Is Terrorism the central plank of US led Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq ?

[Quatermass]

Bootneck...

What is the logic in posting commentary to someone’s open question, hanging around for their response, and then, in a most infantile manner placing fingers in ears and wailing, ‘Go away, I don’t want to talk to you!”?

When I place an active proposition for public comment it’s hardly in the expectation that someone will come along and intervene with a request that they should be left alone!

Does this fall under the category of foolishness, cowardice or just plain stupidity ?

Here is someone who originally appeared in the guise of some ‘voice of reason’, reprimanding my use of the term ‘rotten’ to describe America in its atrocities against civilians during Imperialist conflicts; tut-tutting at my description of some of the contributors here as ‘manic’, now only to reveal his true school-boy countenance with:

Bootneck ...I'd rather crawl through broken glass on my bare knees to pick matchsticks out of dog shit with my teeth, than read anything you point me to!

 

[Bootneck]

Bootneck...

What is the logic in posting commentary to someone’s open question, hanging around for their response, and then, in a most infantile manner placing fingers in ears and wailing, ‘Go away, I don’t want to talk to you!”?

When I place an active proposition for public comment it’s hardly in the expectation that someone will come along and intervene with a request that they should be left alone!

Does this fall under the category of foolishness, cowardice or just plain stupidity ?

Here is someone who originally appeared in the guise of some ‘voice of reason’, reprimanding my use of the term ‘rotten’ to describe America in its atrocities against civilians during Imperialist conflicts; tut-tutting at my description of some of the contributors here as ‘manic’, now only to reveal his true school-boy countenance with:

Bootneck ...I'd rather crawl through broken glass on my bare knees to pick matchsticks out of dog shit with my teeth, than read anything you point me to!

You addressed a post to ME and I responded, so stop wailing old boy.

 

[Munin]

Munin...

Firstly you ought to only go by the content I have posted, none of which has any religious connotations, in order to make your assesment of the basis of my criticisms of American policy.

Your point about Turkey or any other country acting out of some form of religious precept should also be measured against the reality of all nations‘ ostensible claims to be this or that way inclined and the reality which manifests itself in actual policy.

Bush claimed to be ‘Christian’, along with a significant slice of the country, yet he and America came out of that term of office with the blood of countless innocent foreigners due to relentless aggression on its part and three raging predatory wars on its hands.

Hardly Christ-like.

I m not very convinced about that, you re saying that you called it a "crusade" because Bush is a "hardcore" christian?

Brittain isn't that religious these days and yet they also went along, if this war was religious in any way then I think it was because of the attackers of 9/11 (did it for religious reasons) and because Afghanistan was a religious dictatorship.

 

[Gunny]

It's easy for the Western 'viewing public' of ongoing Imperialist wars to presume that terrorism is predominantly the weapon of choice employed by the fanatical religious Jihadist; desperate, disenfranchised, and filled with a burning rage which negates their basic humanity. However, lets take a brief look at the belligerent activities of plundering western Capitalists.

Take for example the invasion of Fallujah in November 04 by American, and their allied troops in the guise of ‘liberators’, bravely collapsing houses on the heads of Iraqi civilians as they huddled in their cellars. This after the city was bombarded with chemical weapons, melting the flesh from women and children, exposing their bones; causing agonising death. Exhilarated Allied troops shooting anything and everything that moved supported by fearless American helicopter gun-ships in the background.

Here is a single incident of US terrorism among many. Dutifully carried out by American foot-soldiers on the front line, employed by the representatives of US predatory Imperialists at home in order to secure continued access to depleting oil reserves, and cynically paraded as some form of 'welcomed liberation' by corrupted politicians through privately controlled mass-media outlets.

Britain also. Its desperate and flustered squads of soldiers rushing back and forth in the great expanses of Afghanistan, firing at shadows on the horizon with the best equipment sterling can afford. Except those shadows are often non-combatants. Helpless elderly figures that don’t know what’s just hit them as they lay in a pool of their own blood and curious children that raise their head at the wrong time, and lose it. When confronted by any significant resistance on the ground the intrepid Tommy darts off, calling in an aerial bombardment of settlements which are bound to contain civilians.

Just as the suicide bomber in a martyr's vest is willing to mow down unsuspecting souls indiscriminately; in its failure to defeat their ostensibly identified foe, the Allied crusader armed forces employ the same recourse of ‘blanket destruction’: An arbitrary massacre of anything and anyone that is near to, and therefore "probably fraternising with, the enemy".

