US Occupation Steals Iraqi Childhood

There are two sides to every story yet you chose to believe the story which makes the Americans out to be bloodthirst butchers.

The helo did fire on the vehicle, that is standard operating proceedure.

The helo also reported receiving small arms fire from the crowd which it then attacked.

This is a war zone and, unfortunantly, it only takes one guy with a rifle to ruin the fun for everyone else.

Firstly, I am objective and compared both facts of the stories. Allow me to present all the nescessary facts relating to the story and see the evidence for yourself.

The US military has offered two different explanations for massacring 13 innocent people and wounding more than 60 others, including children.

The first motive presented by the US military is that it was a routine operation to destroy an abandoned US military vehicle for the "safety" of the spectators and to prevent the Mujahideens from looting its weapons. They argued that they were firing on the vehicle and not the people. This explanation came shortly after the assault took place. When evidence (i.e. footage taken an Al-Arabiya crew) was available, they changed their explanation and asserted that they could not distinguish between the [insurgents] and civilians and opened fire.

Now let's look at the evidence.

The NewsStandard writes in response to the first explanation:

The first US explanations came shortly after the assault took place. "It’s not our intent to kill and injure civilians," American Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, a spokesman for the foreign occupation forces in Iraq, told The NewStandard on Sunday. "We were not firing at any civilians. We were firing at the vehicle itself."

"The helicopter fired on the Bradley to destroy it after it had been hit earlier and it was on fire," Major Phil Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division said to the Independent. Without noting the irony in his statement, he added, "It was for the safety of the people around it."

But footage taken by an Al-Arabiya crew at the scene clearly shows explosions among a crowd of noncombatants some distance from the burning Bradley fighting vehicle, an armored troop transporter that resembles a tank. In fact, even though the Bradley is shown in the distant background as Palestinian TV producer Mazen Al-Tumeizi set up for a live interview at the scene, one of the missiles fired from US aircraft hit close enough to kill Al-Tameizi and wound the camera operator, Seif Fouad.

And in response to the second explanation:

Later the military would adjust its version of events in a press statement, saying that "air support was called, and as the helicopters flew over the burning Bradley, they received small-arms fire from the insurgents near the vehicle."

This official military account of the incident implies that, on their first pass, US chopper crews could clearly distinguish between "insurgents" and civilians, and engaged the former with "return fire" while avoiding the latter.

The military statement continues, "Clearly within the rules of engagement, officials said, the helicopters returned fire, destroying some anti-Iraqi forces near the Bradley and preventing the loss of sensitive equipment and weapons." The statement is written in the format of a news article to encourage direct duplication by reporters.

On their second pass, the statement says the crews chose not to engage, as they could no longer distinguish between fighters and noncombatants.

This version differs drastically from all Iraqi accounts given to The NewStandard and other reporters and bears no resemblance to television footage taken at the scene. On the Al-Arabiya video, there is no sign of fire coming from the ground, and no fire from above precedes the explosions that killed and wounded noncombatants far from the disemboweled Bradley.

In fact, photojournalist and columnist Gaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured at the scene, wrote in the UK Guardian that he was wounded during a third round of blasts that occurred minutes after the first explosions ripped through the crowd. He recounted no shots fired from the ground, but described a gruesome scene in which dying civilians called out for help while the wounded, including a small boy whose leg a US missile had partially amputated, were evacuated from the scene.

According to Abdul-Ahad, who stayed at the scene long after sustaining injuries to help and photograph the victims, helicopters fired again more than five minutes later.

But the military statement seems to insist the helicopters only fired once, at "insurgents near the vehicle," before calling off the assault. "As the helicopters made their final pass," the official statement reads, "the Bradley fighting vehicle was on fire and a crowd was gathering around the vehicle. The aircrew could not discriminate between armed insurgents and civilians on the ground, officials said, and therefore did not reengage."

This is the account by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1303807,00.html

2. The US massive attack (riots incited by the US) who killed more than 1300 Iraqis, most of them were innocent women and children.

It was the uprising in Fallujah. The US military crushed the uprising that killed at least 1,300 Iraqis and left thousands more wounded.

It was in reprisal for the killing of the 4 (American) security guards. ElectronicalIraq.net produced an analysis of the uprising titled:
Turning Point Fallujah: How US Atrocities Sparked The Iraqi Resistance.

ElectronicIraq.net are known for their articles using credible new sources (i.e. Washingtonpost, BBC - etc).
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1947.shtml

Fallujah was a insurgent/terrorist haven and needed to be dealt with.

I do not know what you are talking about when you say 30 people were killed and one baby survived. Survivied what? An attack on a building?

Again, if the insurgents use a building to attack American soldiers from, what would you expect them to do? Not shoot back?

Have you studied how the uprising started in Fallujah? What caused it? What incited the citizens of Fallujah? What made them resistance fighters?

And you did not read what I wrote. There were no "insurgents" in the building but rather ordinary citizens of Fallujah. All of them were murdered except a 10-month-old infant.

You must be refering to the smack down that al_sadr's militias received last year?

The group that the Americans were fighting were radical Shia who had impossed their own strict version of Muslim law, forcing men to grow beards, arresting people with no authority to do so and torturing or executing those who would not step into line.

They had to be dealt with. I am not sure how many of 1,000 killed were fighters and how many were civilians. We also dont know who killed them all.

Obviously the militia was shooting, too, so isnt it possible that some of the innocents killed were killed by them?

Is that what you call the onslaught? A smack-down? It wouldn't hurt to display some form of empathy to those who died. I can assure you that if the same scenario occured in the US, it would have been a world crisis.

Most of them were civilians, this also includes the families killed at the checkpoints. As for whether the 'militia' was responsible for the deaths of the innocents, then that is a no. Because the 'militia' were ill-equiped, furthermore, it has been confirmed by the US military that they have commited the most killings during the onslaught.

40 Iraqis and 202 people dead? Where were the other dead people from?

When did this happen?

There was a error in the sentence, I meant 40 Iraqis dead (mostly ordinary people) and 202 people wounded. But the figure is controversial, some say 50 whilst others say 30. This occured in July 04 where the US claimed to have killed at least 40-50 militiaman. This turned out that most of them were ordinary citizens.

It was Iraqi NG who fired on the crowd and according to their report, they received fire from someone in the crowd.

Firstly, prior to this massacre, three mortar attacsk struck the gates of one of the main mosques in Kufa killed 27 Iraqis and wounded 63 others who had gathered to march to Najaf.

The Iraqi National guard did fire the first shot, but there was no credible report that one of the peace marchers 'fired' the first shot since they were marching for peace. They were unarmed. Witnesses observed that and there are

You must have missed the elections that took place. Iraq has freely chosen its own government and that government has requested the continued assistance of coalition forces to fight the insurgency.

It stopped being an occupation the moment the Iraqis were given power from L. Paul Bremer.

Since when was everyt election a legitimate instrument of 'democracy'?

The reason why the Iraqis voted was to get the US out of their country. That was the primary reason. But at least, it is a step to a better future when they transfered the sovereignity to Iraq, but yet violence has doubled comparing to last year.

The UN never seems to mention the money and effort the US is pouring into Iraq.

Is that so? What happend to the $20 billion dolary of Iraq's own money? The US still did not state what they did with the money. You stated that alot of money was poured into Iraq, then how come the malnutrition rates are still increasing? In addition, the efforts that you seem te talking about, where can I see the effect of this 'effort'.

Let me get this straight, is this 100,000 people dead by combat or 100,000 dead from all reasons?

And most, over 50,000 people, have been killed by US airstrikes.

Please document this one.

The highest reliable figure I have seen is 20-25,000 killed in combat related deaths by ALL SIDES.

The article was published on the Guardian site but unfortunaley, I cannot locate the exact link. Here is a copy of the article:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/t...10/30/&prd=th&

Guerilla warfare hurts the population. The advantage of fighting as a guerilla is that you can blend in easily and it makes the conventional forces you are fighting have too look much harder.

This is why so many young Sunni men are being picked up, it is almost impossible to tell who is who until they are sorted and questioned. Better safe than sorry in this case.

Perhaps it would be wise akhee to read what I stated before responding. Most of those who are detained are innocent. Furthermore, they are not questioned but rather are held with no charges.

Maj Gen Wodjakowski is supposed to have said:
I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning the war

um, yea, and the insurgents don't use mosques as bases?

Right. It is well known that the unsurgents snipe at the Americans from mosques because they know the propaganda effect it will have if the US fires back.

Are you justifying the attacks on the Mosques? A Muslim who is defendin' the attacks on the Mosques? That must be new one.

You call this an atrocity?

I refer you to what I said above. The Sunni insurgents regularly use mosques as rally pointsm, bases and staging areas for attacks.

I would expect them to be searched.

Concerning the detentions, I have no idea but would assume they had a reason to detain those who were detained.

It's quite amusing how you twist the whole statement. Read what I stated, "Furniture and copies of the Qur’an were thrown around during the raid"

No attacks were launched from that mosque and yet such aggression was used in spite of the fact that were not under attack. Desecrating the copies of the Glorious Qur'an and here you are, attempting to justify the raid? I want you to tell me if that raid was justified AND what purpose did it had to throw the copies of the Quran around. Clearly such acts would incite a Muslim but apparantly it does not provoke you.

Moreover, it is not an atrocity, but an act of aggression.

[quoted]The Americans didn't do this, the Iraqi's did this themselves.

But if the Americans would have acted to defend these things some would have been calling that an atrocity.

Damned of you do, damned if you don't.[/quote] The fault of the Iraqis? The US did not have orders to defend the museums bot ironically enough, they did have orders to protect the oil ministry. The Pentagon was brass aware of the potential for looting and chaos but did not attempt to protect the museums.

So I suppose your theory is that US pilots fly around looking for weddings to "crash?" Come on, look at it objectively and realize there is another side of the story.

I would wager it was a tragic accident and not a premeditated slaughter. A very tragic event but not an atrocity.

Like I stated at the top of the post, I never make a judgement without analyzing both sides of the story. And it is absurd to claim that they are hunting for weddings to destroy. That is preposterous and goes against common sense. If they had the authority to 'destroy' weddings and not being accounted for, they would have done so.

And like I said, they produced a fabricated story to cover it up.

'Wedding video' clouds US denials
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741223.stm

Iraq: The Wedding Party Massacre
http://www.sundayherald.com/42229

Now you're confronted with evidence, the only escape is to affirm the evidence and acknowledge that it was a massacre.

What was not reported was that a Marine from the same unit had been killed the day before when a supposedly wounded insurgent pulled a gun and shot the Marine.

As I said, there are usually two sides to every story.

What you just stated is incorrect. The day-before story was that a dead 'resistance fighter' had explosives planted on his body which triggered somehow. However, when comparin' that story with this one, one concludes that the resistance fighter who got murdered was UNARMED. He was confirmed unarmed but yet, he shot him point-blank. Did you read the report of what the US soldier stated? Apparantly not. He claimed that the unarmed wounded resistance fighter was reaching for his weapon but evidence states otherwise.

This was before the handover.

Why should the coalition allow al-Sadrs paper to print while he was launching a rebellion? Propaganda is, indeed, a weapon of its own.

The word that you seem to missing out is 'allegedly'. The so-called 'inciting violence' allegation has not been confirmed.

Could I ask you to not stereotype Americans as well? One of my oldest and best friends is serving in Tikrit right now and he is not there to kill Iraqis. He is there to help Iraqis

Since when did I stereotype the Americans? I specifically pointed out the atrocities commited by the US military which you fail to acknowledge. I deliberately inserted the word 'aggressors' in almost all of my replies. But I suppose you do not acknowledge the actions of the sincere Mujahideens striving in the cause of Allah who rebel against the US aggressors and do not target the civilians. You detest them whilst the believers should support the sincere Mujahideens and not choose them over their enemies.

And furthermore, I am against the occupation like the majority of the Muslims.

Did I say that American soldiers "did not commit atrocities?"

I don't remember ever saying that. Certainly it has happened, but when it does it is usually a few Americans doing it, such as the Abu Ghraib incident and the murder of a prisoner here or there.

It is not US policy to murder Iraqis. The vast majority of US soldiers are not blood thirsty killers just looking to murder Iraqis. That is not how we do things.

I know 5 men in Iraq and all them are good men and none of them have the capacity to cold bloodedly murder anyone, much less women and children.

Why is it then, akhee, that you vehemently defended every atrocity that I listed. I guess only "a few Americans" are accounted for the lives of 100,000 civilians. And I am not here refering to any policies. Atrocity does not connote to any policies. I also did not argue that the vast majority of the US soldiers are blood thirsty killers, rather, they are deluded in the false scheme of Bush. But since you did not brand the actions of Bush as murderous, I have to presume that you support his actions.

I am defending the US soldiers because I know Americans, I was born an American and raised with Americans. I grew up in a military family and shared the same values these men have for the vast majority of my life.

I will not stand idly by and watch people defame the whole for the acts of the very few.

Well that is rare. You support the US soldiers because they 'share' the same values that you have. Why didn't they put their values into action and prevent the lives of 100,000 innocent civilians.

And their reputation has already been damaged for they were duped by Bush in to thinking that are fighting for the right cause. Thousands of them died with the mindset that they fought for the right cause. Whilst some of them have decent moral values, I am still of the opinion that with thousands of troops in Iraq deployed; 'liberation' has not yet been achieved.

Article found on Islamonline.net which has the title "Trigger-Happy US Soldiers Butcher Iraqis"

That's not biased?

http://www.islamonline.net/english/...rticle_03.shtml

Did you forgot to read what was stated at the bottom of the article?
The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors.

On HRW I find many articles condeming the US in Iraq but NONE condemning the vicious insurgency.

I say, search again. I have just searched, entering the right keywords, and at least 10 pages appeared on the subject.

format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen

So since there is no sign of fire from the crowd that means there was no fire from the crowd?

Come on, just because it wasn't caught on video doesn't mean it did not happen.

I will have to see the video again, it has been quite some time and a search I conducted last night failed to turn anything up.

Sorry bro, but I only work with facts, not merely observations and assertions.

Again, I'd like to see the video.

BTW, what the hell were those people doing around a burning military vehicle?

Where is the common sense?

WHO WOULD ALLOW THERE CHILDREN ANYWHERE NEAR THAT MESS?

Firstly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps post a link to these images.

Killing, mutilating and desecration of their bodies. It was a terrible event.

Stick to what I stated. Do you condemn the atrocity commited which left 1,300 Iraqis dead.

The article you posted seems very biased, right off the bat they relate Fallujah with Guernica and Grozny! Come on...

It is an analysis. And they are perfectly correct for comparing it to Guernica and Grozny. Have you even seen the images displaying the aftermath of Fallujah. Furthermore, they present, supported with reputable sources, that the US incited the Fallujah uprising. But apparantly, you did not refute such facts but attacked a simple comparision and branded it as biased. You do seem to be thorwing the word 'biased' around lately without every any EVIDENCE why it is biased.

Murder implies pre-meditiation.

You do know that your choice of words sickens me. Before the US attacked the building, THEY knew there would be deads as the result of their action so thus, that is an act of pre-meditiation.

It is war. You call terrorists 'resistance fighters' so I'll call the offensive a smack-down. That is exactly what it was, al-Sadr tried to rise up and he was smacked down.

Never did I call any group a terrorists unless they specifically target innocent civilians. I have already made my stance clear on the killings of innocent civilians. Such un-islamic acts are prohibited and when I refer to resistance fighters, I always imply the sincere Mujahideens. Perhaps I should start calling the US aggressors 'terrorists' since some of them deliberately target innocent civilians.

Ihave and will continue to display empathy for those who died, but no empathy for al_sadr's fighters.

The issue is not al-sadr's fighters but the innocents who died. That was the primary point in this whole topic. My objection was that you did not acknowledge the atrocities commited. I am not justifying any un-islamic acts commited, rather, I am merely discussing the atrocities commited by the US agressors.

Tragic, but Iraq is still a warzone and the soldiers are under immense stress. Especially when you dont know which car is a suicide bomber and which is not.

You do have a justification for every atrocity commited. So thus, your claim that you affirm them becomes futile since i have not seen any acknowledgement on your part.

Probably. But there would be no 'onslaught' had Al-Sadr decided to take part in the democratic process and not impose his own authority.

[Sigh]. It is a certainty. Now that evidence has been presented that the US killed most of the innocent civilians; you assertively blame the citizens of Al-Sadr. I think I have presented my case. I have provided evidence that you simply are in-denial bro and any rational user would affirm that.

So the ING is not a credible report?

Not if their story contradicted the stories of many witnesses who reported otherwise

So you are saying the election was not legitimate? You are reaching, now.

Read what I wrote and reflect on it.

Trust me, I want American forces out of Iraq ASAP. I dont want to see any more people die that don't have to, but the mission must be finished.

And I can assure that such mission will never be acomplished whilst the US is still there.

Are you justifying the use of Mosques by armed insurgents as fire bases?

It is funny how you attempt to dodge the question and twist it. The Sunnis did not use these mosques as firebases but rather as storages. Great difference. But compare that to raiding an empty mosque and throwing copies of the Qur'an.

The spirit of the Qur'an is what is important to me, not the paper it is printed on.

The Glorious Quran is the literal word of Allaah, it is the living and eternal miracle of Prophet Muhammad, it is the direct link to the divine, it is the source of our faith, our values, our identity. Desecration of the Glorious Qur'an is blasemphy. But accordin' to you, it is not blasemphy. I rather see you desecrating the Glorious Qur'an and see if you're not commiting an act of blasemphy. I am aware that you are a recent revert and all Praise is Due to Allah for guiding to you the straight path but please do not utter such blasphemous remarks. Furthermore, there is no rejoicement of desecrating the Glorious Qur'an.

I wasn't there so I wouldn't know. I don't know what sort of information they were acting on so I could not possibly give an opinion. neighter can you. All you know is that the ING, backed by US armor, enter a mosque, searched it and arrested an imam and 30 others. You don't know why they were there, either.

Forget the purpose. The question was not aimed at the purpose but what justification did they had to throw the Quran around.



Glad you agree with me on that.


Depends on the information they were acting on. If they had reason to suspect something was going on there, then it was a justifiable search. If not, when it was aggression.



[quoote]Yea, it was Iraqis who were looting the museums, were it not?[/quote] And what was the cause of the looting?

Again, blame America for everything. There were more important things to do in those chaotic days than prevent looting.

How could I note blame the US administration since these lootings initated when the war was announced.

Would you feel better if the Americans shot the first looters on sight?

I would feel better if the Bush administration wasn't oil-hungry. To secure the oil before the looting? Plain sick.

Not so fast, buddy...

Associated Press Television News says it cannot confirm the authenticity of the video

The airstrike happened late at night not during the wedding party and the helo said it responded to fire.

A tragic mistake? Perhaps. A legitmate strike? Perhaps. Cold blooded murder? I seriously doubt it.

The authencity was confirmed:

But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around the bombed out tent. The wedding videotape shows a dozen white pickup trucks speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car — decorated with colorful ribbons. The bride wears a Western-style white bridal dress and veil. The camera captures her stepping out of the car but does not show a close-up.

An AP reporter and photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors a day after the bombing, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video — which runs for several hours.

APTN also traveled to Mogr el-Deeb, 250 miles west of Ramadi, the day after the attack to film what the survivors said was the wedding site. A devastated building and remnants of the tent, pots and pans could be seen, along with bits of what appeared to be the remnants of ordnance, one of which bore the marking “ATU-35,” similar to those on U.S. bombs.

A water tanker truck can be seen in both the video shot by APTN and the wedding tape obtained from a cousin of the groom.

After confirming the evidence, imaad_udeen continues to ignore it. I cannot comprehend why you insist to use the word cold-blooded since I never implied or used that word. Rather, I used the word atrocity. This was an act of atrocity whether you like it or not.

Americans kill 100,000 Iraqis? Don't think so.

Even a website which is stricly anti-war lists the highest total of Iraqis killed by military intervention as 25,814.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

You are off by about 75,000 people.

BTW, that figure does not include the 40 or so people massacred by the "resistance fighters" in suicide bombings today.

Read what the article stated:

The researchers criticise the failure of the coalition authorities to attempt to assess for themselves the scale of the civilian casualties.

Furthermore, this has been on the news last year. To deny it is an act of indenial.

A quick google search will list all the credible sources listing that figure.


I am disappointed that I did not have a fruitful discussion with you. Everytime I engage in discussions, I would like it to be a debate presented with facts and not just mere opinions. Unfortunaley, you did not present any facts nor did you refute my points but you side-tracked.

Insha'Allaah, I hope that you will respond to my points adequately including facts to support your case.

Furthermore, I also want you to respond to my post in the Saddam thread. It is located at:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost...9&postcount=45

Lastly, forgive me if I said anything to provoke you since there should be no enemity between Muslims.

Jazaka'Allahu Khairun in advance

How many times are you going to ask the same question? I do not consider it an atrocity. So therefor I cannot comdemn it.

It was a military operation to pacify a town which was rebelling against the Iraqi government. The operation in and of itself was not an atrocity and I would bet that the vast majority of those killed were fighters.

First massacre:

The official US account was that 25 armed civilians, mixed in with the crowd and also positioned on nearby rooftops, fired on the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne, leading to a 'fire-fight'. (BBC News Online, 29 April 2003) Phil Reeves, a reporter for the Independent on Sunday, conducted a careful independent investigation and concluded that the official story was a 'highly implausible version of events'.

Witnesses interviewed by Mr Reeves 'stated that there was some shooting in the air in the general vicinity, but it was nowhere near the crowd.' US Lieutenant Colonel Eric Nantz admitted that the bloodshed occurred after 'celebratory firing', but he claimed hat the firing came from the crowd. (BBC News Online, 29 April 2003)

However, all the witnesses Phil Reeves could find agreed that there was no 'fire-fight' nor any shooting at the school, and that the crowd had no guns. The Independent journalist observed:

'The evidence at the scene overwhelmingly supports this. Al-Ka'at primary and secondary school is a yellow concrete building about the length and height of seven terraced houses located in a walled compound. The soldiers fired at people gathered below them. There are no bullet marks on the facade of the school or the perimeter wall in front of it. The top floors of the houses directly opposite, from where the troops say they were fired on, are also unmarked. Their upper windows are intact.' (Independent on Sunday, 4 May 2003, p. 17)

There were bullet holes in an upper window, 'but they were on another side of the school building.' (Independent, 30 April 2003, p. 2) The Telegraph's report of the bullet holes failed to mention this fact. (p. 10)

Dr Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali told reporters at Fallujah Hospital, 'Medical crews were shot by [US] soldiers when they tried to get to the injured people.' (Mirror, 30 April 2003, p. 11)

Atrocity #1

The second massacre:

Despite the atrocity that had been visited on them, the people of Fallujah continued to protest nonviolently. A demonstration was held on 30 April, two days after the school massacre.

During the protest, US troops shot dead two more unarmed demonstrators.

No US soldiers were injured or killed, despite claims that they had been fired on first.
Reporters from the British Daily Mirror were six feet from the US soldier who opened fire on the demonstrators. A young boy 'hurled a sandal at the US jeep—with a M2 heavy machine gun post on the back—as it drove past in a convoy of other vehicles.' The soldier in charge of the machine gun ducked down, 'then pressed his thumb on the trigger' to unleash a 20-second burst of automatic fire at 'a crowd of 1,000 unarmed people.'

Reporter Chris Hughes said, 'We heard no warning to disperse and saw no guns or knives among the Iraqis whose religious and tribal leaders kept shouting through loudhailers to remain peaceful.' After the shooting, those in the crowd still standing, 'now apparently insane with anger—ran at the fortress battering its walls with their fists. Many had tears pouring down their faces.' (1 May 2003, p. 4)

Atrocity #2

And no, the majority were not the fighters as I already stated. The majority were innocent civilians.

Most historians estimate that out of a population of 5,000 people, 1,650 were killed by the fascist air strikes on Guernica. That is close to 40% of the towns population.

I have seen estimates for the destruction of Grozny in the neighborhood of 60,000+ killed.

No comparison to Fallujah, a city of 500,000 people in which 1,300 died as the result of the offensive. And you don't even know how many of them were combatants.

Did you read the article or take a quick glimpse? Jonathan Steele and Dahr Jamail produced an article entitled 'This is our Guernica' at Guardian Unlimited.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...471011,00.html

They made an comparision between Fallujah and Grozny 'cause the attack-style used in Grozny was the same style used in Fallujah. Valdimir Putin had launched an all out offensive on the city to remove the Mujahideens in Grozny. The same style was used by the US military. They declared an all-out offensive on Fallujah.

Milan Rai writes:
Fallujah, a city of 300,000 citizens, has been the scene of several major turning points in the post-invasion period. The last crisis was in November 2004, with a full-scale invasion by Marines and others, which left much of Fallujah looking like the Chechen city of Grozny.

This is true since the aftermath of Fallujah resembled the aftermath of Grozny.

He further writes:
Dr Hafid al-Dulaimi, head of Fallujah's compensation commission, reports that 36,000 homes were destroyed, along with 8,400 shops. Quoting this estimate, Jonathan Steele and Dhar Jamail draw comparisons with Guernica and Grozny: 'This decade's unforgettable monument to brutality and overkill is Falluja, a textbook case of how not to handle an insurgency, and a reminder that unpopular occupations will always degenerate into desperation and atrocity.' (Guardian, 27 April 2005, p. 25)

Similiary to what happend in Guernica. The citizens of Guernica had no air force and no anti-aircract guns to defend themsleves and the city - just like Fallujah. Furthermore, in Guernica, there was no distinction between civlians and guerrillas - just like Fallujah since they launched an all offensive war.

And not to mention that it has been reduced to rubble. Almost a half million residents escaped the city before it was leveled.

Not if they were being attacked or thought they were being attacked from that building.

Civilians were given a chance to flee Fallujah, but in many area, the "glorious mujahideen" forced them to stay at gunpoint. because they knew that civilians would die int he crossfire and it is better for their propaganda if civilians die.

They were not being attacked. I have clearly emphasised that in my previous replies. They attacked the building and literally massacred those who were in the building.

Civilians were given a chance AFTER the ceasefire which was a few days after the fighting had occured. What do you think happend during the ceasefire? A western journalists, who had gained access to Fallujah since the siege said:
When I arrived, I found a woman who I think was in her 70's who had decided to try to help her sons get out of the city. They decided to leave the family group, and so she just had taken the decision to walk of the front door waving a white flag[during the cease-fire], because they knew they were in a heavily -- there was a lot of shooting in their area. And she was shot in the stomach and the foot. So, I found her in the hospital with one of her sons in quite a state and she was evacuated in a small van that volunteered to come out from Baghdad and picked her up and took her back to Baghdad.

As for your claim that the Mujahideens were forcing the residents to stay at the gunpoints, -- it is false. Unless you provide evidence for all your assertions, I will disregard them as unsubstantiated propaganda. Pity that you still haven't cited any sources or evidence for all your previously mentioned claims.

You cannot prove that they are "deliberately" targeting innocent civilians because they are not.

Brian Becker, co-director of the International Action Center (IAC) said:

"The U.S. has deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians in the past. During the Gulf war, for instance, the U.S. used two precision or ‘smart’ bombs to destroy the Al-Amariyah bomb shelter in downtown Baghdad. As many as 1,100 Iraqi children were killed. The Pentagon spokesman went on TV in Feb. 1991 to announce that the attack on Al-Amariyah was not an accident. The U.S. was trying to terrorize the population."

"Of course, economic sanctions that have lasted eight years target civilians. More than 1.7 million civilians have died from hunger and disease according to UNICEF, the UN agency that evaluates children’s health. It is not known if this attack was intentional or an accident proving that the Pentagon’s ‘smart’ missiles aren’t always so smart.

"But the fact that at least one and possibly two of these huge bombs crashed into residential housing is not in dispute. It was the middle of the day on Monday, a quiet afternoon, when Iraqi families in al-Jumuhuriya had their homes and their worlds literally blown apart by U.S. missiles,"

Whilst some of them are not directly targetin' civilians, they do tend to be trigger-happy.

So what is to be done, allow al-Sadr the freedom to set up his own city state in Najaf and not crush his rebellion because some civilians might die?

All civilian deaths for that op are soley on the shoulders of al_sadr and his militia. If he had not rebelled, none of it would have happened.

That is right, especially if the majority of the deaths would be innocent civilian lives. This might seem strange to you but if the majority of the residents are innocent civilians, bombin' the hell out of the city would automatically result in to a large-scale massacre.

They are not atrocities.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

There is nothing acknowledge. An Atrocity is something that is pre-meditated, done on purpose. I do not believe that any of the events you posted were done on purpose with the aim of killing innocent people.

Since when was an atrocity automatically refered to as premeditated atrocity.

Dictionary:
An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?...ethod=2&gwp=13

Remind of the last time Arabs have defeated a non-Arab army again?

Do you despise the Arabs?

If the Sunni fighters were using the mosques to store weapons then the Iraqi authorities have every right to search the Mosques for said weapons.

Why ommit the US military in that sentence? So according to you, they can search the mosques AND DELIBERATELY throw the Glorious Quran on the ground without displaying any sign of respect?

I don't rejoice it, but I don't consider it a sin or blasphemy. I have my own mind and I use it as such. The paper the words are written on the ink used to write them is not what is important. I do not worship a book, I worship Allah.

You do not consider it a sin or blasphemous on the account of your own thinking? hehe
You also stated that the words of Allaah do not mean anything to you, even if they are stamped on the ground. The words of the Creator. Why do you think it incited the Muslims when the Qur'an-desecration story was published? If these are merely inks, then why can't you read the Qur'an where you're impure. You see what you're doing now brother imaad_udeen speaking out of sheer ignorance.

Oil is more important to the future growth of Iraq. There were only so many soldiers to do so many tasks and the museum, unfortunantly, fell below other things.

Hence why $20 billion is mission from the oil revenues. Furthermore, there were many soldiers deployed during that period. In fact, they defended it for half-hour whilst being called off since it doesn't serve a purpose for the US. We are talking about the cultural heritage of Iraq.

your use of the word atrocity implies that it was intentional, as in it was done intentionally to murder people.

I still believe it was not done to murder people.

If anything it was a tragic accident which hopefully never happens again.

My use of usin' the word does not imply anything apart from its literal definition. Why you do not respond to refuted claims is beyond my comprehension. Did you claim that the video was not authenthicated. Once I offered the evidence, you claim that it is not an atrocity. Have you ever had a political discussion on the internet? Just out of curiousity? Do you want me to state the essence of debating?

Post them, then..

Do your homework. I do not possess the time to google-search for you.

And please, do not post these propagandic images. I never implied or alluded that every US soldier is an aggressor.

I want you to offer refutal to all my stated points and in addition, respond to my post in the Saddam thread at:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost...9&postcount=45

I will be leaving for holidays tomorrow and we will continue in a week or two.