Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

Moriarty

Flukey wrote:

The purpose it serves is to ensure that the injured people can get no help whatsoever making it easier for the city to fall.

It wouldn't make it any easier. Civilians by definition have nothing to do with the fighting. Infact, it could concievably make taking the city harder by stirring up further resentment (if that was possible) amongst the insurgents because of how the general population was treated (if they actually care about that).

Flukey wrote:

Bush has nothing to do it with it? Wasn't he the one who started this invasion? Is he not Commander and Chief of the US Army?

You implied that it was under Bushes direct orders that the hospital was bombed. It wasn't. That's all I was saying.

Flukey wrote:

They know how their army operates and make no apologies for it.

I have a fair idea of the general ways in which the US army operate, and I'd make no apologies for it either.

chewy wrote:

what do you make of this

"We'll see"

<edit>Oh and Memnoch, it's not ignorance simply because somone doesn't agree with you, no matter how much you'd like it to be.</edit>

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

If someone has lived in that city for all of their life, and been relatively happy there. And then the american army came along and tried to take over..and this civilian took up arms against the invading american horde... is this civilian now an "Insurgent" ?

I'm not being cheeky, I'm just a little confused by all the fancy terms and names being thrown around.

chewy

"But thats war. To the people getting blown up, it doesn't matter whether it's US troops, insurgents or various opportunistic Islamic fanatics."

true, thats why some people are not just anti-american (a jibe for anti-capitalists) but anti-militarisation... and against extremisnism if there is such a "ism" to be against

now there is a question whether humans can get along at all, one hopes we are learning how to... and it is possible to do so...

but the thats just war statement is again for those who wish to peddle the the idea that there is no alternative...

Moriarty

Mordeth wrote:

If someone has lived in that city for all of their life, and been relatively happy there. And then the american army came along and tried to take over..and this civilian took up arms against the invading american horde... is this civilian now an "Insurgent" ?

Yes. If they decide to attack people they are a totally valid target. If you shoot, you can rightfully expect to be shot back at, no matter what your reasons are. A bullet will still kill somone equally well whether it's fired from the gun of somone happy or reluctant to hold it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but why insurgents? why not "defendants" or "rightful owners of property" or "iraqi citizens" or.. ?

Moriarty

It's the fairest catch-all term I can think of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent

in·sur·gent Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

chill

bonkey wrote:

Any ecvidence of this, or is this just going to be another situation where you glibly tell us to do our own research?

If you have any evidence that there were any civilian patients there, I would be delighted to read it.

Isn't it amazing how, when the US kill innocents, it is an inevitable cost of war, brought about by a mixture of lack-of-perfefct-weapons, human fallability, and people being in the wrong place at the wrong time....none of which should, however, be used as a deterrant as the enemy cannot be allowed to hide behind a human shield.
When the insurgents do likewise, they're murdering terrorists who have no regard for innocent life and who should universally condemned.

What si amazing is that there are so many contributors here who condemn America troops as war criminals for hunting down and killing these mass murderers yet they make almost no reference and no condemnation of the murdering terrorists.
The double standards are a deep embarrassment - I agree.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

"established authority"

I suppose one mans insurgent is another's freedom fighter

chewy

to echo mordeth who are the terrorist who are the those fighting for freedom... methinks the us are terrorist anyway?

SkepticOne

chewy wrote:

"But thats war. To the people getting blown up, it doesn't matter whether it's US troops, insurgents or various opportunistic Islamic fanatics."

true, thats why some people are not just anti-american (a jibe for anti-capitalists) but anti-militarisation... and against extremisnism if there is such a "ism" to be against

now there is a question whether humans can get along at all, one hopes we are learning how to... and it is possible to do so...

but the thats just war statement is again for those who wish to peddle the the idea that there is no alternative...

War is indeed a terrible thing. Where possible, attempts should be made to reach a compromise that is acceptable to both sides. Sometimes, this is not possible and war is the consequence. In an ideal world it would not happen and people would realise it is in their best interest to sit down and hammer out a deal. What the people engaging in war often fail to realise is that it is the ordinary people that suffer the most, not the politicians or the generals.

AmenToThat

The reasoning behind the planned massacre of Fallujah is to deal a fatal blow to the insurgents and ensure that elections can take place in the town, apparently.

Fallujah is now completely isolated...has been for days yet the insurgents have stepped up their attacks elsewhere killing around 50 Iraqi police in the last two days alone.
This fact alone proves what a load of crap the whole idea of attacking Fallujah is as it is having the complete opposit effect on the insurgency in other Sunni areas.

Who will be voting in these elections in Fallujah assuming its "liberated"?
Much of the city has been, or most definitaly will be destroyed will a full scale assualt so where are the people gonna live?
Refugee camps?
How will you hold fair and democratic elections in refugee camps among people who despise you?
In any case the above questions are somewhat accademic anyways as the Association of Sunni Clerics which is the most powerful voice within Sunni Iraq has said that there will be a boycott of elections if there is an assualt on Fallujah thus making any elections in Iraq in January invalid.

Its a mindless exercise in murder for murders sake, just so the American army can use the marines as guinnea pigs to test their latest urban warfare techniques thats the only conclusion I can draw from the planned assualt on Fallujah

AmenToThat

chill wrote:

If you have any evidence that there were any civilian patients there, I would be delighted to read it.


What si amazing is that there are so many contributors here who condemn America troops as war criminals for hunting down and killing these mass murderers yet they make almost no reference and no condemnation of the murdering terrorists.
The double standards are a deep embarrassment - I agree.

Seems to me that theres enough mass murder in Iraq at the moment for everybody, dont think one side has a monopoly on it.

chill

AmenToThat wrote:

The reasoning behind the planned massacre of Fallujah is to deal a fatal blow to the insurgents and ensure that elections can take place in the town, apparently.

Amen to that. These are of course the 'insurgents' that are almost all non-iraqis, who have come into Iraq for the express purpose of killing as many westerners and Iraqi civilians as possible.

Fallujah is now completely isolated...has been for days yet the insurgents have stepped up their attacks elsewhere killing around 50 Iraqi police in the last two days alone.

There has been no 'step up' of attacks on civilians or military. It has been going on for some time. And there has never been a claim or assertion by anyone that Fallujah is the only nest of these murderers.

This fact alone proves what a load of crap the whole idea of attacking Fallujah is as it is having the complete opposit effect on the insurgency in other Sunni areas.

Meaningless hyperbole considering there has been no increase elsewhere.

Who will be voting in these elections in Fallujah assuming its "liberated"?

Only those civilians who are entitled, I hope. Certainly not any of the imported terrorists or murderers.

Much of the city has been, or most definitaly will be destroyed will a full scale assualt so where are the people gonna live?
Refugee camps?

Sounds as good an idea as any. They will have those foreign fanatical killers who have been slaughtering their fellow countrymen to thank for that.

How will you hold fair and democratic elections in refugee camps among people who despise you?

It's up to them. If they chose not to vote, that's democracy.

In any case the above questions are somewhat accademic anyways as the Association of Sunni Clerics which is the most powerful voice within Sunni Iraq has said that there will be a boycott of elections if there is an assualt on Fallujah thus making any elections in Iraq in January invalid.

A boycott of voting doesn't invalidate an election. It just means their votes aren't counted.

Its a mindless exercise in murder for murders sake, just so the American army can use the marines as guinnea pigs to test their latest urban warfare techniques thats the only conclusion I can draw from the planned assualt on Fallujah

Personally I hope they kill every last one of those killers, and take no prisoners. This is a war against mass murderers and evil and however flawed Bush's policy may be, any common sense morality will see the evil in these murderes and the heroic arm of justice in the allied soldiers risking and spending theri lives to being freedom to the unfortunate people of Iraq, no thanks to the American haters and supporters of terrorism when it suits their personal prejudices.

Frank Grimes

chill wrote:

Meaningless hyperbole considering there has been no increase elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3990141.stm

(I know I'm supposed to comment but I doubt it'll register.)

chill

Frank Grimes wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3990141.stm

(I know I'm supposed to comment but I doubt it'll register.)

The BBC can hardly be seen as a reliable source of this kind of subjective assessment. Anyone who monitors the level of violence and murder over the last six months can see that the 'increase' is wholly subjective and more to do with the media's understandably negative response to the US election and the upcoming elections in Iraq than to any real increase in insurgent activity.
The level of slaughter has been more or less constant, what has changed is the change in the British Army's situation, the godawful Bush victory and the day to day need for headlines in the media.

Frank Grimes

chill wrote:

The BBC can hardly be seen as a reliable source of this kind of subjective assessment.

Can you provide an objective source then?

chill

Frank Grimes wrote:

Can you provide an objective source then?

Ehh.. nope !

Butargument and discussion and opinion are not decided solely by 'sources'....

Frank Grimes

chill wrote:

Ehh.. nope !

Butargument and discussion and opinion are not decided solely by 'sources'....

It's not about discussion and opinion. You are denying that there's an increase in violence, I've showed you one source that contradicts that.
You really should back up your claim.

Flukey

Moriarty wrote:

Civilians by definition have nothing to do with the fighting. Infact, it could concievably make taking the city harder by stirring up further resentment (if that was possible) amongst the insurgents because of how the general population was treated (if they actually care about that).

True, the civilians have nothing to do with the fighting, but they do get killed. It is also true that when they are killed this leads to more recruits for the terrorists. If your family and friends were killed for no reason, what are you more likely to do to the people responsible: Send them a Thank You card or fight back? This war is creating more terrorism. It is a war for terror not a war on terror. There was far less terror in Iraq 12 or 18 months ago than there is now

Chill wrote:

Personally I hope they kill every last one of those killers, and take no prisoners. This is a war against mass murderers and evil and however flawed Bush's policy may be, any common sense morality will see the evil in these murderes and the heroic arm of justice in the allied soldiers risking and spending theri lives to being freedom to the unfortunate people of Iraq, no thanks to the American haters and supporters of terrorism when it suits their personal prejudices.

First of all those of us against this war are not anti-American. We disagree with the foreign policies that are being pursued by the American government, but that does not make us anti-American. I don't agree with every single policy the Irish goverment has ever had. Does that make me anti-Irish?

Any common sense morality will not go in and kill innocent people. Killing even just the terrorists will not stop terrorism either. Every time you kill a terrorist there will always be more recruits to take their place. If on top of that you are also killing innocent people, you'll create even more recruits for the terrorists. To stop terrorism, you have to tackle the causes not the perpatrators. Killing the terrorists has never stopped terrorism.

For 25 years the might of the British army could not stop a relatively small group of terrorists in Northern Ireland. The more they killed the bigger that small group became. Nothing would have changed if they pursued that tactic for another 25 years. Things only improved when the British government sat down and started to address the root causes of the problems. Terrorists don't cause terrorism. They carry it out, but the causes run deeper.

As I said, there was little or no terrorism in Iraq 12 or 18 months ago. Unless the problems are addressed there will still be plenty of it in 12 or 18 months time, no matter how many terrorists they kill. The terrorists are a symptom, not the cause. It is the causes that have to be addressed. When they start doing that, then the war on terror will begin. What they are engaged in is a war for terror and the growth of terrorism over the past 18 months proves it is working.

None of us who are criticising American tactics in anyway condone what the terrorists are doing. We abhor their actions just as much as those that support this war do. We want them to stop. The current American tactics are not doing that. If George Bush and co ever do launch a war on terror, I will fully support it, as I want the terror to stop. If you want to tackle terrorism and defeat it, address the causes, not the perpatrators.

AmenToThat

Im leaving myself open on this one as its news just breaking and may not be reliable..........

The attack apparently has started and one of the first places "captured" (how does one capture a hospital?) is the main Fallujah hospital.

There was discussion earlier on this board that the field hospital attack was a mistake and that it makes no sense to deliberatly attack medical facilities.
However if its true that the main Fallujah hospital has been "liberated" first I have a theory as to why.

Pictures of babies women and children being stuck back together in hospitals without even basic equipment as in Fallujah 1 make bad tv for the Americans and tends to make the Sunni population a little on the jumpy side......
So why not ensure that there are no pictures of disfigured kids beamed around the world?
From an American point of view makes perfect sense, no evidence, no crime.
From the rest of the worlds point of view its very sinister and has implications for all of us if and when anyone starts to control the media in this way (not just the Americans).

Flukey

America has always been very cagey about what they show on TV. They are very insular. They don't know much about what happens outside America. Returning coffins from Iraq have not been seen too often. There was even that uproar about Janet Jackson's tit being seen at the Super Bowl. This is part of their mixed up morals. You can destroy a hospital and kill innocent people, but don't dare show a tit on TV.

Flukey

They know all about the insurgents atrocities, but the way their media goes on at times you'd think the soldiers were over there giving sweets to the children and not one single innocent person has ever been killed by them. The only people the troops are killing are those nasty little terrorists and the rest of the people are dancing on the streets throwing bouquets of flowers at the troops to celebrate their freedom. They've liberated a lot of Iraqi civilians alright, mostly of their mortal existence. The American media does a lot of the mushroom treatment to their people: Keep them in the dark and feed them sh|t.

LegacyUser

best of luck to the brave fighters in Fallujah, may they take many to their graves

the_syco

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3986085.stm]BBC[/url] wrote:

We followed the US elections very closely from Falluja.

It was a matter of life and death. Many people were hoping John Kerry would win because they felt he would not have allowed our city to be attacked like this.

Damn fools. If Kerry had won, Bush would still be in power. His 2nd term doesn't start till January 20 @ 12 noon.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3971635.stm]BBC[/url] wrote:

Elections will be held by 15 December 2005 on the basis of the new constitution and a fully constitutional government is due to take power by 31 December 2005.

If Kerry had won, Bush would leave on January 20th, with Iraq finished.

pork99 wrote:

Of course if the Americans are smart they'll anticipate this.

All 10,000 of them.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What the US is currently doing in Iraq is a disgrace. If there was any *justice* in the world, they would have been done for war crimes by now :mad: We all know that the biggest democracy in the world cannot be charged with war crimes, it is just not the done thing :rolleyes:

If there was any justice in the world, the clerics, the militia leaders, in Iraq and those who get people to suicde bomb Iraqi's who Q in line to become police officers, would also be charged. But they won't be found, never mind charged.

dathi1 wrote:

A Channel 4 news reporter embedded with US troops put it perfectly yesterday.....On the second invasion of Grozny, Russian troops and aircraft levelled the city and killed civilians and fighters alike. The plan was to finish the resistance once and for all. It had the oppostie effect, 10 years later Russian troops are still fighting massive resistance in Chechnya.

Russian tactic; put their own prsident, and get Russian troops to provide the protection.
US tactic; Hold an election. Get people to be voted for from the different sections. Get Iraq's trained to police themselves.

chewy wrote:

to echo mordeth who are the terrorist who are the those fighting for freedom... methinks the us are terrorist anyway?

The terrorists are the Saddam loylists, who want to be in control of the rest of the population, because they think they deserve it, and the freedom fighters are those who want to give ALL the Iraqi's the choice on which leader they should elect.

AmenToThat wrote:

Who will be voting in these elections in Fallujah assuming its "liberated"?
Much of the city has been, or most definitaly will be destroyed will a full scale assualt so where are the people gonna live?
Refugee camps?
How will you hold fair and democratic elections in refugee camps among people who despise you?
In any case the above questions are somewhat accademic anyways as the Association of Sunni Clerics which is the most powerful voice within Sunni Iraq has said that there will be a boycott of elections if there is an assualt on Fallujah thus making any elections in Iraq in January invalid.

You mean the Sunni Arabs who belonged to the 15% elite of Iraq during Saddam's rule, are the Sunni Kurds, who are the 20% ?
Add both Sunni, the Arabs, and the Kurds, you only get 35% of the Iraqi population.

I think they were only "powerful voice within Sunni Iraq" during the time of Saddam (who was also a Sunni Arab), but maybe not now. And if the 15% boycott the eection, so what? The Sunni Kurds won't boycott the election, as the Kurds have a long history of anti-foreign goverment, so the chance to be rule themselves will be grasped. That, and the fact that the Kurds have a stable relationship with their own people (they lived beyond the reach of Saddam), they'll be able to produce a leader of their people easier.

Frank Grimes wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3990141.stm

(I know I'm supposed to comment but I doubt it'll register.)

Iraq declares state of emergency. You think they'll say
"there has been the same sh|t, but we're going under martial law"
or
"we're been killed or kidnapped left, right, and centre! We're putting Iraq under martial law to stablize it!!!!"
They both mean the same. In both statments they talk of the same mindless cr4p, daily kidnaps, killings, amd suicide bomb attacks. The only difference is that in the second, its more livened up. Same sh|t to most people means nothing bad. To the Iraqi's, though, the same sh|t means that they're been "killed or kidnapped left, right, and centre".

Flukey wrote:

First of all those of us against this war are not anti-American. We disagree with the foreign policies that are being pursued by the American government, but that does not make us anti-American. I don't agree with every single policy the Irish goverment has ever had. Does that make me anti-Irish?

Likewise, I'm anti-Bush. I like America, but some of the foreign policies were just too light, or wrong for this era.

Flukey wrote:

For 25 years the might of the British army could not stop a relatively small group of terrorists in Northern Ireland. The more they killed the bigger that small group became. Nothing would have changed if they pursued that tactic for another 25 years. Things only improved when the British government sat down and started to address the root causes of the problems. Terrorists don't cause terrorism. They carry it out, but the causes run deeper.

The difference here is that in Northern Ireland, the British wanted to impose their rule, and keep it there, and alot of the people already there hated the Brits. In Iraq, 15% of the people hate the Americans. More now, because of the influx of anti-Americans. The people attacking America don't just want them to leave, they want to control the other 85%, just like "the old days". Another difference; the US intends to leave. Before they leave, they intend to have held elections, deciding on an elected leader.
The British never intended to leave Northern Ireland. They still haven't fully left.

=-=

Americans doing it Ben-Hur style, before the fighting commences;

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Another difference; the US intends to leave. Before they leave, they intend to have held elections, deciding on an elected leader.

they intended to hop in, rewrite some rules and regulations in america/capitalisms favour and then hop out again with a nice puppet goverment in place.
Phase one went well enough, phase two was implemented but the iraqi's didn't take it lying down as was expected and phase 3 is... well..

Moriarty

Flukey wrote:

True, the civilians have nothing to do with the fighting, but they do get killed. It is also true that when they are killed this leads to more recruits for the terrorists.

Yup.

Flukey wrote:

If your family and friends were killed for no reason, what are you more likely to do to the people responsible: Send them a Thank You card or fight back?

I don't know, but even if I did take up arms I'd have to recognise the fact that I'm then fair game for the enemy military. Implying that people who take up arms because friends/family were killed are absolved of any responsability is ridiculous.

Flukey wrote:

This war is creating more terrorism. It is a war for terror not a war on terror. There was far less terror in Iraq 12 or 18 months ago than there is now

Which is irrelevant to this thread. This (thankfully) isn't yet another "Iraq 2 Is Bad Mmmkay?" thread, so don't turn it into one.

Flukey wrote:

Any common sense morality will not go in and kill innocent people.

The objective isn't to kill civilians, killing civilians is/was an unfortunate by-product.

Flukey wrote:

Every time you kill a terrorist there will always be more recruits to take their place.

Not necessarly. Generally a significant minority of the population has to support the cause of the terrorists before that will happen.

Flukey wrote:

For 25 years the might of the British army could not stop a relatively small group of terrorists in Northern Ireland. The more they killed the bigger that small group became. Nothing would have changed if they pursued that tactic for another 25 years.

The british had the R/P/CIRA thoroughly penetrated by the time of the ceasefire. They had effectively defeated the organisations. That's why they agreed a ceasefire, so that they could try to salvage political power out of the rapidly disappearing terrorist capabilites.

Flukey wrote:

As I said, there was little or no terrorism in Iraq 12 or 18 months ago. Unless the problems are addressed there will still be plenty of it in 12 or 18 months time, no matter how many terrorists they kill. The terrorists are a symptom, not the cause. It is the causes that have to be addressed.

What do you think the elections are for? The rebuilding (which has been massively hampered by the very "freedom fighters" so many cheer for as the true voice of Iraq)?

Flukey wrote:

None of us who are criticising American tactics in anyway condone what the terrorists are doing.

To have others listen to you criticise something you first have to demonstrate a decent understanding of it. You don't appear to have that.

Flukey

Moriarty wrote:

Yup.



I don't know, but even if I did take up arms I'd have to recognise the fact that I'm then fair game for the enemy military. Implying that people who take up arms because friends/family were killed are absolved of any responsability is ridiculous.

I'm not absolving of responsibility, just showing how terrorism is created. I don't condone it, but terrorists are created by circumstance. If there are innocent people being killed some of the survivors, though they would have been peaceful beforehand, will take up arms.

The british had the R/P/CIRA thoroughly penetrated by the time of the ceasefire. They had effectively defeated the organisations. That's why they agreed a ceasefire, so that they could try to salvage political power out of the rapidly disappearing terrorist capabilites.

The state of the IRA at the time of the ceasefires is debateable. Some would have you believe they were defeated, some not. Spin as ever in action. Their acts at Heathrow pre-ceasefire and then after the first ceasefire at Canary Wharf proved that they could still strike at the heart of British society if they wanted to, so the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

What do you think the elections are for? The rebuilding (which has been massively hampered by the very "freedom fighters" so many cheer for as the true voice of Iraq)?

The Afghanastani elections were trumpetted recently, but had their problems. The US will make sure they have the government they want, not the one the Iraqis want, before they leave. You can't impose democracy on a country. Bringing democracy is one thing, but imposing it is another. America and others can provide support and advice on how to create a democracy, but it is up to the Iraqis to come up with their own form or democracy, as any democratic country has. Inevitably it will have to include some of the insurgents, as has been the case in most fledgling democracies. Eamon DeValera amongst others are our examples of that.

To have others listen to you criticise something you first have to demonstrate a decent understanding of it. You don't appear to have that.

Well I am still a long way ahead of you so.

bonkey

chill wrote:

If you have any evidence that there were any civilian patients there, I would be delighted to read it.

I've three responses to this. I can't decide which is more relevant, so I'll offer all three:

1) I'll take that as a "no", then. You have no proof, and indeed in subsequent posts have pointed out the lack of objective information sources. So this is just a baseless opinion which you forgot to clarify as such....not fact.

2) The building was blown up chill. Any physical proof is now matchstick-sized debris.

3) If you could just point me at where teh conventions clarify that its only a war-crime to blow up civilian structures when there are civilians in it, I'll concede that should there have been an absence of civilians, then there would be no question of a war-crime. My understanding, though, is that there is no such qualifier. It is the targetting of civilian structures which is condemned....not whether or not there are civilians killed in the process. And so the only pertinent question was whether or not the US knowingly targetted a hospital....not whether or not said hospital was populated.

yet they make almost no reference and no condemnation of the murdering terrorists.

And of course, they're all terrorists, aren't they chill? They've dared to oppose the Great American Plan for Iraq, which automatically makes each and every last one of them terrorists who should be hunted down and shot like dogs...

chill wrote:

Anyone who monitors the level of violence and murder over the last six months can see that the 'increase' is wholly subjective and more to do with the media's understandably negative response to the US election and the upcoming elections in Iraq than to any real increase in insurgent activity.
The level of slaughter has been more or less constant, what has changed is the change in the British Army's situation, the godawful Bush victory and the day to day need for headlines in the media.

Ah, we're back to that chestnut of a tactic of yours again....

On one hand, you knock available information for being unreliable and admit there is no objective (read: reliable) source of information....and then having told us there is no reliable information, you try tell us what is actually happening!!! Brilliant. Couple that with yoru proclivity for consistently dodging the provision of any proof for your claims.....

I assume we should also totally forget that the verifiable monthly death-tolls - those of the US military - are rising, despite a levelling out of troop-numbers. And the numbers of aid-workers kidnapped, the frequency of that etc. is climbing steadily. Or is that all made up? Did the US lie to keep its early casualty numbers low, or are they just lying now to make them artificially large? Did the media suppress some kidnapping stories, just so they could make the new ones out to be an increase in frequency? Or did they maybe stage some of them themselves?

No, really....when were they lieing to us Chill, and about what? Because if they weren't then your argument would appear to have a fatal flaw.....its hard to argue tehre is no increase in violence when every available indicator - both unreliable and reliable - says more people are getting killed month on month. So far, all you've done is told us to ignore the unreliable data because its all just spin from those evil media sensationalists cause they hate Bush, or something. But what about the rest of it? Who's lieing about US troop deaths? How do you know? Why are they being let away with it by those who don't have all those reasons to lie that you keep listing?

You apparently have the answers Chill....despite not having any more reliable information than anyone else....so come on....spill.

Seriously man...if you're gonna keep up with this tactic of insisting that none of the information coming out through the media can be trusted, then you have to understand that putting forward a "what is really happening" theory in the next breath with no reliable sources of information offered can only be dismissed as propaganda or partisanship if you're not willing to actually back your claims up with anything more than a refusal to explain them.

jc

Sleipnir

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The current estimate on the civilian population puts it around 30,000 people.
Equal to the number of U.S. troops attacking Fallujah.

Redleslie2

Sleipnir wrote:

The current estimate on the civilian population puts it around 30,000 people.
Equal to the number of U.S. troops attacking Fallujah.

According to the BBC, it's 10000 US troops plus over 1000 Iraqis in nice new uniforms.