What Really Happened In Fallujah 2004?

XphilesPhan and others,

The topic of discussion here is What Really Happened In Fallujah 2004?

This is ATS not PTS, discussing liberals vs conservatives or the current political pulse within the US belongs elsewhere.

Let's keep the discussion on topic.

Thank you.

You know what I think happened at Fallujia? I think our Marines went into that city and did their jobs thats what I think. Whatever civilians stayed in the city did so at their own risk as they were told. So tell me, if am a suspect barricaded in a house with hostages, and the police come and tell me that if I dont come out within 24 hours they are coming into get me. Whos fault is it when the police come in there and kick my ass?

I know what happened in Fallujah, the insurgents got their butts whipped that is what happened. Then ten days later the insurgents sent in a anti war (biased) journalist to spread unfounded lies.

Here's a nice alert for ya bush-hating, anti-war, hypocrits... *and yes I will use that term nicely*

First of all. Bringing up supposed situations of Vietnam will not get you any support from me... Especially when they did come from a man who was later found out to have lied about it to boost his own political career. Oh. BTW. Thats from people who knew him. Just in case you forgot...

If the USA went into Iraq for oil then why am I paying $3.00 a gallon? Oh I know in Europe it is up to $5.00 but even the Saudi's have commented.. "Oh... If we did not sell to USA who would buy it" and that does not fly with me... I do believe that oil-mongers make a big deal of profit... Please see Exxon. But to say that "You USA-ers" went in for oil alone is just pathetic and stereotyping.

Fallujah. Was a battle. Hate to break it to you kids... It is war. Some people know what it is like because they got drafted...*which sucks and I am sorry it happend* and cause some volunteered... *which took guts and still was not easy* to BOTH GROUPS. I say thank you and I hope that your lives can help you with what some of you have seen in war. It is not pretty. It is hell. I have never seen it nor do I hope to. I accept it as a necessary evil in a place where people are always trying to control others...

So you peace-niks really hate Bush cause he went into Iraq... ok... How about when Billy Clinton ILLEGALLY took Nato into Bosnia??? yeah I said the ILLEGAL word... But hey what do I expect when I turn my head and see nothing but baseless ridicule and comments and nothing to back them. I'll just counter with fact... I did not see anyone jumping up and down about how we went into Bosnia illegally... *nato is a defensive force only according to its own charter* oh but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story... How about those wonderful reporters standing in front of the runway so you could see WHEN the craft took off.. What there load was... and give the enemy enough time to get prepared... We lost an F-117 that way... Just to give you a reminder as to WHEN it happend... But I did not hear anybody whining "We went into Bosnia for oil!!!!" well then WTF did we go into it for??? Bosnians? Freedom? Good will towards men? We simply hated that Milosovic had a prettier intern?? what??? oh wait... thats right.. the intern... oops. I forgot... Lets launch cruise missiles and bomb a country and start a small military coupe to keep the media off the fact that some democratic president couldn't keep his fly up...

Do I like Bush? no he's an idiot... I really hoped he was something better but instead we have a cowboy who thinks the world is his sandbox and wants to sell out this country to ILLEGAL migrants... *Oops.. there is that Illegal word again kids*

It took 7-years for the United States forces to quell the uprising in Japan after WW2. Using very harsh tactics and technique that to this day they are not totally recovered from yet.

Fallujah was a battle... That was as PC as you could make a battle... People were given fair notice that a fight was going to occur... People chose to leave or stay. I have not heard of a US soldier shooting at a family unless they were being used as a weapon or as a defence... Oh but those other Militants we are fighting *who AIN'T Iraqi 85% of the time I might add* have been using civvies for some time as a shield...

ONE reporter who's name I cannot remember and who's story will never be shown. Watched a Marine who at the ripe age of 19. lead his squad down a barren street and took fire from there left... the whole squad aimed and saw a family of 5... mother... father.. son.. daughter.. daughter... they did NOT open fire.... 15' behind that family was a car load of Syrian insurgents who were using them as a shield.. a 19-year old man in a split second decision told the squad to hit the car and they did... Family was shaken being in the middle of the exchange but they were unhurt.. Does it happen all the time? no.. Sorry. But there is NOT another military ANYWHERE in the world that has put the lives of a civilian populace further ahead of themselves then the United States Military...

Ok... I've stuffed the pipe... smoke it....

PS... Rarely do I post.. but I read alot... This is what has pent up inside of me for some time and I finally had to vent my spleen... My apologies to the mods as I probably have put in one post probably belonged in 4...

