Full Version: Marines Massacre Iraqi Civilians
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?
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?
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Mar 20 2006, 04:57 PM)
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?
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?
What part of "collateral" do you not understand? The military already investigated this. Now, you can claim that they've attempted to whitewash it, but without knowing more, claims of a "massacre" are extremely weak.
Fer instance, the article says that there were no insurgents in in the first two houses raided by the Marines. "egads, they slaughtered the folks in those houses." But, where in the AP article does it say the dead civilians were in the first two houses? Where does it say that the buildings where the civilians were killed were completely free of insurgents during the entire engagement? The article leads one to believe that either or both of these circumstances are the case, but that's all it is, leading....
kinda like yer post This article by the AP is simply another example of really bad, slanted reporting. Even if (a pretty big "if") the Marine's burst in on the local chief's harem and started deliberately slaughtering everybody in full knowledge that the insurgents were hightailing it outta the other end of town, the article is poor, precisely because it leaves way too many holes.
Perhaps the full Time article is a better example of journalism. 'Til then, I'll withhold judgement.
Here's what we do know:
1) A roadside bomb was detonated.
2) A Marine, 15 civilians, and 8 insurgents were killed.
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?
Well, if these Marines are guilty of gunning down civilians in cold blood, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law, and quickly.
However.......since I don't gleefully buy into an explanation of cold blooded murder with nary an insurgent in sight, taking some facts into account are in order.
The majority, if not all IED's are overwatched by insurgents from a very local position. This is done for two reasons.
Most IED's are command detonated to maximize the casualty production by ensuring the optimum number of troops or vehicles are in the kill zone of the IED. Additionally, if an IED is discovered, it could still be detonated during neutralizing actions to kill or maim, and to keep it's construction and materials from being discovered.
Secondly, just as we learn from the actions of insurgents, they in turn watch our reaction drills to an IED, and learn how to improve an IED's effectiveness. It's all a big game of mouse and mousetrap.....which one is better today.....
Just as it is plausible that the Marines went on a killing spree, it is equally plausible that the gunfire inside the homes were as much a result of 5.56 M16 rounds as 7.62 AK variant rounds.
It is also plausible that the residents of the area are threatened by the insurgents, and told to blame the Americans upon pain of death to themselves and their families. Since we see daily occurrences of insurgents brutally murdering civilians, either the killing of residents in this instance or the threat of killing more in the neighborhood are plausible. The latter being a favorite tactic of the Viet Cong, BTW.
As to whether this will be the last incident of this nature......it certainly won't be the last report of such an incident. Strange how some people like our friends at GNN wouldn't believe an Iraqi if their life depended on it, if that Iraqi stated that they were grateful for the American intervention, but will take reports such as these as gospel. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at that when we have our own citizens such as Cindy Sheehan claiming that we have used nuclear weapons in Iraq.
I would need some further corroboration, preferably one or more of the Marines in question to come forward before I lend any more credence to this story. Validity of this story, possible? Yes. Plausible? No.
Well, if these Marines are guilty of gunning down civilians in cold blood, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law, and quickly.
However.......since I don't gleefully buy into an explanation of cold blooded murder with nary an insurgent in sight, taking some facts into account are in order.
The majority, if not all IED's are overwatched by insurgents from a very local position. This is done for two reasons.
Most IED's are command detonated to maximize the casualty production by ensuring the optimum number of troops or vehicles are in the kill zone of the IED. Additionally, if an IED is discovered, it could still be detonated during neutralizing actions to kill or maim, and to keep it's construction and materials from being discovered.
Secondly, just as we learn from the actions of insurgents, they in turn watch our reaction drills to an IED, and learn how to improve an IED's effectiveness. It's all a big game of mouse and mousetrap.....which one is better today.....
Just as it is plausible that the Marines went on a killing spree, it is equally plausible that the gunfire inside the homes were as much a result of 5.56 M16 rounds as 7.62 AK variant rounds.
It is also plausible that the residents of the area are threatened by the insurgents, and told to blame the Americans upon pain of death to themselves and their families. Since we see daily occurrences of insurgents brutally murdering civilians, either the killing of residents in this instance or the threat of killing more in the neighborhood are plausible. The latter being a favorite tactic of the Viet Cong, BTW.
As to whether this will be the last incident of this nature......it certainly won't be the last report of such an incident. Strange how some people like our friends at GNN wouldn't believe an Iraqi if their life depended on it, if that Iraqi stated that they were grateful for the American intervention, but will take reports such as these as gospel. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at that when we have our own citizens such as Cindy Sheehan claiming that we have used nuclear weapons in Iraq.
I would need some further corroboration, preferably one or more of the Marines in question to come forward before I lend any more credence to this story. Validity of this story, possible? Yes. Plausible? No.
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Mar 20 2006, 11:57 PM)
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?
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?
It makes me sad to see my neighbors, the Iraqis suffer. But, I can't say that I am suprised after seeing Abu Graib and Fallujah. (and the incident when UK soldiers did terrible things on unarmed protestors: link: http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10345 )
I don't know how reliable TruthMarch's link is but the article in Time confirm that story. Here is the link:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1174649,00.html
QUOTE(Time Magazine)
But the details of what happened that morning in Haditha are more disturbing, disputed and horrific than the military initially reported. According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. Human-rights activists say that if the accusations are true, the incident ranks as the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. service members since the war began.
In January, after Time presented military officials in Baghdad with the Iraqis' accounts of the Marines' actions, the U.S. opened its own investigation, interviewing 28 people, including the Marines, the families of the victims and local doctors. According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (ncis), which will conduct a criminal investigation to determine whether the troops broke the laws of war by deliberately targeting civilians
<cut>
The Marines raided a third house, which belongs to a man named Ahmed Ayed. One of Ahmed's five sons, Yousif, who lived in a house next door, told Time that after hearing a prolonged burst of gunfire from his father's house, he rushed over. Iraqi soldiers keeping watch in the garden prevented him from going in. "They told me, 'There's nothing you can do. Don't come closer, or the Americans will kill you too.' The Americans didn't let anybody into the house until 6:30 the next morning." Ayed says that by then the bodies were gone; all the dead had been zipped into U.S. body bags and taken by Marines to a local hospital morgue. "But we could tell from the blood tracks across the floor what happened," Ayed claims. "The Americans gathered my four brothers and took them inside my father's bedroom, to a closet. They killed them inside the closet."
<cut>
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.
<cut>
SURVIVOR: Eman, 9, says she saw U.S. troops kill seven family members in Haditha
In January, after Time presented military officials in Baghdad with the Iraqis' accounts of the Marines' actions, the U.S. opened its own investigation, interviewing 28 people, including the Marines, the families of the victims and local doctors. According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (ncis), which will conduct a criminal investigation to determine whether the troops broke the laws of war by deliberately targeting civilians
<cut>
The Marines raided a third house, which belongs to a man named Ahmed Ayed. One of Ahmed's five sons, Yousif, who lived in a house next door, told Time that after hearing a prolonged burst of gunfire from his father's house, he rushed over. Iraqi soldiers keeping watch in the garden prevented him from going in. "They told me, 'There's nothing you can do. Don't come closer, or the Americans will kill you too.' The Americans didn't let anybody into the house until 6:30 the next morning." Ayed says that by then the bodies were gone; all the dead had been zipped into U.S. body bags and taken by Marines to a local hospital morgue. "But we could tell from the blood tracks across the floor what happened," Ayed claims. "The Americans gathered my four brothers and took them inside my father's bedroom, to a closet. They killed them inside the closet."
<cut>
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.
<cut>
SURVIVOR: Eman, 9, says she saw U.S. troops kill seven family members in Haditha
Of course the people who commited this barbaric act should be punished. Furthermore, inquiries should be made about the people who prepared the initial report that cleared the Marines in question.
If we can't stand up against such acts of terrorism, then shame on us.
I believe only the most foolish will bypass the easiest mode of thought available for this situation. It happened in Vietnam and it's happening in Iraq. The lone boobytrap was the bane of GI's in Vietnam, and IED's are the bane for the GI's in Iraq. With no one to shoot back at, stress and anger rise to intolerable levels. I'm not condemning anyone really. I'm just pointing out the fact that illegal slaughter happens when men are sent to fight shadows, and it's due to stress. I find no need to deny the events actually happened.
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Mar 21 2006, 02:17 PM)
I believe only the most foolish will bypass the easiest mode of thought available for this situation.
The problem with this premise is that accepting the articles account at face value may be the easiest mode of thought for you, but other options, especially those by people who are knowledgable about military operations, provide the easier and more logical mode of thought.
You specifically, maintain throughout your posts that conventional wisdom and news reports should be vigorously questioned. Why is that not the case in this instance?
You keep espousing the alleged fact that there was nobody to shoot back at, when logic and the very standard operating procedures of the insurgents is to usually command detonate the IED and recently, follow up the explosion with a small arms ambush (ideally when reinforcements or medical personnel arrive on the scene).
I'm not buying the allegation that there were no insurgents until I see some corroborating evidence or a marine speak up contrary to what the military has already released. That is the easiest mode of thought for me.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Mar 21 2006, 11:42 PM)
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Mar 21 2006, 02:17 PM)
I believe only the most foolish will bypass the easiest mode of thought available for this situation.
I'm not buying the allegation that there were no insurgents until I see some corroborating evidence or a marine speak up contrary to what the military has already released. That is the easiest mode of thought for me.
Unless you close your eyes and ears to it, there is plenty of evidence.
-The dead were in their nightclothes. (Not exactly my idea for insurgent-clothes.)
-There are plenty of bullet holes inside the houses, but none outside. (Meaning that there was no gunfire exchange.)
-Eyewitneses say that US troops shot civilians, not insurgents.
I don't think the people who carried out this horrible and barbaric act are going to admit it. Expecting people who are capable of unleashing such destruction to be sorry of their actions is just being naive.
TruthMarch:
Our forefathers in Vietnam? Are you speaking of My Lai, or as our forefathers called it, Pinkville? Do you even know the history? If not, it went something like this, the people of My Lai supported the insurgency against the Republic of Vietnam, and not only that, while our forefathers every now and again would run into something like a Bouncing Betty and we'd lose a few people, the locals never seemed to have a problem with death and injury resulting from anti-personnel devices. And the locals otherwise never warned our forefathers that a Bouncing Betty was just over there...And then there's the matter of our forefathers taking fire when they'd be passing by in the near vicinity of the place. Not saying that any of this excuses what was done, but it would be false to claim that our forefathers woke up one day and decided to off the local population because there didn't seem to be much else to do that day.
And please note that in your linked article, there is that mention of the roadside bomb. To borrow from your question, do you know if this was the first and last roadside bomb in that locale? And do you know whether the locals were aware of the existence of the roadside bomb but said nothing to our troops re the same? If they were and they said nothing, then maybe they should have anticipated this response [assuming that such is indeed the circumstance].
I will otherwise be waiting for your posts concerning the rather larger number of killings perpetrated by the locals and some others who are purportedly part of the vast but unitary ummah. Which is another way of saying that while this is not offered as an excuse or justification, some might worry about the 2 x 4 in their own eye rather than the splinter in ours.
And, lastly, going back to my question above, did the residents know what was occurring in the street just in front of their homes? And did they say nothing? So it wasn't just some lone boobytrap way out in the middle of nowhere, but a roadside bomb that the locals most probably knew was there and they chose to say nothing. And if they said nothing...so, yes, if such continues, you can expect more of the same.
Our forefathers in Vietnam? Are you speaking of My Lai, or as our forefathers called it, Pinkville? Do you even know the history? If not, it went something like this, the people of My Lai supported the insurgency against the Republic of Vietnam, and not only that, while our forefathers every now and again would run into something like a Bouncing Betty and we'd lose a few people, the locals never seemed to have a problem with death and injury resulting from anti-personnel devices. And the locals otherwise never warned our forefathers that a Bouncing Betty was just over there...And then there's the matter of our forefathers taking fire when they'd be passing by in the near vicinity of the place. Not saying that any of this excuses what was done, but it would be false to claim that our forefathers woke up one day and decided to off the local population because there didn't seem to be much else to do that day.
And please note that in your linked article, there is that mention of the roadside bomb. To borrow from your question, do you know if this was the first and last roadside bomb in that locale? And do you know whether the locals were aware of the existence of the roadside bomb but said nothing to our troops re the same? If they were and they said nothing, then maybe they should have anticipated this response [assuming that such is indeed the circumstance].
I will otherwise be waiting for your posts concerning the rather larger number of killings perpetrated by the locals and some others who are purportedly part of the vast but unitary ummah. Which is another way of saying that while this is not offered as an excuse or justification, some might worry about the 2 x 4 in their own eye rather than the splinter in ours.
