markx15
 
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 07:56 pm
I have been reading about the war in Iraq almost solely from american news sources, since such a limited view wouldn't give me the whole picture I branched out, interesting article I found:


You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is


In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead

Naomi Klein
Saturday December 4, 2004
The Guardian


David T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, London

Dear Mr Johnson, On November 26, your press counsellor sent a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my column of the same day. The sentence read: "In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies." Of particular concern was the word "eliminating".
The letter suggested that my charge was "baseless" and asked the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide "evidence of this extremely grave accusation". It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the evidence you requested.
In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.

US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer", speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital "a centre of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, replied that "what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... " Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.

Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.

Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.

Eliminating journalists
The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job," the IFJ stated.

It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.

On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing Jos? Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.

Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".

"We don't do body counts," said General Tommy Franks of US Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.

Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses.

? Additional research by Aaron Mat?

Here is the link:
You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is | Columnists | Guardian Unlimited
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 11,006 • Replies: 181
No top replies

 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 08:10 pm
@markx15,
Alot of conspiracy but not much proof, that i saw.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 08:22 pm
@markx15,
Heres some more info:

Civilian casualties

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:39 pm
@markx15,
What's sad is America's weakness. We have become so horribly weak. This is one shortcoming of democracy. It produces weakness. I guess there's no acceptable alternative.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 07:52 pm
@markx15,
Sincerly there are no acceptable casualties from this war, especially since it held no support globaly.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 08:16 pm
@markx15,
We went in for the wrong reasons. Now we're stuck. BUT....at least the American Left has been divided by the war, which is a very good development. I love to see Democrats beat each other up.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 06:11 am
@markx15,
Global support doesn't matter. There's no global government yet. The U.N. is broke, and no one's fixing it.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 02:01 pm
@markx15,
Quote:
Global support doesn't matter.


Don't be nearsighted, polluting doesn't affect us now, but in 100 years we're screwed. Just because something won't affect YOU NOW doesn't justify the fact that it will affect someone later.

Quote:
There's no global government yet. The U.N. is broke, and no one's fixing it.


You don't plan to form a global government, it looks more like a global empire to me. Who contantly undermines the authority of the U.N.? Who refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol?
0 Replies
 
Dmizer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 02:37 pm
@markx15,
Markx15,
I wasn't even going to respond to this thread, because I assume that if you cannot filter out the news, seperating fact from fiction then there is no point even responding. But your last comment deserves a response. First of all the U.N. is rampant with corruption. Second of all, show me one country in this world that doesn't protect and attempt promote their own interests above other countries. You are naive if you believe that other countries have the best interest of the global community at heart, before their own.
The Kyoto protocol isn't worth the paper it is written on. Did you know that out of the 1500 scientists, who had their names originally associated with it, over 800 of them now want thier names removed from it. It's a political economic agenda driven protocal that betrays the science it was loosely based on. It would have ham strung the U.S. economy while at the same time allowed China and India to run roughshod over our markets. I ask you, in all seriousness would you bite off your own nose to spite your face?
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 05:49 pm
@markx15,
Smash radical Islam. Smash it hard, flat and repeatedly. Keep smashing it, too.:devilheadbang:
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 11:56 am
@markx15,
Are you proud that your entire economy is based on an over polluting system? Just because the UN is corrupt the US isn't? Hell you can find american money in just about every dictatorship during the Cold War. The UN was partly corrupt because of the US, it's most potent member, how many votes did you swing to your wishes? Against the US there is no fair fight, unless you decide to play along with pre set up rules, but you won't lest it bring you an even bigger deficit, guess what I don't care, you don't deserve to be the world super-power, you claim ideals that you never intended to follow through with, ridiculus.
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 02:44 pm
@markx15,
Quote:
You don't plan to form a global government, it looks more like a global empire to me. Who contantly undermines the authority of the U.N.? Who refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol?


The U.N. has no credibility. People in other expect us to fix all the Darfurs of the world when th U.N. should do it. As a nation our economy would collapse if we tried such a drasctic reduction in fossil fuels. We look out for us, not you, and we'll develop and become a superpower if we want to. If you want to stop us, develop as well instead of slowing your economy with deals based on unproven science.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 06:19 pm
@markx15,
I repeat, the UN has no credibility when its members cease to act in accordance to the established order, how many times has the US oversteped the UN? It is not unproven science, there is no way to discuss the polluting of rivers and air, it is a fact, wheter or not it affects Global Warming is another issue. It is not so much what the Kyoto Protocol actually states that is important, but what it represents, if you disagree with the terms proposed then make others and defend them, don't just refuse to sign it. We need to limit any negative affect that humans can have over the enviroment, because it is not very stable, small events can trigger great collapses in an ecosystem, everything is dependant on another. If we take your advice and develop as well then you are also screwed, if we considered that the US has correctly developed itself, then we too would cut down 99% of our forests, imagine the almost complete devastation of the Amazon, we can't afford your mistakes.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 06:35 pm
@markx15,
To heck with the UN. It has its purposes, but holding down America or the Greater West isn't one of them. THE CHRISTIAN WEST MUST RISE AGAIN!
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 07:44 am
@markx15,
markx15;12960 wrote:
Are you proud that your entire economy is based on an over polluting system? Just because the UN is corrupt the US isn't? Hell you can find american money in just about every dictatorship during the Cold War. The UN was partly corrupt because of the US, it's most potent member, how many votes did you swing to your wishes? Against the US there is no fair fight, unless you decide to play along with pre set up rules, but you won't lest it bring you an even bigger deficit, guess what I don't care, you don't deserve to be the world super-power, you claim ideals that you never intended to follow through with, ridiculus.
Quote:
Are you proud that your entire economy is based on an over polluting system?
That system has proven to be the best of our time so i would have to say yes. What is your system based on and are you proud of it?
Quote:
Just because the UN is corrupt the US isn't?


