humanitarian disaster in fallujah

The Iraqi Red Crescent declare a humanitarian disaster in Fallujah.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=582476

 

Now it seems that American troops are stopping aid from getting through

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/53B29CD6-0514-47D5-B776-97B5507CBC37.htm

 

Amnesty highlight unlawful actions in Fallujah fighting:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6813303

I saw this incident broadcast on Channel 4 News last week - an American soldier was shown killing a wounded, lone insurgent who was trapped behind a wall. Under the Geneva conventions it is unlawful to kill wounded and out of action fighters. The article above also refers to the failure to take the necessary precautions protect civilians in the Fallujah assault - also a breach of the Geneva conventions.

 

yes so the good people of The Iraqi Red Crescent don't get their heads blown off .. I think thay have allowed them through with a escort now..

Could you imagine the headlines if anything bad had happened to them .. That would have filled about 4 pages at least.

 

From the Observer yesterday. Full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1350926,00.html

 

It'd be forgotten quickly enough. America bombed the Chinese embassy in Kosovo, al Jazeera head quarters in Afghanistan and Iraq, bombed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, and air striked a BBC film crew in the Kurdish region of Iraq, killing John Simpson's camerman. Collateral damage....

 

It probably would have ... but i have just about forgoten the images in the Mirror.. but it still has currency in some debates though ..

Collateral damage..well why not just let them go anywere then why protect them, why try and get all the innocent civillians out first ??? Good PR i suppose (i say that sarcasticaly) .

 

I find the term 'precision' bombing quite ironically funny considering it's killed over 100,000 civillians in Iraq so far....

 

I will leave you guys alone in this thread i think ..its a bit...well not my cup of tea.

 

No it's not mine either, talking about the cost of this war in the lives of innocent people. Unfortunately I think it's something we need to face.

 

Thanks Matthew, I disagree with your views, but I respect your rationality....

 

sorry i am not ignoring talking about the cost of war....its the use of this story i have a problem with .

It almost says
'heartless blood thirsty hawks , forbid peace convoy from doing the work of saints'

This is not strictly true is it.

 

sorry just thought an explanation was in order

peace .. i am out

 

Excuse me? It says no such thing! It is a factual story, the Red Crescent requested access to the city to distribute aid to civilians who are suffering in the city and could not get to the hospital. The US military denied them access. The "blood thirsty hawks", the "peace convoy" and the "work of saints" are your own interpretative spin. You can interpret it in that way if you wish but none of the stories I have read about it - including that al-Jazeera one - support this interpretation, so I think you are wrong to give it this twisted meaning. Nobody is suggesting any such thing. I think most of us will be well aware of wider issues such as, as you pointed out, the military being reluctant to be responsible for the deaths of aid workers. Nonetheless, there are civilians trapped in the city in desperate need of aid, and they are not getting it. This is an important thing to report.

 

I doubt the US forces actually realise that the Red Crescent is part of the Red Cross.

 

No offence to Red Crescent but they were stating the obvious , Now that order is being restored the military and humanitarian aid can be sent and distributed.

Wading in half way through a hostile battle solves what ..???. I am sure thay were aware of the action that was planned ... its just their strange timing to go in. Why not go in before the coalition went in to mop up the insurgents ?.

I am sure their motives were good , and the way i spinned it may have been a bit ott ..but the same BBC that reports it like within the link ..also used the tone and the posture i said on TV , so did most of the media IMHO . I think the only reason it was reported was because the media wished the worse to have pictures of aid agency casualties. As wicked as it sounds the media were only laying the groundwork for a report they may have wished for in a horrid sort of way. Another example of those wicked Americans.

Well they have another even better one now ..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4014901.stm

 

You are truly in cloud cuckoo land my friend.

 

He's a politician's wet dream.

 

why....

We may look at things diffrently (no shit ??? i hear you wail hahaha) but even so

this is why i originaly posted

this Originally Posted by Paul
Now it seems that American troops are stopping aid from getting through

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...7B5507CBC37.htm

This humanitarian 'disaster' is in itself one thing but The troops were trying to protect the aid workers not stop them doing what they wanted, wich is the thrust of the story..... a none story.



For their own safety i am sure that innocent iraqi civilians would have left asap..even those that stayed would not support foreign fighters ... if they did , i would assume they also support the barbarism that these people do, so if anything they are no longer 'innocent' civilians...back their own people if they wish and say we stay because we support them ... but as well as them 'we' are also trying to get rid of foreign terrorists wich i would assume none of us wish to be there ???. They are getting in the way and i think are the majority because 'freedom fighters' i would hope would use diplomacy ?? not indiscriminant shooting at anything that moves .. or people wishing to escape the city.

http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000973.php

Turning away young men to the chaos .. thats something to bring up

 

So ... one inference we might draw is that the US military was more concerned about not having dead aid workers and an international scandal on their hands than about the humanitarian disaster going on in the city.

This is a disgusting attitude. The onus under the Geneva conventions is upon the fighters to prevent civilian casualties. Estimates put the number of civilian non-combatants still inside the city - for whatever reason - at 50,000. Amnesty has reported that both sides in this conflict have breached this obligation to prevent civilian suffering under international law. What is your response... that if they chose to stay in their homes, they were not innocent civilians but guilty by association with the insurgency? And therefore, presumably, deserved to die? This is a vile attitude, Matthew.