And, lastly, going back to my question above, did the residents know what was occurring in the street just in front of their homes? And did they say nothing? So it wasn't just some lone boobytrap way out in the middle of nowhere, but a roadside bomb that the locals most probably knew was there and they chose to say nothing. And if they said nothing...so, yes, if such continues, you can expect more of the same.
Point of order: There were insurgents, nobody is arguing that. 15 civilians killed, 8 insurgents. The question is whether there were insurgents in the houses, and whether or not the Marines took any fire when they were in the houses.
******************************************************************
QUOTE(Fma)
-There are plenty of bullet holes inside the houses, but none outside. (Meaning that there was no gunfire exchange.)
Wrong, it means that there was probably no gunfire exchanged between combatants inside and combatants outside that specific house. Second, we, sitting here, not having seen the video, much less the actual scene, do not know what the Haditha journalism student shot, what was edited out, etc. Unfortunately, some of us are as skeptical of Middle Eastern media (Jenin "massacre", Pakistan "bomb", etc) as you appear to be of the US military.QUOTE
-Eyewitneses say that US troops shot civilians, not insurgents.
If you mean "the US troops, not insurgents, shot the civilians", well, nobody is arguing that. If you mean "the US troops shot civilians but did not shoot insurgents", there's 8 dead insurgents which indicate otherwise. Unless the civilians killed the insurgents. ******************************************************************
QUOTE(TruthMarch)
I'm not condemning anyone really.
Reahhlly QUOTE
I find no need to deny the events actually happened
What you also seem to find is no need to confirm that they actually happened as claimed. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a concept that you extend to the USMC. In short, you are condemning them...
Wrong, it means that there was probably no gunfire exchanged between combatants inside and combatants outside that specific house.
Lets get this clear:
US troopers could have been attacked by insurgents inside a building. In that case, there should be bullet holes outside the building.
US troopers could have been attacked by insurgents outside the buildings. Again, there has to be bullet holes outside the buildings if there was any combat in the village.
Or US troopers could have been attacked by insurgents inside the buildings they entered. If so, then such people are defending their homes from outsiders and are not insurgents.
Since no bullet holes were found outside the buildings, option one and two are ruled out. Since, no US soldier was reported to be wounded or dead during the fight, most probably that there wasn't any resistence from the people inside.
Second, we, sitting here, not having seen the video, much less the actual scene, do not know what the Haditha journalism student shot, what was edited out, etc. Unfortunately, some of us are as skeptical of Middle Eastern media (Jenin "massacre", Pakistan "bomb", etc) as you appear to be of the US military.
Yes, we have not seen the vide but we can see some pictures taken from the video.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1174682,00.html
You have to click play to see them.
The pictures confirm the Time story.
I find no need to deny the events actually happened[/quote]What you also seem to find is no need to confirm that they actually happened as claimed. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a concept that you extend to the USMC. In short, you are condemning them...
Well, they are proven to be guilty. There are witneses, video tapes and other evidence that is sufficent to convict anyone had this been a murder case. Besides, the military has also reported:
According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents
Lets get this clear:
US troopers could have been attacked by insurgents inside a building. In that case, there should be bullet holes outside the building.
US troopers could have been attacked by insurgents outside the buildings. Again, there has to be bullet holes outside the buildings if there was any combat in the village.
Or US troopers could have been attacked by insurgents inside the buildings they entered. If so, then such people are defending their homes from outsiders and are not insurgents.
Since no bullet holes were found outside the buildings, option one and two are ruled out. Since, no US soldier was reported to be wounded or dead during the fight, most probably that there wasn't any resistence from the people inside.
Second, we, sitting here, not having seen the video, much less the actual scene, do not know what the Haditha journalism student shot, what was edited out, etc. Unfortunately, some of us are as skeptical of Middle Eastern media (Jenin "massacre", Pakistan "bomb", etc) as you appear to be of the US military.
Yes, we have not seen the vide but we can see some pictures taken from the video.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1174682,00.html
You have to click play to see them.
The pictures confirm the Time story.
I find no need to deny the events actually happened[/quote]What you also seem to find is no need to confirm that they actually happened as claimed. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a concept that you extend to the USMC. In short, you are condemning them...
Well, they are proven to be guilty. There are witneses, video tapes and other evidence that is sufficent to convict anyone had this been a murder case. Besides, the military has also reported:
According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents
Do you think these Marines should be punished ... do you think this is the first and last case of something like this happening?
Allegations of the U.S. service members either firing on civilians because they're scared or "going at it" aren't new.
Whether they're shooting unarmed civilians intentionally or because of nerves has to be determined on an individual basis and the actions of anyone intentionally firing on civilians should have the book thrown at them. What's telling to me is what the Iraqi soldiers told Time.
If these people were insurgents then those coming forward to defend the dead are insurgent supporters and the Iraqi police are collaborating with the insurgency. If this is the case, why are we still in Iraq? If this is not the case this may well be the first documented civilian fragging our service members will be punished for and Iraqi soldiers could be complicit in the act for not attempting to put a stop to the murder of civilians they are sworn to protect, regardless of possible religious/ethnic differences.
Allegations of the U.S. service members either firing on civilians because they're scared or "going at it" aren't new.
QUOTE(Common Dreams)
Continuing attacks on US forces in Baghdad by Iraqi fighters in civilian clothes produced a deadly response on Thursday, as nervous soldiers of the US 5th Marines opened fire repeatedly, hitting unarmed men, women and children. Three times in three hours I saw troops who had seized one of Saddam Hussein's small palaces open fire, killing five people and wounding five - among them a six-year- old girl who was shot in the head. Lance-Corporal Manuel Silva told me at the palace in Adhamiya, north of the centre, that the marines had heard Mr Hussein might be hiding in the area, and had come under sustained fire from rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms.
An officer told us later that the marines had taken many casualties. "Their soldiers aren't wearing uniforms," Cpl Silva said. "You try to pick out where it is coming from and all you see is civilians." Half a mile away, we had seen a man in civilian clothes carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Around the corner, a dead fighter lay on the pavement by a palm tree, his face covered with a white cloth. He was wearing grey trousers and a dirty pink jumper. The marines shot anything that they considered remotely a threat. An old blue Volkswagen came up an alley opposite the palace gate. A marine on top of the stone-clad arch of the gate opened fire and the car crashed into a wall.
- The Marines Shot Anything They Considered a Threat 04/13/2003
An officer told us later that the marines had taken many casualties. "Their soldiers aren't wearing uniforms," Cpl Silva said. "You try to pick out where it is coming from and all you see is civilians." Half a mile away, we had seen a man in civilian clothes carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Around the corner, a dead fighter lay on the pavement by a palm tree, his face covered with a white cloth. He was wearing grey trousers and a dirty pink jumper. The marines shot anything that they considered remotely a threat. An old blue Volkswagen came up an alley opposite the palace gate. A marine on top of the stone-clad arch of the gate opened fire and the car crashed into a wall.
- The Marines Shot Anything They Considered a Threat 04/13/2003
QUOTE(Common Dreams)
A former U.S. marine testified yesterday that the U.S. military "murdered" civilians in Iraq and that he pumped 500 rounds of bullets into vehicles that failed to stop at military checkpoints.
Jimmy Massey, a former marine staff sergeant, told an immigration and refugee board hearing in Toronto that he and his fellow marines shot and killed more than 30 unarmed men, women and children and even shot a young Iraqi who got out of his car with his arms in the air.
"We killed the man. We fired at a cyclic rate of 500 bullets per vehicle," testified Mr. Massey, a marine for 12 years who was honourably discharged last year. "The company gunnery sergeant came running over and began yelling, 'You just shot a guy with his hands up.' "
- Killed Unarmed Iraqis, Ex-Marine Tells Hearing 12/08/2004
Jimmy Massey, a former marine staff sergeant, told an immigration and refugee board hearing in Toronto that he and his fellow marines shot and killed more than 30 unarmed men, women and children and even shot a young Iraqi who got out of his car with his arms in the air.
"We killed the man. We fired at a cyclic rate of 500 bullets per vehicle," testified Mr. Massey, a marine for 12 years who was honourably discharged last year. "The company gunnery sergeant came running over and began yelling, 'You just shot a guy with his hands up.' "
- Killed Unarmed Iraqis, Ex-Marine Tells Hearing 12/08/2004
Whether they're shooting unarmed civilians intentionally or because of nerves has to be determined on an individual basis and the actions of anyone intentionally firing on civilians should have the book thrown at them. What's telling to me is what the Iraqi soldiers told Time.
QUOTE(Time)
"We were lying there, bleeding, and it hurt so much. Afterward, some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting 'Why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'We didn't do it. The Americans did.'" Time was unable to speak with the only other survivor of the raid, Eman's younger brother, who relatives say is traumatized by the experience.
QUOTE(Time)
Iraqi soldiers keeping watch in the garden prevented him from going in. "They told me, 'There's nothing you can do. Don't come closer, or the Americans will kill you too.' The Americans didn't let anybody into the house until 6:30 the next morning."
If these people were insurgents then those coming forward to defend the dead are insurgent supporters and the Iraqi police are collaborating with the insurgency. If this is the case, why are we still in Iraq? If this is not the case this may well be the first documented civilian fragging our service members will be punished for and Iraqi soldiers could be complicit in the act for not attempting to put a stop to the murder of civilians they are sworn to protect, regardless of possible religious/ethnic differences.
QUOTE
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?
How is this not a loaded question given the lack of evidence to support the claim of a 'slaughter'? Were you there to speak with such certainty?
No.
A roadside bomb goes off, killing a US marine and gunfire erupts in the aftermath.
Local Iraqi witnesses say the US soldiers killed a bunch of civilians. The US military denies it. No evidence is put forward to prove anything other than the fact that a bunch of civilians died. There is nothing here to indicate that the soldiers murdered the civilians. Nothing to indicate the civlians weren't killed by accident. Nothing to indicate the Iraqi locals are the same people who exploded the roadside bomb.
And, as demonstrated by the extremely biased accusations being made here, there is nothing to debate. The argument that a video film exists to prove the accusations is disproven by the very link put forward to prove the video exists!
It is not a video of the event, but of the aftermath and proves nothing except the existance of several dead civilians.
A 9 year old girl is quoted as saying she saw U.S. troops kill seven family members in Haditha but since when were 9 year olds creditted with knowing who was who in a fire fight. Unless this girl saw a person, easily identified by his uniform as being an American soldier, murdering someone, in cold blood, then of what value is her reported testimony?
Its just as likely that she is repeating explanation of events that were given to her.
Until the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has conducted its criminal investigation to determine whether the troops broke the law then there is nothing that proves or disproves a 'slaughter' took place.
QUOTE(Fma @ Mar 22 2006, 11:53 AM)
Or US troopers could have been attacked by insurgents inside the buildings they entered. If so, then such people are defending their homes from outsiders and are not insurgents.
Since no bullet holes were found outside the buildings, option one and two are ruled out. Since, no US soldier was reported to be wounded or dead during the fight, most probably that there wasn't any resistence from the people inside.
Since no bullet holes were found outside the buildings, option one and two are ruled out. Since, no US soldier was reported to be wounded or dead during the fight, most probably that there wasn't any resistence from the people inside.
Wrong. Dead wrong. If insurgents were hiding and overwatching from inside a house near the scene of the IED, then they are insurgents......not simply people defending their homes.
The Philadelphia Enquirer has an article here, which I can't seem to open now, that reports the Iraqi police account states that at least one Al Qeada member in the one of the houses.
QUOTE
Well, they are proven to be guilty. There are witneses, video tapes and other evidence that is sufficent to convict anyone had this been a murder case.
I would hate to have you represent me in court. The video and pictures from it were shot after the incident occurred.
Lesly, I'm sure you must be aware that Jimmy Massey's allegations have been completely debunked. He has stated for the record that he didn't actually witness those events occurring, but rather heard them second hand.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Mar 22 2006, 01:26 PM)
Lesly, I'm sure you must be aware that Jimmy Massey's allegations have been completely debunked. He has stated for the record that he didn't actually witness those events occurring, but rather heard them second hand.
No, I'm not. I've never heard of Massey before. I just wanted to pull an article or two quickly to illustrate my point. Is there anything wrong with the other article?
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 22 2006, 08:19 PM)
A roadside bomb goes off, killing a US marine and gunfire erupts in the aftermath.
Local Iraqi witnesses say the US soldiers killed a bunch of civilians. The US military denies it. No evidence is put forward to prove anything other than the fact that a bunch of civilians died. There is nothing here to indicate that the soldiers murdered the civilians. Nothing to indicate the civlians weren't killed by accident. Nothing to indicate the Iraqi locals are the same people who exploded the roadside bomb.
Local Iraqi witnesses say the US soldiers killed a bunch of civilians. The US military denies it. No evidence is put forward to prove anything other than the fact that a bunch of civilians died. There is nothing here to indicate that the soldiers murdered the civilians. Nothing to indicate the civlians weren't killed by accident. Nothing to indicate the Iraqi locals are the same people who exploded the roadside bomb.
Moif, I wish the case had been so simple.
First of all, the US military no longer deny that "soldiers murdered civilians" as I have quoted in my previous posts.
And also as I have noted two times before, the people killed (including several women and children) were in nighclothes. That means they were at their homes, sleeping. Most insurgents don't go around fighting when they are asleep do they?
Besides, are the US military sources more reliable then eye-witneses? I think not.
There is plenty of evidence here, point to the fact that US soldiers did murder civilians.
QUOTE(moif)
And, as demonstrated by the extremely biased accusations being made here, there is nothing to debate.
I think moif you are the only person who is biased here. You are defending the US troopers, despite the overwhelming evidence, simply because they are US soldiers.
QUOTE(moif)
It is not a video of the event, but of the aftermath and proves nothing except the existance of several dead civilians.
Several dead civilians who were unarmed and who have been killed by US troops. This has been confirmed by the US military as the TIME Magazine reported.
QUOTE
Wrong. Dead wrong. If insurgents were hiding and overwatching from inside a house near the scene of the IED, then they are insurgents......not simply people defending their homes.
If, if, if, if....
If the civilians killed were actually aliens in human disguise and were plotting the end of human race, then...
Both my new story and you hypothesis are nice and might make good Hollywood stories but there is no evidence supporting either of them.
--
If we can't stand up against such acts of terrorism, then shame on us.
QUOTE
Moif, I wish the case had been so simple.
First of all, the US military no longer deny that "soldiers murdered civilians" as I have quoted in my previous posts.
The word murder is not mentioned at any point in the TIME article. First of all, the US military no longer deny that "soldiers murdered civilians" as I have quoted in my previous posts.
I think you are either innocently confusing the words 'kill' and 'murder', or your deliberately ignoring the difference between them in order to support your apparent bias.
The word murder means 'unlawful killing'.
Killing civilians by accident and/or because they were caught in the line of fire in a combat situation is not 'murder'.
QUOTE
And also as I have noted two times before, the people killed (including several women and children) were in nighclothes. That means they were at their homes, sleeping. Most insurgents don't go around fighting when they are asleep do they?
How do you know they were asleep? Just because they were wearing night clothes? They could just as easily have been watching television, looking out the window at the IED or being held captive by Iraqi rebels who had taken over their home in order to attck American soldiers.
Being in their night clothes bears absolutely no relevence as to why these people died.
QUOTE
Besides, are the US military sources more reliable then eye-witneses? I think not.
Which is exactly your problem. You think not but you 'speak' as if you know.Which you don't. You've drawn your conclusion on evidence that proves nothing.
In my opinion, neither 'source' is more reliable than the other. Both have a bias, both could be lying. The existance of dead civilians proves nothing at all.
QUOTE
There is plenty of evidence here, point to the fact that US soldiers did murder civilians.
Where? QUOTE
I think moif you are the only person who is biased here. You are defending the US troopers, despite the overwhelming evidence, simply because they are US soldiers.
Well thats just an amazing accusation Fma since I've not defended any body but merely pointed out that there is no evidence of anything. I invite you to, please be my guest, and demonstrate how I've defended the US Military in this matter....
QUOTE(Fma @ Mar 22 2006, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE
Wrong. Dead wrong. If insurgents were hiding and overwatching from inside a house near the scene of the IED, then they are insurgents......not simply people defending their homes.
If, if, if, if....
If the civilians killed were actually aliens in human disguise and were plotting the end of human race, then...
OK, then since you want to play the if game, tell me why the marines would enter the neighboring homes around the IED blast site. Tell me what the Standard Operating Procedure is for reaction to an IED.
Tell me why you keep implying that the residents were the only people inside the homes when the Iraqi police report states otherwise, and why the clothing of those residents matters. If you can answer the above questions and still logically come to the conclusion that you have, then at least you will be viewing the whole spectrum of the incident, not just the testimony of the residents. If you can answer the above questions and you're explanation still makes sense, maybe you'll be able to convince somebody of 'murder'.
But nobody here is claiming that the residents planted the IED.
QUOTE(Lesly Today @ 12:37 PM)
No, I'm not. I've never heard of Massey before. I just wanted to pull an article or two quickly to illustrate my point. Is there anything wrong with the other article?
The first article appears to be a rather accurate and normal account of how difficult it is to identify insurgents who hide and are shielded by the populace.
Concerning Massey, the original article written by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch isn't on their server anymore...... but any number, predictably of right wing blogs still have the information.
Touchy debate for me.
At the end of the day I think you ask men to behave like animals they start acting like animals. I think in war what is "right" and what is "wrong" can be very confusing.
FMA
Not all the people in body bags were wearing night time clothes. The pictures you linked clearly show this.
I think that DTOM is right in regards that such a claim is hardly proveable in a time of war.
On one side we have eyewitnesses, but if they were related or associated with the insurgency they have a reason to lie to make US troops look bad. They don't want us there.
On the other side , the Iraqi police are more or less our lap dogs... at least in public... the work for a government that our military is helpng keep secure.
Personally I think it is likely because of stories I have heard from people that have done and seen thing firsthand in Iraq.... but truthfully, I can't debate with such hearsay. This is one of those debates where emotions are probably going to run, but not one mind is going to change.
Apologists and defenders have plenty of things to latch on to to say "how do you know" Attackers and accusers have plenty of evidence to show the more reasonable story is some U.S Marines went Rambo on civilians, but with out the Pentagon confirming this fact, you'll never have a "convincing enough" argument for the nay sayers.
Case and point
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??
At the end of the day I think you ask men to behave like animals they start acting like animals. I think in war what is "right" and what is "wrong" can be very confusing.
FMA
Not all the people in body bags were wearing night time clothes. The pictures you linked clearly show this.
I think that DTOM is right in regards that such a claim is hardly proveable in a time of war.
On one side we have eyewitnesses, but if they were related or associated with the insurgency they have a reason to lie to make US troops look bad. They don't want us there.
On the other side , the Iraqi police are more or less our lap dogs... at least in public... the work for a government that our military is helpng keep secure.
Personally I think it is likely because of stories I have heard from people that have done and seen thing firsthand in Iraq.... but truthfully, I can't debate with such hearsay. This is one of those debates where emotions are probably going to run, but not one mind is going to change.
Apologists and defenders have plenty of things to latch on to to say "how do you know" Attackers and accusers have plenty of evidence to show the more reasonable story is some U.S Marines went Rambo on civilians, but with out the Pentagon confirming this fact, you'll never have a "convincing enough" argument for the nay sayers.
Case and point
QUOTE
How is this not a loaded question given the lack of evidence to support the claim of a 'slaughter'?
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??
DontTreadOnMe,
The incident you are linking to is a different encounter that occurred last week. And by gosh by golly, there, hiding in the midst of civilians, was the Al-Qaeda dude...
******************************************************************
FMA,
You keep completely ignoring that there were 8 insurgents. The IED was "remotely detonated". Also, you seem to have no explanation for why so many of the civilians were still in their jammies at 7:15 in the morning, 2 hours after morning prayers. Given how much emphasis was placed on the religiosity of the family patriarch, that's a bit odd...
But hey, let's look at the Time article again:
The available evidence does not provide conclusive proof that the Marines deliberately killed innocents in Haditha
The incident you are linking to is a different encounter that occurred last week. And by gosh by golly, there, hiding in the midst of civilians, was the Al-Qaeda dude...
******************************************************************
FMA,
You keep completely ignoring that there were 8 insurgents. The IED was "remotely detonated". Also, you seem to have no explanation for why so many of the civilians were still in their jammies at 7:15 in the morning, 2 hours after morning prayers. Given how much emphasis was placed on the religiosity of the family patriarch, that's a bit odd...
But hey, let's look at the Time article again:
The available evidence does not provide conclusive proof that the Marines deliberately killed innocents in Haditha
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??
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the same TIME article:
I suppose the bombs placed themselves??? No insurgents in the homes?? Hmm...
Same article...
How about some more?
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??
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...
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.
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??
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.
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......
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......
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 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 is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.