I was seriously looking into joining the US military.. before i knew how many civilians they kill.. All americans should be ashamed.. I really hope, what goes around comes around..

poeple say too bad, well let's see if you'd still say that if it happened to you..

people say they were doing their jobs.. and i believe that, cause even if they didn't want to shoot at civilians, they had to else they would be in # for disobeying orders.. i just wish they had the balls..

people say it's lies.. they only say that because they don't like what they see/hear.. it's common knowledge that people only believe what they want, untill they are faced with the hard true.. and a video like this is no where near hard enough to make americans think outside the box.. their comfort is more important than worrying about different looking people in a different place, far away..

you can all say what you like about me.. it will not make the US look any better.. and nor do i think americans are going to accept what i say.. like i said before, i really hope what goes around comes around..

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If the US and UK are the mindless, brainwashed killing machines that some here claim that they are then why even go into Fallujah? I'm sure that it would have been quite a bit safer to just surround the city and blast it off of the map with artillary and airstrikes.

Well that is mostly what they did and it's rather evident from the after war photos to see how much of that city was reduced to rubble. There was never that many 'insurgents' for street figthing to result in such destruction so it's pretty clear much of it was destroyed from a distance on one pretext or another.

They could then shoot anyone who came running out.

Most of them slipped out of the city before the US forces ever arrived and many of the rest escaped later. The ammount of insurgents ( even the high end estimates) can not and does not explain the level of destruction visisted on that city.

Stellar

[edit on 11-4-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by devilwasp
You know nothing about WW2 do you? Or how it came about ?

It seems, imo, that he knows more than you do , Dw.

It was our blind ignorance and idiocy that let WW2 happen, those millions dead are on britains concience because the UK done nothing....understand?

It was not blind idiocy and ignorance that 'let world war two happen' ( wars don't just 'happen' anyway you look at it). The dead are'nt crying so lets rather focus on learning from their deaths so that we can provent the very same people and forces from starting more of those to further their own aims.

We were warned, our navy complained, our army complained hell our PEOPLE complained but our leaders who thought "Violence solves nothing" did nothing.

The leaders knew very well what would happen if they attacked first ( people do not want war and needs to be dragged into them) without setting up the situation so Japan would act in a rather specific way. There is plenty of evidence, imo, that Pearl harbour was very much 'staged'( not in that they were sure the Japanese would attack it but in terms of inviting attacks on US forces in generaL) for public consumption.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
It seems, imo, that he knows more than you do , Dw.

Got a B in O level history mate with international relations 1929-1939, I know what happened..

It was not blind idiocy and ignorance that 'let world war two happen' ( wars don't just 'happen' anyway you look at it). The dead are'nt crying so lets rather focus on learning from their deaths so that we can provent the very same people and forces from starting more of those to further their own aims.

Was it not? Funny last time I checked bringing back a piece of paper and war is not what I want my PM to do.
The dead are crying, the whole mess will start again if we do not act when needed, "One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. " Mr churchil said that and he was right about germany.

The leaders knew very well what would happen if they attacked first ( people do not want war and needs to be dragged into them) without setting up the situation so Japan would act in a rather specific way. There is plenty of evidence, imo, that Pearl harbour was very much 'staged'( not in that they were sure the Japanese would attack it but in terms of inviting attacks on US forces in generaL) for public consumption.

Oh yeah I suppose it was, just like the UK let germany take over europe so it could get into another war. No we let that happen by NOT acting, think what you like stellar but we both know that WW2 could have been stopped earlier.
Much earlier.

Originally posted by yeoldehomer
Soldiers are not baby killers. Have some respect. All you are is a keyboard warrior firebat, people have the guts to defend their nation and fight for freedom while you sit here calling them baby killers. For shame...

Iraq never attacked America thus there is no logical reason for 'defense of the nation' AT ALL. The only kind of guts i value is people who will make their house/street/neighbourhood/country a smoking ruin in the effort to deny the enemy whatever they came to seek IF you believe that is in your interest. Going to foreign countries to shoot people you never met is not courage as much as it's stupidty and ignorance of how the world works.

I will also never waste much respect on people who get paid for what their doing especially if they then use these complete BS excuses made in a attempt to deny their complicty and responsibility for accepting the pay for doing the work . If their really into serving their country/nation they would do it for free whatever the costs to themselves. Those are patriots; the rest are mercenaries.

Insurgents are known to place children at SAM sites and behind RPG's and Snipers - why? So the US soldiers won't shoot. Thank god some of the soldiers over there will shoot anyway.

