzy, twisted, devious brain, your wishes will NOT come true.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
though the people who are committing these acts are likely to be foreign-fighters (which the Iraqis have the US to thank for allowing into their country).

See my "ROACH MOTEL" analogy in the other Falluja thread.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Looks like the infamous bridge that leads westwards from Falluja is going to see some more hanging soldiers.

Only in your wettest dreams.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Only if you support the coalition occupation forces.

You are a victim of the wrong propaganda.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You are a victim of the wrong propaganda.

So what, you're a victim of the 'right' propaganda?

There is a right and wrong propaganda?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So what, you're a victim of the 'right' propaganda?

There is a right and wrong propaganda?

In our "shades of gray" societies, yes, one is more correct than the other. Although I don't believe the coalition forces are 100% right (I'll say 70/30), I do believe they are "more right" than the Islamic extremist forces.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
They have made it clear that they will not tolerate foreign intervention with their domestic affairs. They have backed up this policy with force and have committed their lives to the cause. I think this is more important in the short-term - democracy can come later if it is so desired by the majority. Iraq should be 'cleansed' of outside influence before it attempts to reorganize it's internal political structure.

Sistani has also criticized the US's plans for not being democratic enough.

What you conveniently ignore is that the outside agitators from the Arab world, who are intent on making Iraq an oppressive radical Islamic state, have made the possibility of foreign intervention inescapable.

The only hope for the good people of Iraq is that free elections will provide them an opportunity to choose their future course. That the insurgents are fighting so doggedly, argues MUCH louder than your tripely posts, that the insurgents FEAR a free election, because they know they will lose.

If Sistani has said the US plans are not democratic enough, it might be because of our fear that what happened when the Muslims gained power (through a free election) in Algeria could happen in Iraq.

See the post in the other Falluja thread.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by spatterson:
Iraq needs to breath freedom. How can it do such a thing when terrorists afflict mass casualties constantly? I support a massive assault on Falluja. Their government warned all civilians to leave, and now its time to stick it to the terrorists. I believe that once Iraq is stable it is possible for it to become a positive and successful nation. But first the terrorists must be squashed. I pray for the safety of our soldiers and civilians.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I do believe they are "more right" than the Islamic extremist forces.

"Islamic Extremist forces" meaning Iraqis of course!

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
In our "shades of gray" societies ...

There is no grey in Jesusland.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Nope - the families of the thousands of murdered civilian Fallujans will though. And that's exactly why operations like this are utterly stupid. You're not going to bring peace and stability to a region when you constantly bombard it with bombs, with absolutely no regard for the civilian populace living there.

All this operation will bring is more death, more destruction and ultimately, the prolonging of general instability in Iraq.

Hey, maybe you should apply to the CATO institute, you might find yourself comforted by knowing their inaccurate predictions
re: Kosovo are very much like yours re: Iraq.

500,000 MUSLIMS had been ethnic cleansed. US/NATO bombing was effective in halting the killing.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-db031099.html

Despite the administration's best intentions, its proposal to bomb Serbia and initiate a long-term ground occupation of Kosovo is misguided in the extreme. The administration would attempt to impose an artificial settlement with little chance of genuine acceptance by either side. It would attempt to micromanage a guerrilla conflict, likely spreading nationalistic flames throughout the region. It would involve America in an undeclared war against a nation which has not threatened the U.S. or any U.S. ally. It would encourage permanent European dependence on America to defend European interests with little relevance to America. It would turn humanitarianism on its head, basing intervention on the ethnicity of the victims, allied status of the belligerents, relative strength of the contending political interests, and expansiveness of the media coverage. Most important, it would put U.S. troops at risk without any serious, let alone vital, American interest at stake.

[...]

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."

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ceci n'est pas un terrorist:

Jean Moulin, French Resistance fighter.

Allawi's own people? According to the US Army, less than 5% of the Insurgency is non-Iraqi. Besides, Fallujah is filled with civilians, not just members of the insurgency.

Let's say this clearly.

People deserve to pursue life, liberty and happiness as they choose. NOT by the decision of a religion or a man or a group of men who would restrict their freedom.

The people of Fallujah were given every opportunity to escape the assault. Those who chose to stay did so with full knowledge of the possible consequences.

I would choose the lives of my family over the illogical desire to save my home. How could staying guarantee the home wouldn't be destroyed anyway? And if one is killed because they stayed in their home, they wouldn't need a home anymore.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And neither do the insurgents.

Sure they do. They intentionally expose their neighbors to danger by hiding behind them.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
In our "shades of gray" societies, yes, one is more correct than the other. Although I don't believe the coalition forces are 100% right (I'll say 70/30), I do believe they are "more right" than the Islamic extremist forces.

And what of the Iraqi element of the resistance who are fighting to defend their country from occupation? Or are they included in your definition of 'extremist forces'?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Sure they do. They intentionally expose their neighbors to danger by hiding behind them.

I'm going to have to go with aberdeenwriter on this one. Their hiding among civilians is tantamount to using human shields.

