Falluja Siege

[miss_silver]

Picture emerges of Falluja siege

A truce has brought a reduction in violence in the Iraqi city of Falluja after US troops fought insurgents there during a two-week siege.
There was little media access during the fighting, but eyewitness reports are now emerging.

Humanitarian workers speak of US gunmen firing at ambulances and civilians.

They say makeshift clinics were overwhelmed because of a bridge closure which cut off access to the main hospital.

US military officials have described the US operation as "humane" and say they "do everything possible to protect non-combatants". But they say insurgents' tactics are increasing the risks for civilians.

Coalition forces began the operation to "pacify" insurgent fighters in the restive, mainly-Sunni city on 5 April. It followed the gruesome murder and mutilation in late March of four security contractors working for the coalition in the city.

Ambulance accusations:
The head of mission of a European humanitarian agency with staff in Falluja told BBC News Online that, according to his staff, two of their ambulances had been shot at.

"By who? The probability is by US snipers," he said.

Asked whether these were warning or attacking shots, he said: "One was shot two or three times - a sniper does not shoot an ambulance three times by mistake."

British aid worker Jo Wilding said an ambulance she was in, with flashing lights, siren blaring and "ambulance" written on it in English, was hit as it drove to collect a woman in premature labour.

Ms Wilding is sure the shots came from American troops.

"You can tell the shape of US marine from a mujahideen - even if you can only see a silhouette, the helmet and flak jacket are quite distinctive. Also, we were in a US-controlled part of town," she told BBC News Online.

Iraqi doctor Salam al-Obaidi, a member of the Doctors for Iraq humanitarian society, worked in Falluja for six days during the fighting.

Speaking to BBC News Online, he described seeing colleagues blown up in an ambulance - also clearly marked - travelling in front of him as his team tried to enter a US-controlled area.

"I saw the ambulance disappear - not all of it, but the front of it, the side where the driver and paramedic were," he said.

He said he and two more colleagues were injured in a second explosion. He still does not know the fate of the two people in the first ambulance.

In a separate incident, Dr Obaidi said, a driver and paramedic in an ambulance were shot in a US-controlled area - one in the chest, the other in the eyes.

The injured civilians inside the ambulance bled to death during the next two days as warning shots were fired when the team tried - four times - to return to collect the ambulance, he said.

'Hidden weapons'
Three days into the siege, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, denied that troops were firing on ambulances.

If we're shooting vehicles, it's because those vehicles have shot at us," he said.

US officials have said that on one occasion, an insurgent gunman was seen fleeing in an ambulance, and that weapons have been found in an aid convoy west of the city.

Coalition military spokesman Brigadier General Mark Kimmit said that there have been "a lot of people running around the city with blankets on their vehicles asserting that they are ambulances".

There was concern that these could have been loaded with explosives, he said.

Casualty figures

The Iraqi death toll from the siege has been strongly contested. Local doctors have been widely quoted as saying at least 600 people died.

Mr Obaidi believes the total to be at least 750, not including those buried in gardens or other unofficial grave sites.

The Iraqi Health Minister, Khodair Abbas, said on Thursday that 271 people died and local doctors had been pressured to give inflated figures.

The proportion of these who were civilians is impossible to verify.

Reports from the city have consistently said that many civilians in US-controlled parts of the city were too afraid of US snipers to leave their homes during the siege.

Dr Obaidi and Ms Wilding described cases of women, children and old men who appeared to have been shot by US soldiers.

Dr Obaidi said he had seen the bodies of two men, one aged about 70, the other about 50, both shot in the forehead, in an area controlled by the US.

They had been lying at the front gate of their home for two days, he said, because the family did not dare step outside to retrieve the bodies.


Is he sure they were shot by US troops?

"You are joking?" he said. "There are people dead in an area just controlled by America snipers. Nobody, either civilian or resistance, could enter the area. Who could kill them? We know American bullets. We are not a stupid people."

Ms Wilding said an injured mother and two children had told her they were hit by US gunmen as they tried to leave their house.

She also said she met an old woman, shot in the abdomen, who was still clutching a white flag.

Her son said she had been shot by US soldiers," Ms Wilding said.

Dr Obaidi also said he had seen the body parts of a family in a bombed-out house: "There were seven women and five children. I saw the head of a child away from the body. Only one girl, aged four, had survived," he said.

US officials say their operations have been "extraordinarily precise".

Gen. Sanchez said civilian casualties were "absolutely regrettable", but were a fact on a "battlefield of this nature in an urban environment".

Gen. Kimmit, also blamed militants who "hunker down inside mosques and hospitals and schools, and use the women and children as shields" for the civilian suffering.


Hospital access:
The US has also faced criticism for blocking access to the city's main hospital by, according to most reports, occupying the river bridge which linked it to the rest of the city.

"If this hospital was working it would have saved a lot of lives," Medecins Sans Frontieres' Emergency Coordinator for Iraq Ibrahim Younis said.

Doctors set up makeshift clinics in the early days of the siege.

Ms Wilding said doctors were storing blood in a drinks fridge at a GP's surgery where they were treating the injured, and warming the bags under the tap in an unhygienic toilet.

Dr Obaidi said hundreds of patients were brought in, but his team had only 10 beds.

Part of the deal to end the fighting was a US commitment to allow "unfettered access" to the hospital and to "facilitate the passage of official ambulances" in the city.

The Coalition says troops "have consistently allowed food, medical and humanitarian supplies into the city" and have "assisted in the transportation and distribution of these supplies".

It also says marines have helped ambulances from Baghdad to get into Falluja, and that humanitarian convoys have been slowed by explosive devices found on the roads.

From


Way to go, keep this up and keep telling them it's for their own good

This is truly turning into another vietnam.

[Sinner]

Originally posted by miss_silver


This is truly turning into another vietnam.

**Sigh**...

Myths about Iraq....

The country is in flames! Actually, most of the country continues to rebuild and is at peace. The fighting is restricted to a few areas, but this is where the reporters and cameras go. Construction and commerce do not make for dramatic news stories and so are rarely covered. The Iraqis who are causing all the commotion are the same ones who have been using their guns to threaten other Iraqis as well. Coalition attempts to deal with this are being condemned as oppressive to all Iraqis. But unless the warlords (Saddam followers wanting to regain power, or Islamic radical Shias who want the country run by clergy) can be defeated and disarmed, Iraq will never no peace. The coalition hoped this day of reckoning could be put off until the Iraqis held elections, and could do it themselves. The warlords were not willing to wait for that.

Americans are hated in Iraq! Not according to the polls that have been conducted, nor according to the experience of most Americans working in Iraq. But a lot of Iraqis, especially those who used to work for Saddam, or who want to set up an Islamic theocracy, don't like the Americans and their "alien" ideas about democracy and rule of law. If someone hates you, it's a good idea to find out why. But most Americans get their news from the mass media, which is more interested in “wow” than “why.”

U.S. troops are fed up with the war and leaving in droves! New recruits, and people wanting to stay in are at record levels in the armed forces. This applies to reservists as well as active duty troops. The Department of Defense regularly releases data on recruiting and re-enlistments, and they have been up since before September 11, 2001. But since the war on terror began, the numbers have increased still more. The air force and navy are even conducting layoffs.

The Iraqi Governing Council is despised by most Iraqis! Any 25 Iraqi leaders would be despised by most of the population. The 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council were selected by the coalition to help run things until elections could be held. Members were selected from all of the ethnic and religious groups in the country. Each member has a large constituency. But Iraq has lots of constituencies, including over a hundred tribes and dozens of religious leaders with large followings. The country has not allowed any party politics for over four decades. You need more than 25 members of a government to even begin to cover the demands of all the constituencies for representation. Even after the elections, Iraq will have more than 25 organized factions competing with each other.

The U.S. Army doesn't have enough troops to handle current combat operations! Although combat commanders feel that "too much ain't enough" when it comes to troops, they learn how to go with what they got. The last two weeks of violence in Iraq were suppressed with available combat troops, and more were called for in case the violence returned on a grander scale (an unlikely event, as more became known about who was behind the current attacks on Iraqis, foreign aid workers and coalition troops). For example, three battalions of marines dealing with Fallujah, and available troops were able to suppress the al Sadr militias within two weeks. Sending more troops won’t help with the basic problem; gathering intelligence. That requires people speak Arabic and have police experience. More American troops won’t solve that problem, more trained Iraqi police will.

The effort in Iraq detracts from the war on terror! Arab countries are where al Qaeda comes from, they were just using Afghanistan as a base. Invading Iraqi forced al Qaeda to come and defend it’s Arabian heartland. The Iraq operations inflamed al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia to start attacking Saudis and other Arabs. This cost al Qaeda a lot of support among Arabs, and would not have happened if Iraq were not invaded. The war on terror is mainly a police and intelligence function. The troops that are needed most for counter-terrorism are special operations (Special Forces and commandoes.) Special operations forces were pulled out of Afghanistan for the Iraq campaign, but most of the action in Afghanistan is best handled by regular coalition troops, Afghans and the Pakistanis. After 2001, the war in Afghanistan was mainly political, not military. Special Forces troops specialize in a particular part of the world, and they are all over the planet chasing down terrorists. The war in Iraq gave the Special Forces an opportunity to work intensively, and without restraint, in an Arab country.

U.S. Army should be expanded! It takes several years to recruit new troops, train them and organize them into new units. By then, the army leadership feels they won’t be needed. But the army will still have to pay for them. This will mean less money for training and new weapons and equipment. To the army leadership, that strategy will get more soldiers killed in combat in the long run. The basic problem is that you cannot expand the army quickly and still have the same highly effective professional troops.

Iraqi army should not have been disbanded after Saddam fell! The Iraqi army has been, for over half a century, the chief source of tyranny and oppression in the country. Army commanders overthrew the government time after time, and used their soldiers to brutalize the population. By keeping all, or part, of the army intact, and armed, coalition risked a quick return of the warlord attitude that gave the Iraqi people dictators like Saddam (and several others who preceded him.) Saddam’s innovation was to establish the Republican Guard as a force to keep the army from overthrowing him. Saddam also freely fired, or executed, army officers who appeared likely to try and stage a coup. And there were several coup attempts by army officers, even in the face of Saddam’s secret police and Republican Guard. Keeping the old Iraqi army in business was just asking for more trouble.

Iraqi security and army troops, and police cannot be relied on! About half the police and security troops have worked well with coalition troops when put under pressure (attacked by al Sadr militia or Sunni gangs). Another 40 percent simply fled and about ten percent went over to the rebels. This was because the screening and training process for Iraqi police and security troops is still a work in progress. The sad truth is that Iraq never had a real police force. What was called police took care of traffic control and low level crime. There was little training for the police. The population was controlled via secret police terror and a huge system of informers. All this was backed up by the Republican Guard. The army and police were never trusted and were terrorized as well. So it was realized, even before the invasion, that the police force and army would have to rebuilt from scratch. And that’s been going on for a year. It will take years to create a professional police force and army. The old Iraqi police and army were accustomed to corrupt practices (bribes and personal influence) rather than evenhanded application of the law. Eliminating the bad habits takes time. Meanwhile, the only way law and order will return to Iraq is via a professional police and security force. Foreign troops cannot do this.

Keeping all Baath Party members out of the new government was a mistake! All Baath Party members were barred from government jobs after Saddam was topped for the simple reason that the vast majority of the Iraqi people hated the Baath Party. The Baath Party, like the Communist and Nazi party earlier in the century, was a political movement that controlled the nation by demanding that all key positions (management, government, academic, judicial) be held by members of the party. You had to prove to local party members that you would be a loyal Baathist before you were admitted to the party. After that, you could pursue your career. But the party had the right to call on you to do whatever the party needed done. That could include being an informer, or murder of “an enemy of the party.” Many people who joined the Baath Party just for career reasons, later fled the country when the party asked them to do something vile (from being an informer to participating in some bit of terrorism to control the population.) But most stayed, cultivated their career and just hoped the party never called on them to be a bastard. When the Baath party was thrown out, Iraqis knew which Baathists were bastards and which were just opportunists. The former were often war criminals, but the latter were also hated for their opportunism and lack of scruples. Many Iraqis refused to join the Baath party, and accepted career damage in doing so. As a result, all Baath Party members were seen as tainted. Unfortunately, many of them are skilled administrators and professionals. From the beginning, some key professionals were allowed back on the job even though they had been in the Baath Party. This was always done at some cost, for there were always other Iraqis who were quite bitter about any Baath Party member being back in a position of authority. This situation will continue for a generation.

I can continue if you would like,

[miss_silver]

Keeping all Baath Party members out of the new government was a mistake! All Baath Party members were barred from government jobs after Saddam was topped for the simple reason that the vast majority of the Iraqi people hated the Baath Party. The Baath Party, like the Communist and Nazi party earlier in the century, was a political movement that controlled the nation by demanding that all key positions (management, government, academic, judicial) be held by members of the party. You had to prove to local party members that you would be a loyal Baathist before you were admitted to the party. After that, you could pursue your career. But the party had the right to call on you to do whatever the party needed done. That could include being an informer, or murder of “an enemy of the party.” Many people who joined the Baath Party just for career reasons, later fled the country when the party asked them to do something vile (from being an informer to participating in some bit of terrorism to control the population.) But most stayed, cultivated their career and just hoped the party never called on them to be a bastard. When the Baath party was thrown out, Iraqis knew which Baathists were bastards and which were just opportunists. The former were often war criminals, but the latter were also hated for their opportunism and lack of scruples. Many Iraqis refused to join the Baath party, and accepted career damage in doing so. As a result, all Baath Party members were seen as tainted. Unfortunately, many of them are skilled administrators and professionals. From the beginning, some key professionals were allowed back on the job even though they had been in the Baath Party. This was always done at some cost, for there were always other Iraqis who were quite bitter about any Baath Party member being back in a position of authority. This situation will continue for a generation.

Iraq Baathists to get jobs back

The US administrator in Iraq says many former public sector workers who lost their jobs after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime are to be reinstated.
Paul Bremer said members of the former ruling Baath party who had a clean record could return to their old jobs in the military or education.

Correspondents say the move, which was announced in a televised speech, represents a major shift in US policy.

But it has been criticised by some members of the Iraqi Governing Council.

"This is like allowing Nazis into the German government immediately after World War Two," said Governing Council member Ahmed Chalabi.

Adnan al-Assadi, of the Dawa party, said: "It will help security deteriorate further, disappoint the Iraqis who have trusted the coalition to manage the political process and lead to civil war."

More

By all means, please continue.

[AweShucks]

Ambulance accusations:
The head of mission of a European humanitarian agency with staff in Falluja told BBC News Online that, according to his staff, two of their ambulances had been shot at.

"By who? The probability is by US snipers," he said.

Asked whether these were warning or attacking shots, he said: "One was shot two or three times - a sniper does not shoot an ambulance three times by mistake."

A U.S. sniper does not shoot by mistake and they certainly don't shoot 2 or 3 times. They are far better trained than that! Trust me I have seen them in training they plain and simple do not miss and snipers do not fire warning shots! As a whole the U.S. Military is better trained than this. They do not just fire to play target practice without a reason. Don't believe this story at all sorry.... I know better.

[miss_silver]

AWWWW

really?

Maybe it is, maybe it ain't AweShucks. Who knows...

Just hope they are none inexperience US soldiers there I try to get my info from everywhere on the net, gave up on CNN since it's only mass propaganda for a lost cause.

It's very true that the media will do anything to get a story, as shoking as it is, but, it just made me wonder. Guess we shouldn't believe any news broadcast or web based for that matter. Or not.

But to make a point clear, i'm truly sicken and tired to watch the news these days. All those death for what? Freedom?

IMHO, everything that is done in Iraq is done to secure the oil supply.

This is truly a sick, immoral war. Yes, Saddam was to be brought down for the good of the Iraqi ppl, but now, after a year of occupation, even a cluless veggie merchant is willing to join the resistance against the coalition. Why ?

[Sinner]

Originally posted by miss_silver
AWWWW

really?

Maybe it is, maybe it ain't AweShucks. Who knows...

Just hope they are none inexperience US soldiers there I try to get my info from everywhere on the net, gave up on CNN since it's only mass propaganda for a lost cause.

And the Blame Bush Channel or BBC is not????????

[AweShucks]

Originally posted by miss_silver
AWWWW

really?

Maybe it is, maybe it ain't AweShucks. Who knows...

Just hope they are none inexperience US soldiers there I try to get my info from everywhere on the net, gave up on CNN since it's only mass propaganda for a lost cause.

It's very true that the media will do anything to get a story, as shoking as it is, but, it just made me wonder. Guess we shouldn't believe any news broadcast or web based for that matter. Or not.

I say what I say because I have served and trained with these troops. I also have several family members currently serving or have served in the Mid East "Iraq-Afghanistan". I know first hand the U.S. troops are better trained than this and would not engage "fire" under these circumstances without cause. In every war there is a chance for civilian casualties nobody ever denied that. But your story is so far from the truth it's pathetic propaganda!

You just believe everything you want to hear don't you!

[miss_silver]

Originally posted by Sinner
And the Blame Bush Channel or BBC is not????????

Blame Bush Channel Gotta to remember this one

Thanks Sinner

Please, go on

[miss_silver]

Originally posted by AweShucks
I say what I say because I have served and trained with these troops. I also have several family members currently serving or have served in the Mid East "Iraq-Afghanistan". I know first hand the U.S. troops are better trained than this and would not engage "fire" under these circumstances without cause. In every war there is a chance for civilian casualties nobody ever denied that. But your story is so far from the truth it's pathetic propaganda!

You just believe everything you want to hear don't you!

Gee, sorry to hear this AweShucks, hope your folk serving abroad are allright. I know that the armed forces need to be train properly for the safety of the whole troop he's/she's serving with, but, I just wonder how anybody would react being placed in front of an angry Falluja mob even if he/she were trained? Truth is that we believe, either you because you believe in a cause that you think is just, or either me that thinks that this whole mess could have been avoided in the first place if the US gov would have been more patient with the UN investigation.

We alway believe what we want to believe or want to hear what we want to hear according to our own "Parameters" as to what we would consider the truth or what we would consider to be total bull. We all perceive differently because most of us are on different wavesleinght, we are all unique individuals. To be thinking the same way, all of us, would make a very boring world

My story was taken from the BBC website, accuse them if you want for writing propaganda. Only posting political news here

I respect everyone opinion or imput here aslong as namecalling or labeling doesn't occur

[floydian slip]

Originally posted by miss_silver

I respect everyone opinion or imput here aslong as namecalling or labeling doesn't occur

But its just so hard for some people.

[AweShucks]

Originally posted by miss_silver
Gee, sorry to hear this AweShucks, hope your folk serving abroad are allright.

So far so good My little Bro will probably be going to Iraq within the next month or so as well.

Truth is that we believe, either you because you believe in a cause that you think is just, or either me that thinks that this whole mess could have been avoided in the first place if the US gov would have been more patient with the UN investigation.

The UN Investigation had been ongoing since the first gulf war. How patient does one have to be? Keep in mind 14+ UN resolutions against Iraq was not enough reason, most of which were under the Clinton Admin.

Even if the U.S. government was wrong I have and always will support our troops 110% regardless of the time place or reason.

My story was taken from the BBC website, accuse them if you want for writing propaganda. Only posting political news here

I never accused you of writing it I only used the term "your story" because you happened to have posted it