U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   MERGED: The Battle of Fallujah/Thank God We're Not in Fallujah (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/merged-the-battle-of-fallujah-thank-god-were-not-in-fallujah-101689.html)

A_Wanderer 11-10-2004 03:06 AM

Should probably go in war.

Scarletwine 11-10-2004 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2


Some people forget the cost of Not Acting and what it would have meant for people in Iraq, the region and the world.

No Sting, some of haven't forgotten that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Take it to another thread.

A_Wanderer 11-10-2004 03:21 AM

Quote:

No Sting, some of haven't forgotten that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Take it to another thread.
I think is a very debatable point - which is not what this thread is about. Just what is going on, please.

verte76 11-10-2004 05:22 AM

Damn. This is really bad news. I feel so sorry for the people in Fallujah right now, they didn't ask for this.

starsgoblue 11-10-2004 05:29 AM

:tsk:

Se7en 11-10-2004 07:20 AM

look on the bright side, a free and democratic iraq is in the interest of the united states. we're talking about collateral damage here. :up: /sarcasm

:|

seriously though, this sucks. i can't imagine those conditions. what a truly tragic situation those people in iraq face.

A_Wanderer 11-10-2004 03:11 PM

They found "hostage slaughterhouses" here

Scarletwine 11-11-2004 02:16 PM

AW we have had that discussion too many times to count.

While as I stated before I don't have the perfect solution other than get the F out. Tje American people are responsible for the slaughter in their name.
Sorry if I post too long an article.
https://207.44.245.159/article7274.htm

Iraq: the unthinkable becomes normal

Mainstream media speak as if Fallujah were populated only by foreign "insurgents". In fact, women and children are being slaughtered in our name.

John Pilger

11/11/04 "New Statesman" -- Edward S Herman's landmark essay, "The Banality of Evil", has never seemed more apposite. "Doing terrible things in an organised and systematic way rests on 'normalisation'," wrote Herman. "There is usually a division of labour in doing and rationalising the unthinkable, with the direct brutalising and killing done by one set of individuals . . . others working on improving technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive napalm, bomb fragments that penetrate flesh in hard-to-trace patterns). It is the function of the experts, and the mainstream media, to normalise the unthinkable for the general public."

On Radio 4's Today (6 November), a BBC reporter in Baghdad referred to the coming attack on the city of Fallujah as "dangerous" and "very dangerous" for the Americans. When asked about civilians, he said, reassuringly, that the US marines were "going about with a Tannoy" telling people to get out. He omitted to say that tens of thousands of people would be left in the city. He mentioned in passing the "most intense bombing" of the city with no suggestion of what that meant for people beneath the bombs.

As for the defenders, those Iraqis who resist in a city that heroically defied Saddam Hussein; they were merely "insurgents holed up in the city", as if they were an alien body, a lesser form of life to be "flushed out" (the Guardian): a suitable quarry for "rat-catchers", which is the term another BBC reporter told us the Black Watch use. According to a senior British officer, the Americans view Iraqis as Untermenschen, a term that Hitler used in Mein Kampf to describe Jews, Romanies and Slavs as sub-humans. This is how the Nazi army laid siege to Russian cities, slaughtering combatants and non-combatants alike.

Normalising colonial crimes like the attack on Fallujah requires such racism, linking our imagination to "the other". The thrust of the reporting is that the "insurgents" are led by sinister foreigners of the kind that behead people: for example, by Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian said to be al-Qaeda's "top operative" in Iraq. This is what the Americans say; it is also Blair's latest lie to parliament. Count the times it is parroted at a camera, at us. No irony is noted that the foreigners in Iraq are overwhelmingly American and, by all indications, loathed. These indications come from apparently credible polling organisations, one of which estimates that of 2,700 attacks every month by the resistance, six can be credited to the infamous al-Zarqawi.

In a letter sent on 14 October to Kofi Annan, the Fallujah Shura Council, which administers the city, said: "In Fallujah, [the Americans] have created a new vague target: al-Zarqawi. Almost a year has elapsed since they created this new pretext and whenever they destroy houses, mosques, restaurants, and kill children and women, they said: 'We have launched a successful operation against al-Zarqawi.' The people of Fallujah assure you that this person, if he exists, is not in Fallujah . . . and we have no links to any groups supporting such inhuman behaviour. We appeal to you to urge the UN [to prevent] the new massacre which the Americans and the puppet government are planning to start soon in Fallujah, as well as many parts of the country."

Not a word of this was reported in the mainstream media in Britain and America.