Name one non corrupt country? How does Brazil rank on government corruptness?

Quote:
Hell you can find american money in just about every dictatorship during the Cold War.

You will also find it in most democracy's as well.
Quote:
The UN was partly corrupt because of the US, it's most potent member, how many votes did you swing to your wishes?
So the country that hosts, finance's, builds an entity should not have a say? Does Brazil participate in the UN? If so then it can be said that the UN was partly corrupt because of Brazil? Are there other countries in the UN who do not try and swing votes? Why have a UN then if there is to be not to be any swing vote?
Quote:
Against the US there is no fair fight, unless you decide to play along with pre set up rules, but you won't lest it bring you an even bigger deficit, guess what I don't care, you don't deserve to be the world super-power, you claim ideals that you never intended to follow through with, ridiculus.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you hate the game that bad why play? Nobody is forcing you are they?
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2007 09:39 am
@markx15,
Civilian Death is inseparable from this kind of Urban Warfare. We can't forget the responsibility of enemy combatants to also respect life. There will always be conspiracy theories. The human mind always seeks to explain what it doesn't know in detail.

The main difference between the enemy and us is that we do not target civilians, if they die, it's on accident.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2007 07:36 pm
@markx15,
The war is lost because America isn't tough enough to fight protracted counter-insurgencies. We, the American people, are great, but fighting counter-insurgencies isn't our strongsuit. We're good at many other things, but not this. We lack the unity, patience, and tolerance for bloodshed that counter-guerrilla warfare requires. Sorry. We're finished there. It's just a matter of when and how we get out. We can't win this or any other counter-insurgency. This is too much.:no:

PS: America's youth should boycott this war. It's a lost fight (not cause, but FIGHT). The way we're prosecuting this war is not worth their precious lives.
IM-A-DEMOCRAT-BABY
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 08:44 pm
@markx15,
Let me just say that i disagree with the Iraq war very strongly. I am all for the invasion of Afghanastain to destroy the taliban terroists but i do not believe the Iraq war was a good decision. I will give Mr. Bush some credibility however for capturing Sadam Hussien. But still he posed no threat to america because he had no way of harming us. The Bush presidency said he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) and good intention for using them against america. Yet when we invade irag we find nothing. hmmm.... Interesting. In my oppinion it sounds like a lie. Maybe the war had something to do with all of the oil fields in Iraq? Just a hypothesis.

"We have all taken risks in the making of war. Isn't it time that we should take risks to secure peace?" ? J. Ramsay MacDonald

(if anyone would like to disagree with my point of view or prove me wrong please email me at [email][email protected][/email])
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 09:23 pm
@markx15,
Operation Iraqi freedom. The objective then, of which we have long since lost sight, was to end state sponsorship of terrorism. Do you have info knowbody else has?
Quote:
The Bush presidency said he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) and good intention for using them against america.

So did Sklinton and his cohorts. Oh and every intel agency in the free world. The easier question is who didn't think he had WMD's?
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2007 08:50 am
@markx15,
Quote:
That system has proven to be the best of our time so i would have to say yes. What is your system based on and are you proud of it?


Unless you change this over-polluting system there will be nowhere to enjoy the fruits of your labor, not to mention that we will all die of respiratory inefficiency. Unfortuneatly many companies active in Brazil are american, so they follow your example.

Quote:
Name one non corrupt country? How does Brazil rank on government corruptness?


Oh don't even get me started on Brazilian political corruptness, I believe that at least 80% of all our politician have been accused or removed from their station on acount of corruption. The diference is we don't/can't overstep the UN, can/do you?

Quote:

You will also find it in most democracy's as well.


Excellent point, but does one nullify the other? Also spreading democracy is a self-apointed objective, what is your excuse for promoting tyrants?

Quote:
So the country that hosts, finance's, builds an entity should not have a say? Does Brazil participate in the UN? If so then it can be said that the UN was partly corrupt because of Brazil? Are there other countries in the UN who do not try and swing votes? Why have a UN then if there is to be not to be any swing vote?


I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said "swing votes". What I was trying to say is that the US puts tremendous pressure through economic-military threats, there is no democracy in the UN if you control the voters.

Quote:
Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you hate the game that bad why play? Nobody is forcing you are they?


It is your game, you won that option in the Cold War. I play only what I can't avoid, and yes there are billions of people forcing me to play, because without mininmal cooperation I would not be able to sustain myself.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How's the War?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/06/2026 at 08:16:03