The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing part deux

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 14:42
VIEWED: 6194
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Friday, December 31, 2004 9:40 PM

Geezer,

Do you really expect me to think your half-hearted try to find the items I was talking about was genuine? You COULD have done what I did - watch the BBC news (the one made for US TV, with anchors in both London and Washington) then go to the BBC web site and try to find the exact same news items. Or you can trust me on this, they won't be there. In addition, you'll find that much of the foreign reportage on BBC news comes from ITN. The exact same videotape on BBC news that is broadcast without attribution can be seen on "The News Hour" attributed to ITN.

It's been a while since I've posted on this topic, and many websites require payment for archived articles. In order to post urls that everyone can access, I've selected some secondary sources.

Here are items about the interdiction of Fallujah, and the treatment of all fighting-age males as legitimate targets (insurgents).

The next set of posts will be about the targeting of two Fallujan hospitals. The following posts will be about US troops targeting civilians (including women and children) attempting to flee the fighting.

http://howlingspoons.blogspot.com/2004/11/fallujah.html
The BBC also confirmed that from the population of 300,000, many women and children have left, 50,000 people remain in Fallujah, and that the US are refusing to let men under 45 through their cordones.
Which effectively means if you are young and male and have the misfortune to find yourself in this city for any reason the US army will consider you as a legitimate target. Far from being a humanitarian gesture this evacuation is the preparation for a massacre

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=246764
NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq Nov 12, 2004 (AP) — Hundreds of men trying to flee the assault on Fallujah have been turned back by U.S. troops following orders to allow only women, children and the elderly to leave.
As it believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.
Later Prime Minister Ayad Allawi imposed a 24-hour curfew on Fallujah and ordered roads in the area closed, providing the legal background for the U.S. blockade.
Troops have cut off all roads and bridges leading out of the city. Relatively few residents have sought to get through, but officers here say they fear a larger exodus.
On Wednesday, a crowd of 225 people surged south out of Fallujah toward the blocking positions of the Marines' 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion. The Marines let 25 women and children pass but separated the 200 military-age men and forced them to walk back into Fallujah.
"There is nothing that distinguishes an insurgent from a civilian," the 1st Cavalry officer said. "If they're not carrying a weapon, you can't tell who's who." (I suppose unarmed insurgent might throw rocks.)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1236045.htm
US troops urge residents to leave Fallujah
US forces warned residents of Fallujah through loudspeakers and leaflets today that they would detain any man under 45 trying to enter or leave the rebel-held Iraqi city.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302385.shtml
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2004/11/07/wor03.html
U.S. Urges Civilians to Flee Targeted Falluja
By Fadel al-Badrani
FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. air and artillery strikes shook rebel-held Falluja late on Friday after troops, using leaflets and loudspeakers, urged Iraqi civilians to leave.
U.S. troops sealed all roads to Falluja and urged women, children and non-fighting age men to flee, but said they would arrest any man under 45 trying to enter or leave the city.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-11-05-voa46.cfm
Overnight, U.S. troops blocked all the roads leading in and out of Fallujah and stepped up bombings of insurgent targets. Women and children were also warned to leave the city.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-11-08-voa66.cfm
U.S. officials say at least one half of the city's residents evacuated before the attack, which would leave up to 100,000 people remaining.

ori

GEEZER

Friday, December 31, 2004 11:18 PM

Rue.

You probably won't be surprised to know that I find turning back all the military-age men trying to leave Fallujah after the beginning of the offensive to be sound tactics. There was plenty of time and plenty of warning to leave the city before the area was blocked off in early November.

Since the insurgents don't follow the rules of war and wear some kind of uniform or insignia for identification, we have to treat anyone of military age as a potential enemy, lest they get behind our forces, dig up a cache of weapons (hundreds of caches found in Fallujah, BTW) and attack from the rear.

But if we're going to talk about ethnic cleansing, any opinions on the recent insurgent attacks target against the Shi'a civilian population?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Sunday, January 2, 2005 10:51 PM

Oh, but I'm not done yet.

