The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23789
PAGE 3 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- "This is a test". Have you actually looked at the IBC sources? What do they all have in common?
These Guys?
Quote:
Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards.ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.
News media of all persuasions, NGOs, charitible and activist groups. They're all pretty reliable?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- I never said that we killed 100,000 women and children mostly by bombing. Comb through my posts. You are wrong on that point, so I'm calling bullshit on THAT point!
This is from the "The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all" thread, and was posted on 11/02/2004 at 12:33.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did you read the article? The vast majority of dead are women and children, and they were bombed (deliberately targeted using "smart bomb" technology). If you're willing to accept "collateral damage" of this magnitude, what makes you better than a terrorist? (Other than the fact that we're the "good guys".)
Okay, you didn't say 100,000, just the vast majority of 100,000.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point that the White House apologists are missing is that there are facts, there are statistics, and then there is the truth. And I'm not talking about facts and statistic vresus the truth, I'm not talking about a "higher" truth, or a moral truth, I'm talking about the REAL truth- whether or not you FULLY comprehend what is happening in a particular arena, in this case Iraq. Quibbling and caviling (cavil: To raise trivial or frivolous objections; to find fault without good reason) about important issues because the situation doesn't meet one's ideology doesn't further anyone's understanding of the situation.
So, without quibbling or caviling about whether the ppl were Sunnis or Shiites; or men, women or children; or whether they were killed by bombs or small-arms fire, let's accept that the United States has killed a "large" number of people- at least 20,000 and probably more. This tells me that the administration has very good control over the information flow.
Since they planned Falujah far enough in advance to take the hospital first, it tells me that they were expecting to kill many more.
Where does that lead us? Among other things, it tells me that the USA has pretty much given up on the "hearts and minds" approach in the Sunni triangle, and was just waiting until after the USA election to lower the boom. (I think they expected large number of Iraqi victims and possibly US casualties, although with such tight control of reportage, I can't imagine that there would be ANY negative feeback coming fomr the USA population). It also tells me that they don't mind Iraq holding elections under the point of a gun, because by January that's what Falujah, Mosul etc are going to be like. That leads me (once again) to the point that the Administration is NOT interested in democracy in Iraq, has pretty much given up on the Sunnis and is mainly interested in installing Allawi, a majority Shiite and CIA contact.
Now, this does make me wonder what happened to the whole neocon notion of putting Chalabi in power, the neocon versus State/CIA struggle over Iraq (I think the CIA was responsible exposing Chalabi) and whether the State/CIA success has caused the CIA to smell better to Bush. Given the number of resignations from the CIA and the elimination of all dissenting views from the Cabinet, I don't think so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The vast majority ARE women and children. What's the problem?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I'll egt back to your thread later- it will require a lot of detail. (apparently we posted about the same time) I have work to do so don't expect to hear from me for a while.
For those of you who STILL think that the insurgents are mostly foreigners, I direct your attention to this article in the LA Times:
Quote:
Few Foreigners Among Insurgents
Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said Monday.
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/
la-fg-fighters16nov16,1,1535265.story?coll=
la-headlines-world
I split the link so that it doesn't expand the page.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ghoulman,
You typed:
"You refute my essay with meaningless, perhaps I should say contextless, fact. You wouldn't get far in debate class with crap like that so please, don't go around defining my essay as meaningless until you graduate. "
Perhaps you believe that I was characterizing your entire post as hyperbole. If so, I regret the misunderstanding, but I stand by the assertion that the following is hyperbole:
"If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?"
Specifically, the part about "...killing an entire city...".
you typed:
"Take how you redefine my point about Ethnic Cleansing and Saddam actually being Sunni just as the people of Fallujah are mostly Sunni. You have reframed my sentence into a conflict between particular sects. Well, that's not what I'm talking about at all. It is beside the point. And it isn't what's going on. But it made me seem wrong... which was all you cared about."
I disagree. I haven't reframed the sentence. I did not agree with your statements, and I presented information that I thought justified my disagreement. You type that because Falluja is a Sunni town, they do not support Hussein. But, since Saddam is a Sunni (whether or not he is a "good" Sunni is not the point, since Sunni is also an ethnic group in Iraq) himself, IMO it doesn't follow that the people of Falluja would want him dead.
On the contrary, Saddam's support was strongest in the Sunni regions of Iraq, where all his relatives and the highest officials of his party came from. If you disagree, you need only say so and state your facts and arguments. No need to be condescending ("your post is nothing but trit refutations of facts you fail to understand.")
Also, you type that the Sunnis want "an Islamic State". My understanding is that the Shiites, led by Al Sistani, really want an Islamic State, and at first the CPA tried to shut Sistani out, but realized this was impossible, they needed him to control al-Sadr.
you typed:
"Do you really want me to believe the GWB White House will accept an Islamic Government? You really want me to believe Iraqies are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death?"
Well, he did say it, and he seems to like the ones in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey just fine. As to the second sentence, I never said "Iraqis are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death" or anything like it. Perhaps you refer to the link to BBC forum that I posted. As I said, the opinions there are both for and against the action in Falluja. But they do not speak of 100000 anything, nor do they present opinions about the overall invasion, nor do they offer any way to infer how many Iraqis, percentage wise, hold these opinions.
You typed:
"...until you graduate."
"shallow"
"CNN whores"
"What reality are you on???"
"What are you concerned with? Tattered American honour perhaps?"
"no one has the balls to"
Sticks and stones, Sir. I fail to see how the 6 strings above contribute to the discourse in a constructive way. If you can, please enlighten me.
Respectfully,
debiji
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The point that the White House apologists are missing is that there are facts, there are statistics, and then there is the truth. And I'm not talking about facts and statistic vresus the truth, I'm not talking about a "higher" truth, or a moral truth, I'm talking about the REAL truth
So facts and statistics should be ignored because you have already decided what the TRUTH is. Thats prejudice. I say that because you have pre-judged the events.
Thats kind of how I watch the Browns play. I often find ways to declare victory despite the final score. I also see the NFL conspiracy against the Browns. Yup, I'm as much a Browns lover as you are a Bush hater.
Quote:
Since they planned Falujah far enough in advance to take the hospital first, it tells me that they were expecting to kill many more.
Maybe. Another possibility, and I'm just throwing this wacky idea out here...maybe they took the hospitals first to SAVE AS MANY LIVES AS THEY COULD. Naw, you hate Bush, so that can't be true.
Seems if they were expecting to kill so many people they would have taken the graveyards first and bombed the hospitals to hell and gone.
Quote:
It also tells me that they don't mind Iraq holding elections under the point of a gun, because by January that's what Falujah, Mosul etc are going to be like.
Thats what all of Iraq was like during the last election. Vote or Die in Iraq meant vote for Saddam or Die. I don't think P-Diddy was involved with that one, but it was far more effective, Saddam got 98% of the vote with a 5% margin of error from the firing squads...er...exit polls.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So facts and statistics should be ignored because you have already decided what the TRUTH is. Thats prejudice. I say that because you have pre-judged the events.
Not at all. I use statistics every day in my job, and facts are part ofg the trtuh. What I don't like is when facts and statistics are misused to hide the truth.
Quote:
Maybe. Another possibility, and I'm just throwing this wacky idea out here...maybe they took the hospitals first to SAVE AS MANY LIVES AS THEY COULD. Naw, you hate Bush, so that can't be true.
When they took over the Falujah hosptial, did they equip it? Set up a generator or two, bring in meds and supplies and doctors to treat the wounded?
Quote:
Thats what all of Iraq was like during the last election. Vote or Die in Iraq meant vote for Saddam or Die.
I guess if Saddam did it, it must be OK. It certainly is an EFFECTIVE way to hold an election!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
THE HOSPITAL IN FALUJAH
Quote:
In terms of the information war, the hospital was indeed the most strategic of targets. During the first siege of Fallujah in April, doctors told independent media the real story about the suffering of civilian victims. So this time the Pentagon took no chances: no gory, disturbing photos of the elderly, women and children - the thousands unable to leave Fallujah in advance of this week's offensive, the civilian victims of the relentless bombing.
But this did not prevent the world from seeing doctors and patients at the hospital handcuffed to the floor - as if they were terrorists. Hospital director Dr Salih al-Issawi told Agence France-Presse that the Americans blocked him and other doctors from going to the center of Fallujah to help another clinic in distress; he also said an ambulance that tried to leave the hospital was shot at by the Americans - just like in April, when all ambulances were targeted. The Geneva Convention is explicit: in a war situation, hospitals and ambulances are neutral.
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Geneva Convention is explicit: in a war situation, hospitals and ambulances are neutral
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html
True. Unfortunately, the anti-coalition forces have a history of turning hospitals, mosques, schools and the like into either strongpoints or boobytraps. This requires the coalition forces to be more careful around these buildings. For example, handcuffing people until they can identify them, rather than taking the chance that they'll pop up later with cached weapons or to set off bombs.
The anti-coalition forces have also used ambulances as carbombs. If coalition troops can't tell the real ambulances from the carbombs, they can either shoot to stop them all, or risk getting blown up. Safer for everyone just to keep them off the streets when major fighting is going on.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Geneva Convention is explicit: in a war situation, hospitals and ambulances are neutral
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK11Ak03.html
True. Unfortunately, the anti-coalition forces have a history of turning hospitals, mosques, schools and the like into either strongpoints or boobytraps. This requires the coalition forces to be more careful around these buildings. For example, handcuffing people until they can identify them, rather than taking the chance that they'll pop up later with cached weapons or to set off bombs.
The anti-coalition forces have also used ambulances as carbombs. If coalition troops can't tell the real ambulances from the carbombs, they can either shoot to stop them all, or risk getting blown up. Safer for everyone just to keep them off the streets when major fighting is going on.
I agree.
What the Bush Haters fail to mention is all the innocent terrorists handcuffed and on the floor as if they were Doctors and civilians. All the poor insurgents who are killed every day along side of the women and children that are the target of the evil American marines.
Killing unarmed Doctors and civilians is one thing, but killing those who are shooting at our Marines and executing hostages, that just going too far.
Maybe we should let the terrorists have that City. We can build a wall and anyone who wants in can go in. Then the Iraqi women and children would have a place to go and be safe from Freedom and democracy. They would not have to worry about being bombed or used as a human shield for the terrorists who decide that they can't face war in the open field. It would be a place free from humanitarian aid workers, foriegn doctors, private investment, and reconstruction. No more schools, jews, or rock and roll. Just women, children, terrorists, severed heads, Oil for Food vouchers, rubble, Michael Moore, and Allah. Radical Islamic paradise, just like the Taliban.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME