BS: Falluja

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,Johnjohn
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 11:39 PM

In video footage shot by a CNN crew, soldiers walked through one imposing building with concrete columns, with a large sign in Arabic on the wall reading "al-Qaida Organisation" and "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,Sancho
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 11:35 PM

Are you a "Real Idiot"

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 03:38 AM

Oh, Sancho...Are you a 'Real American'?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,Sancho
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 12:43 AM

Rebel Headquarters Found in Fallujah

Sancho

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,Johnjohn
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 11:58 PM

Killed permanently

There is a novel concept.

Hassan Body Found in Fallujah


JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 01:47 AM

elGreko---thanks for trying to show B.B. the error of his ways!
[ Hey---sounds almost "godlike", that, eh??] I trust that you are not overconcerned about my feelings. Written insults can only give mental anguish, and when such shots are fired from a barrel of such low calibre, the impact is more like one from a doughball than a cannonball....
New thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Peace
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 08:31 PM

Many things are hell. War is just one of them. It is an undisguised murder, and treating it as something else is a good exercise in split-level reality, but it's still murder. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Pauline L
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 05:23 PM

Holding people hostage, beheading them, shackling them, etc. are gruesome, but are these acts more or less moral than killing lots of people in a war? I repeat what El Greko and I have said several times: Neither side is all good or all bad. War is hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: mg
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 03:43 PM

I mean those who are doing the shackling. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: mg
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:16 PM

Yes, if one group of people is holding another group hostage, beheading them, shackling them, leaving them to starve. Then the group of people who goes in to save the shackled are worth more, perhaps not in theological terms, but in who do you throw off the lifeboat terms, than the people who are the shackled. And we are well on our way to being the shackled and the beheaded. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:58 PM

there are only a few people left defending the invasion ,BB Larry Doug and one or two nutty guests.

But crazy as we find their ideas, I feel we must continue to answer their posts.
By ignoring them we simply reinforce their belief that they are holding the "high ground " against the socialist hordes.

Perhaps we'll never change their minds,but its important that they are ground down by reasoned argument. They deserve no quarter..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Pauline L
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:29 PM

Bb, any country may be thought to posses WMD. Intelligence assessments can be wrong, faked, ignored, or used to somebody's purposes. This is especially true in the post-election CIA, whose workers have been told that their mission is to support the Administration (Aaaah! I'm choking on this one.) I don't think anyone would advocate starting a war with any country that has been publicized as possibly having WMD.

El Greko, I couldn't agree with you more. You said, "And I have yet to hear your view on my earlier post about not comparing evil acts but deploring them all. Do you agree?

Or do n+1 deaths weigh more heavily than n?
Or it depends on who are the dead?
Come on, show your true colours. "

As long ago as the war in Vietnam, I've hated the body counts that told which side killed more people. It reminded me of keeping score at a football game. The good guys are not necessarily the ones who kill more people.

Re the issue of killing insurgent, sympathizers, combatants, or civilians: Long ago, the Catholic church developed and put forth a Just War Doctrine which said, in part, that a just war is one in which only combatants, not civilians were killed (or something like that; I'm not a theologian). By this definition, no modern war is just because killing is wholesale, not selective.

As El Greko said, "Does it depend on who are the dead?" Are the lives of one group of people worth more than the lives of another group of people?" Which side of the conflict would Jesus be on? Does it matter? As Arthur Tollivan noted, in a wonderful Christmas song, "On each end of the rifle, we're the same."

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:13 PM

I did sin in thought however, Kevin! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 10:47 AM

When threads turn into people making personal attacks against each other, it's time to stop visiting them. It's quite possible to indicate disagrement without getting into that stuff, as El Greko just demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 09:11 AM

El Greco,

It is a complete waste of time trying to argue with bb. He'll put words in yer mouth that you didn't say and then turn around a question your integrity!... He did this to my a couple months ago and so I just figured that the best way to deal with bb is to just plain ignore him, which I pretty much do.

Beyond this pathology he has problems with connecting the dots, Yep, thre boy's reasoning powers are badly mis-wired. I would hope that he is getting help with some of his pronoucements 'cause if he is coming up with them all on his own I fear he has reached a point of no return when it comes to analizing and processing information.

Now, I think I'll just go back to ignoring him, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 06:55 AM

bb wrote:
but why is it neccasary to deplore the acts that will be punished and ignore the acts by the insurgents that are being ignored? Are you saying that the deaths caused by the insurgents, of innocent civilians, are less to be commented on because we expect no better of them?

I never said those things, bb. Read my postings again, and watch my lips: All evil is EQUALLY deplorable. I expect more from the army of a civilised country, but I deplore equally the deaths caused by the terrorists, or insurgents or whatever you want to call them.

It is you, dear chap, who keeps trying to make comparisons, and somehow try to lessen the impact of one side's evil doings.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 05:31 AM

I have stated that any acts against the UMCJ should and IMO will be prosecuted. Yes, they are to be deplored- but why is it neccasary to deplore the acts that will be punished and ignore the acts by the insurgents that are being ignored? Are you saying that the deaths caused by the insurgents, of innocent civilians, are less to be commented on because we expect no better of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 04:18 AM

Woah there, bb - where did you see a "pronouncement" from Boab? He made a suggestion, that's all (read his post again). You can choose to ignore it, follow it or go against it - that's all. Why are you suddently ascribing to him God-like intentions? Or was that flaring up your way of a "reasoned argument" for whatever?

You have brains. Use them when you're posting. That other stuff belongs down the pan.

And I have yet to hear your view on my earlier post about not comparing evil acts but deploring them all. Do you agree?

Or do n+1 deaths weigh more heavily than n?
Or it depends on who are the dead?
Come on, show your true colours.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:58 AM

dianavan,

so if we find out that the civilians in Falluja were forced to stay by the insurgents, you will continue to blame the US for their deaths?


In combat, anyone who shoots at you is, de facto, the enemy. The Geneva convention prohibits most of what the insurgents are doing, beause it endangers non-combatants. How many more police recruits do you want to have their throats cut because you don't want to place the blame for the deaths on the insurgents, where it belongs?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:53 AM

Thank you, Boab, for your pronouncement from on high....


Just who died and made you God?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:37 AM

I suggest that this thread be allowed to die the death. The proportion of those who regret the deceptions used to "justify' the attack on Iraq to the numbers who still, incredibly, proclaim belief in the "facts" of WMDs and Iraqi "threats' is at least five to one. To imagine that those people can be turned towards truth is a forlorn hope at best. There are some who, like Bush and his squad, know the truth, but are of the mind that it is less beneficial to their needs than the lies. They therefor perpetuate and elaborate on the original invention which had non-existent WMDs and evil intentions
on the part of Iraq. As these became increasingly ridiculous in the eyes of the world, they were gradually reshaped into regime change and "liberation of the Iraqi people". Molotov and B.B. obviously still swallow that; nothing will ever change it.
Peace------

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: mg
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:33 AM

Don't worry about there being no WMDs in Iraq. They are most likely here in the U.S. now. And duh...they didn't have to make them, just buy them. And one fanatic with a dull ancient sword can bring entire countries to their knees. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:19 AM

Of the 1600 dead in Falluja, the Red Cross estimates that 800 were civilians.

Big whoopie-doo! The U.S. killed 800 civilians in Falluja so that they could kill another 800 insurgents. Lets see, 2500 - 800 = 1700 insurgents left.

So if the ratio remains the same, we need only kill another 1700 civilians to wipe out the insurgents. Seems to me that the victory is a bit misplaced.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:10 AM

No, I think that the interim government should have the chance to hold elections. If someone wins who asks the US to leave, we should, and IMO will.

But how about all those arms and explosives, found in the mosques ( A violation of the Geneva convention, if the use of a populated urban area as a battleground were not already a violation (ON THE PART OF THE INSURGENTS!)) Were they just symbolic? Since the largest number of victims of the insurgent attacks seem to be civilian Iraqis, I guess you are saying that the government should let the population be slaughtered bt the MINORITY that are fighting? ( estimates of total insurgents is around 25,000, from a population of what, 25 million? One in a thousand. And how many are Baath party loyalists?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 01:59 AM

I don't have a party line so you can forget that line of attack.

Maybe you can answer this: If all but 10% of the population of Falluja had left before the invasion by the U.S., and the U.S. are claiming to have killed 1600 insurgents, what was the original population of Falluja?

Could it be that most of the dead are actually civilians and that most of the so-called rebels left before the U.S. arrived? Seems they found plenty of evidence of rebel activity but very few rebels. What was the point of telling everyone they were coming and then giving everybody plenty of opportunity to leave? Wasn't this attack really just symbollic?

And another thing - Why is the media calling Iraqis, insurgents? If there are that many insurgents, maybe the U.S. should leave so that the people can just be Iraqis again.

I guess you think that might is right.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 01:46 AM

No one has said that Iraq bombed the towers. That is a stupid , knee-jerk response aimed at ridiculing serious question as to the threat to the US presented by Iraq.


The information from the British and US intelligence sources indicated a capability for WMD. The UN inspectors could never show that the EXISTING material was not hiddn somewhere in Iraq, because of Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN resolutions. The Russians indicated that they had information that Iraq was supplying WMD materials to terrorist groups that intended to attack the US.

IF the rest of the world did not believe that Iraq had the WMD materials they had claimed, and the UN could not account for, WHY did NONE of the nations ( like France and Germany, who were profiting off of the "oil for food" and also by violations of the UN sanctions that they claimed would solve things) EVER just insist that SADDAM comply with the resolutions, or even open his borders?

THEN there would have been no conflict. But in fact, those countries, and the misguided individuals who insisted that the US NOT enforce the resolution ( that gave "one last chance" to Saddam to come clean) ENCOURAGED Saddam to not comply, and are a contributing cause of the US attack and the many deaths.

If you read the reports, there are no WMD in Iraq now. As for the possible ones there earlier, and where they might be now, the report indicates that there is not enough information to determine if they exist, or where they might be. NOT that they were not there. But of course, it is sooooooooooo boring to actually try to find out the facts, when there is a party line that one can just parrot, and make fun of anyone who questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 01:20 AM

For Pete's sake bb, I thought you already knew that Iraq did not bomb the twin towers and that there were no WMD's found in Iraq.

Don't be so thick-headed, bb. It is sooooooooooo boring.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:42 AM

dianavan,

I was stating facts.

Amos stated "The other fact is that prior tot he invasion, there were no Iraqis trying to kill Americans, in or out of uniform, as far as I recall. " In fact, he is incorrect as there has been a level of combat between US and Iraqi forces throughout the perions 1991-2003. But ignoring that, the statement that prior to the start of the present war there was no major conflict makes light of all the information, whether correct or not, that the administration based its decision to demand that the UN act, and when the UN refused, after it's own inspectors stated that Iraq was in substatial breach of the resolution, took action to protect US interest. Perhaps that was a mistake, but I do not think that after 9/11 one can just sit back and wait for a major attack when one has information that indicates one is coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:34 AM

Beardedbruce - Are you trying to equate the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?

I really can't follow your argument. It makes no sense.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:46 PM

And prior to Pearl Harbor, there were no Japanese trying to kill Americans...

And prior to the Gulf war, there were no UN resolutions that Saddam had violated.

Any correction out there?

Why is it that when someone has a different point of view, some people insist on attacking them, rather than a discussion of the facts that the opinions are based on?

Is there some reason that Bobert is unwilling to admit that there might be a fact to discuss?

You hold the US to blame for all the casualties of the war, when the war was caused by people like you giving Saddam the idea that he could flaunt the UN resolutions without haveing any consequences.

IMO, You, Bobert, and you, Amos, bear some degree of blame for every death that you are saying is the fault of the US. If you ( collectively) had spent the energy asking Saddam to comply that you spent telling the world that the US should take no action, it is likely that there would have been no need for invasion, no war, and no deaths due to US action.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:43 PM

. . . other than destroy Falluja, and then some other city that has people Bush doesn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:41 PM

Fear not, Amos... bb will have an excuse...

B~~~~~~

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:40 PM

Question I have asked before and no one has answered. Why is the US still in Iraq? What was their mission, and when will it be accomplished?


Hussein is outta power. All the WMDs have been seized by the occupying forces, and what's left to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:37 PM

Guys, cool off -- there is reported fact for that number, sorry. If 100,000 Iraqis are dead it is very obvious that the vast majority of them were killed by US munitions. You can do an extrapolation, and estimate it at, say, 75,000 (to be really conservative about it) but there's no body count, and we really don't need any precision.

The fact is that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by US forces. Killed permanently.

The other fact is that prior tot he invasion, there were no Iraqis trying to kill Americans, in or out of uniform, as far as I recall. Any correction out there?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:36 PM

You, bb, apparently haven't been 'round here too long... Might wanta check out *my* history of postin's....

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:16 PM

I guess that was the limit of your conversational abilities...

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:13 PM

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on yer butt, bb....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:08 PM

Bobert,

In case you have lost the ability to think, at least several hundred have been killed the last few weeks by car bombs and execution by the "terrorists"

I was asking for a count, and get stupid comments like yours. How can there be a reasonable discussion of the facts when you seem incapable of even realizing there ARE facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:01 PM

Like very few, bb...

Do you drink a lot, 'er what?

100,000 Iragis dead since the US invasion, 30,000 US sorties flown, millions of rounds of US amunition,US tank and artillery included, and you want to suggest that these folks died of natural causes, 'er suicude, 'er maybe Saddam was sneakin' outta his hole at night and offin' 'um???? Is that yer final assessment?

Like I asked. Do you drink a lot?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:46 PM

GUEST, TIA

And how many of those were killed by those opposing the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:19 PM

"Let me know when the Coalition forces starting target civilians, holding them hostage and beheading them"

Certainly not targeting them on purpose. But 100,000 are dead. Many civilians. Many women and children. Targeted dead is every bit as dead as collateral dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Pauline L
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:58 PM

The U.S. has prosecuted a select few of its people who have violated the law, but only after the issue was publicized extensively in the press. Even then, pains were taken to shield the higher ups and make it appear that the lowly ones were acting strictly on their own and that their actions would not be tolerated by those of higher rank. A more fundamental issue is: When is killing a crime? In war, many people are killed but the killers are not considered criminals.

I agree with El Greko. Neither side is all good or all bad. War is hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:45 PM

There are no degrees of "evil". Evil is evil, plain and simple, and deplorable in all cases. You don't compare evil acts to see which one is "more evil" than the other - hey, have you noticed that the term "eviller" does not exist?

So, the US prosecutes its evil-doers. Good, I would expect no less from a civilised country. The other side does not - sad and deplorable. But the fact that they do not (prosecute their evil-doers), does not justify evil in return.

So let's not try to justify lesser evils by the existence of worse ones. Yes, I know some live by demanding an "eye for an eye", but the majority have moved beyond that. And our own civilised status puts the onus on us to behave civilly even when the other side does not. Punish, yes. Commit evil, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:44 PM

You are changing the subject, bearded bruce, and backing off from either defending what you said in your last post, or retracting it.

Saying that both sides are guilty of terrorist acts is not to say that they are guilty of the same terrorist acts, or even to say that they are equally guilty. It is too early to draw up the balance sheets on that kind of thing. There is no doubt that some indescribably cruel and evil things have been done by some people on "the other side".

But there are not any people on the Mudcat saying that the people responsible, for example for the murder of Margaret Hassan, were doing a great job.

I do not find the fact that, when episodes like Abu Ghraib come to light, trials of some of the low-ranking individuals identified are held, very impressive. It sees pretty clear that responsibility for that episode stretches far higher, and that the real culprits are mostbunliokley to be punished.

And if in a few days I read a press release saying Al Zharqawi had executed the people responsible for Margaret Hassan's death, I wouldn't be impressed by that either. He knows how to play the media game, which is why last week he issued a press release asking her captors to release her.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:19 PM

But the US is prosecuting it's people who violate the law- and the other side is not. Yet, you equate the two as equally evil. To harp on actions by one side while ignoring the actions of the other is blatent propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 08:58 PM

For God's sake beardedbruce - when have I ever said anything to indicate that I think that Al Qa'eda are something to be adnmired or emulated? Or that any act of terrorism ever justifies acts of terrorism in response?

Disagree with things I say by all means, but don't pretend I said things I have never said or implied.

My point is that both sides are guilty of doing things that should never happen, and that are properly described as terrorist acts, and that any suggestion that it's only "the other side" which is guilty on this way is false.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: GUEST,Molotov
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 08:44 PM

MGH:

Let me know when the Coalition forces starting target civilians, holding them hostage and beheading them.

Two were hung from a bridge in Falluja.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 08:23 PM

McGrath,

And she has been tried and convicted. WHERE are the Al-Queda trials for murder of civilians? Or for killing unarmed captives? Or for blowing up crowds of Iraqis?

I thought you posted that one evil deed did not justify another? Or is that something you choose only to apply to the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:45 PM

Is there even one example of this thing? You mean an instance of of people on "our side" killing unarmed prisoners, Molotov? Or shooting unarmed civilians?

Did you look at that photo I linked to in that last post? Pretty girl, isn't she with a lovely smile. But the dead man next to her wasn't dead when he was arrested.

Subject: RE: BS: Falluja
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:32 PM

High explosive and shrapnel do a pretty good job of beheading. So does a 5.56 round.
I agree, to do such a thing in cold blood with a knife is barbaric, but is it any more 'civilised' to do it at a distance with modern weaponry? The end result is a dead person, however it's done.