There are many, many news reports that US troops took control of the two main hospitals first, before any other military action. However, I find this one from the Voice of America (surely a source you won't fault) to be most instructive. So I will let this stand on it's own for a bit:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-11-09-voa8.cfm

Quote:
Fallujah's main hospital and train station have been captured by American and Iraqi forces. Two main bridges have also been secured. A senior interim government official says capturing the hospital was considered important, in an effort to control what he called, "wild estimates" of civilian casualties.

RUE

Monday, January 3, 2005 1:16 AM

This is a short diversion from the topic to clear up some fictitious claims:
Both Iraq and the US are parties to the Geneva Conventions, and bound by them.
People have posted disinformation that Iraq is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and the US is therefore exempt from following them in Iraq. However, Iraq acceded to the Geneva Conventions in 1956, according the ICRC documents.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc/$File/Conven
tions%20de%20GenSve%20et%20Protocoles%20additionnels%20ENG-logo.pdf 14.02.1956 A

Quote:
Convention (I)
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The US is an occupying power and is also bound by the Conventions as an occupying power.
http://csmonitor.com/2003/0501/p07s01-woiq.htm

Quote:
Until a new Iraqi government is established, the US is considered an occupying force - and is prohibited from significantly altering the occupied territory by such actions as setting up a new government or changing preexisting laws. (Bremer could be tried for war crimes. Rue)
In the context of an international conflict, the US is present in Iraqi territory and can impose control, while the former Iraqi government is no longer able to exercise authority. This, by definition, makes the US an occupying force.
Occupation comes with a long list of rules and regulations, as set out by the Geneva Conventions, to which the US and Iraq are signatories. The US must, for example, maintain law and order and ensure sufficient supplies of food, water, and medical care for the civilian population.
But according to some experts, they are prohibited from certain activities, such as reconfiguring the police force.
Occupation formally ends with the reestablishment of a legitimate government, or other form of administration, such as by the UN.

Quote:
Convention (I)
Art. 2. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

The hospitals were occupied BEFORE the attack, not as a result of fire coming from them. They were civilian hospitals. But even IF the hospitals were military hospitals treating insurgents, they could not be targeted by US troops. Military hospitals are protected under the Conventions, and may not lose their protections for reasons including:

Quote:
Convention (I)
Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.

The Geneva Conventions cover Civilians as well as military prisoners.
Some dingleberry claimed it was strictly mutual agreement over POWs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Now that we have cleared up any ignorance over the Geneva Conventions, perhaps we can proceed with a less delusional discussion.

GEEZER

Monday, January 3, 2005 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, but I'm not done yet.

There are many, many news reports that US troops took control of the two main hospitals first, before any other military action. However, I find this one from the Voice of America (surely a source you won't fault) to be most instructive. So I will let this stand on it's own for a bit:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-11-09-voa8.cfm
Quote:
Fallujah's main hospital and train station have been captured by American and Iraqi forces. Two main bridges have also been secured. A senior interim government official says capturing the hospital was considered important, in an effort to control what he called, "wild estimates" of civilian casualties.

So you would also agree with the next paragraph of the article?

Quote:
The same official says there is a deep concern that insurgents might turn their weapons on civilians, in an effort to increase the number of civilian casualties, in hopes of igniting public anger against the American presence in Iraq.

So capturing the hospitals served both tactical and political ends. When the insurgents killed civilians (a number of executed civilians were found, BTW) the hospital was no longer able to blame it all on the coalition, as they had earlier. Maybe the hospital should have stayed out of politics.

More on this in my response to your next post.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, January 3, 2005 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This is a short diversion from the topic to clear up some fictitious claims...
..The hospitals were occupied BEFORE the attack, not as a result of fire coming from them. They were civilian hospitals. But even IF the hospitals were military hospitals treating insurgents, they could not be targeted by US troops. Military hospitals are protected under the Conventions, and may not lose their protections for reasons including:
Quote:
Convention (I)
Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.
The Geneva Conventions cover Civilians as well as military prisoners.

First, lets quote Article 19.

Quote:
Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

Hmm. Says a hospital shall not be attacked, but that it might fall into the hands of the adverse party (the Coalition in this case). In a war against an insurgency, who as standard practice use protected structures (schools, mosques, hospitals) as military positions, prudence dictates that any such building falling into your hands be searched and that the occupants be identified. This was done, and then hospital staff were freed to return to their duties.

And hospitals may lose their protections under some circumstances.

Quote:
Art. 21. The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Now this doesn't specify whether such warning is general (Any "protected structure" in town used as a fighting position after midnite, Nov. 06) or specific (The clinic at the corner of Saddam and Uday).

On another note. It's interesting that you are so insistent that both the U.S. and the Iraqis (presumably the insurgents) are bound under the various Geneva Conventions (I don't disagree with this, BTW), but that you fail to recognize the gross violations of those conventions by the insurgency on a daily basis, while nitpicking the coalition in the grey areas between the letter of the law and tactical realities.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, January 6, 2005 1:53 PM

And more ethnic cleansing:

Quote:
18 Iraqis Found Dead in Field Near Mosul
Updated: Thursday, Jan. 6, 2005 - 8:25 AM

By BASSEM MROUE
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The bodies of 18 young Iraqi Shiites taken off a bus and executed last month while seeking work at a U.S. base have been found in a field near the volatile city of Mosul, police said Thursday.

Police said the insurgents shot the men, who ranged in age from 14 to 20, on Dec. 8 after stopping their two mini-buses about 30 miles west of Mosul.

Their hands were tied behind their back and each was shot in the head, police said. All of the men were Shiite Muslims from Baghdad's northern neighborhood of Kadhimiya who had been hired by an Iraqi contractor to work at a U.S. base in Mosul.

The bodies were discovered Wednesday, the same day a suicide attacker blew up an explosives-laden car outside a police academy south of Baghdad in Hillah during a graduation ceremony, killing 20 people.

A second car bomber killed five Iraqi policemen in Baqouba _ bringing the death toll to at least 90 so far this week in surging violence aimed at derailing this month's elections.

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=1958

Perhaps someone should speak firmly to the insurgents about the Geneva Conventions?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, January 6, 2005 6:21 PM

/sarcasm Nah, we did it and just said that the terrorists did it. /sarcasm off

Frankly, I'd like to see us pull out immediately and let the Iraqi's sort it out for themselves. Same with teh Israelis and the Palestinians and Somalia and Africa and Indonesia and the Tsunami victims and every other thing we try and do. I'm starting to wonder why we even bother anymore really. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Americans are evil. Our government is evil, our military is evil..our sons and daughters over there are evil and are breaking every rule in the book according to all the handwringers.

I think we should give Osamalama ding dong, Zarqawi, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria and all the other 3rd world, biblical age living, countries nukes(in all sizes and colors)and hand over the codekeys. Time to just get this shit over with. Time for a nuclear winter to help slow this gorram Global warming.

Then we can let the handwringers ask us why we let them get nukes. Why we didn't "interfere"? Why we used "Kid" gloves on them? Why..why why why why why why why....

All I ask is that I have time enough for a good steak dinner, a nice bottle of wine and a nice roll in the hay before it's all over.

I'm all for a complete "NON INTERVENTION FOREIGN POLICY" period. No more aid to anyone, no more military support, no more American dollars. No more world policing..no more anything. Let's close all the bases and businesses etc..etc.. They can live without us and we can live without them..at least for the remainder of my lifetime(another 30 years or so..god willing). As for what happens after that.../shrug. It's time Ameriucans started thinking in the short term..rather then long term.

NEUTRINOLAD

Saturday, January 8, 2005 1:47 AM

Remember the quote, "There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's just a whole bunch of guys"?

Maybe it should be, "There ain't no good guys."

And now, for Operation Rest of the Brown Ones.

Hope I can snag one of those juicy KPMG née "Bearing Point" subcontracts.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 8, 2005 1:54 AM

I vote with ConnorFlynn. (gasp!) At least as far as the non-interventionist part goes. Who the hell promoted this war, anyway? I think we get railroaded into foreign interventions far too often, usually protecting banana companies or some such nonsense. Enuf alright already!

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE