What gives you the right to do this?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1126-01.htm

and to combine it with this, is the height of hypocrisy. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1126-02.htm

Because bush has been appointed by God.

Pfft Bush is but a figure head...though Cheney should tell the emporer he has no clothes.

Because it's our money!

Everyone bitches about American foerign policy until they realize America subsidises a good part of the world. That lil kucker in North Korea keeps threatening nukes and yet America is North Korea's prime source of food.

Jordan, Israel, Yemen, Palestine, and a host of other countries would wither and die without our economic and medical aid packages. Maybe we should stop our world welfare programs alltogether not on the basis of criminality but on the basis that 90% of the world gives us the finger while spending American money.

How reliable are these sources the reporter has brought up? I mean it *IS* war and I"m sure there are going to be tragic events that take place. But as a whole I can't see the American army doing this on a consistant basis.

The word of an ambulance driver and people who heard from other people these things going on just doesn't fly with me. Of course the red cross isn't going to be allowed into the city during combat. They have to keep the area as secure as possible and letting a lot more innocent people flow into a hostile enviroment begins to create a lot of variables.

The thing also that isn't told here is that this has been a war fought dirty. The iraqis fighting the US have constantly used tricks to appear as civilian and not as a hostile. I could definetly see some of them carry white rags/clothes with them to escape to fight another day.

I could be wrong on all this and our army could be eating babies and stomping on old women's heads for fun .. but the fact is that a lot of details are left out. These don't appear eyewitness accounts but more of rumors. I'd like to get both sides of the story and find out what the troops have to say about this.

Americans are both loved and hated there .. It'd be hard to find reliable sources that may not make up or believe horror stories that are passed around and give it as fact to a reporter.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=750&newlang=eng

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

http://sify.com/news_info/fullstory.php?id=13477076

If you do not choose to look up the links this sums it up nicely

In the memo written to Bush, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales laid out the argument that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete in the new paradigm.

"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush and concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

A war fought to protect the innocent from the terror of chemical weaponry and torture only to turn to the same for the purpose of overthrowing the incumbant power is a war of pharisaic proportion.

This is going on. If you choose to turn a blind eye to the terror then it is your own cross to bear. War is gruesome and nasty and the US is no better for burning down Falluja well except for the fact that the pipeline will now be complete.

http://karmakat.typepad.com/picasso_dreams/2004/11/scenes_from_fal.html check out the second pic of the child on the gurney.

And we're supposed to believe this crap?

Another Fallujah resident Khalil (40) told IPS he saw civilians shot as they held up makeshift white flags. ”They shot women and old men in the streets,” he said.

*cough* BULL! *cough*

They're really trying hard to make our troops look bad huh? Make it another Vietnam, right?

I wonder if that hospital is the same hospital where they accused the staff of lieing about the number of civilian casualties (raising it) when the war started? Hmmm...

Obviously the situation is bad but none of that propaganda can be believed coming from those people, who hate us right now.

The Geneva convention does not apply for those using terror tactics and unfair fighting techniques. Why should it?

While the validity of the accounts are questionable, this illustrates very well what the perception of the Iraqi people is concerning our actions there. Not exactly cheering and throwing flowers are they.

Oh, hell yeah I'm sure they hate us in the area. No argument there.

Okay.. let's see....

Is it POSSIBLE that the "witness" reported things inaccurately? Uh.. yes.
Is it POSSIBLE that the "witness" reported things inaccurately on purpose? Uh.. yes.
Is it POSSIBLE that the "witness" reported things inaccurately deliberately in order to paint the US in the worst possible way? Uh.. yes.
Is it POSSIBLE that the "witness" reported things inaccurately due to a lack of understanding of the difference between "poison gas" and simple tear gas? Uh.. yes.

Is it really likely that the US is using napalm in inhabited areas? IMHO - NOT!
Is it really likely that the US is using napalm in sparsely populated areas where there is a likelihood of known combatant forces? Probably.
Is it really likely that the US is using napalm in areas where civillian casualties are likely to occur? Probably not.
Is it possible that some civilian casualties are going to occur regardless of the precautions that are taken by US officials and pilots? Yes.

Is any weapon ever designed or used by man 100% accurate 100% of the time? No.
Is any weapon targeting system 100% accurate in determining friend from foe, civilian from combatant? No.
Is it possible the weapon system malfunctioned? Yes.

Does commonsense.org have an agenda? Yes. Well-known and prominently stated on its website.
Does this agenda have a noted "liberal bias"? Yes.
Does the "liberal bias" mean they are essentially anti-war in most all circumstances? Yes it has been so stated on their websites in the past - and done so with no apologies for its use of some news sources while assiduously ignoring other, contradictory, news sources as those sources would not further the agenda of commonsense.org.

So.. do I believe some one got hurt? Yes. People, military and civilians, will get hurt if they are in areas where combat is occuring - regardless of the reason for the combat.
Do I believe the US deliberately hurt civilians? No.. don't be silly.
Do I believe the US government or forces heartlessly planned a mission where civilian casualties were not considered as a possibility? Give me a break.
Do I believe that the US government/forces ignored any indications of civilians in the area where a bombing mission was to take place - during planning or execution of the mission? Again, nope.

Does it even make sense that the US would use poison gas as a weapon in Iraq when the current media attention on its activities is so negative in its portrayal - with a few exceptions? No. Not even Bush is that stupid --- though dislliked, though self--confident in his purpose, though facing a situation that he certainly did not plan for when giving the order to begin operations.

This is a ridiculous thread that is almost certainly intended to incite outrage... and almost certainly that outrage will be from those who don't know how to evaluate the situation for what it is... an unsubstantiated news story, reported second hand from a questionable and known-to-be-biased source.

Us and them...those people...they lie we do not. Their first hand accounts cannot be true because the government will tell us what the truth is. I'll trade my first hand report for your first hand report and raise you a body bag and a burned child.

But of course some "know" more than others. They have insight into the war that us laymen would never be privy to. History has never been proven incorrect. There is no need to question the war or the intent of those who started it. Oh and by the way the Ravens do not exist and we were never in Laos.

Yeah.. yeah you right... I must be an ignorant, unthinking automaton who blindly follows whatever leader we have elected to the Presidency - except of course if that leader happens to be a Democrat (then I am a traitorous fool for not blindly following him, right? Because a Democrat woould never lead the country astray, right? Of course not.).

Note that I did not say I either discounted the first person report because of its "purported" original source, nor did I say the story in and of itself was untrue.

What I wrote was a method for evaluating a news story from a known-to-be-biased news agency. If you disagree with the conclusion, good for you.

As for knowing more than you, apparently I do. Our two posts prove that I can set aside personal belief and bias and offer a method to objectively analyze information while you must resort to innuendo and veiled insult as a counter... quite often the refuge of the ignorant.

BTW, what does this sentence mean = "Though they are not their"? Is the "their" a misspelling of "there"? If so, then it makes sense and was just a typo. If not, then it makes no sense... It's Thanksgiving Friday and I don't want to waste energy giving you the benefit of the doubt - please clarify.

Finally, questioning the believability of a news source, a media outlet or an individual story has nothing whasoever with questioning the reason for "war", a deployment or the larger question of a nation's foreign policy. To even try to equate such is the height of arrogance if you ask me... but you didn't have to - I offer that as my opinion without being asked.

Though for the day : "Facts," you say? "Nay, naught but mere 'Interpretation'", says I.

Read into it what you want. You obviously took offense and retaliated tout suite. Nothing else needs to be said huh.



No veiled insult was intended...I didn't read your post, seeing as how they are usaully full of all the ingnorance you so easily tag others with. But really you are the ultimate source of the truth. Right? You know more than anyone else because you are in Falluja...the CIA...you must have some inside knowledge to discount the questions of others. Well you must work for someone because you have all the answers. Please drop the golden curtain and join the rest of us struggling to find the truth.

You do not know any more than the rest of us. Your opinion is as biased as mine. Please spare me your histrionics.

Ps If I pointed out all of your mispellings and grammatical errors, I would have little time for anything else so get a grip old boy.

Ohh and finally, I really look forward to hearing the opinions of professors and intellects.
They force me to question my beliefs and ideals through facts. You on the other hand question others with contempt. Doesn't make ya look smart sweets. So really save us the bs and for once talk to others as equals.

I took no offense.. to do so would mean I value your opinion - obviously something that is not true. OTOH, others read this thread.. so, I feel that they should be made aware of the ignorance and disingenuous tactics in your post. The self-righteous condescension borders on exactly what you ascribe to me.

As for being in Falluja, the CIA or anything else.. no, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.... have been involved in the evaluation and analysis of simultaneous reports on geo-political and military bits of information and provided that analysis to ambassadors, generals, admirals and the NATO staff on a personal basis for nearly five years. I think I have some qualifications/credentials in that area which you may not that allow me to say that my assessment of a "mere news story" is a bit less biased than yours is here - at least from your post.

Golden curtain? I prefer golden showers, tyvm... at least that is what you seem to think of my posts... so I have no problem showing you the same consideration when such is warranted, which is actually quite often.

As for histrionics, if you know I will be incensed by something you post and yet you post it anyway, isn't it stupid of you to do so and ehn say I shoild spare you my histrionics? Kinda like cutting your nose off to spite your face, isn't it? Perhaps you should look in the mirror ---- and then invest in plastic surgery of the brain?

Finally, as for your "struggle to find the truth"... it seems that you, personally, have already decided what the truth is. I never made such a claim. Instead, I evaluate the information presented as each piece comes in and am in a constant state of evaluation--- without passing judgement. TRUTH has no judgemental value... it just is. And guess what? Neither you nor I will ever - ever - know it.

Of course, Korg, you are the source of wisdom for everyone. No other opinion is valued or valid other than your own. Tis understood. But please do grace those of us who are less intelligent with your sources. Ohh that is right sources are biased, the media is tainted and only Korg knows the truth. One nation under Korg indivisible.....

Darn! We finally did it! We found a gas mixture to selectively kill Fallujahns, as I have not seen any US troops wearing gas masks, even in photogaphs from Aljazeera news!

- T -

Well I'm back from work and it seems that the links I posted have generated a bit of controversy. I apologize for the fact that I don't have the time or energy to reply to all the points made in the previous posts but this is what I have to say for now.

There seems to be alot of discussion as to whether common dreams is a biased news source and whether the reports are accurate. Well, some of the interviews with iraqis in there are indeed hearsay but most of them are eyewitness reports.

Is it possible that the reports are exaggerated because of hatred towards Americans? Well yes, anyone can lie and many often do, but I would question why someone would make up such specific incidents as watching people get shot as they attempted to swim across a river and if we are to dismiss such reports out of hand then then why do we give more credence to the word of an american soldier who might well feel a certain amount of resentment towards Iraqis after being shot at by some of them?

Is it possible that Common Dreams is a biased news source? I'm afraid so, I read alot of news and have yet to find a source that isn't, but bias in a news organization is often revealed in what they choose to report and what they choose to leave out. Common Dreams chose to publish an article focusing on civilian deaths and injuries in Fallujah.

In the interest of being 'Fair and Balanced'(tm) I went to a couple of the major mainstream US news organization and looked for similar material. I'm afraid I couldn't find anything. My eyes are a bit buggy from scanning articles so I'm offering a reward. I'll give the first person who can find any on the ground reporting from Fox or CNN of incidents of civilian casualties in Fallujah between the start of the major offensive on Nov. 8 and now $1000L (I know it's a bit cheap but I'm broke right now)

I don't mean official statements saying 'reports of civilian casualties are being used to recruit insurgents' or 'the military is trying to keep civilian casuaties to a minimum'. I mean a reprter on the ground mentioning an incident of someone other than a 'insurgent, rebel or terrorist' being killed. Please don't say that if Fox or CNN haven't reported it it obviously hasn't happened, because I think that we all agree that in a situation like this there will be a certain amount of 'ahem' collateral damage. God I hate those words.

If such reporting is absent from these major networks, where is one to go to find out what is happening to the people of Fallujah other than such antiwar publications as Common Dreams?

Finally, many of you questioned my source. Good. Enough questions may eventually lead to something resembling the truth.

Let's see... from your posts, I can deduce that you are a masochist (you keep posting knowing I will respond and you won't like the response) and you believe I am not only a misogynist but a narcissist. Cool. I appreciate your evaluation of me, for what it is..... worthless.. probably significantly more worthless than mine is of you.

I have never said no one else's opinion is of absolutely no value to me... yours certainly is.. but so what? You obviously have no clue how to evalluate sources. So, it is self-evident that I would not value your opinion on this matter...much less others. Other people who have shown an ability to objectively evaluate multiple bits of information from disparate sources, of disparate relliability and when the bits of information are apaprently not in sync - those people's opinions I certainly value. I have yet to see any such sources in the media, few here in the forum - and no evidence of such an ability from you. But that's me.. have you seen any such evidence in yourself? Honestly?

One nation under "God" my dear.. not under me, tho you are welcome to "assume the postion" if you so choose.

hiroshima nagasaki

Okay.. you are making a HUGE error in reasoning... and I think you may not recognize it. You may be asking someone to "prove a negative". Offering a reward for a news report that may not exist - cool. Except that if no such report actually does exist doesn't mean that a news event did or did not occur.

As for questioning the source/media outlet - I do constantly. If you don't, shame on you. If you can question the government, why would you even consider not questioning the media and its reporting?

Then again, the media is not a monolithic organization but a mishmash of domestic, regional, national and international organizations which each occasionally/often have their own agendas. A bad news day, from their perspective is when "nothing happens". Imagine that. A day when the news people found nothing of "signifcance" to report. What would they do? Cancel their broadcasts or print runs? No.... I contend they would make something up or make something of lesser importance or no importance a "lead story"... and not indicate that it was not as significant as the lead story the day before... So, no. I don't trust the media.

Why woould anyone lie about such an incident to a reporter? You REALLY have to ask? If so, then you won't understand any answer past this one word one - propaganda.

....yet another trolling Juani post that contributes NOTHING!

BTW, even in hindsight, the use nuclear weapons in those cases, I think, was justified. Yes, I do value the lives of my fellow servicemen and women, both past and present, more highly than I do those of any declared enemy - whether civilian or military. At least one well-published estimate of American losses in a theoretical invasion of Japan in 1945 was 1,000,000. So, not counting the corresponding losses of Japanese during such an invasion, the use of the bombs at that time not only save American lives, a very significant number, it probably also save Japanese lives - but you probably won't acknoweldge that now, will you?

So, love, if I do not matter why do you pick me out? Move on sweet man. You value my opinion because you keep responding. So you must love me. Korg loves me...and I will hug him and kiss him and call him george.

Did you not get the memo? Eyewitnesses are biased and unproven. If it did not come from the presidents lips it does not exist.

with two words, i give you a very charged message about government sanctioned atrocities commited by the united states military.

your defense of nuclear assaults and napalm are reprehensible.

call it a troll if you like, but you still haven't made a case for yourself.

you want me to acknowledge a study funded by the american military? do you also believe the study funded by the republican government that air pollution is not causing global warming? are you having trouble computing?