US target civillians now

Memnoch

http://www.occupationwatch.org/

here is another site for you to browse through...

some quotes..

Fallujah and Adaamiya are currently under siege, surrounded by Occupation Forces, in contravention of the Geneva Convention that prohibits holding civilian communities under siege. Hospitals do not have access to sufficient medical aid, essential medicine and equipment or blood supplies. In Fallujah, the hospitals have been surrounded by soldiers forcing doctors to establish field hospitals in private homes. Blood donors are not allowed to enter; consequently, mosques in both Baghdad and Falluja are collecting blood for the injured. Water and electricity have been cut off for the past several days.

In Sadr City US helicopters have fired rockets into residential areas destroying homes. Although no curfew has officially been imposed, US soldiers have made a practice of aiming tank fire on cars they find moving through the streets after dark. On Tuesday night alone, at least 6 people were killed in this way. US forces continue to occupy and surround all the police stations and the Sadr municipal offices.

Calls for peace and an end to the occupation of Iraq are rising even as murderous violence escalates across Iraq. Dozens of U.S. and coalition troops, and hundreds of Iraqis are dying in what the Bush administration calls "liberated" Iraq. The U.S. military is now using massive 500-pound bombs against civilians - including on a Fallujah mosque compound killing at least 40 Iraqis.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=9
articles from main stream newspapers

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
I know that the coalition had a cease-fire yesterday morning specifically to allow humanitarian aid and people to get out etc.

ceasefire? lol, it lasted 90 minutes.

its the same thing they did in basra, where they destroyed the city's water supply in order to siege it... stop being purposefully blind pls

Memnoch

i'm still waiting for responses by the prowar dudes and the bush brigades...

Moriarity especially u :P

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Carpo
a bit of googling turned up this page (interestingly enough from the "Vietnam Verterans Against John Kerry" website)

If you read the entire page, it comes over as a bungling between both industry and, later, the military. The agents were all still withdrawn from service in 1970/71. The site itself claims that the military was 'only' negligent; these were not the intended effects of the herbicides, but rather an inconvenient by-product of their stated goal. There will probably be a similar outcry in ten to fifteen years about DU arms currently in use, for similar reasons.

Originally posted by Memnoch
what leads me to believe they have majority support? is stories i've read from newspapers such as the independent and the irish times, quoting iraqi's innocents who are attacked by American' troops.

So you don't actually have any hard figures to base your stance on then? I'm glad we got that sorted out at least.

Originally posted by Memnoch
American's are killing a lot of civillians in iraq, not to mention wrecking havoc on the country,

I could argue just as easily that it's the insurgents who are wreaking havoc on the country. The US isn't picking a fight with random people, they are trying to destroy/disrupt a private army. The coaltion simply can't let private groups seize control of numerous areas of Iraq. If the insurgents hadn't taken over control of these areas, the coalition forces wouldn't be there shooting.

Originally posted by Memnoch
you only need commen sense to realise the that people wouldn't be happy about this, that they would support those trying to oust the murderers of their family

A classic slippery slope argument if ever I've seen one.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Also its hard to provide such statistical information as you are demanding due to the current state of the country,

If the vast majority of the Iraqi population (eg, the 90% quoted by dathi1 earlier) supported Moqtada Sadr, we would know about it. Any unbiased news reporting or analysis I've seen over the past few days (eg. the bbc and in the IT among others) has emphasised the point that he has a very limited power base compared to other Shi'ia leaders. They have gone on to speculate on what might happen if at some point in the future he gains popular support.

Originally posted by Memnoch
but one can definately get a feel for the general feeling among the iraqi people from the various news reports.

Thats the problem, you can't. You get a good view of a small portion of the spectrum of opinion in Iraq. The (so far) silent majority aren't largely reported on as, well, they're silent.

Originally posted by Memnoch
maybe it SEEMS biased to you because they show accounts from the OTHER side of the story and aren't affraid of political repraisels by western governments. Most networks here have to be very careful of what they say/do, even the ones that oppose govt policies, look at what happened to the BBC.

I can usually detect bias in things - most people can if they look. It seemed very biased to me. Inferring I'm too dim witted to recognise that there can be two sides to a story is rather patronising and, as it happens, wrong.

Originally posted by Memnoch
sigh its getting tiring continually having to point out commen sense to you. I had no allusions as to the state of Iraqi WMD. I was always of the opinion that there were none there really and wouldn't be found.

That's not how it seemed from your previous posts. If it was, I wouldn't have felt the need to correct you.

Originally posted by Memnoch
However, the FACT of the matter is, that a LARGE portion of the American and British people were LEAD TO BELIEVE that these weapons could be used to target Britain and North America, especially if they were watching sky/fox news.

Completely aside from claiming that most of the public are thick, you're wrong anyway. I watched quite a lot of sky news and they never mentioned that there was a threat to british or american soil from alleged Iraqi wmd. There were also very few people I know who believed this - those who did hadn't followed the issue closely in any case so they only had a vague idea of what it was about in the first place. Claiming that the general public didn't agree with your beliefs because they were too thick to see the 'true light' is rather rich.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Interestingly enough that quote u put does not say anywhere that these weapons could not hit UK/US, which is the "ambiguity" I alluded to. yes I KNOW that iraq didn't have the missles/technology to do this... but the fact remains, most people were taken in by this, and supported the war for that reason.

There was no ambiguity. The quote was in relation to possible theatre use of wmd. All news organisations I watched/read mentioned this explicitly. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Originally posted by Memnoch
http://www.counterpunch.org/pow1.html
http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/arch.../09/000287.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorW...namo-appeal.cfm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/n.../afgh-n27.shtml

i can provide you with more links if you like.....

Please do. This time come back to me on how those court cases mentioned went. From reputable sources, of which the above are not.

Originally posted by Memnoch
I know that the US of Agent orange has resulted in the deaths of many innocent people.

So have many old medications. That it is responsible for deaths is in itself irrelevant.

Originally posted by Memnoch
really? well defined by who?

The generally accepted meaning of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' is a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon characterized by their broad-sweeping intended effects, such as inflicting mass casualties and/or physical destruction.

Agent Orange most certainly doesn't fall into the definition for a number of reasons.

Originally posted by Memnoch
This one is regarding the Iraqi-rebellion, and how wide spread or not it is..
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1676318.php (read this first, reports from ppl in iraq....) open mind required..

Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for the indymedia links to begin appearing. Heh. I did say reputable sources, Memnoch

Originally posted by Memnoch
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/04/08/a2.int.warshiitesnyt.0408.html
an article posted in an american newspaper day before yesterday, this article also appeared in the New York times.

I find it surprising how you ignore or pretend to basic commen sense.. Bush and blair are having a crisis summit, they cordon of an entire town (Fallujah) and attack it with air force, tanks and troops, and don't allow any reporters in... come on... they can see that a "rebellion" in iraq is beginning and are doing their best to suppress it before it spreads any further, and before ppl who are still conned by their lies (eg you) realise that the Iraqi people really don't want this occupation.

A low-key rebellion has been going on in Iraq for a year. That's nothing new. You're claiming that it's a popular uprising though, which is entirely different. It's also entirely wrong. If there was a popular uprising of Iraqi's the coalition forces wouldn't have a chance with their current manpower. The popular uprising you and others here continue to laud simply hasn't materialised. It's a relativily small amount of armed people that are involved in the current battles with the coalition forces, as can be confirmed via numerous news organisations' frequent reports.

Originally posted by Memnoch
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/a.../iraq-a05.shtml
http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_0409.htm#bp

freedom for women in Iraq... courtsey Bush

http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_women2.htm

War crimes in iraq, here the stories of people who were there
http://www.iacenter.org/baghdad_appeal.htm#ang
http://www.iacenter.org/baghdad_41903.htm

What is terrorism? I found this tonight googling away.. an interesting read...
this goes back to the time of the gulf war.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws...start_iraq.html

I see you've been trawling the indymedia webring recently

"Information Action Center: Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S.
Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed" indeed.

