Violence In Fallujah
Burncycle
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
<div class="IPBDescription">Four Civilian Contractors Killed</div> This area is one of the primary hotspots in Iraq. While many of the cities are reletively calm, this seems to be the focal point of much of the agression towards the occupiers.
Just a few days ago, four civilian contractors were ambushed and killed: <a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040331/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_unrest_fallujah_040331152828' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ah_040331152828</a>
I was surprised at the lack of response. Evidently we feel the best course of action is to not take any-
From a NY times article (need membership I think) <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/international/middleeast/01CND-IRAQ.html?hp' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/internat...ND-IRAQ.html?hp</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Should we have sent in a tank so we could have gotten, with all due respect, four dead bodies back?" said Col. Michael Walker, a civil affairs commander. "What good would that have done? A mob is a mob. We would have just provoked them. The smart play was to let this thing fade out."
<snip>
"All the Falluja people accept this incident but they did not accept the dragging of bodies," said Mohammed Khalifa, a trader of spare parts who closed his shop during the disturbance in a sign of disgust. "All men are creatures of God. The clerics will not tolerate this."
<snip>
American officials said many of Falluja's elders were embarrassed by the grisly scene and all the publicity it received.
"These people are acutely aware that Falluja now has a reputation as the worst place on earth," said an occupation official working in the area, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "But they have to be careful what they say. Or they will end up dead."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, what is with the whole 'Why should we go in and punish these people, creating a presence? Just to bring back 4 dead bodies?' WTH over? I sure would be demoralized knowing that if I died in his unit that they wouldn't come for me, and let the enemy trash my body. Lovely. Whatever happened to semper fi, esprit de corps, comradery, never leaving a man behind? Honor? Many of the security personnel are ex-military. From what I understand, NYT reports that the 4 dead were 3 ex-seals and 1 ex-ranger. Some of you will agree with leaving them; no point in risking you own life for someone who's already lost theirs. But I'm not like that, and I feel sorry for those who just don't understand why someone would risk their lives to retrieve their comrades.
Taking no action is, IMO, counterproductive. Even moreso than taking "too much" action (indiscriminate killing, which I don't condone). There will always be those who say taking ANY action is counter-productive (as it "creates" more guerillas right?) but I believe this is worse. I'd like a response, and <i>not</i> a proportional one. This is not to say the response shouldn't be thought out however- but there comes a time when we should stop worrying about peoples feelings and start making them worry about what we'll do to them.
Now we see why it takes such a brutal and ruthless person as saddam to rule Iraq. While I'm not suggesting we should take his place and be just as terrible, I am suggesting that we should stop screwing around and start getting strict. Help those that need helping, but do NOT tolerate those who are acting up.
They are WANTING a response that is indiscriminate. They WANT us to stoop to their level and commit an atrocity so that they can use it against us. Again, I'm not suggesting we be brutal and purposely harm innocents; however we can crack down on these people much more without breaching some of the "little" rules that people seem to skip over sometimes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->504. Other Types of War Crimes
In addition to the "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (" war crimes"):
a. Making use of poisoned or otherwise forbidden arms or ammunition.
b. Treacherous request for quarter.
c. Maltreatment of dead bodies.
d. Firing on localities which are undefended and without military significance.
e. Abuse of or firing on the flag of truce.
f. Misuse of the Red Cross emblem.
g. Use of civilian clothing by troops to conceal their military character during battle.
h. Improper use of privileged buildings for military purposes.
i. Poisoning of wells or streams.
j. Pillage or purposeless destruction.
k. Compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited labor.
l. Killing without trial spies or other persons who have committed hostile acts.
m. Compelling civilians to perform prohibited labor.
n. Violation of surrender terms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isolate the place, 24 hour curfew, cordon the city off into "island" style sections, search anyone who enters and exits, search houses, sweep the "islands" one by one, and secure them. Continue until there are none left- GET results. Not all of Iraq, just the hotspots like Fallujah. They won't like us, some innocents and soldiers WILL die in the process, it's going to be humiliating to the population, and it's going to be difficult, but we're not there for them to like us. We're there to get a job done- ensure <b>our</b> safety, get the country in working order, and then get out of their hair and let them be.
It gets to a point where a proper response pisses the world off (causing politicians to want to pull out), yet the lack of a proper response means people die for nothing and it even encourages more attacks "look, they won't do anything!".
You can't enact a policy, and then not carry it out when the time comes. That encourages them to continue- if you say "We'll have a swift and devistating response!" and then have none at all, then how are you progressing?
Oh yeah. Don't view if you're offended by graphic images-
<a href='http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/CFW/imageResults.aspx?s=EventImagesSearchState%7C1%7C15%7C1%7C3158991%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C&p=7' target='_blank'>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/CF...%7C0%7C0%7C&p=7</a>
I guess my point is, too little action is counter-productive, too much action is counter-productive.... so what do you do? Of the choices, I'd rather strike fear into those who would do harm to us, than resort to apathy. Selfish or not, I regard one of our people above ANY number of terrorist, regardless of whether or not they're really "good people" who were just pushed too far. I simply don't care for what reason someone resorts to attacking civilians- I really don't. I don't care if their mother was killed so they seek revenge or whether they were radical to begin with. I don't care WHAT their sob story is. I see it as putting a rabid dog to sleep. It doesn't mean I hate the dog, but it needs to be stopped before it harms someone else. The paramilitary groups need to be stopped, even at the risk of collateral damage, if it ensures the safety of even one of our soldiers. This hotspot needs to be cracked down upon; to be made an example of. A swift, devistating, but not indiscriminate reasponse is needed to ensure maximum terrorist extermination with minimal civilian casualties. Lets not beat around the bush and be PC about it. The paramilitary forces MUST be defeated, the faster the better, if we are to be sucessful. I'm not naive enough to say that there will be no innocents hurt or killed in the end, and it's a shame whenever it happens- but whenever I think of it, I keep in mind that we ARE different. We don't take shovels to the dead, to scrape up the bodies we mutilated. The amount of cruelty some of these people take pleasure in is almost not human. But it evidently is- and that scares me.
Give me your thoughts
Just a few days ago, four civilian contractors were ambushed and killed: <a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040331/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_unrest_fallujah_040331152828' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ah_040331152828</a>
I was surprised at the lack of response. Evidently we feel the best course of action is to not take any-
From a NY times article (need membership I think) <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/international/middleeast/01CND-IRAQ.html?hp' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/internat...ND-IRAQ.html?hp</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Should we have sent in a tank so we could have gotten, with all due respect, four dead bodies back?" said Col. Michael Walker, a civil affairs commander. "What good would that have done? A mob is a mob. We would have just provoked them. The smart play was to let this thing fade out."
<snip>
"All the Falluja people accept this incident but they did not accept the dragging of bodies," said Mohammed Khalifa, a trader of spare parts who closed his shop during the disturbance in a sign of disgust. "All men are creatures of God. The clerics will not tolerate this."
<snip>
American officials said many of Falluja's elders were embarrassed by the grisly scene and all the publicity it received.
"These people are acutely aware that Falluja now has a reputation as the worst place on earth," said an occupation official working in the area, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "But they have to be careful what they say. Or they will end up dead."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, what is with the whole 'Why should we go in and punish these people, creating a presence? Just to bring back 4 dead bodies?' WTH over? I sure would be demoralized knowing that if I died in his unit that they wouldn't come for me, and let the enemy trash my body. Lovely. Whatever happened to semper fi, esprit de corps, comradery, never leaving a man behind? Honor? Many of the security personnel are ex-military. From what I understand, NYT reports that the 4 dead were 3 ex-seals and 1 ex-ranger. Some of you will agree with leaving them; no point in risking you own life for someone who's already lost theirs. But I'm not like that, and I feel sorry for those who just don't understand why someone would risk their lives to retrieve their comrades.
Taking no action is, IMO, counterproductive. Even moreso than taking "too much" action (indiscriminate killing, which I don't condone). There will always be those who say taking ANY action is counter-productive (as it "creates" more guerillas right?) but I believe this is worse. I'd like a response, and <i>not</i> a proportional one. This is not to say the response shouldn't be thought out however- but there comes a time when we should stop worrying about peoples feelings and start making them worry about what we'll do to them.
Now we see why it takes such a brutal and ruthless person as saddam to rule Iraq. While I'm not suggesting we should take his place and be just as terrible, I am suggesting that we should stop screwing around and start getting strict. Help those that need helping, but do NOT tolerate those who are acting up.
They are WANTING a response that is indiscriminate. They WANT us to stoop to their level and commit an atrocity so that they can use it against us. Again, I'm not suggesting we be brutal and purposely harm innocents; however we can crack down on these people much more without breaching some of the "little" rules that people seem to skip over sometimes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->504. Other Types of War Crimes
In addition to the "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (" war crimes"):
a. Making use of poisoned or otherwise forbidden arms or ammunition.
b. Treacherous request for quarter.
c. Maltreatment of dead bodies.
d. Firing on localities which are undefended and without military significance.
e. Abuse of or firing on the flag of truce.
f. Misuse of the Red Cross emblem.
g. Use of civilian clothing by troops to conceal their military character during battle.
h. Improper use of privileged buildings for military purposes.
i. Poisoning of wells or streams.
j. Pillage or purposeless destruction.
k. Compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited labor.
l. Killing without trial spies or other persons who have committed hostile acts.
m. Compelling civilians to perform prohibited labor.
n. Violation of surrender terms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isolate the place, 24 hour curfew, cordon the city off into "island" style sections, search anyone who enters and exits, search houses, sweep the "islands" one by one, and secure them. Continue until there are none left- GET results. Not all of Iraq, just the hotspots like Fallujah. They won't like us, some innocents and soldiers WILL die in the process, it's going to be humiliating to the population, and it's going to be difficult, but we're not there for them to like us. We're there to get a job done- ensure <b>our</b> safety, get the country in working order, and then get out of their hair and let them be.
It gets to a point where a proper response pisses the world off (causing politicians to want to pull out), yet the lack of a proper response means people die for nothing and it even encourages more attacks "look, they won't do anything!".
You can't enact a policy, and then not carry it out when the time comes. That encourages them to continue- if you say "We'll have a swift and devistating response!" and then have none at all, then how are you progressing?
Oh yeah. Don't view if you're offended by graphic images-
<a href='http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/CFW/imageResults.aspx?s=EventImagesSearchState%7C1%7C15%7C1%7C3158991%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C0%7C&p=7' target='_blank'>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/CF...%7C0%7C0%7C&p=7</a>
I guess my point is, too little action is counter-productive, too much action is counter-productive.... so what do you do? Of the choices, I'd rather strike fear into those who would do harm to us, than resort to apathy. Selfish or not, I regard one of our people above ANY number of terrorist, regardless of whether or not they're really "good people" who were just pushed too far. I simply don't care for what reason someone resorts to attacking civilians- I really don't. I don't care if their mother was killed so they seek revenge or whether they were radical to begin with. I don't care WHAT their sob story is. I see it as putting a rabid dog to sleep. It doesn't mean I hate the dog, but it needs to be stopped before it harms someone else. The paramilitary groups need to be stopped, even at the risk of collateral damage, if it ensures the safety of even one of our soldiers. This hotspot needs to be cracked down upon; to be made an example of. A swift, devistating, but not indiscriminate reasponse is needed to ensure maximum terrorist extermination with minimal civilian casualties. Lets not beat around the bush and be PC about it. The paramilitary forces MUST be defeated, the faster the better, if we are to be sucessful. I'm not naive enough to say that there will be no innocents hurt or killed in the end, and it's a shame whenever it happens- but whenever I think of it, I keep in mind that we ARE different. We don't take shovels to the dead, to scrape up the bodies we mutilated. The amount of cruelty some of these people take pleasure in is almost not human. But it evidently is- and that scares me.
Give me your thoughts
Comments
Fallujah is one of the major concentrations of Sunni muslims in Iraq; Hussein was a Sunni, and many of the wealthy in that city were wealthy directly because of him - gifts of influence, political power, etc., not to mention the simple fact that a Sunni was in power, and they were Sunnis.
The wealthy of Fallujah lost everything with the fall of Hussein, and resent the Americans deeply for it. How do you fight an entire city? You can't. The marines recently took over stewardship of Fallujah from the Army, but the Army hadn't been in the city; they had been in bases ringing it, letting Iraqi police forces handle discipline within the city. Americans in the "Sunni Triangle" northwest of Baghdad are in extremely hostile territory; most of the time they remain in their bases, and only move in the protection of heavily armed convoys. In addition to these four civilians, 5 US soldiers were killed about 15 miles from Fallujah the same day, killed when an improvised explosive buried in the road detonated underneath their transport.
It's a horrible and probably terrifying place to be. There's only so much they can do... and controlling an entire city of people who, quite frankly, hate them is beyond their scope right now.
What should be done? I have no idea. But there is no easy solution. Maybe there isn't even a difficult solution.
Who cares about the dead ? If your fear of being "dishonoured" after dying is greater than your fear of dying , I don't think you should ever consider entering the military. If you accept sacrificing your life to save others , then you shouldn't care about what might happen to your corpse. I think the feudal mentality is a bit too obsolete to be accepted in any efficient , modern army.
"esprit de corps" means everyone is ready to die to perform a task with the least casualties possible. And "honor" means little in one the dirtiest civil war on this planet , defending it is not a priority with an ever-growing bodycount.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->there comes a time when we should stop worrying about peoples feelings and start making them worry about what we'll do to them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to know what could render the fanatics worried , considering they're promised up to 70 virgins for dying as a martyr...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now we see why it takes such a brutal and ruthless person as saddam to rule Iraq. While I'm not suggesting we should take his place and be just as terrible, I am suggesting that we should stop screwing around and start getting strict. Help those that need helping, but do NOT tolerate those who are acting up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see , that's why so many nation leaders were against the idea of a war without the UN oversight : resulting in the replacement of an anti-US dictatorship with a pro-US dictatorship.
You almost sound like you think the iraqis deserved the rule of Saddam... you would have a very different point of view on this if the Bush clan made a coup and remained in power for 10-20 more years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are WANTING a response that is indiscriminate. They WANT us to stoop to their level and commit an atrocity so that they can use it against us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the anti-terrorist coalition did a very good job at fulfilling the desires of the terrorists - restricting freedom in western democracies , and angering million muslims around the world. How about fighting violence with non-violence on a change ? Sure , it might hurt your soldiers' "honor" but it might prove to be effective in the long run...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Isolate the place, 24 hour curfew, cordon the city off into "island" style sections, search anyone who enters and exits, search houses, sweep the "islands" one by one, and secure them. Continue until there are none left- GET results. Not all of Iraq, just the hotspots like Fallujah. They won't like us, some innocents and soldiers WILL die in the process, it's going to be humiliating to the population, and it's going to be difficult, but we're not there for them to like us. We're there to get a job done- ensure <b>our</b> safety, get the country in working order, and then get out of their hair and let them be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Flawed reasoning. Humiliation begets violence , which is already very contagious in Iraq. A "pacified island" would boil with anger mere weeks after the cleansweep , and its neighboring cities would as well.
If you mostly care about the lives of your GI's , then I'd say the best solution is to leave Iraq and let the UN bring in a peacekeeping force if needed. It wouldn't be a "shame" to leave Iraq right now - rather a long awaited move.
You can't defeat terrorists literally. The only way of extinguishing the terrorist fire is to douse its source , the population's support. If iraqis kept smiling at american soldiers since they were "liberated" , you wouldn't hear about terrorist attacks here anymore. Not only the terrorist would have trouble preparing attacks (rejected anywhere , not given anything) but no matter how cruel/inhuman they are , they would have trouble convincing themselves fighting the happyness and threatening a nicer future for their own people is necessary.
Expendability. The united states is battling a THREE front war all over the world. Columbian communists and drug programs, Afghanistan "maintenence" and Iraq's occupation. We are out of soldiers. If another large nation decided they didn't like us we would be in a big pickle.
They contractors were security consultants working for a some relief program trying to aid Iraqis(like the red cross or what not).
Expendability. The united states is battling a THREE front war all over the world. Columbian communists and drug programs, Afghanistan "maintenence" and Iraq's occupation. We are out of soldiers. If another large nation decided they didn't like us we would be in a big pickle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You telling me civilians were deemed expendable? This whole thing wouldnt have happened if the Army dudes told 'em 'No, you cant go in there because we havent secured it.' You wont lose a single solder from doing that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Maybe I just dont understand how things work over there.
Handman, if thats true...its all the sadder, but it still doesnt explain why aid workers were allowed to go where the Army is afraid of sending troops into.
Yea yea, I've said it once I'll say it again... mostly because its true.
Ok so let me get this straight, a mob killed 4 people and then violated their bodies... and your **** at the ARMY for not going in to get the bodies? WTH HAPPENED TO BEING **** AT THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE KILLING!?!?!?!? Hell... why should the army HAVE to go in to get them? Shouldn't those innocent, peace loving, friendly victims of oppression bring the bodies of the people they've recently killed and drug through the streets back to us?
It's against the Geneva convention to attack civilians:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq *did* sign the Geneva Convention. /:
It's against the Geneva convention to attack civilians:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) <b>the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq *did* sign the Geneva Convention. /: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But then again Israel *did* sign the missles to the face proposition, oops wrong thread. : P
Justifications and morals are all about whose side you're on.
Feel free to point that out to the angry mob of Iraqis. I'll be standing over here while you do so. (And by "here" I mean behind the English Channel. :P)
These were workers trying to aid the Iraqis... instead of going in guns blazing, we should let them see the results of their actions. Publicly state why aid is coming slower. The Iraqis want necessities, all that has to be done is show them that contractors and whoever are trying to help them, and without them, there are no necessities.
Iraqis currently treat every American like an American, instead of treating an American soldier as a soldier, a doctor as a doctor, etc. It is key to have the Iraqis understand that (at least) certain Americans are friends. They may still react with hostility to soldiers, but by equating civilian contractors with supplies, and making it known that without contractors, there are no supplies, the violence will die down.
What needs to happen is this, in all honestly and logic:
You need to get the perpatrators, and arrest them.
Do NOT publically execute them. You will make a matyr of them if you do.
Instead, make them 'dissappear'. Just take them somewhere private and quiet, and execute them for war crimes blah blah, and never talk about it.
That way, people will understand and fear not to commit horrific crimes like this, and yet no one will be respected as a hero because no one know's if they were actually executed, and everyone remembers that they will not want to dissapear.
If civilians try to protect the perpatraoits, I say kill them. No one will make matyr's of unimportant people.
Fight fire with fire, if they wanna be ruthless we can teach them not to.