Watch on 'YouTube' the Italian documentary, viewed over 48,500 times - Type:
Fallujah The Hidden Message
and also:
American soldier I killed innocent people
to hear a Fallujah veteran speak out.

Classic Terrorism?

Great. Another fountain of misinformation. You've got to be dizzy from all this spinning.

Americans do not target noncombatants. They target enemy combatants and their infrastructure.

Terrorists target noncombatants because they have no balls.

So much for your garbage.

 

[Gunny]

manu1959

In fact, if you’d taken the time to view the videos cited, just such atrocities and on a far worse scale are being performed on the frontline by American soldiers, and financed by the U.S. tax-payer.

While the brutality of stoning women could be construed as a form of patriarchal terrorism, the circumcision of young girls represents cultural backwardness. Female repression through ritualised abuse.

Ah, the old videos out of context act, huh? Wait ... let me guess ... you have the photoshopped pics we've all seen already too?

Dude, your dishonesty is boring.

 

[Gunny]

'mr president'

Your claim that civilians are not targets in US aggression is amply contradicted by the statements of veteran and serving US military personnel in the links I don't suppose you even bothered to view; contradicted in the footage of piled up partially incinerated civilians, of women still clutching their babies, immortalized in mutual agonies of death from chemical weapons that brave American boys despatched into their homes. Contradicted in the lost generation from record infant mortality rates due to U.S. championed Iraqi sanctions, and the mounting side effects of U.S. manufactured radiological and other illegal ordnance, deployed both in its attacks on populated zones in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as by its Israeli collaborators on Gazan civilians.

How apt that you've taken upon yourself the appellation of 'mr president'. This best describes your ability to consciously blinker away from the true, cold, harsh consequences of American Terrorism.

In other words, you might have a few malcontents' words and otherwise nothing substantial to base your argument on.

 

[Gunny]

HAHA do you write for the national enquirer. I wouldn't blink away from american terrorism if it were so. However, you are claiming nothing that was not happening before we arrived. The fact is that bombs do not discriminate. If the citizens do not evacuate they are subject to be casualties of war. Knowing this they should have left. American soldiers are not terrorist they are indeed warriors. That is why war is best left to those who know what they are talking about. Your name reveals much about you as well. Im sure you know quartermass means bizzare. Proving to me that you are an outcast looking for attention and affection. That is understood and I am here to teach you from this day on your name is Luke and you can call me Obi Wan Kenobi

Well, besides not being able to spell "quartermass."

 

[Gunny]

Kalam

The frenzy of American soldiers in raging battles against an invisible enemy at Fallujah is no mythical construct. News footage shows troops tossing grenades in peoples houses on the off-chance resistance may lurk in the dark. Whole tower Blocks were collapsed because gunfire was seen to emerge from one of the floors. A whole city raised to the ground despite the fact many civilians remained to protect their property from looters, as would happen in any country, including the U.S.A.

What does it take to transform a 'regular guy' into a baby killing uniformed Terrorist? Not much it seems.

Take into account the frustration encountered by the soldier who cannot identify an enemy he or she has been trained to engage. Take into account also the opportunity given in such a circumstance to vent that frustration; to take vengeance for fallen comrades on shadows in windows and buildings in the background. The scene is set. The weapons are loaded. Leaflets have been dropped, so an excuse is at hand. And the top brass have given their blessing.

The rest is history. Those shadows were perhaps frightened people hiding in the only safe refuge they know. Those buildings in the background perhaps a sanctuary for a family group. That tower block which was demolished by artillery barrage because a sniper may have been on one of the floors perhaps a 'solid protection' for many residents.

The death toll speaks for itself.

There is no doubt of the Terrorist nature of the Fallujah massacre. It was a very clear message from the very top level of U.S. administration delivered by willing American soldiers, to the whole civilian populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, saying 'if you allow the insurgent forces to dwell amongst you, you to will feel the full effects of our military prowess.'

Really. Do tell me about your experience with American soliders. Drink beer with one or two in the UK where you post from, have you?

You're a liar and a hack.

 

[Gunny]

Gurdari

Terrorism, even when confined to combative parties is generally deemed to involve the use of illegal ordnance or methods.

When America or Israel incorporate, not only banned and illegal armaments and also methods, then deliberately deploy these against a defenceless civilian population, as they did in Vietnam, and a whole host of historical aggressions the true nature of their Terrorist impiety becomes apparent.

These are the colours of US Imperialism in this modern age. These are the tactical measures your rotten nation is prepared to employ in their day to day involvement with those regions that possess a natural asset that they decide to annexe for their own ends.

Perhaps such a proposition is lost on the manic American who tends to prefix arguments about their nations record on terrorist atrocities with:

Gurdari hahahahaha

but there it is.

Right because Vietnam is Fallujah? Can't make up your mind which war you're in nor which accusation you want to make? Weapons used in Vietnam have been deemed illegal NOW and are not used by the US NOW.

Not even a good try.

 

[Gunny]

Munin...

Firstly you ought to only go by the content I have posted, none of which has any religious connotations, in order to make your assesment of the basis of my criticisms of American policy.

Your point about Turkey or any other country acting out of some form of religious precept should also be measured against the reality of all nations‘ ostensible claims to be this or that way inclined and the reality which manifests itself in actual policy.

Bush claimed to be ‘Christian’, along with a significant slice of the country, yet he and America came out of that term of office with the blood of countless innocent foreigners due to relentless aggression on its part and three raging predatory wars on its hands.

Hardly Christ-like.

You have posted nothing yet worth any real consideration.

 

[Gunny]

Bootneck...

Could it indeed be possible that a nation may earn that appellation of ‘rotten’ if it should leave such a trail of death and destruction, of exploitation and coercion, of deadly mascination and interference in its wake, and that a certain type of character be correctly defined as ‘manic’ by their socially demented attributes and behaviour?

Take a brief perusal of this table displaying a summary of U.S. (official) foreign aggressions, and judge them by their own fruits:
History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

Do you and readers here, have the ability to objectively ascertain these qualities without patriotic or nostalgic reaction, or are you prone to obediently leap to the defence and rescue, whether by land or sea, of an establishment which is floundering on every front, moral, social, political, military and economic?

Could it indeed be possible that a poster could earn the appellation of rotten if he should leave such a trail of lies and dishonesty in his wake, and htat a certain type of character be correctly defined as a "retard" by his socially demented attributes and behavior?

I say yes. Describes you to a "t".

 

[editec]

WOW!

It's almost as though some of you don't believe we can BOMB people into liking us.

 

[Gunny]

WOW!

It's almost as though some of you don't believe we can BOMB people into liking us.

A topic which; while worthy of debate, is a far cry and does not correlate with the accusations made by the OP.

I guess it has to start with the question: What price do you put on freedom?

I see a lot of sheep on this board that would rather live as mediocre sheep than actually have to work at having something "better" or "more."

What price were our forefathers willing to pay in the American Revolution, War of 1812 and US Civil War? All wars fought on US soil in which civilians were killed.

I would say whether or not we can bomb people into liking us depends on who the people are and what their agenda(s) are.

Any way you look at it, noncombatants have been killed in wars since wars began. It happens. There's a difference between that and waging a war against noncombatants.

 

[mightypeon]

It's easy for the Western 'viewing public' of ongoing Imperialist wars to presume that terrorism is predominantly the weapon of choice employed by the fanatical religious Jihadist; desperate, disenfranchised, and filled with a burning rage which negates their basic humanity. However, lets take a brief look at the belligerent activities of plundering western Capitalists.

Take for example the invasion of Fallujah in November 04 by American, and their allied troops in the guise of ‘liberators’, bravely collapsing houses on the heads of Iraqi civilians as they huddled in their cellars. This after the city was bombarded with chemical weapons, melting the flesh from women and children, exposing their bones; causing agonising death. Exhilarated Allied troops shooting anything and everything that moved supported by fearless American helicopter gun-ships in the background.

Here is a single incident of US terrorism among many. Dutifully carried out by American foot-soldiers on the front line, employed by the representatives of US predatory Imperialists at home in order to secure continued access to depleting oil reserves, and cynically paraded as some form of 'welcomed liberation' by corrupted politicians through privately controlled mass-media outlets.

Britain also. Its desperate and flustered squads of soldiers rushing back and forth in the great expanses of Afghanistan, firing at shadows on the horizon with the best equipment sterling can afford. Except those shadows are often non-combatants. Helpless elderly figures that don’t know what’s just hit them as they lay in a pool of their own blood and curious children that raise their head at the wrong time, and lose it. When confronted by any significant resistance on the ground the intrepid Tommy darts off, calling in an aerial bombardment of settlements which are bound to contain civilians.

Just as the suicide bomber in a martyr's vest is willing to mow down unsuspecting souls indiscriminately; in its failure to defeat their ostensibly identified foe, the Allied crusader armed forces employ the same recourse of ‘blanket destruction’: An arbitrary massacre of anything and anyone that is near to, and therefore "probably fraternising with, the enemy".

Watch on 'YouTube' the Italian documentary, viewed over 48,500 times - Type:
Fallujah The Hidden Message
and also:
American soldier I killed innocent people
to hear a Fallujah veteran speak out.

Classic Terrorism?

Great. Another fountain of misinformation. You've got to be dizzy from all this spinning.

Americans do not target noncombatants. They target enemy combatants and their infrastructure.

Terrorists target noncombatants because they have no balls.

So much for your garbage.

Well, gunny, if you target the infrastructure you DO target civilians.
This has been the case from the US civil war to the the Iraq conflict right now.
Targetting the infrastructure is actually NATO and not US doctrine, so the US is not the only one doing that. As a matter of fact, every military in the world would gladly blow up "infrastructure" and not care in the slightest about excessive casulties amongst enemy "civilians".
The "nice thing" about waging war on "terrorists" is that one can easily turn a dead civilian into a dead terrorists to the media at home.

The only wars without excessive civilian casulties were some of the "Cabinet wars" of the 17th to 19th centuries, such wars are the exception not the rule.

 

[Quatermass]

Gunny...

Do you suffer from some form of obsessive compulsion, leading you to believe that posting 9 responses in quick succession will strengthen your position?

It doesn't.

I'll show you how to correspond without frantic overtones, by rebutting the weakling points in from your 9 posts in a single reply..

You only need follow the links I originally cited, and which I will repeat after this post, to see the video footage and photographs and Veteran eye-witness accounts of all the atrocities I have pointed out here; including the standing orders for invading U.S. troops, by the time of the Fallujah massacre, to consider children (boys), of 'any age' as enemy fighters to be shot on sight.

So if you are arguing that 'only terrorists with no balls target civilians'. And indeed you are, then you have come over to my stance in declaring the U.S army's front line soldiers, in carrying out the illegal orders of their commanding officers to shoot any boys in Fallujah, and decimate a once vibrant crowded city, as cowardly terrorists. By your own logic.

You claim the video link was 'old and out of context', which only suggests you've watched the first 5 minutes on Vietnam and not the rest on Fallujah.

Again in your 6th post is evidence that you refuse to recognize evidence before your eyes of the Napalm derivatives white phosphorous and Mark 77 fire bombs America continues to employ illegally International War Crimes Tribunal and distribute to its Zionist friends in Israel for use against Palestinian civilians.

Alas, I can bring you to water Gunny but cannot force you to drink.

ps. Your last post comparing the Imperialist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to the American civil war of 1861 is plainly absurd, unless you regard every foreign land as a confederacy territory to be re-claimed by force.

 

[Gunny]

It's easy for the Western 'viewing public' of ongoing Imperialist wars to presume that terrorism is predominantly the weapon of choice employed by the fanatical religious Jihadist; desperate, disenfranchised, and filled with a burning rage which negates their basic humanity. However, lets take a brief look at the belligerent activities of plundering western Capitalists.

Take for example the invasion of Fallujah in November 04 by American, and their allied troops in the guise of ‘liberators’, bravely collapsing houses on the heads of Iraqi civilians as they huddled in their cellars. This after the city was bombarded with chemical weapons, melting the flesh from women and children, exposing their bones; causing agonising death. Exhilarated Allied troops shooting anything and everything that moved supported by fearless American helicopter gun-ships in the background.

Here is a single incident of US terrorism among many. Dutifully carried out by American foot-soldiers on the front line, employed by the representatives of US predatory Imperialists at home in order to secure continued access to depleting oil reserves, and cynically paraded as some form of 'welcomed liberation' by corrupted politicians through privately controlled mass-media outlets.

Britain also. Its desperate and flustered squads of soldiers rushing back and forth in the great expanses of Afghanistan, firing at shadows on the horizon with the best equipment sterling can afford. Except those shadows are often non-combatants. Helpless elderly figures that don’t know what’s just hit them as they lay in a pool of their own blood and curious children that raise their head at the wrong time, and lose it. When confronted by any significant resistance on the ground the intrepid Tommy darts off, calling in an aerial bombardment of settlements which are bound to contain civilians.

Just as the suicide bomber in a martyr's vest is willing to mow down unsuspecting souls indiscriminately; in its failure to defeat their ostensibly identified foe, the Allied crusader armed forces employ the same recourse of ‘blanket destruction’: An arbitrary massacre of anything and anyone that is near to, and therefore "probably fraternising with, the enemy".

Watch on 'YouTube' the Italian documentary, viewed over 48,500 times - Type:
Fallujah The Hidden Message
and also:
American soldier I killed innocent people
to hear a Fallujah veteran speak out.

Classic Terrorism?

Great. Another fountain of misinformation. You've got to be dizzy from all this spinning.

Americans do not target noncombatants. They target enemy combatants and their infrastructure.

Terrorists target noncombatants because they have no balls.

So much for your garbage.

Well, gunny, if you target the infrastructure you DO target civilians.
This has been the case from the US civil war to the the Iraq conflict right now.
Targetting the infrastructure is actually NATO and not US doctrine, so the US is not the only one doing that. As a matter of fact, every military in the world would gladly blow up "infrastructure" and not care in the slightest about excessive casulties amongst enemy "civilians".
The "nice thing" about waging war on "terrorists" is that one can easily turn a dead civilian into a dead terrorists to the media at home.

The only wars without excessive civilian casulties were some of the "Cabinet wars" of the 17th to 19th centuries, such wars are the exception not the rule.

Incorrect. When you target infrastructure that supports the war machine, most if not all of the casualties were actively supporting that war machine. That hardly makes them innocent civilians.

This whole argument's a bunch of crap, and THE reason we don't win wars anymore. Too many bleeding hearts worried about stupid shit. When you engage in war, it's to win.

I sure as Hell wish some of you folks held yourselves to the same impossible moral standards you try to hold our military to. Y'all need to get with some reality.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny...

Do you suffer from some form of obsessive compulsion, leading you to believe that posting 9 responses in quick succession will strengthen your position?

It doesn't.

I'll show you how to correspond without frantic overtones, by rebutting the weakling points in from your 9 posts in a single reply..

You only need follow the links I originally cited, and which I will repeat after this post, to see the video footage and photographs and Veteran eye-witness accounts of all the atrocities I have pointed out here; including the standing orders for invading U.S. troops, by the time of the Fallujah massacre, to consider children (boys), of 'any age' as enemy fighters to be shot on sight.

So if you are arguing that 'only terrorists with no balls target civilians'. And indeed you are, then you have come over to my stance in declaring the U.S army's front line soldiers, in carrying out the illegal orders of their commanding officers to shoot any boys in Fallujah, and decimate a once vibrant crowded city, as cowardly terrorists. By your own logic.

You claim the video link was 'old and out of context', which only suggests you've watched the first 5 minutes on Vietnam and not the rest on Fallujah.

Again in your 6th post is evidence that you refuse to recognize evidence before your eyes of the Napalm derivatives white phosphorous and Mark 77 fire bombs America continues to employ illegally International War Crimes Tribunal and distribute to its Zionist friends in Israel for use against Palestinian civilians.

Alas, I can bring you to water Gunny but cannot force you to drink.

ps. Your last post comparing the Imperialist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to the American civil war of 1861 is plainly absurd, unless you regard every foreign land as a confederacy territory to be re-claimed by force.

Nope, I post when I can. Deal with it.

I was part of that war against terrorists and you're just a fucking liar and I'll not have you nor anyone like you talking your filthy shit about me or anyone that served with me.

The bottom line here is the side you defend targets and murders women and children trying to force their backwards-assed religious beliefs on everyone else. Since you defend them, you're just one of them and as far as I'm concerned you deserve nothing better than a blue fucking hole in your forehead.

My post stands. Your drivel above refutes nothing. You're one of those gutless punks that's never been anywhere talking shit about something you haven't got a clue about.

You aren't bringing anyone to water. You're trying to piss down everyone's backs and tell them it's raining.

 

[Gurdari]

Gurdari

Terrorism, even when confined to combative parties is generally deemed to involve the use of illegal ordnance or methods.

When America or Israel incorporate, not only banned and illegal armaments and also methods, then deliberately deploy these against a defenceless civilian population, as they did in Vietnam, and a whole host of historical aggressions the true nature of their Terrorist impiety becomes apparent.

These are the colours of US Imperialism in this modern age. These are the tactical measures your rotten nation is prepared to employ in their day to day involvement with those regions that possess a natural asset that they decide to annexe for their own ends.

Perhaps such a proposition is lost on the manic American who tends to prefix arguments about their nations record on terrorist atrocities with:

Gurdari hahahahaha

but there it is.

You should read more slowly. I was 'hahahaha' ing at the idea that civillians are never targeted, as if it was all accidental...

And how one preFACES an argument is irrelevant, it is the logical support structure behind the claim that makes the argument valid.

 

[Quatermass]

Guardi...

Point taken regarding your original post.

The problem inherent with a contribution which is so redolent with sarcasm lies in a failure to convey one's true sentiment. And that entry could be read either way.

In answer to your second post, one case of American terrorism was on the night of 26th February to the 27th 1991, in the infamous case of the 'Highway of Death', where more than 2000 vehicles and by some accounts tens of thousands of withdrawing troops alongside Palestinian civilians were relentlessly butchered by US cowards from the sky using illegal chemical weapons in an illegal act of aggression. A further transgression of Internationally recognised law: the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers which "are out of combat."
International War Crimes Tribunal

Another equally cowardly act of American terrorism took place on March 2nd, two days after the war was officially halted by American ceasefire and when Iraqi and the US/Allied coalition were scheduled to begin formal peace talks, on coastal highway 8. Known officially as the 'Battle' of Rumailah, it was in fact a slaughter of a withdrawing army which believed hostilities were over.
Depleted Uranium: The Horrific Legacy of Basra

The elite Iraqi Republican Guard 1st Armoured Division was completely obliterated by the U.S. 24th Infantry Division, who's commander General Barry McCaffrey commented latter that it was: "one of the most astounding scenes of destruction I have ever participated in."

 

[Munin]

I think the problem with Iraq lies elsewhere, Iraq is a not something comparable to vietnam (like some people say it is) but more to the US war in Somalia: also a country where the population was against the foreign troops mostly because local leaders saw it as a chance to increase their power, this was easely achieved by using religion as a weapon: it easely divides the foreigners from the local population. Imagine if the US would be occupied by a foreign muslim army, how do you think the sentiment would be in the US?

It is all easy to talk about freedom as justification, but you can't force freedom upon a nation. It doesn't work that way, the movement of freedom has to come from the native people themselves: that is the reason why it was possible for the US to liberate France, ... during WWII, because the native people wanted freedom.

The Iraqis simply never have had freedom, that is why the country is so close to anarchy when it is so drastically transformed into a democracy. Unlike other countries the Iraqis have always been oppressed by their leaders, Fallujah is the single biggest comparison with Somalia that I ve seen: civilians being brainwashed by extreme religious types, being recruited into local militias. I think the same devastation would have happened to Somalia if the US military would have attacked it after "Black hawk down".

Loose Change - Fallujah (Operation Phantom Fury 11.8.2004).


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc0cRrWUxpk&feature=related[/ame]

The main problem is not the US troops (or its behavior), it is the combination of US troops with a very religious city. If the population is turned against you like in Somalia, soldiers are often under so much stress and in so much danger that they will accidentally shoot civilians. Imagine you walking in your uniform through a complete hostile area, as a walking target for everyone around you: every civilian is a potential enemy, will you be likely to make a mistake when you are fired upon? YES, is it wrong?: depending on the situation yes/no. It is so easy to talk about it when you are not there, believe me that once you are put into a situation like that even you will be likely to shoot innocent civilians. Make no mistake, Fallujah was a complete hostile city: the US had to avoid a situation like in Somalia.

When you compare how the US handled Fallujah with how the Pakistani army handled its cities occupied taliban forces, you ll notice that the Pakistanies did a lot more harm then the US & Iraqi troops: this is a clear example of how difficult city warfare is, when you are fighting in a civilian area you will probably destroy it. And the insurgents were not going to take the fight outside of the city, like a real military force would do if it has the possibility (to protect the civilians).

The other issue that many seem to forget is that the Iraqi prime minister had ordered the attack on Fallujah and that many Iraqi troops were also fighting in Fallujah.

U.S. military officials estimated that 70-90% of the 300,000 civilians in the city had fled before the attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/i...r=2&ex=1114401600&en=2bb5b33cda9ccdd9&ei=5070

Yet another important thing is that the civilians in the city were asked to leave the city and were warned about the coming attack, civilians that chose to stay took a huge responsibility upon themselves.