From occupation watch.. "The Iraqi people call for international solidarity as they resist attacks by US-led Occupation Forces."

They both smack of impartiality and organisations of good repute to me anyway. Hahahahaha.

Originally posted by Memnoch
ceasefire? lol, it lasted 90 minutes.

.. entirely because they came under sustained attack from the insurgents. But you probably won't believe that either I guess. Go figure.

Originally posted by Memnoch
i'm still waiting for responses by the prowar dudes and the bush brigades...

So this is one of those 'If you're not with us, you're against us' things eh? I see. Somone called Kettle is waiting to have a chat with you outside.

vorbis

Somone called Kettle is waiting to have a chat with you outside.

I like.

Ping Chow Chi

low-key rebellion has been going on in Iraq for a year. That's nothing new. You're claiming that it's a popular uprising though, which is entirely different. It's also entirely wrong.

though not the entire pop of Iraq has uprised, I think the scale of the uprising is a lot more than what has happend before, which is a worry to the westen forces there.

Completely aside from claiming that most of the public are thick, you're wrong anyway. I watched quite a lot of sky news and they never mentioned that there was a threat to british or american soil from alleged Iraqi wmd. There were also very few people I know who believed this - those who did hadn't followed the issue closely in any case so they only had a vague idea of what it was about in the first place. Claiming that the general public didn't agree with your beliefs because they were too thick to see the 'true light' is rather rich.

so, if I could post a link - where Cheney said that Iraq was clear and present danger to the USA you would retract your remarks? and admit that it was perhaps you who did not 'follow the issue closely' ?

I know that the US of Agent orange has resulted in the deaths of many innocent people.

So have many old medications. That it is responsible for deaths is in itself irrelevant.

Are you saying that the USA considered Agent Orange a medication? what was the illness? ... being alive?

The generally accepted meaning of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' is a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon characterized by their broad-sweeping intended effects, such as inflicting mass casualties and/or physical destruction.

So, if the USA happend to find a large quantity of Agent Orange in Iraq (which is a chemical weapon) do you think they would say it was a WMD ?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Moriarty
If you read the entire page, it comes over as a bungling between both industry and, later, the military. The agents were all still withdrawn from service in 1970/71. The site itself claims that the military was 'only' negligent; these were not the intended effects of the herbicides, but rather an inconvenient by-product of their stated goal. There will probably be a similar outcry in ten to fifteen years about DU arms currently in use, for similar reasons.

right so.. they knew what the chemical could do, they just didn't care... they weren't just "negligent" they purposefully turned a blind eye to its effects because it was being used on the enemy.

I could argue just as easily that it's the insurgents who are wreaking havoc on the country. The US isn't picking a fight with random people, they are trying to destroy/disrupt a private army. The coaltion simply can't let private groups seize control of numerous areas of Iraq. If the insurgents hadn't taken over control of these areas, the coalition forces wouldn't be there shooting.

you mean the coalition can't afford to have true democracy in iraq. The only government it seems they will accept in iraq is a puppet one dictated by them. Again, you call them insurgents, but how do u know thats what they are? Is it because thats what the coalition calls them? Its also convenient how u ignored the link i posted on the article in the New York times.. I guess you can easily "dismiss" the other links as being biased, but u couldn't claim to do that with the NY times, so you just ignored it..

If the vast majority of the Iraqi population (eg, the 90% quoted by dathi1 earlier) supported Moqtada Sadr, we would know about it. Any unbiased news reporting or analysis I've seen over the past few days (eg. the bbc and in the IT among others) has emphasised the point that he has a very limited power base compared to other Shi'ia leaders. They have gone on to speculate on what might happen if at some point in the future he gains popular support.

actually, your mistaken. I never said the vast majority of the Iraqi population support Sadr, however most of them do sympathise with him. This has already been reported in major news sources. The vast majority of the Iraqi shia population (remember the shia's are iraq's large majority) follow the more moderate clerics. These clerics while they have refrained from asking their supports to rise up in arms against the coalition, they have condemned the occupation as well as voiced their sympathy for Sadr's cause. I read this article in the London Independent two days ago.

Thats the problem, you can't. You get a good view of a small portion of the spectrum of opinion in Iraq. The (so far) silent majority aren't largely reported on as, well, they're silent.

no they aren't silent. Their representatives are the more moderate Shia clerics who have already condmned and spoken out against the occupation.

I can usually detect bias in things - most people can if they look. It seemed very biased to me. Inferring I'm too dim witted to recognise that there can be two sides to a story is rather patronising and, as it happens, wrong.

ah yes, yet you take everything said by the coalition authorities at face value, certainly seems "fair and balanced to me" maybe you should join the fox news team.

Completely aside from claiming that most of the public are thick, you're wrong anyway. I watched quite a lot of sky news and they never mentioned that there was a threat to british or american soil from alleged Iraqi wmd. There were also very few people I know who believed this - those who did hadn't followed the issue closely in any case so they only had a vague idea of what it was about in the first place. Claiming that the general public didn't agree with your beliefs because they were too thick to see the 'true light' is rather rich.

most of the american public is thick. It was proven recently by a study conducted by a university of maryland that tested 3 basic facts about the Invasion of iraq. A large majority of americans were found to be wrong on atleast 1 of these facts. Isn't it scary that a large part of the "support" for the war is based on erroneous information?
As for your comments regarding my beliefs. Around a month before the Iraq invasion started I came to the conclusion that all this WMD stuff was lies, that they wouldn't find anything. Now over a year later after the invasion, I have been proven right. This was not just some blind belief of mine. It was a logical "commen sense" conclusion I came to after weighing in all the evidence. yet a lot of people "supported" this war based on WMD, I was right, they were wrong, i have been proven to be right... need I say more?

Please do. This time come back to me on how those court cases mentioned went. From reputable sources, of which the above are not.

any source that doesn't suit what you say is immediately not reputable.. you want only western media sources that are considered "reputable" by standards set by you... kind of hard since most of these are biased towards the western side of things. Many people in the Arabic speaking world consider Al jazeera to be very reputable. As do many westerners.

The generally accepted meaning of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' is a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon characterized by their broad-sweeping intended effects, such as inflicting mass casualties and/or physical destruction.

Agent Orange most certainly doesn't fall into the definition for a number of reasons.

generally accepted by who? I provided you with several links, the term itself is not set in stone, it is open to interpretation, as is shown by the links i provided.

Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for the indymedia links to begin appearing. Heh. I did say reputable sources, Memnoch

you keep talking about reputable. Do you even know that pretty much all of the media sources in the western world are owned by about 3 giant corporations? How can u then claim that they are not biased or politically motivated. Tell me what do the people on the websites mentioned have to gain by making lies? what is their motivation? Their reports seem to be fairly honest to me.

A low-key rebellion has been going on in Iraq for a year. That's nothing new. You're claiming that it's a popular uprising though, which is entirely different. It's also entirely wrong. If there was a popular uprising of Iraqi's the coalition forces wouldn't have a chance with their current manpower. The popular uprising you and others here continue to laud simply hasn't materialised. It's a relativily small amount of armed people that are involved in the current battles with the coalition forces, as can be confirmed via numerous news organisations' frequent reports.

Yes, a low-key rebellion, which is why they had to surround and seal off an ENTIRE CITY, not allow ANY news reporters to enter it or witness their actions there, and lay siege to it with tanks, troops, mercenaries, helicopters and air strikes up until such time as the people of the city capitulate once again to occupation... wow certainly sounds fairly LOW KEY to me.....

I see you've been trawling the indymedia webring recently

"Information Action Center: Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S.
Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed" indeed.

From occupation watch.. "The Iraqi people call for international solidarity as they resist attacks by US-led Occupation Forces."

They both smack of impartiality and organisations of good repute to me anyway. Hahahahaha.

you keep saying this time and time again. Okay fine, show me 1 single statement made on this website that is a proven fabrication and I won't use them any more. Until you can do that you have no right to claim that they are dishonest.