Now, that leads to a question: are human shields legitimate combatants? I'd say that this depends entirely on will. If someone is unwillingly (or unknowingly) used as a human shield, then that person cannot be held to blame for anything. The second a person volunteers to help, though, then that person has chosen to take a role in the combat, and can no longer be considered an "innocent"; civilian or not they have willingly joined the battle.

What, then, are the citizens of Fallujah? Truth be told, probably a mix of both. Means to tell them apart need to be devised.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Questions:

1) What proof do you offer that there are any terrorists in Falluja?
2) Since when is the full scale invasion, including the use of fighter jets and aerial bombardment, of a city that civilians not only live in but own property in, justified to remove terrorists that might be hiding within that town?

You may not be deliberately targetting civilians but it's ludicrous to imagine that killing civilians is not a necessary consequence of such action. You know what the kill radius of a 500 pound bomb is. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know what dropping that in a residential area is going to do!

alZarqawi has a $25 million bounty. He has direct ties with OBL. He has been ID'd as being personally responsible for beheadings. He was responsible for other terrorist acts. He was convicted of the assassination of US Ambassador Foley. There are reports of some Fallujans who disavow knowledge of Zarqawi, they say he's a made up entity. It's BS, and I'm calling you on it before you take that ridiculous road of debate.

He exists. He's a terrorist. He has operated out of Fallujah. He has recruited and trained other terrorists in Fallujah. The insurgents in Fallujah are made up of terrorists and non-terrorists.

Look at ANY reports of deaths or injuries and the breakdown of whether they were civilian or militant. The numbers of civilians is small compared to what it could be. The coalition forces could have EASILY killed everyone in Iraq within a day or two, using conventional means had they chosen to.

If the insurgents stopped fighting, peace would break out ALL over the place.

US forces are justified by the Iraqi government to use measures to stop the violent insurgency for the good of the Iraqi people.

[bamburg dunes]

See my sig. This action has really shocked me, and I sincerely hope that in years to come, those who are responsible for this will be brought to justice. We're basically about to witness war crimes on a scale not seen for years, based on an illegal invasion. So the arguments put forth for Fallujah don't wash with me, it's all hypocritically motivated nonsense. It sickens me to see our Government say that most civilians have left, which has been proved not to be the case, so we're looking at a city with around 100,000 people still in there. This city has seen 2000lb bombs being dropped all over the polace, and yet Rumsfield tells us that the civilian casualties will be minimal. He might just live to regret those stupid claims.

If anyone actually reads beyond what the Whitehorse propaganda machine pus out, you'll se that the insurgents are merely citizens with guns, fighting in their own town, yet we see the rhetoric being poured out by the US and the UK which just stuns me.

This just disgusts me.

Illegal, inhumane, and utterly saddening.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Millennium:


What, then, are the citizens of Fallujah? Truth be told, probably a mix of both. Means to tell them apart need to be devised.

I believe there's a curfew. Basically, when the curfew is in effect, we are allowed to blast any male between a certain age (18-45 or something like that), to kingdom come, if they're outside. A very simple, and non-complicated plan.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
All of which is based on your own personal interpretation of the rules of war which says that they apply in a city in a country that is not at war!

Google, "Just War Theory"

It's an interpretation the US military and the Iraq govt adhere to.

[bamburg dunes]

NBo-one is hiding amongst civilians in Fallujah, Millennium. The US has even said they think Zarqawi has left, months ago with his tniy band of followers, The people in their are citizens of Fallujah. In fact, Just had his verified fro some friends in the BBC news tonight.

There is no justification for this attack on Fallujah. You can believe the skewed rhetoric from the Government, but it;s not even half the truth.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
US forces are justified by the Iraqi government to use measures to stop the violent insurgency for the good of the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi government was appointed by the US, which is an occupying force in Iraq. Allawi and his team of US puppets do not have any legitimacy or authority. Iraqis did not consent to this government and therefore Allawi has no right to be making decisions on their behalf.

So no, US forces are not justified in attacking Fallujah.

[bamburg dunes]

I wanted to confirm some of the legality for this latest attack, so I phoned my uncle, the well-known Labour MP, Bob Marshall-Andrews QC to see what he said. He was actually being interviewed on the TV, but I managed to gauge what his thoughts were.

He said the war was illegal, and thus this attack is immoral, and could very well be one the biggest war crimes in recent times, like I said.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Doesn't Logic or someone else halfway rationale want to step in here and correct the sick and sad postings of my fellows on the left here? Or would only itai, t_f, and BRussell be sensible enough to step into the breach?

Seriously, Troll, eklipse, LBK, you make me feel like an anti-Communist leftist in the 1930s. Get a grip, guys. The chumps in the Iraqi "resistance" are not the guys you want on your side. The Iraqi people want Americans gone, yes. They also want to be able to get a job as a policeman, and to get a start on the rest of their future, rather than watching car bombs kill their colleagues and their children. The future of Iraqis rests with peaceful democratic processes, not aimless murder. The sooner Falluja is pacified, the sooner the Americans can leave.

What you are seeing, Mithras, is what animated this Bushie before the election.

The leftist arguments were indistinguishable from the arguments of those intent on the denying the Iraqi's their freedom.

