The Haditha Massacre [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

WRESTLINGFAN

05-30-2006, 04:29 PM

If the investigations turn out that civilians were killed by Marines on Purpose this will stir up the Muslim world again. Congress was told today to prepare for the worst. From my understanding a roadside bomb went off on a Marine Convoy and small arms fire erupted, Marines returned fire and 24 civilians were killed, Could it be that the Marines acting on instinct and the whole "fog of war occured?". Congressman Jack Murtha  a former Marine and critic of the war is already sealing their fate without the investigations being completed. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha_killings_1;_ylt=AnPdS4uzc8DnpAwQ6zUhK o1X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha_killings_1;_ylt=AnPdS4uzc8DnpAwQ6zUhK o1X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl</a>

mdr55

05-30-2006, 04:41 PM

Shit happens. Part of acceptable loses in our war on terror. Better them than me. So does that make Bush guilty by proxie? The soldiers wouldn't be there if is wasn't for him.

Bulldogcakes

05-30-2006, 04:45 PM

mdr55 wrote: Shit happens. Part of acceptable loses in our war on terror. Better them than me. So does that make Bush guilty by proxie? The soldiers wouldn't be there if is wasn't for him.  You cant be serious. Is this the kind of "Civilization" and democracy were trying to spread?Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. If for no other reason, the damage they do to the 98% good soldiers who dont do criminal shit like this.  <blockquote />

DarkHippie

05-30-2006, 05:24 PM

I hope it was a fog of war thing, but the way that i heard it, the marines started firing after everything was sorted out, like it was out of frustration.Of course i have some slanted information bases

FUNKMAN

05-30-2006, 07:35 PM

sounds like the soldiers became trigger happy...<img height="298" src="http://www.alvarezgtr.com/images/artists/ani_difranco.jpg" width="240" border="0" /> seriously:  i feel bad for these guys/gals. they are looking at some serious punishment. all these soldiers are trained and know the rules but the fact is they are human beings and not every human being is going to react the same way to the stresses of war regardless of training. i hope they publicly get serious punishment but privately are shown some leniency. 'if that makes sense'...

Yerdaddy

06-01-2006, 10:07 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:   Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. If for no other reason, the damage they do to the 98% good soldiers who dont do criminal shit like this.   I'll echo what Bulldogcakes said and add that it undermines the entire mission in Iraq and damages our overall "Wurr on Turrr", and our moral authority in the world, if it's true.Unfortunately I have little faith in America's ability to conduct an impartial investigation, or to hold its soldiers or civilian or political leadership accountable for misdeads anymore. Abu Ghraib hurt us so fucking badly and the response by the military, the Bush adminstration, Congress, and the American public hurt us as much as the actual torture and killings did. We could have shown the Iraqi people and the world that Abu Ghraib was an anomaly and that it was not condoned by America as a whole, but we didn't. I see little that's changed since then.

mendyweiss

06-01-2006, 10:16 AM

<img src="http://img.slate.msn.com/media/105000/105572/010503_HL-Calley.jpg" border="0" />If we don't learn from the pas.....

AngryDragon

06-01-2006, 10:28 AM

I'll take it even further. Not only should they be fully prosecuted. They should be turned over to the Iraq courts and be tried in their justice system.

This message was edited by AngryDragon on 6-1-06 @ 2:28 PM

WRESTLINGFAN

06-01-2006, 02:30 PM

We  dont know all the details that happened there, It seems like they are already guilty without the investigation being completed. Remember Lt Pantano who was charged with murdering an Iraqi civilian, he was cleared on all counts. The Marine  on tape who shot the insurgent in the mosque was also cleared. If the Marines are guilty in Haditha give them their due punishment but already saying that they are guilty before the investigation is completed is unfair to the Marines being alleged for what happened

Bulldogcakes

06-01-2006, 02:37 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. If for no other reason, the damage they do to the 98% good soldiers who dont do criminal shit like this. I'll echo what Bulldogcakes said and add that it undermines the entire mission in Iraq and damages our overall "Wurr on Turrr", and our moral authority in the world, if it's true.Unfortunately I have little faith in America's ability to conduct an impartial investigation, or to hold its soldiers or civilian or political leadership accountable for misdeads anymore. Abu Ghraib hurt us so fucking badly and the response by the military, the Bush adminstration, Congress, and the American public hurt us as much as the actual torture and killings did. We could have shown the Iraqi people and the world that Abu Ghraib was an anomaly and that it was not condoned by America as a whole, but we didn't. I see little that's changed since then. The Abu Ghraib defendants were <a title="all convicted" target="_self" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7709487/">all convicted</a> (including Lindsay), and given sentences ranging from 8 mos to 10 years depending on their involvement. If anything, they stand little chance of NOT getting convicted, given the nature of Military justice and the amount of attention this case has recieved, especially in Washington. The politicians will want to make an example of the accused, regardless of the facts.    

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 6-1-06 @ 6:39 PM

sr71blackbird

06-01-2006, 02:53 PM

Its ok for Iraquis to blow us up whenever they want, but heaven forbid we get pissed once in a while. Im not saying the Marines are justified, this is my way of pointing out what is always overlooked.

cupcakelove

06-01-2006, 03:39 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: Its ok for Iraquis to blow us up whenever they want, but heaven forbid we get pissed once in a while. Im not saying the Marines are justified, this is my way of pointing out what is always overlooked.So are you saying when the Iraqis kill our Marines sometimes its ok?  If its wrong its wrong.  We should not be justifying our actions by saying that other people are getting away with it, so why shouldn't we.  We're supposed to be above these people.  I don't blame the soliders, they are trained to kill then put into a situation where they are supposed to be peace keepers.  I feel the people that put them in that situation are responsible.

HBox

06-01-2006, 03:58 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: Its ok for Iraquis to blow us up whenever they want, but heaven forbid we get pissed once in a while.Im not saying the Marines are justified, this is my way of pointing out what is always overlooked.   You just can't be serious. Really. This wasn't a serious response, it's some kind of post-modern, flying way over my head gag, right? You couldn't have possibly meant this in any kind of serious context.

sr71blackbird

06-01-2006, 07:22 PM

HBox wrote:  sr71blackbird wrote: Its ok for Iraquis to blow us up whenever they want, but heaven forbid we get pissed once in a while.Im not saying the Marines are justified, this is my way of pointing out what is always overlooked.    You just can't be serious. Really. This wasn't a serious response, it's some kind of post-modern, flying way over my head gag, right? You couldn't have possibly meant this in any kind of serious context. You did see this part, right? "Im not saying the Marines are justified, this is my way of pointing out what is always overlooked. " Since you have probably never been part of a group, like guys in military units or firemen or police, who view their team members as their "bothers", it is hard to understand why a unit might react the way it does when a situation like this occurs.  I am certainly not trying to justify the slaughter of innocents, especially women and children, but we do not know what really happened and the nature of the attack that initiated this reaction by the troops involved.  For all we know, the guy that was killed in the roadside blast that started this whole reaction, might have been a guy that was just about to go home, maybe his wife just had a baby, maybe he was an only child to elderly, sickly parents; we dont know.  We do not know and we cannot say for sure what happened, other than a lot of people died after an attack on our guys and they reacted in a way that we, as civilains, see as our troops going way over board.  Just keep in mind (again I am not trying to justify this as "appropriate") that our soldures over there have a very difficult time due to opressure from an unpoplular way that many here do not support, to constant attacks from unseen enemys, to reactions like this in the media that shines the light on every error they make as human beings as reflective upon the whole of the military's morality and attitude that is far from the truth nor the norm.  Most of the military does NOT do the things that occured in this incident.  If you ever have a chance, watch an episode of Baghdad ER to see what they go through..

HBox

06-01-2006, 07:40 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: HBox wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: Its ok for Iraquis to blow us up whenever they want, but heaven forbid we get pissed once in a while.Im not saying the Marines are justified, this is my way of pointing out what is always overlooked. You just can't be serious. Really. This wasn't a serious response, it's some kind of post-modern, flying way over my head gag, right? You couldn't have possibly meant this in any kind of serious context. You did see this part, right? "Im not saying the Marines are justified, this is my way of pointing out what is always overlooked. " Since you have probably never been part of a group, like guys in military units or firemen or police, who view their team members as their "bothers", it is hard to understand why a unit might react the way it does when a situation like this occurs. I am certainly not trying to justify the slaughter of innocents, especially women and children, but we do not know what really happened and the nature of the attack that initiated this reaction by the troops involved. For all we know, the guy that was killed in the roadside blast that started this whole reaction, might have been a guy that was just about to go home, maybe his wife just had a baby, maybe he was an only child to elderly, sickly parents; we dont know. We do not know and we cannot say for sure what happened, other than a lot of people died after an attack on our guys and they reacted in a way that we, as civilains, see as our troops going way over board. Just keep in mind (again I am not trying to justify this as "appropriate") that our soldures over there have a very difficult time due to opressure from an unpoplular way that many here do not support, to constant attacks from unseen enemys, to reactions like this in the media that shines the light on every error they make as human beings as reflective upon the whole of the military's morality and attitude that is far from the truth nor the norm. Most of the military does NOT do the things that occured in this incident. If you ever have a chance, watch an episode of Baghdad ER to see what they go through..  [color=navy][size=2]How about we just start with the first thing you said. Who the fuck is saying that its OK for Iraqis to blow up people. Nobody is, that's who. And if this is your idea of getting pissed, I'd like to stay far away from you at all times. Whatever may or may not have happened, whether this was justified, partly justified, or unjustified, this is pretty fucking far from being merely pissed off. The complete ridiculousness of the first sentence made it impossible to take the second seriously in any meaningful way.And yes, I did see Baghdad ER, and yes, I do know about being part of a group. I might be in the fucking Air Force right now if I didn't have health problems. My cousin is a Marine and fought in the first Gulf War and a bunch of my cousins are firefighters. Nobody is saying anything about the military as a whole. If anything, 99% of the critics have to go out of their way to praise the troops before starting any critique of the war or even the White House. This isn't Vietnam in the sense that the public is turning on the troops. It certainly isn't. What people are pissed at are the soldiers who did this, anyone who helped cover it up and anyone trying to excuse it away. It stains the military and the country as a whole. When you come out and set up a straw man to try and discredit anyone concerned about this, and then try to downplay what happened, don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. This is about as indefensible as a

sr71blackbird

06-02-2006, 02:26 AM

I do not think you understand what you're reading.It is called irony.  You can honestly tell me that you read that sentence and the following sentence and didnt see the irony?  I find it incomprehensible.  It is the fundimental basis of all things that anyone finds humorous.  Not that I think this situation is humorous, just as a basis for irony.

Bulldogcakes

06-02-2006, 02:48 AM

There's ALOT of this going around right now. People wanting to "understand" the soldiers frustrations. Especially given all the casualties among US troops. And it couldn't possibly be more misguided.First of all, Iraqis have suffered roughly 10 times the casualties we have. We've lost around 2,000, they've lost around 15-20,000 in this war. So the citizens of Iraq have suffered FAR more than we have.  Do you make any effort to understand THIER frustrations? Second, put yourself in their shoes for one minute. Do you think you'd be so "understanding" of how "hard" the soldiers job is? Or would you be outraged and seeking justice? Some Americans seem to think we get to piss all over the rest of the planet and everyone else should be grateful for our sacrifice. And we seem to never consider the pain weve caused in the process. You wouldn't feel that way if the roles were reversed, and your sister and/or brother was executed, and guilty of nothing. There has to be some objective consideration of what is right or wrong regardless of who's guilty and which side he's on.  If not, then were no more civilized than any 3rd world dictator. And were better than that.

HBox

06-02-2006, 12:30 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: I do not think you understand what you're reading.It is called irony. You can honestly tell me that you read that sentence and the following sentence and didnt see the irony? I find it incomprehensible. It is the fundimental basis of all things that anyone finds humorous. Not that I think this situation is humorous, just as a basis for irony. I am not trying to be confrontational or dickish when I say I have no idea what you are talking about. If you were not serious in your original post, that did not come off at all in either the post or your first reply to me. 

This message was edited by HBox on 6-2-06 @ 4:32 PM

The Jays

06-02-2006, 07:59 PM

I feel so proud to be an American.

Bulldogcakes

06-03-2006, 03:14 AM

<h1><a title="Probe clears GIs of misconduct at Ishaqi" target="_self" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha">
Probe clears GIs of misconduct at Ishaqi</a>  </h1>BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military said Saturday that it had found no
wrongdoing by American troops accused of intentionally killing
civilians during a raid in a village north of Baghdad that left up to
13 Iraqis dead The
investigation of the March 15 attack on a home in the town of Ishaqi
was one of three probes into possible misconduct by American troops in 

<a href="http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Iraq" title="Related information on Iraq" onclick="activateYQinl(this);return false;">Iraq</a>.
U.S. Marines are also accused of deliberately killing two dozen unarmed
Iraqi civilians in the western town of Haditha on Nov. 19 after one of
their own died in a roadside bombing.
Besides Haditha and Ishaqi, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman could
face murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges in the April shooting
death of an Iraqi man west of Baghdad.<h1>   Not the same incident, but worth posting. Sometimes these things are accurate, sometimes not.    </h1>

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 6-3-06 @ 7:21 AM

Yerdaddy

06-03-2006, 06:16 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote:    Bulldogcakes wrote:   Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. If for no other reason, the damage they do to the 98% good soldiers who dont do criminal shit like this.  I'll echo what Bulldogcakes said and add that it undermines the entire mission in Iraq and damages our overall "Wurr on Turrr", and our moral authority in the world, if it's true.Unfortunately I have little faith in America's ability to conduct an impartial investigation, or to hold its soldiers or civilian or political leadership accountable for misdeads anymore. Abu Ghraib hurt us so fucking badly and the response by the military, the Bush adminstration, Congress, and the American public hurt us as much as the actual torture and killings did. We could have shown the Iraqi people and the world that Abu Ghraib was an anomaly and that it was not condoned by America as a whole, but we didn't. I see little that's changed since then.  The Abu Ghraib defendants were <a title="all convicted" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7709487/" target="_self">all convicted</a> (including Lindsay), and given sentences ranging from 8 mos to 10 years depending on their involvement. If anything, they stand little chance of NOT getting convicted, given the nature of Military justice and the amount of attention this case has recieved, especially in Washington. The politicians will want to make an example of the accused, regardless of the facts.    This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 6-1-06 @ 6:39 PM Right. They were all convicted - meaning the ordinary soldiers who were in the photos. Those that gave orders to do so, according to the army's own reports: military intelligence officers and civilian contractors who have virtually no accountability in Iraq were not held accountable in any way. The officers who ordered the abuse in Abu Ghraib were not held accountable - ie: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-22-abuse-usat_x.htm" target="_blank">Gen. Geoffrey Miller</a>, who was brought to Iraq from Guantanamo to impliment harsh interrogation methods - torture - in order to try to deal wtih the insurgency that had cought the military commanders by surprise, (the politically appointed commanders who were chosen specifically because they would not speak of negative possibilities in Iraq like those generals who were fired before the war). Miller ordered the torture, embarrassed the country and the military and, like every other official who fucks up in this administration, was promoted for it.Guantanamo was also the result of an entire operation that was understaffed because Rumsfeld's fantasies about how "modern warfighting" is to be conducted. From the beginning of his tenure he has chosen to ignore the proffessional core of the American military in order to impose the ideas of his core of political ideologues - Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc - you all know who I'm talking about. For example, the Army War College has a doctrine of how many guards you need at a war-time prison like Abu Ghraib. At the time of the abuses there were about 1/20th the number of soldiers guarding that compound. Now, can anyone here be expected to do the job of 20 people? And if, say, a group of 100 soldiers is ordered into a battle that would require, according to military protocol, 2000 soldiers to win, would that commanding officer be responsible for those soldiers' deaths? Ultimately the abuses at Abu Ghraib were the responsibility of the entire chain of command leading all the way to the top. But, since the chain gets to decide its own guilt or innocence and

Yerdaddy

06-03-2006, 08:32 AM

WRESTLINGFAN wrote: We  dont know all the details that happened there, It seems like they are already guilty without the investigation being completed. Remember Lt Pantano who was charged with murdering an Iraqi civilian, he was cleared on all counts. The Marine  on tape who shot the insurgent in the mosque was also cleared. If the Marines are guilty in Haditha give them their due punishment but already saying that they are guilty before the investigation is completed is unfair to the Marines being alleged for what happenedThe Marine videotaped shooting the unarmed Iraqi point blank with a shotgun claimed that he thought the guy might have had a bomb strapped to him.<img src="http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/7510/dave54hx.jpg" border="0" /> WHAT?!And yet he was acquitted. That's just one of the reasons that these soldiers are more likely to be acquitted of the crimes - whether they are guilty or innocent. I have lost faith in the military justice system. I think it's being managed by politically appointed ideologues, or it's being pressured to keep things quiet because they are politically damaging. I think that just adds on to a general tendency to not disclose things that are embarrassing to an institution, and to be deferential to soldiers in combat. But that accountability is what separates us from Saddam's military, from Zarqawi's al-Qaeda chopping off heads for home movies. Our soldiers operate under the rule-of-law. That's that thing that we're supposedly trying to create in Iraq. But we aren't operating under the rule-of-law anymore. Not in Iraq, and not here. And its really hard to export something if you can't even demonstrate that you value it yourself.Also, nobody here is assuming the soldiers are guilty. However, there is information about the investigation in the press already. That's what Rep. Murtha is basing his premature statements on, (as well as the fact that, as both a Congressman and former Marine, he has inside sources of information in this matter that he may be basing his assertions on.) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/world/middleeast/03haditha.html?ei=5094&en=aef5860f79ad1593&hp=&ex=1149393600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">First of all,</a> someone involved in the investigation has said that the Marines originally reported that the civillians were killed by an IED, when they had actually been killed by the Marines themselves. Then the investigators who were supposed to have investigated the incident did not do so - even after they discovered the Marines lied about shooting the civilians.A senior Marine general familiar with the investigation, which is being led by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, said in an interview that it had not yet established how high up the chain of command culpability for the killings extended. But he said there were strong suspicions that some officers knew that the Marine squad's version of events had enough holes and discrepancies that it should have been looked into more deeply."It's impossible to believe they didn't know," the Marine general said, referring to midlevel and senior officers. "You'd have to know this thing stunk." The Marines are considering shuffling commanders:But even before the investigation is completed, the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Michael Hagee, is considering relieving some senior Marine commanders who served in Iraq at the time of the killings, the Pentagon adviser said, citing what the adviser called a "loss of confidence" in those officers. General Hagee has not decided whether to relieve any of the officers in positions of command, and was said to be weighing whether such a move would damage morale and be seen as prejudging the outcome of the investigation. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/01/iraq/main1673122.sht

Bulldogcakes

06-04-2006, 04:45 AM

The Marine videotaped shooting the unarmed
Iraqi point blank with a shotgun claimed that he thought the guy might
have had a bomb strapped to him.
And yet he was acquitted. 
   Daddy, thats one of the fundamental problems in dealing with terrorism. If you wait for a suicide bomber to act, its too late and many will die. If you're proactive, innocent civilians can die, like the Brazilian man who was shot and killed by London police in the weeks after their attack. But an effective suicide bomber will kill many soldiers AND innocent civilians, so you're left with a clear but unpleasant choice. Believe it or not, shooting to kill is one of the ONLY effective deterrents in these instances. If you wait for him/her to trigger their device, its too late. I would imagine there was more than a simple "claim" by a soldier, that there was other evidence which bolstered his case and support his aquittal. I also understand that military justice is not held in public, like civil justice is (for obvious reasons) so details may not be provided in many cases.    

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 6-4-06 @ 8:48 AM

Yerdaddy

06-04-2006, 05:05 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:    The Marine videotaped shooting the unarmed Iraqi point blank with a shotgun claimed that he thought the guy might have had a bomb strapped to him.And yet he was acquitted.   Daddy, thats one of the fundamental problems in dealing with terrorism. If you wait for a suicide bomber to act, its too late and many will die. If you're proactive, innocent civilians can die, like the Brazilian man who was shot and killed by London police in the weeks after their attack. But an effective suicide bomber will kill many soldiers AND innocent civilians, so you're left with a clear but unpleasant choice. Believe it or not, shooting to kill is one of the ONLY effective deterrents in these instances. If you wait for him/her to trigger their device, its too late. I would imagine there was more than a simple "claim" by a soldier, that there was other evidence which bolstered his case and support his aquittal. I also understand that military justice is not held in public, like civil justice is (for obvious reasons) so details may not be provided in many cases.    This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 6-4-06 @ 8:48 AM Except that standing directly over and shotgunning a guy you think has a bomb is akin to the old Polish firing squad, wouldn't you say? If you remember the video, that's what he did. So when his excuse was that he thought the guy had a bomb you know he was either lying or trying to commit suicide. He was not being proactive, he was murdering a room full of prisoners in an act of revenge.

Yerdaddy

06-04-2006, 05:11 AM

How about I waste a post so that continuing to read this thread isn't like playing the most boring game of Pong ever?Super.

Yerdaddy

07-08-2006, 02:53 AM

New report suggests a coverup. General Faults Marine Response to Iraq KillingsBy ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID S. CLOUD Published: July 8, 2006 WASHINGTON, July 7 — The second-ranking American commander in Iraq has concluded that some senior Marine officers were negligent in failing to investigate more aggressively the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians by marines in Haditha last November, two Defense Department officials said Friday. The officer, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, concluded that in the deaths, including those of 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair, senior officers failed to follow up on inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the initial reporting of the incident that should have raised questions. General Chiarelli faulted the senior staff of the Second Marine Division, commanded at the time by Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, and the Second Regimental Combat Team, then headed by Col. Stephen W. Davis, and recommended unspecified disciplinary action for some officers, said the two defense officials, who have been briefed on General Chiarelli's findings. They said they would discuss the report, after being promised anonymity, because it showed that the military takes these incidents seriously and fully investigates them."He concludes that some officers were derelict in their duties," said one of the officials, who declined to identify which or how many officers were singled out. If Marine commanders are found to have been negligent in pursuing the matter, the punishments could range from a relatively mild admonishment to a court martial that potentially could end their military careers. In addition to General Chiarelli's review, a separate inquiry by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service is examining whether crimes were committed when a squad of marines killed the 24 Iraqi civilians after a roadside bomb killed a member of the Third Platoon of Company K, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment, in the early morning of Nov. 19.In April, when the Third Battalion returned to Camp Pendleton, Calif., from Iraq, the battalion and company commanders were relieved of their commands for what their commander said was "a lack of confidence in their leadership." According to one of the defense officials, General Chiarelli embraced all of General Bargewell's findings and expanded upon some of them. In one instance of a missed opportunity to investigate further, the official said, General Bargewell noted that the comptroller of the Second Marine Division, who was responsible for making condolence payments to families of the Iraqis killed, told the unit's staff judge advocate that additional investigation was needed. That review never happened, and the Marines paid a total of $38,000 to families of 15 of the civilians killed. [quote]Since the military inquiries into the Haditha killings began, the accounts given by some marines involved and their lawyers have conflicted in important details with descriptions of what investigators have found, officials familiar with their findings have said.After the roadside bomb went off, marines who survived the explosion said they believed they were under sustained attack and that they were entitled under their rules of engagement to use lethal force as they searched surrounding houses for those who they believed were responsible for the bombing.But investigators and townspeople told reporters that the marines overreacted to a fatal roadside bombing and shot the civilians, only one of whom was armed, in cold blood. The 24 Iraqis killed included five men in a taxi and 19 other civilians in several houses, which marines and their lawyers say they cleared using grenades and blind fire.But investigators have also concluded that most of the victims in three houses died from well-aimed rifle shots, not shrapnel or random fire, according to military officials familiar with the initial findings. The houses where the killings to

UnknownPD

07-08-2006, 05:37 AM

You take kids barely out of high school slap guns in their hands, place them in an impossible situation and then act shocked when something goes wrong.

ConnieSwail

07-08-2006, 05:54 AM

stir up the muslim world again? what the fuck DOESN'T piss those people off? I have a feeling that even without some of our troops pulling this sick shit that the "Muslim World" would still fucking hate us and find a reason to, oh, I don't know, behead innocents and slaughter thier own people that they "suspect" of helping the evil West. Fuck them.

Yerdaddy

07-08-2006, 06:11 AM

UnknownPD wrote: You take kids barely out of high school slap guns in their hands, place them in an impossible situation and then act shocked when something goes wrong. It's not quite as simple as that that usually leads to things like this. It's more the fact that, though the military has been studying counterinsurgency for years - relying heavily on previous study by British colonial histories and examples as well as vietnam and other US military experiences - the Bush administration, in politicizing this war from the very beginning, has largely ignored the military proffessionals and has only recently allowed them to spread counterinsurgency doctrine across the military in Iraq. So, some commanders in Iraq have been fighting the "hearts and minds" campaigns in Iraq and have been largely successful, leading their individual soldiers to have a sense of purpose about what they're in Iraq for, and are less likely to lose their shit and just take some "payback", which these types of incidents usually are. But, at the same time, you've had commanders deciding that they're fighting an eye-for-an-eye campaign over there, or are hunkered down in camps with no real idea of what they're doing there, and they haven't had any real successes in those areas. This has been the story of Iraq from the beginning, and represents one of the most tragic and contemptible failures of this administration - and one that's cost alot of American and Iraq lives: the decision to deny the insurgency in Iraq for two years instead of listening to the commanders on the ground who were on the ground fighting that insurgency. Basically, I've been reading (and posting) <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060410fa_fact2" target="_blank">stories like this one</a>, which is largely from the mouths of commanders themselves, for three years now. The stories haven't changed in that time. And as long as the administration and it's goose-steppers in the public don't really give a shit about the soldiers and people there, it's going to go on just as it has.

Yerdaddy

07-08-2006, 06:23 AM

ConnieSwail wrote: stir up the muslim world again? what the fuck DOESN'T piss those people off? I have a feeling that even without some of our troops pulling this sick shit that the "Muslim World" would still fucking hate us and find a reason to, oh, I don't know, behead innocents and slaughter thier own people that they "suspect" of helping the evil West. Fuck them. Westerners attributing beheadings by small groups of terrorists in a warzone to the "Muslim World" pisses them off. As it should. I've fought with my Muslim neighbors who tell me that these attrocities by small groups of soldiers represent the US as a whole. I tell them it's simple ignorant bigotry on their part. And I'm telling you it's ignorant bigotry on your part too. Think before you speak, because you're guilty of what you're condemning them for in the same breath.

ConnieSwail

07-08-2006, 06:38 AM

before you type all that shit to make yourself feel better, can you show where I condemned ANYTHING? I take the situation for what it is, without all the Right ,Left bullshit that YOU and others seem to want to turn it into.   We got kids scared to death doing crazy shit and THEY got kids scared to death doing crazy shit. Fuck you and your politicizing of ANY of this.

ConnieSwail

07-08-2006, 06:41 AM

Actually I'll just boil your predictable posts into one thing "I HATE BUSH!!!!' yeah sparky, we all do, now tell us something that makes a difference.

UnknownPD

07-08-2006, 06:43 AM

But, at the same time, you've had commanders deciding that they're fighting an eye-for-an-eye campaign over there, or are hunkered down in camps with no real idea of what they're doing there, and they haven't had any real successes in those areas.I think you made my point for me. Commanders have no idea what to do. Add young men with powerful weapons to the mix stir and you get Haditha. In short what I am trying to say is blaming the soldiers is BS. Its like leaving a kid at home alone with matches and a gas can then getting indignant he started a fire.

ConnieSwail

07-08-2006, 06:47 AM

"Its like leaving a kid at home alone with matches and a gas can then getting indignant he started a fire." A fucking men!

UnknownPD

07-08-2006, 06:51 AM

Westerners attributing beheadings by small groups of terrorists in a warzone to the "Muslim World" pisses them off. As it shouldOk then....where are the large groups of muslim leaders disavowing the beheadings...bombings...etc... You don't see them. When leaders don't speak against something you have to believe its because their people support it.

Yerdaddy

07-08-2006, 07:04 AM

ConnieSwail wrote: before you type all that shit to make yourself feel better, can you show where I condemned ANYTHING?  Are you kidding me? You accused the "Muslim World" of "behead[ing] innocents and slaughter thier own people that they "suspect" of helping the evil West. Fuck them." You took the worst thing you could think of here and attributed it to the entire population. You don't see that as condemnation? You have no idea what you're talking about do you? You see "our boys and girls" "over there" in a big bad place and that's all you know, isn't it? Fuck. I has a feeling I was wasting my time. Alright, here's the deal: I live in Yemen. I'm in the second most conservative country in the "Muslim World". So when I hear this place described as though I'm in danger of getting my head cut off at any second, I get depressed. That's because it's so fucking far from the truth that I can't imaging how Americans, with all the opportunities in the world to have a clue, don't have much more of a clue than the people who I'm surrounded by, half of whom can't even read a book in their own language and have an average income of $1.50 per day. Never mind. I still haven't gotten used to the fact that there's just as much hatred for Arabs/Muslims in the US as there is hatread of the West here. Just drop it.

