Fallujah

Digital Guerrilla · November 9, 2004

US military forces have started the battle in the Iraq city of Fallijah but is this really about "democracy" or "liberation".

In the begining of the invasion of Iraq, Fallujah had a ban imposed on it that roadblocked basic human needs, food and medicine from being brought into the city. This siege was challenged by the people of Fallujah who decided to overrun these roadblocks. US forces have also prevented so-called military age males (15-60 years of age) from leaving Fallujah even thought they were "non-combatants" and while the city was under bombardment.

If every military age male is the enemy then your war is on the people not their oppressors is that liberation?

Dante · November 9, 2004

Personally I'd be more concerned about what this implies about the invader's attitude towards women.

Digital Guerrilla · November 9, 2004

lol Dante this is not a equal rights issue I am quite sure US forces have considered the women as enemies but that is not the focus.

Dante · November 9, 2004

Just noting where my priorities are... I doubt a 'military-age' female would be stopped. Nor a man of eighty, both of whom could potentially be dangerous. I just think it's against equal rights and also damned stupid. Take your pick as to which is more important.

Digital Guerrilla · November 9, 2004

Well Dante while your priorties are admirable the people being killed and wounded the most are women and children so it is obvious that women and chilren are clearly being caught in the cross fire. This is not to say that women or children could not fire on the US forces but it's not an issue in Fallujah.

GUNWOUNDS · November 17, 2004

Fallujah got cleaned out ! Score for the good guys. On to the next stronghold.

nemafakei · November 17, 2004

"We have heard from the Iraqi Red Crescent that in their view, conditions are catastrophic inside Falluja - no food, no water, no medicines, no electricity."*

"Fallujah got cleaned out ! Score for the good guys"

Am I the only one who finds the lack of a caveat worrying?

* from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4012677.stm

erjin999 · November 17, 2004

This can be like a game for some people, but I think its sick the way they have gone in to places like that and just disregarded possible civilian hardships.

Even the US was saying there were something around 20,000 people still in Fullujah, and in the bbc report, the reported says they have seen none. Where have they gone ? How are they surviving ? No electricity, water, food or anything.

Dante · November 17, 2004

How are they surviving? Easy, they aren't. Another job well 'executed.'

Anathema · November 17, 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/16/marine.probe/index.html

This is fucking sick, shooting an unarmed and wounded man. The worst thing is that this guy's punishment will likely be a joke, if there is any at all.

erjin999 · November 17, 2004

Usually its an honourable discharge, at worst, or a relocation, I think.

GUNWOUNDS · November 17, 2004

YOU are not the soldier in that video... you do not know what it is like to be on death's doorstep... .. at any moment he could die... probably many of his friends have gone home in body bags.... he isnt going to take any chances... the man could have been faking as if he were wounded or dead and actually could have had a pistol/grenade/whatever underneath him.

Think outside the box and stop taking the spoon-fed crap from the media.

Andrew · November 17, 2004

They most likely will get nothing. Remember when US air force people bombed Canadian soldiers? They didn't get much for that.

I'm sure the Iraqis have lots friends too, doesnt make it more valid that the US guy lost friends too.

But of course the psych of the soldiers is to kill or be killed. I know I would be shooting every one of them I thought was a threat there. But not all are threats.

Maybe the Iraqi qas faking his death (if he was, or maybe he was diing.) so that he would not be captured or harmed anymore by American Soldiers. No one will know.

Anathema · November 17, 2004

Gunwounds you need to start thinking for yourself instead of eating the crap that Fox news spoonfeeds you.

The soldier saw there was an Iraqi left who was still breathing and the soldieryelled "he's faking he's dead!" then they shot him again. "well he's dead now".

I don't fucking care what he felt like, his actions are inexcusable. The US doesn't send troops anywhere before years of mental training, among other things. Shooting an unarmed, wounded man is an act of cowardice.

Edit made for Andrew ;)

Andrew · November 17, 2004

The US soldier yelled "he's faking he's dead!", not the Iraqi.

Dante · November 18, 2004

And killing someone is not, or should not, be the first action when trying to ascertain if they are a threat.

exatreide · November 18, 2004

He was a member of the enemy forces, he had been firing on United states military forces, he was wounded but could still pose a threat, If i was the soldier I would have done the same thing.

Dante · November 18, 2004

So shooting him in the knee to imobilise him wasn't an option?

exatreide · November 18, 2004

if someone has a gun pointed at you, or you think he has the ability to do you fatal harm? you would not give him that chance...

Hell this is nothingcompared to the stories i have heard from nam vets..

well i guess the immbeded journalists wernt their when they exacuted the prisinors in Wae eh? ;)

Dante · November 18, 2004

War crimes, war crimes, war is a crime...

If the man was pretending to be dead, how could he have been a threat? It's not very easy to hold a gun when you're pretending to be dead.

HasimirFenring · November 18, 2004

I'm concerned about the Iraqi reaction. When they see this, I very much doubt that it will improve the American image...

Winning the hearts and minds indeed.

exatreide · November 18, 2004

War crimes, war crimes, war is a crime...
If the man was pretending to be dead, how could he have been a threat? It's not very easy to hold a gun when you're pretending to be dead.

War is hell...Mercy is for the weak, the purpose of the weak is to serve the strong, come on dusty I thought you knew this stuff!

SpiceGuid · November 18, 2004

let's be realistic, it's the face of war.

if you are too nitpicking with human rights, then you take the risk you (or your friend) are killed the most stupid way.

if the guy is "unarmed and wounded" as Dante said then he has to sincerely surrender and prove he can cause no damage.

otherwise things are at his own risks...

Megashrap · November 18, 2004

So shooting him in the knee to imobilise him wasn't an option?

Nope. Do you honestly think that in a wartime combat situation that a soldier is going to be thinking of how to temporarily disable the enemy? Sorry doesen't work that way.

War crimes, war crimes, war is a crime...
If the man was pretending to be dead, how could he have been a threat? It's not very easy to hold a gun when you're pretending to be dead.

Givin the fact that a common practice is to have the dead bodies booby trapped with explosives aside the fact he previously fired upon U.S. troops MAKES him a reasonable threat.

These are not car thieves or vandals the troops are dealing with, and worried or not if we are somehow not reading them thier rights before action is taken.

Dante · November 18, 2004

War is hell...Mercy is for the weak, the purpose of the weak is to serve the strong, come on dusty I thought you knew this stuff!

Depends how you define 'weak.' And I'm a politician, not a soldier. Mercy most definately has its place, and the strong are not necessarily the correct.

Sign In

Fallujah

Recommended Posts

Digital Guerrilla

Dante

Digital Guerrilla

Dante

Digital Guerrilla

GUNWOUNDS

nemafakei

erjin999

Dante

Anathema

erjin999

GUNWOUNDS

Andrew

Anathema

Andrew

Dante

exatreide

Dante

exatreide

Dante

HasimirFenring

exatreide

SpiceGuid

Megashrap

Dante

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information