.. entirely because they came under sustained attack from the insurgents. But you probably won't believe that either I guess. Go figure.

not according to the iraqi people. Even the coalition appointed puppet foreign minister on sky news said that the Iraqi people are feeling persecuted by the US occupation.

So this is one of those 'If you're not with us, you're against us' things eh? I see. Somone called Kettle is waiting to have a chat with you outside.

actually no. But I do fail to see any logic behind the "pro-occupation" support. Considering the motivations of the US in invading iraq. Not to mention the state of afghanasthan SINCE they US finished with it over a year ago.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
I like.

presenting more logical, compelling arguements vorbis?

tch tch, you really shouldn't

Memnoch

from bbc.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3615703.stm

Hundreds of civilians are reported to have been killed in Falluja, and women and children have been trying to leave.
But the IGC, reportedly furious that it was not consulted, called for an end to the fighting.
The US began its offensive against Sunni insurgents in Falluja on Monday, in an effort to "pacify" the town where four civilian security contractors were killed and mutilated last week.

so it is a rebellion by a minority yet an entire city has to be sieged and pacified
and hundreds of civilians have been killed by the US attack............
......
...........

(sorry i didn't realise that this was not a reputable source of news)

Memnoch

Morairty, the closing nail in your coffin....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3615813.stm

Saturday's papers across the Arab world are dominated by calls for an end to the presence of the US-led forces in Iraq.

Many suggest the situation on the ground is out of control, while some draw comparisons between the uprising in Iraq and the Palestinian intifadah.

And one London-based paper believes Washington's only concern is how Iraq will play in the US presidential election campaign.

but you're just going to say how all these different arab newspapers are completely biased and not reputable sources of news right?

but who cares what these barbarians think? After all they are all interested in Iraqi oil and so definately politically motivated. I bet they are just waiting for a chance to invade iraq once the coalition pulls out... yup i bet thats what all these middle eastern countries want!

Moriarty

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
though not the entire pop of Iraq has uprised, I think the scale of the uprising is a lot more than what has happend before, which is a worry to the westen forces there.

It is on a larger scale than what has happened before and coalition commanders are obviously concerned about it. That doesn't equate to the majority of Iraqis supporting this violence though, which has been my point all along.

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
so, if I could post a link - where Cheney said that Iraq was clear and present danger to the USA you would retract your remarks? and admit that it was perhaps you who did not 'follow the issue closely' ?

No, because I never said the US administration didn't claim it. I said that the pretty large spectrum of media I read/watch never claimed it. I don't necessarly take everything the US administration says as gospel.

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
Are you saying that the USA considered Agent Orange a medication? what was the illness? ... being alive?

No, I'm saying that simply because it caused deaths is entirely irrelevant as to whether it was a weapon or not.

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
So, if the USA happend to find a large quantity of Agent Orange in Iraq (which is a chemical weapon) do you think they would say it was a WMD ?

Agent orange isn't a chemical weapon, it's a defoliant that turned out to have toxic properties. You can surely see the difference between the two?

Originally posted by Memnoch
right so.. they knew what the chemical could do, they just didn't care... they weren't just "negligent" they purposefully turned a blind eye to its effects because it was being used on the enemy.

Aka negligence.

Originally posted by Memnoch
you mean the coalition can't afford to have true democracy in iraq. The only government it seems they will accept in iraq is a puppet one dictated by them.

I say what I mean, I don't need you to tell me what I mean. The US wants to create a secular state out of Iraq - something I would support entirely. I would no more want to see Iraq turn into another Iran than for it to return to rule under a psuedo-Saddam. Not simply because it would create a less stable middle east, but because the Iraqi people - like everyone else in the middle east or otherwise - deserve to live in an open society. If you fail to understand this, there is little I can do for you.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Again, you call them insurgents, but how do u know thats what they are? Is it because thats what the coalition calls them?

Look up the word insurgent in the dictionary, that should explain why I'm using it.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Its also convenient how u ignored the link i posted on the article in the New York times.. I guess you can easily "dismiss" the other links as being biased, but u couldn't claim to do that with the NY times, so you just ignored it..

