portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war

PICTURES OF FALLUJAH

All of you Bush-lover's will surely want to see "what" your vote has done to
Fallujah! After viewing all of these picture's, will you still kiss Bush's
sorry ass if he bends it over for YOU? Puker-up now and get ready to plant a
good one! USa that are human will puke instead!
 http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/
ugh! These pictures make me 15.Nov.2004 21:14

sick

at being an American! I'm so ashamed of my country and it's so-called "finest"...shame on them!

More pictures of Fallujah 15.Nov.2004 21:30

@



war tax resistance is a good start... 15.Nov.2004 21:35

gno

not paying your federal taxes is one way to not support this killing machine. check out NWTRCC.org
(national war tax resistance coordinating committee) for ideas, as simple as not paying the federal excise tax of 3% on your phone bill...or as complicated as not filing for your federal taxes.

please bare witness to what 15.Nov.2004 21:52

Amerika has done

Doctor is haunted by siege of Fallujah


By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Los Angeles Times


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 15. 2004 8:00AM


B
AGHDAD, Iraq - Dr. Ahmed Ghanim's nightmarish week began with a phone call in the operating room of a triage center in downtown Fallujah.

On the line was the manager of the city's General Hospital. Iraqi national guardsmen and U.S. Marines, the manager said, had entered the hospital, handcuffed the doctors and were forcing the patients out to the parking lot.

The guardsmen "stole the mobile phones, the hospital safe where the money is kept and damaged the ambulances and cars," said Ghanim, an orthopedic surgeon who works at the hospital. "The Americans were more sympathetic with the hospital staff and . . . untied the doctors and allowed them to go outside with the patients."

But the worst was yet to come. In the coming days, Ghanim would narrowly escape a bombing, then run through his city's battle-torn streets. He would walk hungry and scared for miles, carrying with him memories of the people he could not save.

The fight for Fallujah began Nov. 7. The hospital, the city's main medical center, was seized that night by U.S. and Iraqi troops. Military commanders said it was taken to ensure that there was a medical treatment facility available to civilians and to make sure that insurgents could not exaggerate casualties.


As fighting raged for a week, few civilian accounts of the battle have been available, and there have been only scattered reports on casualties. But as combat eased, Ghanim and other survivors emerged and began to tell their stories.
"We were kicked out by the (Iraqi National Guard); even the Americans weren't as harsh as them," said Farhan Khalaf, 58, who had been at Fallujah General Hospital when it was seized.

"They were roughing up patients and tying up the doctors, hitting them in some instances,"he added. "They stole whatever valuables they could get their hands on, including money and cell phones. This is unacceptable. How could they do this against their own people?"

Last Monday came and went. On Tuesday, the bombing came closer to the city center. The doctors were busy.

"I was doing amputations for many patients. But I am an orthopedic surgeon; if a patient came to me with an abdominal injury, I could do nothing," he said, eyes cast down, close to tears. "We would bring the patient in, and we would have to let him die."

Electricity to the city was cut off. There was no water, no food, no fluids for the patients, Ghanim said. But the patients just kept coming.

"We were treating everyone. There were women, children, mujahids. I don't ask someone if they are a fighter before I treat them. I just take care of them," he said.

Late Tuesday, a bomb struck one side of the triage center. Ghanim ran out of the building.

A second bomb hit, crashing through the roof and destroying most of the facility. Ghanim believes it killed at least two or three of the young resident doctors working there and most of the patients.

"At that moment, I wished to die," he said. "It was a catastrophe."

Afterward, he said, he half-ran, half-wandered through Fallujah, dodging explosions that seemed to be everywhere. He took shelter in an empty house and did not move.

"I saw the injured people on the street, covered in blood, staggering, screaming, shouting, 'Help me! Help me!' but we could not get out and help them because we would be killed."

At one point, he looked out and saw a cousin in the street; he had been wounded. "I could not do anything for him, I could not move," Ghanim said. "He died. There was no mercy."

During a lull in the bombing, the doctor decided to try to leave Fallujah. As he made his way through the rubble-filled streets, some fighters, Fallujah natives like himself, recognized the surgeon. They showed him a way out. He walked with a companion - an anesthetist - along the river, heading north.

First they walked to Saglawiya, a nearby village, he said, then more than 12 miles to the next village. There, a car picked them up and drove them about three miles. They resumed walking, occasionally getting a lift from a passing vehicle.

It took them 36 hours, mostly on foot, to make it the more than 30 miles to Baghdad. They didn't sleep and ate only a few dates and a packet of biscuits.

Yesterday, as Ghanim recounted the week that was, he was clearly haunted by what might have been, and those he could not help.

"I think if the Americans let us treat the injured, even in the streets," he said, "we could have saved hundreds."

------ End of article

By ALISSA J. RUBIN

Los Angeles Times

Is Fallujah a New DIEN BIEN PHU! 15.Nov.2004 22:29

for Amerika is losing the war

Is Fallujah a New Dien Bien Phu?
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 14, 2004

At this moment of the most deadly turning-point in world history, most of the people who should be thinking as commanders-in-chief, are acting, instead, like a pack of whimpering job-applicants who just received news that they had, probably, lost the job. I see in them men and women who prefer, to whimper, like poorly trained actors who had just failed at try-outs for the part of Hamlet. We need better leadership, political leadership like that which General Douglas MacArthur showed at Inchon, for example.

The piteous wailing of professional political cry-babies and other opportunists to one side, absolutely nothing else about U.S. or world history was finally determined on the morning of November 3rd. President George W. Bush has actually won nothing as much as a pack of troubles beyond anything he had experienced thus far.

Each currently passing day, Fallujah, for example, is looking more and more like Dien Bien Phu. The dollar is sinking; the Federal debt-crisis is far worse than anything in 1994, while the idiots are babbling like the professional losers they seem to have become, "The economy was not the issue of the campaign." The worst mortgage-based securities bubbles in history are about to pop. A raw-materials bubble in financial derivatives is ripe to explode. The added effects of an onrushing new escalation of so- called Middle East crises could send the price of petroleum way beyond even $100 a barrel, and blow out the entire "Middle East"region for decades to come. The onrushing collapse of the U.S. economy is worse than anything experienced, or even imagined during the Twentieth Century.

With the usual babblers' dubious proclamation of W's victory, we have thus entered a period of the greatest political opportunities in history, as the Prussian military advisors of Czar Alexander I understood, at the moment the self-doomed Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte had just settled in for the occupation of Moscow. When I read the morning edition of the Washington Post, for example, I remember poor deluded Croesus, hearing the news from the babbling priestess of Delphi, thinking that he had actually been guaranteed a triumph.

Nothing else is settled about much of anything, except that the present Bush administration has probably just achieved the rank of the most ill-fated, momentary, most delusory victory, in all U.S. history to date.

So, why are all those recent job-applicants for posts in the Presidency sitting around, mooning like dejected job-applicants, when the time for the most important intervention in the leadership of world affairs has just now begun? I remember how President Abraham Lincoln felt before he brought Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan into play. There is the most important battle in U.S. history needing to be fought and won right now, and the roster of applicants for leadership I see around me, are like cowards griping in the shadows, cautiously waiting to see "how it all turns out."

Amid all of the uncertainties I see clearly now, I am absolutely certain about one thing. What the so-called "news media" are implying the present situation to be, has no resemblance to the reality of what is about to burst loose on the landscape, most probably between now and Christmas, certainly before that intended Belshazzar's feast otherwise known as the coming January inauguration. All Hell is now about to bust loose, and there are powerful circles of people in the shadows, inside and outside the U.S.A., who know this, and who are positioning themselves to move accordingly. I do not know all the answers to my questions about what some of these folk are positioning themselves to do, but I see them clearly positioning themselves, and I understand what the situation is which is impelling them to prepare for action to deal with what is already an impossible situation for both the U.S.A. and the world at large.

I have many important questions, which any competent political leader of our nation would be asking now. I do not yet have the answers to most of these questions, but I am way ahead of both most of my putative political rivals, in addition to the abundantly misinformed proverbial man-in-the-street, because, I, at least, have the right questions.

Seeing the sheer insanity of W's lunatic campaign stunt, his lunatic lurch, sending marines and others to die for no good purpose, in Fallujah, I know that only terrified cowards think that anything important was actually settled by the morning of November 3rd. If you wish to be the first, or, at worst, the second, to discover what is about to happen next, stay tuned to this channel. What is about to happen, is probably something most of you would never dream to be possible. As was formerly said in China, and perhaps along the China straits, again, just now, we are "living in interesting times."

history is repeating itself in 15.Nov.2004 22:51

Fallujah

Fallujah 101
A history lesson about the town we are currently destroying.
By Rashid Khalidi



"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster. Our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the willfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad but the responsibility, in this case, is not on the army which has acted only upon the request of the civil authorities."

T.E. Lawrence, The Sunday Times, August 1920

There is a small City on one of the bends of the Euphrates that sticks out into the great Syrian Desert. It's on an ancient trade route linking the oasis towns of the Nejd province of what is today Saudi Arabia with the great cities of Aleppo and Mosul to the north. It also is on the desert highway between Baghdad and Amman. This city is a crossroads.

For millennia people have been going up and down that north-south desert highway. The city is like a seaport on that great desert, a place that binds together people in what are today Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. People in the city are linked by tribe, family or marriage to people in all these places.

The ideas that came out of the eastern part of Saudi Arabia in the late 18th Century, which today we call Wahhabi ideas—those of a man named Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab—took root in this city more than 200 years ago. In other words, it is a place where what we would call fundamentalist salafi, or Wahhabi ideas, have been well implanted for 10 generations.

This town also is the place where in the spring of 1920, before T. E. Lawrence wrote the above passage, the British discerned civil unrest.

The British sent a renowned explorer and a senior colonial officer who had quelled unrest in the corners of their empire, Lt. Col. Gerald Leachman, to master this unruly corner of Iraq. Leachman was killed in an altercation with a local leader named Shaykh Dhari. His death sparked a war that ended up costing the lives of 10,000 Iraqis and more than 1,000 British and Indian troops. To restore Iraq to their control, the British used massive air power, bombing indiscriminately. That city is now called Fallujah.

Shaykh Dhari's grandson, today a prominent Iraqi cleric, helped to broker the end of the U.S. Marine siege of Fallujah in April of this year. Fallujah thus embodies the interrelated tribal, religious and national aspects of Iraq's history.

The Bush administration is not creating the world anew in the Middle East. It is waging a war in a place where history really matters.

A change for the worse
The United States has been a major Middle Eastern power since 1933, when a group of U.S. oil companies signed an exploration deal with Saudi Arabia. The United States has been dominant in the Middle East since 1942, when American troops first landed in North Africa and Iran. American troops have not left the region since. In other words, they have been in different parts of the Middle East for 62 years.

The United States was once celebrated as a non-colonial, sometimes anti-colonial, power in the Middle East, renowned for more than a century for its educational, medical and charity efforts. Since the Cold War, however, the United States has intervened increasingly in the region's internal affairs and conflicts. Things have changed fundamentally for the worse with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly with the revelation that the core pretexts offered by the administration for the invasion were false. And particularly with growing Iraqi dissatisfaction with the occupation and with the images of the hellish chaos broadcast regularly everywhere in the world except in the United States—thanks to the excellent job done by the media in keeping the real human costs of Iraq off our television screens.

The United States is perceived as stepping into the boots of Western colonial occupiers, still bitterly remembered from Morocco to Iran. The Bush administration marched into Iraq proclaiming the very best of intentions while stubbornly refusing to understand that in the eyes of most Iraqis and most others in the Middle East it is actions, not proclaimed intentions, that count. It does not matter what you say you are doing in Fallujah, where U.S. troops just launched an attack after weeks of bombing. What matters is what you are doing in Fallujah—and what people see that you are doing.

Fact-free and faith-based
Most Middle East experts in the United States, both inside and outside the government, have drawn on their knowledge of the cultures, languages, history, politics of the Middle East—and on their experience—to conclude that most Bush administration Middle East policies, whether in Iraq or Palestine, are harmful to the interests of the United States and the peoples of this region. A few of these experts have had the temerity to say so, to the outrage of the Bush administration and its supporters, who are committed to what I would call a fact-free, faith-based approach to Middle East policymaking.

These experts predicted that it would be difficult to occupy a vast, complex country like Iraq, that serious resistance from a major part of the population was likely, and that the invasion and occupation would complicate U.S. relations with other countries in the region. It is clear today that all of these fears were well founded.

