Thursday, March 27, 2003

More tales of the massacre:

  1. The Russians are still giving the best reports:

    "Near Basra the British forces in essence are laying a Middle Ages-style siege of a city with the population of two million. Artillery fire has destroyed most of the city's life-supporting infrastructure and artillery is used continuously against the positions of the defending units."

    So when you read about the wonderful exertions of the coalition to provide humanitarian aid (even enlisting Flipper in the effort), remember that the humanitarian aid is needed because of the 'Middle Ages-style siege', and the 'Middle Ages-style siege' was required because the British were not up to the task of defeating this city which supposedly hates Saddam. The Iraqis, without food or water, are nevertheless attacking the British delivering their 'humanitarian' aid. Do you think that might give the British a hint that they are not regarded as 'liberators'?

  2. More from the Russians:

    ". . . the coalition forces have so far failed to capture a single sizable town in Iraq. Only by the end of the sixth day the British marine infantry was able to establish tentative control over the tiny town of Umm Qasr. During the hours of darkness all movement around the town is stopped and the occupying troops withdraw to defensive positions. Constant exchanges of fire take place throughout the town. Out of more than 1,500-strong local garrison the British managed to capture only 150 Iraqis. The rest has either withdrew toward Basra or changed into civilian clothes and resorted to partisan actions."

    So they still haven't captured Umm Qasr.

  3. I'd like to raise the issue of the rules of war again. The Americans seem fixated on the fact that the Iraqis aren't fighting fair, fighting out of hospitals, blending back into the civilian population, etc. But do they have to? This war is after all universally derided as immoral and illegal under international law. The Iraqis are defending themselves from what is essentially a lawless group of bandits who are attempting to steal their country. Why should they have to fight fairly? Why should the 'coalition' be treated in international law as being anything more than thieves? Just because it is two big countries committing the outrages doesn't change the nature of what they really are. This isn't a war.

  4. Have you noticed that what the Iraqis say in press conferences is essentially true, even those things which are mocked by the U. S. press because they conflict with the American stories which turn out to be lies, but everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, said by the Americans is a lie (I'm not exaggerating - EVERYTHING)?

  5. More pictures of the civilizing influence of America.

  6. The Americans claimed they captured 8,000 Iraqis. Another lie. How can you possibly claim you've captured soldiers unless you've taken at least some care to ensure they don't walk away? But walk away they did. The funniest thing is that they are now blaming this lie on a nasty Iraqi trick, which poor old Rumsfeld thinks is another violation of the rules of war which apparently only apply to the Iraqis.

  7. From Antiwar.com:

    "At the Pentagon briefing on Saturday afternoon, a reporter asked General Stanley McChrystal and Pentagon Spokesperson Victoria Clark about a report by General Franks that the US was currently holding 1,000-2,000 Iraqi prisoners. 'What happened to the other Iraqis who surrendered?' General McChrystal mumbled, and then said 'They must have run off.'"

    You have to wonder whether this is a war or a child's game.

  8. Speaking of the rules of war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, the Americans dropped two missiles on a poor suburb of Baghdad with no obvious strategic importance, and not near any obvious military targets, killing at least 14 Iraqi civilians. How does that advance the war cause of the 'coalition'? Just think how much fun it will be for the American soldiers to guard that part of town during the Occupation.

  9. The American ambassador to Canada had the audacity to question Canada's refusal to support the Americans in the slaughter, and made not-so-veiled threats that this would result in economic repercussions for Canada. Needless to say, this didn't go over well. The governing Liberal Party caucus actually debated whether the ambassador should be expelled (my personal opinion is that he should have been on the next plane out). Although doubts are being raised based on an audio recording, a Canadian Senator in a debate on the issue in the Canadian Senate is reported by Hansard to have said "Screw the Americans". I hope he did say it. Wayne Gretsky, ex-hockey player who is essentially a god in Canada, said he supported the war and was rewarded by having his statue (!) in Edmonton adorned with the sign 'U$ Lackey'. Bush is supposed to visit Canada in early May, but that would be a foolish thing to do unless he wants to be embarrassed. It's getting to the point where Americans are going to have to wear pins and t-shirts pretending to be Canadians when they visit Canada!


0 comments: