Falluja

AmenToThat

Dont know if its acceptable to just post a link to an article, but here goes.......


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1193729,00.html

gurramok

...and the condemnation of the genocide is deafening from the 'international community'
US can do what it wants and get away with it.

Memnoch

yup, but still people will come here and defend the american actions. Bush and Blair are war criminals.

still waiting for people to come and say how the guardian is an unreliable news paper and how their stories are clearly lies. Its good to see at least some semblence of decent reporting in the western media. These reports if published by Al Jazeera would probably have been dismissed as "arabic" propaganda...

whats to say, except this kind of thing makes my blood boil... I've maintained for the longest time that Americans are murdering civillians in Iraq, that they are the purpetrators of henious war crimes. I take no satisfaction in being proven right, because I always knew that this kind of thing was going on. It is frustrating to just be sitting here unable to effect any change and to just here about innocent people being slaughtered.

If this is the effect this situation is having on me, being brought up in a conservative anti-muslim (hindu) household. I wonder what effect this would have on young muslim and arab men throughout the world when they see this? Is it any surprise then when events like 9/11 happen? The sad thing is that the victims of the inevtiable backlash will be civillians, and not the monsters that lead this atrocity.

Big Ears

Yet when chill gets his hands on this thread he will probably defend US actions . Which is gonna be damn hard .

vorbis

i think theres a deliberate attempt at mis representation in that article. The article presents a situation where US troops are responsible for the vast majority of shootings. The reality is probably a little different.

They were all saying it was American snipers shooting

I mean quotes like that from the article are just pure speculation. I'd imagine a lot of the civilian casualties are caused by the militants fighting the US. Obviously, I'd accept that the US has caused some of them as well.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
i think theres a deliberate attempt at mis representation in that article. The article presents a situation where US troops are responsible for the vast majority of shootings. The reality is probably a little different.

I think this is a deliberate attempt at trying to descredit the article to reduce the potency of its effect. Any time you hear stories from civillians quoted in news papers etc, they have reported the attacks coming from US troops. Even the humanitarian aid workers were targetted by US snipers. We aren't talking about "accidental" shootings here. It clear that the US snipers are deliberately targetting civillians, as well as aid workers. Not to mention ambulances.

I mean quotes like that from the article are just pure speculation. I'd imagine a lot of the civilian casualties are caused by the militants fighting the US. Obviously, I'd accept that the US has caused some of them as well.

No, this post made by YOU is JUST PURE SPECULATION. I'm sure the people who are being shot at have a much more ACCURATE idea of WHO is shooting them, than you do. What proof do you have to back up your claim that the majority of casualities are being caused by the militants? The US hasn't just accidentally "caused" deaths. It is clear that the US has bombarded and killed civillians, as well as deliberately shot them.

This is the "pacification" of the city that we have been talking about and seeing.

I find it ironic that you question this article from a bi-partisan viewpoint as being "deliberately mis-representative", yet you didn't seem to question statements by the US military that claim that almost ALL of those killed were "insurgents" and "terrorists". This obvious lie on the part of the US military has been exposed now by several reporters on the ground and stories coming out of the city, even at a conservative estimate over 600 civillians have died. It is shameful that you try to defend this.

vorbis

well some of the video footage from Falujah has shown militants firing indiscriminately at US positions. Its not illogical to assume that shooting like that will cause casualties. Also again please reread the article. A lot of the incidents read like speculation.

We went and found an old man lying outside his house. He was unarmed and he was dead, shot in the back. I don't know how long he had been there, but his family were still inside the house, too terrified even to go and get him, even though to leave a body in the street for Muslims is just not possible. They were trapped in the no man's land between the mojahedin line and the marine line.

In the context of the article this is intended to read like a crime committed by the Americans. Indeed the lack of an accusation here leads me to suspect this was one of the probably many casualties caused by the mojahedin.

There are young children involved in the fighting. I saw boys, about 11 years old, masked up and holding AK-47s

Some of these militants are probably described as inncocent deaths later on.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
well some of the video footage from Falujah has shown militants firing indiscriminately at US positions. Its not illogical to assume that shooting like that will cause casualties. Also again please reread the article. A lot of the incidents read like speculation.

But the US have been firing INDISCIRMINATELY AT the entire city of Fallujah. It might be logical to assume that "some" of the casualties could be accidental. However from the reports it is clear that a lot of civillians have been shot dead by the americans indiscrimnately.

quote:

---

We went and found an old man lying outside his house. He was unarmed and he was dead, shot in the back. I don't know how long he had been there, but his family were still inside the house, too terrified even to go and get him, even though to leave a body in the street for Muslims is just not possible. They were trapped in the no man's land between the mojahedin line and the marine line.

---

In the context of the article this is intended to read like a crime committed by the Americans. Indeed the lack of an accusation here leads me to suspect this was one of the probably many casualties caused by the mojahedin.

You're trying to create doubt where none exists. The accusation is UNSPOKEN, there is no need for them to say anything. The stated the facts as they knew them, plain and simple, this is what they have done throughout the article. it is ironic that you accuse them of speculation, because they didn't speculate on this occasion. Again, how can you say how many were shot accidentally by the defenders? I re-iterate the point that so far all the reports coming out from the city indicate that the majority of civillians being killed are dying to the American forces, not vice-versa. Especially due to the indiscriminate bombing of the city.

this is where

quote:

---

There are young children involved in the fighting. I saw boys, about 11 years old, masked up and holding AK-47s

---

Some of these militants are probably described as inncocent deaths later on. [/B]

this is where
your obvious bias and inability to look at the situation without a "pro-american" standpoint is clear. What kind of twisted attitude does it take to call an 11 year old a militant? These kids, have been forced to defend themselves by the american attack. An attack which has clearly shown no discrimination between civillians and fighters. It seems like they would die weather or not they tried to defend themselves. I find it funny, how you can take the fact, that these kids are being forced into a situation where they have taken up guns to defend themselves and their city, and proclaim at as "further evidence" that there are no "innocents " inside fallujah.

Still, despite that, there is utterly 0 proof for YOUR claims that these "militants" as you call them are counted among the civillian dead.

vorbis

But the US have been firing INDISCIRMINATELY AT the entire city of Fallujah. It might be logical to assume that "some" of the casualties could be accidental. However from the reports it is clear that a lot of civillians have been shot dead by the americans indiscrimnately.

I was talking about the iraqi militants. I never suggested that the Americans haven't fired indiscriminately. Interesting though that you completely ignored the point about iraqi militants.

The UNSPOKEN accusation is not substantiated. Every other case they have mentioned was blamed on the Americans. So obviously the addition of this is intended to portray the Americans as responsible. Either line could have been responsible. Their unspoken accusation is an indication of bias imo.

Finally an 11 year old holding an AK and prepared to use it is a militant. A bullet from that gun is just as deadly as one from one of the other fanatics. These kids imo have not been forced to defend themselves (unless it was by their parents). Amazing memnoch, you don't mind contractors getting burned alive yet object to the children carrying weapons being described as militants.

rob1891

for a more detailed account of this womans story it's currently the top entry in her blog

http://wildfirejo.blogspot.com/

She has gone in there not because she's a medic or a doctor (she isn't either) but because her face and passport will protect those trying to help the injured that are scattered about the town. Without her they are routinely shot at by Americans, and that includes when they travel by ambulance.

wildfirejo.blogspot.com
I hate the fact that a qualified medic can’t travel in the ambulance but I can, just because I look like the sniper’s sister or one of his mates

I think that says a lot about the situation over there.

edit: might also say that the blog is a better read, journalist who did the article has dramatised a pretty dramatic account for no good reason!

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
I was talking about the iraqi militants. I never suggested that the Americans haven't fired indiscriminately. Interesting though that you completely ignored the point about iraqi militants.

So, lets first of all establish one thing. You ACCEPT that the american's HAVE fired indiscriminately? Secondly, what point aobut iraqi militants? I thought I addressed your point, but please feel free to "re-iterate" it.

The UNSPOKEN accusation is not substantiated. Every other case they have mentioned was blamed on the Americans. So obviously the addition of this is intended to portray the Americans as responsible. Either line could have been responsible. Their unspoken accusation is an indication of bias imo.

The very fact is that they DID not blame this on the Americans. If they were biased, they would have said something like "probably by American snipers" or something like that. How would you prove otherwise? This part of their story is something that makes the rest even more convincing. here they had the opportunity to directly lay the blame on the american's for another example of the loss of innocent life (not that the needed to). But the didn't do this, simply because they didn't know. This speaks words about their honesty.

Finally an 11 year old holding an AK and prepared to use it is a militant. A bullet from that gun is just as deadly as one from one of the other fanatics. These kids imo have not been forced to defend themselves (unless it was by their parents). Amazing memnoch, you don't mind contractors getting burned alive yet object to the children carrying weapons being described as militants.

FIRST of all. Please stop using Orwell'ian English. Stop calling these people "contractors", and "security agents", they are MERCENARIES/PAID SOLDIERS/ARMED COMBATANTS/DOGS OF WAR/SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They were part of an illegal occupation force and got their just deserts. At the end they died. I don't see their deaths ANY more significant than the deaths of 4 iraqi children. In fact 4 iraqi children's deaths are far more valuable than the death of any INVADER.

AMAZING vorbis, you seem to ignore the fact that these children have been forced into defending themselves BECAUSE of the AMERICAN ATTACK. Their city is under siege. Houses all around them are being bombed by americans. Innocent iraqis are being shot by american snipers right in front of their eyes. If all of a sudden Dublin was attacked by a foreign invading force, and someone offered you a AK-47 to help defend it. Would you not do the same? Would you then become a militant? Or would you be someone FORCED into defending your city?

If you feel that the reason for these kids "fighting" is something else, then please kindly explain to me.

Sand

Bush and Blair are war criminals.

Often repeated factual.....error. Theyve never been tried or convicted of war crimes. There has never been any proof that they have commanded or committed war crimes. War criminal != people you disagree with.

I've maintained for the longest time that Americans are murdering civillians in Iraq, that they are the purpetrators of henious war crimes. I take no satisfaction in being proven right, because I always knew that this kind of thing was going on.

Have you been? All youve got are accusations made by a human rights campaigner in Iraq who claims people who are clearly non-combatants have been shot at by US snipers. She provides no proof beyond her own word. She may be as earnest to believe ill of the US as you are, and as prone to factual inaccuracies. Or she may believe she has been shot at by US snipers ..... see the account of Victors friend for an example of the confusion that can reign when youre being shot at.

I think this is a deliberate attempt at trying to descredit the article to reduce the potency of its effect.

Its actually a reminder of what proof the article offers - none, nada, zip. Jo Wilding thinks ill of the coalition forces and their objectives in Iraq - her word alone is about as persuasive to myself as George Bush claiming the UN staff actively engage in child prostitution and slave trafficking would be to you.

It clear that the US snipers are deliberately targetting civillians, as well as aid workers. Not to mention ambulances.

No, its not. Get some US military bullets dug out of those ambulances and those victims. Thats proof theyve been shot by the US snipers. Then prove there is either a policy of killing civillians or a lack of interest in punishing or preventing killing of civillians.

"Oh Jo Wilding said it so its true" isnt the most convincing proof ever.

your obvious bias and inability to look at the situation without a "pro-american" standpoint is clear.

Now thats irony.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by Sand



Its actually a reminder of what proof the article offers - none, nada, zip. Jo Wilding thinks ill of the coalition forces and their objectives in Iraq - her word alone is about as persuasive to myself as George Bush claiming the UN staff actively engage in child prostitution and slave trafficking would be to you.

Well why dont you show me some articles from "more balanced" reporters from within Falluja during this seige?

Ill be surprised if you can as the americans have banned all reporters from entering Falluja, I wonder why.....................

gurramok

Originally posted by Sand
No, its not. Get some US military bullets dug out of those ambulances and those victims. Thats proof theyve been shot by the US snipers. Then prove there is either a policy of killing civillians or a lack of interest in punishing or preventing killing of civillians.

Plenty, maybe thousands of native witnesess in Fallujah would contradict you, pity they dont have internet connection

700 deaths, mostly women and children, who do you think is responsible for shooting them ?
(US cruelly called them insurgents)

Sand

Plenty, maybe thousands of native witnesess in Fallujah would contradict you, pity they dont have internet connection

A pity they dont have proof either - but thats not required I suppose for some good old fashioned political courts and show trials.

700 deaths, mostly women and children, who do you think is responsible for shooting them ?

I dont know who is responsible for their deaths. It could very well be they were killed by insurgents, or it could just as easily be a US tank shell hitting a building they were in. I have heard or seen no breakdown of the deaths with evidence of who or what killed them or what their status was - which will be subjective when you consider the insurgents are arming children to fight for them. Ive got to admit its an effective tactic, if the kid kills a coaltion soldier or western civillian great, if he dies trying then equally great, PR coup.

Ill be surprised if you can as the americans have banned all reporters from entering Falluja, I wonder why.....................

Did they?

So youre saying daithi1 is a liar and the photo he posted in another thread is a fabrication? Because there are no reporters in Falluja?

This is the photo that youre saying cant have been taken......

