The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23789
PAGE 6 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Ethnic cleansing by the U.S. in Iraq is a ridiculous and irresponsible accusation!!!
Given that, it is not suprising in the least who started this thread, and who is supporting the statement.
I think it's completely fair. Especially when we have undeniable proof of American forces commiting murder, torture, and rape of prisoners as policy as opposed to mere isolated "incidents".
Why not ethnic cleansing? It may not be that particularly but it's plain Fallujah was wipped from the Earth from April to about yesterday in a murderous campaign that involved months of bombing followed by house to house, building to building destruction.
Why?
The USAs record so far is horrific, you can deny it all you want but guess what... the rest of the world isn't American and has no problem seeing the actions into Fallujah as nothing short of a scorched earth policy directly from the criminals in the White House.
Proof - Fallujah is no more. It's a ruin.Quote:
If you want to talk about Ethnic cleansing, look at Bosnia and Milosivic. The U.N. did nothing except look upon it with alarm, and say "Gee, what your doing is bad, we think you should stop the rape, murder, genocide.
It was the U.S. that led the fight with NATO that stopped that atrocity. Where was the U.N.?
Or, more current events make you look at the Sudan situation. Again, what is the U.N. doing?
The U.N. is doing nothing except look upon it with alarm, and say "Gee, what your doing is bad, we think you should stop the rape, murder, genocide. How would you like some sanction put on you?"
Give us all a break, and at least try to temper
your blatant partisan rhetoric with even a tiny modicum of intelligent thought.
By the way, where is you outrage for France invading the Ivory Coast, wiping out there military. Oh my goodness, they did'nt even have the support of the U.N. to do this. Are they Crazy? Are they NeoFacist Nazi scum?
By your arguments they certianly are. Where is the outrage??????
Off topic. More misdirection.
You overstate your arguments in such a way as to lead me to believe that you are so out of touch with reality that you might actually believe what you submit.
There is not one thing that you have stated that supports your charge of ethnic cleansing. Do you even know what "ethnic cleansing" is??????
I gave you two examples in Bosnia and the Sudan. What is so hard for you to understand. Including this in my post was not in the least "off topic", it was not in the least "more misdirection". It was meant to educate you into the meaning of the term "ethnic cleansing" using real world actual events, rather than your half baked statements that are meant to do nothing but slam the coalition fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda.
It's quite plain you have a great sympathy towards these poor peaceful terrorist groups, but your mangling and omitting of the actual facts and blatant propogandizing is'nt helping your cause in the least on the threads.
Please do us all a favor and get off your self agrandizing, pseudo intelectual, self proclaimed winner of all debates in all threads, high horse.
You and your five member "mutual admiration society" can be, and are, more than a bit embarassing.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The hospital also had no patients to treat as a bridge leading to it was littered with roadside bombs, making entry perilous, said a military spokeswoman
Hero- Supposedly, there are pix of doctors and patients handcuffed in the hospital. There were also supposedly phone calls (I think cell phone) from doctors at the hospital describing the hospital occupation. That seems to be in contradiction to the Army statements. Can you clarify- either find and validate the pix/ phone calls or the Army statement? I don't necessarly believe what the Army says just bc they say it. Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- After this, I'll be off-line for a while so I'll try to fully respond in this post.
Apparently, the city of Falujah has been bombed to rubble. Mosques, schools, clinics, homes, hospitals, ambulances, water distribution... no service or home was spared from bombing. We dispatch wounded enemy in the field. You manage, somehow, to rationalize it all: The schools, mosques, homes' clinics, hospitals, wounded and dead MIGHT be used to attack, MIGHT be booby trapped, MIGHT house insurgents.
Wrong. Parts of Fallujah have been damaged. The photos I've seen show anything from intact building to broken windows to individual houses reduced to rubble. Military civil affairs teams tasked with restoring infrastructure have found that much of the water, sewer, and electrical system is in good shape and just needs to be repaired and restarted. The buildings targeted during the attack were those from which fire was being received. If the insurgents were using mosques, schools, homes, etc. those buildings were destroyed, but no wholesale destruction occurred.
