Talk:Fallujah/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq. Is this The Muslim Twin Towers or the wake up call ???

According to Rob Stein Washington Post Staff Writer One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.

It's not "one of the first attempts". It's the most recent attempt and a flagrantly biased one at that. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far lower, never exceeding 16,000. Other experts immediately challenged the new estimate, saying the small number of documented deaths upon which it was based make the conclusions suspect. The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey.

"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said. The paper was "extensively peer-reviewed, revised, edited" and rushed into print "because of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq, Richard Horton, the journal's editor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

World Wide Terrorism is a Myth to make us fear: liberate your thinking!! not Fallujah

Firstly Comment on the above discussion regarding picture too emotive and should be removed: I disagree, three million people were killed in Vietnam including many young US soldiers - the publicity of a child running from napalm in the Mai Lai incident sickened the world and forced America to rethink - A good tactic is to bring the horror of a country's actions in front of the world community. Pictures of the twin towers were used by the neo conservatives to divide the world into Good and Evil.

Now regarding the questions that trouble us all about Ethics & about terroism and if pigs can fly etc...

Terrorism

There is no such thing as worldwide terrorist threat. Al Qaeda is not a world network of Evil but a just a bunch of terrorists on the run supported by Afghan tribal people from the middle ages. THE ENEMY IS IMAGINERY NO NETWORK That’s the CIA opinion (not mine) but the neo conservatives in Washington wish to use the concept of America in danger for their own ends - There is a differences opinion between the CIA and Officials led Wolfiwitz. Cheney, Ashcroft and Richard Perl all followers & pupils of the Chicago School of philosophy where Leo Strauss preached his philosophy (Suggest you read an explanation of his ideology do internet searches) . When the CIA denied that there was no Soviet threat as the Soviet missiles did not work and the country faced economic collapse - The Neo conservatives wrote their own report and persuaded Reagan to believe that there was a threat when none existed – That was when this business of GOOD Verses EVIL (and Americas role as defender of good started) and an imaginary enemy was created. This was because the neo conservatives thought America need a enemy as it was decadent and the people sinking into nilhism and liberalism. The Evil Empire and present danger was the Soviet Union even when the CIA said an emphatic NO Bullshit.

Now with the Neo conservatives in the Bush adminstration all happening Again this GOOD Vs EVIL Business

Here I can refer you to a BCC documentary "What Nightmares are made of" which investigates neo conservatism and the thoughts of Leo Strauss. A internet search on Leo Strauss would also be informative to understand the New World order the boys in Washington have planned for us.

It might be difficult to believe there is no terrorist network but that’s the truth investigate it yourself look for the CIA intelligence estimates on the Internet on Al Queda and terrorism & on the Soviet threat in the Reagan Years – Read critical articles on Leo Strauss and you will see the neo conservative ideology won the election because they fooled the religious right in America incidentally Followers of Leo Strauss do not themselves believe in God. Just as CIA intelligence estimates are now in the public domain will show you there was no threat to America in the Reagan years and the Soviet Union was in economic ruin. the Political statements from the Neo Conservatives in the Regan administration they show the opposite. The wish the world to be dived into GOOD and EVIL –

Today they do the same and creating a myth of a network of International terror and conducting a war against a non existent enemy but in process are creating the very thing real terrorism by creating Hostility and dividing the world. - making an imaginary enemy into a real one.

So folks Al Quieda was a small bunch of terrorist thugs on the run (they were once the pals of the USA and the CIA armed them) Today there is NO International terror network - Its an imaginary enemy to make you fear - put there by the Neo conservatives in Washington.

The attack on Iraq was illegal plain and simple unless you happen to be British or American or listen to Fox news. Saddam did not sponsor terrorism and American intelligence knew it - Saddam was a strong ally and friend of the United States when he gassed the Kurds and committed massacres, most of his evil deeds were against his own and people took place in the 1980s - This was the time when US – Iraq friendship was at its nadir the period when Rumsfeld visited Iraq shook of the evil dictator and the USA supplied him with arms AND chemical weapons too, research this for yourselves - So then what does one say of the American argument, that we went into Iraq to liberate the people from a tyrant

I know ED Poor you are a man of high ethics and troubled with these questions morality - you will not be if you understand who Leo Strauss was and how you and the American people have been fooled - Find out who his pupils at the Chicago School were (You will discover a whole list of Stars in the Bush administration who studied there) and the nature of Neo Conservatives. Wofiwitz actually did his doctorate under Leo Strauss. Educate yourself on what Leo Strauss actually taught his pupils.

It will ten slowly dawn on you that THERE IS NO GLOBAL NETWORK OF TERROR the twin towers was organised by a very small group in Afghanistan who are now on the run. Over one billion Muslims want a peaceful world just as the Americans the do not support terrorism - Do not divide the world into GOOD & EVIL - Most peo0ple in the world just like in America are good - A very few are evil just like in America - FEAR is being used by politics to make you think in a compartmentalised simple way for their own ends. Bad – Good – God – Devil – etc -

Do not let the Neo Conservatives win educate yourself on Leo Strauss - The information is all there on the Internet put there by University professors, researchers, ex CIA members and ex US Government officials you just have to find it and educate yourself

Lalit Shastri

REF: The above post

POWER OF NIGHTMARES

BBC Documentry in three parts- All three can bee seen on real streaming video at: URL


THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES (BBC)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm

I about the terror myth that is designed to make you fear

Lalit Shastri


WARNING: Much of this article discussion is not editorial in nature but is a debate over the appropriateness of military operations in Fallujah. The Fallujah article has significantly improved in the last week (Nov 15 2004), but was at one time riddled with randomly pasted content on both sides of the issue. 52 Kb of discussion remains below, and includes much outcry over the Fallujah offensive and some suspicion regarding the NPOV foundations of Wikipedia. Not sure what to do with it all, but at least the article is looking better. Somebody may want to archive this discussion, but I don't know how to do it. User:MPS

Bombing of a Community Clinic, pounding with heavy-artillery 'general' areas, air-to-ground missiles to destroy entire buildings. More than 60,000 people still in the city, people unable to flee, i.e. pregnant women, children, seniors, the handicapped. All have to deal with the American manufactured hell and brimstone of a nation 'living' in a state of utter delusion. For what? What's this supposed to do? According to this mentality, the whole of Iraq should be 'softened' up, and accordingly every other building flattened. All running water in the whole of Iraq should be turned off forever, no electricity for Iraqis, nobody should feel safe to leave their home, and they should live in perpetual fear of being blown to pieces in their home, etc. Great 'plan' mad men...


This whole entry is outrageously subjective and has been distorted to support the activities of the terrorists and religious facists holed up in the city. Iraq has no viable future without the elimination of these people and neither American forces nor the fledgling free Iraqi state can ignore this fact. God bless Free Iraq - and God Bless the American troops in there fighting on her behalf.

Blackwater Deaths

It seems dishonest to identify the men who were killed only as civilians, when they were really acting in the capacity of soldiers: escorting a shipment through hostile occupied territory, while armed and authorized to kill, is pretty plainly soldier work. The only difference are the uniforms and the much higher pay. It would probably be regarded as inflammatory to call them mercenaries, although I think it's correct. I thought I'd throw it out here before making any changes. Thoughts? Rebrane 19:12, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


Here's the wikipedia for paramilitary, which is the most apt term for those faggots.
Dishonest? I'd say "nay" ... but YMMV ...
The identity the men who were killed were "civilian" (i.e., not a member of a military)
They "may" have been acting in the capacity of soldiers (in some POV) ... but, it's still unclear whether the four Blackwater employees found themselves in Fallujah inadvertently or were on a mission gone awry. [1]
What exact shipment were they escorting through the hostile rebellious territory? All I heard was that the escort was for "goods" or food ... you have any other information?
As to being armed and "authorized to kill" ... that is not only soldier work ... police do that, too.
[snip uniforms and pay]
They were not mercenaries (from information I can find) as they were not illegal combatants ...
Excuse me for jumping in. I don't believe being a mercenary makes one an "illegal combatant". A mercenary is simply someone who performs soldier-like tasks for money. I'm going to change "civilian" to "security contractor" and "murder" to "killing" since the argument could at least be made that they were military targets. Evercat 17:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So calling them either, you'd be incorrect.
Thoughts? There's mine ...
JDR
I'll add a more detailed response later if I have time, but here's the Washington Post article about Blackwater 'guards' that convinced me that the civilian/soldier dichotomy no longer applies as plainly as it once did. [2] Rebrane 04:32, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Dana Priest, the author of the article, seems a bit against the current state of affairs over in Iraq and the Bush administration's actions (look her up; otehr articles seem a bit biased, though YMMV). You may be referring to her article here [3] .... thee were still civilian though, not being part of the military proper. Some relevant quotes : "A Blackwater spokesman said the men were guarding a convoy on its way to deliver food to troops under a subcontract to a company named Regency Hotel and Hospitality." ... "Coalition forces and civilian contractors and administrators work side by side every day with the Iraqi people". JDR
I agree that they were civilians, but 'civilian' doesn't tell the whole story (which is a better way to put it than 'it's dishonest to call them that', upon reflection). I'm satisfied with Evercat's change, anyway. Hopefully you are too? Rebrane 18:00, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
(Oh, by the way, I don't think that Dana Priest's personal feelings, whatever they may be, have anything to do with the basic facts of that article. I don't think that defending the U.S. government headquarters from military attack and evacuating wounded soldiers has been considered civilian work in the past. If this is really the way things are going to be from now on, then I suppose our concept of 'civilian' will gradually come to include it, but right now I think most people don't realize exactly what kind of role 'civilians' can play in the war, and so more specificity is called for.)
When I have seen the pictures (and here in Canada, we got the whole stuff in our morning newspapers, nothing spared) I had to stop eating my breakfeast, these pictures giving me nausea. What makes this event so horrible is not the dead of the guys per se (violent death is always horrible, in Irak or downtown NYC, to die at war or in a car accident or executed in jail or ... or... or... is always source of sadness) but what happenned just after: burning corpses, mutilations, hangings above the river and, above all, the people dancing and chanting around the victims.
What we have seen has a name: hate. Describing the victims as "poor civilians, victims of restless terrorist criminals" is a way to spread hate in the opposite (USA) camp. At the place where I was eating when I have seen these ugly pictures (in Montréal), the owner of the café suggested that US government uses nuclear weapons to clean the place of these "dirty animals", guilty of such atrocities. The irony is the guy who suggested that so extreme retaliation is French (from France) and was probably opposed to the US lead intervention in Iraq. That simply illustrate how the way an information is treated and commented could influence the public opinion and why it is important to stick with NPOV policies in this page.
I don't kown how to solve this. In my mind, even after I have read the comment of JDR just above, the Blackwater employees are soldiers or at least cary tasks usually carried by the military. Killing them where not a crime but an act of war. War is horrible and this sad event is just another illustration of that. Yanik Crépeau 22:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
War is horrible, I agree ... combat is hell ... but this was niether. Killing the contractors was a crime, though (even if the so called "resistances" and "militia" obeys the laws of war; otherwise, the individuals that commited the murders are just common criminals [which is probably better; the Iraqi Governing Council can put them to the Courts which can take care of them]). Sincerely, JDR

