November 14, 2004

• Indymedia is NOT the most reliable of sources. (Anyone can post a story). If this is true, it is abhorrant. Would like to see some known source report it...
• All right, I found it - BBC News ABC Australia Unfreakinbelieveable.
• We could ' win ' any military conflict in the Middle East anytime just by seizing water supplies. And we probably will when Saudi Arabia goes down.
• Here is the passage from the Geneva Conventions that you refer to (I looked it up): Protocol I -Part IV: Civilian Population --Section I: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities ---Chapter III: Civilian Objects ----Article 54 (2) states that

  It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

  I'm not surprised, maybe, but I'd certainly like more information than Indymedia and "Muqtada al-Sadr, Ahmed Qubaysi, and other politicians." From the Indymedia "article":

  The denial of water to civilians is becoming a standard part of US tactics in Iraq. It has been almost unreported in the US and UK, but the Iraqi press is full of reports of the US turning off water supplies to cities. It has also become a political issue in the country, discussed Muqtada al-Sadr, Ahmed Qubaysi, and other politicians. Within the US, it is now openly accepted by some military analysts

  Really, openly? By which analysts and how openly? Maybe you can find another link, or an actual quotation to back up this post? I do not support this war, but do you really think the anti-war editors around the world would miss this story? Is it possible, just possible, that the water supplies to Fallujah are breaking down because wise Iraqi plumbers and engineers have decided to split the scene and the local waterworks are fragile and war is raging? Just asking. On preview: the BBC article states only that "water supples have been cut off" - can they say that the whole city has benn cut off and that it is a strategic move by the Americans? The ABC article only mentions the Red Crescent deliveries, nothing about the water infrastucture in Fallujah.
• I don't know, but no matter what, it don't look good over there...
• No shit, Sherlock. Next time, before you fan the flames read the fucking article(s).
• JG, haven't seen you on here in a while and I have missed your comments. Perhaps you have been here and I just have not seen you. Anyway, have you been taking steroids?
• Don't be a douchebag.
• Your first song sounds all right though..
• early posting dementia
• You know, the fact that these people need water to be delivered would point to the fact that their water supply is cut off. OK, this doesn't prove anything about U.S. policy, and frankly, I doubt there is any such stated policy in place. I think it's important, however, that the military be accountable for what it does, and it all too often does things first then "cleans it up" later. There's no need to get harsh. My apologies for the douchebag comment. Not the way I want to go. As you can see, I did question the source from the outset, and the links I posted, I feel, will make people look more closely at this issue.
• Thanks, waitingtoderail. /derail
• Yes, this is the wrong war at the wrong time. It has created a terrorist Mecca in Iraq: Fallujah: 1600 Martyrs Served. Go George Bush! So what? I cried watching the news tonight. Semper Fi indeed.
• You know, the fact that these people need water to be delivered would point to the fact that their water supply is cut off. Tautology War So why is it happening? Is it, as the FPP implies, a strategic move by the Americans to thirst the insurgents out of their holes? If so it is a war crime, but I hesitate to blame even Bush for this kind of crime. If he thought people were dying of thirst he would act (er, DARFUR). Again, I say, please show me evidence and I will run with it to every place I can post. I think this is maybe a lie. Every American Marine knows that you can't last more than three days without water. Or is it maybe the fact that Fallujah's pipes are fucking broken? Maybe?
• Given the events currently taking place within Fallujah, it would be remarkable if its water supply continued uninterrupted. Bomb craters can break a water line. Electrical failures can knock out pumping or sanitation systems. To blame this on deliberate American military policy is purest Indymedia agitprop. Civilization is terribly fragile.
• Water is hard to get in places besides Falluja.
• There are reports that the Red Crescent is not being allowed to go into Fallujah. And residents of Fallujah are not being allowed to go to the hospital, which was seized by US troops before the invasion. This does not look good at all.
• 1. Jerry Garcia smokes too much or too little 2. DUDE WE BOMBED DESALINIZATION PLANTS IN THE FIRST IRAQ WAR WHAT'S A FRICKING LITTLE CITY
• ActuallySettle, sometimes you post interesting & positive remarks leading me to believe that you are a complex & intelligent person. Other times you post things that make you sound like a cocknocker. Anyway, what the fuck can we do? The current US administration want to do away with, or ignore the Geneva Convention. The new Attorney General is the guy who said the GC was 'quaint' or some such. They're all fucking war criminals and arguably mass murderers. There's nothing we can do about it save something drastic & violent, at this stage. Nothing ever fucking changes & we're all doomed.
• Apologies if the source link is not to peoples liking. Maybe the lack of 'more respectable'standard media coverage is due to the fact that reporters are either embedded or cant move freely about Iraq to independently verify. As for the argument that pipes get broken in war. thats undoubtedly true, i'm not sure if you could cut off an entire cities water supply. If you can, how many bombs do you need to drop? One possible additional piece of circumstantial evidence may arise and that would be outbreaks of Cholera and Typhoid. Will fallujah ever recover? I saw some pics of grozny recently. I imagine they will be fairly similar.
• Hmmm, directing a bombardment in order to disrupt the water supply would not be a new tactic in any case. It was very much Allied policy in WWII strategic bombing of German cities. Of course, the aim there was to break the water pipes so that firefighters would not be able to fight localised fires from incendiary bombs before they merged and formed a Hamburg- or Dresden-style firestorm. Ain't war wonderful?
• To blame this on deliberate American military policy is purest Indymedia agitprop. Taking out or controlling supplies of food and utilities in urban combat zones is textbook military strategy. If you want "agitprop" of a different and more mainstream flavour, check this shit out.
• Man o man. Yall are just over reacting. Can't you see that it's just smart marketing? No water = skyrocketing sales of Coca Cola and Pepsi products. It's good for the economy. Sheesh.
• More info here: Denial of Water to Iraqi Cities [PDF]. I guess we'll never know if this is a deliberate tactic or just something that results from the chaos of an (unjust) war.
• What would you rather: a terrorist mecca in a far-off city in a far-off country many Americans can't point to on a map, where there's a bazillion heavily-armed troops ready and willing to shoot at anything that moves, or a terrorist mecca in New York?? It's brilliant-- stir up the ants nest and let 'em all run into your guns, so that they don't attack on the home soil (due to the simple fact that there are none left). Anyone remotely interested in hating America will run and get themselves killed (if they take out a few Americans, that's just luck) It's easier to defend somewhere that means nothing to you, because if it gets too hot, you just uproot and set-up somewhere else. Try telling that to Chicago!
• Uh, the Geneva Conventions are merely an inconvenience. Duh.
• Our new AG, via "Roots of Torture": "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations . . . and renders quaint some of its provisions." --- One wonders if soon-to-be Chief Justice Scalia will soon render our Constitutional rights "quaint" in the name of some vague, unspecified threat.
• Oh, and court3nay: "What would you rather: a terrorist mecca in a far-off city in a far-off country many Americans can't point to on a map, where there's a bazillion heavily-armed troops ready and willing to shoot at anything that moves, or a terrorist mecca in New York??" That either/or dog just don't hunt. NY voted overwhelmingly in support of firing our so-called "war" president, while those who live nowhere near any terrorist threat decided policy for the next four years.
• Not to mention, when did Iraqis attack New York?
• Never forget 9/11. That was the day Saddam flew two jets singlehandedly into the WTC.
• Oh, come on, yentruoc. Everyone knows that the Iraqis may at one time have met with someone connected to al Qaeda. And that there were, like, aluminum tubes and shit.
• Iraq is, unfortunately, just a nice place to set up. Sorry Iraqis, but you were the weakest link. It's not about IRAQ.. they just happened to be the easiest target. It's about all the countries around Iraq: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc, that serve as a home of anti-American sentiment (heh, that, and France..) Now the USA has a focal point that anyone who wants to, can DRIVE in their BUSLOADS and get shot! It's very convenient, and unfortunately the Iraqis don't really have much say in it. The "either/or" thing is working on the assumption that the "terrorists" want one of two things: (1) either to vanquish the US, and/or (2) to get martyred in the process. The risk in flying to the USA (really, the only way to get there) is that they'll get arrested at the airport and fail at both goals. By driving to the latest Iraqi hotbed, they can help with (1) by taking down some soldiers, and (2) if they're lucky, die in the process (I'm going by a recent NY times article here, they apparently really want to *die*.) I didn't mean NY specifically, just that there's enough people there that you can kill a lot of people with a few terrorists. I know I'd rather have a bunch of soldiers on the other side of the world shooting at terrorists, than a bunch of soldiers in my own city shooting at terrorists!
• court3nay: define "terrorists."
• court3nay - I never got the idea that 9/11 was about America at all. I always thought of Al Qaeda as a school bully who throws a rock at the principal. Yeah, he's going to get nailed if he gets caught, but otherwise it's going to make him the most bad-ass kid in school. I think Bin Laden was after respect/recruitment ability in the Middle East, and hurting Americans was just bonus. Certainly, the vast majority of Al Qaeda attacks have not been in America, or aimed at Americans. And the terrorists are spread all over the place, not just in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and possibly a few in Iraq. And that's another thing - the insurgents aren't terrorists in the same way Al Qaedans are. They are essentially defending their homeland. Revolutionaries, perhaps. They aren't going to be attacking people in other countries. And nobody is going to travel to Iraq to fight a ground battle against US soldiers. That is just absurd.
• yentrouc: Actually they *are* travelling to Iraq! That's the whole point.. This is all I could dredge out of the NYT.. (Great name btw ;) ) THE REACH OF WAR: FOREIGN FIGHTERS; Lebanese Would-Be Suicide Bomber Tells How Volunteers Are Waging Jihad in Iraq He shaved his beard to appear less conspicuously religious and then slipped into Iraq through Syria, willing to die to defeat the Americans. Soon, the young Lebanese teacher says, he found himself in a safe house in Baghdad, with a long list of Saudis and Kuwaitis ahead of him waiting... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B11F635590C718CDDA80994DC404482&incamp=archive:search Can't view the full article though, but I read somewhere that up to 1/3rd of the 'insurgents' are foreigners.. I see the whole "war" as a way of clearing out anyone who wants to harm america violently.. and from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/18/MNGN78R6Q51.DTL Sabah Kadim, a spokesman for Iraq's Interior Ministry .. said 63 people were arrested, including Sudanese, Egyptian and Syrian fighters, and security forces seized rockets, grenades and machine guns. "The people we arrested are members in organized gangs and terrorists," he said. "Those are the ones responsible for the lack of security in Iraq now." of course, the "Interior Ministry" says it all.. hawthornewingo: "terrorists" = anyone who the US government doesn't like right now. *sigh*
• court3nay - I stand corrected. I still contend that it is absurd. However, recent events have shown me just how little I understand religious zealots. So maybe it makes sense to these people, too.
• that's a really brillant plan court3nay - but I don't think the administration came up with it on purpose.