Can we knock off the terrorist sympathizer crap already?

Mark

The relevancey lies in the fact that the US commander involved stated that Falluja would be 'pacified' as a result of the deaths of those US citizens. The current casualty toll is a direct result of the process of pacification.

While there is definately some merit in pointing out that insurgents have been killing US troops in the region, it is worth pointing out that most of the townspeople had not been a part of that action. Indeed, according to the administration it was the work of a small minority and 'foreign fighters' - so unless the administration was lying, a good proportion of those who are dying as a result of the air-strikes had nothing to do with the insurgency - nor with the deaths of the us citizens last week.

Certainly, according to the pictures coming out of Falluja (every bit as horrifying as the pictures of the previous week), at least some of those killed couldn't possibley have been a part of the militia:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A425192815.htm
(<u>Warning: these images are not suitable for children</u>).
But those are pictures that you won't see on western TV because we don't want to know when we perform barbaric acts - that's something that only the other side is capable of...

But no, in the end it isn't a maths game. One death of one innocent person is one too many. Time to call an end to the pacification process as it doesn't seem to have provided a pacific situation for either the region or the country.

And it's not quite enough, I say! </font>[/QUOTE]Oh for God's sake TL! As much as I wanted to stay away from getting personal I've gotta say that you're acting like a damn fool! Come on man, snap out of it!

Thanks for the link Skunk.
It's when I see images like that that I can garner a better understanding as to the pure, savage hatred in the mindsets of the Fallujah 'mutilators'.

"How can a superpower like the US put itself in a state of war with a small city like Falluja? This is genocide," he told AFP news agency on Friday, the first anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

How can a Superpower alow this to stand? If they do they cease to be a superpower! That was the Mistake in Sommalia, cut'n run'n because people were killed. As a child growing up during the Veitnam war 12 U.S. Marines killed in one day would have been called LIGHT casulaties for that day.

I'd like to compare the difference in approach to that in Basra recently when Sadr's supporters filled the streets and occupied the government offices and police stations - a situation little difference in seriousness to that of Falluja on the eve of the US offensive.
"Shia protesters, led by Mr Sadr's aide Sheikh Abdel al-Satar al-Bahadli brandishing a sword, occupied the roof of the governor's office at dawn on Monday.

BBC correspondent Dumeetha Luthra said they were chanting "no to America, we'll sacrifice ourselves to Sadr" and waving pictures of their leader.


And how did the British react to this challenge to their authority?
In Basra, the British said: "Fine. You want to demonstrate and occupy buildings - no problem with us. Go right ahead, and we'll talk about it".
Two days later, the sieges ended with scarcely a shot fired in anger, leaving the British commander to remark smugly:
"One of the things we're trying to do here is encourage freedom of expression, and if they can come together and do it in that fashion then I think that's a very positive result."
<font size="1">BBC News</font>

I agree that the US needs to resolve the Falluja problem or retreat from Iraq altogether. However, "overwhelming force" is not always an appropriate response - least of all in a densely populated zone. The risk with this strategy is gaining control of Falluja at the expense of losing control of the rest of the country. A year of hard work convincing Iraqi's of good intentions is being unravelled - and whatever trust that ordinary Iraqis have given the coalition might be lost forever if the carnage continues.

[ 04-10-2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Those pictures are worst than the ones from last week in my opinion. I had to stop looking after the 3rd one in the series.

I'd like to compare the difference in approach to that in Basra recently when Sadr's supporters filled the streets and occupied the government offices and police stations - a situation little difference in seriousness to that of Falluja on the eve of the US offensive.
"Shia protesters, led by Mr Sadr's aide Sheikh Abdel al-Satar al-Bahadli brandishing a sword, occupied the roof of the governor's office at dawn on Monday.

BBC correspondent Dumeetha Luthra said they were chanting "no to America, we'll sacrifice ourselves to Sadr" and waving pictures of their leader.


And how did the British react to this challenge to their authority?
In Basra, the British said: "Fine. You want to demonstrate and occupy buildings - no problem with us. Go right ahead, and we'll talk about it".
Two days later, the sieges ended with scarcely a shot fired in anger, leaving the British commander to remark smugly:
"One of the things we're trying to do here is encourage freedom of expression, and if they can come together and do it in that fashion then I think that's a very positive result."
<font size="1">BBC News</font>

I agree that the US needs to resolve the Falluja problem or retreat from Iraq altogether. However, "overwhelming force" is not always an appropriate response - least of all in a densely populated zone. The risk with this strategy is gaining control of Falluja at the expense of losing control of the rest of the country. A year of hard work convincing Iraqi's of good intentions is being unravelled - and whatever trust that ordinary Iraqis have given the coalition might be lost forever if the carnage continues. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm glad to see the situation was resolved in the manner it was.

But, I believe there is more then a little difference between a man branishing a Sword, a weapon that requires up close and personal contact for it to be anything more then to be considered a dectoration to a solider armed with an automatic weapon capitable of killing at distance. Occupping a building is differant then killing people, to a degree that far exceded what would or could be considered a Little. If there is any doubt on that point, I'll make a deal with anybody on the board, I'll not occupy any buildings if they quit breathing ;)

It's terrible when any human is killed in war, "Hale" that's what war is designed for, NO OTHER PURPOSE then to kill fellow humans. Blowing Up stuff and breaking things is gravy.

Now trying to equate innoicents being killed in combat, as bystanders/colateral damage/civilains not intentionally targeted with the INTENTIONAL TARGETING of civilains is foolish at best and DAMN ASSININE at worst.

As for the policy currently being used, it may or may not work, we shall have to see. But I know that the policy proposed by many of using the U.N.'s method is equally likely to FAIL. Witness the fact the U.N. just increased it's budget for Security around the U.N. building in N.Y.C. and other locations. If their policy of dialoging/ sitting down and talking, Non confortation, sitting in a circle and communing with them that wish to do harm was so effective why are they increasing the security budget? NO need to since they are doing the right thing and talking, and EVERYBODY KNOWS talking to those that wish to do other harm will make them stop doing HARM. All we have to do is the right thing and sing KUM-BY-YAA My LORD, KUM-BY-YAA around a camp fire and the millitants will put down their weapons and come close to the fire and roast marshmellows.


Beam Me up Scotty

Pictures of innocent dead children. KUM-BY-YAA indeed! :(

Mark

[EDIT] I did not like my original text.

[ 04-10-2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]