BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Indymedia eyewitness accounts from Fallujah.

  
 
Nobody's girl
14:37 / 11.04.04
No idea how reliable these are, but I thought some of you might be interested.

One witness said 27 soldiers have been kidnapped, hospitals bombed etc, etc...

Indymedia UK homepage
 
 
Whale... Whale... Fish!
16:11 / 11.04.04
Reading it just now but Jesus. This is wrong.
 
 
Whale... Whale... Fish!
16:33 / 11.04.04
BBC

Not alot apart from this quote; "As soon as the Americans see a group of people in the streets, they shoot at them," one man told AFP.

"I saw people bury their dead in their yards because they feared to venture out," he added.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:40 / 11.04.04
Oh man. This is EXACTLY how the US handled counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Back then, anyone who ran when the troops arrived (usually via helicopter) was assumed to be an enemy combatant or an enemy symapathizer.

And then the area was "pacified".

So I guess we're going to destroy Fallujah in order to save Fallujah?
 
 
w1rebaby
21:12 / 11.04.04
I noticed that one of the correspondents said they were sending film and pictures to al-Jazeera and checked their latest news, to read encouraging stuff like:

An assessment by five international non-governmental organisations on Friday said that 470 people had been killed in Falluja.

Of 1200 injured, it said 243 were women and 200 children. The groups warned their estimate may be too low.

"Dead bodies are lying in the streets. Ambulances are being shot at by snipers. Medical aid and supplies have been stopped by US Occupation Forces," a statement from the NGOs said.

The Marines conducting the week-long operation in Falluja have been accused of firing indiscriminately on people in the city, killing women and children.

and

I call an Aljazeera cameraman in Falluja to check on his safety.

My colleague's voice is panic-stricken as he describes the scene, echoing the pictures that have shocked Ahmad.

“There are images we can’t show because it’s just too gruesome. I have never seen anything like this before,” he says.

“There are bodies everywhere, and people can’t go out to retrieve them because they’re too afraid of being blown away themselves.

“I can’t believe the number of children here, we were at the hospital and it’s full of dead and wounded kids.

“The ones that aren’t dead have lost limbs and are wailing in pain, begging for their parents. What parents?” he screams. “I don’t have the heart to tell them that their parents are in pieces.

“Back at our office the Americans are shooting at us. I walk out of the bathroom and a laser is pointed at my chest,” he says, referring to US sharpshooters in the area.

“We 'd just bought cigarettes from a store across the street; no more than ten minutes later it was bombed.”

And then I turn on the TV and see people arguing that we need to stay the course, make sure we defeat insurgents for the sake of the Iraqi people, who, you know, really like us, honest.

*opens another beer*

They had Paul Bremer on this morning. There was a quote from one of his drivers IIRC, saying that he used to like the Americans but now he hated them more than Saddam, and all the man could do was say "isn't it just wonderful that he's able to say things like that now Saddam's gone".
 
 
w1rebaby
21:19 / 11.04.04
Oh, and as for the pictures - there's a sidebar link called "Aljazeera exclusive in pictures: Falluja siege", though I'd advise anyone of a sensitive disposition not to click on it. Children. Heads not entirely present. You get the idea.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
09:23 / 12.04.04
I wouldn't believe any major US media organisation

Al Jazeera is biased I would think but they have less of a squeamish factor and as such will at least show pictures that show the true horror of war


This is so awful it is beyond words. I was just over at Rense.com and it has an article by an anonymous British commander who is bemoaning how the US troops are handling the situation. He says that they have a shoot first, ask questions later mentality

I CAN understand how troops who have seen their friends and colleagues targetted could become trigger happy but the current situation is so bad, I cannot really see what the U.S. commanders are thinking of.

I have no answers and I cannot even contemplate how awful this all is. But it is NOT as if all these possibilities were not thought of beforehand. Bush and Blair were warned that this might be the outcome. Most chilling of all in said report on Rense was that the British Officer quoted, ended his interview with a message of 'hope' that chilled me to the bone

"things can improve but it could take ten years"


That means that by his estimate coallition troops will have to be there for at least another decade!

I have postulated on another thread that this latest violence actually suits Bremner and the power brokers in America

(I assert in best conspiracy theory mindset that it matters not WHO runs the country, Bush or Kerry following the next election......it is still benefitting the oil companies and multinationals WHOEVER WINS)

Bremner in my opinion is playing his role excellently....the escalating violence and tactics he is encouraging are ensuring that the UN will soon have to play a role

It might come in too late to save Bush but eventually, the UN will have to send 'peacekeepers' to the region. This will allow the US to retain overall control but allow it to withdraw a lot of its troops (or send them somewhere else ....Iran possibly)


In my opinion, the powers that be behind Bush Kerry etc are playing this masterfully

After ignoring and downplaying the importance of the UN, they will accept UN help and despite the US and Britain making all this damned mess....the UN and other countries will pick up some of the bill and the contracts thus far awarded to British and US companies, will be funded by the worlds' taxpayers monies

it is so corrupt and evil it is beyond words. Bomb the fuck out of a country, then send in the contractors (who just happen to be your campaign contributers) to rebuild it all again, utilising Iraqi oil money, American taxpayers money and if their plan works .....United Nations relief aid ....paid for by the taxpayers of the world

What a scam

and all it takes is a few thousand dead children

a small price to pay
 
 
Joetheneophyte
09:29 / 12.04.04
by the way, the British commanders comments add credence to the latest conspiracy theory that the Draft is coming back to America

to keep soldiers in the middle east for another decade would require troop rotation and as such the Draft is the only viable way this can be achieved. Europe usually follows America so Britain may follou suit

Especially if the public can be convinced or scared enough via another terrorist attack
 
 
Whale... Whale... Fish!
11:57 / 12.04.04
Hmmm...
I doubt the draft would be re-introduced here.

There would be too much opposition, besides, I for one am not going to fight for a governemt or country that I haven't sworn alliegence to and I don't have very much pride in being British, Scottish yes, British no.
 
 
Whale... Whale... Fish!
12:01 / 12.04.04
Just thought I should explain that previous statement a bit more. I feel we are guilty of what's happening in Fallujah and the whole of Iraq by association. It may not be British soldiers carrying out these actions but as our Government support what's happening and our soldiers aren't doing anything to stop it, then we are also guilty and so I don't feel I have much to be proud of.
 
 
Char Aina
06:08 / 13.04.04
man, i quit my job because it involved credit cards... i'd never serve in this war of error.

this is fucked, though.
truly, truly fucked.
how do the people who claim to believe in bush's good intentions deal with such explosive proof to the contrary?

they cant all be awaiting armageddon.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
06:29 / 13.04.04
I think people are so indoctrinated with the two party state idea

Even though they can see that Bush has lied and mishandled the whole issue, they would still prefer him over a Democrat

Totally bizarre but by virtue of labelling himself Republican, he has a large minority of the Republican vote even before he announces his policies

Foe example, I now hate Tony Blair.....voted for him twice but really annoyed that I will have to vote for his party again. My reasons......because as much as I loathe him, I hate Michael Howard even more (Conservative)

I remember Howard last time he was in Government, he is corrupt (he did something that allowed one of his family members to get off a charge.....he had been drug running or something and then all of a sudden his case was thrown out of court.....Howard had intervened) and his party are just not my cup of tea.

Admittedly, I now have a lot more in common with Tory ideology than I did when I was younger. It is just that my 'programming' about the Tory party is so ingrained, that irrespective of their policies, I just cannot trust them for two reasons

1: My brainwashing as I was growing up

2: I remember half the bastards from last time they were in power


the second reason I can understand.....the first one does bother me somewhat
 
 
Char Aina
08:35 / 13.04.04
i understand the voting for bush people, i just dont get the vehemently supporting everything he does as great and good crowd.

y'know, the ones who are not entirely retarded or bigotted.


new american century types, but without the wierd scary long view stuff.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:32 / 13.04.04
Speaking of the little handpuppet o'doom, he's supposed to address the nation tonite concerning the recent upsurge of fighting in Iraq. I'm guessing he's going to downplay it all as "Saddam loyalists and opportunistic thugs opposed to democracy", how we're actuallly making great progress there in winning hearts & minds, and how the Iraqis just love us to death and want to give us all hugs and candy.

Not to mention how we're "staying the course" and the importance of the June 30th deadline (now rendered meaningless by our troop presence extended into infinity). Of course, the general in charge over there just asked for 10,000 more troops...so here comes the buildup and the escalation for the spring and summer while Bush tells us all about how victory is at hand.

I'm guessing that 10,000 will become 100,000 by year's end. Just a hunch.
 
 
grant
18:04 / 13.04.04
I don't think we have that many troops.

Anybody have hard numbers on that?
 
 
flufeemunk effluvia
19:27 / 13.04.04
By request: Iraq Numbers!

Troops
Right now, The US has a (slowly dwindiling) 135,000 troops in Iraq. I am not sure of the number of British troops (brits please fill me in), and Im pretty sure there are a couple (~100) of Poles there too.

Casualties
The overall number of civillian casualties lies somewhere between 8865 and 10715 in the Iraq war. There have been about 728 "coaltion" military casualties, 664 American casualties (military and civilian), 527 of the American casualties since George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" spectacle.

Money
The US has spent a F***load of money in Iraq, and I am unable to find out how much. It is at least a hundred billion.

here is a more detailed and up-to-the-minute detail of casualties in Iraq.
 
 
pachinko droog
19:40 / 13.04.04
Haven't been able to find any definitive numbers on how many troops the US would ultimately be able to deploy, given the current situation.

However, have heard that overall US troop strength (Army & Marines) is now about a third smaller than during the '91 Gulf War. Current ground troop strength in Iraq is 130,000 US troops, plus however many our erstwhile allies have sent, plus those private security mercs.

Keep in mind though that for every infantryman on the ground, there are at least ten more troops needed for resupply, first aid, logistics, etc. So in other words, actual combat strength is much lower than most think. That increases exponentially when you're talking about helicopter units; gotta have twice as many choppers on the ground than are in the air at any one time, plus all the specialists needed for maintenance. And helicopters are notorious for mechanical failure...that desert dust probably doesn't help things. (One of the reasons the 1980 Iran hostage rescue attempt failed.) I suppose they could try outsourcing a lot of those jobs if they had to (and they probably do), but still, we don't have nearly as many combat troops to send as we once did. A lot of servicemen and women aren't re-enlisting, especially in the reserves.

So are we going to wind up with another draft? I suppose anything is possible at this point. US casualties are nearing the 700 mark, when they pass 1000 there's going to be a lot of noise in the media. Of that we can be sure.
 
 
w1rebaby
20:36 / 13.04.04
The draft would be guaranteed political suicide. I'm not entirely sure how they think they're going to play this. If you leave the current number of troops there with their original mission, it looks like there'll continue to be casualties, which is bad. If you pull back, you look like a wuss and more importantly start to lose control over parts of the country (though they may think that they can move back in force after the US elections). There's only so much spin control that can be effective here, and I think it's almost reached maximum.
 
 
grant
21:51 / 13.04.04
My cousin's husband is with an ordnance division trained to (I think) repair helicopters. He just landed in Baghdad a couple weeks ago, and he's regular army.

Over on Talking Points Memo recently (I think it was), Marshall had a snip about the new troop requests, and then said something about how they're going to have to be calling up National Guard soon because they're basically out of reservists.

I was wondering how many reservists there were, and how many regular Army (and Marines and Air Force and Navy, for that matter).

Searching...

This article on Soldiers For The Truth puts it more bluntly than Marshall:
Our 30-year old all-volunteer Army is crucially close to being broken.

And helpfully adds:
According to the Defense Department, reserve soldiers represent 97 percent of all the military’s civil affairs units, 70 percent of all engineering units, 66 percent of all military police, and stunningly enough – 50 percent of actual combat forces.

All this is further compounded by the fact that the active-duty Army has shrunk to 480,000 full time green-suiters. The Army now represents only 34 percent of the total U.S. armed forces.

snip

The Army today is ominously overstretched. Currently there are approximately 370,000 Army soldiers deployed in 120 countries around the world.

The Army has 33 combat brigades, of which 24 are currently engaged in operations outside the continental United States. That constitutes roughly 74 percent of the Army’s combat brigades. The vulnerability of this imbalance can be ascertained in Korea: What could we do if a new war erupts there?



and he also adds:

In fiscal year 2003, the Army had to cancel 49 of its scheduled 182 training exercises. DoD admits that the four Army Divisions returning from Iraq in the first five months of 2004 will not be combat-ready again for at least six months. Pentagon officials admit that the soldiers’ equipment has worn down and their war-fighting skills have withered while they were doing police work. So out of a total of ten divisions in the whole U.S. Army, four can’t do anything war-related for half a year!

snip

The survey, which polled thousands of troops, found that 40 percent of recipients said their missions in Iraq had little or nothing to do with what they had trained for. Perhaps even more foreboding, half the soldiers who were surveyed indicated that they will not reenlist when their tours end or when the Pentagon lifts the stop-loss order currently in effect that has prevented over 24,000 active duty soldiers and over 16,000 reservists from leaving the service.



I'm not sure how many guys are already in Afghanistan, too.
 
 
sleazenation
23:21 / 13.04.04
According to the Taipai Times, Britain had 10,500 troops in Iraq as of September last year. I doubt that figure has increased significantly since that time. That is as opposed to 140,000 US troops in the same time frame.
 
 
grant
01:21 / 14.04.04
Maybe this should be split onto another thread. These numbers are meaningful, I think, but I just realized they have little to do with Fallujah or Indymedia.
 
 
grant
03:21 / 14.04.04
This is a little more pertinent:

In tonight's press conference, Bush said:
It's not a civil war; it's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dictatorship. In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political future, and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want strong protections for individual rights; they want their independence; and they want their freedom.

Oh. OK.

He stands by the June 30th handover date, making it basically political suicide NOT to get lots of troops out by then, and then says:

In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city. These leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary.... Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia.

And he sort of tied it all together with:
The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.

We've seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.



Those darned terrorists!

I do give him props for repeating the message that it's not Islam, it's a political ideology that works within Islam.

Oh, and my favorite response to questioning:
Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people -- it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there's mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of -- a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either.
 
 
w1rebaby
10:10 / 14.04.04
It looks more professional when you edit out the "er"s, "um"s and ten second gaps.
 
 
Nobody's girl
13:13 / 14.04.04
Props to pachinko droog for correctly predicting 13/4/04-

"I'm guessing he's going to downplay it all as "Saddam loyalists and opportunistic thugs opposed to democracy"

From the Bush press conference BBC report 14/4/04-

"Mr Bush said the violence witnessed in Iraq in the last two weeks, the bloodiest since the war ended, was caused by a few remaining supporters of former President Saddam Hussein and Islamic militants originating both inside and outside Iraq."
 
 
pachinko droog
15:42 / 14.04.04
Thanks. But yeah, it was predictable. Mainly because Bush "can't think on his feet" (does he think while sitting down, lying down?), at least not without handy teleprompters. That speech was an absolute disaster. I kept hearing the refrain "like a deer caught in the headlights" from radio commentators this morning. You'd think that his people would have prepped him better.

I've also seen an increase in the number of troops that General Abizaid wants for Iraq, now instead of 10,000 its 10,000-25,000 more troops. And now John Kerry is calling for 40,000 more troops to be sent over, so we know what will happen in Iraq if he's elected...I don't want to reignite a previous argument, but seriously now, regardless of who wins in November, we're staying in Iraq, and we're sending more troops.

The UN isn't going to pitch in, and our erstwhile allies are none too eager to send more troops of their own, despite Bush's pretenses of trying to now make this a NATO operation, which I'm sure is angering Putin to no end. (Russia is still being contained and kept out of the Middle East, just as the British wanted during ther 19th century. The "Great Game" continues, along with the scramble to annex vital natural resources.) Nader is now warning of an impending draft, and regardless of how folks may feel about Ralph's ego, I think it behooves us to pay heed. Those draft board positions ARE being filled, and while I thought it was inconceivable just a few months ago myself that a draft was in the works, now I'm getting worried. This goes beyond Democrat and Republican and the November election. Pacifying Iraq has moved to the top of our national agenda, and people should be concerned about where this is heading.
 
 
grant
16:46 / 14.04.04
But if troops are kept past June 30th, Bush will not get re-elected. I think his conference last night guaranteed that, and I think he's too much of an operator to let that happen... no matter *what* shape that country's in come deadline time.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:22 / 14.04.04
But isn't the June 30th deadline pretty much an empty promise now? Iraq is nowhere near capable of achieving self-government, its police/paramilitary aren't up to the job of putting down the insurgency, the majority of people don't want us there, and both Sunnis and Shiites are taking part in an active resistance.

Someone's troops are going to have to stay there if the US wants to achieve anything in the region. If Bush pulls US troops out, won't other follow suit? And then won't Iraq pretty much fragment along religious and ethnic lines? And won't companies like Halliburton have to get bailed out by the feds if they are forced to leave Iraq as well? Something is not adding up here.
 
 
grant
18:00 / 14.04.04
I'm having second thoughts about this... I put it over in the "reinstating the draft?" thread.

I don't think he actually said he was pulling troops out, just handing power over to a new government. Did he? (just checked) No, he didn't. He's "restoring sovereignty" to "Iraqi nationals."

It's weird politics, though. He conflated the two issues by talking about that deadline both before and after referencing Fallujah directly. I got confused, anyway.
 
 
pachinko droog
18:27 / 14.04.04
Oh its absolutely weird politics. And I'm sure it will get even weirder as time goes on. I'm guessing that out of whatever new provisional set-up is being put in place, eventually...Iraq will be handed over to a new strongman. Someone like, Chalabi, say? In any event, another pro-US dictator who won't nationalize his country's oil, though of course, he will probably have dictatorial powers "only as long as instability continues." And he'll have US troops at his disposal. We won't be there to fight the Iraqis' battles for them of course, just to help provide-ahem-stability for the new regime.

And to keep Russia's interests at bay. I have a feeling that's a big part of it.
 
 
flufeemunk effluvia
21:10 / 14.04.04
To get the thread back on topic, kind of, the scariest thing i found these past few days is how none of my freinds (at a suburban high school, so i guess it may be asking for a bit much) know anything about how many Iraqi civillians have been killed in the past week or so. Damn. We are so propagandized it is scary.
 
  
Add Your Reply