Tenbatsuzen

07-08-2006, 07:06 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: ConnieSwail wrote: stir up the muslim world again? what the fuck DOESN'T piss those people off? I have a feeling that even without some of our troops pulling this sick shit that the "Muslim World" would still fucking hate us and find a reason to, oh, I don't know, behead innocents and slaughter thier own people that they "suspect" of helping the evil West. Fuck them. Westerners attributing beheadings by small groups of terrorists in a warzone to the "Muslim World" pisses them off. As it should. I've fought with my Muslim neighbors who tell me that these attrocities by small groups of soldiers represent the US as a whole. I tell them it's simple ignorant bigotry on their part. And I'm telling you it's ignorant bigotry on your part too. Think before you speak, because you're guilty of what you're condemning them for in the same breath.   People who think the hardcore Muslims represent the entire religion should turn it around on themselves.  Does GodHateFags represent all of Christianity?  Does the KKK represent all of white people? A portion of the muslim world are a bunch of savages.  But they don't represent the entirety.

Yerdaddy

07-08-2006, 07:11 AM

UnknownPD wrote:  Westerners attributing beheadings by small groups of terrorists in a warzone to the "Muslim World" pisses them off. As it should  Ok then....where are the large groups of muslim leaders disavowing the beheadings...bombings...etc... You don't see them. When leaders don't speak against something you have to believe its because their people support it. They do it all the time. The US State Dpt has long web pages of Muslim leaders condemning 9-11. They're constantly condembing the beheadings in Iraq, the kidnappings of foreigners, the London bombings, all if it. These things make short news stories on the international sections of newspapers. If you read those, you'll see them. Most Americans don't, so you assume it never happens. It does. If you care to know the condemnations exist google it. It's that easy.

UnknownPD

07-08-2006, 09:15 AM

[QUOTE]People who think the hardcore Muslims represent the entire religion should turn it around on themselves.  Does GodHateFags represent all of Christianity?  Does the KKK represent all of white people?[Quote]Do I think the homphobia espoused by Westboro Baptist is representative of Organized Christianity..absolutelyDoes the KKK represent white people... not really considering it excludes catholics, jews and other non-christian whites... But I'm guessing there's a whole bunch of non-whites that might think that the KKK is a mirror of white thought.

phixion

07-08-2006, 10:24 AM

Do I think the homphobia espoused by Westboro Baptist is representative of Organized Christianity..absolutely i think what he was saying that do u believe every christian is homophobic? not the leaders or ministers of said religion but the congregration. and if you answer yes then your wrong, born raised baptized and confirmed catholic who truly believes in the message and things jesus said, but on the other hand i do not believe the church has ever purveyed what jesus meant and wanted. and withthat i know many muslims who believe in what Mohammed said and what he meant, but dont believe that the organizers of said religion got it right.

CuzBum

07-08-2006, 11:24 AM

Oops, I thought I clicked on the Haditha thread. *Backs out slowly*

suggums

07-08-2006, 11:32 AM

i love yerdaddy.

Bulldogcakes

07-08-2006, 03:07 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: UnknownPD wrote: Westerners attributing beheadings by small groups of terrorists in a warzone to the "Muslim World" pisses them off. As it should Ok then....where are the large groups of muslim leaders disavowing the beheadings...bombings...etc... You don't see them. When leaders don't speak against something you have to believe its because their people support it. They do it all the time. The US State Dpt has long web pages of Muslim leaders condemning 9-11. They're constantly condembing the beheadings in Iraq, the kidnappings of foreigners, the London bombings, all if it. These things make short news stories on the international sections of newspapers. If you read those, you'll see them. Most Americans don't, so you assume it never happens. It does. If you care to know the condemnations exist google it. It's that easy.  I think I can help explain this one a little further. The problem us Christians have understanding Muslims is we have a Church with ONE LEADER (mainly) with branches spread out worldwide. THe muslim religion doesn't have a "Pope" who can speak out against extreme elements in his Mosque. Actually, with all the different sects of the muslim religion, I'm sure many of the leaders dont feel any connection to these other extreme elements. They see it as a different religion altogether. And while some have spoken out, one mullah of a local mosque doesn't carry the weight that a central leader would, so it gets lost in the mix. Muslims are alot like the old saying about Jews "4 Jews, 5 Temples" They have so much in common, no wonder they fight so much.  <blockquote />

CuzBum

07-08-2006, 03:20 PM

suggums wrote: i love yerdaddy. HEY, YOU STAY AWAY FROM MY FATHER YOU CRAZY PRICK!

newport king

07-08-2006, 04:00 PM

I still haven't gotten used to the fact that there's just as much hatred for Arabs/Muslims in the US as there is hatread of the West here.with just cause.You have to remember one thing, this is not an ordinary enemy. He may dress like you, be a productive member of society etc. But one day things might not turn out to be the way you thought they were. I think THAT is the part that frightens most americans. That, plus the fact that we hear about some sort of plot involving arab/muslim men almost daily heightens the anxiety.

sr71blackbird

07-08-2006, 04:49 PM

I still think nuking that hemesphere would solve the majority of this "problem".  Nothing else will work.  Ever.  They will never "get it".  Case closed.

Dirtybird12

07-08-2006, 06:30 PM

killing is wrongso is this warend it

Ogre

07-09-2006, 03:04 PM

It's easy to judge while sitting in the comfort of our homes.  Until you walk a mile in thier shoes, I would not be so judgemental.  Yes, there are many things wrong with the War and the mess in Iraq, but let us not allow our dislike for the Administration and Congress' handling of the war be taken out on some men that are in a no win situation.  If they and others are guilty, they should be tried in a military court of thier peers, not in the press.  They, if found guilty, will be punished.  I wish the editors of the NY Times were in country just one day, walk one patrol, watch thier budddies be turned to a pink mist.  Then I do not think they would be so condecending of our troops.  It just feels like some of the mainstream press just can not wait for the military to fuck up, or a new secret to leak.  All the while they could give a fuck who they hurt, just so long as thier agenda of sticking it to W is met.  Fucking Shameful.

HBox

07-09-2006, 03:11 PM

I wish the editors of the NY Times were in country just one day, walk one patrol, watch thier budddies be turned to a pink mist.There have been numerous journalists killed and injured in Iraq.

SatCam

07-09-2006, 03:13 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: I still think nuking that hemesphere would solve the majority of this "problem". Nothing else will work. Ever. They will never "get it". Case closed.

I think they should nuke this hemisphere to put us out of our misery

CuzBum

07-09-2006, 03:17 PM

HBox wrote:  I wish the editors of the NY Times were in country just one day, walk one patrol, watch thier budddies be turned to a pink mist.  There have been numerous journalists killed and injured in Iraq. From the Times?

Ogre

07-09-2006, 03:57 PM

I was careful to write "editors"..they are the ones who are insulated..not the journalists.

HeyGuy

07-09-2006, 03:57 PM

"I think I can help explain this one a little further. The problem us Christians have understanding Muslims is we have a Church with ONE LEADER (mainly) with branches spread out worldwide. THe muslim religion doesn't have a "Pope" who can speak out against extreme elements in his Mosque. Actually, with all the different sects of the muslim religion, I'm sure many of the leaders dont feel any connection to these other extreme elements. They see it as a different religion altogether. And while some have spoken out, one mullah of a local mosque doesn't carry the weight that a central leader would, so it gets lost in the mix. Muslims are alot like the old saying about Jews "4 Jews, 5 Temples" They have so much in common, no wonder they fight so much."Well that isn’t true either; Popes do not always speak out against things that are wrong. They did nothing during the holocaust, The Pope took forever to confront the child molesting scandal, The Pope did nothing to speak out or stop slavery, and gays are treated like a parasite within the Catholic Church.  Having 1 man speak for a large group of people sometimes hurts the group because sometimes most people do not like what’s going on or all the bad that is being done, but they wait until the leader steps up to speak on their behalf. Sometimes that never happens. Look at it this way George W speaks/represents all of us yet allot of the world hates America even though most of Americans do not agree with him or his ideas. So the hate going on right now towards America from other country should be the hate for Bush's ideas/actions not all Americans.   "It just feels like some of the mainstream press just can not wait for the military to fuck up, or a new secret to leak"<span style="font-size: 12pt; color: black; font-family: verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">This sounds like a Fox News rant. "Mainstream Media" And who is this mainstream media that you mention and fox news love to call every other media/ news org? I just love how Fox News Created fair and balance reporting yet they are so not fair nor balanced. I love how Fox News tries to play it off like they are the little guy that gets it right but the big boys or mainstream media is so anti American and blah blah blah. Fox News is mainstream and they are part of the biggest media company in the world. <span style="font-size: 12pt; color: black; font-family: verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><span style="font-size: 12pt; color: black; font-family: verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">At the end of the day American is the greatest country and we may not all agree on the war, our president or religion. But we all need to respect opinions that are different and most important support our troops!

Ogre

07-09-2006, 04:07 PM

I am not a fan of the "Faux" News Channel.  But I do see where that did sound a bit Oreillyish.  I am just very sensitive to the troops experiences not being accurately told by any of the major news outlets, unless it helps their agendas (on either side).  Just hate to see the men and women of our services being batted at like pinatas in the political blame game that is being played out in all the media (even the notsomainstream)  For me its all about the troops.  Fuck the Lying politicians.

narc

07-09-2006, 04:21 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">sr71blackbird wrote: I still think nuking that hemesphere would solve the majority of this "problem". Nothing else will work. Ever. They will never "get it". Case closed.<hr color="cococo" align="left">

Agreed. Or killing a lot more of them then we will ever be willing to kill. 
Europe used to have wars of religion all the time back in the day, especially between Protestants and Catholics. Now they never will again. Wanna know why? Because so many people got killed that they lost their will to fight. 
Or even further back, when the Romans took over Israel. The Jews just kept revolting until they were kicked out entirely, leading to the whole diaspora that caused this whole probelm in the middle east in the first place. 
It's the only thing that works when religious wars occur. It's the cold hard truth. 
And yes I know that this is far from being only a religious war. And yes I know that you can't attribute the actions of a few crazies to their legitimate and perfectly sane governments. 
My point is that at some point something's gotta give. It's hard to look at the past 30 years in the Middle East and not see the rise of fundamental Islam contributing to violence, both officially sponsored, unofficial, or ignored by whatever government with its head in the sand (and of course part of that is our fault. We were picking the lesser of two evils at the time and didn't know it would turn out this way). We certainly don't want a war with the wahabis or anyone else, but they definitely want war with us ON THEIR TERMS. And for a disturbing number of them, their terms = Islamic apocalypse. 
I hope everyone else is right. I hope this doesn't happen. But my fear is that someday they will do something so terrible to us that we will have absolutely no option but to respond in kind.

This message was edited by narc on 7-9-06 @ 8:37 PM

SatCam

07-09-2006, 04:39 PM

I think I can help explain this one a little further. The problem us Christians have understanding Muslims is we have a Church with ONE LEADER (mainly) with branches spread out worldwide. THe muslim religion doesn't have a "Pope" who can speak out against extreme elements in his Mosque

The Pope only speaks for the Roman Catholic Church

FUNKMAN

07-09-2006, 05:12 PM

<img src="http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9gnMiMmqbFEAeIAZFWjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=136dpcvjb/EXP=1152580262/**http%3a//www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/photo-essay-nyfilms/images/dog-day-afternoon.jpg" border="0" />             HADITHA!       HADITHA!       HADITHA!

HBox

07-09-2006, 05:54 PM

Ogre wrote: I was careful to write "editors"..they are the ones who are insulated..not the journalists.  And they get their news from the journalists. And the editors are former journalists, and I'd bet at least a few of them have reported from war zones before.Just be thankful stuff like this is news. If it wasn't because this government or country didn't care, or because it happened often, then we'd be in trouble. It's news because of the noble history of country and the high standard that we set for our troops, and because the overwhelming majority of them meet them.

Yerdaddy

07-11-2006, 06:37 AM

For those of you who say you only care about the troops and not the politicians, the press, or anyone else, a few points:The troops in Iraq have been sent there by politicians. As long as we have civilian control over the military written into the US Constitution, that is the case. Furthermore, the decisions about how wars are conducted by the US, the overall mission of US wars, and the conditions under which our soldiers fight are ultimately made by the Commander-In-Chief, a civilian and a politician. Therefore, you cannot claim to care only about the soldiers while condemning anyone else for including politics in their arguments. If politicians don't make the decisions that protect and support the troops in the field, then it won't fucking happen. And if the public is not paying attention to the decisions that are being made that effect the troops in the field, then politicians will make their decisions based on their own political desires. That's how democracy works. I'm sorry if that is an inconvenient truth for some of you, but it is still a fundamental truth of American democracy and American wars. The soldiers need you to pay attention to the circumstances surrounding their conditions over there - physical, and political. If they don't have the proper equipment or the proper training, if their leadership is not using the wrong tactics to achieve their mission, if the mission is being fought for poltical rather than tactical reasons, if oversight is not being practiced and some soldiers are being allowed to hurt the mission of the war with impunity, then the vast majority of soldiers over there need you to pay attention to their calls and hold the political leaders of this war accountable for their actions. Their job is to risk their lives and health to complete the mission; your job is to pay attention and protect their interests over there.As for why stories such as Haditha, Abu Ghraib, an the other stories of American atrocities are important: because they get other good soldiers killed, and make the mission - the whole point of everything the soldiers over there are doing - harder to achieve. Abu Ghraib got soldiers killed. Commanders in the field have constantly stated that it mobilized the enemy, boosted recruitment of the insurgency, greatly diminished the trust that ordinary Iraqis had for the US military, and set back the mission more than any other event in the war, according to commanders on the ground. The soldiers over there cannot be described as a bunch of fresh-faced kids right out of high school and idealistically seeking to defend the freedom of Americans. They're human beings; adults of all ages and experiences, with the only common link that they're in Iraq with a mission to achieve and a job to do each day to contribute to that mission. Within that complexity, there are some of those guys who are fuck-ups and bad guys who do things counter to that mission. We have to assume that the rest of the soldiers over there want these bad guys out of there, and, in fact, brought to justice. They are the ones who's honor has been disgraced by the misdeads of a small minority over there. They're the ones who's whole purpose of being over there is made more difficult by the actions of the few. They are the reason we have to pay attention to these stories of atrocities and force our leaders to deal with them. The majority of good soldiers over there are the one's hurt the most by these things happening. They are why we can't pretend these things are happening. Their honor is dependent on the fact that, while atrocities happen in all wars, they are supposed to happen less from our side than all others. And the way we minimize these bad actions is by applying the same principles that are enshrined in the Constitution: we apply the rule of law and hold the guilty accountable. To the degree that we don't do that because of the politicization of the military by its civilian leaders, we do an injustice to those good soldiers. So

CuzBum

07-11-2006, 07:01 AM

I am absolutely stunned, they have computers in Yemen?

high fly

07-13-2006, 04:10 PM

CampoNJ wrote: "I think I can help explain this one a little further. The problem us Christians have understanding Muslims is we have a Church with ONE LEADER (mainly) with branches spread out worldwide.  You mean that old bloke in Salt Lake City with all the wives?

high fly

07-13-2006, 04:17 PM

narc wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: I still think nuking that hemesphere would solve the majority of this "problem". Nothing else will work. Ever. They will never "get it". Case closed.  Agreed. Or killing a lot more of them then we will ever be willing to kill. Europe used to have wars of religion all the time back in the day, especially between Protestants and Catholics. Now they never will again. Wanna know why? Because so many people got killed that they lost their will to fight. WRONG.It was because we went through the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment and had a steady developement of concepts like respect for minorities, free press, the supremacy of the individual, and other rights where citizens should be left alone by the government. It took us hundreds of years to move from feudalism and kingdoms where the church and the king had all the power and citizens were expected to serve their lords.In the Arab countries, they never went through the social changes we did and so don't have the background we have that has gotten us to the place we are today.Saddam Hussein had about as much respect for the concepts of checks and balances and oversight from other branches of government as the Texas Einstein does now.

Yerdaddy

11-17-2006, 02:22 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601685_pf.html" target="_blank">Soldier Gets 90 Years in Rape, Killing of Iraqi Girl</a>This is a horrific story and I won't post the details.Barker said he became "angry and mean" as a way to survive in the austere and dangerous conditions where he served south of Baghdad, and as a result he began to hate everyone in Iraq.Attorneys for Barker have argued that he was under extreme pressure and emotional distress while working in the Yusufiyah area, an insurgent stronghold where U.S. forces faced daily attacks and were severely understaffed.This certainly doesn't excuse what these guys did, but it's a contributing factor, just as the fact that Abu Ghraib had 1/17 the staff that military doctrine said they should have had. The fact that there have never been enough troops in Iraq has caused a great deal of the misery and deaths in Iraq by US soldiers and Iraqis alike.