The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23789
PAGE 7 of 18

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

GHOULMAN

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
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.

I'm embarassing? My point of view isn't uncommon among people who aren't American. Not that Americans care what the world thinks of them.

In case you are curious...

I know what Ethnic Cleansing is. Remember, I didn't say that was the case in Fallujah... only that it was a possiblity. Considering the level of destruction and my assurtion that there is no terrorist enemy there I don't see it as being beyond the realm of the possible.

Especially considering the history of the USA. A history of lies, death, and destruction. What I mean is, compared to other countries the USA is a very aggressive nation that often... OFTEN, ignores human rights in favour of it's own interests. Americans might not understand this but we in the rest of the world do. Our world perspective once again.

You can argue I'm wrong and that there are indeed terrorists coming in by the truck load to Fallujah... but I don't believe that to be true.

You can argue the US Military is acting in the best interests of Iraqis... but no one believes that is true.

And you can argue the USA is there, in your own words, " ...fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda." ... but that doesn't make it true.

Do me a favour and get off your trojan horse.

GEEZER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fortunately for me, Geezer found the pix, so you can go tell HIM to shut hell up!
.

Supposedly...

H

Well, actually I was basing this on news reports and not pictures. Also, the hospital interior was secured by Iraqi forces, with the Marines holding the perimeter of the hospital grounds.

And for the third time, I consider that handcuffing doctors and patients for a short time until they can be identified is a sound tactical decision. That way they stay on-site so once cleared they can get back to bed or to work. The only other option would be removing them to a camp for identification, which would be more risky for patients, and would take doctors away from their work.

If you ever watch a hostage rescue on the news, or "World's Wildest Police Videos" you'll notice that the police usually handcuff everyone who comes out of the building, rather than trying to sort out hostages and hostage-takers first. It's just good practice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
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.

I'm embarassing? My point of view isn't uncommon among people who aren't American. Not that Americans care what the world thinks of them.

In case you are curious...

I know what Ethnic Cleansing is. Remember, I didn't say that was the case in Fallujah... only that it was a possiblity. Considering the level of destruction and my assurtion that there is no terrorist enemy there I don't see it as being beyond the realm of the possible.

Especially considering the history of the USA. A history of lies, death, and destruction. What I mean is, compared to other countries the USA is a very aggressive nation that often... OFTEN, ignores human rights in favour of it's own interests. Americans might not understand this but we in the rest of the world do. Our world perspective once again.

You can argue I'm wrong and that there are indeed terrorists coming in by the truck load to Fallujah... but I don't believe that to be true.

You can argue the US Military is acting in the best interests of Iraqis... but no one believes that is true.

And you can argue the USA is there, in your own words, " ...fighting to liberate Iraq from these insurgents and terrorist groups that are indeed associated with Al Queda." ... but that doesn't make it true.

Do me a favour and get off your trojan horse.

No one believes that is true? I know you have a sky high opinion of yourself, but exactly when was it that you took upon the task of speaking for the entire world population?

Your personal level of self importance is to say the least, astounding!!!!!!!

And lets face it Ghoulman, Just because you don't believe what is widely reported on the vast majority of all news services does not in anyway make it false.

And please, don't tell me again how the U.S. Neo Fascist Government controls the world press. If you do, I might vomit.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:13 AM

Actually, I don't have a problem with people being handcuffed in that situation provided that they weren't handcuffed in painful positions for long periods of time. My point here was that the Army implies that the hospital was not occupied- just interdicted- but photographs of handcuffed doctors and patients would be proof to the contrary. It IS possible that the Army skated the truth because the hospital was "techncially" occupied by Iraqi forces... that would be pretty typcial of military lack of transparency.

The military also provides a pretty upbeat assessment of the situation (although they have not addressed civilian deaths as far as I know). But bowing to Geezer's first-hand experience in military affairs, I find a contradictions between what he says and... what he says. According to Geezer

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. 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.

. But at the same time, he clearly and repeatedly says that, given the nature of the insurgency, the best course is to SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. Indeed, a military description of the "mopping up" operation in Falujah says that because the warren of alleyways and homes is too dangerous to go house to house, suspected homes are just being reduced by tank fire. It seems to me that pretty much describes the whole invasion- suspected mosques, clinics, schools, homes, wounded... whatever... were blown away first. The invasion of Falujah was not a nice clean operation where only the "bad guys" got hurt- given the situtation that's not possible (as Geezer has made amply clear) and so I tend to discount happy-face military announcments- especially since they have totally avoided the topic of civilian casualites.

Oops- gotta go.

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I don't have a problem with people being handcuffed in that situation provided that they weren't handcuffed in painful positions for long periods of time. My point here was that the Army implies that the hospital was not occupied- just interdicted- but photographs of handcuffed doctors and patients would be proof to the contrary. It IS possible that the Army skated the truth because the hospital was "techncially" occupied by Iraqi forces... that would be pretty typcial of military lack of transparency.

The military also provides a pretty upbeat assessment of the situation (although they have not addressed civilian deaths as far as I know). But bowing to Geezer's first-hand experience in military affairs, I find a contradictions between what he says and... what he says. According to Geezer
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. 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.
. But at the same time, he clearly and repeatedly says that, given the nature of the insurgency, the best course is to SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. Indeed, a military description of the "mopping up" operation in Falujah says that because the warren of alleyways and homes is too dangerous to go house to house, suspected homes are just being reduced by tank fire. It seems to me that pretty much describes the whole invasion- suspected mosques, clinics, schools, homes, wounded... whatever... were blown away first. The invasion of Falujah was not a nice clean operation where only the "bad guys" got hurt- given the situtation that's not possible (as Geezer has made amply clear) and so I tend to discount happy-face military announcments- especially since they have totally avoided the topic of civilian casualites.

Oops- gotta go.

I give up. You take bits of information out of context. You put words in peoples mouths. You ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions. You have no concept of military operations. You apparently have no problem with your heroic freedom fighters kidnapping, torturing, and executing hostages, but can't understand that securing unknown individuals in a combat zone is preferable to killing them.

I can understand that you don't like the war, but going to such lengths to demonize the Americans and Iraqis who are fighting it, while ignoring the proudly broadcast barbarity of the terrorists (Sorry, but that's the word for people who would shoot a bound and blindfolded woman in the head.) is incomprehensible to me.

An army is a group of individuals, and some will do horrible things. The difference is that in our army, you go to jail for doing them, in the insurgency, you get to be a hero on TV.

Per IBC, so far in November, 23 civilians have died as a result of Coalition action. 126 have died as a result of insurgent action. So who's shooting first most?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, November 19, 2004 6:09 AM

I can't address the insurgent actions because I have no control over them. But as an American citizen I have some measure of control over our actions, if only to understand what's going on and vote accordingly. And the way I handle the information is not to focus my attention on "them" and how bad "they" are, but on us.

I'm sorry that you feel that I took your words out of context, but you stated repeatedly and persuasively that we try our best to save civilian lives but we shoot first and ask questions later. There is an inherent contradiction in what you say, I didn't put it there and I can't take it away.

RUE

Friday, November 19, 2004 6:49 AM

I've been quietly following the thread. I wonder if Geezer realizes just how, well, lame he looks.

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've been quietly following the thread. I wonder if Geezer realizes just how, well, lame he looks.

Ah, the usual Rue insult. From you, I take this as a complement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, November 19, 2004 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't address the insurgent actions because I have no control over them. But as an American citizen I have some measure of control over our actions, if only to understand what's going on and vote accordingly. And the way I handle the information is not to focus my attention on "them" and how bad "they" are, but on us.

I'm sorry that you feel that I took your words out of context, but you stated repeatedly and persuasively that we try our best to save civilian lives but we shoot first and ask questions later. There is an inherent contradiction in what you say, I didn't put it there and I can't take it away.

The way the insurgents act does matter, because our forces have to take it into account in their own actions. If insurgents boobytrap their dead and wounded, it makes it much more risky to check them and see if they need aid. If insurgents shoot at you from a mosque or hospital, you shoot back, or you die, and you quite correctly are more suspicious of mosques and hospitals. If insurgents dressed in civilian clothes make suicide bomb attacks, you have to take more precautions about civilians. If insurgents are willing to kill prisoners of war as a matter of policy, you have to be sure to limit their ability to take prisoners.

BTW, I never said anything about "shoot first and ask questions later". I said you have to react to the actions of the enemy, while trying to keep from injuring the innocent. When the enemy has no concern for the innocent, that becomes harder.

You must know that there are any number of American forces on trial right now for violating the military's code of conduct regarding treatment of prisoners and civilians. How does this square with your assumption of a "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy?

And once again, do the terrorist acts of the insurgents even bother you? I've asked this several times and gotten no answer. I bet I won't this time either.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DEBIJI

Friday, November 19, 2004 1:00 PM

SignyM:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... But at the same time, he clearly and repeatedly says that, given the nature of the insurgency, the best course is to SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER.

I have looked back through the thread and I can find the string "SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER" in only one post.

It is not a Geezer post.

It is your post:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.

Was it in another thread that Geezer made this comment? Also, when the comment was made, was it shouted? Geezer doesn't seem to shout much in his posts here.

Respectfully,
debiji

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE