logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Marines Massacre Iraqi Civilians
TruthMarch
post Mar 20 2006, 09:57 PM
Post #1


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/820...ng_15_civilians
Apparently some GI's in Iraq are starting to behave as their forefathers had in Vietnam, namely reports of Americans murdering innocents including mothers and their children. Systematic execution as some US-Alllied Iraqi policemen have stated.
The question for debate is: Do you think these Marines should be punished for this slaughter, and do you think this is the first and last case of something like this happening?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
English Horn
post Mar 23 2006, 01:27 PM
Post #21


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(moif @ Mar 23 2006, 07:02 AM)
QUOTE(droop224)
I've heard of a family of three or four people killed called slaughter. Even if you believe that it wasn't illegal how much death needs to accumalate for you to call it slaughter??  whistling.gif 


Well, my understanding is that 'slaughter' refers to the method of killing and not the amount of people or animals killed (slaughter being a reference to butchery)

If these people were deliberately gunned down, then I would call it a slaughter.

If they were killed by accident, then I wouldn't.
*



How can a 2-year old baby or elderly woman be shot at close range by a trained, professional US marine "by accident"? These soldiers are trained for months to make quick, split-second decisions and shoot only at indended targets. Not like these victims were killed by a stray missile or other explosive device such as grenade, which is indiscriminate; bullets fly where the person who pulls the trigger sends them. So either these marines were poorly trained (which I find hard to believe) or they did exactly what they indended to do.
It's amazing how many apologists USMC has on this board, even after the military was lying, saying that all the people were victims of the insurgent's IED. Also, the military itself admitted that the first two houses contained no insurgents and all 15 victims in them were non-combatants.

This post has been edited by English Horn: Mar 23 2006, 02:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aevans176
post Mar 23 2006, 02:29 PM
Post #22


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,931
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: September-13-04

From: Plano, TX. Sweater vest and Volvo hell.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(English Horn @ Mar 23 2006, 07:27 AM)
How can a 2-year old baby or elderly woman be shot at close range by a trained, professional US marine "by accident"? These soldiers are trained for months to make quick, split-second decisions and shoot only at indended targets. Not like these victims were killed by a stray missile or other explosive device such as grenade, which is indiscriminate; bullets fly where the person who pulls the trigger sends them. So either these marines were poorly trained (which I find hard to believe) or they did exactly what they indended to do.
It's amazing how many apologists USMC has on this board, even after the military was lying, saying that all the people were victims of the insurgent's IED. Also, the military itself admitted that the first two houses contained no insurgents and all 15 victims in them were non-combatants.
*



I don't think anyone is a apologist for Murdering Marines... but moreover that this story is flush with holes.

Being a Marine, I understand that battle stress can become a bane on anyone's existence. Frankly, it's still nearly impossible to believe that this story is the hard-fact truth.

Read this:
QUOTE
The probe, Time reported, concluded that the civilians were killed by Marines and not a roadside bomb, and that no insurgents appeared to be in the first two houses raided by the Marines.

The probe found, however, that the deaths were the result of “collateral damage,’’ investigators said.


Time Magazine, definitely not a supporter of the Bush administration or fan of the Iraq war, doesn't condemn the Marines even in a probe that happened months after the incident.

What I find notable is the fact that this story isn't all over the front pages of the NY Times and any other liberal publication in the country. Frankly, if Marines were even strongly suspected of shooting innocent civilians, it would've made NBC nightly news for weeks.

The post came from a source called "guerrillanews"... guess that says it all. Here are some of the other "objective" articles that this "news" site displays:
QUOTE
Changing climate threatening development
Climate change to create African 'water refugees'
U.S. Companies Profited As Iraqi Children Died
Underfunding peacekeeping
A global scandalColombia: Alleged Former Paramilitary Named Military Commander
Three Years Of Occupation And Bloodshed


It hardly seems to be the standard for objective news...

Let's just be honest about this. If you all can't even read the article objectively enough to see that the girl was a 3-year old, not 2, how can you expect to see it from a viewpoint that might actually look for the truth??

How could a 3-year old baby get killed in cross-fire?? Well, from my experience, even in the US, sheetrock walls don't stop bullets, especially if the Marine still happens to carry an M-14 w/ a 7.62mm round (yes.. I'm a reservist and we still have some M-14's). If a .40caliber handgun can shoot through a wall, we all know a rifle will pierce walls, furniture, etc.

It's an unfortunate part of war, and just like in car accidents, often times the ones hurt are the ones not at fault. Who were insurgents and combatants? It's really hard to tell as we weren't there... however , as I said, if it really had been indiscriminate killings by "blood hungry" US Marines... US media outlets would've chomped at the bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Mar 23 2006, 02:33 PM
Post #23


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(English Horn)
How can a 2-year old baby or elderly woman be shot at close range by a trained, professional US marine "by accident"? These soldiers are trained for months to make quick, split-second decisions and shoot only at indended targets. Not like these victims were killed by a stray missile or other explosive device such as grenade, which is indiscriminate; bullets fly where the person who pulls the trigger sends them. So either these marines were poorly trained (which I find hard to believe) or they did exactly what they indended to do.
It's amazing how many apologists USMC has on this board, even after the military was lying, saying that all the people were victims of the insurgent's IED. Also, the military itself admitted that the first two houses contained no insurgents and all 15 victims in them were non-combatants.
How is it making apology's for the USMC by pointing out there is no evidence here to discuss?

The question posed was very specific and it assumes that the marines were guilty.

You ask me how a 2-year old baby or elderly woman can be shot at close range by a US marine by accident? The answer is, I don't know because I wasn't there. And neither were you. Nor was Fma. Nor was TruthMarch.

Even the journalist who made the video wasn't there.

This thread isn't even political debate.
Where is the political ramifications of such a biased question? Its a heads I win, tails you lose thread which was only created to make an statement and thus, there is nothing to debate here.

If the marines are found guilty, then yes, by all means they should be punished. If they are not then what? Will we see the antiwar supporters accept the findings?

I doubt it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Mar 23 2006, 02:37 PM
Post #24


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(aevans176 @ Mar 23 2006, 09:29 AM)
It's an unfortunate part of war, and just like in car accidents, often times the ones hurt are the ones not at fault. Who were insurgents and combatants? It's really hard to tell as we weren't there... however , as I said, if it really had been indiscriminate killings by "blood hungry" US Marines... US media outlets would've chomped at the bit.
*



First of all, this story was in TIME, which is one of the most widely circulated American weekly magazines. Now that the story is out, expect it to be reprinted in other media outlets. I agree that guerillanews is not the most reliable news source, but hopefully you won't have a problem with TIME....
My apology for getting the age of the child wrong... but it doesn't change anything, however. As for bullets flying through walls, first of all, they don't use sheetrock in Iraq; second, military investigation concluded that there were no insurgents in first two houses, so ANY shooting in first two houses was excessive; remember, there were women and elderly among the victims. Besides, it's not like there is only one stray victim; there're 15 of them.

QUOTE(moif @ Mar 23 2006, 09:29 AM)
How is it making apology's for the USMC by pointing out there is no evidence here to discuss?


15 non-combatants (which, in translation, means elderly, women, children, because any able-bodied male usually auttomatically counts as an insurgent) are dead.
They were shot by US marines at close range inside their houses.
There are no bullet holes on the outside of the houses which would indicate a firefight.

And you say there's nothing to discuss? I don't know about you, but I am still not used to such things happening every day, so yes, there's a lot to discuss.

This post has been edited by English Horn: Mar 23 2006, 02:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Mar 23 2006, 02:57 PM
Post #25


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
I agree that guerillanews is not the most reliable news source

I'd love for you to go through the site and lay claim to the 'unreliable' news from the site, because I find most people are too pig-headed to bother checking out what they believe are 'facts'. I trust you made that comment with a set idea as to what kind of news site it is. So, make your point and highlight what you think are 'unreliable' lies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aevans176
post Mar 23 2006, 03:09 PM
Post #26


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,931
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: September-13-04

From: Plano, TX. Sweater vest and Volvo hell.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(English Horn @ Mar 23 2006, 08:37 AM)
15 non-combatants (which, in translation, means elderly, women, children, because any able-bodied male usually auttomatically counts as an insurgent) are dead.
They were shot by US marines at close range inside their houses.
There are no bullet holes on the outside of the houses which would indicate a firefight.

And you say there's nothing to discuss? I don't know about you, but I am still not used to such things happening every day, so yes, there's a lot to discuss.
*



Good job with the rhetoric... but it never stated anywhere that the shootings were at close range, that there weren't bullet holes in, outside of, or around any homes, and I'm really wondering where you're getting this information.

QUOTE
As for bullets flying through walls, first of all, they don't use sheetrock in Iraq; second, military investigation concluded that there were no insurgents in first two houses, so ANY shooting in first two houses was excessive; remember, there were women and elderly among the victims. Besides, it's not like there is only one stray victim; there're 15 of them.


I hate to tell you, but buildings in Iraq aren't a whole lot different than those in the United States. What do you think they build with? Sand stone? Cinderblocks? Gingerbread?? hahahaha... seriously. Most homes have some sort of gypsum derivative inside, possibly with bricked or blocked exteriors generally made from cement. There is a large amount of cement, but it's really not that hard to understand. In either case, your comments about where the bullets were or weren't is complete conjecture and unfounded.

The fact is that the article has little or no actual information that would lead anyone to believe that there were indiscriminate killings. I spent time in Afghanistan, and have numerous peers that have been to Iraq. The reality is that there are cameras and journalists EVERYWHERE... someone would've come forward between November and now if there was more substance to this story.

In the event that there were killings of this nature, or even a shred of evidence, rest assured that the men will rot in jail and rightfully so. However... we all know that there isn't any real evidence, and heck... not even a real story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Mar 23 2006, 03:15 PM
Post #27


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(aevans176 @ Mar 23 2006, 10:09 AM)
Good job with the rhetoric... but it never stated anywhere that the shootings were at close range, that there weren't bullet holes in, outside of, or around any homes, and I'm really wondering where you're getting this information.


From TIME article:

QUOTE
Dr. Wahid, director of the local hospital in Haditha, who asked that his family name be withheld because, he says, he fears reprisals by U.S. troops, says the Marines brought 24 bodies to his hospital around midnight on Nov. 19. Wahid says the Marines claimed the victims had been killed by shrapnel from the roadside bomb. "But it was obvious to us that there were no organs slashed by shrapnel," Wahid says. "The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the chest and the head--from close range."


QUOTE
A day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME. The tape makes for grisly viewing. It shows that many of the victims, especially the women and children, were still in their nightclothes when they died. The scenes from inside the houses show that the walls and ceilings are pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as the telltale spray of blood. But the video does not reveal the presence of any bullet holes on the outside of the houses, which may cast doubt on the Marines' contention that after the IED exploded, the Marines and the insurgents engaged in a fierce gunfight.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aevans176
post Mar 23 2006, 03:39 PM
Post #28


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,931
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: September-13-04

From: Plano, TX. Sweater vest and Volvo hell.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



From the same TIME article:
QUOTE
Here's what all participants agree on: At around 7:15 a.m. on Nov. 19, a U.S. humvee was struck by a powerful improvised explosive device (IED) attached to a large propane canister, triggered by remote control. The bomb killed Terrazas, who was driving, and injured two other Marines. For U.S. troops, Haditha, set among date-palm groves along the Euphrates River, was inhospitable territory; every day the Marines found scores of bombs buried in the dirt roads near their base


I suppose the bombs placed themselves??? No insurgents in the homes?? Hmm... hmmm.gif

Same article...
QUOTE
According to military officials, the Marines say they then started taking fire from the direction of a second house, prompting them to break down the door of that house and throw in a grenade, blowing up a propane tank in the kitchen.


How about some more?
QUOTE
The available evidence does not provide conclusive proof that the Marines deliberately killed innocents in Haditha. But the accounts of human-rights groups that investigated the incident and survivors and local officials who spoke to TIME do raise questions about whether the extent of force used by the Marines was justified--and whether the Marines were initially candid about what took place..

and
The probe found, however, that the deaths were the result of "collateral damage" rather than malicious intent by the Marines, investigators say.


I basically understand that the article uses a 9-year old girl as a martyr or sounding board to get the point across. It uses her grief as an avenue by which to find sympathy. The problem I have with this is that if the Marines are guilty, the NCIS probe will find out, and even if they are marginally guilty of excessive force... their careers are done. Heck, they may just crucify the poor leaders of this unit to appease the Iraqi's. It happens... it is deplorable if innocent people ever die. The problem is that in a town, riddled with roadside bombs, (of course excluding children) who exactly is innocent??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Mar 23 2006, 04:10 PM
Post #29


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(English Horn @ Mar 23 2006, 07:27 AM)
How can a 2-year old baby or elderly woman be shot at close range by a trained, professional US marine "by accident"? These soldiers are trained for months to make quick, split-second decisions and shoot only at indended targets. Not like these victims were killed by a stray missile or other explosive device such as grenade, which is indiscriminate; bullets fly where the person who pulls the trigger sends them. So either these marines were poorly trained (which I find hard to believe) or they did exactly what they indended to do. It's amazing how many apologists USMC has on this board, even after the military was lying, saying that all the people were victims of the insurgent's IED. Also, the military itself admitted that the first two houses contained no insurgents and all 15 victims in them were non-combatants.


Sorry, but you are overselling the abilities of the Marines. Marine and Army infantrymen are trained well in marksmanship, but mostly field fire. Although they receive training in shoot/don't shoot scenarios, it is not the bread and butter of conventional units, unlike Rangers, SEALS or Delta Operators. You are quick to pass judgement in my opinion without taking into account any environmental factors whatsoever.
Now, I believe that it is entirely plausible that all of the civilians were indeed killed by the Marines. And the incident was a case of vengeful rampage, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. What I don't find plausible is the allegation that there were no insurgents present whatsoever. I don't understand how the fact of no bullet holes in the outside walls of the building somehow proves there were no insurgents. It is highly unlikely that those insurgents would advertise their presence after an IED blast, and likely were only found after a search of the nearby homes was conducted. Now, we know that bullet wounds killed at least some of the civilians, but the US military doesn't exactly have CSI-Miami at it's disposal. How many could have been killed by insurgents? How many could have been killed by secondary effect after Marines fired at insurgents and the bullets kept going through walls, etc, until ballistic reduction occurred?
I say this because while I admit to a bias in favor of the Marines (when only given an article to go by), but also because I have 20 years and counting of experience as an infantryman. I am not an apologist, but rather someone who is looking at all possible and plausible scenarios, military doctrine, and incorporating my experiences....... not merely taking an article at face value, without question.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Mar 23 2006, 04:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PudriK
post Mar 23 2006, 05:49 PM
Post #30


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Member No.: 4,658
Joined: March-9-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



The fact that NCIS has opened an investigation should make it clear that the US Miltary believes that the circumstances surrounding this incident are questionable.

Marines are consummate professionals--among the entire US Military, they are perhaps most respected as an organization and as individuals for being committed to duty and regulation. They're also human. It is plausible that some got carried away--in addition to killing 8 insurgents--and took the lives of 15 civilians in direct intent.

Any student of mililtary history knows that just as there are many cases where a "massacre" turned out to be justifiable or explainable, there are also cases where it wasn't.

Should justice be swift and severe? No. It should be methodical and just. Let's hope that's what they get.

I'm sure there would be a lot of resistance to it, for security reasons, as well as being second-guessed... but as the military takes over police-like roles, they should consider making video-records of their actions standard. Police do it, not only because it provides a good record for court, but also protects them from false-accusations, and helps keep them in line. Police initially feared videos would be used against them, only to find out the majority of time it proved their side of a story.

I know, it makes little sense for the military, but given these types of missions, and the questions that arise, it may be the smart thing to do. The tapes wouldn't necessarily be public, of course, but at least, a tape would exist, and the command structure would have access to it.

Anyway, beyond that, all this arguing is so much speculation and assumption. You may not trust them, but the only chance of any truth coming out is through the investigation, and any tales the Marines choose to tell later in life.

Unfortunately, this administration seems to have a fear of being open about everything. It's a tragedy. I, for one, believe that the more truth is out there, the better. If the public could actually see what goes on when they send their boys to war, then we wouldn't have all this speculation from arm-chair quarterbacks about what it's like, what happens, etc. We'd know. Or at least, have a much better idea.

If it weren't for the risk of giving away our tactics......

This post has been edited by PudriK: Mar 23 2006, 05:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fma
post Mar 24 2006, 05:12 PM
Post #31


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Member No.: 4,449
Joined: February-2-05

From: Istanbul, Turkey
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Mar 23 2006, 04:33 PM)

Where is the political ramifications of such a biased question? Its a heads I win, tails you lose thread which was only created to make an statement and thus, there is nothing to debate here.


I don't understand why you are still insisting on this rhetoric. There is plenty of evidence, including eye witnesses (not only the 9 year old girl whose family has been shot but several other people) and forensics, yet you claim there is none. I simply can't understand your refusal to accept facts.

QUOTE(moif @ Mar 23 2006, 04:33 PM)
If the marines are found guilty, then yes, by all means they should be punished. If they are not then what? Will we see the antiwar supporters accept the findings?

I doubt it.
*



I wonder moif, if you would accept the findings if they were proven guilty.

I seriously doubt it as you have been opposed to even discussing the topic.

QUOTE
The problem is that in a town, riddled with roadside bombs, (of course excluding children) who exactly is innocent??


If the United States of America was invaded by a foreign aggressor, and a roadside bomb in a town killed the foreign occupiers; then by your logic, the occupation forces could run amok and kill civilians at their will. After all, the invaded are responsible for the safety of the invaders.

QUOTE
The reality is that there are cameras and journalists EVERYWHERE... someone would've come forward between November and now if there was more substance to this story.


Another reality is that there are thousands of foreign invaders in that country. When you have the gun, you have the power. There have been a lot of cases when US troopers tried to confiscate cameras and prevent journalists from getting information.

Besides, TIME, one of the most reliable sources information have investigated this and found evidence of US aggression of innocent civilians.

This post has been edited by Fma: Mar 24 2006, 05:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 09:39 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.