View Full Version : The Destruction of Fallujah Report
Raisin D'etre
23-03-2005, 14:04
Dr. Hafidh al-Dulaimi, the head of “the Commission for the Compensation of Fallujah citizens” has reported the following destruction that has been inflicted on Fallujah as a result of the American attack on it:
- 7000 totally destroyed, or nearly totally destroyed, homes in all districts of Fallujah.
- 8400 stores, workshops, clinics, warehouses, etc.. destroyed.
- 65 mosques and religious sanctuaries have been either totally demolished and leveled with the ground or whose minarets and inner halls have been demolished.
- 59 kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools and technical colleges have been destroyed.
- 13 government buildings have been leveled.
- Destruction of the two electricity substations, the three water purification plants, the two railroad stations and heavy damages to the sewage and rain drainage subsystems throughout the city.
- The total destruction of a bridge to the West of the city.
- The death of 100,000 domestic and wild animals due to chemical and/or gaseous munitions.
- The burning and destruction of four libraries that housed hundreds perhaps thousands of ancient Islamic manuscripts and books.
- The targeted destruction (which appears to be intentional) of the historical nearby site at Saqlawia and the castle of Abu al-Abbas al-Safah.
Did the US achieve anything by destroying Fallujah and its residents? The US went into Iraq with freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam in mind - it was going to be a cakewalk, over in 3 or 4 weeks and then they would be free to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. How many Fallujan hearts and minds have they captured?
source (http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=10580&s2=22)
ViolentPanda
23-03-2005, 14:18
Sadly, as far as I can see, the American achieved exactly what they wanted to achive. They were able to widely disseminate (via the news media) a graphic example pour encourager les autres. :(
nino_savatte
23-03-2005, 15:04
This is typical of the excessive use of force that often characterises US military action: the case of the sledgehammer being used to swat a fly. But it is also the hegemonic application of culture through the use of force; a wanton destruction of cultural sites and artefacts to be replaced by the presence of a US military culture with its iconography of death and destruction. This is all part of the subjugation process and it all goes back to the earliest days of siege warfare, only these days a city that does not surrender is levelled rather than its inhabitants raped, their property looted and their homes burned by the conquering army. Deuteronomy was always used as a sort of divine sanction of such brutality in the Middle Ages, particularly by the Crusaders. Having said that others were known to have behaved in the same way.
And they criticised the Taliban for destroying the Buddhas in Afghanistan - the stinking hypocrisy!
fela fan
23-03-2005, 15:43
The US are the most destructive force on the planet bar none.
It amazes me that any person can argue otherwise.
FridgeMagnet
23-03-2005, 16:29
Sadly, as far as I can see, the American achieved exactly what they wanted to achive. They were able to widely disseminate (via the news media) a graphic example pour encourager les autres. :(
Yeah, basically. Well, with different messages for different media groups.
For a lot of the world, particularly in the Middle East, you get the full "don't fuck with us" bombs-and-snipers treatment - I should imagine they're also relying on word of mouth within Iraq to get the message across.
The West, however, gets the sanitised "fighting for freedom" message, particularly the US, where the whole affair was couched in military euphemism and, from the pictures and reports, you'd barely know anyone was killed. (All the video I saw had troops going through empty streets.) If they *were* killed, they must have been "insurgents" i.e. terrorists. As well as that, there was the constant assertion that the only fighters were either Saddamists or mad fundies who wanted to establish an Islamic state, so it all had to be done.
Donna Ferentes
23-03-2005, 16:31
It's extraordinary how little coverage of the destruction of Fallujah there's been in the press. I believe,though, that it took eighteen months for My Lai to come to public attention, despite the fact that the entire US Army at all the accompanying press crops knew something desperate had gone on..
Is there any independent sources on numbers of civilians/resistance fighters killed?
I'd be interested to see stats from the Iraq Ministry of Health, I reckon that figures that come from hospitals and aid agencies are the most credible. But suppose that the acuracy slips a bit after hospitals are destroyed and taken over by the occupying military. Also, with the best will in the world, I don't even know if stats from the red cross/crescent can be relied upon. At the end of the day even the heath authority can only count bodies they end up with. What about those scenes where you see several bodies just strewn in the street? Can a coroner count everybody?
Giuliana Sgrena wrote an artilce entitled "Two thousand victims in Fallujah"
Post 24 on this thread has links. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=107038 [how do you link to an isolated post?]
Raisin D'etre
23-03-2005, 23:04
Click on the post number in top right hand corner and it will open up in a new page - you can then copy the address. :)
Raisin D'etre
23-03-2005, 23:14
Fallujah (http://www.ilmanifesto.it/pag/sgrena/en/420dc3a05e58d.html)
It's a very sad indictment of the US occupation of Iraq - besides the people who were butchered there is also the confirmation of what was predicted prior to the war regarding childrens malnutrition and conditions like diarrheoa by relief agencies. It is chilling to see those predictions were accurate and that more could not have been done to ensure that the children did not have to suffer so needlessly. Diarrheoa in Iraq is a death sentence for the under fives. It is so tragic, so unnecessary and criminal that Blair aided and abetted the US and brought this on the Iraqi people. How does that man sleep at night?
