Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Amnesty International on Iraq

here

Does anyone besides me think that killing hundreds of women and children in Fallujah as revenge for the deaths of 4 mercenaries, even if they were American, is a war crime?

You can believe Bush and his supporter's giant buckets of pablum (or other squishy substance) if you want to, but that ain't the way it is or was.

Just out in a new book, the US gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to get out, they gathered in one spot, possibly to leave or consider their options, and we broke our word and bombed them before the 48 hours was up. Typical of Bush, he lied to us and to them.

While I am not suggesting that Saddam was a model of veracity, in a broadcast interview on 2/4/03 Saddam Hussein said: "There is only one truth, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever." And "I would like to tell you directly we have no relationship with Al Qaida."

Hmmmm, contrast that with Bush:

"In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." White House 10/5/02

"[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons." White House 10/7/02

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Address to the Nation, 3/17/03

and finally:

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still...... PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference? Sawyer/Bush interview 12/16/03

"So what's the difference?"
Well, the difference you liar is the difference between telling the truth and lying.

"So what's the difference?"
Well, the difference you lying SOB is the difference between taking the US into its first pre-emptive war, costing 1000s of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and severely damaging the US's credibility worldwide for false reasons, by claiming "urgent" national security interests were at stake instead of continuing on the working method of sanctions and containment and UN inspections while more actively pursuing the real enemy, Al Qaida. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Your link really shows the ugly side of war. I'm sure it will be classified by most here as liberal media garbage. Hard to win a country over to democracy in conditions that now exist in Iraq.

AI is utterly undependable with a clear socialist agenda to push. how many were killed by sadr's bunch to look good on AI cameras?
you got to remember, ifid, that NOBODY in falujah would have died if sadr hadn't ordered the uprising. and fewer would have died once it started, if the people of falujah had told sadr, "no more."
but reasoning with that culture on western terms is just about impossible until everyone has had a taste of western culture.
sadr is to blame for ALL the deaths in falujah. he started it. the allies will finish it.

Hoping for the best and little casualties.

I will accept, in arguendo, your assertion that Bush is a liar. It is absolutely possible and he would not be the first US President who was found to have prevaricated.

However, intentionally misstating the facts of the situation--either explicitly or implicitly-- in order to butress your argument is different......in what way? Is there a new word for that?



"Excessive use of force" and "disputed circumstances" are not exactly the same thing as "....killing hundreds of women and children in Fallujah as revenge...".

Ask the dead and see if they care.



Generally, I do agree with you, though.

I really think that when you oust a dictator, you can expect rival factions to form that will vie for power and use any means necessary to attain it. The US is responsible for the safety of the people of Iraq now, and should be expecting various uprisings by the rival Islamic factions. To say the killings are the fault of Sadr is truly illogical. Would there be uprisings in Iraq if the US had not invaded?

Of course, they don't. I does make a real difference what the motives were for those who killed them. Killing someone who you genuinely believe was a threat to you, is not a crime. Even if it turns out--after the fact--that that person was NOT a threat. It is a tragedy, but it is not a crime.

To call it otherwise is a libel and it's just plain wrong!

Note to Amnesty International---all the enemy combatants in Fallujah are civilians---so every terrorist/jihadist we kill or wing is a "civilian" casualty. So I hope the so-called civilian casualties are as high as possible. If they want to minimize the chance of injury to "innocents" as opposed to "civilians"--it would help if they'd wear uniforms and stop using women and children as shields. The so-called insurgents can stop the fighting any time they want to.
And the insurgennts didn't get too teary eyed when their terror bombs at markets and mosques deliberately killed hundreds of true innocents.

There were uprisings- Saddam gassed those who did.