I didn't ignore it, I addressed what it had to say throughout the rest of my post.

Originally posted by Memnoch
actually, your mistaken. I never said the vast majority of the Iraqi population support Sadr, however most of them do sympathise with him.

Posted by you here: "From reports I've read in the newspapers it would definately seem that indeed a good majority of the Iraqi population support the resistance fighters."

Originally posted by Memnoch
no they aren't silent. Their representatives are the more moderate Shia clerics who have already condmned and spoken out against the occupation.

Ayatollah Sistani, the most senior Shi'ia cleric, has been rather cautious with any releases that carry his name. He hasn't condemned the coalitions occupation or called for their removal. How many of these moderate clerics have actually spoken out against the occupation exactly? Got links for it?

Originally posted by Memnoch
ah yes, yet you take everything said by the coalition authorities at face value, certainly seems "fair and balanced to me" maybe you should join the fox news team.

I take what the US military and numerous news organisations have to say at face value, correct.

Originally posted by Memnoch
most of the american public is thick. It was proven recently by a study conducted by a university of maryland that tested 3 basic facts about the Invasion of iraq. A large majority of americans were found to be wrong on atleast 1 of these facts. Isn't it scary that a large part of the "support" for the war is based on erroneous information?

I have no intention of having a debate about the legitimacy or not of the war with you.

Originally posted by Memnoch
any source that doesn't suit what you say is immediately not reputable.. you want only western media sources that are considered "reputable" by standards set by you... kind of hard since most of these are biased towards the western side of things.

Go look up the word reputable. Now consider which media sources may be recognised internationally as such. Any of these are generally good sources. Any such organisation will at least try to always give both sides of any story, which is more than can be said for the likes of the sites you linked to earlier.

Originally posted by Memnoch
generally accepted by who? I provided you with several links, the term itself is not set in stone, it is open to interpretation, as is shown by the links i provided.

Generally accepted by the people who actually know what they're talking about in this area. The military, government organisations, scientists in the field, the list goes on. The term 'weapon of mass destruction' is generally accepted to mean what i quoted in my last post. Some people have since hijacked the term for other meanings because they don't understand or choose to ignore its original meaning - just because they do this doesn't change the meaning of the original term.

<continued next post..>

Moriarty

<.. continued from previous post>

Originally posted by Memnoch
Yes, a low-key rebellion, which is why they had to surround and seal off an ENTIRE CITY

It makes more sense than allowing them to escape or be resupplied, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Memnoch
not allow ANY news reporters to enter it or witness their actions there

I don't know where you're getting this, but I've seen numerous reports in the print media from journalists inside falluja.

Originally posted by Memnoch
and lay siege to it with tanks, troops, mercenaries, helicopters and air strikes up until such time as the people of the city capitulate once again to occupation... wow certainly sounds fairly LOW KEY to me.....

They've done the same whenever they've attacked any insurgents, no matter where. Why would they not use armor and air power when they have it at their disposal? I can hear that shrill indignancy raising its ugly head again Memnoch..

Originally posted by Memnoch
you keep saying this time and time again. Okay fine, show me 1 single statement made on this website that is a proven fabrication and I won't use them any more. Until you can do that you have no right to claim that they are dishonest.

Indymedia have no qualms about distorting the truth to further their political agenda. That's been shown time and again, even on this forum. I have no compullsion what-so-ever to waste time trying to prove the point to you, search here yourself and you'll soon turn up examples.

Originally posted by Memnoch
not according to the iraqi people. Even the coalition appointed puppet foreign minister on sky news said that the Iraqi people are feeling persecuted by the US occupation.

I knew it You're too predictable

Originally posted by Memnoch
actually no. But I do fail to see any logic behind the "pro-occupation" support. Considering the motivations of the US in invading iraq. Not to mention the state of afghanasthan SINCE they US finished with it over a year ago.

I admit, I have a failing. When I see people like yourself screaming about american war crimes through the spreading of agent orange in vietnam and the like, it pisses me off. Not because I'm particularly pro-american, but because I can't stand people using lies and deceit to try and win support for their cause by proxy - whatever cause that may infact be.

Originally posted by Memnoch
so it is a rebellion by a minority yet an entire city has to be sieged and pacified
and hundreds of civilians have been killed by the US attack............
......
...........

(sorry i didn't realise that this was not a reputable source of news)

How does that contradict anything I've been saying? I know that hundreds of civilians have been killed in falluja in the past week, it's certainly no news to me.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Morairty, the closing nail in your coffin
...
but you're just going to say how all these different arab newspapers are completely biased and not reputable sources of news right?

but who cares what these barbarians think? After all they are all interested in Iraqi oil and so definately politically motivated. I bet they are just waiting for a chance to invade iraq once the coalition pulls out... yup i bet thats what all these middle eastern countries want!

That they're calling for the US to leave Iraq rather than restrain themselves is rather telling, imo. How many of them have been calling for the US to leave Iraq since the moment they invaded a year ago, for instance? The US leaving now would solve nothing and actually worsen the situation for the long-term. They've been commited since they first invaded, so they now have to see it through if they don't want Iraq to fall into anarchy.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Moriarty
I don't know where you're getting this, but I've seen numerous reports in the print media from journalists inside falluja.

At the moment, it's only the Al Jazeera crew that are in there.

Moriarty

According to this there's a reporter for the Daily Telegraph in there aswell. If some are there, i think it's pretty reasonable that a number are there, no?

There was a story on the bbc news site from an AFP journalist inside falluja a few days ago aswell.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Moriarty
According to this there's a reporter for the Daily Telegraph in there aswell. If some are there, i think it's pretty reasonable that a number are there, no?

Misread your post, I thought you were referring to TV crews. AFAIK, AJ are the only crew in there at the moment.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Moriarty
I take what the US military and numerous news organisations have to say at face value, correct.

I would urge you to not to take anything these people have to say at face value. Of late I am starting to realise that these people are just not interested in life, be it their own soldiers or the "enemy".
There are sinister motives behind their actions. That anyone has died is evidence enough that they do not respect human life. That such huge numbers of people have died, be it US soldiers, innocents or enemy soldiers is further evidence that human life is really not an issue for them. These people are enemies of humanity, cerntainly not its friends as they would have us think.
It really doesn't matter what the situation is, there is always an alternative to death. Life is too precious to consider snuffing it out. Of course killing is the easy option, but certinaly not the wise option.

Nick

Moriarty

That was actually incredibly badly phrased on my part.

If the US military says something and it is corroberated by news organisations that I trust, I will take the information at face value. If there is no corroberation from independant sources, I may take it at face value or may wait until more information is eventually uncovered one way or the other, depending on the reported material.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Moriarty
That was actually incredibly badly phrased on my part.

If the US military says something and it is corroberated by news organisations that I trust, I will take the information at face value. If there is no corroberation from independant sources, I may take it at face value or may wait until more information is eventually uncovered one way or the other, depending on the reported material.

very rarely is it "corroberated"... 99% of the time the news reports simply quote what the US military has said, and don't seem to do any investigations as to weather the reports are true or false, this is ESPECIALLY true of CNN...

the bbc are a bit better in that they seem to also report on opinion from the other side of the coin the arab world etc.


ANyways since you have made about 3 posts now and in all 3 choosen to ignore my reference to an article in the NEW YORK TIMES. I've come to the conclusion that if evidence is presented to you, you will either dismiss it as biased, and if you are unable to do that, then you will simply ignore it, so I'm through debating with you.

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
Aka negligence.

No, thats culpability, even maliciousness. Negligence would be if they didn't bother enquiring as to whether it had side effects or not, especially if concerns were raised

monument

Originally posted by Moriarty
Look up the word insurgent in the dictionary, that should explain why I'm using it.

Actually both ‘uprising’ and ‘insurgency’ could be seen as correct, depending on your view of the events, or what ever way you want to twist it.

The word ‘uprising’ is used in some dictionaries to explain ‘insurgency’. And ‘insurrection’ is used another to explain ‘uprising’.