Reading these reports from Fallujah leaves one hard pressed to find much of a difference in the zoological methodology of the US Marine corp and US Air force and that perfected by the Waffen SS and Luftwaffe.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-03/23/article01.shtml
BAGHDAD, March 23, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried as war criminals for their role in the heinous crimes and abuses, from the use of banned weapons, raping of Iraqi women to the stealing of the body parts of Iraqi resistance fighters, according to Iraqi legal experts.
During a conference held in the Iraqi capital Baghdad Tuesday, March 22, the legal activists broadcast a video tape showing the scale of destruction caused by US occupation forces during its massive offensive on the western Iraqi city of Fallujah.
Titled “War Crimes in Fallujah”, hundreds of photos were shown, revealing Iraqi resistance fighters being killed and abused by US occupation soldiers.
The photos also showed that bodies of the slain Iraqi fighters underwent brutal surgeries by US soldiers to snatch their body parts.
Some 10,000 US marines and army forces, alongside some 2,000 Iraqi national guardsmen unleashed a long-expected onslaught on the resistance hub November 8, capping long nights of massive US raids.
The successive air strikes have caused huge damage in the western Baghdad city, with dead bodies littering the streets.
Blatant Violation
Head of the conference’s preparatory committee Sabah Nagy Al-Elwani and Kamal Hamdoun, chairman of the Fallujah bar association, accused US occupation forces of using banned weapons during its massive onslaught on the city.
“Practices of US occupation forces in Fallujah are blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which ban the killing of the wounded, captives and civilians,” Hamdoun said.
“The American thugs and their collaborators, chiefly Bush and Blair, must be tried before the International Criminal Court for their grisly crimes in Iraq.”
...
Sexual Abuses
In a related development, the human rights department of the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) had earlier held a conference in Baghdad to unveil US abuses against Iraqi civilians in Fallujah and other parts in the war-torn country.
As a case in point, an Iraqi female in the western Iraqi city was sexually abused by US occupation soldiers while being held in a US-administrated jail in Iraq, according to AMS sources.
“As soon as I returned to my home following the massive US offensive on the city last November, US soldiers stormed the house and arrested me after failing to capture my husband,” the Iraqi woman told the AMS conference.
“Only Allah knows what they (Americans) have done to me. I was praying for death to escape their abuses.”
The Iraqi female was later released only after her husband gave himself up to the US occupation forces.
According to Iraqi sources, there are at least 15 Iraqi woman detainees still in US-run detention camps across Iraq.
A freed detainee told the Arabic-language Al-Wasat, a weekly supplement of the respectable London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, about her ordeal inside a US prison and how she had been gang-raped by US forces.
Beheaded
The conference also included testimonies of several Iraqi citizens on the usage of poisonous gases by US occupation forces during attacks in the US-occupied country.
“During a US attack on the Taremiah neighborhood in the Iraqi capital, I was captured along with another Iraqi citizen called Ahmed who was beheaded by the US occupation soldiers. They tried to kill me too but I miraculously escaped death after they thought I was dead,” said Mohamed Najam Al-Meshhedani.
dylanredefined
24-03-2005, 06:32
The americans went into get some spare kidneys ?There must be some saner reports of what really happened ? At the moment it seems there were 2 seperate battles .As the American reports and the arab reports are completly
at odds with one another .
nino_savatte
24-03-2005, 08:11
The americans went into get some spare kidneys ?There must be some saner reports of what really happened ? At the moment it seems there were 2 seperate battles .As the American reports and the arab reports are completly
at odds with one another .
Point please?
Kaka Tim
24-03-2005, 08:35
"The photos also showed that bodies of the slain Iraqi fighters underwent brutal surgeries by US soldiers to snatch their body parts"
This almost certianly refers to the time honured tradition of soldiers cutting off the ears, fingers etc of their vicitims as mementos - the marines did it to argentinian corpses in the falklands as well.
John Quays
24-03-2005, 09:04
BLAIR IS A BLOODY LIAR AND MUST BE VOTED OUT
His complicity in the barbarous sham of Iraq is unforgivable.
It is interesting that here in France he is considered just like Bush, no questions asked. Perhaps the fact of being British means people are willing to cut him some slack, after all he can't be that bad, after all he's done a lot for us otherwise etc... à la Polly Toynbee or Aaronovitch, the frontline war apologists. Jeez, it's like being run by Karadzic, only he's one of us this time.
IMPEACH HIM, TRY HIM BEFORE THE HAGUE?
Sorry for the capitals bonanza, but my blood is really up. The dog must not be allowed to return to power after May.
Read about Fallujah elsewhere above if anyone still thinks this is overreaction.
The problem is that he believes in some variety of god, can't remember which. I suppose this means his integrity is beyond question and that he is a decent man.