BTW, I was in Hue, Vietnam, three years after the media reported it "totally destroyed" during the '68 Tet offensive. There were some vacant lots where buildings had been, and bullet holes in some others, but life was going on just fine. Sometimes the media gets a little carried away.
Quote:
How do you justify- if you can- w/holding water and aid from even the occupied parts of the city for a week? Keeping the only hospital from functioning?
I justify it the same way I did above. Given the insurgents propensity for blowing up innocent civilians and using ambulances and aid vehicles as suicide bombs, it was safer overall to keep them out of the city until some sort of security was in place. And as Hero noted above, the hospital was functioning, but insurgent explosives and boobytraps prevented use of the Euphrates bridges. US and iraqi troops are providing food and water to the few people left in town. the latest estimate I saw was that around 1,000 civilians had stayed.
Quote:
Can you justify shooting down a group of Iraqi women strolling towards a checkpoint? What about making a group of kids run and then using them for target practice? Throwing prisoners down a well? I'd like to hear you rationalize that... I'm confident that you'll find a way.
But if you DO have a limit, where is it? Waiting for your reply.
Without knowing more about these particular incidents, I can't say. How do you justify beheading hostages and using the images as propaganda? Capturing and executing 50+ unarmed members of the Iraqi army? Shooting a bound, blindfolded woman in the back of the head, and again proudly broadcasting the images? Are these guys your heroes?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
The hospital also had no patients to treat as a bridge leading to it was littered with roadside bombs, making entry perilous, said a military spokeswoman
Hero- Supposedly, there are pix of doctors and patients handcuffed in the hospital. There were also supposedly phone calls (I think cell phone) from doctors at the hospital describing the hospital occupation. That seems to be in contradiction to the Army statements. Can you clarify- either find and validate the pix/ phone calls or the Army statement? I don't necessarly believe what the Army says just bc they say it. Thanks.
Been over this, too. Immediately after the hospital was secured, doctors and patients were handcuffed until their identities could be established. Your heroic insurgents are apt at blending in with the population and then popping up with weapons or suicide bombs. handcuffing the occupants and checking them out seems appropriate in these circumstances.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's OK. I understand that there is a lag - in our lab, where results are sometimes used for prosecution, review and validation takes the longer than actually analyzing the sample.
As far as the rationalizing thing- I'm just trying to get a bead on where you draw the line. Sure, if someone is shooting at me, I'll shoot back. That's heat of the battle/ self defense. Been in a situations myself where I almost shot someone (sight unseen) because I was still jangled from being victimized the day before.
So maybe six hours later your adrenalin is still pumping and you find a wounded guy crawling around- clearly no threat- and blow him away bc you're still "primed". Still acceptable? Or you're at a checkpoint and women approach you and won't stop when you tell them to, you feel threatened so you shoot. Still acceptable? Or you are facing someone who is clearly a civilian and they get in the way and you shoot, although you did not feel particularly threatened. Still acceptable? You gave a couple of examples, yes they are on different parts of the spectrum, but I still don't know whaere YOU would divide that spectrum between acceptable and not acceptable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, but as best as I can tell from the Army statement, the hospital was never occupied at all- just basically cut off. So they DID occupy the hospital, at least for SOME period of time. Are they still in control of the hospital? The communications from the hospital?
The other point- my understanding is that aid was cut off even from supposedly secured parts of the city. If that was the case- why would they do that?
Quote:
The photos I've seen show anything from intact building to broken windows to individual houses reduced to rubble. Military civil affairs teams tasked with restoring infrastructure have found that much of the water, sewer, and electrical system is in good shape and just needs to be repaired and restarted.
Quote:Ummm.. says who? Do you have a personal in with the general where you can get the straight stuff? And if at least some of the soldiers are blowing away the wounded point-blank, and a functioning hospital was occupied (BTW, how DID we get past all those bombs and boobytraps on the bridge?) how can you say with confidence that some missions similarly didn't go astray? EDITED TO ADD: ESPECIALLY WHEN THE POLICY SEEMS TO BE SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER.
The buildings targeted during the attack were those from which fire was being received.