-Some points for discussion/consideration:

  1. If I understand the issue, wouldn't the 4 civilians killed be considered security guards? I'm not sure what the legal definition (according to International Law & Treaties) of a combatant is, but I would assume that guards, armed or otherwise, & policement are not included as recognized combatants. (I do remember that the issue of a combatant is a sticky one, due to the problem of defining soldiers fighting a guerrilla war.)
  2. In developing this article, there should be a history of the conflict between Fallujah & the occupying forces. (I saw a timeline about the time of this incident, from which I almost added material for this article; however, my interest in this article primarily is in broadening it to include more information than that it was a dangerous place for American soldiers & civilians.)
  3. A number of mullas have condemned the treatment of the bodies as being against Islamic law. This fact should be included; even many Iraqi are offended by this action. -- llywrch 18:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uprising responsibility

Something seems confused here: Falluja is an overwhelmingly Sunni city, and has been the center of Sunni resistance, yet the article claims the current uprising is al-Sadr's work. I know al-Sadr and his "Mahdi Army" are waging an uprising elsewhere in Iraq, but I thought the Falluja fighting was still primarily Sunni resistance. Anyone know more? --Delirium 05:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I got my wires crossed since the uprisings happened at around the same times. al-Sadr is in Baghdad. I'll remove the erroneous info, but I'll leave it to someone who knows a little more to add more detail on the Sunni uprising. Rebrane 05:38, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons

Sadly it's not just Canadian cafe owners calling for nuclear weapons in Fallujah. Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker (an editorialist for USA Today among other publications) has called for this [4] and I'm sure other wide-distribution commentators can be found making the same point. Rebrane 05:38, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Clarifing events vs. Spin

Things seems pretty damned ugly there right now. I added a NGO link in addition to the wire report, to balance civillian horror vs. War horror, and an edit to point out that the US military is not playing DOOM with real people and simply gunning down everything that moves (along with sources for some inflamatory words that might imply as such). Ronabop 06:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Home of insurgency

Cut from intro paragraph:

It is considered the home of the Iraqi insurgency, and Iraqi insurgents.

I dispute this. It is more likely that Syria or Iran is the the home of the Iraqi insurgency. Perhaps a better word would be "focus".

Anyway, if we want to mention that a lot of fighting is going on in Fallujah, there's a better way to mention it. And I'm not sure making it the last sentence of the intro paragraph is good.

The insurgency raises several questions:

  • who's behind it?
  • what are their aims?
  • who are they against?
  • what has happened so far?

This might even require a separate article, like insurgency in Fallujah -- if only for the couple of weeks it will take us to write this up well. After the dust settles, I'm happy to have the info merged. --Uncle Ed 12:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Atrocity report

Cut from article:

On April 28, 2003 the occupying Alliance forces of the coalition reportedly opened fire with on an unarmed group during a protest outside a school, killing fifteen. While it is disagreed as to who fired first and whether some of the protesters were armed, the killings led to a public outcry and turned many in the city against the coalition. (emphasis added for talk page)

I may be wrong, but I think that an atrocity charge like "opened fire on unarmed protesters" needs at least ONE reference. Come on, an eyewitness at least -- or some advocacy group. We can't just say "reportedly" and leave it at that.

On the other hand, I may be biased: I was a US soldier for 5 years, and I might be unconsciously loyal to my former mates -- thinking them much more faithful to conventions of war than they really are. But I just can't conceive of US or British troops opening fire -- that is, firing the first shot -- unless there was sufficient and credible provocation from the other side. --Uncle Ed 20:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My Google results

I spent 15 minutes on Google, researching the incident, and I'm convinced the account I cut was one-sided:

  • The origin of its hostility to coalition forces dates back to April 28, 2003, when U.S. troops opened fire on a group of up to 200 peaceful protestors, killing 15. The soldiers claimed they were merely returning gunfire, but Human Rights Watch found that the bullet holes examined at the location were inconsistent with that story. Moreover, Iraqi witnesses at the scene maintained that the crowd was unarmed. [5]
  • According to the US spokesperson, Lt-Col Eric Nantz, the troops were being shot at and stones had been thrown. They tried to disperse the crowd with loudspeaker warnings but in vain, he said. Under threat, they fired back. ... Lt-Col Nantz said that the troops had been fired on from a house across the road. Several light machineguns were produced, which the Americans said were found at the scene. [6]
  • Americans and Iraqis gave sharply differing accounts of Monday night's shooting. U.S. forces insisted they opened fire only upon armed men -- infiltrators among the protest crowd, according to Col. Arnold Bray, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 325 Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division (search), whose troops were involved in the shooting. "Which school kids carry AK-47s?" Bray asked. "I'm 100 percent certain the persons we shot at were armed." ... U.S. Central Command said paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were fired on by about 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound troops were occupying. "The paratroopers, who received fire from elements mixed within the crowd and positioned atop neighboring buildings, returned fire, wounding at least seven of the armed individuals," the Central Command statement said. A Central Command spokesman, Lt. Mark Kitchens, said coalition forces "have consistently demonstrated their efforts to avoid civilian casualties and practice restraint. Any allegations to the contrary are simply not based on fact." [7]

We should indicate at least that the "unarmed civilians" thing is disputed. Better, put in both sides' accounts. --Uncle Ed 20:44, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My main source in writing the section you removed was the CBC. They state:

[Faullujah] erupted as a flashpoint in the current conflict on April 28, 2003, when coalition soldiers fired on a group of protesters in front of a school, killing 15 and wounding several others. The military said soldiers were firing in self-defence. Resistance fighters disagree. [8]

I agree the story is a complex one and there is probably no way for us to find out what actually happened. It would probably be best to do a full Rashomon and describe each side's story. What I was trying to convey is that much of the population of Fallujah believe American troops killed unarmed civilians and that this has lead to the current situation in the city. - SimonP 02:28, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

To be realistic, in warfare, civillians are targeted, and die. Targeting may be right or wrong, but in every war, there are wrong "targets". Some are unarmed. That's war. It doesn't mean that innocent civillians are targeted intentionally. In the first gulf war, more americans were killed by americans than Iraqis (Until the retreat fire). I think the paragraph should be restored, with wording that indicates that the americans weren't just trigger happy, but felt they were under threat of death, and shot, rightly or wrongly. Ronabop 09:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I incorporated some of the info from the quotes above. Please check for accuracy and neutrality. --Uncle Ed 12:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good work, the new version is much better. - SimonP 15:24, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the story: Iraqis shoot AK47s in the air for everything. It is their form of fireworks. Weddings, first day of school, etc. So of course at prostests they bring guns. So when the protest showed up at the front of the school the crowd was firing weapons in the air. The 82nd Airbore was incredibly calm and kept from firing upon those with guns as the Iraqi shots into the air began to get lower and more in the direction of the school. After a while, Iraqi gunman from the crowd were not just shooting up, not just shooting over the school, but shooting right at the school. The 82nd still did not open fire until the ground commander ordered them to return fire. Now it was night, and the 82nd had to fire at gunman who were in a crowd of unarmed civilians, so of course civilians got hit as well. But the civilians were not the targets, and the 82nd held their fire way beyond what I think was necessary. If anyone wants to put this information into the story fine, if not fine. I just thought I would set the record straight. I was there the day after. Of course, the Iraqis may tell you a different story. atfyfe

Disclosure discussion

Disclosure

The seige of Fallujah and threats of attack are enforced by the U.S. 1st Marine Division, which raises funds for its activities in Iraq through several web sites directly linked from Jerk Sauce, the main commentary service of Bomis.com [9], which is the sole on-going sponsor of Wikipedia, providing bandwidth, server space and server maintenance. The Marine fundraising efforts are conducted under the 501(c)(3) authority of the Spirit of America [10] [11] at Jerk Sauce's recommended sites including Command Post [12] and Tim Blair [13]. Earlier Spirit of America web ads featuring the 1st Marines' emblem recently have been replaced with ads for the same organization but featuring disparaging messages about the Arab television network Al Jazeera, which the 1st Marines hope to combat with their own version of the news, supported in part by funds raised at these web sites.



I removed the "disclosure" for several reasons. We really need a policy on this - starting from the fact that Wikipedia is part of a registered non-profit organization -not part of Bomis. Rmhermen 18:18, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

You don't need a policy to enforce shell games that hide funding sources and their ideological affiliations - state laws already require that non-profits not hide their funding sources. Bomis is the sole ongoing contributor to Wikipedia, providing bandwidth and server space, which is Wikipedia's primary expense. The disclaimer accurately states these facts, and does not misprepresent Bomis as the owner of Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia foundation does not disclose its funding affiliations with Bomis, it can face prosecution under Florida laws. If you have several reasons, state them. Otherwise, since Bomis is the primary sponsor of Wikipedia, and Bomis directs visitors to sites that raise money for 1st Marine activities in Iraq, disclosure is both appropriate and consistent with typical ethical practices. CNN still discloses its affiliations with former owners when its stories involve those sources, even though management has distanced itself from those sources. I moved the disclosure to the talk page to accompany your unexplained revert of a meaningful contribution. TruthSayer 18:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A disclosure would only be useful if Bomis had any sort of editorial control over Wikipedia. It does not and most users have no idea what Bomis is or what it does. Also when did USMC operations start being funded by web donations? - SimonP 18:59, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
A disclosure would be useful for me because it would have spared me having to discover these relevant funding affiliations on my own. An interest in a better understanding of when the 1st Marines started relying on private funding solicited through on-line sources is irrelevant to the consideration of direct evidence that Bomis sponsors Wikipedia and that Bomis affiliates itself with sites raising funds for war-time propaganda. It is especially useful in the context of an article about the flash-point of a likely explosion of resistance in Iraq. Until this disclosure, the article only reported that "Marines" (not which division) discovered things, but did not qualify that the information was based solely on 1st Marine's claims to have discovered these things, repeated in freindly news sources.
The fact that "most users have no idea what Bomis is or what it does" - especially what it does for Wikipedia - suggests articles that overlap Bomis' propaganda interests are uniquely in need of a disclosure. A disclosuer could be best developed in articles describing Bomis, but lacking any other way to report the information, it is specifically relevant to articles in which the 1st Marines tactical and propaganda interests are considered, and in which Bomis is specifically directing its visitors to sites that support that specific unit's propaganda interests.
For guidance on when disclosures are typically offered, developed from the CNN example, Ted Turner has long since surrendered editorial control over CNN, but CNN continues to offer disclosures in stories that report Turner's activities, including the activities of foundations he endowed and organizations they fund.
Bomis' contribution to Wikipedia's editorial and administrative direction is debatable. Administrators have continually turned to Bomis' owner for guidance and absolution in execution of policies. His work under the title "God King" for several years encouraged new Wikipedia leaders to use cult-like language that discouraged opposition to his views, and to disparage those who offer counterveiling policies. Bomis's owner Jim Wales set the direction away from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, and presents as a primary pundit against the pheasibility of reviewed encyclopedias in numerous interviews. That policy, driven by Bomis' desire for rapid development, made Wikipedia more available to those who present election-time and war-time misinformation. Though other editors ostensibly correct misinformation, there is no procedure to assure correction and when corrections are made, it can happen hours, days or weeks after the misinformation has been served and forked to readers and to other web services. During election or war-time propaganda campaigns, a few hours of misinformation can be useful. Bomis set the stage on which such misinformation can be presented. Bomis' CEO also states in interviews he hopes to profit from commercial release of a Wikipedia CD, which instead could provide revenue to advance the independant non-profit interests of the Foundation.
Wikipedia Foundation could easily distance itself from Bomis by finding other contributors to fund purchases of bandwidth, back-up and primary servers, house servers and server maintenance. Failing to do so, it is in keeping with common journalistic practices to disclose who pays for publication -- Bomis.com. Perhaps a savy investigator needs to review Wikipedia Foundation's 501(c)(3) and state non-profit reports to assure that its primary source of revenue - in-kind donations from Bomis.com - are accurately disclosed. The foundation could act in good faith by publishing those reports under the Wikipedia namespace.
In response to the question of when US forces started using private funding to support propaganda operations, the practice goes way back, but was widely reported during the Iran/Contra debate, when missles were privately traded to hostile nations in exchange for money used to support illegal Contra activities in Central America. The use of on-line fundraising might be a new tactic, which again points to a need for disclosure. TruthSayer 20:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is all still irrelevant in that no one who helped write this article is paid by or associated with Bomis. - SimonP 19:52, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Who pays for the printing of a newspaper is as relevant to some readers as is who wrote the articles. Journalists typically concur it is not the publishers' decision to decide when fiscal affiliations are relevant; instead journalists typically concur the information is best provided to readers who can individually make judgements about what is relevant to them. TruthSayer 20:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From an article in American Journalism Review:
The online financial publication TheStreet.com discloses its investors and business partners and posts its stringent conflict-of-interest policy on stock ownership by employees.
CNET: The Computer Network discloses its investors and business partners and plans to post its in-house code of conduct. The model ethics code covers employee freebies and stock transactions, disclosure of the company's affiliations in news stories, even-handed use of hyperlinks and how to forthrightly correct errors online. [14]
I'm looking for some more sources on ethical practices and standards of disclosure in new media.
Bomis' general interest that would suggest a need for disclosure include a policy of rapid development that resulted in a lower standard of credibility in Wikipedia, coupled with Bomis interest in profiting from rapid development of Wikipedia. Bomis' support for rapid development of a new information format that lacks the methodically enforced standards of credibility in better funded sources, while also promoting military alternatives to traditional regional information sources suggests it might best be left to readers to decide the implications of Bomis critical role in funding Wikipedia's ongoing operation. TruthSayer 20:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From the American Society of Magazine Editors new ethics guidelines for on-line publications, developed largely without discussion of very new media such as Wikipedia, deal primarily with the relation between advertisers and on-line content:
To protect the brand, editors/producers should not permit their content to be used on an advertiser’s sitewithout an explanation of the relationship (e.g.“Reprinted with permission”).
6.E-commerce commissions and other affiliate fees should be reported on a disclosure page, so users can see that the content is credible and free of commer-cial influence. Exact fees need not be mentioned, of course, but users who are concerned about underly-ing business relationships can be thus reassured.
TruthSayer comments:Bomis links to Wikipedia in the same sidebar that links to the Marine fundraising sites, but does not disclose in that space either its creation, on-going in-kind support or future profit interets in Wikipedia.
A website should respect the privacy of its users.If a site intends to collect information about its visi-tors––whether the data will be disseminated to thirdparties or not––it must offer users a chance to decline if they choose, through an “opt-out” option. As part of its privacy policy, the site should explain its use of cookies and other data collection methods and tell what it intends to do with the information it gleans.
TruthSayer comments:Wikipedia offers no assurance Bomis does not share its router logs with intelligence interests supporting the Marines in Iraq. Bomis pro-military stance raises a suspicion it could be inclined to use information about Wikipedia contributor interests, especially in controversial articles about the Middle East, to serve the military interets of one side in that conflict. Bomis appears to be a pro-Israel site, by the content of advertisements on its pages. Israel has a long history of tracking journalists' activities to identify the location or identity of its opponents, including some so identified then targeted for assassination. Wikipedians might need to know every keystroke they enter goes through Bomis' T1 lines and routers before it arrives at the Wikipedia server. Bomis has made no assurance of privacy to Wikipedia users, and has not promised to keep private user information beyond that that appears in the SQL database. This lack of privacy assurance implies a need for disclosure, especially on pages where Bomis favored military units are discussed.

How does privacy fit into this, how does Bomis' supposed links to the military-industrial complex threaten the privacy of its writers? - SimonP 20:56, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Did you actually read the comments and attempt to follow the reasoning of professional associations that have developed standards for privacy assurances in on-line publications? Your question has already been answered in the comments above. And the comments are not about the "military-industrial complex" as you snidely misconstrue, but rather specifically about an ongoing practice of some forces in the region to track journalists activities, and specifically about Bomis's access to router logs that are not available to anybody who does SQL dumps. Are you asserting that Wikpedia has no need to review its position vis-a-vis industry standards regarding privacy and disclosuer of business affiliations? JillP 21:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jill, this is a typical administrative practice at Wikipedia of harrassing contributors with questions while refusing to respond to substantive debate, especially when the debate might in any way tarnish the reputation of this less-than-credible information source. This tactic was well developed in Stalinist show-trial purges and in Maoist ritual forced self-criticisms. Billigerant propaganda is easy to recognze. This practice offers ample evidence of Jim Wales influence on the project, in which all opponents are treated as evil and rhertorically shot on site. TruthSayer

I do not believe Wikipedia is a member of any professional associations. - SimonP 21:43, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Do you hold in contempt the ethics developed over several decades by professionals who have dedicated their lives to pursuing the endeavor you seek to administer as a hobby? Is it about whatever you can get away with? Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion, are you on a power trip protected by your status as an administrator? SaltyDog 21:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the later, based on his five reverts in contravention of the three-revert rule, and his refusal to respond to the substance of concerns raised in this discussion. TruthSayer 21:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


This is one of the weirder discussions I have seen lately. Isn't it remarkable how three new user accounts with the same writing style have all appeared at once to argue the same points on the same article? I'm not sure what could we say that would provide conclusive proof that we're not part of a giant Israeli/CIA/Alien Abduction plot. Here's a hint: if you are this paranoid, it's reasonable to assume that anything you type, anywhere on the Internet is tapped, logged, and sent to the black helicopters in real-time. -- The Anome 21:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, understanding the truth about the operation of political intelligence requires a little more savy, some homework, and some patience for juveniles who hold in contempt legitimate widely discussed privacy concerns. One might start with a read of Body of Secrets by James Bamford, to get an idea of the signint processing capacity of the NSA. Then one needs to review actions under the Homeland Security Act, develop a general knowledge of on-line security issues in the context of current Internet technology, then - to cover gaps in reasoning unfillable due to what we cannot possibly know about what other people do - learn a little bit about the political affiliations of on-line services one uses. Nope, the last black helicopter I saw was a really cool McDonald Douglas MD520N NOTAR, which I quickly identified as belonging to a local retailer, a fact I discovered by walking into the airport and asking the manager about that nimble helicopter conducting manuevers he found very inappropriate in his airspace.
Oh, look, somebody has been so busy harrassing other contributors they haven't bothered to write articles about the topic of all those red links above, subjects about which they likely know nothing anyway.
Hysteria is probably a lot easier for you than is substantive contributions to a meaningful debate, Mr. "Anome". What part of the conjectured scenarios are you calling paranoid? That Israel historically tracks journalists to locate opposition fighters? That Wales has access to router logs not available to the general public? That industry standards encourage promises of privacy instead of bizarre insults lobbed at those who raise legitimate privacy concerns? You seem to hold in contempt any discussion that goes against the orders of the beloved God King of your cult. Cult allegiance is a very sad alternative to intellegent discussion. Why not go ride your imaginary Black Helicopter back to your fictional UFO and leave discussion of serious publishing standards to the grown-ups, okay? Your childish insults offer little currency in mature debate. JillP 22:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Misinformation littering Wikipedia

When the juvenille followers of Jim Wales' God King cult get over their fear of information that would disclose Wales right-wing Zionist ideology, the following paragraph needs to be inserted to replace the one that erroneously calls the former special forces soldiers (and action adventure television producer, in one case) employs for KB&R.

The US asserted that it hopes for a negotiated settlement but will restart its offensive to retake the city if one is not reached. Military commanders said their goal in the siege was to capture those responsible for the March 31 killings of four veterans of US special forces groups employed by Blackwater Security Services. US forces were unable to determine in early April whether those shown in news images attacking the company's elite security team had remained in the city or fled.

