Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

Flukey

Falluja was completely sealed off yesterday in preparation for an attack by the American forces. There are some insurgents in Falluja that they wanted to get. What was their first target? The hospital. They didn't just bomb it, they levelled it. Ambulances were not even able to get out to help the casualties. They also did the same to a medical warehouse. So their tactics are, before attacking, to ensure casualties, including all the civilian ones, can't even be treated. 3 days after his election, this is an example of GWB's moral values. No wonder they don't favour the International Criminal Court, as this is definitely a war crime and against the Geneva Convention.

bonkey

Flukey wrote:

3 days after his election,

Well, thats just it, isn't it. You can be damned sure they're expecting some tough fighting and even - shock horror - some US fatalaties when they go in their.....couldn't have that pre election day...

jc

uberwolf

do you have a source? the bbc only report some damage to a medical storehouse.
_____________
Bombs pound Falluja

The attacks happened as US forces appeared poised to launch a major offensive against the insurgent city of Falluja.

A doctor at the city's only hospital told the BBC on Saturday that between 100 and 200 US bombs had hit the city over 24 hours, killing two people and injuring seven on Friday.

Speaking by telephone, Dr Ahmed Ranem accused US-led forces of seeking to "destroy" the city where many people, he added, remained in their houses.

No foreign fighters had been admitted to his hospital as casualties, he said, despite US reports that forces loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are active in Falluja.

"Can the bombs that fall on Falluja see foreign fighters?" the doctor asked, saying casualties at Falluja General Hospital included women and children.

Renewed US artillery attacks on the city overnight damaged a storehouse for medical supplies as well as dozens of homes, witnesses said.

Overnight a column of armoured vehicles and Humvee jeeps carried out attacks in the outskirts of Falluja.

US Marine commanders described this to reporters as a feint designed to draw out the rebels and provide fresh targets for the air power and artillery.

BBC correspondent Paul Wood, who is embedded with the US Marines near the city, says this is all part of what appears to be a steady increasing of pressure on the insurgents.

He says US commanders are confident of their victory but says many questions still remain, such as whether the insurgents will stay and fight.

UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has written to both the US and the Iraqi to ask them to think carefully before they embark on the operation.

bbc

pete

US strikes raze Falluja hospital



A hospital has been razed to the ground in one of the heaviest US air raids in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
Witnesses said only the facade remained of the small Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city. There are no reports on casualties.

A nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were damaged as US forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

OfflerCrocGod

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

According to this "inside" report 100'000 people are still there. I would take it with a large amount saline chemicals. Either way even if the city is devoid of citizens leveling the hospital is not a good move.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pork99

He says US commanders are confident of their victory but says many questions still remain, such as whether the insurgents will stay and fight.

If they're smart they won't stay - they'll just melt away and sneak in to attack somewhere else the US aren't looking.

If I was in their position my thinking would be that as it's impossible the gain a tactical victory over the Americans, anyway that's not necessary for them as what you need to do is keep the war going until the political will of the US government to stay crumbles - so there is nothing to be gained in staying to fight a pitched battle where the Americans have the advantage (well it worked for the Vietnamese communists).

Of course if the Americans are smart they'll anticipate this.

Flukey

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

leveling the hospital is not a good move.

Now there is an understatement.

If this was by Al Q'aida in Philadelphia or Hamas in Tel Aviv, there would be outrage. This is wrong, whoever does it. Levelling a hospital to prevent the causalties in the next assault being treated, is a disgrace. The perpatrator of the act does not make it any more or less wrong, though some would have you believe so.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Flukey

Well if they keep bombing hospitals and houses, there won't be much of the population left. Does that make it alright then? Is it a case of "it doesn't matter that we killed everyone that was there because at least we got all the insurgents,"? This is the line that is being given.

chewy

By Jack Wheeler
Friday, April 2, 2004
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/2/100042.shtml

In the Senate of Ancient Rome, Marcus Porcius Cato – 234-149 B.C., subsequently known as Cato the Elder to distinguish him from his great-grandson Cato the Younger – became famous for concluding every single speech he gave, no matter what the subject, with the exhortation: Carthago delenda est. Carthage must be destroyed.

Today, we need senators and congressmen to conclude every speech they give with the exhortation: Fallujah delenda est. Fallujah must be destroyed.

I don’t mean metaphorically. I mean for the entire population of the city, every man, woman and child, given 24 hours to leave and be dispersed in resettlement camps, moved in with relatives in another village, wherever, and the town turned into a ghost town.

Then the entire city carpet-bombed by B-52s into rubble, the rubble ground into powdered rubble by Abrams tanks, and the powdered rubble sown with salt as the Romans did with Carthage. Fallujah must be physically obliterated from the face of this earth.

...

I was listening to a bit of audio from a person who had been in Iraq for nine months at he beginning of the year, it had been estimated there 53 different resistance groups in Iraq, so the questions is which ones are the Us fighting or which one would anyone support?

Moriarty

Flukey wrote:

So their tactics are, before attacking, to ensure casualties, including all the civilian ones, can't even be treated.

What purpose would it serve for US commanders to stop civilians being treated for injuries?

Seriously, all I can see in the above sentance is hysterical hyperbole.

Flukey wrote:

3 days after his election, this is an example of GWB's moral values.

Bush would have had nothing to do with it. The way it works is for Bush, or Rumsfeld, or any number of other high-ups to say they want (say..) any major strongholds of insurgents to be attacked on force. It's up to the commanders on the ground around falluja and in the pentagon/CentCom to decide how they conduct the operation (which would be where somone decided the hospital should be bombed).

Flukey wrote:

No wonder they don't favour the International Criminal Court, as this is definitely a war crime and against the Geneva Convention.

Oh look, yet another war crime incrimination™. Im glad you remembered that.

Redleslie2

chewy wrote:

Today, we need senators and congressmen to conclude every speech they give with the exhortation: Fallujah delenda est. Fallujah must be destroyed.

I don’t mean metaphorically. I mean for the entire population of the city, every man, woman and child, given 24 hours to leave and be dispersed in resettlement camps, moved in with relatives in another village, wherever, and the town turned into a ghost town.

Then the entire city carpet-bombed by B-52s into rubble, the rubble ground into powdered rubble by Abrams tanks, and the powdered rubble sown with salt as the Romans did with Carthage. Fallujah must be physically obliterated from the face of this earth.

What's the point in moving any of them to camps or relatives? They'll only start the same crack. Everyone in Carthage was either killed or sold as slaves. This Wheeler guy is a pussy liberal.

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

What purpose would it serve for US commanders to stop civilians being treated for injuries?

Seriously, all I can see in the above sentance is hysterical hyperbole.




Bush would have had nothing to do with it. The way it works is for Bush, or Rumsfeld, or any number of other high-ups to say they want (say..) any major strongholds of insurgents to be attacked on force. It's up to the commanders on the ground around falluja and in the pentagon/CentCom to decide how they conduct the operation (which would be where somone decided the hospital should be bombed).



Oh look, yet another war crime incrimination™. Im glad you remembered that.

its nice how people will try to justify and defend even the most henious of acts.

Good thing its just some poor iraqi hospital being bombed and not the Rotunda eh?

You make me sick.

and yes by the way, it is a war crime. It DOES violate the geneva convention which specifically forbids the deliberate targetting of civilian infrastructure, especially something like a hospital. So despite your hysterical hyperbole, its still a war crime.

A Dub in Glasgo

What the US is currently doing in Iraq is a disgrace. If there was any *justice* in the world, they would have been done for war crimes by now :mad: We all know that the biggest democracy in the world cannot be charged with war crimes, it is just not the done thing :rolleyes:

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

and yes by the way, it is a war crime. It DOES violate the geneva convention which specifically forbids the deliberate targetting of civilian infrastructure, especially something like a hospital. So despite your hysterical hyperbole, its still a war crime.

And you have a copy of the plan of attack, and/or an on-the-record statement from a senior US official saying something like "yes we knew this was a hospital and yes, we decided to batter it into the ground cause we hate all ragheads - civilian or insurgent" ????

The only reason I'm asking is that you're certain that it was - and let me use your term here, with appropriate emphasis: the deliberate targetting of civilian infrastructure.

Isn't it amazing how the only time the US military make mistakes (one would conclude, from listening to some) is when they target their own forces by accident. Nothing else is accidental....nope....not a chance. Its deliberate, and its evil. If American's aren't killing Americans, then its all just deliberate barbarism hidden under some veneer of incompetence......

Having said that, its not like the hyperbole doesn't run in both directions. Someone on CNN yesterday was describing Fallujah as being under "Taliban-like rule" which the civilians needed to be saved from.....and then in the next sentence pointed out the exodus of citizens fleeing from the city. Such brutal oppression.....letting people leave in their cars like that without valeting them for them first....

jc

Hobbes

Has there been any report it was an accident? Don't they paint the roofs of hospitals so people know not to bomb them?

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

And you have a copy of the plan of attack, and/or an on-the-record statement from a senior US official saying something like "yes we knew this was a hospital and yes, we decided to batter it into the ground cause we hate all ragheads - civilian or insurgent" ????

The only reason I'm asking is that you're certain that it was - and let me use your term here, with appropriate emphasis: the deliberate targetting of civilian infrastructure.

Isn't it amazing how the only time the US military make mistakes (one would conclude, from listening to some) is when they target their own forces by accident. Nothing else is accidental....nope....not a chance. Its deliberate, and its evil. If American's aren't killing Americans, then its all just deliberate barbarism hidden under some veneer of incompetence......

Having said that, its not like the hyperbole doesn't run in both directions. Someone on CNN yesterday was describing Fallujah as being under "Taliban-like rule" which the civilians needed to be saved from.....and then in the next sentence pointed out the exodus of citizens fleeing from the city. Such brutal oppression.....letting people leave in their cars like that without valeting them for them first....

jc

your entire arguement rests on providing something which you know is impossible to provide. You want me to give you solid conclusive evidence that it was intentional. When you know its impossible because they will never admit to it. Its like asking someone to go inside a murderer's head.

But yes I am certain, and no this isn't the first time they have done this. But I guess its okay for you to argue semantics while people die, its so fashionable

dathi1

A Channel 4 news reporter embedded with US troops put it perfectly yesterday.....On the second invasion of Grozny, Russian troops and aircraft levelled the city and killed civilians and fighters alike. The plan was to finish the resistance once and for all. It had the oppostie effect, 10 years later Russian troops are still fighting massive resistance in Chechnya.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

your entire arguement rests on providing something which you know is impossible to provide. You want me to give you solid conclusive evidence that it was intentional. When you know its impossible because they will never admit to it. Its like asking someone to go inside a murderer's head.

By this logic, no-one can ever have been found guilty of any crime. If its impossible to prove guilt, then how the hell have we done it for centuries?????

But yes I am certain, and no this isn't the first time they have done this. But I guess its okay for you to argue semantics while people die, its so fashionable

Yes....I'm only arguing semantics because its fashionable. I'm not objecting to the practice of "I believe it but have no evidence, so it must be right" at all, which is clearly a more enlightened position to be in. Consider me suitable chastened.

jc

pete

At the last count, by US military intelligence, the rebels numbered several thousand strong. But no one knows if they are still there.

Colonel Brandl said he would be quite happy if his marines could just walk into Falluja, but they were ready for a fight.

The threats include roadside bombs, suicide bombers, booby traps, bombs thrown from roof-tops, mosques used as sniper positions, and a small group of Islamist fighters who believe they are about to seek martyrdom in a holy war.

But for the highly-professional marines, Falluja is also a return to the simplicity of combat after the complexities of peacekeeping and an enemy that never shows itself.

"The marines that I have had wounded over the past five months have been attacked by a faceless enemy," said Colonel Brandl.

"But the enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3989639.stm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wh00t!

I've always been pissed off that I missed the first set of crusades, now the second is just hotting up!

Redleslie2

The 101st airborne division called themselves 'The Battered Bastards Of Bastogne' after being encircled and hammered there by the Germans for about a week 60 years ago in the battle of the bulge. I suggest the Iraqi dudes call themselves 'The F**ked F**kers Of Falluja'.

chill

The hospital had no patients but was being occupied by murderers, the whole area is inhabited only by murdering terrorists and the War Crimes are those being perpetrated by those terrorists every day with suicide and car bombs that are slaughtering thousands upon thousands of innocent men, woman and children without comment or disapproval by contributors.

They need to be killed in the greatest possible numbers and in whatever manner can be found to produce the least injury to the Allied soldiers and civilians.

The tacit indifference to these daily war crimes by contributors is a national embarrassment.

bonkey

chill wrote:

The hospital had no patients but was being occupied by murderers,

Any ecvidence of this, or is this just going to be another situation where you glibly tell us to do our own research?

...and the War Crimes are those being perpetrated by those terrorists every day with suicide and car bombs that are slaughtering thousands upon thousands of innocent men, woman and children without comment or disapproval by contributors.

Isn't it amazing how, when the US kill innocents, it is an inevitable cost of war, brought about by a mixture of lack-of-perfefct-weapons, human fallability, and people being in the wrong place at the wrong time....none of which should, however, be used as a deterrant as the enemy cannot be allowed to hide behind a human shield.

When the insurgents do likewise, they're murdering terrorists who have no regard for innocent life and who should universally condemned.

The tacit indifference to these daily war crimes by contributors is a national embarrassment.

The embarrassment is the use of double-standards, where anyone claims that either side should be forgiven for killing innocents, but the other should be condemned for it.

jc

Flukey

Moriarty wrote:

What purpose would it serve for US commanders to stop civilians being treated for injuries?

Seriously, all I can see in the above sentance is hysterical hyperbole.

Bush would have had nothing to do with it. The way it works is for Bush, or Rumsfeld, or any number of other high-ups to say they want (say..) any major strongholds of insurgents to be attacked on force. It's up to the commanders on the ground around falluja and in the pentagon/CentCom to decide how they conduct the operation (which would be where somone decided the hospital should be bombed).

Oh look, yet another war crime incrimination™. Im glad you remembered that.

The purpose it serves is to ensure that the injured people can get no help whatsoever making it easier for the city to fall. Bush has nothing to do it with it? Wasn't he the one who started this invasion? Is he not Commander and Chief of the US Army? As you said it is up to him to give the orders to the generals as to what to do. He may not give the specific targets, but he and Rumsfeld are responsible. They know how their army operates and make no apologies for it.

adjodlo

bonkey wrote:

And you have a copy of the plan of attack, and/or an on-the-record statement from a senior US official saying something like "yes we knew this was a hospital and yes, we decided to batter it into the ground cause we hate all ragheads - civilian or insurgent" ????

The only reason I'm asking is that you're certain that it was - and let me use your term here, with appropriate emphasis: the deliberate targetting of civilian infrastructure.

Isn't it amazing how the only time the US military make mistakes (one would conclude, from listening to some) is when they target their own forces by accident. Nothing else is accidental....nope....not a chance. Its deliberate, and its evil. If American's aren't killing Americans, then its all just deliberate barbarism hidden under some veneer of incompetence......

Having said that, its not like the hyperbole doesn't run in both directions. Someone on CNN yesterday was describing Fallujah as being under "Taliban-like rule" which the civilians needed to be saved from.....and then in the next sentence pointed out the exodus of citizens fleeing from the city. Such brutal oppression.....letting people leave in their cars like that without valeting them for them first....

jc

Sure, the US sometimes targets their own men, but like you said - they "target" their own men. When this happens in general it's just a mistake due to them thinking their own men are the enemy.
So you're telling me, that the US Army, with all their intelligence, all their guided bombs didn't even have a map of falluja? You think they don't have every square inch of the place mapped out? And it's not like just one bomb hit the hospital - it was LEVELLED. Think about it.

chewy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1348213,00.html


SCORES of suicide bombers have been primed to defend Falluja against an imminent onslaught by American and Iraqi forces, according to insurgents’ commanders planning a ferocious counterattack.
More than 100 cars laden with high explosives have been distributed throughout the city to be detonated when US marines mount a long-awaited ground offensive, they claim.



One commander said that 300 foreign fighters had volunteered for suicide bombings as American forces laid siege to the stronghold of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, America’s most wanted man in Iraq.




what do you make of this

sovtek

It's an age old tactic, also taught at the School of the Americas, IIRC.
Route out opposition to your puppet leader before a(n) (s)election.
Such as we are seeing in Haiti at the moment.
There's scores of examples.

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote:

Isn't it amazing how, when the US kill innocents, it is an inevitable cost of war, brought about by a mixture of lack-of-perfefct-weapons, human fallability, and people being in the wrong place at the wrong time....none of which should, however, be used as a deterrant as the enemy cannot be allowed to hide behind a human shield.

When the insurgents do likewise, they're murdering terrorists who have no regard for innocent life and who should universally condemned.

I agree. I think its necessary to separate out the overall justification for the war from the issue of how the war is being conducted. In reality, there is questionable conduct on all sides. Depending on your opinion of the war in general, you tend to highlight the atrocities of one side or another.

But thats war. To the people getting blown up, it doesn't matter whether it's US troops, insurgents or various opportunistic Islamic fanatics.

Moriarty

Flukey wrote:

The purpose it serves is to ensure that the injured people can get no help whatsoever making it easier for the city to fall.

It wouldn't make it any easier. Civilians by definition have nothing to do with the fighting. Infact, it could concievably make taking the city harder by stirring up further resentment (if that was possible) amongst the insurgents because of how the general population was treated (if they actually care about that).

Flukey wrote:

Bush has nothing to do it with it? Wasn't he the one who started this invasion? Is he not Commander and Chief of the US Army?

You implied that it was under Bushes direct orders that the hospital was bombed. It wasn't. That's all I was saying.

Flukey wrote:

They know how their army operates and make no apologies for it.

I have a fair idea of the general ways in which the US army operate, and I'd make no apologies for it either.

chewy wrote:

what do you make of this

"We'll see"

<edit>Oh and Memnoch, it's not ignorance simply because somone doesn't agree with you, no matter how much you'd like it to be.</edit>

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

If someone has lived in that city for all of their life, and been relatively happy there. And then the american army came along and tried to take over..and this civilian took up arms against the invading american horde... is this civilian now an "Insurgent" ?

I'm not being cheeky, I'm just a little confused by all the fancy terms and names being thrown around.

chewy

"But thats war. To the people getting blown up, it doesn't matter whether it's US troops, insurgents or various opportunistic Islamic fanatics."

true, thats why some people are not just anti-american (a jibe for anti-capitalists) but anti-militarisation... and against extremisnism if there is such a "ism" to be against

now there is a question whether humans can get along at all, one hopes we are learning how to... and it is possible to do so...

but the thats just war statement is again for those who wish to peddle the the idea that there is no alternative...

Moriarty

Mordeth wrote:

If someone has lived in that city for all of their life, and been relatively happy there. And then the american army came along and tried to take over..and this civilian took up arms against the invading american horde... is this civilian now an "Insurgent" ?

Yes. If they decide to attack people they are a totally valid target. If you shoot, you can rightfully expect to be shot back at, no matter what your reasons are. A bullet will still kill somone equally well whether it's fired from the gun of somone happy or reluctant to hold it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but why insurgents? why not "defendants" or "rightful owners of property" or "iraqi citizens" or.. ?

Moriarty

It's the fairest catch-all term I can think of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent

in·sur·gent Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

chill

bonkey wrote:

Any ecvidence of this, or is this just going to be another situation where you glibly tell us to do our own research?

If you have any evidence that there were any civilian patients there, I would be delighted to read it.

Isn't it amazing how, when the US kill innocents, it is an inevitable cost of war, brought about by a mixture of lack-of-perfefct-weapons, human fallability, and people being in the wrong place at the wrong time....none of which should, however, be used as a deterrant as the enemy cannot be allowed to hide behind a human shield.
When the insurgents do likewise, they're murdering terrorists who have no regard for innocent life and who should universally condemned.

What si amazing is that there are so many contributors here who condemn America troops as war criminals for hunting down and killing these mass murderers yet they make almost no reference and no condemnation of the murdering terrorists.
The double standards are a deep embarrassment - I agree.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

"established authority"

I suppose one mans insurgent is another's freedom fighter

chewy

to echo mordeth who are the terrorist who are the those fighting for freedom... methinks the us are terrorist anyway?

SkepticOne

chewy wrote:

"But thats war. To the people getting blown up, it doesn't matter whether it's US troops, insurgents or various opportunistic Islamic fanatics."

true, thats why some people are not just anti-american (a jibe for anti-capitalists) but anti-militarisation... and against extremisnism if there is such a "ism" to be against

now there is a question whether humans can get along at all, one hopes we are learning how to... and it is possible to do so...

but the thats just war statement is again for those who wish to peddle the the idea that there is no alternative...

War is indeed a terrible thing. Where possible, attempts should be made to reach a compromise that is acceptable to both sides. Sometimes, this is not possible and war is the consequence. In an ideal world it would not happen and people would realise it is in their best interest to sit down and hammer out a deal. What the people engaging in war often fail to realise is that it is the ordinary people that suffer the most, not the politicians or the generals.

AmenToThat

The reasoning behind the planned massacre of Fallujah is to deal a fatal blow to the insurgents and ensure that elections can take place in the town, apparently.

Fallujah is now completely isolated...has been for days yet the insurgents have stepped up their attacks elsewhere killing around 50 Iraqi police in the last two days alone.
This fact alone proves what a load of crap the whole idea of attacking Fallujah is as it is having the complete opposit effect on the insurgency in other Sunni areas.

Who will be voting in these elections in Fallujah assuming its "liberated"?
Much of the city has been, or most definitaly will be destroyed will a full scale assualt so where are the people gonna live?
Refugee camps?
How will you hold fair and democratic elections in refugee camps among people who despise you?
In any case the above questions are somewhat accademic anyways as the Association of Sunni Clerics which is the most powerful voice within Sunni Iraq has said that there will be a boycott of elections if there is an assualt on Fallujah thus making any elections in Iraq in January invalid.

Its a mindless exercise in murder for murders sake, just so the American army can use the marines as guinnea pigs to test their latest urban warfare techniques thats the only conclusion I can draw from the planned assualt on Fallujah

AmenToThat

chill wrote:

If you have any evidence that there were any civilian patients there, I would be delighted to read it.


What si amazing is that there are so many contributors here who condemn America troops as war criminals for hunting down and killing these mass murderers yet they make almost no reference and no condemnation of the murdering terrorists.
The double standards are a deep embarrassment - I agree.

Seems to me that theres enough mass murder in Iraq at the moment for everybody, dont think one side has a monopoly on it.

chill

AmenToThat wrote:

The reasoning behind the planned massacre of Fallujah is to deal a fatal blow to the insurgents and ensure that elections can take place in the town, apparently.

Amen to that. These are of course the 'insurgents' that are almost all non-iraqis, who have come into Iraq for the express purpose of killing as many westerners and Iraqi civilians as possible.

Fallujah is now completely isolated...has been for days yet the insurgents have stepped up their attacks elsewhere killing around 50 Iraqi police in the last two days alone.

There has been no 'step up' of attacks on civilians or military. It has been going on for some time. And there has never been a claim or assertion by anyone that Fallujah is the only nest of these murderers.

This fact alone proves what a load of crap the whole idea of attacking Fallujah is as it is having the complete opposit effect on the insurgency in other Sunni areas.

Meaningless hyperbole considering there has been no increase elsewhere.

Who will be voting in these elections in Fallujah assuming its "liberated"?

Only those civilians who are entitled, I hope. Certainly not any of the imported terrorists or murderers.

Much of the city has been, or most definitaly will be destroyed will a full scale assualt so where are the people gonna live?
Refugee camps?

Sounds as good an idea as any. They will have those foreign fanatical killers who have been slaughtering their fellow countrymen to thank for that.

How will you hold fair and democratic elections in refugee camps among people who despise you?

It's up to them. If they chose not to vote, that's democracy.

In any case the above questions are somewhat accademic anyways as the Association of Sunni Clerics which is the most powerful voice within Sunni Iraq has said that there will be a boycott of elections if there is an assualt on Fallujah thus making any elections in Iraq in January invalid.

A boycott of voting doesn't invalidate an election. It just means their votes aren't counted.

Its a mindless exercise in murder for murders sake, just so the American army can use the marines as guinnea pigs to test their latest urban warfare techniques thats the only conclusion I can draw from the planned assualt on Fallujah

Personally I hope they kill every last one of those killers, and take no prisoners. This is a war against mass murderers and evil and however flawed Bush's policy may be, any common sense morality will see the evil in these murderes and the heroic arm of justice in the allied soldiers risking and spending theri lives to being freedom to the unfortunate people of Iraq, no thanks to the American haters and supporters of terrorism when it suits their personal prejudices.

Frank Grimes

chill wrote:

Meaningless hyperbole considering there has been no increase elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3990141.stm

(I know I'm supposed to comment but I doubt it'll register.)

chill

Frank Grimes wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3990141.stm

(I know I'm supposed to comment but I doubt it'll register.)

The BBC can hardly be seen as a reliable source of this kind of subjective assessment. Anyone who monitors the level of violence and murder over the last six months can see that the 'increase' is wholly subjective and more to do with the media's understandably negative response to the US election and the upcoming elections in Iraq than to any real increase in insurgent activity.
The level of slaughter has been more or less constant, what has changed is the change in the British Army's situation, the godawful Bush victory and the day to day need for headlines in the media.

Frank Grimes

chill wrote:

The BBC can hardly be seen as a reliable source of this kind of subjective assessment.

Can you provide an objective source then?

chill

Frank Grimes wrote:

Can you provide an objective source then?

Ehh.. nope !

Butargument and discussion and opinion are not decided solely by 'sources'....

Frank Grimes

chill wrote:

Ehh.. nope !

Butargument and discussion and opinion are not decided solely by 'sources'....

It's not about discussion and opinion. You are denying that there's an increase in violence, I've showed you one source that contradicts that.
You really should back up your claim.

Flukey

Moriarty wrote:

Civilians by definition have nothing to do with the fighting. Infact, it could concievably make taking the city harder by stirring up further resentment (if that was possible) amongst the insurgents because of how the general population was treated (if they actually care about that).

True, the civilians have nothing to do with the fighting, but they do get killed. It is also true that when they are killed this leads to more recruits for the terrorists. If your family and friends were killed for no reason, what are you more likely to do to the people responsible: Send them a Thank You card or fight back? This war is creating more terrorism. It is a war for terror not a war on terror. There was far less terror in Iraq 12 or 18 months ago than there is now

Chill wrote:

Personally I hope they kill every last one of those killers, and take no prisoners. This is a war against mass murderers and evil and however flawed Bush's policy may be, any common sense morality will see the evil in these murderes and the heroic arm of justice in the allied soldiers risking and spending theri lives to being freedom to the unfortunate people of Iraq, no thanks to the American haters and supporters of terrorism when it suits their personal prejudices.

First of all those of us against this war are not anti-American. We disagree with the foreign policies that are being pursued by the American government, but that does not make us anti-American. I don't agree with every single policy the Irish goverment has ever had. Does that make me anti-Irish?

Any common sense morality will not go in and kill innocent people. Killing even just the terrorists will not stop terrorism either. Every time you kill a terrorist there will always be more recruits to take their place. If on top of that you are also killing innocent people, you'll create even more recruits for the terrorists. To stop terrorism, you have to tackle the causes not the perpatrators. Killing the terrorists has never stopped terrorism.

For 25 years the might of the British army could not stop a relatively small group of terrorists in Northern Ireland. The more they killed the bigger that small group became. Nothing would have changed if they pursued that tactic for another 25 years. Things only improved when the British government sat down and started to address the root causes of the problems. Terrorists don't cause terrorism. They carry it out, but the causes run deeper.

As I said, there was little or no terrorism in Iraq 12 or 18 months ago. Unless the problems are addressed there will still be plenty of it in 12 or 18 months time, no matter how many terrorists they kill. The terrorists are a symptom, not the cause. It is the causes that have to be addressed. When they start doing that, then the war on terror will begin. What they are engaged in is a war for terror and the growth of terrorism over the past 18 months proves it is working.

None of us who are criticising American tactics in anyway condone what the terrorists are doing. We abhor their actions just as much as those that support this war do. We want them to stop. The current American tactics are not doing that. If George Bush and co ever do launch a war on terror, I will fully support it, as I want the terror to stop. If you want to tackle terrorism and defeat it, address the causes, not the perpatrators.

AmenToThat

Im leaving myself open on this one as its news just breaking and may not be reliable..........

The attack apparently has started and one of the first places "captured" (how does one capture a hospital?) is the main Fallujah hospital.

There was discussion earlier on this board that the field hospital attack was a mistake and that it makes no sense to deliberatly attack medical facilities.
However if its true that the main Fallujah hospital has been "liberated" first I have a theory as to why.

Pictures of babies women and children being stuck back together in hospitals without even basic equipment as in Fallujah 1 make bad tv for the Americans and tends to make the Sunni population a little on the jumpy side......
So why not ensure that there are no pictures of disfigured kids beamed around the world?
From an American point of view makes perfect sense, no evidence, no crime.
From the rest of the worlds point of view its very sinister and has implications for all of us if and when anyone starts to control the media in this way (not just the Americans).