If Falujah is indded mainly intact, then it's good news for the ppl. But again I don't believe what the military says just because they say it. I've been hearing for... how long?... that electrical production is getting better and better every day in every way. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I've learned to take military statements with a BIG- a VERY big- grain of salt!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
The hospital also had no patients to treat as a bridge leading to it was littered with roadside bombs, making entry perilous, said a military spokeswoman
Hero- Supposedly, there are pix of doctors and patients handcuffed in the hospital. There were also supposedly phone calls (I think cell phone) from doctors at the hospital describing the hospital occupation. That seems to be in contradiction to the Army statements. Can you clarify- either find and validate the pix/ phone calls or the Army statement? I don't necessarly believe what the Army says just bc they say it. Thanks.
No. I stand on the statement. I leave it to you to find "supposedly" this and "supposedly" that. I found the evidence to support my case, now you find your own or shut the hell up. If you do find some credible evidence then I'll discuss its merits and dig more on my end. Till then, I win.
I find it interesting that they can talk to the Red Crescent (Croissant) aid workers who were there and not find room to mention "supposedly" anything. The international press usually bends over backwards to mention the "supposedly" and all.
I heard that hospital was supposedly closed because some supposedly credible doctors were supposedly handcuffed by supposedly US Marines. Supposedly there is a video and it supposedly shows Jimmy Hoffa and three alien Greys supposedly dancing with Elvis. Military spokesman deny the report.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fortunately for me, Geezer found the pix, so you can go tell HIM to shut hell up! 
Going offline- TTUL.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fortunately for me, Geezer found the pix, so you can go tell HIM to shut hell up!
.
Supposedly...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's OK. I understand that there is a lag - in our lab, where results are sometimes used for prosecution, review and validation takes the longer than actually analyzing the sample.
As far as the rationalizing thing- I'm just trying to get a bead on where you draw the line. Sure, if someone is shooting at me, I'll shoot back. That's heat of the battle/ self defense. Been in a situations myself where I almost shot someone (sight unseen) because I was still jangled from being victimized the day before.
So maybe six hours later your adrenalin is still pumping and you find a wounded guy crawling around- clearly no threat- and blow him away bc you're still "primed". Still acceptable?
Or you're at a checkpoint and women approach you and won't stop when you tell them to, you feel threatened so you shoot. Still acceptable?
Having lost friends to boobytrapped enemy wounded and dead, I might consider a wounded man still a threat. I wasn't there, and neither were you, so we don't know the exact circumstances.
A woman, or a man in women's clothes, can get a lot of explosives under a head to toe robe. Check IBC and you'll see suicide bombing is a weapon of choice for the insurgents. You might also ask why any rational person would walk towards people with guns telling them to stop and go away. Once again, not being there, or having more than cursory information, I can't give a better answer.
of course, these wouldn't be issues if the insurgents played by the acepted rules of war.
Quote:
Or you are facing someone who is clearly a civilian and they get in the way and you shoot, although you did not feel particularly threatened. Still acceptable?
Huh? Not in the midst of a firefight or something? Just a guy on the street? And obviously no threat? Why would I shoot him? I do note that apparently the insurgents would have no problem with blowing him up.
Quote:
You gave a couple of examples, yes they are on different parts of the spectrum, but I still don't know whaere YOU would divide that spectrum between acceptable and not acceptable.
I find civilian casualties during combat regrettable. If it was possible, I, and I bet the military, would like nothing more than to get only the bad guys. This just isn't doable, especially in urban combat when the bad guys use occupied homes and buildings as fighting positions. I am also aware that mistakes come under review and people are often charged if they violate the rules of war. Even in instances where civilian casualties are considered unavoidable and there are no charges, doctrine and training are often changed to reduce repeats.
What I do not find acceptable is policy and doctrine that encourages taking, torture and murder of hostages, killings taped for propaganda, mass murder of prisoners, indiscriminate bombing with no attempt to limit civilian casualties, the use of mosques, schools, etc. as fighting positions and weapons caches. I'm also not so hot on the "hostage slaughterhouses" and civilians found shot execution-style in Fallujah.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME