http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BOL412A.html

Controlled Press Ignores Criminal Obliteration of Fallujah
by Christopher Bollyn


The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah.

As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8.

Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks.

Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25.

On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care.

At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported.

"A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law.

"Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster."

Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said.

AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know."

Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety."

"The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law."

It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations.

A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes."

As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit.

Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him."

At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003.

FOR WHAT CAUSE?

Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent."

"I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause?

"I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist."

Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said.

"The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them."

The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24.

The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10.

For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof.

Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off."

The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people.

Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes."

American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position."

CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense."

Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours."

Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies.

"THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS"

Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank."

Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU.

Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future.

OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH

The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed."

Well shit, we told them in perfect English that they should evacuate. It's a war zone, what did they expect?

In fact, we didn't tell them for days. We didn't tell them for weeks, we told them for months to get out there. Fallujah has been a hotbed of violence for months. Why anyone would stay there is beyond me. I mean, the Palestinian's left by the hundreds of the thousands just because they were gonna have to live next to Jews. These people had no problem living in a war zone for months, and maintained their positions even through this great offensive.



American Military personal are NOT allowed to let aid vehicles into combat zones. That's not a war crime. Letting them into Fallujah would have been considered illegal.



There were THREE hospitals in Fallujah used as defensive positions.



Again, the enemy was using three hospitals in the city as defensive positions. When this happens, we have to occupy the position in order to ensure proper security. Also, when enemy's break the rules of law, and take over hospitals for military purposes, the Rules of War and Geneva Convention permit us to clear and secure that building. That is not an action in apparent violation of international law.



Why should that be noted? Seriously.



1 in 5 houses were destroyed in Fallujah



ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and all the papers had pictures of the devastation in Fallujah. That's not the controlled press?



So? This is a violation of the rules of war? That is a pep talk. You talk like this when you go into combat. You must be confident in combat, not timid, not scared, not quiet and keeping to yourself. One of the biggest things pertianing to military leadership billets is motivating your people.



Pretty short sighted. It is sad that that soldier died. But he had on a flak jacket, a kevlar, he held a weapon in his hand to defend himself. He is but one soldier trying to protect innocent people in Iraq from shit like this:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nation ... ationworld

http://www.woai.com/news/world/story.as ... 97B5081E95

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... ory=592648



It is far better to create an atmosphere in Iraq where terrorists specifically target American's holding M-16's, than for terrorists to target thousands of innocent people in American skyscrapers. Again, this guy is selfish and shortsighted.



Hahahaha. No. They're bringing it straight from the Yasser Arafat play book. This is a great article.



Again, this is not a war crime. The enemy in Fallujah was faking injuries en masse. This is specifically how the inflicted a great majority of casualties on our troops. The Rules of War did not apply to the enemy in Fallujah in this respect. The Lance Corporal in question may be charged, but never convicted under the Rules of War. It should be noted that this Marine was shot in the face, just the day prior by an Iraqi faking injuries. He also watched one of his fellow Marines die from an IED planted on a wounded Iraqi insurgant. I know it's hard, but you once again have to transport yourself into their combat boots. When the way the enemy is killing is by faking injuries and then attacking, what do you do? This Marine had NO IDEA this guy was unarmed. Also, why was this Iraqi insurgant using the mosque as a defensive military position?



Again, this was permitted. There are 100 mosques in all of Fallujah (at least the combat zone). 60 of these mosques were used as defensive fighting positions by the Iraqi's. Insert the reason we had the right to fight within the hospital here.



Again, we told them to get out months ago. Common sense should be an over riding factor here. Electricity and water were cut off for a litany of reasons. From crippling the enemy, to providing safety for the troops fighting.



We've been over the DU argument too. It's less harmful than lead. This isn't a violation of war anyway.



What? There's no poison gas from an exploded DU shell. It's electronically triggered, and the SABOT round itself isn't shed from it's encasement until 500 meters away from the tank.



Gulf War Syndrome from 1991 is a result of exposure to chemical and biological weapons dumps. As well as exposure to gases that are actually harmful from when we bombed the piss out of their WMD weapons depots. DU IS HARMLESS!

There are many things wrong with war and non-combatants will always be caught up on the chaos.

I'm sure that there was probably some wrong doing on our part, but I think we need to focus on the big issue: Will this offensive prove to be successful in what it was originally intended to do? (which was to deal a severe blow to the insurgency).

Nothing is perfect and no one hates war and casualty more than I. However, these things happen and I think it is important that the military make sure that its best leaders are in place and that each unit is well directed and led. As in another thread posted not too long ago, it was quoted that the best led units do not commit war crimes. That should be taken very seriously.

As for what has occurred in Falluja, if the insurgency falls then the operation can be deemed a success even though there were problems in the process.

In time we will have a better answer to the question of "ends justifying the means".

Was the US correct in its move and were its actions justifiable?

One more question:

The links provided site the recent suicide car bombings. These, of course, are terrible and need to be stopped.

But how does the US go about trying to stop suicide car bombing?

It seems like we can kill insurgents, raid their compounds, confiscate their materials, but cannot completely stop the tide of people who want to kill themselves in order to kill US soldiers or Iraqi policemen. How do we stop that? I don't know if we have the answer to that question yet. And when one looks at Israel, who has been dealing with suicide terrorism for decades, one cannot help but wonder if a military answer is the entire answer afterall. It may only be part of the answer.

Whether your pro-war, pro-peace, democrat, or republican, this is a question that needs an answer. We need to stop this.

I'd have to agree with Little Bird except for the DU issue, not that I claim to be knowledgable in this subject, but I was under the impression that DU was in fact hazardous and a possible contributor to Gulf War Syndrome. But what do I know. Perhaps the war itself is unjustified, but this offensive didn't smack of wanton destruction to me. Were US troops torching unoccupied houses? I doubt it.

Back to DU... Why on earth would they be using sabot rounds in urban combat? Its not like the resistance had armor concentrations or whatnot. Or was it that the higher ups neglected to issue HE or HEAT rounds? I've heard, but not had it confirmed that using AP rounds against infantry was frowned upon if not prohibited by international agreement.

I would appreciate it if you'd set me straight on this issue. Many thanks.

Maybe if we DIDN'T go to war, we wouldn't be in this mess. We can argue what a war crime is, how the news media is biased to left or right, the death toll on civilians all we want, but the fact of the matter is, is that if we would have found a viable alternative to war, this debate wouldn't be necessary.

I would say that showing some resolve, and helping to build a secular democracy of some form in Iraq would be a good start.



Hello. I have the wonderful advantage of seeing this from a couple sides. A.) A chemistry and physics side. Depleted Uranium is just that...used up uranium that is generally not dangerous. I also have the military side. You're right, the military and the goverment do have questions pertaining to DU. In fact, I took a BST test at drill this past weekend, and one of the questions has to do with known targets taken out by DU. It is suggested that you stay 50m away from such targets. But, from a chemistry perspective, DU is less dangerous than lead.



I'd sooner tend to think that if SABOT rounds were in fact used, that they were used wisely. As you suggest, using a main gun round on a point target is pretty much useless when you have a 50cal turret, or a MK-19 automatic grenade launcher. Typically when tankers go into combat, they're given 50/50 HEAT/SABOT rounds.

I'd be surprised if SABOT rounds were used very much in Fallujah. Just no real reason to use them unless they came upon armored vehicles, or heavily fortified positions.

Best of luck with that. Iraq's a war zone today, and it will be four years from now. Watch.

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7] - from Glorified Versions post this evening

I would say that showing some resolve, and helping to build a secular democracy of some form in Iraq would be a good start.

[quote]


I honestly hope it works, and time will tell if we are justified or not. I just hope that we did not bite off more than we can chew.

I quarrel this thought sometimes myself. It's hard to say as this is a very complex issue at hand. I firmly believe that the strength and solidarity of a secular democratic government in Iraq will serve as the greatest agent in stabilizing Iraq.

These elections in January are absolutely critical. If there is large support for the elections, high voter turn out, and general acceptance of the results, I think that'll be a big step in the right direction towards strengthening the government and the people.

There are obvious problems with Iraq though. You have three different major cultures within the country. One of those groups, a minority group, has just been stripped away of a vast amount wealth and power. This is largely being attributed to the present day problems, but should subside. A critical factor in subsiding violence from the Suuni folk, is a fair and just government which will represent their ideas. However, there is a problem. You see, Iraq will become a Shi'ite dominated government...that's just the way it's gonna be. You will now have Shi'ite run governments stretching from Afghanistan to Israel, in essence, Suuni's are pretty much without a homeland. Personally, I thought the best way to go about post-war operations was to create three seperate independent nations. Kurdistan to the north, and a Suuni and Shi'ite country. But hey, it didn't happen...

I tend want to disagree with your attitude that Iraq will be a warzone in four years. First, we need to keep the situation in Iraq in perspective. The vast majority of Iraq is at complete peace, and is prospering under its new found freedom. It's the Suuni triangle that is being difficult for reasons already discussed.

What makes me believe that secular Democracy is possible is the histories of Japan and Germany in post WWII. In many senses, they are the same. A lot of war critics tend to point out that Iraq has no history of democracy and that theocracy is indoctrinated into Islamic culture, and that alone will prevent it from taking foot. Well, I tend to see that powermongers in the Islamic community have simply repressed the will of the majority, would like to see Democracy inflitrate into Islamic society. The other factor to look at, is that neither Germany or Japan had any sign of a democratic system in their histories. The Japanese, much like muslim extremists, were more than willing to die for their cause. Very similiar situations. Then, when you compare the situation of Iraq to that of Germany and Japan post-WWII, you realize that as devasted as Iraq is, and as destroyed as Fallujah may be, it doesn't hold a freakin' candle to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin, or Hamburg. It's like comparing an elephant to a mouse. In Germany you also had problems pertaining to the Soviets. We had overcome the problems in Germany with the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift. The problems we face Iraq...in all aspects, are dwarfed in comparison to the problems we faced just sixty years ago in our nation building efforts.

What I find odd. Is that if you read articles from WWII, you see nothing but glowing praise for our troops overseas. You read stories from GWII, the actual war, and you see nothing but glowing praises for our troops. Yet, if you compair post-war efforts and the nation building phases, all you see is innate criticism. It's exactly the same. Heck, some of the stories you read about post-WWII are far more negative than those you read today.

El Phanstasmo, I know you like to focus on the negatives of what is taking place in Iraq, but could I ask of you just one thing? Everytime you find something negative, go find something positive too. That way you're not just getting one side of the story.

I am just saddened and sickened.

No. It's a fucking mess, no matter how many "good" stories you can find. The focus should be on what's wrong, and how to fix it.

I agree. Showing one good thing next to one bad thing is not fair and balanced if there are 3 bad things for every 1 good thing. However, reading only the good or only the bad is unbalancing also.

--PunkDavid

I've heard about the positive steps that have been made. They're normally summed up as "Well, things are better than they were under Saddam." Which, in my opinion, is pretty sad.

Thank you for your response sir. Keep on rockin' in the free world.