The US citizens opposed to the war were one thing, but hiding amongst you guys were those who want the US to fail or to fall.

This is what prompted my Foreign Agent thread.

US voters deserved some clue as to who is saying what in an effort to influence their vote.

This is exactly what I had in mind.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
The US has even said they think Zarqawi has left, months ago with his tniy band of followers...

Heh. This kinda reminds me of the time when the US publicly announced its covert plan to assassinate Saddam Hussein.

With all the public discussion surrounding the US and UK preparing to attack Fallujah, Zarqawi and Co. probably left immediately! If he hasn't then he's certainly had enough notice and time to prepare plenty of surprises for the "coalition".

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
On my side?

lol.

I don't want any Iraqis 'on my side' - I want the Iraqis to be 'on their own side', to define their own future, on their own terms, and to look out for their own interests.

Right now, it would appear that their interests are best served by driving the occupying forces out. They have my support.

Too late, eklipse. You have been exposed for what you are.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
That's 3,000 more terrorists than there were in Falluja 2 years ago. Bush is turning them out thick and fast isn't he. Those are of course only terrorists on your definition of a terrorist. The point I made before is that Jean Moulin was a terrorist on that definition.


Falluja, an industrial city, suffered its heaviest air strikes on 6 November with the dropping of five 500-pound bombs, the US news agency AP reports. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/3991083.stm)
I'm turning humanitarian law on its head??

You're the one cheering on jet fighters strafing and bombing a city! A city inhabited by civilians including children! This is not a military base. It's not a strategic power grid or a harbour. It's a city. Your idea that you can wage full scale war on whoever the hell you decide is a terrorist - that's the grotesque part. Children with their limbs blown off like we're already seeing in hospitals around Falluja. That's the grotesque part.

What humanitarian law allows you to wage war on terrorists hiding amongst a civilian population; even if they were all terrorists. There is no humanitarian law that allows you to do this! It's illegal. You can't bomb a city because you think there are terrorists inside it! And you wouldn't dream of doing this in downtown Atlanta would you?

When any country on the planet starts using fighter jets against its own population by firing on cities with aircraft and bombers everyone is up in arms and justifiably so.
Don't make me laugh. That government is no more legitimate than Alexander Hamilton!

You are grasping at straws and turning yourself into a pretzel trying to justify your FUZZY LOGIC.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And what of the Iraqi element of the resistance who are fighting to defend their country from occupation? Or are they included in your definition of 'extremist forces'?

Yes, most of those I consider to be "extremist forces". They aren't trying to improve their country by working through any diplomatic channels. They're simply the tools of the various clerics who are trying to arrest the diplomatic process. Hell, even the US tried to talk Saddam FOR YEARS before we did anything aggressive. All in all, they're just making things more difficult on themselves.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by An Alias:
My sympathies go out to the innocent civilians who will be murdered tonight bny the coalition troops, killed in their thousands, and for what? For defeneding their nation, for standing up to political expediency.

In April, the US thought they could take Fallujah, they backed off at the last minute due to political reasins, meaning, they didn't want high American deaths to have an impact on Bush's election prospects. A couple of days after the election, now look, the soldiers lives mean nothing to these people. We were told that Zarqawi was in Fallujah, all allomg, now look, we're told he has probably left, or was never there. He was another bogeyman like Osama, used to de-humanise an entire people, wrapped up into one evil persona. All bulshit.

Arrogant excuses to pound a people into the rule of their law. It wil fail, tonight the Mosques all over Iraq are crying out support for their brothers in Fallujah, most Iraqis know the evil in these ocupiers, they can't be bought, except for the pupper Allawi who made his money on Wall St.

The more civilians and freedom fightersd they kill, the more they do not understand why they lose support, well, the tiny bit they had. The Americans are so deluded in their belief that they are doing good, that they habe the support opf Iraqis. LOL, tell that to over 1 million dead. They are not dumb.

So to the fighters of Fallujah, for each opf one of you murdered, I hope you kil a coalition troop, an eye for an eye.

Never forget how many innopcent lives have been lost by the hands of the Americans, be brave, unlike them and kick ther ****ing arses.

yay, kill kill kill an American soldier.

The American forces in April withdrew (under protest) because we didn't want to cause the deaths of large numbers of civilians.

You are despicably misguided and ignorant.

Your side will lose.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
No one is saying that we should get the Insurgency on your side. Nor are we saying that the US shouldn't be eliminating the Insurgents. But making the entire population of Falluja pay for this is immoral, illegal and unconscionable. There are thousands of innocent people in a city the US is now dropping 500 pound bombs on! Thousands of homes, thousands of businesses that the US is destroying.

If the US wants to take on the Insurgents, it has to go in there house to house and arrest them. I don't care if that gives an advantage to the Insurgency. The US shouldn't have bitten off more than they could chew. You can't wage war on an entire city because of a few people on the inside that are giving you a hard time.

You would LOVE a repeat of Mogadishu! Well, it won't happen. The civilians who chose to stay will have to live or die with their choices.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Admins, do you think we can finally get this nutter banned?