SPIT ON GODS, DENY THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST, LET US NEVER MENTION THEM AGAIN.
jq
Raisin D'etre
24-03-2005, 11:02
Sadly, as far as I can see, the American achieved exactly what they wanted to achive. They were able to widely disseminate (via the news media) a graphic example pour encourager les autres. :(This 1996 document is startlingly clear about the doctrine of "shock and awe" - the aim of modern warfare is not just military victory but also through means of sheer intimidation, to inflict a deep psychological injury to scare and terrorize potential rivals into submission - it is in effect the practical application of the Wolfowitz doctrine of global domination by force.
Intimidation and compliance are the outputs we seek to obtain... the intent here is to impose a regime of shock and awe by the use of instant nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large...through very selective, utterly brutal and ruthless and rapid application of force to intimidate, the aim is to effect the will, perception and undestanding of the adversary, without senses the adversary becomes impotent and entirely vulnerable.
Shock and Awe - Advisory Report (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/books%20-%201996/Shock%20and%20Awe%20-%20Dec%2096/)
dylanredefined
24-03-2005, 13:17
The point is I want to know the facts about what happened from sources i can trust . nothing new in shock&awe getting the enemy to surrender by intimdation alone has allways been an idea that has appealed
to military
Raisin D'etre
24-03-2005, 13:44
Head over to Free Republic Dylan, they might be able to assist you.
cynical_bastard
24-03-2005, 13:48
Reading these reports from Fallujah leaves one hard pressed to find much of a difference in the zoological methodology of the US Marine corp and US Air force and that perfected by the Waffen SS and Luftwaffe.
Islamonline isn't exactly an unbiased, reliable news outlet.
nino_savatte
24-03-2005, 14:21
Islamonline isn't exactly an unbiased, reliable news outlet.
So which source is unbiased then? Or is this going to be another one of those circular discussions?
Dr. Hafidh al-Dulaimi, the head of “the Commission for the Compensation of Fallujah citizens” has reported the following destruction that has been inflicted on Fallujah as a result of the American attack on it:
- 7000 totally destroyed, or nearly totally destroyed, homes in all districts of Fallujah.
- 8400 stores, workshops, clinics, warehouses, etc.. destroyed.
- 65 mosques and religious sanctuaries have been either totally demolished and leveled with the ground or whose minarets and inner halls have been demolished.
- 59 kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools and technical colleges have been destroyed.
- 13 government buildings have been leveled.
- Destruction of the two electricity substations, the three water purification plants, the two railroad stations and heavy damages to the sewage and rain drainage subsystems throughout the city.
- The total destruction of a bridge to the West of the city.
- The death of 100,000 domestic and wild animals due to chemical and/or gaseous munitions.
- The burning and destruction of four libraries that housed hundreds perhaps thousands of ancient Islamic manuscripts and books.
- The targeted destruction (which appears to be intentional) of the historical nearby site at Saqlawia and the castle of Abu al-Abbas al-Safah.
Did the US achieve anything by destroying Fallujah and its residents? The US went into Iraq with freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam in mind - it was going to be a cakewalk, over in 3 or 4 weeks and then they would be free to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. How many Fallujan hearts and minds have they captured?
source (http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=10580&s2=22)
Did you ever do history at school or uni?
The first rule was to assess the validity of the source. You had to take into consideration who was saying it, why they were saying it and what it's implications are.
Hence why i find it incredibly hard to believe
Dr. Hafidh al-Dulaimi, the head of “the Commission for the Compensation of Fallujah citizens”
Just think about it. Stalin said of every situation, 'who stands to benefit'
Why would someone whos job is to get money back for the people of fallujah say that the yanks flattened the place and it needs totally rebuilt? Could it be because he has a vested interest in them getting compensation?
It's just like asking the turkeys if they think we should cancel christmas
:rolleyes:
"The photos also showed that bodies of the slain Iraqi fighters underwent brutal surgeries by US soldiers to snatch their body parts"
This almost certianly refers to the time honured tradition of soldiers cutting off the ears, fingers etc of their vicitims as mementos - the marines did it to argentinian corpses in the falklands as well.
That is an utter falsehood spread by the leftwing to try and depreciate the heroism of the marines/paras that fought to save the falklanders from argentinian rule.
That is an utter falsehood spread by the leftwing to try and depreciate the heroism of the marines/paras that fought to save the falklanders from argentinian rule.
Speaking of the heroism of the Marine corps is like speaking of the heroism of the Waffen SS. Kiddie killers do not equal heros... that's a fact!
dylanredefined
24-03-2005, 19:05
When did the Royal Marine Corp get accused of murdering babies ?
cynical_bastard
24-03-2005, 21:14
So which source is unbiased then? Or is this going to be another one of those circular discussions?
Probably none of them. But I'd take Reuters or the BBC any day over a site owned by AJ publishing, the people who bought us claims of tactical nukes and nerve gas in Fallujah. Have you actually read some of the other stuff on islamonline.com and aljazeera.com (note TLD, the news corporation use .net)? I know you revel in the thought that Amerikkka is teh greatest evil ever!1!1!11, but just because you'd like to believe something doesn't mean it's true.
Speaking of the heroism of the Marine corps is like speaking of the heroism of the Waffen SS. Kiddie killers do not equal heros... that's a fact!