JillP

JillP, SaltyDog, TruthSeeker - all sock puppets?

Are these three users all sock puppets? Check their editing records... or perhaps the black helicopter brigade has mobilised en masse and wound up here? -- ChrisO 23:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that was TruthSayer, but yes, the history and writing style should make it obvious that they are the same person. And I might add that the style and tactics remind me somewhat of User:Bird. --Michael Snow 23:23, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Perhaps someone can do a fun log check. - Fennec 00:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I rather liked the way that at one point they started talking to one another. -- The Anome 07:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some bias and innaccuracy.

There are quite few innacurate information or biased views stated in the article. First of all, the "Fatal protest incident" says:

On the evening of April 28, 2003, a crowd of 200 people celebrating the birthday of Saddam Hussein defied the Coalition curfew and gathered outside a school building to protest against the US-led coalition forces who had occupied the school.

During the protest, it is alleged stones were thrown at US troops. Fifteen unarmed Iraqi civilians died from US gunfire. There were no coalition casualties. /quote


There are a number of mistakes here:

-The article states that the crowd was celebrating the birthday of Saddam Hussein. This is far from truth, and such a claim should either be removed or a note should be added,aclearing that this is merely an allegation.

-The article states that there were allgations about stones being thrown at U.S. troops. Then says Fifteen unarmed Iraqi civilians died from US gunfire. There is technically nothing inaccurate in this point, the word "allegation" was used, and the fact was layed out. But, there is bias in it, it's what people call "half-truths", a fact is said, nothing technically worng with it, but other related and important facts are ignored. It should be stated that testimonies from eye-witnesses said that US soldiers started shooting with no appearant reason. The American story says that the troops were firing back at gun fire that came from some roofs, but eye-witnesses deny that. Any ordinary person who reads this article would think that those Saddam supporters started attacking U.S. troops so they had to open fire in self-defense.


When you quote allegations of one side and ignore the other sidess story, you are essentially promoting the story of the first side.

Unfortunatly, since the incedent is more than a year old, it's kind of hard to get links to reports about the incident. For the time being, try this: http://eatthestate.org/07-18/IncidentatFallujah.htm

The article also some times tries link the resistance in the city to Saddam Supporters and Forigen elements and even "gangs", this is very biased, as those are only the claims of the occupation. It should be stated that a large chunck of the resistance is made out of the local ordinary people who feel they have a duty to resist the American occupation of thier country.


Etymological fantasy

"There is some evidence that millennia ago a branch of the Euphrates divided off at that point, and that this is the source of the name, but today that branch has disappeared." This fantasy etymology is matched by the impossible geography, perhaps related to the canal that joins the Tigris to the Euphrates? Wetman 04:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why do you question this? I got the origins of the name from an article in JSTOR on the region in Persian times. - SimonP 05:36, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Presumably this refers to the "Pallacopas," as described in the Geography of Babylonia and Assyria article. I would like to learn more about this. --Iustinus 08:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

L2bairaq.jpg

I removed L2bairaq.jpg from the article, which seemed to serve no real purpose except (I think) to elicit an emotional response. Simoes 14:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:L2bairaq.jpg
I returned the picture because civilian casualties are relevant to military assaults on civilian centers. --Alberuni 16:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you mean relevant to battles between conventional and guerrila forces, when the guerrillas use civilians as human shields, then I vigorously agree. No matter how precise the GPS-guided bombings are, some civilian non-combatants are going to be killed if they remain in mosques or hospitals used by insurgents as hideouts or staging areas. Hmm. I guess I should write about US military "use of force" doctrine or rules of engagement in land warfare. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Some people seem to confuse high technology killing with high morality. --Alberuni 16:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the insurgents are using human shields then why has the U.S. military insisted that there are no civilian casualties in Fallujah? Did they somehow create a missile that only kills insurgents while avoiding the two or three human shields the insurgents are using to cowardly protect themselves? Richard Cane 08:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Okay, I attempted to make some edited to correct what I thought were pov problems, but all of them were reverted without discussion (with the exception of the image removal). Here are my complaints:

  • Use of scare quotes with objective terms (e.g., "security contractors")
  • Inclusion of blockquote-length editorial commentary from an Internet blogger
  • Inclusion of an image with no obvious purpose other than to elicit an emotional response
  • Reference to an uncited Newsweek article purporting that Pres. Bush gave the order, "Let heads roll."

User:Simoes 13:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we should be very wary of including specific casualty numbers, quotes, etc. No one knows precisely what is going on in Fallujah and both US military and local Iraqi sources are immensely biased. I do think the image can stay for the present. At least until one more representative is found, as my guess is most casualties are not photogenic young girls. - SimonP 18:57, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
If you bring changes to long-established content to Talk first, they can be discussed and a consensus can be reached about editing. If you just edit them to suit your POV, someone is likely to revert in the interest of maintaining NPOV.
  • Scare quotes are bad and should be deleted. But should the article give a balanced impression that security contractors are civilians, mercenaries - or both?
  • What specific block-length comments are you trying to delete and why?
  • I responded to the picture concerns. I think the picture of an injured Falluja girl is a factual representation of the effects of military attacks on Fallujah, a civilian area. Therefore it is valid. Removing it seems intended to whitewash the civilian casualties ofUS military operations. Would you prefer a photo of the crater caused by a 2000 lb bomb? Or a nice photo of some US Marines saluting in the desert?
  • The Newsweek Bush quote is from a Juan Cole article and I can't find it elsewhere. I agree it is possibly spurious and should be deleted. --Alberuni 19:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The blogger quote I was referring to is the one by Rahul Mahajan.
As for the scare quote issue, I think calling them "security contractors" (without "civilian" in front of the term) is sufficient in that it lets the reader decide their civilian/mercenary/whatever status.
I agree with SimonP's statement with regards to the picture; it's not really representative. If I were writing a critique of the present Fallujah incursion, I would definitely include that photo. Maybe a broader hospital pic, or one of people carrying wounded off from a combat area, would be more appropriate here?
Simoes 19:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the photo must go. Its purpose is not informative, but emotive. --mav
I disagree. Iraqi civilian casualties are a fact of US military activity. This is just one representative picture of a victim of US war in Fallujah. It is relevant and factual. Deleting such evidence under guise that it is emotive could be considered an attempt at censoring, diminishing, denying or concealing the real human costs of US military operations. --Alberuni 23:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The photo does not provide any information; it elicits an emotional response which is designed to support a particular POV about the conflict. The same would be true of a photo of US soldiers giving cheering children candy. --mav
Is it representative picture? Or is it an image of the type of person that is most likely to have an emotional effect on the audience? Something like [15] might be more honestly representative. - SimonP 00:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see much difference in news value or emotional content between a photo of a wounded Iraqi boy or a wounded Iraqi girl. --Alberuni 02:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Another photo of an Iraqi civilian, a child, injured by the US military assault on Fallujah. [16]

Of course, US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that civilians have been given plenty of time to get out of the way, so whatever happens to them is their fault. " "Innocent civilians in that city have all the guidance they need as to how they can avoid getting into trouble," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference. He referred to a round-the-clock curfew and other emergency measures announced by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. "There aren't going to be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces," Rumsfeld said." Why civilian casualties are important to the Americans (not for humanitarian reasons, of course): "One risk of using overwhelming force to regain control of rebel-held Fallujah is that civilian casualties - nearly inevitable under the circumstances - could trigger a backlash elsewhere in Iraq and in the Arab world against the U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies." [17]

Assault

Well, the assault has started. Should we do some heavy newslike coverage now, or?

Only major events in the assault need be covered I'd think. Actually, I was hoping to move the Seige to a new page, seeing as how it's taking up so much of the article. Oberiko 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photo removed for being too Emotive - Thats Bullshit

Regarding the removal of the Boy killed as being too emotive - Well Enclycopedia Bratinnaca showed the twin towers collapse they are being emotive too - The Photograph of dead children Killed by Amercian forces is not imotive but informative - Just if Children are killed by terroists in the USA will be showen all over the world by media if this were to happen - Come off it folks - Human beings are the same - Are we all workinking hard at wikipedia as agents for the neo conservatives in Washington - We here to report facts without censor and do not follow the line of any Country engaged in an illeagal war against another which so far has cost 100,000 lives YES FOLKs I do not listen to Fox News to understand the world instead I read the Guardian, listen to the BBC and read their website and the Independent Newspapers as well as a host of newspapers both left wing and right wing from diffrent countries - I study first hand reporting from Iraqi blogs and Al Jazeera Arab news which has won prestegious awards by Western judges in Europe for un baised reporting.

Those days are gone when control of the news were in the hands of the few and powerful - Wikipedia a democratic information resource is an example.

If Wikipedia become a forum for those who follow the USA line then I think the thousands of its contributors beetr start another non baised Wikipedia

Lalit shastri India

Civilian casualties

There is nothing wrong with reporting on advocacy campaigns relating to civilian casualties. The US military sometimes refers to death and injury to non-combatants as collateral damage and requires local commanders to "minimize such collateral damage to civilian facilities in populated regions." [18]

Probably the most successful PR tactic used when opposing a US military campaign (such as Operation Phantom Fury) is to emphasize and publicize civilian casualties, especially to women, teenagers and cute attractive children. This is because Americans and American servicemen are highly moral - as compared to most foreign terrorists, anyway. It takes a steely resolve to make the mental effort to distinguish between accidentally casualties, or casualties caused by enemy use of civilans as human shields -- and deliberate or negligent targeting of civilians.

The claim that there are "no combatants in Fallujah" exploits American sensitivites and challenges its resolve. It's basically the same strategy that got the US to abandon South Vietnam to the North -- the pull-out led to over 1,000,000 civilan deaths: purges by the victorious Communists and deaths on the high seas by the "boat people".

I don't think high tech means high ethics -- but as a highly ethical man involved in high tech, I am gravely concerned about this matter. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:11, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Huh?

What is this doing in the article?

"michaelroloff - 11:42 PM ET November 7, 2004 (#401 of 401)[as posted in the forum of the ny times public editor, mr. okrent]

Al Falluja On this day, let it at least be recalled here, if not in any of the dispatches or editorials or television reports, that the inception of the insurrection in that city of the minarets started when the U.S. Army division first stationed there shot 15 Iraqis during one of those famous Kalishnikov weddings, shot up a school too; thus matters sand-balled I guess would be the word for the region. In other words, treat the Iraqi residents there, just as the Army manual tells you to "treat every Iraqi like a Colonel." We will now rename Al Falluja as "The City of the Dead Colonels."

It doesn't make any sense to me. Brutulf 17:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Last sentence

In one incident, an insurgent was playing dead and an American Marine shot him twice. This video was captured by an American reporter and shows the true face of the occupation. (emphasis added for talk page)

I don't know what "shows the true face of the occupation" means, but it sounds like POV. Better to say it this way:

  • This video was captured by an American reporter.

If we want to mention the controversy aroused by the NBC reporter's footage (and his comments afterwards), then we need more than a sentence. It relates to "rules of engagement", specifically the following questions:

  1. How much force may a US soldier employ in self-defense?
  2. Under what circumstances may a US soldier shoot an apparent corpse?
  3. ... or a wounded and apparently unarmed combatant?

More related questions:

  • If a soldier has heard reports of dead or wounded combatants being used to conceal explosive booby-traps, what degree of caution would be wise for him to employ?
  • Is a warning from a team mate, "He's playing dead", be sufficient justification for finishing him off rather than "safeguarding him"?
  • How humanely must the US, UK and other troops of the multinational force in Iraq conduct their military operations?
  • To what extent must the "good guys" vary their tactics in response to tricks and/or war crimes by the "bad guys"?
  • Is "shooting wounded men in a mosque" always "bad", or does it depend on whether that mosque was used by enemy combatants to menace local civilians and/or attack Iraqi or multinational troops?

As a former military man greasing for officer, I find these questions intriguing. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:20, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Attitude of residents

Cut from article:

Opposition to the coalition presence in the city has steadily increased over time.

Whose opposition has increased? And what kind of opposition?

If this is supposed to mean that ordinary residents feel they are being "occupied" by a foreign, anti-Islamic force, then come out and say so. And provide back up for the assertion. Is it from public opinion polls? Or what?

If this means that Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters have made Fallujah a city of refuge for themselves and a staging area for their campaign to undermine the interim goverment and/or prevent the January 2005 elections, then say that instead.

If it's supposed to mean that SOME Iraqis are more concerned with "getting the foreigners out" than with any other issue, then say THAT, but please back it up with facts or attributed opinions. Should the article say that residents of Fallujah prefer to be terrorized by other Islamic people than to be liberated by Westerners? Or should the article say that the main propaganda point made by anti-interim-government forces in Iraq is that they are "just trying to make the foreigners leave them alone so they can settle their own affairs"? (Reminds me of what was said during the Vietnam War.) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

geographical information needed

The article needs much more geographical information e.g. population demographics, physical size, urban structure, local archaeology.

For example it's relevant to mention the origins of Wahhabi doctrine, the origins of the British-Iraq War, that the city is central and has for centuries occupied a major crossroads.

Any further ideas?

If the article is primarily about (very) recent history, it shouldn't be named "Fallujah."

The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed.

Why the hell you people couldn't put that simple boiler-plate on that article, I don't know, but it's pretty clear that this is not an NPOV article. Kade 00:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what way? Almost every sentence is the result of much discussion. - SimonP 01:00, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
On closer inspection it does seem like some uneeded POV has appeared. I have removed it. - SimonP 01:06, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dahr Jamail article/66.117.135.127 edits

Just a request for comments about this addition to the links section. I believe it is inappropriate because of two related reasons, 1) Wikipedia:No original research rule would seem to prohibit uncorroborated eyewitness reports, which is what this essentially is, in this case apparently added by the author himself (66.117.135.127 says "I added my own article" so presumably 66.117.135.127 is Dahr Jamail). 2) Dahr Jamail, the author, has been a consistent source of pro-insurgent propaganda such as "Hollow Election Held on Bloody Day", and "The Iraqi Resistance Spreads", full list on his site here [19]. An interview giving some idea of what the guy thinks here (excerpts: "Most are also too afraid to vote." and "Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as “patriots.”"...). His stuff gets published in all of the pro-insurgency rags such as jihadunspun, uruknet, Z-Mag, AlterNet, CounterPunch, ... I'm not sure this counts as journalism or a quotable source. If it does, well, we should include some other quotable sources such as Zeyad, Mohammed and Omar to provide a well-balanced view. Mr Jamail also threatens "the external link to my article has been removed twice by "SimonP." If this happens again, I will file a complaint with the site administrator" - ok, go right ahead. ObsidianOrder 11:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is disgusting behaiviour Obsidian. Dahr Jamail happens to be one of the few independent and non-embedded journalists in Iraq and for most of the time he has been the only one. You cannot "cleanse" articles like this because you don't agree with their point of view. —Christiaan 09:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan - the problem is that I am not sure whether Dahr Jamail is an "independent journalist", or simply the media arm of the jihadis. I will admit that he *could* be an independent journalist, and everything he says *could* be simply a fair description of the facts on the ground as he has seen them... but because of all the other contradictory information I get from sources I trust a lot more, I strongly doubt that. The consistent pro-insurgent bias that permeates all of his writing is not the mark of a reliable source. (exercise: find anything strongly positive about the US troops or Iraqi government, or strongly negative about the insurgents, in his "reports"... just one item is all I ask) If we lower the bar to include Mr Jamail, then we should also include a lot of other sources of a similar nature (eyewitnesses) with every kind of bias as well, to give a well-rounded view. I think this will detract from wikipedia, and I think it doesn't fit the character that an encyclopedia should have, but if there is a consensus about it, I can live with it. ObsidianOrder 11:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Obsidian, you're not going to censor this article of Dahr's contribution I can assure you of that. I could equally argue that it detracts from Wikipedia to include links to articles by U.S. corporations that have shown consistent pro-U.S. bias. But I won't because it's not Wikipedia policy to exclude external links based on bias. —Christiaan 16:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan - I think you misunderstand what I said. I am not trying to censor anything. I think we should talk about this (and by we I mean everyone, not just you and me), and agree on standards for inclusion. If Dahr Jamail meets those standards, then I have no problem with linking to his stuff... BUT a lot of other reports will probably also meet the same standards and I will insist on including them as well in order to produce a well-rounded article. Dahr Jamail is obviously biased, that is not the issue. The issue is whether he is (1) truthful - in some cases there is reason to doubt that, and (2) newsworthy or perhaps "encyclopediaworthy" - since this is essentially just an uncorroborated eyewitness report. In general, there are serious problems with the use of independents and stringers, and huge problems with second-hand reports, which is why I would tend to depreciate any such reports regardless of where they're published, giving a much higher weighing instead to first-hand observations by regular staff journalists for major Western media organizations (whether U.S. or not). If my preference for Western media bothers you, tough luck... I think most people will consider the Washington Post just a little bit more credible than, say, Syria Daily, and with good reason. I should also point out that Wikipedia is a massively Western-dominated project. Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with eyewitness reports... but I won't take anything as being well established until it is corroborated by a dozen or so independent eyewitness reports, and even then I would want to look into their personal backgrounds. ObsidianOrder 23:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I fully understand Obsidian; you are "obviously bias" and the above is little more than your point of view. We don't need to "talk about this" as there there are already guidelines that cover external links. This is a English-speaking encyclopedia and as you point out this is an issue of systemic bias, and I will be making continued efforts to counter such forms of self-censorship. —Christiaan 00:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right, there are already guidelines. I went and read them all. As it happens they say almost exactly what I suggested, namely... Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources says "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating primary sources says "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" ... "Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects?" ... "It is very important to cross-check primary sources against each other." ... "If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased or their biases are at cross purposes, then you have a reliable account." Regarding links to other sites, Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to says "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is." and also "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged." Finally, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence is worth a look. ObsidianOrder 06:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, with those guidelines in mind, a quick look at the links in this article: we have one link each to BBC, CBC, The Guardian, and Channel4 (UK). We have two links to Dahr Jamail, one link to Jo Wilding (at Rense) who is another pro-insurgent eyewitness/reporter, one link to a "letter sent by representatives of the people of Fallujah", one link to Al-Jazeera, and a link to a raw video archive from multiple sources. What is completely missing is any US media whatsoever, let alone CENTCOM briefings, soldiers' blogs, or similar. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not object to linking to Dahr Jamail (which the article did anyway, before this latest edit war), or to any of the other links there now as long as (a) any alleged facts coming from a single source are clearly attributed as such in the body of the article ("according to Dahr Jamail, a freelance reporter sympathetic to the insurgents" will do) and (b) there is an equal or greater number of links to primary sources with opposite biases. I should also mention that it comes to secondary sources, this article is completely slanted, a situation I intend to correct after some research. ObsidianOrder 06:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Have you even read what is in the link??? —Christiaan 08:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course I have. For most of the significant assertions he makes, Mr Jamail simply cites other articles by himself as source (10 out of 45). ObsidianOrder 16:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan, SimonP - I edited both the links section and the number-of-casualties to what I would consider to be a reasonable compromise. In the links, I added a bunch, and made some of the old ones more descriptive regarding where they come from. Also I changed some to point to an original source. The order of links, frankly I'm not sure what makes the most sense, so feel free to reorder them, although I will insist that the timesonline.co.uk article is in the top 4 since it is extremely informative. In the number-of-casualties, I cited all of the competing claims I know about and who makes them, and linked to sources. Comments? ObsidianOrder 16:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

edit by 203.217.31.89

I removed this edit by 203.217.31.89 as it is unsourced and was put in the See also section. -Christiaan 08:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The US-backed government put rebel losses at more than 2,000, although unit commanders later revealed their troops had orders to shoot all males of fighting age seen on the streets, armed or unarmed, and ruined homes across the city attest to a strategy of overwhelming force."
These losses have not been confirmed by any evidence. First, rebels name the figure of dead estimated in hundreds not thousands. Second, there was no evidence supplied by US government in form of video recording of such high rebel losses. All video evidence published on Internet in form of pictures shows tens of dead rebels many of whom are clearly dressed as civilians and some of them are women and children. The city of Falluja has also suffered a high number of civilian deaths due to heavy bombardment by US forces before and during the assault. Some civilian casualties happened due to lack of food, water, medications and untisanitaric conditions of besieged city. The exact number of civilian losses is also unknown.

Iraq War and Insurgency

Shouldn't the Insurgency section be subsumed within the Iraq War section? It is all part of the same conflict, after all.

70% destroyed?

I find the claim that 36000 buildings (or 70% of all buildings) in Fallujah have been "destroyed" comletely unbelievable. For one, I have some numbers for the heavy ordnance used, which suggest around 1-2000 buildings completely destroyed. The majority of buildings probably have holes in them (esp. from 25mm or .50), but they are not "destroyed". Aerial and ground pictures do not show large swaths of devastation, quite on the contrary. An early report [20] mentions "one house in about 10 flattened" in an area of particularly heavy fighting. That seems about right to me. A few more points... another (translated from Arabic) version of CCFC's report [21] claims only 7000 "destroyed, or nearly totally destroyed, homes". Which is right? Finally, the head of the CCFC, Hafidh al-Dulaimi, would seem to be a member of the Dulaimi tribe which has had a pretty rocky relationship with the coalition... I wouldn't be surprised at some padding of numbers in order to get more money. ObsidianOrder 17:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to keep in the claim that government studies report 70% destroyed and add the one in ten claim as mitigating evidence -- I agree that 70% seems like a lot, but with contradictory evidence like this, we can't just pick the one we like the best. "Estimates anywhere from 10%-70%" would be good, or even "Government studies have found 70% destroyed but more likely figures seem to be around 10%"... it would be helpful if we had the 70% study itself to look at rather than an article about it. Your comment about Dulaimi is sheer speculation and has no place here; one can easily make similar points about any statistics coming out of coalition sources.--csloat 20:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough. What I wonder about is the 7000 number quoted in the other version of the CCFC report floating around: one of them is not the real reported number, but which? I wish we had better/official/authoritative sources, I guess time will tell. There's also this little tidbit as well [22] which doesn't square with any of the other numbers. Btw I mention the Dulaimi just for background. ObsidianOrder 00:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

heh, this just gets better: even jihadunspun only claims 7000 houses destroyed [23]. I think the real explanation for the mystery is in this MSNBC article [24]: "In last November's fighting, 9,000 homes were destroyed and thousands more were damaged. Homeowners line up daily to file for compensation — but out of 32,000 claims, only 2,500 have been paid." Maybe the 36,000 number in the Reuters/IRIN article is the number of claims (for damaged or destroyed)? 14-17% destroyed and 70% damaged sounds plausible. Wow, I never thought Reuters would be this unreliable. ObsidianOrder 05:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

62.202.94.140

If you feel the items you cut and pasted in here are valuable, why don't you just link to them ? Just cutting and pasting things into articles is not productive. protohiro 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

heh. already linked, you know. ObsidianOrder 12:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

describing dahr jamail

I think describing Dahr Jamail as unembedded is not-so-subtly POV, because of the parallel with un-something-negative e.g. unbiassed. Google has for him independent 50,900 hits, unembedded 906, freelance 614. "independent" is a bit more subtly POV, but we'll let it pass. He likes to describe himself as "unembedded", but The Guardian and The Nation for example both say "freelance", and they are hardly tthe bastions of neocon thought. He is freelance, that is a fact. "is not embedded with US forces" is also a fact. "independent" is POV, and "unembedded" is pure demagoguery. Also, while I have no problem with linking to him, there has to be some kind of balance between him and other sources... he already has more links than any single other source, and people just keep adding more. One or two is enough. ObsidianOrder 21:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with unembedded. It's an important aspect of his journalism in Iraq, considering the propaganda that has been the result of embedded jounalists. Now, I wonder why we might have more links to him from anyone else... duh? —Christiaan 22:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The "propaganda" which has been the result of embedded journalists includes Kevin Sites' video and the consistently defeatist reporting by Dexter Filkins [25]. Yeah, it's propaganda, but for which side? The reason why we have so many links to Jamail is primarily because you have been boosting for him (btw: make that six links to him now, that is five too many). He is marginally notable but is not a good source since he spouts obvious bullshit now and then (such as confusing incendiaries with chemical weapons, or misreporting numbers such as dulaimi's, just to pick a couple of recent examples). ObsidianOrder 00:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Obsidian's revert of external links

I took quite a bit time tidying up those links, including adding links to the media organisations, dates, and reordering in chronological order with the most recent at the top. Please ensure you take a closer look at edits before rushing to revert them in the future. Thanks, Christiaan 23:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan - okay, I looked at it. I am not at all convinced that a reverse chronological order is the best. The old order was (more or less) most-general-first, hence the overview BBC and CBC articles were at the top. Perhaps we should group or split this by type (overview/article/firsthand), source, subject or POV (similar to the way the Iraqi insurgency article does it). The media organizations and dates links are ok, they make it a bit cluttered but whatever. And, frankly, six Dahr Jamail links is way too much. I can add enough links to balance it (oh, twenty or so from various sources) but then it would be a huge links section. ObsidianOrder 00:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The reason Jamail is linked so much is, I thought, pretty obvious; he's one of the only independent sources whose been in Iraq doing journalism. As for the order I'd be okay with reversing the current order so as the oldest is at the top. —Christiaan 21:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately I find it a bit hard to believe he's independent. He may not be dependent on any large media organizations or on the US military, but he sure as hell is dependent on the insurgents. He moves around without security in areas in which the insurgents operate, therefore he is very dependent on their goodwill. My take is that Jamail was pro-insurgent to begin with, but now he has to be careful to always report positively, regardless of anything. After a while that becomes a habit. You will note that journalists embedded with US troops are sometimes very negative towards the US (and the worst thing that can happen to them is that after a while nobody wants to take them along on missions). On the other hand Jamail is never negative towards the insurgents and never positive towards the US, which kind of suggests he is not as independent as you think. I've looked, beleieve me. ObsidianOrder 23:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
OO, this is a dumb argument, and it was refuted when you made it on another page. What evidence is there that Jamail is any more "dependent on the insurgents" than any other reporter who actually operates in the field? You're characterization of him makes a weakness out of his strength (which is that, unlike most reporters, he is actually in the area and talking to people rather than reporting from a nice suite in the Palestine hotel like most western reporters). Certainly Jamail has his own perspectives and points of view, but that hardly makes him not independent.--csloat 08:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
csloat, no it is not a dumb argument, it is unfortunately quite true and a well known phenomenon [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] (and for a few other angles: [32] [33]). E.g the "Brigades of Holy War Martyrs" says after blowing up the Al-Arabiya offices: "We will kidnap them and slaughter them like sheep if they side with the American occupiers ... or if they describe the mujahideen as 'terrorists'." Well, I guess you know who Jamail sides with, given that he's still alive. P.S. He's never called them terrorists, not even when they specifically attack civilians, instead they're the "resistance". Yeah. ObsidianOrder 10:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Those links point to risks to any Iraqi journalist, not just Jamail. You want to say we can't trust any news report from anyone actually in Fallujah because they are risking their lives? Again, the fact that these people risk their lives to get a story is one of their strengths. Certainly it has implications for their worldview but I don't see evidence in any of those links that Jamail's perspective is being dictated by the insurgents, as you imply when questioning his "independence." In fact, none of the links mention him by name at all! --csloat 01:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
"risks to any Iraqi journalist" - but primarily to "unembedded" journalists moving in areas where the insurgents are strong. "can't trust any news report from anyone actually in Fallujah" - exactly, unless they are with enough friendlies to protect them, or possibly reports they give after they leave the area, assuming they don't intend to ever come back. I do trust stories I hear first-hand from people in the military who are/were there, and that's about it. "the fact that these people risk their lives to get a story is one of their strengths" - no, it is a weakness which has been skillfully exploited our enemies who consider manipulation of the press a main point of their war strategy. You will note the numerous instances of "catch-and-release" of journalists by the insurgents [34], which serve several purposes - a threat (we can get you any time we want), propaganda (we are determined/strong/will fight to the death - "he tugs playfully at the two dangling detonator cords"), disinformation ("15 members of a single family had been crushed to death") and an exploitation of a stockholm-syndrome-like phenomenon ("we were "lucky" that his group, rather than the hard-liners, had arrested us"). It is a wonderfully engineered PSYOP. In general, any news from a war zone is suspect; that is ten times the case when one side specifically targets noncombattants (such as journalists). Yes, Jamail is not mentioned, so what? Do you honestly think he could print anything negative to the insurgents, seeing how he operates among them with no security? Regardless of whether he intends to or not, he is essentially working for them at this point. ObsidianOrder 02:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
This argument is silly. If you only believe those in the military then there isn't much common ground for us to discuss this. Your speculations about what insurgents want from journalists are irrelevant. The fact is that some journalists do risk their lives to get stories, and those stories are not pure propaganda just because they took risks. Sure the risks will have an impact on their stories but if you think that turns them into psyops then you just aren't being reasonable. The fact is all sides of a conflict will try to influence the media (you act as if the military -- I assume you mean the US military -- is "neutral" and you also act as if the US does not try to influence through "embedded reporters" and press pools and so forth. The fact is these things go on all the time. And in fact there have even been explicit threats by US forces to journalists, as well as journalists killed in "suspicious" circumstances. The point is not which side is doing it worse; both sides influence the media, and all media accounts are "suspect", as you say, but that does not justify pretending one group of journalists is irrelevant or lying just because of that. Your claim that Jamail is "essentially working for" the insurgents could easily be said about FOX news and the US military, and it would be equally irrelevant. You sort out what you do and don't believe, but to discount everything they say because a source has first-hand experience or observation is ludicrous. Finally you have not shown that Jamail specifically is more of a propaganda voice than any other journalistic source in the region or out. The question is not whether he is right or whether he is unbiased but rather whether his view is relevant. At least I think that's what you guys were arguing about before I rudely jumped in :) --csloat 05:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
"Jamail specifically is more of a propaganda voice" - I posed this question to Christiaan earlier: can you find a single negative thing that he says about the insurgents or a single positive about the US? An objective reporter (not necessarily neutral or unbiassed, just objective, meaning he reports a reasonable description of what he sees, and without massive omissions) would sometimes say bad things about the side he supports and good things about the opposite side (and certainly embeds have provided some dramatic examples of that). Jamail fails that test. Oh, and what we were arguing about was actually whether he should get a quarter of all links? ObsidianOrder 06:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
How is that a "test" of anything? Perhaps he doesn't believe anything positive about the US, or hasn't seen anything to report on that he considers positive. Should he make things up to achieve phony "balance"? As for the amount of links from him, I don't know I would suggest that many - perhaps if there are several links of his that are worth including here they could all be in one list item, "Articles by Jamail, [1][2][3][4] or something. I was just objecting to you singling him out for not being "independent" when your criticisms could apply to anyone there.==csloat 10:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and re: the US tries to influence reporters, sure, but not to the extent of threatening to behead them. It has also been a persistent problem that some reporters appear to have foreknowledge of attacks or knowledge of who the attackers are but do nothing to help prevent the attack or catch the perpetrators. That is the only reason why the US military has "threatened" (i.e. detained and questioned) journalists, and in my opinion they're far too lenient about it. ObsidianOrder 07:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest you haven't been paying close enough attention if you think that is the only time reporters have been intimidated by US troops. And, as I said, there have been a couple of notable "accidents" that have all too coincidentally followed unfavorable reports. In any case you're still quite right that it is nothing compared to the Zarqawi crowd's threats and attacks (on reporters and anyone else for that matter). But as I said, it's not a question of who is more guilty of this; it's a question of whether a reporter who takes risks (and comes under pressure from warring factions) can be credible, and I think they can. As for Jamail specifically, I think he believes what he writes. I agree that he is one sided in his sympathy for the resistance, but I think it is genuine rather than something he is being forced to write. And I don't think he is just making up the very specific reports he has of the damage to Fallujah or the sympathy among many Iraqis for the insurgents. He may be perceiving these things from a narrow worldview but there is no evidence he is lying about them.
You might want to rethink your last comment - that the US is far too lenient about pushing the press around (when they've shut down newspapers and even al Jazeera, have intimidated journalists and even killed a few journalists) since it puts you in the same crowd as the Zarqawi fanatics with respect to freedom of the press.--csloat 10:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Jamail believes what he writes? Well, I would say that rather he writes whatever helps the cause he believes in. There are some glaring omissions (for example: the dismembered bodies of Fallujah residents killed by the insurgents which were lying around the streets when the marines got there?) and misrepresentations (WP is not "poison gas"). I don't think he's being forced either, I was just bringing that up as a way to point out that there is a natural reason why the only reporter operating in insurgent territory is friendly to the insurgents (all the others being scared off or killed). Regarding "lenient" - I stand by what I said. Free speech and freedom of the press has limits in civilized society: in particular, libel and incitement to violence are not protected forms of free speech. When Al-Jazeera reports "Israeli commandos in Mosul", or "schoolbuses in Basra blown up by rockets from British helicopter" or runs propaganda tapes by the insurgents which call for people to join them, that is not "free speech", it is speech as a weapon of war, and it deserves - requires - a military response. No Western country would tolerate that within its own borders, why should different rules apply there? ObsidianOrder 21:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Very well then. As I said, you belong in the Zarqawi camp with such views. I'm not sure which western country you live in, but mine does not close newspapers (and certainly does not shoot at journalists) for reporting things that others find inciteful. In fact, incitement law where I live is pretty specific that statements must pose an immediate risk of violence in order to be considered outside of the realm of free speech protection. You really support murdering and intimidating journalists? And you think you support democracy in Iraq? I'm glad you're not in charge of my country. --csloat 10:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Really? Here's a typical US state law [35]. In particular, read the paragraphs "NRS 203.040 Publishing matter inciting breach of peace or other crime", "NRS 203.115 Criminal anarchy" and "NRS 203.117 Criminal syndicalism". Can you see how they apply to the examples I gave above? "Immediate risk" is not the only criterion. And yes, Western countries do close such propaganda outlets, for example Hezb-allah affiliate Al-Manar was recently banned in France and listed as a terrorist organization in the US (amongst other things, they claimed that Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh, and advocated the "bliss" of suicide bombing). Obviously I'm not proposing murdering journalists, but I think that this type of misinformation does pose an immediate risk of violence (considering the inclinations of part of the audience), and it should be shut down (preerably with due process of law). ObsidianOrder 16:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that law is unconstitutional. I think Brandenburg v. Ohio backs me up. I'm not talking about closing down known terrorist organizations - just like cutting off their funding etc. But Al Jazeera? And Shiite newspapers? Come on. --csloat 23:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're misreading Brandenburg v. Ohio. It is true that some of the "syndicalism" laws have been overturned as too broad, but you need to read the decision more carefully: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (and also check out Whitney v. California). In the case of the Al-Jazeera disinformation about the Basra bombings, there was a major riot within less than an hour. They had no evidence, just hearsay (although there was tons of witnesses and physical evidence to the contrary), but they kept repeating the story for a number of hours and then quietly pulled it with no retraction or apology. What the hell do you think that was directed at, other than to cause a riot? I think an actual riot is pretty good proof that such a law would apply. ObsidianOrder 07:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
"Imminent lawless action" is the key here. You're going to have to give me a source for the riot information - this isn't how I remember the story but I don't remember a lot of detail for it. If they knowingly spread false information you may be right about the applicability of Brandenburg. But I don't think that's what happened (though I'm open to persuasion on the matter). In any case, this still would not lead to a newspaper being shut down, its offices barricaded, and its representatives being kicked out of the country if such a thing happened in the US.csloat 06:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, sources: the riot is described in 21_April_2004_Basra_bombs, plus [36] [37] [38]. None of them mention the role of Al-Jazeera's rumors in creating the riot, and you will not find evidence of that unless you either talk to some of the Brits who were deployed there, or else were watching/taping Al-Jazeera at the right time (I was watching, but did not tape it). P.S. Finally found some reference to the missiles rumor here [39] [40]. This last actually sounds a lot like what Al-Jazeera ran, perhaps AFP and ABC simply copied some of their pool footage and writeup. The Al-Jazeera site has a rather different version now, of course [41]. ObsidianOrder 08:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
So we're supposed to believe Al-Jazeera "created" the riot without a shred of evidence other than something you remember seeing on al Jazeera (which, I doubt said "we created the riots"). Not a single journalist has even speculated that that might have happened and you think the press should have been shut down for it? No evidence whatsoever that the press knowingly spread false information. It cannot be incitement (in the US legal sense) for a newspaper to print a story that it believes to be true, even if riots ensue. Incitement really covers the advocacy of lawless action, not the reporting of truthful (or presumed truthful) info that leads to lawless action. Again, if it could be shown that they knowingly spread false information that they knew would lead to riots, there might be an issue there. Anyway it's all academic -- Brandenburg of course does not apply in Iraq. But the US forces' treatment of the press in Iraq most definitely demonstrates a lot of hypocrisy with regard to their alleged support of democracy there.csloat 09:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Seabhcan additions

Seabhcan, there are some pretty serious problems with the paragraph you added, some factual and some POV. The articles you link to talk about 2 (or 3) different hospitals, but your text seems to conflate them all into one. The capture of Fallujah General (the hospital across the Euphrates) was carried out by Iraqi troops, not US. They found evidence that it was being used a) as an observation post and b) to provide medical treatment to insurgents, including a couple of foreign fighters which they captured. After raising the Iraqi flag over the hospital, they received heavy fire from the other side of the river. The other clinic, the Nazzal, was "Saudi-funded" and, well, let's just say I can think of a legitimate reason or two why it would get bombed - foreign-funded clinics in Fallujah have this unpleasant habit of being insurgent command centers and/or ammo dumps [42] (as an aside, "hit twice by missiles" is quite unlikely to "demolish" a building unless it was already full of explosives). The talk of war crimes is ridiculous. If you want to include some version of this paragraph that provides info on the opening moves of the attack, you're welcome to do so, but the current version only seems to exist to push a particular POV and has massive factual errors and omissions. ObsidianOrder 05:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider the issues you cite as worthy of removing the entire paragraph (nor are these "massive factual errors"). I'd say put the paragraph back in with these corrections -- you wrote them here; why not add them to the entry instead? The CSM article you link to involves a charity that was actually flying Zarqawi's flag -- a big difference from any "Saudi-funded" clinic. And the conclusion you draw from this twisted logic is that all foreign funded clinics should be bombed too? I think the paragraph should go back in with minor changes. Also the talk of war crimes is not "ridiculous"; it is certainly quite relevant that this attack provoked such charges (this isn't the place to evaluate such charges, of course, but reporting them is correct and reasonable). I think the andparagraph should go back in as written with any changes specifically sourced. The paragraph you took out was well sourced and I think it is a bit sneaky to remove it -- and all the sources -- based on your own assertions as well as a link to a CSM piece that doesn't say what you say it says.csloat 07:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry if my sources were incorrect - There are many articles written on the subject and I will try to find more correct ones. The important points here are that the US or "coalition" soldiers did attack and capture a civilian hospital. Their stated reason was that it was a source of "inflated casualty figures". The fourth Geneva convention does forbid such attacks, as does US law, which names the death penalty for these acts. These are important points and are widely discussed, should be in this article, as well as in Operation Phantom Fury article. Seabhcán 08:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
A couple of further points:
  • "Used to provide medical treatment to insurgents, including a couple of foreign fighters". It is still illegal to attack hospitals, even if they are used by the enemy.
  • "hit twice by missiles is quite unlikely to "demolish" a building unless it was already full of explosives". This is not true. It would depend on the type of missile, type of building, how it was hit, etc. When the V2 rockets fell on London they would demolish half the street. Add 60 years of explosives research and its a little hard to believe that two missiles couldn't destroy one building. Seabhcán 15:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Seabhcan I don't think Obsidian presented any evidence that your sources were incorrect. He just made assertions and cited one article that was not relevant to the situation your entry described. I think your paragraph should go back in as is with minor corrections if some of the details are wrong. But I haven't seen any evidence yet that they are. I'm sure Obsidian will provide some links if the evidence exists. csloat 18:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Look at this photo [43]. You can see many hundreds of tons of earth and debris (pile 20 ft tall, 40-50 ft across) which have been ejected mostly straight up (not sideways) and then fell down in a heap. That will take well over a thousand pounds of HE detonated below ground level. The only US weapons that could do that are some of the largest bunker-buster bombs (not missiles). Even Tomahawks (which carry some of the larger missile warheads in the US arsenal) will not have effects that look anything like this, they will scatter debris mostly sideways, plus there wouldn't be any reason to use a million-dollar missile where something much simpler and smaller would do. If the reports are accurate and this was "a couple of missiles", this was probably hit by a couple of the very common (and relatively small) 2.75" Hydra or slightly bigger Hellfire helicopter-launched missiles (at a guess, aimed at a vehicle next to the building, since you wouldn't normally use missiles against a building), and the rest is secondary explosions. Not definitive, I know, but that is the way I see it (and the considerable amount of Fallujah footage I've seen that shows massive secondaries sort of tends to bias me in that direction).
Regarding the other hospital: since when is it illegal for Iraqi troops to go wherever the hell they want in Iraq? You want sources, fine: the hospital was secured primarily by Iraqi troops, and it was used as an observation post by the insurgents [44], and while the Iraqi government troops secured it without causing any damage or hurting anyone (hardly an "attack"), it was the insurgents who fired all they had at the hospital immediately afterwards [45].
"it is still illegal to attack hospitals, even if they are used by the enemy" - no, if they are used by the enemy, it is perfectly legitimate to attack them (ditto mosques, etc). You seem to be working under the misconception that it is possible for the laws of war to apply to one side in a fight but not the other. The insurgents do not meet the criteria for a recognized belligerent, and they routinely violate all of the laws of war, hence the laws of war do not apply to fighting them. If anything applies, it is internal Iraqi law. This situation is legally the same as a SWAT team securing a public building during a hostage crisis or similar in a Western country, they are acting entirely within their police powers under domestic law. ObsidianOrder 04:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
If Iraqi law applies, mosques are now illegal to attack. But your definition of terms is self serving. If this is war, the rules of war apply. If it is not war, the US really has no business there enforcing Iraqi law, as you portray it.csloat 08:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
csloat - "a charity that was actually flying Zarqawi's flag" - you're misreading the article, there was a different building had a sign proclaiming it as Zarqawi's HQ, this one merely said "Islamic Association - Fallujah Branch" and had ICRC-related stuff displayed in front. "all foreign funded clinics should be bombed" - not just because they are foreign-funded, but if (for example) vehicles carrying ammo are observed unloading there, then yes, obviously. ObsidianOrder 05:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no way that we can know what happened in Fallujah by speculating from the comfort of our western homes and I'm not saying I know anything. However, There is room for discussion and disagreements in this issue and this issue is widely discussed. This article needs to at least mention the disagreement and contraversy over this issue. The paragraph should go back in (if modified) Seabhcán 07:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree this sort of armchair combat analysis is ludicrous. I also agree the paragraph should go back in with modifications. csloat 08:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
ludicrous, really? you are making an awful lot of assumptions about where I'm coming from. csloat, I'm not proposing to write any of my back-of-the-envelope reckoning into wikipedia, but I know how I'd analyze what I see for myself. in particular, most of the time missiles are the absolute last choice after (in that order) direct fire, artillery and guided bombs, and they are usually only used for moving targets or targets of opportunity. have a peek at these: [46] [47] [48]. the nazzal "clinic" strike was described as "after tarawih" which (assuming it was the longer version of the prayer right after isha) would put it sometime after 10pm on the 5th. you can guess as to which particular strike it was, but I'm thinking this one: "At 11:30 p.m., Nov. 5, a U.S. Air Force aircraft, supporting a U.S. Marine Corps element, destroyed an anti-aircraft weapon. There were significant secondary explosions." Notice in particular that this is (a) the strike that most closely matches the time given, and (b) it was not a pre-planned target (as most of the other strikes mentioned there are) and (c) secondary explosions as required to explain the damage in the photo. here's some random other examples of a pair of missiles being fired at AA guns, in fallujah no less: [49] [50]. so it seems like a pretty simple story, a ZU23 mounted on a pickup truck is parked in the back yard of the clinic ("the stupid americans will never shoot at us here"), it fires at US aircraft, US aircraft fires a couple of AGM65 missiles back, crates of ammo sitting next to truck detonate, pile of ammo under the clinic detonates, scratch one clinic. this is not necessarily what happened of course, just call it an informed guess. ObsidianOrder 06:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Lets aggree a paragraph here. Edit as approapiate...Seabhcán 08:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Following shortly on the re-election of George W. Bush, the US, accompanied by some Iraqi government forces, launched a "counter-insurgency" attack on the city. One of the principal stated goals of the assault was the capture of Fallujah General Hospital which they described as a "propaganda outlet" due to its allegedly inflated casualty figures released following the bombings of the previous months [51] [52] [53]. The hospial was successfully captured without resistance on the first day of fighting and embedded journalists quickly released numerous photographs of doctors and patients being "hog-tied" and placed in rows on the ground. [54] [55]. A number of commentators, notably Noam Chomsky, have pointed out that an attack on a civilian hospital is forbidden by the Geneva conventions and that for such a breach "the president of the United States is subject to death penalty under US Law", under the War Crimes Act of 1996 [56] [57].

Writing from scratch [UPDATED]:

On November 8, 2004, a force of over 6,000+\- U.S. and 1300+\- Iraqi troops began a concentrated assault on the insurgents in Fallujah with air strikes, artillery, armor, and infantry. The attack was named Operation Al-Fajr ("Dawn" in Arabic, also sometimes called "Phantom Fury").
In one of the earliest stages of the operation, Iraqi troops of the 36th Commando Battalion backed by US Special Forces secured without firing a shot the Fallujah General Hospital, where they found some evidence suggesting the hospital was being used as an observation post by insurgents [58]. One of the reasons the US military gave for decision to seize the hospital was that it was allegedly used by insurgents as a "propaganda center" for exaggerated casualty statistics during the earlier fighting in April [59]. The Iraqi troops raised an Iraqi flag which caused the insurgents to respond with heavy fire towards the hospital. Shortly after this US troops secured the two key bridges leading into the city from the West.
A large US force consisting of Regimental Combat Teams 1 and 7 seized the rail yards North of the city, and pushed into the city simultaneously along two approaches from the North, taking control of the fortified Jolan and Askari districts in heavy overnight fighting. etc.

This covers all the facts with appropriate disclaimers. What is missing: Bush election (irrelevant), "principal stated goals" (huh? this was a tiny part of the overall operation to clear Fallujah), doctors and patients "hogtied" (actually they were just flex-cuffed, police do that all the time), Geneva conventions (it is unclear how the conventions were violated, in particular no civilians were hurt), Bush deserves the death penalty (dream on... I didn't realize Chomsky was quite so out of touch). ObsidianOrder 03:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Your version of the paragraph is uncritically pro-US and highly POV. I give up, and have lost interest. Dear ObsidianOrder, I hope you enjoy hoisting the flag over this little corner of propaganda. Seabhcán 09:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be POV when everything it says is a reasonably well-established fact. You have to be more specific in your criticism, after all I was ;) Is it "uncritically pro-US and highly POV" if I don't think this was a war crime that deserves the death penalty? (unlike, say, Beslan?) Or that I don't think such ludicrous allegations even deserve a mention? Is there any important fact about what actually happened which I omitted? "Give up" - I would much prefer if you argue your points. I don't think you can reasonably say I made you leave. ObsidianOrder 12:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Insurgency or Resistance

I believe that in the context of Iraq, the terms Insurgent and Insurgency are not neutral terms. We are under no obligation to follow the sheep mentality of the mainstream media.

When Afghan fighters were attacking Soviet tanks they were referred to as freedom fighters by the western media. Clearly then, freedom fighter is a term you use when you support the fighters.

In a similar way the terms insurgent and insurgency are used by the governments of occupying powers. You can see evidence of this in many conflicts including the French occupation of Algeria and during the Vietnam War.

Surely the neutral term for people fighting against an occupying force is resistance. Whether you agree/disagree with them, or their methods, the fighters in Iraq are clearly resisting the occupation.

There are many propaganda mechanisms operating against the resistance. The media tends to concentrate on people having their heads severed, which is horrible and clearly damages the image of the Iraqi resistance. There is far less coverage of the attacks on U.S. tanks, although the footage is widely available on the internet. Do remember that the French resistance also executed people they viewed as being collaborators. Neither the U.S. forces nor the Iraqi resistance are going to win any Nobel peace prizes.

Another propaganda mechanism has been the suggestion that the resistance is made up of foreign fighters. The idea is that it cannot be a real popular resistance if the people resisting are not indigenous. Likewise the use of the word insurgent is just another propaganda mechanism.

We all have our own opinions but if the rules of Wikipedia are that we do not express opinions, we should avoid using terms that favour one side or another.

Baloney. "Resistance" is a positive term implying approval. "Insurgent" is a neutral term. "Rebel" or "Terrorist" would be used if a negative term were being sought.

I don't know what the penultimate paragraph is trying to say. Are there foreigners amongst the insurgents or not? Or is the anonymous writer disputing that the presence of foreigners renders a resistance movement less legitimate?

To point 1 - well it's fairly obvious there are foreigners amongst the insurgent - probably not as high a proportion as amongst the government forces. To point 2 - it must at least make some difference. A resistance movement with 90% foreign membership would surely have as little legitimacy as an army of occupation.

Exile 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"Resistance" means that there is a groups "resisting" sojmething. It is neither positive nor negative; that all depends which side you're on. But in this case nobody can deny that there is a resistance movement that is resisting foreign occupation. It is also an "insurgency." this has been debated to death on the "Iraqi Insurgency" discussion page. As for the number of foreign fighters among the insurgents, we're talking about 3-8% roughly; certainly under 10%, and even those only operate with the permission of Sunni elders (otherwise they would have a much harder time getting weapons from within Iraq, moving freely around, and having places to stay). To claim that 90% of the insurgents are foreigners is completely backwards; maybe 10% at most are. --csloat 22:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Resistance is hardly a positive term. Freedom fighter is a positive term. When a group of people are putting up "resistance" it does not implies neither that they are good nor bad. Resistance has traditionally been the more commonly used word. User:82.34.140.139 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

The article on the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is in need of a criticism section. I invite all who have seen it, particular those of a neo-conservative leaning, to visit and contribute. (The documentary is widely available for download on filesharing networks) Seabhcán 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)

rv, writeup does not correspond to cited sources - details

I reverted this for the following glaring factual errors:

  • this is listed in the April 2004 section, but all cited sources refer to November 2004
  • media presence was not "extremely limited"
  • the mentioned "AP photographer" and "BBC reporter" are in fact local stringers, not regular staff
  • Fallujah General Hospital was secured by Iraqi troops, not US troops
  • the staff in that hospital was not prevented from providing medical services to civilians in any way

and many more. ObsidianOrder 00:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)