Any soldier who do not shoot back when under fire because there is civilians in the way is not only badly trained but clearly there to do a 'job' ( God knows he does not want to make it hard for the polticians to talk away the civilian casualties that they can not handle because the war is illegal in the first place) instead of protecting his nation and his country by protecting himself FIRST. Mercenaries care about such ROE's ( set up to make war 'acceptable' and 'doable') as their being paid to follow rules where patriots and true defenders of the faith/nation do what it takes whatever that may be.

Most of these stories are made up anyways and their just more ways to blame the dead for being dead. It's this kind of stupid poltical wars ( must win but can't do what it takes for political reasons) that sickens me as their simply not based on the logic that you win at all cost since you know damn well that you have not the moral authority to do what is required.

If you're aiding or shielding a combatant - you, yourself are a combatant. If the Al-Queada fighters didn't put children in the front line, they wouldn't be dying so often.

And the fact that you will believe these reports at face value bothers me since it shows that you do not understand what is at stake or what should. for that matter, be at stake when you fight a moral war that you do not feel guilty about winning at any cost. If you are not willing to do what it takes to win ( political or personal ) do not play the game as you WILL lose to those who are.

Stellar

Originally posted by Harlequin
fullajah - the day when the US governement deemed it `ok` to use chemical weapons on civilians

:shk: the ignorance on ATS never ceases to amaze me. you need to review the chemical weapons agreements the US signed.

Parallelogram said:

"As for this documentary, this guy entered the city ten days after the siege, and then wrote about what things were really like before and during the siege. Something ain't right there. Fallujah may have seen more action than was reported on the news, but then why do we need a Japanese person to tell us about it more than a week after the fact?"

The reason we need a Japanese person to tell us this stuff is that our journos aren't doing their job. They sit in the Green Zone, talk to US government and military sources, and NEVER talk to the civilians who have to bear the brunt of this dreadful mess. The US and (puppet) Iraqi governments have forbidden journalists to get details of civilian deaths from the morgue in Baghdad. Robert Fisk - who went down there on a regular basis before the ban came into effect - managed to take a peek at the morgue computer records thanks to his good relations with the guys down there, and saw that in one month (January this year? I forget) there were over a thousand deaths in Baghdad alone. That's 12,000 a year just for Baghdad, never mind the rest of the country. Many of them are cable-tied and shot in the head.

Secondly, Fallujah is by no means the only town that has been wrecked in order to 'root out insurgents' (who from other perspectives might be called patriots). We just don't hear about them. Reporters have been killed at an alarming rate across Iraq. One AP stringer was investigating the links between the death squads that are killing people (in a striking parallel to El Salvador and Guatemala and Colombia and Argentina and Brazil and... oh, you probably get the picture by now) and he was killed by a US sniper. Funny, that.

While so many of you are basking smugly in the idea that 'your boys' have 'liberated' Iraq, the life of the average Iraqi has become far less tolerable than it ever was under Saddam. At a time when prices are rising steeply there is massive unemployment, and more and more people are being robbed or kidnapped at gunpoint. US soldiers are (not unnaturally, from their point of view) somewhat trigger-happy and have been accused, over and over, of looting/confiscating goods whenever they are involved in the house-to-house searches that are involved in 'sweeping' for 'insurgents'.

So what does the film tell us happened at Fallujah? I'll watch it for you, shall I?

28 April 2003 - US soldiers kill 17 civilians at a demonstration in Fallujah. The demonstration was to protest the US occupation of a local school. The occupation had gone on for weeks and children could not be taught. When the demonstrators refused to leave the street, US troops opened fire. On unarmed civilians. When some tried to take the wounded to hospital, their car was shot up, killing one civilian instantly. The US troops also shot at an ambulance that arrived on the scene. Eight civilians died subsequently.

The situation worsened. There are a lot of guns around in Iraq. The civilians need them to defend themselves against robbers and kidnappers who roam freely in the anarchy the US has brought. Now, however, they began to resist the US military. Eventually, almost a year later, 31st March 2004, four Americans were killed as they arrived in Fallujah. I don't know how many Iraqis were killed in that year, though I suspect that even after the original massacre it was more than four. Many had been detained and disappeared.

The bodies of the Americans were dismembered and set on fire as an act of revenge for the massacre outside the school and the subsequent oppression.

Four days later US troops surrounded the town. For 28 days the town was under attack. The film interviews a 34-year-old Iraqi, Juma Hassan, who lost his wife and two daughters (aged 4 and 6) when their house was struck by a missile. An Iraqi woman describes how her son and daughter were both shot by a US sniper as they tried to evacuate their house during a bombardment. Both head shots. Very accurate.