"What does it take to shock them out of their baffling silence?" asked the playwright Ronan Bennett in April after the US marines, in an act of collective vengeance for the killing of four American mercenaries, killed more than 600 people in Fallujah, a figure that was never denied. Then, as now, they used the ferocious firepower of AC-130 gunships and F-16 fighter-bombers and 500lb bombs against slums. They incinerate children; their snipers boast of killing anyone, as snipers did in Sarajevo.

Bennett was referring to the legion of silent Labour backbenchers, with honourable exceptions, and lobotomised junior ministers (remember Chris Mullin?). He might have added those journalists who strain every sinew to protect "our" side, who normalise the unthinkable by not even gesturing at the demonstrable immorality and criminality. Of course, to be shocked by what "we" do is dangerous, because this can lead to a wider understanding of why "we" are there in the first place and of the grief "we" bring not only to Iraq, but to so many parts of the world: that the terrorism of al-Qaeda is puny by comparison with ours.

There is nothing illicit about this cover-up; it happens in daylight. The most striking recent example followed the announcement, on 29 October, by the prestigious scientific journal, the Lancet, of a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the Anglo-American invasion. Eighty-four per cent of the deaths were caused by the actions of the Americans and the British, and 95 per cent of these were killed by air attacks and artillery fire, most of whom were women and children.

The editors of the excellent MediaLens observed the rush - no, stampede - to smother this shocking news with "scepticism" and silence. They reported that, by 2 November, the Lancet report had been ignored by the Observer, the Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Star, the Sun and many others. The BBC framed the report in terms of the government's "doubts" and Channel 4 News delivered a hatchet job, based on a Downing Street briefing. With one exception, none of the scientists who compiled this rigorously peer-reviewed report was asked to substantiate their work until ten days later when the pro-war Observer published an interview with the editor of the Lancet, slanted so that it appeared he was "answering his critics". David Edwards, a MediaLens editor, asked the researchers to respond to the media criticism; their meticulous demolition can be viewed on the [https://www.medialens.org] alert for 2 November. None of this was published in the mainstream. Thus, the unthinkable that "we" had engaged in such a slaughter was suppressed - normalised. It is reminiscent of the suppression of the death of more than a million Iraqis, including half a million infants under five, as a result of the Anglo-American-driven embargo.



In contrast, there is no media questioning of the methodology of the Iraqi Special Tribune, which has announced that mass graves contain 300,000 victims of Saddam Hussein. The Special Tribune, a product of the quisling regime in Baghdad, is run by the Americans; respected scientists want nothing to do with it. There is no questioning of what the BBC calls "Iraq's first democratic elections". There is no reporting of how the Americans have assumed control over the electoral process with two decrees passed in June that allow an "electoral commission" in effect to eliminate parties Washington does not like. Time magazine reports that the CIA is buying its preferred candidates, which is how the agency has fixed elections over the world. When or if the elections take place, we will be doused in cliches about the nobility of voting, as America's puppets are "democratically" chosen.

The model for this was the "coverage" of the American presidential election, a blizzard of platitudes normalising the unthinkable: that what happened on 2 November was not democracy in action. With one exception, no one in the flock of pundits flown from London described the circus of Bush and Kerry as the contrivance of fewer than 1 per cent of the population, the ultra-rich and powerful who control and manage a permanent war economy. That the losers were not only the Democrats, but the vast majority of Americans, regardless of whom they voted for, was unmentionable.

No one reported that John Kerry, by contrasting the "war on terror" with Bush's disastrous attack on Iraq, merely exploited public distrust of the invasion to build support for American dominance throughout the world. "I'm not talking about leaving [Iraq]," said Kerry. "I'm talking about winning!" In this way, both he and Bush shifted the agenda even further to the right, so that millions of anti-war Democrats might be persuaded that the US has "the responsibility to finish the job" lest there be "chaos". The issue in the presidential campaign was neither Bush nor Kerry, but a war economy aimed at conquest abroad and economic division at home. The silence on this was comprehensive, both in America and here.

Bush won by invoking, more skilfully than Kerry, the fear of an ill-defined threat. How was he able to normalise this paranoia? Let's look at the recent past. Following the end of the cold war, the American elite - Republican and Democrat - were having great difficulty convincing the public that the billions of dollars spent on the war economy should not be diverted to a "peace dividend". A majority of Americans refused to believe that there was still a "threat" as potent as the red menace. This did not prevent Bill Clinton sending to Congress the biggest "defence" bill in history in support of a Pentagon strategy called "full-spectrum dominance". On 11 September 2001, the threat was given a name: Islam.