SteveNO:

Killing "civilians" who are shooting at you is certainly justifiable and I would do the same. But there is no doubt that literally hundreds of women and children were killed in Fallujah. Since most of the "civilian" resistance were residents of the town AND most of the women and children were, ipso facto, their's, the "shield" defense sounds more than a little suspect to me. Even if you accept that some foreign fighters/terrorists were there, which is certainly possible, the male population of Fallujah is obviously heavily armed and I don't think they would stand for their wives/children/relatives being used as shields for "foreigners (meaning non-residents of Fallujah/Iraq). In short, with possible very rare exceptions IN FALLUJAH, I think that is complete BS.

wuzzagrunt:

I didn't intentionally or otherwise mistate any facts that I am aware of. Regarding the women and children's deaths in Fallujah, you are confusing my statements regarding that tragedy with other incidents referenced in the AI report. My statements were my own and were not meant to refer to the AI report in any fashion.

AI is about as trustworthy in its reporting at bagdhad bob.

The casualties among women and children are well reported around the world. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />



This loss of life is tragic, especially US servicemen and women, and women and children.

Not anymore than the bombing of London, the bombing of Berlin or Hiroshima and Nagasaki was.

Compared to those we have become very selective of collateral damage.

By fighting in the town and keeping their non-combatants there after the coalition offered safe passage out, I would say it is fair to characterize that as using the women and children as shields.
They could have either stopped fighting, or sent them to safety--they chose to do neither.
I think those casualty numbers are absurdly high, unless they're keeping women and children in their forward fighting positions or they'e counting 19 year old muj with AKs as children (like Sarah Brady does and the media also publishes as truth).
I don't mean to be flip or minimize the tragedy of a child's death, but blaming the US Marine corps for it is like blaming Bush for the hijackings---the cause was the terrorist thugs who murdered Americans, which we cannot allow.
All these a-holes have to do is STFO and we'll give them their country back. These Saddamites in Fallujah have a different agenda, and Iraqi freedom isn't part of it. It's keeping the fear of a Saddam replay alive, to intimidate the rest of the country.

SteveNO:

Not that I would doubt anything a Bush supporter says <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, but please source your "safe passage out" statement.

I am aware that the AI report made no such assertion. It is no less repulsive if you just made it up from whole cloth. If your sources are such as al Jazeera, then you've been duped and need to broaden your horizons.



Colateral casualties are not nothing. Neither are they revenge killings (i.e., cold blooded murders).

Flies, if you google Fallujah and women and children allowed to leave you'll get a ton of stories. Here's a link to one inthe Washington Post last Friday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63479-2004Apr9.html

They should be sufficiently anti-Bush to meet your credibility test. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
FYI --going to try fishing under the lights off a pier in the Rigolets tonight, since you were kind enough to leave all those specks in the water for my kids.

AI would have had a field day during WWII. Look at the civilian casualties during that conflict. French civilians died while the Allies were trying to liberate France; just as in all the other Nazi-occupied countries. (Japanese occuppied countries also) At Iwo Jima our casualties were 12,500 killed and wounded. One battle in one theatre of war. I'm not minimalizing death; but this is war and people die.
AI should stick to helping people who are imprisoned and tortured for their beliefs.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
To God Alone Be The Glory!

wuzzagrunt:

You obviously prefer to remain undeterred by facts.

Since the Coalition conveniently ordered there to be no records of civilian casualties kept, I cannot quote there bullshit sources. However, there are numerous instances of actual physical counts in the foreign press and in the free Iraqi press. Among them:

Fouad Rawi, senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party spearheading efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in the city west of Baghdad, quoted hospital sources as saying more than 600 Iraqis had been killed and 1,250 wounded.

"Among those killed were 160 women, 141 children and many elderly," he said, providing the first precise figures on the number of civilian deaths from the nearly week-long offensive."

Now you can choose not be believe him, or me, but the fact still remains that hundreds of women and children were killed.

SteveNO:

Good luck fishing. And yes, I read it, no wonder they didn't leave, it made the whole city a free fire zone for their husbands and fathers. Not that it apparently made much difference.