After 20 months of occupation, the United States continues to make the important decisions in Iraq. Instead of control being exercised through the Coalition Provisional Authority, it takes place through the largest U.S. embassy in the world and its staff of more than 3,000. You can be sure that should the Iraqis try to end the basing of U.S. troops, or try to tear up the contracts with Halliburton and other U.S. companies, or take any other steps that displease the Bush administration, they would be brought up short by the U.S. viceroy, a.k.a. Ambassador John Negroponte.

We, and even more so the Iraqi government and its people, are trapped in a nightmare with no apparent end, in part because those experts who challenged neoconservative fantasies about U.S. troops being received with rice and flowers simply were not heeded. They warned that it is impossible to impose democracy through force in Iraq. Mao Tse Tung said that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun; he did not say democracy does. And it doesn't.

The stench of hypocrisy rises when the United States, a nation supposedly com-mit-ted to democratization and reform, does not hesitate to embrace dictatorial, autocratic and undemocratic regimes like those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia and now even Libya, simply because they act in line with U.S. security concerns or give lucrative contracts to U.S. businesses. The United States claims to be acting in favor of democracy, yet embraces Qaddhafi! People in the Middle East notice this gap between word and deed—even if Americans don't notice the things being done in our name.

The United States, in fact, has a far from sterling record in promoting democracy in the Middle East. Initially it started off on a better footing. It opposed colonial rule and -promoted self-determination, as in President Wilson's Fourteen Points after World War I. But when the United States returned to the Middle East after World War II, it soon supported anti-democratic regimes simply because they provided access to oil and military bases.

If you look carefully, what the Bush administration seems to mean by democracy in the Middle East is governments that do what the United States wants.

Conquer and plunder
Middle Eastern economics is another area about which we hear very little in our media. Americans may not be aware of it, but the wholesale theft of the property of the Iraqi people through privatization was prominently reported all over the Middle East. A recent case involved the handover of Iraqi Airways to an investor group headed by a family with close ties to the Saddam Hussein regime. The airline is worth $3 billion, because in addition to valuable landing slots all over Europe and a few tattered airplanes, Iraqi Airways owns the land on which most of the airports are built.

Such cases, and there are many, cause deep anger against the United States, and evoke bitter resistance to pressures for economic liberalization that people in the region interpret as the looting of their country's assets.

These privatization measures arouse deep suspicion in the Middle East, because of fears that the region's primary asset, oil, may be next.

Here, too, history is all-important. Since commercial quantities of oil were discovered in the Middle East at the turn of the 20th century, decisions over pricing, control and ownership of these valuable resources were largely in the hands of giant Western oil companies. They decided prices. They decided how much in taxes they would pay. They decided who controlled the local governments. They decided how much oil would be produced. And they decided everything else about oil, including conditions of exploration, production and labor.

In those seven decades the people of the countries where this wealth was located obtained few benefits from it. Only with the rise of OPEC and the nationalization of the Middle East oil industries and the oil price rises in the '70s did the situation change. Sadly, it was the oligarchs, the kleptocrats and Western companies that benefited most from the increased prices.

Fears that they will lose their resources shape much of the nationalism of the peoples of the Middle East. And events in Iraq only enhance these fears.

By invading, occupying and imposing a new regime on Iraq, the United States may be following, intentionally or not, in the footsteps of the old Western colonial powers—and doing so in a region that within living memory ended a lengthy struggle to expel colonial occupations. They fought from 1830 to 1962 to kick out the French from Algeria. From 1882 to 1956 they fought to get the British out of Egypt. That's within the lifetime of every person over 45 in the Middle East. Foreign troops on their soil against their will is deeply familiar.

The Devil and George Warmonger Bush 16.Nov.2004 02:45

The Devil and George Warmonger Bush George Warmonger Bush@Hell.org

His Unholiness George Warmonger Bush to the Iraqis: "Sorry to Oil the War Crimes, Carpet Bombings, and WMD's (Napalm, Nerve Gas, Daisy Cutters) but Oil comes first."

http://The Black House Satanic Temple
666-666-Hell Ext 666
The Tenth Level of Hell and going down