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
Often repeated factual.....error. Theyve never been tried or convicted of war crimes. There has never been any proof that they have commanded or committed war crimes. War criminal != people you disagree with.

there are several people who are considered war criminals that haven't yet been convicted. An example of this is Saddam Hussain. You have to take someone into custody and try them before you can convict them, this however does not LESSEN their crime. ... examples of war criminals that have yet to be convicted.

Sharon ..
1) Personally responsible for killing of innocent palestinians.
2) Targetted military assasinations of enemy political leaders, which is AGAINST the geneva convention and condemned by WORLD LEADERs
3) Ethnic cleansing through displacement of palestinian refugees by usurping their land and placing Israeli "settlers" on it...
this list goes on.

G. W. Bush
1) Invading Iraq without manade from the UN.(despite his claims).
2) The murder and killing of several thousand iraqi civillians by US forces
3) The occupation of Iraq and appropriation of its resources by means of a PUPPET government with no real autonomy or power, that is NOT representative of the Iraqi people
4) Illegal imprisonment and denial of access to the outside world of prisoners of war in Guantanemo Bay, in violation of the geneva convention and basic laws of human rights
4) Aiding and abeting Sharon
5) Misrepresenting and fabricating "evidence" to try and support claim for WMD which never existed, used as an excuse for war.

Have you been? All youve got are accusations made by a human rights campaigner in Iraq who claims people who are clearly non-combatants have been shot at by US snipers. She provides no proof beyond her own word. She may be as earnest to believe ill of the US as you are, and as prone to factual inaccuracies. Or she may believe she has been shot at by US snipers ..... see the account of Victors friend for an example of the confusion that can reign when youre being shot at.

In MOST courts of LAW, EYE WITNESS accounts are considered PROOF. Every single account reported in the western or arabic media that recounts incidents told by Iraqi's to western and other reporters recites the US's repeated targetting and killing of innocent civillians. The Eye Witness accounts are PROOF ENOUGH. You can't dismiss them simply because they are the targets of a killing. Thats like saying if the wife saw someoen murder her husband, her testimony is not proof? Do you realise how absurd you sound? This is a clear indication of a RACIST and biased attitude by you, where you are dismissing claims made by the VICTIMS of WHO attacked them.

Its actually a reminder of what proof the article offers - none, nada, zip. Jo Wilding thinks ill of the coalition forces and their objectives in Iraq - her word alone is about as persuasive to myself as George Bush claiming the UN staff actively engage in child prostitution and slave trafficking would be to you.

eye witness accounts are PROOF, in any court of law. And there have been SEVERAL reported. Including an article in The Independent, that was discussed here on boards (feel free to search of it). This article told of an amublance that was shot by a US tank less than 100 metres from a hospital in Baghdad, resulting in the death of a pregnant mother and her unborn child inside, and severe injuries to the driver, who REPORTED the attack.

No, its not. Get some US military bullets dug out of those ambulances and those victims. Thats proof theyve been shot by the US snipers. Then prove there is either a policy of killing civillians or a lack of interest in punishing or preventing killing of civillians.

The proof is EYE witness accounts. If an Iraqi says that US snipers shot him, thats his eye witness account. If other Iraqi's say they saw it happens, that CORROBORATES his account. In any CRIME in ANY court of law, this would be considered SUFFICIENT proof. What you're saying, is that BECAUSE these people are IRAQI's and BECAUSE these people are the VICTIM's their claims are automatically defunct? Nice try, but that just proves that you're a racist, and that you obviously don't consider Iraqi people to be equal to other human beings.

As dfor a lack of interst in punishing the killings of civillinas, I have yet to see a SINGLE US soldier tried for the atrocities committed in Fallujah. NOT TO MENTION the fact that Georgo Bush UNILATERLY declared the US as being IMMUNE to the Internation Criminal Court. If withdrawing from the ICC isn't showing a lack or interest in punishing criminals then I don't know what is.

Now thats irony.

actually, no not really. I've always been pro-US. I supported the afghan war. However it is SUCH U.S. actions, the obivously, immoral and illegal invasion and killing of thousands of civillians, NOT to MENTION the current state of afghanasthan, after the US invasion, that has made me Anti- American. Which is not the same as someone being blindly opposed or supportive of a side DESPITE the obvious to the contrary, which is what I was REFERRING to.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
A pity they dont have proof either - but thats not required I suppose for some good old fashioned political courts and show trials.

Eye witness accounts ARE proof. Despite your claims to the contrary. But PLEASE, don't let that diminish your blatent racism and disregard for Iraqi civillians.

I dont know who is responsible for their deaths. It could very well be they were killed by insurgents, or it could just as easily be a US tank shell hitting a building they were in. I have heard or seen no breakdown of the deaths with evidence of who or what killed them or what their status was - which will be subjective when you consider the insurgents are arming children to fight for them. Ive got to admit its an effective tactic, if the kid kills a coaltion soldier or western civillian great, if he dies trying then equally great, PR coup.

On Wednesday, Christine Hauser of The New York Times covered the carnage in Fallujah, but from a hospital in Baghdad, where some of the victims had been taken. Writing from Fallujah, her colleague Jeffrey Gettleman noted that the Marines in that city "have orders to shoot any male of military age on the streets after dark, armed or not."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000487569

So you're saying that indiscriminate targetting of ANY MALE of MILITARY age (which the Israeli's define as over 12 years of age.) is not direct targetting of civillians?
The US is responsible for their deaths before this arguement even begins. Because it is the U.S. that has invaded Iraq. It is the U.S. that has conducted a SIEGE on the city, with tanks, helicopters and bombings. Sieging a city is a WAR CRIME, and illegal, but thats what the US has done, not to mention snipers targetting humanitarian workers. Therefore the US is already implicity responsible for the death's of ANY iraqi's in Fallujah. But going beyond that is the fact that they are actively killing civillians.

Also, LIVE coverage showing women and children being hit by american helicopter missles on AL Jazeera is not proof enough either i guess?

Shelling a building KNOWING that there may be civillians in it, is ALSO illegal.
Its funny that you try to pass of the fact that 11 year old kids are being forced to defend their city and that they are being killed by US soldiers as a "PR COUP"

Would you claim the same if it was Dublin that was defending against an Iraqi attack? I doubt it.

Did they?

So youre saying daithi1 is a liar and the photo he posted in another thread is a fabrication? Because there are no reporters in Falluja?

This is the photo that youre saying cant have been taken......

American forces declared al-Jazeera must leave before any progress is made to settle the Fallujah stand-off," al-Jazeera director general Wadah Khanfar told IslamOnline.net, citing sources close to the Iraqi Governing Council..........

Kimmitt later dismissed the coverage of the channel for the crisis as a "series of lies". However, asked by al-Jazeera anchor about the live images, the U.S. commander said he was not accusing al-Jazeera of faking the images, but rather “looked at things differently”.

He said the attacks by F16 fighter jets and helicopters were meant to take out “armed insurgents firing at our troops”. The anchor reminded Kimmitt, however, that “live coverage showed children and women killed by the missiles, not armed insurgents”.

Observers see the U.S. highly unusual demand for al-Jazeera to leave Fallujah as a sign of crisis of credibility the U.S. forces face in the eyes of the Iraqis as well as people all over the Arab and Islamic world.

more on the treatment of REPORTERS in Iraq by US forces

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040112&s=rozen
"We looked in the direction from which it was fired--a mansion formerly belonging to Saddam Hussein's nephew--and noticed several men waving their arms in the air and shouting," Somodevilla e-mailed to his editors after the incident. He and the fishermen drove their boat toward the group of men. One of them turned out to be an American in civilian clothing who was carrying a high-velocity rifle outfitted with a silencer and scope.

"He asked who I was and what I was doing," the photographer said. The American, who appeared to be some sort of Special Operations paramilitary or intelligence official, "asked me to produce identification and then attempted to destroy my press credentials. He forcefully quizzed me about my assignment and then turned to an Iraqi standing nearby" to verify aspects of the photographer's story.

"After being shot at, I felt very threatened and swore to the man that I was an American and that I was on his side," Somodevilla said. "Yeah, John Walker [Lindh, the so-called American Taliban] made a lot of promises too," the American interrogator snapped back. "What have you done for your country?" He let Somodevilla go with the warning, "We're watching you."

"Our journalists in Iraq have been shoved to the ground, pushed out of the way, told to leave the scene of explosions; we've had camera disks and videotapes confiscated, reporters detained," says Sandy Johnson, Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press. On November 12 Johnson sent a letter to the Pentagon, signed by thirty other media companies, which cited their concern at "a growing number of incidents in Iraq in which journalists are harassed by U.S. troops in the course of covering the news."

"We consider it to be a pattern that is a problem," Johnson says. "There are no circumstances under which it is acceptable for an American soldier to destroy camera disks or take videotapes from journalists at gunpoint. The Pentagon knows that. We went through the whole war with virtually no incidents. All they have to do is send guidance to the field that this not acceptable behavior."

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9570

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
Eye witness accounts ARE proof.

I think you are confusing "evidence" and "proof".

Eye-witness accounts are admissable in a court of law as evidence. There is not, however, a court in the world that I am aware of which considered eye-witness accounts to be proof.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by AmenToThat
Dont know if its acceptable to just post a link to an article,

Then please go and read the rules for this forum. You clearly haven't.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
I think you are confusing "evidence" and "proof".

Eye-witness accounts are admissable in a court of law as evidence. There is not, however, a court in the world that I am aware of which considered eye-witness accounts to be proof.

jc

Thats just semantics really...

maybe you can explain to me the exact difference between "evidence" and "proof".

from www.dictionary.com the result of "proof"

proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

so evidence is used to proove something to be a fact.

so really its just semantical arguements... but to please you i'll rephrase my statement....

eye-witness acocunts by Iraqi's are the EVIDENCE that PROVES the US are killing civillians....

is there much difference between this and what I said before? Its one and the same thing... I really wish people would quit arguing semantics.

Moriarty

Yes sir, I was an eye-witness when Memnoch assaulted that man. No sir, I don't have any other evidence that I can show you. Yes sir, that is indeed proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Yes sir, I also agree that a long stay in jail would suit the crime.

Do you see the fallacy in your assertions now Memnoch? It's much more than a semantic difference. Dismissing it as such illustrates your lack of understanding of the word.

Eye witness accounts are generally accepted as the weakest form of evidence that can be tabled in a court, for good reason. People are not built to record situations accurately and they don't - a perfect example of which is the account one of victors mates gives in another thread here. That's completely aside from the possibility of people having an axe to grind by giving wrong or misleading testimony.

Sand

there are several people who are considered war criminals that haven't yet been convicted.

Thats true, usually people put alleged or suspected before the war crinimal part in those cases, but in cases where the evidence is overwhelming then its not always done. However I dont see the overwhelming evidence that Bush and Blair are war crinimals.

Sharon ..

A nasty piece of work - the Khahan Commisson found that he was responsible for the atrocities committed in Beiruit even if he had not directly ordered them. Targetted assassinations of terrorist leaders is not a war crime. For his role in 1982 though, he should be in front of a war crimes trial. Mind you, so should Yasser Arafat but the leaders both peoples have chosen show how bad the problem is.

G. W. Bush

What happened to wee Tony?

Its arguable if the coalition needed a 2nd resolution to invade Iraq. The first one Saddam was accused of breaching provided mandate enough apparently - I mean, they did it and theres been no legal challenges.

Ive yet to see a proven case of coalition forces murdering Iraqi civillians. Iraqi civillians died during the war, and coalition forces were often reckless with their rules of engagement or panicked but Ive yet to see a proven case of murderous intent. And even with that, Ive yet to see Bush or Blair order such a case.

Its a provisional government. When a country has been conquered and the previous regime toppled you get together a provisional government to keep the country ticking over until elections are held. This is normal in every such case. This is not a war crime either.

Guantamo Bay is very disputed. The US claims theyre not covered by the Geneva Convention. No one has won a case yet to prove they are afaik so theyre probably on strong legal ground there. Regardless, even if they were covered by the Geneva Convention its perfectly legal to hold captured enemies until the end of hostilities - i.e. until Al Queda and the US sign a peace treaty, which is pretty much never going to happen. So again, not a war crime.

Aid and abet Sharon how? Hed say hes acting as a peace broker - youd sputter with outrage but because you disagree doesnt make him a war crinimal. The EU provides funds to the Palestinian Authority, led by Yasser Arafat whose Tanzim and Fatah organisations commit terrorist attacks, and who pays for people to suicide bomb Israeli civillians. As such the EU is aidding and abbetting terrorism?

Misrepresenting evidence is not a war crime.

The Eye Witness accounts are PROOF ENOUGH.

Eye witnesses can be mistaken, they can be confused, they can be intimidated, they can be biased( youd know about this ) or coerced. Eye witnesses without corroborating evidence is simply hearsay. If I and enough of my friends say we saw you rape some girl is that all the proof a court needs to convict you? Show me the bullets the US snipers have killed these innocent people with. Show me the orders that the US commanders have sent down ordering their soldiers to kill civillians. That plus eye witness accounts is proof.

This is a clear indication of a RACIST and biased attitude by you, where you are dismissing claims made by the VICTIMS of WHO attacked them.

Whod have thought it - you ask for objectivity and actual proof to back up claims and youre a racist. I never get tired of all this childish namecalling.

BECAUSE these people are IRAQI's and BECAUSE these people are the VICTIM's their claims are automatically defunct? Nice try, but that just proves that you're a racist, and that you obviously don't consider Iraqi people to be equal to other human beings.

Actually I never said anything about their eye witness accounts being any less because their Iraqis - I criticised Jo Wilding and shes not Iraqi?

And again Im racist because I look for evidence. I mean come on, theres not a single US bullet to be found in these suposed sniper murders? Mot one? I mean youd need quite a lot to prove a case of widespread civillian attacks but theres not one?

Word of advice - attack the post, not the poster. I *dont want* you to follow that advice because every time you call me names you make yourself look like a ranting, tantrum throwing child. And that suits me just fine.

But PLEASE, don't let that diminish your blatent racism and disregard for Iraqi civillians.

Thats right, keep on making my case for me.

So you're saying that indiscriminate targetting of ANY MALE of MILITARY age (which the Israeli's define as over 12 years of age.) is not direct targetting of civillians?

It sounds to me like theyre enforcing a curfew. Theyre operating on the basis that if they tell people to stay indoors after a certain time due to insurgents operating in that area, that males of military age who are defying the curfew are the insurgents. Curfews are actually a method of seperating out a civillian population from insurgents to reduce civillian casualties. Thats a whole lot different to casually murdering civillians.

And thanks for your article btw - it actually shows that western reporters havent been banned from entering Fallujah, but rather that theyre afraid to go in because they may be abducted or murdered by terrorist gangs.

Cheers, I thought I was going to have to dig up some evidence to prove Amen wrong but you did it yourself. Thanks again.

Also, LIVE coverage showing women and children being hit by american helicopter missles on AL Jazeera is not proof enough either i guess?

Im intrigued. Link?

Shelling a building KNOWING that there may be civillians in it, is ALSO illegal.

Actually its not - Its illegal to do it knowing that there *are* civillians in it. Under your definition militaries could never shell any building unless they could prove there was *no* civillians in it, which they cannot know without actually being in and searching the building thouroughly - which would mean they wouldnt need to shell the building.

Its funny that you try to pass of the fact that 11 year old kids are being forced to defend their city and that they are being killed by US soldiers as a "PR COUP"

It is though - If you send child soldiers to kill the coalition soldiers and the coalition soldiers kill them, then you can go "ooooooooh, the evil coalition soldiers, look what they did, they killed this poor boy, murdered this defenceless child, they laughed whillst they did it - quick someone hide that AK-47 before the photographers get here!"

How exactly do the terrorist lose? The kid either kills a soldier or he strikes a blow in the propaganda wars. Its brutal and its evil but its great for manipulating foolish people who believe everything theyre told without the need for proof.

eye-witness acocunts by Iraqi's are the EVIDENCE that PROVES the US are killing civillians....

Haven't you left out a crucial word there... eg deliberately.I'd love to see a link to evidence that proves that the U.S soldiers each time they fire are shouting "yee haw...we got another child....lets get that woman next"
I'm sure you can though?
Because otherwise what you are really providing evidence of and attempting to prove, is that the U.S army in their actions are wrecklessly endangering the lives of innocent civilians sometimes resulting in the death of those civilians.
If that came before a court of law, evidence missing from your arguments like what the insurgents are up to ( ie are they also wrecklessly endangering civilians resulting in death ) would also be presented.There would also have to be some form of forensic evidence presented.

is there much difference between this and what I said before? Its one and the same thing... I really wish people would quit arguing semantics.

Well it's not really one and the same thing, because no independent judgement has been made upon it.
Thats the way things are done and rightly so.
Other than that all you are expressing is your view which though agreeable, in many respects doesn't represent the full picture.

But PLEASE, don't let that diminish your blatent racism and disregard for Iraqi civillians.

Memnoch, you posted that in reply to Sand....???
Could you explain where he is being blatantly racist in his arguments here? because it's not clear to me, any examples?

bonkey

so evidence is used to proove something to be a fact.

so really its just semantical arguements...

No, its not.

Simple example, before I run off to catch a train.

There was plenty of evidence presented to try and convict OJ Simpson of murder, but he was found to benot guilty, indicating that they failed to prove his guilt using the evidence (referring to the first case, not the civil one where he was found guilty, obviously)

If something is proof, then it implies the result is proven. If something is evidence, it does not have the same implication.

Yes, its semantics, but its an important distinction.

jc
jc

gurramok

Haven't you left out a crucial word there... eg deliberately.I'd love to see a link to evidence that proves that the U.S soldiers each time they fire are shouting "yee haw...we got another child....lets get that woman next"

How do you think the victims died..a mass murder by their own side ?

And that child in the photo looks about 5 yrs of age...must be a very strong intelligent child to hold and use a RPG !

Why are the americans shelling that city in the first place...shelling is one of the most indiscriminate ways of killing people.

A single eyewitness account does not compare to maybe thousands of eyewitness accounts by residents of that city....surely they can't all be lying ?

Originally posted by gurramok
How do you think the victims died..a mass murder by their own side ?

I didn't dispute the accounts of what happened, I just asked for the other side or an alternative to be heard.
I also disputed, the fact presented as fact that U.S soldiers deliberately indiscriminately target women and children.
The insurgents probably don't either, but to say that they don't kill women and children aswell as a by product of what they do, would be pushing fact towards fiction.

halkar

Facts of war and doesn't matter how much the technology improves in warfare we still see civilian casualities and no one will go and check the bullets on 10000 of Iraqi deads. I am not sure if these US soldiers are firing as they wish but in the environment they are in thousands of miles away from home in a hostile lands surrounded with angry people that are out to take them in their first opportunity and fear of dead or capture everyday and hour and minute and second is surely causing phsycological effects and it is hard to deny that not all of their actions are by the book. After all most of these soldiers are in 20s.

Having said that, I feel sorry for them too that they are fighting a war so far away from their homeland and it is not like fighting and defending your homeland with far more determination then fighting abroad. I am sure the moral is at lowest and most of these soldiers no longer know what they are there for, add to this all the political sh!t going on in their homelands which leaving so many unanswered questions while they are getting killed there. War in Iraq was wrong and I do hope all these young man return their home to their families safely one day and fight with their corrupt poilticans when the time comes. I do hope Iraqi people set their differences aside and learn to live in peace but I do not think that this will be possible as long as US is there.

peace at home peace in the world

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
I think you are confusing "evidence" and "proof". Eye-witness accounts are admissable in a court of law as evidence. There is not, however, a court in the world that I am aware of which considered eye-witness accounts to be proof.

Actually, in the legal sense "proof" is what a lay-person would call "evidence". For example the prosecution could contend that their proof of theft is person X was seen taking the goods and not paying money.

So alas Bonkey, you and Sand are the plebs in this case

Originally posted by Victor
Actually, in the legal sense "proof" is what a lay-person would call "evidence". For example the prosecution could contend that their proof of theft is person X was seen taking the goods and not paying money.

And person y friend of person x could give further "eye withness" proof to say it was a set up, and that person x didn't steal the goods at all.
In the absence of video evidence in that case there would be no conclusive proof

Case dismissed M'lud

Victor

Originally posted by Earthman
And person y friend of person x could give further "eye withness" proof to say it was a set up, and that person x didn't steal the goods at all.
In the absence of video evidence in that case there would be no conclusive proof

Not necessarily, when I know and have proof that y is a well know liar and a convicted fence.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Actually, in the legal sense "proof" is what a lay-person would call "evidence".

Not entirely, I would have thought.

In the legal sense, both sides are assuming a specific outcome, and arguing that the evidence is - in actual fact - proof of the veracity of their claims.

In other words, the prosecution say "we can prove this man is guilty", and here is the proof of that.

For example the prosecution could contend that their proof of theft is person X was seen taking the goods and not paying money.

The prosecution - by the very nature of "beyond reasonable doubt" must assert that it is proof. To do less so would imply that the result was not proven.

The defence, however, will typically try to show that the proof is flawed - that nothing has been proven, despite the allegations of the prosecution.

So alas Bonkey, you and Sand are the plebs in this case

If this were a court of law, then yes, we would possibly be. However, if you check back at your first sentence about where you refer to the understanding of the words by "the layman", and then consider that the readers here are neither in a court of law, nor all established legal types....

Anyway...this dragged further off into semantics than I wanted it to. What I was trying to say was that Memnoch was confusing the existence of evidence/proof/indicators/whatever-term-makes-you-happy with the result being proven.

But seeing as you're clearly the legal expert Victor...could you clear up whether or not eye-witness accounts are indeed "proof enough" as was alleged. I'm guessing that the answer is not an unequivocal "yes".....which would further undermine the argument even leaving semantics aside.

I never get tired of all this childishnamecalling.

Clearly not. You seem to enjoy indulging in it as well...or is your namecalling more adult in nature

jc