Comments on: Inside Fallujah

By: vernaculo

vernaculo — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:56:12 +0000

To solve these difficulties of evidence and Geneva Convention-based rules of engagement we need officials – just as we have in professional sports – paid professionals themselves, wearing easily identifiable uniforms, unbiased toward either team, and fully cognizant of all appropriate laws and regulations. Then armchair combatants can concentrate more readily on the thrills and excitement of what is, after all, the thing out of which the metaphor of sport was born.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:28:41 +0000

Well, Nonesuch, OK, my comment was a stupid rhetorical comment that can easily be challenged from multiple angles. The angles you picked aren’t even good ones: the murder of the charity activist has absolutely nothing to do with it; are you suggesting that destroying the city was justified by that murder? However, there is no doubt in my mind that symbolism was a part of it; Fallujah, apparently, has been a symbol of anti-imperialist Arab resistance since the 1920s and has become especially significant in that respect in the last few months. You can’t deny that.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:55:51 +0000

Nonesuch: I don’t think we’ve heard any evidence yet that this medical centre or the hospital were ‘occupied’ by anyone other than the US military. It was the US military that occupied the main hospital in Fallujah. There is a difference between a medical clinic treating insurgent fighters and the clinic itself being a legitimate target. The US actions with respect to the hospital and medical clinic in Fallujeh, based on the evidence cited so far, do seem to constitute a clear violation of the Geneva conventions and as such, are war crimes. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the insurgents were occupying mosques and using them to fire upon US troops. In those circumstances I have no personal problem with the US troops returning fire—once the mosque is being used as a place to attack from, it ceases to deserve any special consideration.

By: Nonesuch

Nonesuch — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:59:44 +0000

Quote: “They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power. People who died in each case [. . .] Same idea, same barbarism.” I am firmly against the war, but thankfully I don’t need to believe this moral crock to sustain my position. In the dichotomy you have set up, only one side chose what the “symbols” were going to be. These hospitals, schools, and Mosques were occupied by the “Arab resistance” for the maximum shock value that would result from their subsquent targeting. And where exactly does the murder of an anti-war charity activist fit into your economy of symbols? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.hassan/index.html

By: Nonesuch

Nonesuch — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:47:37 +0000

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.hassan/index.html

By: consigliere

consigliere — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:12:11 +0000

Brett, a predictable consequence of the US scorning the Geneva Conventions is their replacement by lex talionis: Soon we’ll hear of videos of captured US GIs being murdered and mutilated, but you’ll only see them on al Jezeera, because the Pentagon will suppress broadcasts in the US.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:43:46 +0000

Article 1 and Article 2 of the Geneva convention explicitly state Awww…isn’t that quaint. Surely one would like to know the intentions in engaging in combat, and the nature of the parties involved, their plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict during and after battle, etc. Mark, do you happen to know with any certainty the US military’s “plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict” where Fallujah is concerned? I sure as hell don’t—we’re told that most of them “fled,” and that’s about it. Where are they now? Are they being adequately cared for? Maybe you take the Pentagon’s word for it that there’s nothing to worry about. I don’t.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:37:27 +0000

Brett, The doctor doesn’t claim the facility was being used for military purposes. He says that he may have treated some of the insurgents as he was treating anyone who came in. Treating wounded does not make the medical facility a military target. Article 1 and Article 2 of the Geneva convention explicitly state that hospitals—even military hospitals for the express purpose of treating enemy soldiers—are to be treated as neutral. This neutrality is only waived if the hospital is under military occupation and being used as a military facility. If, for example, the insurgents had taken over the medical facility and were using it as a fire base then it would no longer be neutral under the Geneva convention. The doctor’s statement emphatically does not support the view that that was the case. Where is your evidence that the medical facility was being used for ‘known miltary purposes’?

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:15:53 +0000

“Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility” is a predictable consequence of using a known medical facility for military purposes. Which even the doctor kind of half admits was the case.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:00:58 +0000

‘Fascist’ label is often being applied to both sides of this conflict, Mark.

By: Phoenician in a time of Romans

Phoenician in a time of Romans — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:32:34 +0000

It strikes me that it is rather unusual for a “sovereign government” to authorise (“order”) an attack primarily carried out by a foreign army on one of its own cities. Doesn’t that make the Americans the new Hessians?

By: Phoenician in a time of Romans

Phoenician in a time of Romans — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:31:43 +0000

By: peter ramus

peter ramus — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:20:59 +0000

I’m not sure I understand… posted by Mark November 17, 2004 01:56 AM Aerial bombardment of a known medical facility. Get it now?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:56:37 +0000

“They attacked and destroyed the symbol of Arab resistance, just like Mohammed Atta&Co attacked and destroyed symbols of American power.” I’m not sure I understand, abb1; destroying theocratic and nationalist fascists is the same as slaughtering 3000 innocent people? Surely one would like to know the intentions in engaging in combat, and the nature of the parties involved, their plans for the innocents caught up in the conflict during and after battle, etc. Wouldn’t these be relevant to an analysis, or does the left just smear it all together for ease of thought? John Quiggin attempted to make the same argument in prosecuting the case against fighting Sadr, and got rightly blasted for failing to consider the theocratic fascism and brutality of Sadrs proposed rule. Remember when the left fought against fascism, instead of lending support?

By: ogmb

ogmb — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:52:19 +0000

But at least we’re safer now.™