Report from inside Falluja

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
BBC

'Watching tragedy engulf my city'

US and Iraqi forces are locked in desperate street battles against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja. The BBC News website spoke by phone to Fadhil Badrani, a journalist in Falluja who reports for the BBC World Service in Arabic.

I am surrounded by thick black smoke and the smell of burning oil.

There was a big explosion a few minutes ago and now I can hear gunfire.

A US armoured vehicle has been parked on the street outside my house in the centre of the city.

From my window, I can see US soldiers moving around on foot near it.

They tried to go from house to house but they kept coming under fire.

Now they are firing back at the houses, at anything that moves. It is war on the streets.

The American troops look like they have given up trying to go into buildings for now and are just trying to control the main roads.

I am sitting here on my own, watching tragedy engulf my city.

Looks like Kabul

I was with some of the Falluja fighters earlier. They looked tired - but their spirits were high and they were singing.

Local fighters have reportedly been joined by Iraqis from other cities
Recently, many Iraqis from other parts of the country have been joining the local men against the Americans.

No one has had much sleep in the past two days of heavy fighting and of course, it is still Ramadan, so no one eats during the day.

I cannot say how many people have been killed but after two days of bombing, this city looks like Kabul.

Large portions of it have been destroyed but it is so dangerous to leave the house that I have not been able to find out more about casualties.

Mosques silent

A medical dispensary in the city centre was bombed earlier.

I don't know what has happened to the doctors and patients who were there.

It was last place you could get medical attention because the big hospital on the outskirts of Falluja was captured by the Americans on Monday.

A lot of the mosques have also been bombed.

For the first time in Falluja, a city of 150 mosques, I did not hear a single call to prayer this morning.

I broke my Ramadan fast yesterday with the last of our food - two potatoes and two tomatoes.

The tomatoes were rotten because we have no electricity to run the fridge.

My neighbours - a woman and her children - came to see me yesterday. They asked me to tell the world what is happening here.

I look at the devastation around me and ask - why?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Good post.

Too bad this guy is so unhappy. I'm guessing there some happy nascar dads watching fox news tonight though... Does that make up for it?
 

dinkhunter

Banned
Nov 9, 2004
24
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Good post.

Too bad this guy is so unhappy. I'm guessing there some happy nascar dads watching fox news tonight though... Does that make up for it?

im sure nick berg would have been happy for the insurgents to just run riot!
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Good post.

Too bad this guy is so unhappy. I'm guessing there some happy nascar dads watching fox news tonight though... Does that make up for it?

im sure nick berg would have been happy for the insurgents to just run riot!

A Jew trying to make money in Iraq HA! Now that is one of the dumbest things ever.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Good post.

Too bad this guy is so unhappy. I'm guessing there some happy nascar dads watching fox news tonight though... Does that make up for it?

im sure nick berg would have been happy for the insurgents to just run riot!

I'm sure the 'insurgents' would have been happy for the U.S.A. to just run riot!

Nick Berg, or any other of the casualties, wouldn't have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't lied about his reason to invade in the first place.

A baseless, unnecessary, illegal, immoral war right from the start. You can't justify any U.S. action in Iraq because the premise of the invasion was false.

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Good post.

Too bad this guy is so unhappy. I'm guessing there some happy nascar dads watching fox news tonight though... Does that make up for it?

im sure nick berg would have been happy for the insurgents to just run riot!


So, how did you hear about ATP&N dinkhunter? :p
 

Passions

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2000
6,855
3
0
My neighbours - a woman and her children - came to see me yesterday. They asked me to tell the world what is happening here.



Ummm....Earth to McFly....news of impending pwnage was known MONTHS before attack. Your city is about to get bombed, you don't stay and then whine about what's going on.

I look at the devastation around me and ask - why?


Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Sorry to say, but article is full of BS.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Good post.

Too bad this guy is so unhappy. I'm guessing there some happy nascar dads watching fox news tonight though... Does that make up for it?

im sure nick berg would have been happy for the insurgents to just run riot!

I'm sure the 'insurgents' would have been happy for the U.S.A. to just run riot!

Nick Berg, or any other of the casualties, wouldn't have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't lied about his reason to invade in the first place.

A baseless, unnecessary, illegal, immoral war right from the start. You can't justify any U.S. action in Iraq because the premise of the invasion was false.


The denial is remarkable, lol....

Let me guess YOU think the sanctions were working and the EU objectors obstructed any attempt to remove Saddam for the benefit of the people of Iraq, not their own pocketbooks. Saddam was not a threat, the people of Iraq were given the same basic human rights YOU would expect for yourself, and there was no terrorist connection to Iraq.


They have found huge stockpiles of weapons and munitions in the mosques of Falluja, what will your spin be on that?



 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7They have found huge stockpiles of weapons and munitions in the mosques of Falluja, what will your spin be on that?

Huge stockpiles of machine guns, ak-47's, conventional weaponry. Not the nookular weapons your warmongering president was looking for. I think I would try to gather all my resources when I know someone's coming to attack my home.

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Passions
My neighbours - a woman and her children - came to see me yesterday. They asked me to tell the world what is happening here.



Ummm....Earth to McFly....news of impending pwnage was known MONTHS before attack. Your city is about to get bombed, you don't stay and then whine about what's going on.

I look at the devastation around me and ask - why?


Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Sorry to say, but article is full of BS.

Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Falluja never was a hotbed of "terrotist activity" until foreign invaders showed up. Guess what happens when foreign invaders show up.

Let's see, what would happen in the US if foreign invaders showed up? Yes that's right, give the man a cigar, TERRORIST ACTIVITY, that is what would happen DUHHHHHH. You bet your ass that the whole of the US would be one big damn "hotbed", right? :roll:
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Alistar7They have found huge stockpiles of weapons and munitions in the mosques of Falluja, what will your spin be on that?

Huge stockpiles of machine guns, ak-47's, conventional weaponry. Not the nookular weapons your warmongering president was looking for. I think I would try to gather all my resources when I know someone's coming to attack my home.

And store them in a religous shrine?

What western intel agency was willing to state without question they knew Saddam had NO WMD? What about your pacifist govt? What was Bush supposed to do after 9/11 when Putin gave him evidence Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US?
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
Originally posted by: biostud666
What prevents "insurgents" from returning afterwards?

nothing, but the objective is to wrestle control of Fallujah from insurgents and give it to the Iraqi government.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: biostud666
What prevents "insurgents" from returning afterwards?

They claim to have sealed off the perimeter, surrender or die, either way those that had the courage to stay and fight wont be coming back......
 

dinkhunter

Banned
Nov 9, 2004
24
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Passions
My neighbours - a woman and her children - came to see me yesterday. They asked me to tell the world what is happening here.



Ummm....Earth to McFly....news of impending pwnage was known MONTHS before attack. Your city is about to get bombed, you don't stay and then whine about what's going on.

I look at the devastation around me and ask - why?


Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Sorry to say, but article is full of BS.

Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Falluja never was a hotbed of "terrotist activity" until foreign invaders showed up. Guess what happens when foreign invaders show up.

Let's see, what would happen in the US if foreign invaders showed up? Yes that's right, give the man a cigar, TERRORIST ACTIVITY, that is what would happen DUHHHHHH. You bet your ass that the whole of the US would be one big damn "hotbed", right? :roll:

sorry but how can an impartial international coalition of democracies removing a beligerent dictator be an invasion?!!!? are you a peacenik?

90% of iraqies want a democracy, perhaps with america and the rest out of their country, but that was always a means to an end.

a few idiotic and naive terrorists and their general supporters in fallujah should be daisy cuttered.

 

Passions

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2000
6,855
3
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Passions
My neighbours - a woman and her children - came to see me yesterday. They asked me to tell the world what is happening here.



Ummm....Earth to McFly....news of impending pwnage was known MONTHS before attack. Your city is about to get bombed, you don't stay and then whine about what's going on.

I look at the devastation around me and ask - why?


Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Sorry to say, but article is full of BS.

Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Falluja never was a hotbed of "terrotist activity" until foreign invaders showed up. Guess what happens when foreign invaders show up.

Let's see, what would happen in the US if foreign invaders showed up? Yes that's right, give the man a cigar, TERRORIST ACTIVITY, that is what would happen DUHHHHHH. You bet your ass that the whole of the US would be one big damn "hotbed", right? :roll:


What is your point? It was never a hotbed of terriorist activity before foreign invaders showed up???

So what...I don't get it.

The point is that it IS NOW, the Fallujians give refuge to Al Zaquari and other terrorists, they will not negotiate with the Iraqi Govt, and resist becoming a part of the new Iraq.