It's hard not to use the words 'baby-killers' at this point.

I'd bet that none of the gung-ho types who are so pro-war have seen the movie, or have the guts to watch the Iraqi mother grieving for her dead children. Better the insurgents remain faceless and guilty rather than individuated and innocent. This might be 'propaganda' you couldn't laugh off.

Mosques were also targeted, guaranteeing that Muslims all over the world would be appalled. Imagine the reaction of Christians if the Chinese invaded and occupied the US and destroyed churches. Several districts were almost levelled.

A family of 41 who had retreated to what they thought was a safer place away from the fighting had 29 of their number killed when their house was bombed by a US plane. Women and children included. When people came to try and rescue the bodies they too were strafed. Bodies were identified by scraps of hair and clothing, except for one pregnant woman whose back had been blown away and her unborn child had slipped out of her abdomen.

Cluster bombs - illegal in the civilised world - caused more civilian casualties.

A family farmhouse several miles outside town was bombed with more civilian casualties. Later US soldiers came to search the wrecked buildings and one stole money and the ID card from the wallet of the farm owner's brother, who was dead. One of the family members and his two children tried fleeing to a nearby stream for shelter. Cluster bombs were dropped all around him and he was killed. A woman who had come to get away from the fighting in Fallujah was sleeping on mattresses with her four children in the courtyard of the farmhouse. All were killed. You can see the bloodstains.

US forces occupied the hospital and so the doctors created a makeshift clinic elsewhere in the city, treating people as well as they could without water or electricity, which had been cut off by the besiegers. According to the doctors who worked there, most of the patients were women, children and the elderly. 731 dead people passed through the makeshift hospital in the period of the siege, 25% being women and another 25% children. There were 2847 wounded.

US troops also attacked the makeshift clinic and its ambulances. "They know that this is a hospital, they know that we have patients here... but they shoot..." There is also photographic evidence and testimony to suggest that US troops mutilated people after shooting them.

Later we visit the hospital, now abandoned by the US military. We see footage of a 12 year old boy shot by a US sniper four days after the siege was lifted and a truce supposedly came into effect. His genitals were completely shot away when he stepped out of his house because he wanted to play outside.

Everyone still feeling proud?

In response to the question, did Al-Qaeda fight in Fallujah, one interviewee says that the people of the town - teachers, labourers and doctors at the hospital - fought. I'm hoping he was wrong about the doctors, who should have been pretty busy. But there are other witnesses who back him up in his story that the people of the town rose up to fight against the occupiers. One old boy makes the telling point that if there were all these foreign fighters as the US claims, why haven't they arrested one to show to the world?

As people couldn't get to the cemetery to bury their dead due to the fighting, the soccer stadium became a mass grave. We see mourners grieving and the graves of women and children.

The film was shot in April 2004. In November the US went back and killed (according to the Red Crescent) over 6000 people. The destruction of the city was far greater than is shown in the film: and that's when chemical weapons were used against the Iraqi residents of Fallujah.

Remind anyone of the old Vietnam saying "we had to destroy the village in order to save it"?

So: just to recap, we have here lots of evidence of war crimes, lots of evidence suggesting a heavy-handed occupation, and very little actual evidence of foreign fighters. I dare say that many of the gung-ho posters on this bulletin board would get together to defend their own towns from a foreign occupier. Why would Iraqis be any different?

And who among the gung-hos has the courage to watch this film and bear witness to the suffering of the Iraqi people?

And, oh, yeah... at the risk of going off-topic, anyone care to remember WHY US troops are there in the first place? Was it

a) 9/11
b) WMD or
c) to liberate the Iraqis and bring them freedom and democracy?

Because all of the above are looking PRETTY THIN.

I don't believe any of you truly get the point. We are being lied to, from the lowest form of government to the highest (state to federal). Open your eyes to the truth, take in opposing viewpoints. Don't dismiss something as wrong before you even give it a chance to be proven wrong. I get very frustrated reading your posts when everyone takes one side or the other. Both sides are wrong, take the time to wake up and smell the roses. Bush, Kerry, they're all the same. One bloodline rules the world and until you realize that our democracy has been hijacked, as well as most other governments, you will not be able to understand how the world works. View everything subjectively and I promise you will have a much happier life...

as a tid bit of advice, be aware of your surroundings, who is telling the story, what they seek to gain from that information being told, etc. The media is profiting of all the news of "wars and rumors of wars."

WAKE UP!!!!!!

Originally posted by devilwasp
Got a B in O level history mate with international relations 1929-1939, I know what happened..

Well that means you've been better and more comprehensively lied to than the rest of us; well done.

Was it not? Funny last time I checked bringing back a piece of paper and war is not what I want my PM to do.

Well that's why they bring back a peace of paper saying claiming "there will be peace in our time" ( or some such nonsense) while doing nothing to prevent war while helping to strengthen the enemy by inaction and other measures.

The dead are crying, the whole mess will start again if we do not act when needed, "One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. " Mr churchil said that and he was right about germany.

And he consistently warned against the danger but since the establishment was going to go to war it changed nothing.

Oh yeah I suppose it was, just like the UK let germany take over europe so it could get into another war.

Taking over Europe was obviously not supposed to happen. Who thought France would fall like it did with so little ado?

No we let that happen by NOT acting, think what you like stellar but we both know that WW2 could have been stopped earlier.
Much earlier.

And what a concerted effort it did not take to move such masses of people and their governments to war. How does it happen if it was so obvious in coming? Why, against all odds and public sentiment, does world wars happen? The people never gain ( and they know this) so how do we end up with these wars so frequently? Is it because times of war is the best time to steal people's freedom with their consent under the guise of 'protecting the nation' against enemies created by the very industrial and government forces that aided and help created said enemy.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Well that means you've been better and more comprehensively lied to than the rest of us; well done.

No it means I studied it for 2 years then recieved a qualification in that field, you said I did not know about WW2 my qualification proves you wrong.

Well that's why they bring back a peace of paper saying claiming "there will be peace in our time" ( or some such nonsense) while doing nothing to prevent war while helping to strengthen the enemy by inaction and other measures.

What was this supposed to mean?

And he consistently warned against the danger but since the establishment was going to go to war it changed nothing.

Lol we got dragged into the war because poland was invaded even though we sent not one bullet to them.

Oh
Taking over Europe was obviously not supposed to happen. Who thought France would fall like it did with so little ado?

Well many in the german high command and obviosly some in the british armed forces.

And what a concerted effort it did not take to move such masses of people and their governments to war. How does it happen if it was so obvious in coming

Because one man refused to act, THATS why.

Why, against all odds and public sentiment, does world wars happen? The people never gain ( and they know this) so how do we end up with these wars so frequently?

Because its better than the alternative (atleast it was in WW1 and 2)

Is it because times of war is the best time to steal people's freedom with their consent under the guise of 'protecting the nation' against enemies created by the very industrial and government forces that aided and help created said enemy.

Or is it because tehre is no other option, war is either thrust upon your or your choose to start it. There is no grey there.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I wonder if the film shows all sides of the war instead of one side.....

Or is that a bit much to ask for from the "independant media"?

Well i think it's probably justified if 'they' focus on 'their' side as 'we' focus on 'yours' . Why should 'the enemy' always be considerate enough to look at all aspects of the 'situation' when that is hardly ever done in western media? Why should 'they' have 'media freedom' when such a thing exsists only in theory most anywhere? The hypocrisy of it all should give you at least some pause.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Well i think it's probably justified if 'they' focus on 'their' side as 'we' focus on 'yours' .

Lol, right "you" focus on "my" side? Right....more home made BS stellar?

Why should 'the enemy' always be considerate enough to look at all aspects of the 'situation' when that is hardly ever done in western media?

Lol the "enemy" who the hell said they where my "enemy" , are you trying to imply that because thier a diffrent race that means their my enemies?

Why should 'they' have 'media freedom' when such a thing exsists only in theory most anywhere?

LOL
So what about all these reports against the soldiers in iraq yet very few are there to suport the troops in iraq?

The hypocrisy of it all should give you at least some pause.

Lol all I see in the media is a one sided veiw against the soldiers in uniform what ever you see is obviosly just in your head lol.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by Harlequin
fullajah - the day when the US governement deemed it `ok` to use chemical weapons on civilians

:shk: the ignorance on ATS never ceases to amaze me. you need to review the chemical weapons agreements the US signed.

ROFL

read more before you decide to begin to preach


WP is a chemical by pure definition , further as a weapon it is banned by all civilized countries except the USA and as the USA use it against civilian targets means that by defintion the USA uses WMD`s against civilians , wether or not the country is a signitory to any agreements.


Which by definition means the USA is a terrorist country.

Originally posted by yeoldehomer
You expect a city to be seiged and no one to die?!

For god sakes I wish people would stop having a rant and a whinge every time a US soldier kills someone. Put yourselves in their shoes for a second. You are in a city full of insurgents, if they capture you your're gonna get your head cut off and if they don't capture you you're dead. Wouldn't you be on edge and shooting anything that moves AFTER CIVILLIAN PEOPLE WERE ASKED TO LEAVE THE CITY.

Half the civillian deaths in Iraq might be the civillian's own fault.

1. Stop at the check points. If warning shots have been shot, your tires shot out and people shouting at you to stop, don't blame them when they put 2 in your chest and 1 in your head.

2. Don't act as a human shield for a man with an RPG

3. Don't stand in front of a convoy.

Simple science

[edit on 10-4-2006 by yeoldehomer]

THANK YOU! finally someone sees it my way, you have proof that thy were told to leave the city(it was all over the news)so whoever stayed was an idiot
also during ww2 all the civilians who died on bombing raids against germany and japan, does that mean the bomber pilots should have been put on trial no, its war, war is not perfect, in war people die, they die and you go on, also in iraq you dont know what your gonna run into, you have a$$holes dressed as civilians with an ak under their robes just waiting for you and your covoy to pass and then open up on you. now come on, you cant even tell who your enemy is, if you see someone standing and blocking your convoy and holding something that could be a bomb your either gonna shoot him or hit him, if he keeps moving in your way. this is not your typical war people, this is a dirty war where an enemy could be posing as an iraqi soldier (that mortar(i think it was a mortar) attack on the us mess hall a while back)so if you see someone or something move in a city where there are not supposed to be civilians your most likely going to open fire on them.

Damocles said:

baby killers? ok i know u apologized but the word censors here prohibit me from telling you where to put that apology. id LOVE to hear what happens if u have the cajones to call a US soldier returning from battle a baby killer to his face, though id rather u did it wehn he was off duty as most of us wouldnt lay you out while in uniform.

Back in the Vietnam days, Frank Zappa was doing a gig and he noticed a bunch of Marines in the audience. He happened to have a prop baby doll (his shows were always very theatrical) and he invited some soldiers on stage, gave them the baby, and said "show us what you do to gook babies". According to Zappa, "they really kicked the **** out of that thing".

Are things so different now? One of the purposes of military training is to make it possible for ordinary people to kill without hesitation. This involves brutalising them. As late as WWII, there were problems with soldiers being unable or refusing to fire on others, especially in situations where their own lives were not on the line. Subsequent changes in training have remediied this. The US is one of the most highly militarised societies on earth. I would say that it's very likely that there has been a noticeable effect on civil society, making it correspondingly more brutal.

Your response to the argument that US soldiers have killed babies seems to back up this claim.

However, I think you should watch the movie before denying its validity. These are just ordinary people telling their stories. Do you have enough guts to watch it? To see for yourself the damage that has been done? To see for yourself an Iraqi mother grieving for her two children killed by a US sniper (both head shots, you will note: very accurate)? To see the 12-year old boy lying in a hospital bed with his genitals shot clean away, again by a US sniper?

I would suggest you'll find it much easier and more comfortable to deny it all. PLEASE prove me wrong. If you do watch the movie - which, again, let's face it is something your government does NOT want you to see - how about trying something REALLY radical?

When it gets to the part when they interview the 'insurgents' themselves, try imagining what you would have done in their place. Your town has been besieged by an army both brutal and careless, who don't speak your language or respect your mores. What would YOU do in their place? One guy is a TEACHER. He and his students went out to defend his town. Can you blame him? If you are, as you profess to be, someone of courage, would you do any different?

I somehow doubt you have either the guts or the intelligence to actually perform this experiment, but I'd really love you to prove me wrong.

You can see the movie here

Seekerof predictably said:

The material is nothing but additional food for the antiwar crowd. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's right. Those dead Iraqi civilians, elderly, men, women and children got in the way and they got what they deserved, by God. Stand in the way of a gun held by an adrenalin infused paranoid American soldier and you deserve to be shot! After all, these dead people were Iraqis not Americans. The maimed and wounded are Iraqis, not Americans! Why, they're barely human.

"If yur not with us yur agin' us." (by GW). Should'a left the City when we told you to. Ya didn't so you got spanked with a bullit or two or more !

Now yur just "additional food for the antiwar crowd. Nothing more, nothing less." (by Seekerof).

Man, those comments make you seem like one twisted piece of gray matter.


[edit on 4/12/2006 by dubiousone]