Both words are cited as a popular rebellion.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Agent orange isn't a chemical weapon, it's a defoliant that turned out to have toxic properties. You can surely see the difference between the two?

A 'defoliant' is a "chemical sprayed or dusted on plants to cause the leaves to fall off", in other words it attacks the leaves, so the “toxic properties” are what makes it a defoliant, so I'd have to call that a weapon of sorts long before it is used on humans. A stick is only a weapon when used as such, it's the same with a toxin.


Two fine examples of wrong word usage to further one side of an argument.

Moriarty

Originally posted by monument
Actually both ‘uprising’ and ‘insurgency’ could be seen as correct, depending on your view of the events, or what ever way you want to twist it.

The word ‘uprising’ is used in some dictionaries to explain ‘insurgency’. And ‘insurrection’ is used another to explain ‘uprising’.

Both words are cited as a popular rebellion.

in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

n.
One who is insurgent.

The OED has this to say about it (book form, you need a subscription for their online one):

insurgent

adj.
in revolt; rebellious

n.
rebel

No mention of 'popular uprising' in either of these. Amazing! I guess they must be wrong

Originally posted by monument
A 'defoliant' is a "chemical sprayed or dusted on plants to cause the leaves to fall off", in other words it attacks the leaves, so the “toxic properties” are what makes it a defoliant, so I'd have to call that a weapon of sorts long before it is used on humans. A stick is only a weapon when used as such, it's the same with a toxin.

How unfortunate that you don't understand the term 'chemical weapon'. A google definition search threw up this:

.. - Toxic chemicals and their precursors, munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals, and equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of those munitions and devices.

Agent orange was designed and used as a defoliant. It was not designed as a weapon. None of the groups that have issues with agent orange use have ever claimed that it was developed as a weapon. Anyone who claims it was is talking out of their arse.

Originally posted by monument
Two fine examples of wrong word usage to further one side of an argument.

Kettle: Hey Pot, just back from holidays. What do you think of my tan?
Pot: Jesus, you're black!



Acknowledgments to amp for the funnies

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
No mention of 'popular uprising' in either of these. Amazing! I guess they must be wrong

Either that, or you just don't understand the meaning of the word "some", as in "some dictionaries".

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
Either that, or you just don't understand the meaning of the word "some", as in "some dictionaries".

jc

/agree

Moriarty

So it doesn't matter that he uses definitions that arent universally accepted (or seemingly even widely so; I've since checked the readers digest universal dictionary of all places and it gives a very similar definition to the dictionary.com one) to back up a claim that I was being deceitful? You don't see that as disingenuous? Or the fallacy of him actually using the 'tactic' that he was (incorrectly) giving out to me about in the first place?

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
So it doesn't matter that he uses definitions that arent universally accepted (or seemingly even widely so;

Did I say that? Did I imply that? No, I didn't.

I simply pointed out that he said that "some dictionaries" stated such-and-such.

You provided two definitions from other dictionaries and sarcastically concluded that because they didn't say what munument said "some dictionaries" say, that monument must be saying that your dictionaries are wrong.

Your conclusion is unreasonable, based on what was said. Thats all I pointed out. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you now want to frame other objections - as would appear to be the case - then at least do me the courtesy of not assuming I've already made the same objection against them, because I haven't.

jc

Victor

Not sure if I have the right end of the stick here, but ....

'uprising’ (local, short, Dublin 1916) = ‘insurgency’ (wider, longer, Iraq 2004) = 'rebellion' (widespread, extended, Sri Lanka 198?-2002) I don't see any real difference other than an eacalation in intensity and duration.

A popular 'uprising' needs the support of the general populaous to be 'popular', e.g. overthrowing Milosevic, 2 million people on the streets.

Regarding Agent Orange, while not developed as a chemical weapon (it was however designed to cause harm), it had many of the properties and effects a chemical weapon would have (aerosol dispersal, poisonous, persistent). Chlorine is used as a bleach and a chemical pre-sursor in industry, it was also used as a chemical weapon and can be used as a defoliant.