Flying into Philadelphia recently, I spotted the Kean congressional report on 11 September from the 9/11 Commission on sale at the bookstalls. "How many do you sell?" I asked. "One or two," was the reply. "It'll disappear soon." Yet, this modest, blue-covered book is a revelation. Like the Butler report in the UK, which detailed all the incriminating evidence of Blair's massaging of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq, then pulled its punches and concluded nobody was responsible, so the Kean report makes excruciatingly clear what really happened, then fails to draw the conclusions that stare it in the face. It is a supreme act of normalising the unthinkable. This is not surprising, as the conclusions are volcanic.

The most important evidence to the 9/11 Commission came from General Ralph Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad). "Air force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring towards the World Trade Center and Pentagon," he said, "if only air traffic controllers had asked for help 13 minutes sooner . . . We would have been able to shoot down all three . . . all four of them."

Why did this not happen?

The Kean report makes clear that "the defence of US aerospace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with pre-existing training and protocols . . . If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) . . . The NMCC would then seek approval from the office of the Secretary of Defence to provide military assistance . . . "

Uniquely, this did not happen. The commission was told by the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority that there was no reason the procedure was not operating that morning. "For my 30 years of experience . . ." said Monte Belger, "the NMCC was on the net and hearing everything real-time . . . I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings . . . and they were always listening in with everybody else."

But on this occasion, they were not. The Kean report says the NMCC was never informed. Why? Again, uniquely, all lines of communication failed, the commission was told, to America's top military brass. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, could not be found; and when he finally spoke to Bush an hour and a half later, it was, says the Kean report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed". As a result, Norad's commanders were "left in the dark about what their mission was".

The report reveals that the only part of a previously fail-safe command system that worked was in the White House where Vice-President Cheney was in effective control that day, and in close touch with the NMCC. Why did he do nothing about the first two hijacked planes? Why was the NMCC, the vital link, silent for the first time in its existence? Kean ostentatiously refuses to address this. Of course, it could be due to the most extraordinary combination of coincidences. Or it could not.

In July 2001, a top secret briefing paper prepared for Bush read: "We [the CIA and FBI] believe that OBL [Osama Bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."

On the afternoon of 11 September, Donald Rumsfeld, having failed to act against those who had just attacked the United States, told his aides to set in motion an attack on Iraq - when the evidence was non-existent. Eighteen months later, the invasion of Iraq, unprovoked and based on lies now documented, took place. This epic crime is the greatest political scandal of our time, the latest chapter in the long 20th-century history of the west's conquests of other lands and their resources. If we allow it to be normalised, if we refuse to question and probe the hidden agendas and unaccountable secret power structures at the heart of "democratic" governments and if we allow the people of Fallujah to be crushed in our name, we surrender both democracy and humanity.

A_Wanderer 11-11-2004 06:41 PM

You are using that clown Pilger as a source for your information - I suppose that that would lead to the view of it as a total quagmire with a full force conspiracy of sinister "neocons" and Millitary Industrial Complex to boot.

And may I just say that if the US didn't care about civilians they would have said fuck it and dropped a whole heap of MOAB on the place and vaporised every terrorist, child, woman and man.

A_Wanderer 11-12-2004 05:44 PM

More information on the "slaughter houses"

https://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041112182614

namkcuR 11-12-2004 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scarletwine


That is true, but unneccessary slaughter is unnecessary. I thought this sentence was very thoughtful and instructive.


https://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/age14.htm

Surely now, the governments that took us to this war and we, as people who are happy to re-elect them, must face up to our culpability for this carnage. We claim to hold that the lives of civilians are sacrosanct. We assert that the fabric of humanity is torn with every death of every innocent civilian. Indeed, that is why terrorism sickens us.

So why do we not think of these deaths as tragic in the same way we do those of September 11, Bali, Madrid or Beslan? For the Iraqis, we will hold no multi-faith services, no commemorative anniversary functions and we will give no human faces to them. Perhaps some innocent lives are more sacrosanct than others.
We are talking about four times the number of September 11 casualties. Eight planes and eight towers.

Of course, there is a crucial difference between the civilian deaths caused by terrorism, and those caused by the US-led coalition in Iraq. Coalition forces did not target the innocent as terrorists do.

True, we should not lose sight of this. But we should also not abuse it to dehumanise those we have killed, and evade the responsibility we rightfully bear. We speak of Iraqi civilians, even 100,000 of them, not as victims, but as collateral damage. We did not murder them as terrorists murder their victims, because there was no intention to kill them.

It is simply not good enough to hide our guilt in this way. Our actions were always destined to claim thousands of civilian lives. This was not merely probable; it was certain. We recognised that certainty and pressed on anyway. The fact that killing innocents was not the aim, but rather a guaranteed byproduct of our action, does not absolve us.

Damn straight. What we're doing in Fallujah is wrong.

A_Wanderer 11-14-2004 03:26 PM

They have found a mutilated body of a caucasian woman in Fallujah, that is why this operation must go ahead to remove this base of operations for the terrorists and kill a good many of them, to slow the carbombings and kidnappings, in the real world whatever you do there is always a price be it through action or inaction - innocent people are killed by both sides in this urban combat environment, but if we were to shirk off the necessity then even more innocent people would be on the recieving end of carbombs (and they know where to strike, case in point at children during the opening of a waste treatment plant). Action and inaction are the fundamental driving forces for everything.

A_Wanderer 11-14-2004 04:11 PM

Iraq soldiers in the field have an opinion too

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04Nov14_2.html

Macfistowannabe 11-15-2004 11:01 AM

I watched a very interesting program on my local channel last night. It was about the US Army and what they're doing in Iraq. After all this negative news you hear every day, it was refreshing to know how badly the troops want to achieve a peaceful Iraq. I haven't heard a ton of good news about Iraq from CNN and other liberal organizations, but I still remain very neutral on the war.

My thought is, if we have so much negativity about the war, how does it send a good message to our troops? The vast majority of our troops want us at home to support what they're doing. I find it hard to trust both liberal and conservative views on the war.

Many conservatives are still saying that we did everything right. Not exactly, we relied on flawed intelligence to bring us into the country in the first place. We still haven't found WMD's, and we won't search Syria and other terrorist nations for them for political reasons.

The liberals are saying that Saddam's capture and the deaths of Uday and Qusay have not made us any safer. We must realize what the future of that country could've been if we didn't bring an end to 25 years of a cruel and unusual regime.

A_Wanderer 11-15-2004 02:56 PM

https://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/

The good news from Iraq and Afghanistan does show the other side of the coin, it is not perfect but it is not as bad as some would present it. The truth lies in between the two.

A_Wanderer 11-15-2004 04:01 PM

Quote:

Mutilated bodies dumped on Fallujah’s bombed out streets today painted a harrowing picture of eight months of rebel rule.

As US and Iraqi troops mopped up the last vestiges of resistance in the city after a week of bombardment and fighting, residents who stayed on through last week’s offensive were emerging and telling harrowing tales of the brutality they endured.

Flyposters still litter the walls bearing all manner of decrees from insurgent commanders, to be heeded on pain of death. Amid the rubble of the main shopping street, one decree bearing the insurgents’ insignia - two Kalashnikovs propped together - and dated November 1 gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city’s library or face execution.

The pretext given is that the rebels wanted to convert the building into a headquarters for the “Mujahidin Advisory Council” through which they ran the city.

Another poster in the ruins of the souk bears testament to the strict brand of Sunni Islam imposed by the council, fronted by hardline cleric Abdullah Junabi. The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.

Two female bodies found yesterday suggest such threats were far from idle. An Arab woman, in a violet nightdress, lay in a post-mortem embrace with a male corpse in the middle of the street. Both bodies had died from bullets to the head.

Just six metres away on the same street lay the decomposing corpse of a blonde-haired white woman, too disfigured for swift identification but presumed to be the body of one of the many foreign hostages kidnapped by the rebels.
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...359782,00.html

Yeah nice chaps those "Iraqi Minutemen", this represents the cost of inaction, I am more pissed that the US didn't go in 8 months ago all the way and instead wasted hundreds of innocent lives with this "peace".

https://www.sondrak.com/archive/fallujafuckyou

US Marines, no better friend, no worse enemy.

Macfistowannabe 11-15-2004 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
[url]The good news from Iraq and Afghanistan does show the other side of the coin, it is not perfect but it is not as bad as some would present it. The truth lies in between the two.
I strongly agree with you.

Norse 11-16-2004 04:08 AM

Some thing I find hard to believe is that this battle came a week after one of the closest elections in America's History. I hope things will not continue like this, but odds are they will.

Fallujah is not the last stand of terrorism as Bush is making it out to be. After we win Fallujah their will be another central for insurgents and then another. They won’t all lay down their rifles and say "Oh boy I guess this was our last stand. Let's put aside our differences and move on". We are just caught in a spiral of violence that shows no sign of stopping.

What’s worse is that we still have the Afghans to deal with and the shinny city of Jerusalem has caught Mr. Bush's eye.

A_Wanderer 11-16-2004 02:03 PM

Afghanistan is being built up slowly but surely, you do know that they just had their first elections and they were very successfull.

Norse 11-16-2004 02:17 PM

Not as much as you think. In fact the election was considered rigged by many experts. Voting registration was completely off. Most towns did not have a popular vote but one determined by the “local party” (Your local War Lord) and opium money was every where. I don’t think it was as free as everyone seems to be making it out to be.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com