The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23789
PAGE 15 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now!
So Siggy (may I call you Siggy?). Why was it that you were responding to my post to Rue anyway? And if you were responding to my post, why didn't you address the points in it? And why should I feel a moral obligation to respond to each and every one of the points in your unsolicited post? Did you ever think that I might have been going to lunch and would get back to the rest of them later (but not now, after your "dodge and weave" digs.) And should I spend the time to retrace all the points I've brought up that you have either ignored or mis-interpreted? I think not.
Barnstormer - The only up-side to beating your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Barnstormer:Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.
This is the most outrageous LIE I have EVER seen posted. I challenge you to post the quote that supports your claim.
Look up Rue ^^^^^^^^^^
My December 7 posts. There are two of them. One shows the article, and the second one on December 7 is a response to Ghoulmans "Glossing over of the facts" that I posted.
Read the article, and research it yourself!!!! I will NOT do your research for you when you obviously DON'T WANT to find anything that refutes your precious preconceptions of what YOU want the truth to be!!!!!!!!
Oh, and by the way.....I may be an AssH*le, and I might be a Moderate conservative leaning Populist, but I am NOT a Liar. So Piss Off
Can't you read my Sig below?????
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Barnstormer- I didn't reply to the Geneva Convention points because that was not in my original post- in fact it wasn't in ANY of my posts, it was posted by Rue, who has obviously just responded. In fact, Geezer skipped over most of my points. And I am, as ever, impressed with his ability to dodge and weave! You'd think that boy'd be tired by now!
So Siggy (may I call you Siggy?). Why was it that you were responding to my post to Rue anyway? And if you were responding to my post, why didn't you address the points in it? And why should I feel a moral obligation to respond to each and every one of the points in your unsolicited post? Did you ever think that I might have been going to lunch and would get back to the rest of them later (but not now, after your "dodge and weave" digs.) And should I spend the time to retrace all the points I've brought up that you have either ignored or mis-interpreted? I think not.
Barnstormer - The only up-side to beating your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Geezer,
I know what you mean. I'm starting to feel much better all ready.
I think I'm done posting in the forum for awhile. These people can be so irritating at times (well, most of the time actually).
I'm sure they will have a field day with the insults and such while I'm gone, since they will feel safe I won't respond.
Kind of like working at a company, then someone leaves or is fired, so everyone starts blaming all the new problems on that person who left since they can't defend themselves. It's really pitifull to watch.
So, have a good day....
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BarnStormer,
Respectfully, I have read the Lancet publication several times. I have read your postings. I don't want to create really long msgs, so here's just the essence of Dec 7
Quote:
(Thomas Friedman) That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq, came from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine The Lancet (search). It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize. As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts.
If I have missed something essential, please point it out. There are no specifics and no links. Perhaps you intended to post specifics but accidentally left them off. However, what you actually posted were the assertions of a columnist who is not an epidemiologist or statistician (his education is in Mediterranean Studies and Modern Middle Eastern Studies http://www.nato.int/docu/conf/2003/031016_bxl/cv-friedman.htm), and your opinions about those opinions (you yourself are apparently not a epidemiologist or statistician). So I am still waiting to find out what SPECIFICALLY were the statistical errors the study authors now think were faulty (as per your comment)
Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Barnstormer:Quote:
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number.
This is the most outrageous LIE I have EVER seen posted. I challenge you to post the quote that supports your claim.
lol! THE most outrageous lie???
Oh come on, you've been around this BBS too long to think this is the worst lie ever. These people have been trolling you for months with little tiny lies and great big lies while you have been a constant gentleman. My hat is off to you sir.
Barny there is just pissed, like all the other lieing neofascists, that there is simply NO OTHER SOURCE OF CASUALTIES FROM IRAQ.
The US military blocks and censors all that info. But the neofascists conveniently forget this fact. Gen. Franks stated that no casualities will be reported. None have. So the Lancet Report is the only valid one.
So of course, the neofascists must dismiss it with lies and counter trolling. It's all over the US media too.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stormer- The one thing you can count on is for Rue to have read the original documents in detail (unlike you, perhaps?). You can't make sloppy, fourth hand arguments and expect to get away with them. Go away in a huff if you like, but don't say it was because we ignored the truth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Ghoulman,
I do try to maintain a level of politeness.
But I have to say: having read the Lancet article, having read that "surveys or census based estimates of crude mortality" were not performed in Iraq for over a decade, reading their own description of their assumptions as "conservative", their data as "valid", and their conclusions that "the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably about 100 000 people, and may be much higher", having read the pains they took to analyze BOTH their study AND their data - this
Quote:was finally far too blatant, arrogant, and mendacious for me to ignore.
the Lancet itself states that the STATISTICAL method they used to come up with the 100,000 number was statistically unsound and that the actual number would have been a small fraction of their stated number
But I agree with you on this: it was not the most outrageous lie. The WMD flack might fall into that category.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM:
There were several specific items I was wondering about re US war crimes in Falluja. I wanted to provide references and didn't have time to look for them until now. Here is one item:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1210-23.htm
Quote:In fact, the instructions broadcast on TV as they were being given to the troops were even more specific: any fighting-age male, shooting or not, armed or not, wearing protective gear or not, was to be considered a target and was to be shot. And US troops were observed by reporters shooting obvious civilians - women and children, who were trying to escape the city. What I want to emphasize is that the troops are not just some crazy 'baby killing' grunts run amok. This is policy, formulated and transmitted by people who know what they're doing. The fact that these were given as 'instructions, rather than 'orders' is, IMO, an attempt to break the chain of responsibility going UP the chain of command. If anyone is going to pay for these actions, the Prez-dent and Pentagon will make sure it will most definitely be the soldiers.
... civilian casualties were frequent and often systematic, rather than rare and exceptional ... In breach of the Geneva Conventions, for example, U.S. troops refused to allow males of "military-age" (16 to 55)-- defining them all as potential enemy combatants--to flee Falluja. Given the heavy American bombardment of the city, one wonders how many of these men are among the estimated 1,200 to 1,600 categorized by U.S. authorities as dead insurgents.
Similar to the free-fire zones of Vietnam, U.S. forces in Falluja had instructions that they could shoot anyone under the assumption that those left in the city were hostile.
Other examples include the targeting of hospitals, clinics, and medical personnel, which I hope to get to later.
Finally, I recall that either Geezer, or perhaps another of that crowd, mentioned that there are MANY organizations that provide civilian casualty estimations, and, by gosh, there were no Falluja numbers, so the casualty rate must be low. In fact (same url)
Quote:
More recently, the Iraqi Red Crescent estimated that more than 6,000 people may have died in the battle.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
And I just wanted to expound on this general topic a little bit more.
A lot of noise was made about how the Iraqi insurgents were responsible for blurring the lines between civilians and combatants. But there is much disinformation being spread around on that topic.
The very first images after the attack of the US on Baghdad were of US soldiers casually roaming the streets. But that changed within hours.
Early after the war, though no women had participated in armed actions, and serious suicide bombing had not yet begun, women and children were perceived as threats and shot at checkpoints. Why was that? The soldiers were reacting from some kind of information that made women and children into threats. It wasn't field experience. Was it what the soldiers had been instructed? Could it be b/c the Pentagon got its pointers and training from Israel?
Specifically re Falluja, given the instructions they received, it's not surprising US troops shot women and children in the back, or shot a wounded, unarmed Iraqi on-camera. Technically speaking, anyone in Falluja, and any male, fighting and equipped or not, was to be considered an insurgent, and shot. Could these orders be responsible for blurring the line between combattant and civilian? Between enemy and prisoner? Between an illegal act and a legal one?
For Geezer & Co: Do ya maybe think?
To skip briefly into a related topic, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with you SignyM, and the more outraged I become at the Prez-dent and Pentagon's cynical, perverse, outrageous, Hitler-esque actions. Yes, the hospitals were targeted FIRST to specifically prevent casualty information from getting out. (A contravention of codes together known as the IHL.) Aid agencies were kept out after Falluja was 'pacified' (another violation of IHL). After being briefly let back in, the IRC was evicted by the military, again. With an estimated 6000 dead, and uncounted thousands without water, food, or medical aid for weeks, it brings to mind, more than anything, an extermination camp in-place.
The US can't afford to let anyone in at this point. If the civilian casualties from pre-fight bombing, shelling etc weren't bad enough, if civilian casualties from the fighting weren't bad enough, the post-fight deaths will top off the horror, and are absolutely inexcusable. Word must NEVER get out. How can the lid be kept on? My mind goes to the obvious 'ultimate' solution: the witnesses must be silenced. And, as was pointed out to me, that's what you hear out of Falluja now. Silence.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue- I have no idea how you find this info, but I certainly appreciate it.
Geezer- I will respond to your previous post with the comprehensiveness it deserves, but that will take some time. I stand by my comment- your ability to dodge and weave never ceases to amaze me. It was not meant as an insult, it is my true perception of your nature.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME