'People In Fallujah Are Being Slaughtered'

[aquatus1]

Getting a little dramatic, there, ain'tcha? Do you have any idea what the population of Iraq is?

[wunarmdscissor]

24 million .

100 000 dead in a year is apretyt good start.

So 100 000 isnt dramatic????

[bathory]

you assume that 100 000 is the right amount

that is the only study out there to claim such high figures

[aquatus1]

Even if 100,000 victims is accurate (which I do not believe), what you said was "You can build as many hospitals and schools as u want but soon their want be enough people left to populate them..".

That's not 100,000, that's 24 million.

Getting a little dramatic, there, ain'tcha?

[zukie&jim]

i don't know if 100,000 is the right amount of collaratals --but i am sure it is somewhere in that vicinity. (for the entire campain)

when your clearing an area house to house , building by building--there are going to be some people killed that arn't the real target--fact of war.

if the us had followed it's own military doctrine. the place would have been "carpet bombed" by b2b's and b-52's than pounded by artillary for about two weeks-- than hammered again by armored divisions--

this would have _depopulated --the area-- but caused too many colloratals--

by going in there and clearing it the way they did-- was costly for US. this was the least costly way (for iraq) to clear the area.

so the US did try to use the least painful method for iraq

[Phenomenon]

when your clearing an area house to house , building by building--there are going to be some people killed that arn't the real target--fact of war.

I would like to think that these people are killed through genuine mistakes and not as a direct result of some soldiers gun-hoe attitude.

[aquatus1]

I would like to think that too, although it simply has to be understood that being in a warzone, firing large automatic weapons, basically being in danger of getting killed in the next several seconds...gung-ho happens. No way around it.

Yes, 100,000 is a lot of individual people. But war isn't about individuals. It is about countries. Again, assuming 100,000 is correct, that's still around .4% of the population. Compare that to some of the other wars; I guarantee you won't find a lower collateral damage number.

According to independent humanitarian sources, over 300,000 victims of Saddam have been reported, and mass graves continue to be found. How many more died through the actions of the Saddam offspring? If civilians dying during war is unpalatable, then civilians dying at the orders of the one who was supposed to bring them peace is downright nauseating.

[Phenomenon]

No way around it.

I agree that mistakes are made and that people are unwittingly shot in the heat of battle, but this for me goes way beyond a simple case of mistaken killing. The video is so profound and accurate it is hard to see any other conclusion other than murder. I think a few of you are hiding behind the "it's war" excuse instead of seeing this for what it was.

[aquatus1]

It was not a mistaken killing at all. I was rather cold-blooded, but again, these were, no matter how you look at it, soldiers that had been for the past several days to the present, deeply immersed in battle. "It's war" isn't an excuse; it is the single most significant factor in judging the actions of this soldier, and it cannot be swept aside as irrelevant. The question is not wether or not the killing was mistaken (it wasn't) or even moral (questionably, but we weren't there, we can't make the call).

The only question that this soldier's trial is going to find relevant is: "Was the soldier faking death?

If the enemy was unconscious, then the soldier committed a crime If the enemy was surrendering, then the soldier committed a crime. If, however, the enemy was conscious and faking death, the soldier will be aquitted, because at that point he would have every reason to believe the enemy posed an immediate danger.

[wunarmdscissor]

Again, assuming 100,000 is correct, that's still around .4% of the population. Compare that to some of the other wars; I guarantee you won't find a lower collateral damage number.

Natos intervention in Kosovo for one??

How you can sit around and say something lik e"ahh well ots only 4% of the population " us utterly beyond me?

The fact that we shouldnt be there in the first place is one reason apart from the horrendous death toll that you should be shocked.

[Frosty]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Considerably lower than 100,000.

[wunarmdscissor]

Did u read the Irai body counts commnets on the Lancet's findings though?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Its on the site??????????

as u can see they do not refute , they just dont make projections

however that does not meant that their calculations are any more right than the lancet's

Combined consecutive posts

Edited November 23, 2004 by Magikman

[aquatus1]

How you can sit around and say something lik e"ahh well ots only 4% of the population " us utterly beyond me?

The fact that we shouldnt be there in the first place is one reason apart from the horrendous death toll that you should be shocked

It's not 4%. It's not even 1%. It's 4/10nths of a percent, and that is assuming the figures aren't overblown. What should I be shocked at? Humans have been doing this sort of thing since time immemoreable. Why shouldn't we be there? Since when have invaders required invitation? How can I sit around and say that so casually? Because I understand that people die in war. I have been in both Gulf Wars, I have sent our pilots off to provide air support for the soldiers on the ground, and I have carried the coffin of one of our youngest into the plane that would carry him back to his family. I can, with full right, claim that I known exactly what it feels like to be a part of a war, and likewise I can say that experience gives me the right to decide what should shock me and what shouldn't.

You are utterly correct that my thoughts are "utterly beyond" you. After all, what experience do you have to justify your disgust? Have you ever had to make a choice between morality and survival? Have you ever had to send others to battle, knowing they might well not return? You actually think that I could watch those tiny little dots on the radar approaching each other and just shrug and say "ahh well ots only 4% of the population "? Make absolutely no mistake about it, I am absolutely aware of how much death makes up a war.

So, no, I am not shocked. If anything, I'm pleasantly survived. Not too long ago, we would have carpet bombed both Afghanistan and Iraq and heard no more about it than some concerned housewives clucking their tongues at how expensive meat was during wartime. That we care enough today to give up the strategic advantage of distant combat in order to preserve foreign civilians brings great warmth to my soul. Yes, even we murderers have those.

[wunarmdscissor]

It's not 4%. It's not even 1%. It's 4/10nths of a percent, and that is assuming the figures aren't overblown. What should I be shocked at? Humans have been doing this sort of thing since time immemoreable. Why shouldn't we be there? Since when have invaders required invitation? How can I sit around and say that so casually? Because I understand that people die in war. I have been in both Gulf Wars, I have sent our pilots off to provide air support for the soldiers on the ground, and I have carried the coffin of one of our youngest into the plane that would carry him back to his family. I can, with full right, claim that I known exactly what it feels like to be a part of a war, and likewise I can say that experience gives me the right to decide what should shock me and what shouldn't.

Just because youve been to war doesnt mean your qualified to say we should be there lol. Soldiers dont runn the country for a reason.

We shouldnt be there because there was no justification , no WMDS, no Al Queada.

Just becuase humans have acted this way in the past doesnt make it right lol.....

We're meant to learn form our mistakes.

How exactly does that fact youve been to a warzone give you more right to decide wether we should be there or not lol??

[aquatus1]

Edit; removed redundant quote.

Ha, ha, lol, chortle, chortle, laugh it off as much as you like, but don't try to change the subject.

You attempted to pass judgment on my opinion. You made it absolutely clear that you, and by implication any normal person, couldn't possibly sanction my acceptance of death. You tried to make me sound like some inhuman number cruncher who didn't give a damn about how many people died in a war.

But you are not qualified to sneer at me. You have pretty ideas about how good people can get along happily and never have to resort to icky-poo battle, and it is simply shocking that we could possibly go to war uninvited. You have never made the call on who should live and who should die.

Don't try jumping back and forth between political "We had no legal justification!" and self-rightous disgusted "Ooh, how could you possibly talk so casually about death." It isn't going to work. Wether we should be there or not isn't up to me, you, or any other individual. It is up to people we elected because we trusted them to make the choices that we would rather b**** at than be responsible for. I do, however, have the right to say that 100,000 innocent civilians is a small price to pay for a new country. I can say that, because I was part of the process that created that price.

Edited November 23, 2004 by Magikman

[Babs]

In my opinion, aquatus has made some wonderful points. And by the looks of it, he is totally qualified to make them.

I see wun as trying to shame people out of fighting for survival ...out of fighting for their family and their country because he doesn't agree with their reasoning.

[vimjams]

Everybody who is against the Iraq invasion please Shut the %^&* up...You have no right to express your opinions...And absolutely no business questioning the deaths of innocent people either. Aquatus has been there (twice) He's more qualified to have a view about this...So everyone please just go back to talking about the weather and 'spaceships'. Let the warmongering baby killing go on...I mean, who cares for God's sake...We've been doing since the beginning of time...Why should we change now? Forget about the corrupt lying politicians and their wealthy backers who created this ugly situation...How dare we question their motives...How dare we question the generals: People who go to war are the only people allowed to have a point of view.

Vimjams

[Asterix]

Edit; removed redundant quote

Well said Vimjams.

Wonder though how much time it will take for some people to understand your meaning.

I'll hold my breath...

Edited November 23, 2004 by Magikman

[Stellar]

We shouldnt be there because there was no justification , no WMDS, no Al Queada.

No? There was justification. Saddam and his actions to his people. Like it or not, it was one of the reasons used, and even if it wasnt, it'd still be justification. Try and pull the samething off on a country like Canada, that doesnt harm their own people like Saddam did... wont pass.

Let the warmongering baby killing go on.

I find it ironic that you state that... You and wun and others complain about civilians dieing in Iraq cuz of the war, but think that if there was no war, it wouldnt have happened?

[aquatus1]

Everybody who is against the Iraq invasion please Shut the %^&* up...You have no right to express your opinions...And absolutely no business questioning the deaths of innocent people either. Aquatus has been there (twice) He's more qualified to have a view about this...So everyone please just go back to talking about the weather and 'spaceships'. Let the warmongering baby killing go on...I mean, who cares for God's sake...We've been doing since the beginning of time...Why should we change now? Forget about the corrupt lying politicians and their wealthy backers who created this ugly situation...How dare we question their motives...How dare we question the generals: People who go to war are the only people allowed to have a point of view.

No.

Everyone is allowed to have a point of view.

Only the people that have been there, however, have the right to pass judgement on others who have been there. You posted your opinion, I posted my opinion, and you burst out in disbelief and disgust that I could possibly think that way

Call the war wrong, call the deaths immoral, call the whole damn thing a shame on humanity in general and America in particular, but do not, for a moment, think you have the right to pass judgement on me.

I was a party to the bombs that fell from the planes and killed babies. I was not, however, one of the ones who strapped sticks of dynamite to the stomach of a small retarded boy and ordered him to go kill the infidels. My solution is to kill as many of the insurgents and as few of the civilians as I can. What's yours? Stay at home and hope it all goes away? We tried that. Several times. It didn't work.

[vimjams]

For a start Aquatus: I have not “burst out” in disbelief and “disgust” over your opinion as you seem to think…I am simply expressing my own opinion and views regarding this war. Your comments, as I have said, are always valid and I respect them and I do not think anybody is passing judgement (not least myself) on you or those who are ordered to participate in this conflict. The context of this thread concerns the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and absolutely nothing to do with combatants (insurgents, terrorists or otherwise). Your pro-war colleagues here have introduced that element as a means to add weight to their views about the deaths of innocent people caught up in the war. Where there is criticism of soldiers fighting in Iraq comes from the political understanding that we are supposed to be better than the people we kill.

As for your statement about being party to dropping bombs on people and the incident regarding the ‘retard’ boy used as a bomber…What are you trying to explain here? That maybe there is a difference between the men who gave you the orders and those who destroyed that boy? (I think not)

Vimjams

[aquatus1]

For a start Aquatus: I have not “burst out” in disbelief and “disgust” over your opinion as you seem to think

Yes, of course, you are correct. My apologies, I did not clarify what I was referring to; I was still thinking of Wunarm's comment, not yours.

As for your statement about being party to dropping bombs on people and the incident regarding the ‘retard’ boy used as a bomber…What are you trying to explain here? That maybe there is a difference between the men who gave you the orders and those who destroyed that boy? (I think not)

You think not? In one of these situations, every possible precaution that could be reasonably taken was in place in order to prevent collateral damage. The pilot responsible was a trained adult who had a full understanding and acceptance of what his mission entailed. That a child was killed was both unforeseen and unpreventable without aborting the mission.

In the other situation, a child with a mental handicap (I dislike the word 'retard', as it is less a condition and more an insult) was coerced (he was not one of the devoutly loyal, and he burst into tears when captured because he did not want to do it), to walk into an enemy camp and activate four sticks of dynamite strapped to his belly. He was chosen because he was small and cute and presumably wouldn't draw attention until he and the others around him where torn to pieces by the blast.

Was there a difference between the men who order the pilot to carry out the mission and the men whos duct taped dynamite on the belly of the little boy? Yes, I do think there was.

[Mekorig]

No? There was justification. Saddam and his actions to his people. Like it or not, it was one of the reasons used, and even if it wasnt, it'd still be justification. Try and pull the samething off on a country like Canada, that doesnt harm their own people like Saddam did... wont pass.

Soo, if he is a dictator and he is friend of the USA, he is a democracy hero, a warrior against terrorism/comunism/etc, bla bla bla.

If he is against USA, he is a despicable dictator how must be desposed.

Stellar, before talking about the brave USA taking out evil dictator, learn a bit more about the actions of the USA in the support of brutal dictators. My country knows about it.

[Stellar]

Soo, if he is a dictator and he is friend of the USA, he is a democracy hero, a warrior against terrorism/comunism/etc, bla bla bla.

Did I say that?

If he is against USA, he is a despicable dictator how must be desposed.

I didnt say that either.

Stellar, before talking about the brave USA taking out evil dictator, learn a bit more about the actions of the USA in the support of brutal dictators. My country knows about it.

Before trying to pass off a lame ass comment like that, how about you accept that not everyone who supports the war supports everything the US ever did. Have I made any indication what so ever that I support the US not invading after SH gassed the Kurds? Have I ever said anything to that effect?

[snuffypuffer]

People in Falloojeh are being murdered. The stories coming back are horrifying. People being shot in cold blood in the streets and being buried under tons of concrete and iron... where is the world? Bury Arafat and hurry up and pay attention to what's happening in Iraq.

Aid agencies say Falluja "big disaster"...

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticl...24§ion=news

Iraqis will never forgive this- never. It's outrageous- it's genocide and America, with the help and support of Allawi, is responsible. May whoever contributes to this see the sorrow, terror and misery of the people suffering in Falloojeh.

Dozens of civilians have died these last few days in Ramadi, Falloojeh, and Samarra.

355235[/snapback]

VimVimmyVims, a spellcheck would work wonders for you.

I tried to read all the posts in this thread, I really did, but by page three I started getting a headache, and I couldn't let this slide without a dose of common sense. Soooo... that being said...

I never, ever supported the war in Iraq. Never. Bush seemed in such a hurry to invade, kept making speeches on how big and scary and threatening Saddam's WMD program was, and everyone bought it, hook line and sinker. No links between Iraq and 9-11 have ever been proven, the whole foundation is shaky, and it sickens me that our President used that tragedy to get support for a war built on, basically, a personal grudge. All the while bin Laden is dragging around a dialysis machine and giving the entire free world the finger. Now that I have that out of the way...

We are there, damage has been done, and we have to clean up our mess. I hate war, but when my country is involved in one, I want my country to win. Is there a lot of insanity and horror going on, yes, of course there is, it's a war, for Chrissakes. there have been abuses by both sides. Vimjams, you like to paint a very bleak, very one-sided view of the war. You refuse to listen to people who actually are there, and you only look at evidence that supports your side of the argument. Are US troops killing civilians? Yes, unfortunately. And not all of this is on purpose, in fact I refuse to believe the majority of Iraqi civilians killed by Allied forces are targeted by them. Are insurgents using civilians to hide behind, again, yes. Are they willfully kidnapping and murdering civilians, and putting it all on video? Yes. Who is more evil? Can you honestly watch a beheading and tell me that what the US armed forces are doing is worse?

Ah, this is why I don't post in these threads much anymore.

Edit; fixed tags

Edited November 24, 2004 by Magikman