US troops bulldoze ancient Iraqi orchards

[originalgagster]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=452375

By Patrick Cockburn in Dhuluaya

12 October 2003

"US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.

The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad. Local women were yesterday busily bundling together the branches of the uprooted orange and lemon trees and carrying then back to their homes for firewood.

Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed, said: "They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but this is not true. They didn't capture anything. They didn't find any weapons."

Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district.

"They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees," said one man. Ambushes of US troops have taken place around Dhuluaya. But Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri, a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees, said American officers described what had happened as "a punishment of local people because 'you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us'." What the Israelis had done by way of collective punishment of Palestinians was now happening in Iraq, Sheikh Hussein added.

The destruction of the fruit trees took place in the second half of last month but, like much which happens in rural Iraq, word of what occurred has only slowly filtered out. The destruction of crops took place along a kilometre-long stretch of road just after it passes over a bridge.

Farmers say that 50 families lost their livelihoods, but a petition addressed to the coalition forces in Dhuluaya pleading in erratic English for compensation, lists only 32 people. The petition says: "Tens of poor families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and death."

The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses who did not want to give their names. They said that one American soldier broke down and cried during the operation. When a reporter from the newspaper Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. The same paper quotes Lt Col Springman, a US commander in the region, as saying: "We asked the farmers several times to stop the attacks, or to tell us who was responsible, but the farmers didn't tell us."

Informing US troops about the identity of their attackers would be extremely dangerous in Iraqi villages, where most people are related and everyone knows each other. The farmers who lost their fruit trees all belong to the Khazraji tribe and are unlikely to give information about fellow tribesmen if they are, in fact, attacking US troops.

Asked how much his lost orchard was worth, Nusayef Jassim said in a distraught voice: "It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked me how much my hands were worth.""



Collective punishment is an idiotic notion. If US troops were looking for a way to drive Iraqi people into the arms of terrorists, it looks like they found it.

[corplinx]

The misleading title makes me doubt the authenticity of the story. The first thing you assume when you see such exaggeration is that it is intentional bias of some form.

There are ancient trees in this world. Some orchards that they _claim_ are 70 years old are definitely not ancient.

[Ian Osborne]

And then they wonder why they're being shot at. :mad:

[max]

This is disgraceful practise. the Israelis have done the same with ancient olive trees, just bulldozed through them in building the boundary fence. It does tear at heart strings when you see film of it. I suspect it is mainly to frustrate and make helpless the iraquis and the palistinians who can only stand by and watch their livelyhoods destroyed. I am totally against this

[crocodile deathroll]

I think this story just shows they are loosing the plot and getting a little slap happy.

I tip by next April in a desperate bid for Bush regain popularity he will withdraw all US troops from Iraq, as Americans would be so incensed with the constant flow of body bags and the specter it becoming another Vietnam or worse still, Russia's Afghanistan.

Iraq would be in Chaos, but I do not think Bush and Cheney would give a s**** . It would just be another Somalia with oil. But I feel they have dropped their oil ambitions long ago anyway.

CDR

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3185704.stm


These are the tactics the Isreali's are using to battle terrorism. If the story quoted in the origional post of this thread is even remotely accurate, this may indicate that the U.S. is employing similiar tactics as its ally Isreal.

Terrorists live and operate within civilian populations. That creates a complicated dilemma for Isreal and the United States. Kill a terrorist and you risk killing his civilian neighbours (women, children, that may or may not be non-combatants).

Cruise missiles, mortar attacks, and rockets, in the eyes of those reacting to terrorist attacks, cause acceptable "collatoral damage".

Like George Bush said, war is his last option, but doing nothing is worse.
Oh, wait...
Bush chose to go to war, didn't he, instead of doing nothing. Which would make doing nothing Bush's last choice, so that would make going to war what? His next to last option?
So, going to war was not his last option, doing nothing was.


Boy this is making my head hurt. Doing nothing was not the first option, that is all I know. Wait... Do I even know that?

[Cain]

The misleading title makes me doubt the authenticity of the story. The first thing you assume when you see such exaggeration is that it is intentional bias of some form.

I'm inclined to agree with Corplinx's analysis here. Besides, if these allegations are true I'm sure those Iraqi farmers deserve everything that's happening to them. As I mentioned in a previous post, we don't have time to question the actions of our government in foreign countries. Bush is probably right on top of this.

Anyway, you distracted me from viewing Britney Spears' recent photo-shoot for the new issue of _Esquire_. Yeah, you might want to try looking at genuinely *American* publications.

http://a820.g.akamai.net/7/820/822/0643d26e646637/www.esquire.com/women/gallery/img/031101_mww_britney01_g.jpg

P.S. Patrick Cockburn is an anti-Semite.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by corplinx
The misleading title makes me doubt the authenticity of the story. The first thing you assume when you see such exaggeration is that it is intentional bias of some form.

There are ancient trees in this world. Some orchards that they _claim_ are 70 years old are definitely not ancient.

If you had checked the link you would see that the story had the headline "U.S. soldiers bulldoze farmers crops". The reference to ancient orchards is in the body of the article. Personally I would describe an orchard as ancient if the land had been used for an orchard for a long time even though the trees themselves were constantly renewed.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cain



Anyway, you distracted me from viewing Britney Spears' recent photo-shoot for the new issue of _Esquire_. Yeah, you might want to try looking at genuinely *American* publications.

P.S. Patrick Cockburn is an anti-Semite.


Mmmmmmmmm. I especially like the fact that her artistic integrity is not compromised in any way.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Nikk


If you had checked the link you would see that the story had the headline "U.S. soldiers bulldoze farmers crops".

I checked the article but it was late at night so I must have gotten confused. My bad.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain


I'm inclined to agree with Corplinx's analysis here. Besides, if these allegations are true I'm sure those Iraqi farmers deserve everything that's happening to them.

Nice try to associate my skepticism of the source and intent of this article with a "whatever we do is right" attitude towards foreign policy.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx
The misleading title makes me doubt the authenticity of the story. The first thing you assume when you see such exaggeration is that it is intentional bias of some form.

There are ancient trees in this world. Some orchards that they _claim_ are 70 years old are definitely not ancient.

Umm... the age of the tree is not the age of the orchard. The orchard can be 3,000 years old, but that does not mean the trees will be that old, any more than a 100 year old golf course will have 100 year old grass growing on it.

[Andonyx]

I accidentally posted a duplicate topic, sorry about that.

But in the meantime, to get all the info in one place:


Geneva Conventions Protocal 1, Article 54. 2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cain
I'm inclined to agree with Corplinx's analysis here. Besides, if these allegations are true I'm sure those Iraqi farmers deserve everything that's happening to them. As I mentioned in a previous post, we don't have time to question the actions of our government in foreign countries. Bush is probably right on top of this.
I'm assuming this is meant tongue-in-cheek (you really must learn to use smilies:) ) but undoubtedly there are those who believe the farmers should be punished for the people hiding in their orchards (even assuming this is true).

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Does the US really expect farmers to go out there and identify and turn in the guerrillas in the garden? Can they promise that the farmers will be protected from retribution?

This reminds me of a discussion with the apartment managers in a place I lived in a few years ago. They had noted that some people had been "piggybacking" on the card-key gates in the apartment. Since there had been some crimes in the apartments, they posted a message to the tenants to "try to stop people from doing this". I went to the office and asked the manager how we were supposed to stop them. "Just ask them where they live", he said. I replied, "If they live here they're going to be really annoyed, and if they really are criminals then I'm putting myself in a great deal of danger by letting them know I'm trying to identify them. I think I'll decline to follow your instructions."

Actually, though in this case the apartment managers weren't as stupid as some (he says, looking askance towards Washington DC). They came out with a new message telling us not to accost them, but to try to remember what their car looked like and tell the office.

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx


Nice try to associate my skepticism of the source and intent of this article with a "whatever we do is right" attitude towards foreign policy.

Why so harsh, bro? I was agreeing with you. It's just that your claim seemed characteristically weak, and taking a lesson from the British, I went ahead and sexed it up a bit.

I just turned Mission: Impossible into Mission: Accomplished, bi-otch. A simple "thank you" would have been nice.

[evildave]

Certainly these destructive "tactics" bring to mind words like "attrocities".

All because some farmers out in the middle of nowhere clam up because they feel they are more threatened by terrorists and guerillas than Americans.

This will turn them right around.

Now they'll aid the "terrorists" in every manner possible. Even join them. After all, it's not like they can harvest bulldozed dirt. The Americans are revealing themselves to be a far greater threat to everyone.

More propaganda fodder for the anti-American sentiments and Al-Queda (and other) goons who are filtering into Iraq. "Americans are trying to exterminate you, they destroy your food and loot your resources!"

You know, Somalia isn't as good an example as Vietnam is. After all, we have a massive deployment and expenditure to prop up this Iraqi government we're installing. We'll probably be in there for years, not just get our feet wet and run off.

If we pull out now, it will go just the way the South Vietnamese government went.

It will be overthrown even as we withdraw the last troops.

If we pull out five years from now, the results won't necessarily be any different.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I accidentally posted a duplicate topic, sorry about that.

But in the meantime, to get all the info in one place:

[/B]

I'll post my response to your question 'can we do this'? here, then.

No. But the US can't detain people illegally either. Or attack a country that doesn't pose a threat to her. Or fix elections in other countries. Or... well, the list goes on.

[Ziggurat]

Two things about this article struck me, which nobody has commented on yet. First, the article says that trees along a roadside were uprooted. There is actually no indication within the article that the entire orchard was uprooted. It sounds to me like troops were basically clearling safety zones around the roads to prevent ambushes. As for the attributed motive, why exactly is it that this journalist never even ASKED any US forces why they were doing this? Then just went with what some vocal Iraqis were saying, and it's very possible that the locals were mistaken. I remember reading an article on Salon interviewing one self-proclaimed resistance fighter, who said that an American had insulted the Iraqis by calling them unbelievers. When asked about exactly what the soldier had said, the Iraqi stated the american had said the Iraqis were "unbelievable". So serious miscommunications happen. But not even ASKING the US troops what was going on is downright irresponsible journalism. Not surprising from the British press, mind you. So from where I'm sitting, nobody so far has actually read that story with a sceptical eye. Uprooting the trees may indeed be a mistake, but I seriously doubt that the impression left by this article about why it's happening is correct.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm assuming this is meant tongue-in-cheek (you really must learn to use smilies:) )

Smilies are for those who are weak and incapable of expressing themselves. Death to smilies.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Two things about this article struck me, which nobody has commented on yet. First, the article says that trees along a roadside were uprooted. There is actually no indication within the article that the entire orchard was uprooted.



Farmers say that 50 families lost their livelihoods, but a petition addressed to the coalition forces in Dhuluaya pleading in erratic English for compensation, lists only 32 people. The petition says: "Tens of poor families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and death."

The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses who did not want to give their names. They said that one American soldier broke down and cried during the operation.



And don't try any of that 'passive resistance' rubbish either.

[Cain]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Smilies are for those who are weak and incapable of expressing themselves. Death to smilies.

:D

I agree.

[Ziggurat]

You've got a petition saying farmers lost their livelyhoods, but you've also got a reporter who couldn't seem to be bothered to figure out (or maybe he just didn't care to write) how big a chunk of each farmer's orchards was actually dug up. You've got a single second-hand quote that may not have even been in response to the question of why the soldiers were digging up the trees (slick little move there, isn't it? Easy to read as the quote being in response to that question, but we don't know that, do we? And as long as he said it in response to SOMETHING, the journalist isn't technically incorrect. Ah, the joys of quoting out of context!). We don't actually know for sure how big a blow this is to any of the farmers, and we have no real evidence of why the soldiers really dug up the trees. And an obvious alternative motive (which I mentioned above) is pretty much ignored. In other words, you've still got a steaming pile of crap trying to pass itself off as journalism.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Smilies are for those who are weak and incapable of expressing themselves. Death to smilies.
:cry::k:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
You've got a petition saying farmers lost their livelyhoods, but you've also got a reporter who couldn't seem to be bothered to figure out (or maybe he just didn't care to write) how big a chunk of each farmer's orchards was actually dug up. You've got a single second-hand quote that may not have even been in response to the question of why the soldiers were digging up the trees (slick little move there, isn't it? Easy to read as the quote being in response to that question, but we don't know that, do we? And as long as he said it in response to SOMETHING, the journalist isn't technically incorrect. Ah, the joys of quoting out of context!). We don't actually know for sure how big a blow this is to any of the farmers, and we have no real evidence of why the soldiers really dug up the trees. And an obvious alternative motive (which I mentioned above) is pretty much ignored. In other words, you've still got a steaming pile of crap trying to pass itself off as journalism.

Hmmm, at least you are skeptical enough to want good evidence of WMD to be presented before invading a country.

[Jon_in_london]

Ummm....

Do we know whether or not this story is true yet?

[peptoabysmal]

I've only been able to find two instances of this story. This one and a duplicate of it on some wacked-out anarchy site.

It looks to me like someone copied a story about Israel and changed the names to defect the innocent.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Hmmm, at least you are skeptical enough to want good evidence of WMD to be presented before invading a country.

Completely irrelevant. That's got nothing to do with this story. You also seem to not be paying attention to what I've actually said on the issue but merely assume what my position is, because Saddam's current WMD stockpile was never why I supported the invasion. Next time you want to try giving me another back-handed compliment, make sure it's actually me that your criticism is relevant to. The above is not.