Also, stop comparing Fallujah to the US. The comparison is weak and invalid.




 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
dinkhunter: "Impartial".

Please tell me that you do not believe the US invaded Iraq out of it's noble principles and the goodness of it's heart? That the US does not have ulterior motives for sending an army halfway across the world, at the cost of over almost 150 billions dollars, to a country it had beseiged for over a decade, where over a million people died as a result of sanctions the US had imposed to force a change in the regime?
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
And store them in a religous shrine?

What western intel agency was willing to state without question they knew Saddam had NO WMD? What about your pacifist govt? What was Bush supposed to do after 9/11 when Putin gave him evidence Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US?

The life of a Muslim and the Muslim community is centered around the mosque. It is the centre for worship, intellectual discussions, the place to come to when something important happens, and yes the place to gather weapons, resources, people in times of war in the abscense of an organized military.

And what world are you living in? It has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were no WMD's in Iraq, want me to give proof?

What was Bush supposed to do? He was supposed to not take Putin's words at face value, realize that his lies will eventually be discovered, and not go to war with Iraq. And since when does Putin know what he's talking about?
 

dinkhunter

Banned
Nov 9, 2004
24
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
dinkhunter: "Impartial".

Please tell me that you do not believe the US invaded Iraq out of it's noble principles and the goodness of it's heart? That the US does not have ulterior motives for sending an army halfway across the world, at the cost of over almost 150 billions dollars, to a country it had beseiged for over a decade, where over a million people died as a result of sanctions the US had imposed to force a change in the regime?

GrGR, im awaiting your explanation of why the cooalition's entry into iraq was an invasion, rather than an intervention, say.

of course there were ulterior motives to the WMD argument, but people like you had to be kept quiet and the rednecks hoodwinked till the job was done. the ulterior motives were the safe removal of sanctions and removal of an unstabilising influence in the region that would probably have developed wmd after a few years of sanctions-free rule. $25-30 oil was a secondary benefit.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: GrGr
dinkhunter: "Impartial".

Please tell me that you do not believe the US invaded Iraq out of it's noble principles and the goodness of it's heart? That the US does not have ulterior motives for sending an army halfway across the world, at the cost of over almost 150 billions dollars, to a country it had beseiged for over a decade, where over a million people died as a result of sanctions the US had imposed to force a change in the regime?

GrGR, im awaiting your explanation of why the cooalition's entry into iraq was an invasion, rather than an intervention, say.

of course there were ulterior motives to the WMD argument, but people like you had to be kept quiet and the rednecks hoodwinked till the job was done. the ulterior motives were the safe removal of sanctions and removal of an unstabilising influence in the region that would probably have developed wmd after a few years of sanctions-free rule. $25-30 oil was a secondary benefit.


The invasion is illegal. It is as simple as that. The invasion is a criminal act, a war of aggression, also called the "Supreme international crime". The WMD argument was a red herring from the start. It was agreed that the Bush administration would sell the invasion using the WMD argument because that was the easy selling point everybody could agree on.

As for the oil it is not cheap oil in itself the US is looking for. It is CONTROL.
 

dinkhunter

Banned
Nov 9, 2004
24
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: GrGr
dinkhunter: "Impartial".

Please tell me that you do not believe the US invaded Iraq out of it's noble principles and the goodness of it's heart? That the US does not have ulterior motives for sending an army halfway across the world, at the cost of over almost 150 billions dollars, to a country it had beseiged for over a decade, where over a million people died as a result of sanctions the US had imposed to force a change in the regime?

GrGR, im awaiting your explanation of why the cooalition's entry into iraq was an invasion, rather than an intervention, say.

of course there were ulterior motives to the WMD argument, but people like you had to be kept quiet and the rednecks hoodwinked till the job was done. the ulterior motives were the safe removal of sanctions and removal of an unstabilising influence in the region that would probably have developed wmd after a few years of sanctions-free rule. $25-30 oil was a secondary benefit.


The invasion is illegal. It is as simple as that. The invasion is a criminal act, a war of aggression, also called the "Supreme international crime". The WMD argument was a red herring from the start. It was agreed that the Bush administration would sell the invasion using the WMD argument because that was the easy selling point everybody could agree on.

As for the oil it is not cheap oil in itself the US is looking for. It is CONTROL.

hippie, control means not letting the islamists like al-qaida taking over, its called being responsible for weaker people in the best WASP traditions.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: GrGr
dinkhunter: "Impartial".

Please tell me that you do not believe the US invaded Iraq out of it's noble principles and the goodness of it's heart? That the US does not have ulterior motives for sending an army halfway across the world, at the cost of over almost 150 billions dollars, to a country it had beseiged for over a decade, where over a million people died as a result of sanctions the US had imposed to force a change in the regime?

GrGR, im awaiting your explanation of why the cooalition's entry into iraq was an invasion, rather than an intervention, say.

of course there were ulterior motives to the WMD argument, but people like you had to be kept quiet and the rednecks hoodwinked till the job was done. the ulterior motives were the safe removal of sanctions and removal of an unstabilising influence in the region that would probably have developed wmd after a few years of sanctions-free rule. $25-30 oil was a secondary benefit.


The invasion is illegal. It is as simple as that. The invasion is a criminal act, a war of aggression, also called the "Supreme international crime". The WMD argument was a red herring from the start. It was agreed that the Bush administration would sell the invasion using the WMD argument because that was the easy selling point everybody could agree on.

As for the oil it is not cheap oil in itself the US is looking for. It is CONTROL.

hippie, control means not letting the islamists like al-qaida taking over, its called being responsible for weaker people in the best WASP traditions.


You mean responsible for the "weaker people" in the best Herrenfolk tradition. The US had no qualms about letting the "weaker people" die like flies when the very liberal and WASP Clinton administration ruled the world.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,593
6,056
136
Originally posted by: Passions
My neighbours - a woman and her children - came to see me yesterday. They asked me to tell the world what is happening here.



Ummm....Earth to McFly....news of impending pwnage was known MONTHS before attack. Your city is about to get bombed, you don't stay and then whine about what's going on.


I look at the devastation around me and ask - why?


Because Fallujah is a hotbed of terrorist activity, DUHHHHHH.

Sorry to say, but article is full of BS.

I'm sorry, but most Iraqis would have no way of knowing of an impending assault of this magnitude. This isn't America where every household has a TV and Internet access. DUH to you GrGR.
 

dinkhunter

Banned
Nov 9, 2004
24
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: dinkhunter
Originally posted by: GrGr
dinkhunter: "Impartial".

Please tell me that you do not believe the US invaded Iraq out of it's noble principles and the goodness of it's heart? That the US does not have ulterior motives for sending an army halfway across the world, at the cost of over almost 150 billions dollars, to a country it had beseiged for over a decade, where over a million people died as a result of sanctions the US had imposed to force a change in the regime?

GrGR, im awaiting your explanation of why the cooalition's entry into iraq was an invasion, rather than an intervention, say.

of course there were ulterior motives to the WMD argument, but people like you had to be kept quiet and the rednecks hoodwinked till the job was done. the ulterior motives were the safe removal of sanctions and removal of an unstabilising influence in the region that would probably have developed wmd after a few years of sanctions-free rule. $25-30 oil was a secondary benefit.


The invasion is illegal. It is as simple as that. The invasion is a criminal act, a war of aggression, also called the "Supreme international crime". The WMD argument was a red herring from the start. It was agreed that the Bush administration would sell the invasion using the WMD argument because that was the easy selling point everybody could agree on.

As for the oil it is not cheap oil in itself the US is looking for. It is CONTROL.

hippie, control means not letting the islamists like al-qaida taking over, its called being responsible for weaker people in the best WASP traditions.


You mean responsible for the "weaker people" in the best Herrenfolk tradition. The US had no qualms about letting the "weaker people" die like flies when the very liberal and WASP Clinton administration ruled the world.


well the us pres isnt supremely able to act in every circumstance and clinton's admin sponsored several attempts at a coup in iraq.

ultimately the shock and realisation that september 11 enegendered in the political mass gave the opportunity to take out saddam under the guise of a legitimate medium term wmd threat, which was presented as a more imediate threat, and this course of action wasnt opposed by informed spectators like the media because they largely understood the wider requirement of removing sanctions from iraq in aide of beating al qaida, and that a sanctions free iraq would probably emerge in a few years as a wmd posessing state which would be in a position to further destailise the local allies we have in the middle east.

of couse there is little hope of you comprehending that grgr.