NationStates Jolt Archive

Sun Nov 14, 1:19 PM ET
...
In the hours and days that followed, heavy bombing raids and thunderous artillery shelling turned Hussein's northern Jolan neighborhood into a zone of rubble and death. The walls of his house were pockmarked by coalition fire.

"Destruction was everywhere. I saw people lying dead in the streets, wounded were bleeding and there was no one to come and help them. Even the civilians who stayed in Fallujah were too afraid to go out," he said.

"There was no medicine, water, no electricity nor food for days."

By Tuesday afternoon, as U.S. forces and Iraqi rebels engaged in fierce clashes in the heart of his neighborhood, Hussein snapped.

"U.S. soldiers began to open fire on the houses, so I decided that it was very dangerous to stay in my house," he said.

Hussein said he panicked, seizing on a plan to escape across the Euphrates River, which flows on the western side of the city

"I wasn't really thinking," he said. "Suddenly, I just had to get out. I didn't think there was any other choice."

Hussein moved from house to house — dodging gunfire — and reached the river.

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."
...

You have a source for this?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_escaping_fallujah_1

indeed, a source would be nice.

and yet this doesnt surprise me.

You have a source for this?

Same here. Where the hell is this coming from? It's a horribly written report, wherever it came from, which certainly wasn't a crappy internet news site ran by some 13 year old who's been listening to too much Rage Against The Machine...nope, not at all. Come on, did you write this? Just let it out.

Same here. Where the hell is this coming from? It's a horribly written report, wherever it came from, which certainly wasn't a crappy internet news site ran by some 13 year old who's been listening to too much Rage Against The Machine...nope, not at all. Come on, did you write this? Just let it out.
Nope, an AP writer wrote it...

Same here. Where the hell is this coming from? It's a horribly written report, wherever it came from, which certainly wasn't a crappy internet news site ran by some 13 year old who's been listening to too much Rage Against The Machine...nope, not at all. Come on, did you write this? Just let it out.Yeah...im a 13 old who's been listening to too much Rage Against The Machine.....and I invented the whole story...

hod did you figure? :D

oops, spoke too soon, there it is...*nervous laugh*. sorry about that. I'm a little too cynical for my own good. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_escaping_fallujah_1
Awww....damn....I usually let them Call me a Liar...and a waco terrorist...before i break it out to them :D

Just have to be patient for about 3 minutes...

oops, spoke too soon, there it is...*nervous laugh*. sorry about that. I'm a little too cynical for my own good. :)

Its allrite....Im used to it...
usually I "catch" a lot more "Fish"

It'll be difficult to find out just how many civilians the US Marines have killed since the Americans have sealed the city off and aren't letting any outsiders in. Also, there are few reporters in there.

I think it was a mistake to use the Marine Corps. Though we all know they will 'get the job done', Marines are notorious, in Iraq and other conflicts, for causing collateral damage and civilian deaths on a larger scale than regular army troops.

Awww....damn....I usually let them Call me a Liar...and a waco terrorist...before i break it out to them :D

Just have to be patient for about 3 minutes...
I wasn't about to. I just wanted the whole story.

indeed, a source would be nice.
Actually I would like to submit both sides of the battle (or masacre if you want)....

#4 << is from the Wounded U.S. Troops at Fallujah...

#12 << is from the Falluha Civilean.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=1685

The same story can be found here

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=251539

Ah, but they're counting civilian deaths as "insurgents" right?

urban warfare has historically been awful for civilians.. the civilian death toll for the liberation of Manila 1945 was about 100,000 (and that is an estimate), for Hue and Saigon in 1968 was in the tens of thousands, and only in the last few years has civilian casualty figures dropped (if the Western nations are attacking a city, they have not dropped elsewhere)...

another incidence of the tragedy of war

look at the fighting in the Balkans over the last decade and a half, the liberation of Kuwait City, the fighting in Beriut, and countless other examples...

being a civilian in a city caught in a battle is not a good place to be.

Ah, but they're counting civilian deaths as "insurgents" right?

officially, the US government is not conducting a bodycount (like in Vietnam) in this war... so officially, civilian deaths and insurgent deaths aren't part of the mission parameters....

no in other words

it was probably another one of those senseless incidents of war and I have no doubt that it happened just as the AP story referred to said.

I think it was a mistake to use the Marine Corps. Though we all know they will 'get the job done', Marines are notorious, in Iraq and other conflicts, for causing collateral damage and civilian deaths on a larger scale than regular army troops.

really? are you just making assumptions, or do you have any real facts? The US Army started urban warfare training schools AFTER the US Marines did..

the Marines were used because they have more available infantry battalions (and those battalions have more infantry than an army infantry battalion) in Iraq than the Army does at this point (it fluctuates depending on the rotation schedule)

officially, the US government is not conducting a bodycount (like in Vietnam) in this war... so officially, civilian deaths and insurgent deaths aren't part of the mission parameters....

no in other words

it was probably another one of those senseless incidents of war and I have no doubt that it happened just as the AP story referred to said.
I hear anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Who knows?

Actually I would like to submit both sides of the battle (or masacre if you want)....

#4 << is from some 22-year-old Marine gunner from Kansas

#12 << is from the Fallujah Civilean.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=1685

has changed to #7 and #10...

That's war...shit happens. Not to say it's right or wrong, but it happens nonetheless.

That's war...shit happens. Not to say it's right or wrong, but it happens nonetheless.
it happens by itself....rigth?

I hear anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Who knows?
Some 100,000+ since the "liberation".

Witzleben, shaddap, you're quoting a crackpot statistic. I'm skeptical, this guy's a professional photographer, yet he hasn't been able to snap a picture of ANY incident approching what he's said happens often. It doesn't add up. I'm smelling a rat.

nice, ahh was it Adrmiral Poindexter (guy who came up with the Gambling on Terrorist Futures thing) who came up with the idea of blowing up a major city to restore order. Brilliant move by the U.S. of A. there. lol now there are probably about :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: for every :mp5: there used to be.

That's war...shit happens. Not to say it's right or wrong, but it happens nonetheless.
Which is why we protest senseless warfare, see?

Some 100,000+ since the "liberation".

how about the more accurate count mentioned in a previous thread of 20,000 counted with an estimate of 40,000 instead of the flawed John Hopkins figures

how about the more accurate count mentioned in a previous thread of 20,000 counted with an estimate of 40,000 instead of the flawed John Hopkins figures
Technically they aren't flawed, it just states there is a 95% chance casualties are between 8,000 and 194,000. The study's authors assumption that the total is near the average of the numbers, however, is flawed.

it happens by itself....rigth?
What kind of a question is that? If by that you mean that sometimes acts of violence towards the innocent occur for any number of reasons because of a war...then yes, it "happens by itself."

Which is why we protest senseless warfare, see?
...assuming that it's senseless in the first place. Personally, I am not a military commander myself, and I doubt you are. Do we really know all the facts surrounding the incident? Could it have been that all citizens were told that they would be shot if they tried to cross? Did the field commanders see it as tactically necessary? Who knows? That's why I said, shit happens, and sometimes you just have to accept it, whether you think it's right or wrong.

The americans are in iraq because they are scum.

The 2004 election proved that most americans are scum.

The same story can be found here

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=251539

I can't get it to load. :(

Sorry all its true, saw it on BBC this morning.

Technically they aren't flawed, it just states there is a 95% chance casualties are between 8,000 and 194,000. The study's authors assumption that the total is near the average of the numbers, however, is flawed.


Thats not good enough though..I mean I could say there is a 100% chance the casualties are between 1 and 200,000 and be right. The thing is though people play to their own interests and those on the left tout that 100k as established fact.

Also...US soldiers arent taking any chances on folks trying to cross the river..I doubt the gunship pilot can tell the difference from 200 feet up and nearly 400 feet away while the person is trying to swim. This also comes on the fact that the US has been saying for nearly THREE months they were going to assault the city. Those who remained in the city took the risk and some for it pay the price.

Also...US soldiers arent taking any chances on folks trying to cross the river..I doubt the gunship pilot can tell the difference from 200 feet up and nearly 400 feet away while the person is trying to swim. This also comes on the fact that the US has been saying for nearly THREE months they were going to assault the city. Those who remained in the city took the risk and some for it pay the price.



Muhammad Atta probably couldnt see through the windows of that building he crashed into. They might have been CIA spies in there. America supported the israeli oppression of the palestinians and also connives to rob the middle east of its oil wealth. America took the risk, and paid the price.

Muhammad Atta probably couldnt see through the windows of that building he crashed into. They might have been CIA spies in there. America supported the israeli oppression of the palestinians and also connives to rob the middle east of its oil wealth. America took the risk, and paid the price.


Umm...this made no sense...so your comparing the purposeful killing of civilians in the WTC attack to what a Helicopter gunship pilot who supposedly fired on civilians trying to cross the river and escape?(I say supposedly because this is coming form an Iraqi. Who I doubt is happy with the US at the moment.). The whole thing with their might be CIA spies in there makes no sense...the WTC was the known finacial center of the US. It didnt house any government agency except the Port Authority of NY and NJ, and the Cities Disaster Control center. Both were hardly legit targets.

Umm...this made no sense...so your comparing the purposeful killing of civilians in the WTC attack to what a Helicopter gunship pilot who supposedly fired on civilians trying to cross the river and escape?(I say supposedly because this is coming form an Iraqi. Who I doubt is happy with the US at the moment.). The whole thing with their might be CIA spies in there makes no sense...the WTC was the known finacial center of the US. It didnt house any government agency except the Port Authority of NY and NJ, and the Cities Disaster Control center. Both were hardly legit targets.


I'm sorry, but I consider the shooting of an iraqi civilian, under any circumstances, to be completely equal to the killing of an americna civilian, under any circumstances.

I'm sorry, but I consider the shooting of an iraqi civilian, under any circumstances, to be completely equal to the killing of an americna civilian, under any circumstances.

There is a difference though between a mistake and a purposeful act of hate.

Mistakes happen in war, they happen in life. The unfortunate thing about war is people die.

I mean the allies killed 10,000 civilians in the first week of the Normandy campaign..does that mean Hitler was right then for killing 6 million Jews? You stand a slippery slope with a comment like that.

what about the marine that killed the wounded iraqi in the mosquee?
That was in pourpouse enough for me.

F**** fat head!

Only fat on his brain... "his f*** pretending to be dead!" bang bang bang...

G-sus!

And now the generals have started an investigation to find out if he was acting on self defense.... my ass!

and sorry for the coursing... but sometimes they just have to come out.

There is a difference though between a mistake and a purposeful act of hate.

Mistakes happen in war, they happen in life. The unfortunate thing about war is people die.

I mean the allies killed 10,000 civilians in the first week of the Normandy campaign..does that mean Hitler was right then for killing 6 million Jews? You stand a slippery slope with a comment like that.


With all the bile and lies that were spit out from the filthy mouth of the Butcher of Baghdad and his shills before this war, only an imbecile could doubt the purposeful hate behind the invasion of iraq.

With all the bile and lies that were spit out from the filthy mouth of the Butcher of Baghdad and his shills before this war, only an imbecile could doubt the purposeful hate behind the invasion of iraq.

Its clear you dont like Bush, but can you provide one iota of proof that he lied at all? And lets not go with the whole reason for going to war. Because I myself believed the CIA and British Intelligence. I myself thought Saddam was hiding something especially after reading UNSCOMs reports from the years 91-98(the last UNSCOM report before Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors).

The only hate I see right now is yours for the President.

Its clear you dont like Bush, but can you provide one iota of proof that he lied at all? And lets not go with the whole reason for going to war. Because I myself believed the CIA and British Intelligence. I myself thought Saddam was hiding something especially after reading UNSCOMs reports from the years 91-98(the last UNSCOM report before Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors).

The only hate I see right now is yours for the President.

yeah and probably the last one before US kick out the weapon inspectors too...

And not only I don't like bush like probably many other people too, but I don't like the ideology he has.
All that strike first to avoid th eventually something may happen... is not just what I understand as justice or correct. It's like putting somebody to jail becouse you have reason enough to believe he will commit some criminal act, without having any proof.
Bush may have not lied, but he didn't had anyproof for what he was saying.
He was afraid that by letting the inspectors fullfill their job, they would come up with the proof that Saddam had no WMD at all anymore, so he could not go to war. So they started talking about this... "let's free the iraqis". So sad, so sad indeed... Little Bush wanna play redcross...

Please.
This war was not supposed to be there... and still they are crying becouse the allies didn' help. Well, some of them...

Pure arrogance if you ask me.

Because I myself believed the CIA and British Intelligence.

Intelligence? There was no concrete intelligence. The report submitted by the Joint Intelligence Committee here in the UK said that evidence of Saddam having WMDs was (and I quote) "patchy and sporadic". Tony Blair then presented this report to Parliament, the British people and the the world, stating that the intelligence was (and again I quote) "extensive, detailed and authorative".

And not only I don't like bush like probably many other people too, but I don't like the ideology he has.
All that strike first to avoid th eventually something may happen... is not just what I understand as justice or correct. It's like putting somebody to jail becouse you have reason enough to believe he will commit some criminal act, without having any proof.
Bush may have not lied, but he didn't had anyproof for what he was saying.
He was afraid that by letting the inspectors fullfill their job, they would come up with the proof that Saddam had no WMD at all anymore, so he could not go to war. So they started talking about this... "let's free the iraqis". So sad, so sad indeed... Little Bush wanna play redcross...

Please.
This war was not supposed to be there... and still they are crying becouse the allies didn' help. Well, some of them...

Pure arrogance if you ask me.

Technically you can arrest someone if they hadnt committed a crime but are in the commission of planning one.
Its called conspiracy.

Pre-emptive war is a tool that gets used should we fell that to the otherside is conspiring to do us harm. Thats how its supposed to work. Its another story entirely on its effectiveness and the way its been used currently.

Intelligence? There was no concrete intelligence. The report submitted by the Joint Intelligence Committee here in the UK said that evidence of Saddam having WMDs was (and I quote) "patchy and sporadic". Tony Blair then presented this report to Parliament, the British people and the the world, stating that the intelligence was (and again I quote) "extensive, detailed and authorative".

Well now that sounds like a breakdown between MI6 and Tony Blair doesnt it? Because Bush quoted Blair and referenced MI6 when he made his case to the American people.

Well now that sounds like a breakdown between MI6 and Tony Blair doesnt it? Because Bush quoted Blair and referenced MI6 when he made his case to the American people.

No, it sounds like Blair deliberately mislead the British people hence he should resign.

Gettingback to the subject of Civilian casualties. The people of faluja where given ample time to evacuate. Also it seems that although American troops have doubtlessly caused civilian casualties. A bulk of the casualties are being created by insurgents. Almost daily I'll read about insurgents firng a mortar into a city center, blowing up a car bomb, attacking a police station or just executing Iraqi civilians because they don't hold the same beliefs. If your looking for the cause of such a high rate take a look at both sides of the problem.

...
Pre-emptive war is a tool that gets used should we fell that to the otherside is conspiring to do us harm. Thats how its supposed to work. Its another story entirely on its effectiveness and the way its been used currently.
So, are you saying that the rest of the ´axis of evil´ would be entitled to defend themselves pre-emptively? :D

Gettingback to the subject of Civilian casualties. The people of faluja where given ample time to evacuate. Also it seems that although American troops have doubtlessly caused civilian casualties. A bulk of the casualties are being created by insurgents. Almost daily I'll read about insurgents firng a mortar into a city center, blowing up a car bomb, attacking a police station or just executing Iraqi civilians because they don't hold the same beliefs. If your looking for the cause of such a high rate take a look at both sides of the problem.

Correct.

So, are you saying that the rest of the ´axis of evil´ would be entitled to defend themselves pre-emptively? :D

I did say we didnt I? I think that implied the US. But the US isnt the only nation entitled to its own self defense you smartass. But Iran and North Korea arent the kind of countries you want launching a pre-emptive war..but whatever.

Just a sucky tradgedy of war. The US forces probably misidentified the people on the bridge. After all, they were hovering around in helicopters, removed from the people. Probably using the infrared sights that the Apache comes with.

Was the shooting accidental or malicious? The article didn't say, but accidents do happen. I am just glad the the military is finally doing something with Falluja and not just letting the insurgents sit there. The sooner the military takes care of the insurgents, the sooner we can get the hell out of that country.

I take the report with a ton of salt
first: the guy is from the region which makes him more biased than most, wheather he admits it or not it is human nature,
second: he is a photographer and not a reporter
third: there was no mention of him asking or attempting to ask US force commander for a comment or explaination

Next
The situation of a combat zone are unimaginable. I don't like the facts of war, but if you leave a cancer like terrorism to grow then you suffer more later. I will not condone the kill of civilians, but I will not try to judge a solider in the feild for his actions, because I have no idea what the situation is or the conditions under which he is operating (that goes for the chopper piolet and the marine in the mosquee) there are military courts to deal with them, and if you want to say the US will protect its own, then you are a fool, because enough international pressure will force the issue to trial, and the solider on the ground will more than likely get shafted to satisfy international greivences.

The terrorist themselves are the reason for the war, and because they are losing they are doing everything they can to make the US and its allies look as bad as possible. They will run with civilians to use them as sheilds, they will kil the new Iraqicy solider and policemen because they are trying to prevent their terroristic plans. They bomb public areas to cause panic.
We should not look at the rise in the Terrorist's activities and their vile acts as a sign of loosing, we should see them as a sign that they are getting desperate. They are pulling at every last thread in the hopes that the side of good will have a weak stomach and leave them to do more evil deads.

You may be against the war, but to the terrorist you are still an infedel and a viable target to them.
Just keep that in mind

Gettingback to the subject of Civilian casualties. The people of faluja where given ample time to evacuate. Also it seems that although American troops have doubtlessly caused civilian casualties. A bulk of the casualties are being created by insurgents. Almost daily I'll read about insurgents firng a mortar into a city center, blowing up a car bomb, attacking a police station or just executing Iraqi civilians because they don't hold the same beliefs. If your looking for the cause of such a high rate take a look at both sides of the problem.
It seems to me that anyone who didn't evacuate during that time was either the enemy, or a person taking a huge risk to keep his property from being looted. I'd be willing to bet that most of those "civilians" were young men who thought it would be cool to fight until they saw that the Marines were far better at it than they. As for the truly innocent, It's a pity, but it's an unavoidable reality of war that civilians will get killed. The real tragedy is that bush got us into this war in the first place. There were much better targets to attack.

In the case of Falluja, it was arrogant to assume that when an occupying force relays a message of "get out of your town if you aren't an insurgent, we are going to attack", that everyone who isn't of violent intent is:

- going to have somewhere to go after they are evicted
- going to expect the US onslaught to be so violent and indiscriminant (shelling houses and mosques 'just to be sure' and killing innocent people)
- going to be physically able to leave their homes
- expecting water to be cut all, food supplies cut off, medical staff and centres to be destroyed

You cannot excuse significant civilian deaths with an answer of "we told them not to be there, so it is there fault".

In the case of Falluja, it was arrogant to assume that when an occupying force relays a message of "get out of your town if you aren't an insurgent, we are going to attack", that everyone who isn't of violent intent is:

- going to have somewhere to go after they are evicted
- going to expect the US onslaught to be so violent and indiscriminant (shelling houses and mosques 'just to be sure' and killing innocent people)
- going to be physically able to leave their homes
- expecting water to be cut all, food supplies cut off, medical staff and centres to be destroyed

You cannot excuse significant civilian deaths with an answer of "we told them not to be there, so it is there fault".
Actually, we can. Urban combat is known to be brutal and horrific. If you are given the chance to get out, you should. I feel sorry for those who stayed, but they made a bad choice.
BTW, are you a JKD man? Where do you study?

This is pointless I am not a supporter of the us government at all, but all that is being said is just crap and lies, and of course some deths will occur, but that is just wrong, an probably innacurate

I'm curious as to how this photographer was able to determine that they were a "family of five". Were there elderly, women and/or children among them? We are left to speculate as to whether they are not these five people were demonstrably only fleeing civilians.

....But Iran and North Korea arent the kind of countries you want launching a pre-emptive war..but whatever.

What kind of countries would you want launching a pre-emptive war?

allow me to pose an interesting question. Gulf war. we were winning, we could have put an end to saddam there and then and this would never have happened. Why on earth did we pull out?
The answer is simple. We had media coverage back then too. Our militaries were seen firing at a retreating convoy on live news. This gave a very bad impression and caused uproar. Media is the reason we ceased our invading push the first time.
In war civilians die, if they are in a war situation, if they refused to evacuate whilst they were given the chance. Whilst they were given the chance which allowed the insurgents to prepare for our troops, to create traps and ambushes which will cause even more of our men and women to die for a pointless war, then it is their own fault.

....all that is being said is just crap and lies, and of course some deths will occur, but that is just wrong, an probably innacuratecrap, lies, innacurate...

keep repeating yourself...crap, lies, innacurate...crap, lies, .keep repeating yourself...everytime they show videos of a live execution by a GI...keep repeating yourself...crap, lies, innacurate...Everytime a GI kill Families in a river...keep repeating yourself...crap, lies, innacurate...crap, lies, innacurate...Keep repeating yourself...Maybe you will convince yourself...and sleep better at nite.

Cause that GI cant anymore...when he wakes up...he will know...It whas not just a nigthmare...

No, it sounds like Blair deliberately mislead the British people hence he should resign.


There is not a scant iota of honor among politicians.

They really are the lowest form of scum, they are professional liars and cheats.

they are professional liars and cheats.
They are not even that they are just people who know how to read from a piece of paper a speech that has already been made for them.

crap, lies, innacurate...

keep repeating yourself...crap, lies, innacurate...crap, lies, .keep repeating yourself...everytime they show videos of a live execution by a GI...keep repeating yourself...crap, lies, innacurate...Everytime a GI kill Families in a river...keep repeating yourself...crap, lies, innacurate...crap, lies, innacurate...Keep repeating yourself...Maybe you will convince yourself...and sleep better at nite.

Cause that GI cant anymore.

And what about the live "executions" committed by insurgents? What about the bodies of civilians found murdered by insurgents? What about the videos of insurgents hiding in places considered holy by their own religion? Do you find it alright to kill civilians with car bombs or with mortars? You can't say one group is evil and ignore the other.

There is not a scant iota of honor among politicians.

They really are the lowest form of scum, they are professional liars and cheats.In some places the best cheaters wins the elections...

And what about the live "executions" committed by insurgents? ...you will not hear me repeating "crap, lies, innacurate...crap, lies, innacurate"...I accept the fact that both sides are murdering civileans, I accept the fact that both sides are using terrorism, I accept the fact that most wars are like that.

I am not an hypocrite.

I do not think Osama/Alquaeda are less of a terrorist than Bush/marines.

you will not hear me repeating "crap, lies, innacurate...crap, lies, innacurate"...I accept the fact that both sides are murdering civileans, I accept the fact that both sides are using terrorism, I accept the fact that most wars are like that.

I am not an hypocrite.

I do not think Osama or Saddam are less of a terrorist than Bush.
terrorist? meaning?

terrorist? meaning?meaning using terrorism....In this case using Texas-size amouts of terrorism...

www.webster.com

is there not a war on terror?

is there not a war on terror?The only way to win a War on terror is for World-Peace to finally happen....like to vanish all the nukes and weapons...

not realistic.

Sun Nov 14, 1:19 PM ET
...
In the hours and days that followed, heavy bombing raids and thunderous artillery shelling turned Hussein's northern Jolan neighborhood into a zone of rubble and death. The walls of his house were pockmarked by coalition fire.

"Destruction was everywhere. I saw people lying dead in the streets, wounded were bleeding and there was no one to come and help them. Even the civilians who stayed in Fallujah were too afraid to go out," he said.

"There was no medicine, water, no electricity nor food for days."

By Tuesday afternoon, as U.S. forces and Iraqi rebels engaged in fierce clashes in the heart of his neighborhood, Hussein snapped.

"U.S. soldiers began to open fire on the houses, so I decided that it was very dangerous to stay in my house," he said.

Hussein said he panicked, seizing on a plan to escape across the Euphrates River, which flows on the western side of the city

"I wasn't really thinking," he said. "Suddenly, I just had to get out. I didn't think there was any other choice."

Hussein moved from house to house — dodging gunfire — and reached the river.

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."
...

:upyours:

The only way to win a War on terror is for World-Peace to finally happen....like to vanish all the nukes and weapons...

not realistic.
There is money being made from it though, in the short term at least. So, not everybody wants world peace.

Some 100,000+ since the "liberation".

Yeah we've managed to compete with Sadaam.

In fact I'd venture to say we are a swifter visitation of death to civilians than the old man if that number is correct.

Its too bad reporters arent embeded in every squad.

:upyours:


NO :upyours: you f****ng fascist

Yeah we've managed to compete with Sadaam.
...
Its too bad reporters arent embeded in every squad.and its too bad reporters arent allowed anywhere near the Falluha hospital.

What kind of countries would you want launching a pre-emptive war?anyone but France, England, China or Russia.

Bullies pick on the small ones.