You do know the Falklands had nothing to do with the USMC, right? Do try and keep up.
Raisin D'etre
24-03-2005, 23:37
The HYDRA has sprung some new heads.
Islamonline isn't exactly an unbiased, reliable news outlet.
Neither is the BBC.
Why would someone whos job is to get money back for the people of fallujah say that the yanks flattened the place and it needs totally rebuilt? Could it be because he has a vested interest in them getting compensation?
Well, I suppose it could be... to a blind Toad speeding by on a galloping horse, but a far more likely reason is the American Military really have flattened the place, given it actually invaded the country and has already killed over 100,000 people.
Who should we believe do you think Doc, a Pentagon war criminal or a spokesman for the town?
Have the fashfilters on this site stopped working does anybody know?
Raisin D'etre
25-03-2005, 00:07
Hmmm... I don't think the fash-filters care anymore. And they don't count.
nino_savatte
25-03-2005, 07:50
Probably none of them. But I'd take Reuters or the BBC any day over a site owned by AJ publishing, the people who bought us claims of tactical nukes and nerve gas in Fallujah. Have you actually read some of the other stuff on islamonline.com and aljazeera.com (note TLD, the news corporation use .net)? I know you revel in the thought that Amerikkka is teh greatest evil ever!1!1!11, but just because you'd like to believe something doesn't mean it's true.
.
Okay, so the BBC and Reuters are comparatively unbiased, even thought the BBC is a state broadcaster and Reuters is owned by a financial company. And I "revel in the thought that Amerikkka is the greatest evil ever"? I've never heard such rot. If I choose to criticise American foreign policy that's my business but I would wager that all you do is apologise for them...as you seem to be doing here.
Kaka Tim
25-03-2005, 08:28
That is an utter falsehood spread by the leftwing to try and depreciate the heroism of the marines/paras that fought to save the falklanders from argentinian rule.
Sorry - I forgot that the british army is a model of gentlemanly conduct when fighting wars.
Unlike every other army in history.
War IS barbarism - and if you unleash units like the marines or the paras (whose job is to be the most violent and brutal in the forces) on a civilian population you will get widespread destruction, death and brutality - its what they do.
Fallujah was flattened as a lesson to the rest of Iraq - this is what happens if you defy the new free, democratic order. Its an old imperialist trick - practised down the years by the likes of the romans, the british empire ('How dare you!' Dr Evil) and the third reich.
Speaking of the heroism of the Marine corps is like speaking of the heroism of the Waffen SS. Kiddie killers do not equal heros... that's a fact!
Show me proof that the marines (Royal) are kiddie killers or take back your heinous accusation! :mad:
Show me proof that the marines (Royal) are kiddie killers or take back your heinous accusation! :mad:
Fuck off fash!
Fuck off fash!
Cant prove it can you? so shut the fuck up you immbecile!
ViolentPanda
25-03-2005, 13:21
Just think about it. Stalin said of every situation, 'who stands to benefit'
Oh dear.
I think you'll find it was about 2,000 years before Stalin, old dear.
Try that dusty old Roman Cicero asking "Cui bono?."
nino_savatte
25-03-2005, 13:39
I think we've seen Dr Evil on these boards before under a different guise - non?
dylanredefined
25-03-2005, 15:01
well big fish put up or shut up
cynical_bastard
25-03-2005, 17:30
So, just to summarise:
This article was released by islammemo.cc, a jihadist news site. The article linked is itself a translation.
It includes the claims that nerve gas was used, a fact denied by the Iraqi Health Ministry, the supposed originators of the claim, and as yet unproven despite the alleged plethora of gassed animals available for autopsies and tissue samples.
This article is the only available mention of Dr. Hafidh al-Dulaimi or his organisation and provides no proof that they actually exist.
Islamonline.com, used for corroborating evidence, is owned by AJ Publishing, a Dubai based fundamentalist company who have a long track record of publishing false news stories on aljazeera.com.
So, just to summarise:
This article was released by islammemo.cc, a jihadist news site. The article linked is itself a translation.
It includes the claims that nerve gas was used, a fact denied by the Iraqi Health Ministry, the supposed originators of the claim, and as yet unproven despite the alleged plethora of gassed animals available for autopsies and tissue samples.
This article is the only available mention of Dr. Hafidh al-Dulaimi or his organisation and provides no proof that they actually exist.
Islamonline.com, used for corroborating evidence, is owned by AJ Publishing, a Dubai based fundamentalist company who have a long track record of publishing false news stories on aljazeera.com.
So, just to summarise: The BBC is the principle propaganda megaphone of the British ruling elite and routinely peddles outright lies emanating from the State (the fake dossier's, WMD), along with other spurious and deceitful 'information' issued in furtherance of the elite's bloody imperialist ambitions in the Middle East that have so far resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi citizens subsequent to the invasion (the Lancet) and more than a million deaths (at least half of them children by the UN's own estimate) prior to it during the USuk inspired sanctions regime. And yet in both of these very important examples the BBC actively sought to repudiate statistically reliable research by deploying two highly paid Oxbridge toad types (Bishop Paxman and Adolf Esler) to do hatchet jobs, thereby aiding and abetting in the ongoing cover-up of the criminal activity of the financial oligarchy and its political minions in government.
Presenting itself rather laughingly and with a straight face as a paragon of "objective" journalism, the BBC usually corroborates its own 'evidence', is wholly owned by the British ruling elite but wholly financed by the British public (who, as you might expect, have absolutely zero say in the kind of people the organization employs or the quality of the material it purports to broadcast as 'news' or 'political analysis') and has a long and disgusting track record of broadcasting and publishing false news stories (propaganda) both on radio and television and on its website.
Cant prove it can you? so shut the fuck up you immbecile!
Listen wanktoad, this thread is about Fallujah, get it!? I was referring to the US Marine corp who butchered anything that moved in that town only recently, including children, get it!?
As for your beloved Royal Marines, the city of Basra, Iraq’s second largest, was subjected to a fierce bombardment and siege by US and British troops, including Royal Marines, during the first week of the war. Three hospitals in the city recorded 413 deaths during the invasion, but this figure did not include those who did not die in hospital or who did not end up in hospital morgues. In addition, the same survey claims to have documented 6,734 civilian deaths in the Basra region subsequent to the invasion. There can be little doubt that children are among these fatalities, so how many of them can we put down to the Royal Marines do you think?
By the way, I notice you cleverly omitted to make any further mention of those barbarians in the Paratroop regiment... good for you!
cynical_bastard
25-03-2005, 20:46
So, just to summarise: The BBC is the principle propaganda megaphone of the British ruling elite and routinely peddles outright lies emanating from the State (the fake dossier's, WMD), along with other spurious and deceitful 'information' issued in furtherance of the elite's bloody imperialist ambitions in the Middle East that have so far resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi citizens subsequent to the invasion (the Lancet) and more than a million deaths (at least half of them children by the UN's own estimate) prior to it during the USuk inspired sanctions regime. And yet in both of these very important examples the BBC actively sought to repudiate statistically reliable research by deploying two highly paid Oxbridge toad types (Bishop Paxman and Adolf Esler) to do hatchet jobs, thereby aiding and abetting in the ongoing cover-up of the criminal activity of the financial oligarchy and its political minions in government.
Presenting itself rather laughingly and with a straight face as a paragon of "objective" journalism, the BBC usually corroborates its own 'evidence', is wholly owned by the British ruling elite but wholly financed by the British public (who, as you might expect, have absolutely zero say in the kind of people the organization employs or the quality of the material it purports to broadcast as 'news' or 'political analysis') and has a long and disgusting track record of broadcasting and publishing false news stories (propaganda) both on radio and television and on its website.
You're like a bad caricature from an Ann Coulter article.
You're like a bad caricature from an Ann Coulter article.
Gee, do you really think so Cyn?
So, what are you then... the voice of reason?
fela fan
26-03-2005, 10:27
So, what are you then... the voice of reason?
Isn't that one of them commentators in one of the tabloids?? It was always the byline that had the most irony and laughter value in it for me, but then i'm behind the times.
Raisin D'etre
18-04-2005, 13:03
Life after Fallujah. Refugees in the refugee camps talk...
more (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Articles.htm#Tarmiya) Scroll to the top of the page.
timetofillapit
20-04-2005, 08:31
most of the military and the right wing press think the BBC is full of communists
so its probably doing something right if everyone hates it.
exactly how do you take a city off people who want to fight it for you without wide spread devasation.
I think theres rather more civillians alive than after the russians retook grozny :(
as for the nerve gas and body part harvesting thats right up there with cannibal gurkha's high on drugs with sony walkmans :rolleyes:
from the falklands
Bob_the_lost
20-04-2005, 08:58
as for the nerve gas and body part harvesting thats right up there with cannibal gurkha's high on drugs with sony walkmans :rolleyes:
from the falklands
Give them some hot sauce and they might :p , they eat anything, nice lads every time i've met them.
timetofillapit
20-04-2005, 20:50
there a book from the argie side of things conscipts going on about gurkhas
treading on mines and there mates finishing them off
and then charging across the mine field wearing sony walkmen?
ska invita
10-09-2005, 19:05
Looks like Tal Afar could be the new Fallujah.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1567069,00.html ... supposedly the US had control of this town but gave it to the Iraqi army to control, as it was seen as "soft", and out of the way of the main trouble spots. iraqi army failed to keep control, and it returned to the hands of militants.
Not a good sign for any future handover to Iraqi forces, and an even worse sign for the residents of Tal Afar, of which %30 have stayed in the city, ignoring calls to leave. These thousands remaing are dodging air strikes as we speak.
Bernie Gunther
10-09-2005, 19:23
The American military just doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes does it?
audiotech
11-09-2005, 14:45
Show me proof that the marines (Royal) are kiddie killers or take back your heinous accusation! :mad:
Not the Marines I know, but:
Fourteen people have died after being hit by the PVC tube-shaped rounds.
Seven of the dead were children, including a 12-year-old girl. The last to die was 15-year-old Seamus Duffy in 1989. Three other people died between 1972 and 1973 after being hit by the plastic baton round's predecessor, the rubber bullet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/northern_ireland/1460116.stm
audiotech
11-09-2005, 14:54
There's more:
FOR 101 days, Royal Marines have been engaged in a farcical operation as mercenaries of the United States whose lawlessness now qualifies it as the world's leading rogue state. : John Pilger :04 Jul 2002
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/109955
Bigdavalad
11-09-2005, 15:14
There's more:
I don't think John Pilger counts as the most impartial journalist in the world though, does he?
The RM (and the rest of the British Forces) were acting as an extension of British foreign policy, as dictated by Blair and his cronies. They are not acting as mercanaries, because they were not being paid money to fight - they were drawing their normal wage (plus the LSSA money that is paid whenever you are away from your home barracks) which is what they would have been paid whether they were in Iraq fighting, Poole doing barracks bullshit or New Orleans digging out survivors.
audiotech
11-09-2005, 17:09
I don't think John Pilger counts as the most impartial journalist in the world though, does he?
The RM (and the rest of the British Forces) were acting as an extension of British foreign policy, as dictated by Blair and his cronies. They are not acting as mercanaries, because they were not being paid money to fight - they were drawing their normal wage (plus the LSSA money that is paid whenever you are away from your home barracks) which is what they would have been paid whether they were in Iraq fighting, Poole doing barracks bullshit or New Orleans digging out survivors.
Pilger is more impartial than most of the US media it seems:
I have just visited the United States, and it is clear many people there are worried. And many dare not say so. Their views are seldom reported in the American mainstream media, which is self-censored and controlled, perhaps as never before.
Pilger is one of the few journalist speaking out against US military power.
The British marines may not think of themselves as 'mercenaries' in this illegal war, however, that is indeed what the US are using their 'allies' for, along with a number of 'private' contractors.
Sadly, as far as I can see, the American achieved exactly what they wanted to achive. They were able to widely disseminate (via the news media) a graphic example pour encourager les autres. :(Just to take another line of outrage. Well they did encourage the others.
The US gave the rebels 2 months warning while Dubya secured his second term and most of them slipped away. The rebels then took the much larger Mosul while the MC were faffing about with their smart bombs in Fallujah#2.
The Americans in Fallujah did not replicate the Hama massacre (http://www.2la.org/lebanon/ee/terrorsy.htm) nor did they deceive the enemy into concentrating to be killed and so for the Iraqi rebels it was if anything a demonstration of fatal weakness not power.
Replicating Hama at that late date probably wouldn't have worked either the time for demonstrations of extreme military brutality was on the battlefield when they invaded.
At this distant it appears they wrecked the city and killed at least a few hundred of it's inhabitants in what looks like a largely symbolic attack to avenge 4 barbecued American mercenaries and celebrate Dubyas re-election. Politicaly it ensured the Sunni would boycott the process. The city remains insecure. As I recall nearly 120 marines died in the two battles of Fallujah if I was an American that would make me mad as hell.
Bigdavalad
11-09-2005, 18:10
The British marines may not think of themselves as 'mercenaries' in this illegal war, however, that is indeed what the US are using their 'allies' for, along with a number of 'private' contractors.
Mercanaries fight for money, for anyone who pays enough. The British Forces are not mercs, neither are the American, French, German, Israeli, Iranian or any other army. The fact that TCB is too spineless to stand up to the shaved chimp isn't the fault of the soldiers who have to take the consequences of the lack of backbone.
Mercanaries fight for money, for anyone who pays enough.
The forces of a statelet that is paid may also be considered as mercenaries. Particuarly if you don't believe that politics began in 1871.
Bigdavalad
11-09-2005, 18:58
The forces of a statelet that is paid may also be considered as mercenaries. Particuarly if you don't believe that politics began in 1871.
I'm sorry, but what?
(a) When did Britain become a statelet?
(b) The US (as far as I am aware) haven't paid the British for the involvement of the British Army, RAF and RN.
(c) Why would politics have started in 1871?
You may not like the way that British forces are used by TCB and his cronies (and believe it or not, neither do we), but that doesn't make us mercenaries.
audiotech
11-09-2005, 19:26
Mercanaries fight for money, for anyone who pays enough. The British Forces are not mercs, neither are the American, French, German, Israeli, Iranian or any other army. The fact that TCB is too spineless to stand up to the shaved chimp isn't the fault of the soldiers who have to take the consequences of the lack of backbone.
I never said it was the fault of soldiers, who risk their lives at the behest of US corporate interests.
ViolentPanda
11-09-2005, 22:06
I never said it was the fault of soldiers, who risk their lives at the behest of US corporate interests.
"US corporate interests"?
I have a feeling that if you look deep enough you'll find that the majority are trans-nationals who happen to have their "head office" in the US.
audiotech
11-09-2005, 22:24
"US corporate interests"?
I have a feeling that if you look deep enough you'll find that the majority are trans-nationals who happen to have their "head office" in the US.
Fair point.
(a) When did Britain become a statelet?
Sometime between 1941 and 1947 it acquired a rôle distinctly subsidiary to the US state.
Lots of UK history since then only makes sense if you imagine the scene as each incoming Prime Minister is solemnly shown a series of agreements and treaties with the US, some secret.
We know about the 1947 UKUSA intelligence agreement that appears to make GCHQ a subsidiary of the NSA - but not what's in it.
We know about the 1962 Nassau and subsequent agreements that, as I understand it, essentially place UK nuclear weapons under total US control, but not (last time I checked) the whole of what's in it.
Some suspect that there were unpublicised conditions on the 1941 Lend-Lease agreements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease).
(b) The US (as far as I am aware) haven't paid the British for the involvement of the British Army, RAF and RN.
See, speculatively and sometimes hoping to live to see the history books published in 2047, Lend-Lease :)
(c) Why would politics have started in 1871?
That was the year that the modern concept of "the nation-state" was invented with the "unifications" of Italy and of Germany.
Of course there's an endless argument to be had about the origins of "the nation-state".
But the date is particularly significant in the context of (this bit of) this discussion. Before then most wars in Europe were fought by complex mixtures of the forces of states, princedoms, bishoprics, city-republics, feudal holdings - and mercenaries as you define them.
I'm taking the long view, suggesting that the concept of "the nation-state" will turn out not to have lasted much more than a century, and drawing the "mercenary" line a bit earlier in that list than you do.
You may not like the way that British forces are used by TCB and his cronies (and believe it or not, neither do we), but that doesn't make us mercenaries.
But you see why I'd challenge the definition?
Of course my challenge wasn't meant to suggest that you personally have the morals of a (freelance) mercenary. It was meant to suggest that your commander-in-chief has the morals of a pimp :D
Lots of UK history since then only makes sense if you imagine the scene as each incoming Prime Minister is solemnly shown a series of agreements and treaties with the US, some secret.
It's a 'secret' which needs more publicity. It comes as somewhat of a shock to see my own fears voiced casually.
Aside, the Diego Garcia lease comes up for renewal around 2013. Opposition to renewal, starting now, might expose the true character of this relationship.
The American military just doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes does it?true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5270636,00.html)
TAL AFAR, Iraq (AP) - Fighting eased Sunday, the second day of a U.S. and Iraqi sweep through the militant stronghold of Tal Afar near the Syrian border, as insurgents melted into the countryside, many escaping through a tunnel network dug under an ancient northern city.
Iraqi and U.S. military officials vowed to expand the offensive.
Bernie Gunther
12-09-2005, 19:57
Yep. I've been reading some of the more serious stuff you've been linking. I understand the point about the uselessness of sweeps.
They've lost I think.
I don't think John Pilger counts as the most impartial journalist in the world though, does he? name one piece of Pilger's writing that can't be described as 'impartial'? Or does being honest these days automatically make you biased?
There's few with more integrity or conscience than Pilger - he puts 99.9% of so-called journos out there to shame.
Edit to say: As he says, "silence isn't journalism" however there is a deafening silence coming from the mainstream media with regards to the massacre taking place in Iraq at the hands of the coalition :(
Bigdavalad
14-09-2005, 22:02
name one piece of Pilger's writing that can't be described as 'impartial'? Or does being honest these days automatically make you biased?
There's few with more integrity or conscience than Pilger - he puts 99.9% of so-called journos out there to shame.
Edit to say: As he says, "silence isn't journalism" however there is a deafening silence coming from the mainstream media with regards to the massacre taking place in Iraq at the hands of the coalition :(
I don't read enough of his work to pull out examples - he was employed by one of the tabloids (Mirror if I remember rightly) before the war on Iraq kicked off, and came across to me as having a very anti-American agenda in all of his writing. I agree that he is one of the few 'mainstream' journalists who actually has a personal moral standpoint and writes all of his stories from there, I just don't think he's completely neutral.
Massacre taking place at the hands of the coalition - was it American or British soldiers that lured hundred of unemployed labourers to a street in Baghdad this morning, then detonated a large car bomb in the middle of them, killing 150? Iraq is falling into a religion based civil war between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. They hate each other in a way that makes NI look like a minor disagreement. I personally didn't agree with the war, since deploying there and seeing the results of the invasion first hand, I still don't agree with it, but if the US and UK forces pulled out now, the Iraqis would slaughter each other in days - we would, literally, be talking about tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths within days.
but if the US and UK forces pulled out now, the Iraqis would slaughter each other in days - we would, literally, be talking about tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths within days.oh give me a break - we're such a civilising force aren't we, stopping the savages from tearing each other apart :rolleyes:
News flash - the west has killed far more through bombings, sanctions, and more bombings than any so-called terrorists. It's time to get the fuck out of there and stop murdering Iraqis. We've caused them to suffer enough over the years and you know as well as I do that it's never been for any moral cause.
And if you think that the coalition aren't constantly engaged in military 'operations' that are also killing a lot of people by the day then you have been sucked in by the fact the media aren't reporting any of it. You of all people should know better than that regarding what's going on over there.
Bigdavalad
14-09-2005, 22:58
oh give me a break - we're such a civilising force aren't we, stopping the savages from tearing each other apart :rolleyes:
News flash - the west has killed far more through bombings, sanctions, and more bombings than any so-called terrorists. It's time to get the fuck out of there and stop murdering Iraqis. We've caused them to suffer enough over the years and you know as well as I do that it's never been for any moral cause.
And if you think that the coalition aren't constantly engaged in military 'operations' that are also killing a lot of people by the day then you have been sucked in by the fact the media aren't reporting any of it. You of all people should know better than that regarding what's going on over there.
I know perfectly well what's going on over there, I have still have blood on my boots and nightmares about what I saw over there. But the fact remains if we pull out of there, they will tear each other to fucking pieces. They are two seperate tribes that despise each other, if we pull out they will do everything they can to slaughter each other.
nino_savatte
15-09-2005, 09:36
I don't read enough of his work to pull out examples - he was employed by one of the tabloids (Mirror if I remember rightly) before the war on Iraq kicked off, and came across to me as having a very anti-American agenda in all of his writing. I agree that he is one of the few 'mainstream' journalists who actually has a personal moral standpoint and writes all of his stories from there, I just don't think he's completely neutral.
What is this "anti-American" bullshit? I'm fed up to the back teeth of people like Pilger being dismissed as "anti-American" because he dares to ask serious questions of the American colossus. People who bandy this phrase about almost always hold a particular political agenda; and quite often they aren't honest enough to admit to it.
Also, what journalists and newspapers are "neutral"? They simply do not exist. Would you describe The Daily Telegraph as neutral? Is Fox News really "fair and balanced"? You need to look at this in terms of hegemony and counter hegemony.
Bigdavalad
15-09-2005, 09:50
What is this "anti-American" bullshit? I'm fed up to the back teeth of people like Pilger being dismissed as "anti-American" because he dares to ask serious questions of the American colossus. People who bandy this phrase about almost always hold a particular political agenda; and quite often they aren't honest enough to admit to it.
Also, what journalists and newspapers are "neutral"? They simply do not exist. Would you describe The Daily Telegraph as neutral? Is Fox News really "fair and balanced"? You need to look at this in terms of hegemony and counter hegemony.
I just thought that he went looking for excuses to write negative articles about America. I don't think I have any particular political agenda though, just the impression I got from his articles.
I don't think there are many neutral newspapers or journalists - it's human nature to have an opinion on things (no matter whether it is well informed or not), and journalists are kind of human. I doubt the Torygraph or Fox could be described as neutral either, although I don't read the Telegraph and when I do watch the American news channels on Sky it's normally CNN, although it's very very rare that I watch the US news.
nino_savatte
15-09-2005, 09:59
I just thought that he went looking for excuses to write negative articles about America. I don't think I have any particular political agenda though, just the impression I got from his articles.
I don't think there are many neutral newspapers or journalists - it's human nature to have an opinion on things (no matter whether it is well informed or not), and journalists are kind of human. I doubt the Torygraph or Fox could be described as neutral either, although I don't read the Telegraph and when I do watch the American news channels on Sky it's normally CNN, although it's very very rare that I watch the US news.
No, there are no neutral newspapers. In fact the news cannot be ideologically neutral. To think that it should or could be is a fantasy. I don't think Pilger was "looking for excuses to write negative articles about America" at all. He has taken a position counter to the hegemony and that is important since many US journalists are worried about losing their jobs if they dare criticise Bush; therefore they support the hegemony whether they like it or not. Journalists should have the courage of their convictions to stand up for what they believe in, Pilger's American counterparts have no courage. Without journalists like Pilger the US would lie its way through every single conflict it has started by claiming it is for "freedom and democracy". We need people like Pilger to expose the lies of the state.
Without journalists like Pilger the US would lie its way through every single conflict it has started by claiming it is for "freedom and democracy". We need people like Pilger to expose the lies of the state.Amen to that. It's such a shame that there aren't more well-known journalists with the integrity of Pilger, he's certainly one in a million (although it must be hard to get recognition if you want to be a truthful journo - I'm sure there's plenty wannabe Pilgers out there who haven't got very far in their career).
As for 'looking for excuses' to criticise US policy Bigdavalad, I strongly suggest you read Pilger's 'New rulers of the world' which I am currently reading. As I think I've already said, his writing is based on a wealth of evidence including leaked documents and many shameless quotes from the various powerful figures themselves. Pilger certainly hasn't scrambled around for 'excuses' to criticise - each page I turn appalls me more than the last.
And I agree nino - calling someone 'anti-american' because they have the courage to speak out against all the attrocities, lies, and crimes against humanity is such a convenient cop-out. As it happens Pilger is very outspoken against the UK and his own country Australia - so I guess he's 'anti-UK', 'anti-Australian' and 'anti' all the other powerful countries he criticises too...:rolleyes: ;)
And I agree nino - calling someone 'anti-american' because they have the courage to speak out against all the attrocities, lies, and crimes against humanity is such a convenient cop-out.
It's worked for 'Anti-semitic' for decades so it's a tried and tested policy.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2010 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.