NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this has probably been discussed before, but here's my take on it: Although I am not defending this horrible atrocity, the fact that this is such big news just goes to show that it happens very rarely, and is in fact a testament to the discipline of the US military. Consider how the US military is badly overstretched, and the situation in Iraq is very frustrating, what with not knowing who is the enemy and who isn't. If it was any other country's military that was fully engaged in this kind of struggle, I suspect these massacres would happen much more often. Also, the fact that these Marines are being tried and will probably be court-martialed means that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the jihadists, who wouldn't blink an eye to killing dozens of civilians at weddings.

Agree or disagree?

Rarely is still too often. Ever is too often, though that's probably too much to hope for, accidents always happen. Unfortunately.

Rarely is still too often. Ever is too often, though that's probably too much to hope for, accidents always happen. Unfortunately.
I hate to say this, but it wasn't really an accident. It was a deliberate massacre. They were frustrated and tired, and they did this out of pure anger. I can understand why they would do it, but I'm not defending it.

Yes it's sad. But if you want to blame someone, blame those insurgants who hide themselves as the innocent civilians, if you don't know who's the good guys and who's the bad, you get paranoid, you will end up hurting the ones who were innocent. For all they were thinking to them they thought. "These people have been hiding them, we just know it, Kill them all!" Then they flipped out.

But I'm sure the good Media will print this out as. "This is a reason to join the Terrorists." Since they're even worse. Argh!

I hate to say this, but it wasn't really an accident. It was a deliberate massacre. They were frustrated and tired, and they did this out of pure anger. I can understand why they would do it, but I'm not defending it.
Well if you're refering to a recent event then I don't anything about it. But my point is that zero civilian casulties is unlikely, as accidents happen.

Yes it's sad. But if you want to blame someone, blame those insurgants who hide themselves as the innocent civilians, if you don't know who's the good guys and who's the bad, sometimes you will end up hurting the ones who were innocent.

But I'm sure the good Media will print this out as. "This is a reason to join the Terrorists." Since they're even worse. Argh!
I was defending the US military, my friend. And yes, I do blame those insurgents, who kill innocents every day.

Well if you're refering to a recent event then I don't anything about it. But my point is that zero civilian casulties is unlikely, as accidents happen.
In Haditha some marines killed like 24 civilians. I don't know the exact number, but you can read about it here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060528/ap_on_go_co/marines_iraq_investigations

If it was any other country's military that was fully engaged in this kind of struggle, I suspect these massacres would happen much more often.

What makes you say that?

What makes you say that?
Just a feeling.

Just a feeling.

The same feeling that no doubt led some to say that "there must be WMD in Iraq, they wouldn't lie to us", no doubt.

The truth is that once a military comes in contact with civillians, bad things are bound to happen - usually by mistake, but occassionally not. Therefore entering into a state of war and causing this to happen is something to be avoided at all costs. The US didn't, therefore the US is to blame for this, the insurgents, a nervous Iran, and a growth in support for Islamism. Well fucking done.

Just a feeling.

Rather odd 'feeling', isn't it? Biased as well really. When was the last time the British or Spanish or Canadian Armies commited such an atrocity? And when was the last time a US unit did so?

Questions to ponder.

The same feeling that no doubt led some to say that "there must be WMD in Iraq, they wouldn't lie to us", no doubt.

The truth is that once a military comes in contact with civillians, bad things are bound to happen - usually by mistake, but occassionally not. Therefore entering into a state of war and causing this to happen is something to be avoided at all costs. The US didn't, therefore the US is to blame for this, the insurgents, a nervous Iran, and a growth in support for Islamism. Well fucking done.

A little late. I'm sure if we all had a Time Machine we'd go back and cancel it all but guess what we can't. So now people are stuck with it. Either way Bush would have found SOME reason to go to war with Iraq anyway. So sitting back and pointing fingers gets NOTHING done.

Okay it's the US's fault, you got to brag, now do you have any F*ing idea on how to fix it?

A little late. I'm sure if we all had a Time Machine we'd go back and cancel it all but guess what we can't. So now people are stuck with it. Either way Bush would have found SOME reason to go to war with Iraq anyway. So sitting back and pointing fingers gets NOTHING done.

Okay it's the US's fault, you got to brag, now do you have any F*ing idea on how to fix it?

Announcement of a phased withdrawal. All loans and oil deals made before a government was elected and took office forgiven/cancelled. An agreement that no US bases be built on Iraqi soil. A date for the removal of the "green zone" in Baghdad.

Announcement of a phased withdrawal. All loans and oil deals made before a government was elected and took office forgiven/cancelled. An agreement that no US bases be built on Iraqi soil. A date for the removal of the "green zone" in Baghdad.

That's still not going to 'Fix' it. They'd still hate the US and try and kill them anyway.

Heck I'm sure we could pull out of Israel, let them wipe Israel off the map, and they'll still hate us. They've hated us, and they will continue to hate us. That is what they will be taught, it's easy to cover up how horrible it is where you are by pointing the Finger at another.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the marines either mistakenly beleived there was a raghead in the group of civvies, or maybe they ran a checkpoint?

I was defending the US military, my friend. And yes, I do blame those insurgents, who kill innocents every day.

+1

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the marines either mistakenly beleived there was a raghead in the group of civvies, or maybe they ran a checkpoint?

Raghead? God.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the marines either mistakenly beleived there was a raghead in the group of civvies, or maybe they ran a checkpoint?

Rag head? That would make you a redneck bigot then?

Sorry as you were generalising and trivialising, I thought i´d join in the fun.

I'll just repeat what I said in another thread with the same topic:

I find it surprising that so little attention is being paid to all this, to be honest. Maybe it's because there are no shocking pictures, but clearly this is a very big deal indeed on many levels (ultimately including the training and leadership standards in the Marine Corps, I'm afraid to say).

As for Bush...meh. People should stop associating him with many of these things, particularly in Iraq. It wasn't really his idea to go there, it wasn't his decisions that fucked everything up, and it's not his fault these things keep happening on the ground there. As head of government, he ultimately is somewhat responsible of course, but there are many a man who are much more at fault with all this than he is.

Attacking Bush will only divert attention away from them.

No, the fact that it only happened once does not mean that it is somehow less bad. No, it does not mean that the Marine Corps does not have a problem.
If the training and lack of proper leadership allows even one case like this, it means that it failed as a whole. It's not a case of 'less massacres', it's a case of 'either you go there to help the people, and every last one of my soldiers knows and believes this, or we go there to fight a war and terrorists and so on and all the hadjis ("ragheads" is out of fashion, ain't it?) are against us'.

They wouldn't shoot their own soldiers after a friendly fire incident. That they are instead willing to shoot civilians means that they fail to value civilian life as highly as they value soldiers (who chose to go there, knowing they'd be risking death) and they make a vital distinction between the two. It shows that they do not consider the civilians on their side.

That's a problem with the military's culture in Iraq. The fact that they'd resort to lethal force is a problem of training. And the fact that their commander didn't stop them is a problem of leadership.

Raghead? God.

Rag head? That would make you a redneck bigot then?

Sorry as you were generalising and trivialising, I thought i´d join in the fun.


Okay.


Towel headed goat humper.


There you go.

Although I am not defending this horrible atrocity, the fact that this is such big news just goes to show that it happens very rarely, and is in fact a testament to the discipline of the US military.
No. It's because an Iraqi took pictures/video of the aftermath and Time got a hold of them.

And the military got caught telling lies because Time looked into the story.

Hardly a testiment to discipline.
Consider how the US military is badly overstretched, and the situation in Iraq is very frustrating, what with not knowing who is the enemy and who isn't. If it was any other country's military that was fully engaged in this kind of struggle, I suspect these massacres would happen much more often.
Disagree. I fear it would be about equal.

Also, the fact that these Marines are being tried and will probably be court-martialed means that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the jihadists, who wouldn't blink an eye to killing dozens of civilians at weddings.
Agree, somewhat.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the marines either mistakenly beleived there was a raghead in the group of civvies, or maybe they ran a checkpoint?
Raghead, eh? My, you're delightfully amusing. Mind if I push you off that limb? :rolleyes:

And no, this seems to be a case of revenge-style executions of innocent civilians, even children.

Can't believe that civilians have gotten killed and you people are trying to find excuses for an army unit for its wanton murder of civilians.

They went into several homes dragged people from their bed and blew their brains out a simple fact of life. And this is not the only one, there are others as well, British for example as well as one for April.

And being apart of the military, of my country, yes it is frustrating yes you can get scared and angry, when your friends die and the enemy isn't clearly seen.

However that gives no one the right to give excuses for the people who pulled the trigger that killed 15 people including a 3 year old child and the officers that covered it up.

And the only thing that will occur is more opposition to U.S troops that do good in Iraq.

Can't believe that civilians have gotten killed and you people are trying to find excuses for an army unit for its wanton murder of civilians.

They went into several homes dragged people from their bed and blew their brains out a simple fact of life. And this is not the only one, there are others as well, British for example as well as one for April.

And being apart of the military, of my country, yes it is frustrating yes you can get scared and angry, when your friends die and the enemy isn't clearly seen.

However that gives no one the right to give excuses for the people who pulled the trigger that killed 15 people including a 3 year old child and the officers that covered it up.

And the only thing that will occur is more opposition to U.S troops that do good in Iraq.
Read my posts carefully. Nowhere did I defend this unforgivable action, the closest I came to doing so is that I can understand their motivations, but they should still be court-martialed and thrown in jail, or executed. What I'm trying to say is that it's an exception for american marines to be doing this. That's it.

No. It's because an Iraqi took pictures/video of the aftermath and Time got a hold of them.

And the military got caught telling lies because Time looked into the story.

Hardly a testiment to discipline.

I was referring to the US military as a whole, which by all accounts isn't killing innocents right and left.

+1
Only 1?:p

Announcement of a phased withdrawal. All loans and oil deals made before a government was elected and took office forgiven/cancelled. An agreement that no US bases be built on Iraqi soil. A date for the removal of the "green zone" in Baghdad.
Scenario 1: The jihadists take over and turn Iraq into a breeding ground for anti-Americanism and terrorism against the West in general.
Scenario 2: Iran takes over and #1 happens anyway.
Scenario 3: The various ethnic groups of Iraq break out into full scale civil war which spills into the middle east.

Either way, it seems to me like the best, or least worst, option is for the US soldiers to stick it out and see what happens.

Rather odd 'feeling', isn't it? Biased as well really. When was the last time the British or Spanish or Canadian Armies commited such an atrocity? And when was the last time a US unit did so?

Questions to ponder.
Point taken. Admittedly, those other armies weren't involved in any major wars within the last 50 years, but point taken neverthless.

I know this has probably been discussed before, but here's my take on it: Although I am not defending this horrible atrocity, the fact that this is such big news just goes to show that it happens very rarely, and is in fact a testament to the discipline of the US military. Consider how the US military is badly overstretched, and the situation in Iraq is very frustrating, what with not knowing who is the enemy and who isn't. If it was any other country's military that was fully engaged in this kind of struggle, I suspect these massacres would happen much more often. Also, the fact that these Marines are being tried and will probably be court-martialed means that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the jihadists, who wouldn't blink an eye to killing dozens of civilians at weddings.

Agree or disagree?

Who are you trying to kid. these men were well trained in the art of brutal thuggery and a key instrument of government policy.

Only 1?:p

I'm only one person.

Who are you trying to kid. these men were well trained in the art of brutal thuggery and a key instrument of government policy.
Yes, the jihadists were. Iran, does after all, give them training. The US soldiers, on the other hand, were trained in self-defense and winning the hearts and minds. Of course, that's kind of hard to do when the jihadists use their thuggery to intimidate the population so that the ordinary people can't have a better life.

Who are you trying to kid. these men were well trained in the art of brutal thuggery and a key instrument of government policy.

WTF? Did they go and hang around Saddam before the invasion to learn that special touch Saddam has on the art of "brutal thuggery"?

They're trained serial killers, they're intended to project US power anywhere.


:D

I was referring to the US military as a whole, which by all accounts isn't killing innocents right and left.
I still don't see how this matter could be "a testament to the discipline of the US military".

Especially not when they're caught trying to cover up this incident.

I still don't see how this matter could be "a testament to the discipline of the US military".

Especially not when they're caught trying to cover up this incident.
It's a testament to the discipline of the US military because these kinds of events would have happened much more often in a less professional force.

It's a testament to the discipline of the US military because these kinds of events would have happened much more often in a less professional force.
The question is whether a peacekeeping approach might have been much better. I think a better division between those troops that do combat, and those troops that just patrol and all that would've been good. It seems to work in Afghanistan.

It's a testament to the discipline of the US military because these kinds of events would have happened much more often in a less professional force.

I agree. A few civilians were shot and killed by marines. In the meantime, more are blown up by insurgent car bombs...it's a rare occurence for loose trigger control to happen.

It's a testament to the discipline of the US military because these kinds of events would have happened much more often in a less professional force.
I still don't think it's a testament to anything.

The question is whether a peacekeeping approach might have been much better. I think a better division between those troops that do combat, and those troops that just patrol and all that would've been good. It seems to work in Afghanistan.

Peacekeeping would have worked had there not been an invasion. But peacekeeping also isn't suited to dealing with crushing an insurgency.

Peacekeeping would have worked had there not been an invasion. But peacekeeping also isn't suited to dealing with crushing an insurgency.
True.

But ideally, after Saddam's army was destroyed, most of the combat forces should have been replaced with peacekeepers, with entirely different demeanour and so on. It was the bad behaviour of the US Forces in the first few months that screwed everything up so badly.

As I said, in Afghanistan there is a clear division between combat forces which fight the Taliban, and peacekeepers which provide security et al in the cities. Of course the geography and demographics are a bit different, but it's not that bad a concept.

Yes, the jihadists were. Iran, does after all, give them training. The US soldiers, on the other hand, were trained in self-defense and winning the hearts and minds. Of course, that's kind of hard to do when the jihadists use their thuggery to intimidate the population so that the ordinary people can't have a better life.

Gunning down innocent civilians is a novel way of winning hearts and minds. perhaps you'd like to explain how that works?

WTF? Did they go and hang around Saddam before the invasion to learn that special touch Saddam has on the art of "brutal thuggery"?

They're trained serial killers, they're intended to project US power anywhere.


:D

My point exactly. these young men have been indoctrinated by their governement and turned into brutal thugs. Wherever the US wants to try and intimidate peoiple they send in these skinheads.

Gunning down innocent civilians is a novel way of winning hearts and minds. perhaps you'd like to explain how that works?
Well, see, it works like this: You want power, so you decide that bombing weddings and killing someone because they disagree about the fine points of your religion is a good way to intimidate the population in general, which will allow you to seize power and establish your own little enclave of radical islamism.

How about cutting out the making excuses routine and send all those 'overstretched' soldiers home instead, before any more of them go crazy mad-ape bugshit and kill more innocent people?

This kind of stuff Im sure happens all the time in Iraq, we just dont hear about it. Thats the nature of the US armed forces, they slaughter innocents with their bombs and raids and dont care. They want to kill all arabs so they can take their oil.

This kind of stuff Im sure happens all the time in Iraq, we just dont hear about it. Thats the nature of the US armed forces, they slaughter innocents with their bombs and raids and dont care. They want to kill all arabs so they can take their oil.
Meh, some care, the Brass dosen't.

This kind of stuff Im sure happens all the time in Iraq, we just dont hear about it. Thats the nature of the US armed forces, they slaughter innocents with their bombs and raids and dont care. They want to kill all arabs so they can take their oil.
It may or may not happen all the time, as you say, but I won't believe that it does for two major reasons: There are no documented cases of it happening, so until there is a credible source that it does happen, I won't think it does, and more importantly, because the soldiers in Iraq aren't much older than me (about 2 to 5 years on average) and I have more faith in my fellow Americans than to think that we would commit these atrocities on a regular basis. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all oil thirsty, self-serving pigs with no regard for the welfare of others.
How about cutting out the making excuses routine and send all those 'overstretched' soldiers home instead, before any more of them go crazy mad-ape bugshit and kill more innocent people?
Because if we brought them all back home Iraq would go to shit and it would all be for nothing. All we can do is stick it out until the end. Hopefully Iraq will one day join the brotherhood of peaceful democratic nations of the world, and if not, we have to know that we did all we could so that we don't get involved in any more half-brained schemes like it.

It may or may not happen all the time, as you say, but I won't believe that it does for two major reasons: There are no documented cases of it happening, so until there is a credible source that it does happen, I won't think it does, and more importantly, because the soldiers in Iraq aren't much older than me (about 2 to 5 years on average) and I have more faith in my fellow Americans than to think that we would commit these atrocities on a regular basis. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all oil thirsty, self-serving pigs with no regard for the welfare of others.
.
I don't know man, My Lai was pretty damed close to being covered up.

WTF is all of this? Oh, wait, of course. None of you have ever even come close to being in the military.

No one here ever see that movie with Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones called "Rules of Engagement"?

I blame my diabetes :mad:

I'm with Dude111 on this. The marines involved committed a horrible crime, and will be tried for it. This ought not reflect badly on the entire US Military, since only 4-7 men were involved. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it was a 'fire-team' the smallest division of Marine forces possible.

As for the cover-up: I don't think that any armed force can be reasonably expected to publicise something like this, especially when public support for the ongoing operations is particularly low owing to lack of patience among American citizens.

And for going home: Because that would totally solve the insurgency problem. Since they just want a free and democratic Iraq.
Right.
Rather, if we left now, the insurgents would continue their attempts to kill the Iraqi parliament and its Prime Minister, since they're 'toadies of the American Devils' or whatever phrase it was Zarqawi used to describe them. And then we'd have a fundamentalist police state. Which would be oh-so-nice for stability in the region. Honestly, Americans need to watch far fewer TV shows in which some huge, globe threatening problem is resolved in an hour. And then we all need to understand that Iraq will take a very long time to rebuild, since it's a country rather than a TV set.

Let's hope so... seeing as this war is already two steps away from being Nam

Let's hope so... seeing as this war is already two steps away from being Nam

Its more than two steps away from Southeastern Asia... like, about 4000 miles off.

On bad days in Vietnam, 2000 soldiers would die in a single day. In Iraq, it's something like thirty. Let's not get our wars mixed up, shall we?

On bad days in Vietnam, 2000 soldiers would die in a single day. In Iraq, it's something like thirty. Let's not get our wars mixed up, shall we?
Meh, I was referring to the political climate as opposed to the casualties.

That's true, I suppose. But it's not really that bad, I wish people would give the soldiers and the new Iraqi Parliament some time, before demanding results.

That's still not going to 'Fix' it. They'd still hate the US and try and kill them anyway.

Heck I'm sure we could pull out of Israel, let them wipe Israel off the map, and they'll still hate us. They've hated us, and they will continue to hate us. That is what they will be taught, it's easy to cover up how horrible it is where you are by pointing the Finger at another.

No iraqis were involved in the NYC attack. Israel is another discussion, and you're wrong there as well.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the marines either mistakenly beleived there was a raghead in the group of civvies, or maybe they ran a checkpoint?.


I suggest you clamber back to a more secure branch and go back to ass-scracthing and throwing shit at the tourists. If you couldnt be bothered reading the charges, then obviously you're just trolling. And its "iraqi" not rag-head".

Yes, the jihadists were. Iran, does after all, give them training. The US soldiers, on the other hand, were trained in self-defense and winning the hearts and minds. Of course, that's kind of hard to do when the jihadists use their thuggery to intimidate the population so that the ordinary people can't have a better life.?.

No, Iran does not give them training, as they are Sunni muslims who kill the Iranians co-religonists, the Shia muslims, in Iraq.

Contrary to popular belief, we are not all oil thirsty, self-serving pigs with no regard for the welfare of others. .?.

Then explain supporting the Shah, Guatamala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Marcos, Suharto, East Timor, and the occupation of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, not to mention helping the repression of the Kurds in Iraq during the 1970's.

The US Army/Navy/Air Force do their best to kill the enemy; but in any war there are going to be civilian casualties; every single soldier over there is a hero.

Then explain supporting the Shah, Guatamala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Marcos, Suharto, East Timor, and the occupation of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, not to mention helping the repression of the Kurds in Iraq during the 1970's.

Trying to stop the spectre of Communism at which we succeeded; if it wasn't for several interventions, you'd most probably be tilling the land on a collective farm right now.

The US Army/Navy/Air Force do their best to kill the enemy; but in any war there are going to be civilian casualties; every single soldier over there is a hero.
That's grossly devaluating the term "hero".

And in this case it would seem that the correct term would be "murderers" when characterizing the soldiers in question.

That's true, I suppose. But it's not really that bad, I wish people would give the soldiers and the new Iraqi Parliament some time, before demanding results.

Its been 5 years.

How much more time do we need to give to Bush, or the Iraqi parliament?

The whole damn country is on the verge of a civil war, and the only thing holding it back is the military forces of the ones who BOTH sides HATE.
....Us.

They cant seem to ratify a Constitution, or agree as to lawmaking policy, how the hell are they supposed to function as an independant nation, brimming with democracy, and smelling of rainbows?

Its not going to happen, and Bush was warned this would happen, and did it anyway, and didnt care about reprocussions.

You know, whenever this happens, too many people say "Oh well..its sad, but this kind of stuff happens in a war" as if the mere fact that a war is happening, is an exscuse for war crimes.

How many such instances will it take for the rest of us to finally get tired of hearing it?
Everyone knows that the casualties on the other side are far greater, The BBC thinks it may be as many as 100,000 casualties btoh combatant and innocent civillian.

How many people have to die before we all get tired of this lame ass, unwanted war, that was given to us under false pretences, and the ones responsible for this act of aggression will not tell us the truth?

Remember when America were the "Good Guys"?

When we only went to war becuase we HAD to, not when we WANTED to.

I know this has probably been discussed before, but here's my take on it: Although I am not defending this horrible atrocity, the fact that this is such big news just goes to show that it happens very rarely, and is in fact a testament to the discipline of the US military. Consider how the US military is badly overstretched, and the situation in Iraq is very frustrating, what with not knowing who is the enemy and who isn't. If it was any other country's military that was fully engaged in this kind of struggle, I suspect these massacres would happen much more often. Also, the fact that these Marines are being tried and will probably be court-martialed means that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the jihadists, who wouldn't blink an eye to killing dozens of civilians at weddings.

Agree or disagree?
I'm a regular soldier in the British Army and what you said about foreign forces is no way acceptable! i've worked with many forces in iraq and they all do a great job!.The u.s marines are still human however and humans get angry and this was just revenge.It will happen,IO dont blame them at all!

I'm a regular soldier in the British Army and what you said about foreign forces is no way acceptable! i've worked with many forces in iraq and they all do a great job!.The u.s marines are still human however and humans get angry and this was just revenge.It will happen,IO dont blame them at all!
Don't blame them for murdering innocent civilians? :confused:

Rrrrrrrright...

my god, some americans are absolutely blinded by their leaders, wake up!!

1. Obviously (from my name) im from Iraq. I only left Iraq 3 years ago, and stayed for a few months in Haditha after the war started (i originally lived in Baghdad, but Haditha, being a isolated town, seemed to be alot safer)
There, we were treated like we were inferior to the Americans. American soldiers, 19 years old and a drop out from college, was telling people who had lived in Iraq their whole life the rules they have to live by, the American rules. Under the American military dictatorship (that is the only thing I believe I can call it, rule by a military is a military dictatorship) we were not allowed to turn our homes lights on at night, the reason was because they thought that if someone turns their lights on at night, it must be the Ba'ath party having a meeting (that makes sense, I mean, who turns their lights on at night) Quite a few people had generators in Haditha, so it was not uncommon to see people capable of having reliable electricity having to do everything in the dark. We also were not allowed to have cars parked outside our house for the same reason. The punishment for this was the house being bombed, without warning, without search.

In Haditha, people live the usual small town way, a very tight knit group of people who like to socialise. One thing they like to do every friday (the "sabbath" day in muslim countries, equivalent to sunday) is have dinner at one of their homes for the whole group, then go out in the evening and simply rest and chat on the top of the hill in the middle of Haditha. Now, I wasn't one of those people, obviously because I had only moved there a month earlier, and did not even leave the house for anything, as it was far too dangerous, we had a very close family friend who was under command of my father during the iraq-iran war who was willing to risk his life everyday to run errands for us. While i was watching my sister play "the sims" on her computer (pretty much the only thing we could do, board games were a no-no at night as there was no light) we heard an extremely loud rocket, no more than 200m away, being fired from a helicopter, at the hill. Apparently, Americans saw a group of people on top of a hill sitting and chatting, and thought it was a group of Ba'ath party loyalists, and, again without warning or further investigation, opened fire. The soundwaves were so powerful that the window in front of the computer shattered all over us, and my mother immediately told us to pop our ears, as they had been blocked the same way as they block when you are in an aeroplane. I started laughing out of nervousness, my 2 sisters were crying and thought they were going to die that night. We were told to crawl up into the corner and hold a mattress over our heads, where we heard 5 more rockets be fired.

The result, over a dozen civilians, many of them elderly, died that night, and no body ever knew about this, nor can anybody prove this, as, unlike the recent massacre, no human rights group caught it on tape.

The point is, americans had come and told everyone wat to do. This shows that peoples arguements of "o well i understand y they did it, they were under alot of pressure" is just as valid an arguement as if i support terrorists for the same reason, being told by foreigners how to go about ur life kind of makes you want to kill them, especially if they act arrogantly to you or act like ur stupid and dont no anything, obviously, as u can tell from my english, i am well educated, alot better than many soldiers where the army is their only option, pointing and shooting a gun does not require much skill.

It also proves the point that these massacres are not rare, they are quite common, its just difficult for the media to show or prove them. This is the reality of the situation in iraq.

The u.s marines are still human however and humans get angry and this was just revenge.It will happen,IO dont blame them at all!

LOL ROFL LOL!!!! omg!! that is the most biased and idiotic statement ive ever heard! arabs are still human!! terrorists are still human!! and humans get angry when america trods on their country and says "my mistake," only to tell them that they are wrong and they should do things the american way. So they get their revenge in the form of september 11!! c, it all makes sense, arab gets angry at america, kills a bunch of american civilians! cant blame them at all!

o yea and btw, this massacre was a terrorist act, it was the deliberate killing of civilians in a political context.

excuse me for the double post, but my other post was long anyway.

The US Army/Navy/Air Force do their best to kill the enemy; but in any war there are going to be civilian casualties; every single soldier over there is a hero.

Oh yeah. These guys are real heroes...

That's grossly devaluating the term "hero".

And in this case it would seem that the correct term would be "murderers" when characterizing the soldiers in question.

May be if you got off your ungrateful ass and fought some where you might have a different view. If I was fighting, the thing that would repulse me would not be the mindless violence but people like you essentially saying a soldier's life is worthless.

Oh yeah. These guys are real heroes...

See above post.

See above post.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise I had to brainlessly worship the altar of the soldier. Listen up. I respect soldiers for what they do, but not when they kill civilians, as has happened here.

Civilians know the dangers of looking suspicious in public; its their own fault.

Civilians know the dangers of looking suspicious in public; its their own fault.

Oh dear god...


You are actually insane.

If I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't be going outside, causing attention to myself.

If I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't be going outside, causing attention to myself.

Oh yes. God forbid that they walk around in their own country. They do need to shop, relax, try and go on with their lives whilst the Coalition forces occupy their country.

They need to exercise caution in doing so, it is for a greater good.

They need to exercise caution in doing so, it is for a greater good.Which they didn't ask for.

May be if you got off your ungrateful ass and fought some where you might have a different view. If I was fighting, the thing that would repulse me would not be the mindless violence but people like you essentially saying a soldier's life is worthless.

Uh huh. I suppose you thought the people responsible for My Lai were heroes too.

In fact, I propose you get off YOUR fat ass and go to Iraq and live as one of the civilians there for a couple of months. Then come back and tell us how it's the civilians faults they happened to have stopped a bullet cause they were shopping for food.

You know what? If you really believe what you're saying, either you're a retard, mentally immature or a troll.

May be if you got off your ungrateful ass and fought some where you might have a different view. If I was fighting, the thing that would repulse me would not be the mindless violence but people like you essentially saying a soldier's life is worthless.
First of all, you don't know anything about me or what I've done, do you? Hmm? Not that it matters, so I choose to disregard your little ad hominem there.

Secondly: Have I said that a soldiers life is worthless? No. So that would be what, a straw man?

Thirdly: You're not repulsed by the cold blooded killing of innocent civilians, including children - a two year old boy, for heavens sake!

And if they are convicted of murder, will you still call them heroes?

Civilians know the dangers of looking suspicious in public; its their own fault.
Fourthly: If you had bothered to read the articles, you would know that they were murdered at home, in their own houses. No need to go outside when the killers come home to you, is there?

And the last point: You might be insane, you might be a troll, I don't care. However, you should read up on subjects you wish to debate. This was just... pathetic.

If I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't be going outside, causing attention to myself.

Listen moron, most of the murdered Iraqis were dragged from their beds, one was a blind old man in a wheelchair; they were NOT drawing attention to themselves. Why don't you actually read about the story before you spout your ignorant views around the forum?

I dont know why all you are jumping all over those guys. Im sure they had a really good reason for doing it, the facts arent out. They probably got caught in the cross fire or had bombs(like alot of Iraqis do). And even if that isnt the case why should I care? They killed 3000 of our guys on 9/11 so its fair game. DOnt you remember how you felt when the towers fell?

I dont know why all you are jumping all over those guys. Im sure they had a really good reason for doing it, the facts arent out. They probably got caught in the cross fire or had bombs(like alot of Iraqis do). And even if that isnt the case why should I care? They killed 3000 of our guys on 9/11 so its fair game. DOnt you remember how you felt when the towers fell?

Did you even read the article? This was no crossfire incident. Civilians were shoved into closets and killed, people mown down without any cause; a man in a wheelchair was shot.

But still, fair game, huh?

Did you even read the article? This was no crossfire incident. Civilians were shoved into closets and killed, people mown down without any cause; a man in a wheelchair was shot.

But still, fair game, huh?
hell yeah its fair game

hell yeah its fair game

I'm sorry, what? So you condone US troops killing unarmed civilians? You condone them putting people into closets and shooting them? Shooting disabled people in wheelchairs, and killing innocent children?

You condone the killing of people in no way connected to the 9/11 attacks, by US troops supposedly in their country to liberate them?

I'm sorry, what? So you condone US troops killing unarmed civilians? You condone them putting people into closets and shooting them? Shooting disabled people in wheelchairs, and killing innocent children?

You condone the killing of people in no way connected to the 9/11 attacks, by US troops supposedly in their country to liberate them?
yes, look we were attacked on 9/11 and we are fighting back now. Freedom isnt free, sometimes people just have to die.

yes, look we were attacked on 9/11 and we are fighting back now. Freedom isnt free, sometimes people just have to die.

You were attacked on September 11th by 11 terrorists connected to Al Quaeda, the majority of whom were Saudi Arabian by birth. Not one of these terrorists was Iraqi or had any link to Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Your nation invaded Afghanistan and crippled Al Quaeda to an extent there. You then continued to invade Iraq, a country that had very few links to international terrorism and none to Al Quaeda; Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other and never co-operated together.

Thus, these civilians, gunned down in cold blood by US troops, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or your country's 'War On Terror', and had in no way impinged on your right to freedom.

So I ask again. How can you condone the killing of women, children, men and the elderly, not caught in a crossfire but in fact killed by US troops on purpose, that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on September 11th?

You were attacked on September 11th by 11 terrorists connected to Al Quaeda, the majority of whom were Saudi Arabian by birth. Not one of these terrorists was Iraqi or had any link to Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Your nation invaded Afghanistan and crippled Al Quaeda to an extent there. You then continued to invade Iraq, a country that had very few links to international terrorism and none to Al Quaeda; Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other and never co-operated together.

Thus, these civilians, gunned down in cold blood by US troops, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or your country's 'War On Terror', and had in no way impinged on your right to freedom.

So I ask again. How can you condone the killing of women, children, men and the elderly, not caught in a crossfire but in fact killed by US troops on purpose, that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on September 11th?
Iraqi officials met with M. Atta in prague. Saddam gave medical aid to terrorists fighters throughout his regine. They do infringe my freedoms because this makes the US look bad among the hippies, which could hurt the war effort. And as far as Im concern there are no "civilians" in Iraq, only terrorists and soon to be terrorists.

Iraqi officials met with M. Atta in prague. Saddam gave medical aid to terrorists fighters throughout his regine. They do infringe my freedoms because this makes the US look bad among the hippies, which could hurt the war effort. And as far as Im concern there are no "civilians" in Iraq, only terrorists and soon to be terrorists.

That, sir, is the logic of the clinically insane. The vast majority of people in Iraq are normal people, like you (I think) or me. They have had their country invaded by a foreign country, and are just trying to survive. Some fight against the Coalition forces, but even the majority of these fighters are insurgents trying to reclaim their country, not terrorists from outside, such as those aided by Al Quaeda. To claim that they are all terrorists or would-be terrorists is both ignorant and appallingly inaccurate.

The people that died in Iraq, did not infringe upon your freedoms at all. How, sir, did the children or the disabled man in the wheelchair, stop you from having your rights? In what way did they directly or indirectly hurt your freedoms?

As to your comment about 'Hippies', I shall refrain from commenting. Suffice to say it highlights how ignorant and biased your world viewpoint is, sir.

Where the fuck is the link to the story?

Where the fuck is the link to the story?

In another thread. Hang on, I'll try and find one.

EDIT: That's one of them, although it's not the best for detail: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/murtha.marines/index.html

[QUOTE]That, sir, is the logic of the clinically insane. The vast majority of people in Iraq are normal people, like you (I think) or me. They have had their country invaded by a foreign country, and are just trying to survive. Some fight against the Coalition forces, but even the majority of these fighters are insurgents trying to reclaim their country, not terrorists from outside, such as those aided by Al Quaeda. To claim that they are all terrorists or would-be terrorists is both ignorant and appallingly inaccurate.
They are trying to survive by killing our boys? Thats unacceptable, this goes to show that you cant trust Iraqis.
The people that died in Iraq, did not infringe upon your freedoms at all. How, sir, did the children or the disabled man in the wheelchair, stop you from having your rights? In what way did they directly or indirectly hurt your freedoms?
Because people will feel sorry for them and turn against the US in Iraq and around the world which is wrong and threatens my freedoms and my very exsistence.

[QUOTE=Skinny87]
They are trying to survive by killing our boys? Thats unacceptable, this goes to show that you cant trust Iraqis.

Because people will feel sorry for them and turn against the US in Iraq and around the world which is wrong and threatens my freedoms and my very exsistence.

How did you get to that? Most civilians - like the ones killed by the Marines - are just trying to survive. They don't fight Coaliton troops - or do you think a man in a wheelchair is a threat somehow? You still haven't answered the main question - as to how the murder of a group of unarmed civilians can be justified, as they were no threat to US troops or yourself.

Perhaps if US soldiers stopped killing Iraqi civilians, as seems to have happened on more than a few occassions, then people would stop turning against the Coalition troops in Iraq, killing more troops.

Because people will feel sorry for them and turn against the US in Iraq and around the world which is wrong and threatens my freedoms and my very exsistence.
Yeah, it was the 2-year olds fault for dying, wasn't it? :rolleyes:

You are either a troll or insane. May I recomend an education? It might work wonders for you.

Yeah, it was the 2-year olds fault for dying, wasn't it? :rolleyes:

Thats not what Im saying. I just saying it shouldnt have been there because its causing us problems and thats not cool. I kinda blame the parents for putting the kid in a dangerous place and situation.

Thats not what Im saying. I just saying it shouldnt have been there because its causing us problems and thats not cool. I kinda blame the parents for putting the kid in a dangerous place and situation.

You blame the parents for...


That's it. You are a fucking nutter. Goodnight.

Where the fuck is the link to the story?
Link (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649-1,00.html) to the original story that started the investigation.

Thats not what Im saying. I just saying it shouldnt have been there because its causing us problems and thats not cool. I kinda blame the parents for putting the kid in a dangerous place and situation.
You blame the parents for staying home with the child... Okay... The parents did nothing wrong. They were in their homes when the soldiers entered and killed them. Have you even read a single of the articles linked to in this thread?

It seems you really are blaming the dead for dying. How nice.

[QUOTE]
How did you get to that? Most civilians - like the ones killed by the Marines - are just trying to survive. They don't fight Coaliton troops - or do you think a man in a wheelchair is a threat somehow? You still haven't answered the main question - as to how the murder of a group of unarmed civilians can be justified, as they were no threat to US troops or yourself.
the "murder" of civilians is justified when the marines say it is. There are no rules to war. besides, you dont know that the day after the marines left those people would just turn around and attack an American.
how do you know wheelchair guy wasnt a threat? maybe he had a bomb.

Perhaps if US soldiers stopped killing Iraqi civilians, as seems to have happened on more than a few occassions, then people would stop turning against the Coalition troops in Iraq, killing more troops.
Or we could just kill the people who turn against us and the problem gets solved easier.

Don't feed the idiot/troll.

[QUOTE=Skinny87]

the "murder" of civilians is justified when the marines say it is. There are no rules to war. besides, you dont know that the day after the marines left those people would just turn around and attack an American.
how do you know wheelchair guy wasnt a threat? maybe he had a bomb.

Or we could just kill the people who turn against us and the problem gets solved easier.

Yeah, okay. I'm now officially convinced this is a troll or a puppet.

You blame the parents for staying home with the child... Okay... The parents did nothing wrong. They were in their homes when the soldiers entered and killed them. Have you even read a single of the articles linked to in this thread?

It seems you really are blaming the dead for dying. How nice.
Well, you know what. If they hadnt been there none of this would have happened. Marines are under alot of stress you know, its not easy. They should be respected not treated like criminals.

[QUOTE=Bobo Hope]

Yeah, okay. I'm now officially convinced this is a troll or a puppet.
Im convinced you just dont want to answer my point because its bulletproof and you realize you lose .

Don't feed the idiot/troll.
You're right. Sorry about that. :)

Wow, there are a lot of trolls around today. Must be the mild winters we've been having.

Im convinced you just dont want to answer my point because its bulletproof and you realize you lose .

No, it's more because you're actually clinically insane, as can be judged by your recent posts. This one in particular is a personal favourite:

Well, you know what. If they hadnt been there none of this would have happened. Marines are under alot of stress you know, its not easy. They should be respected not treated like criminals.

How here, you're either insinuating that if US troops hadn't been there, they wouldn't have done it. Which with your previous posting history is about the most sensible thing you've said. Or you're saying its the fault of the Iraqi Civilians being there, which is unbelievable.

I've also been answering your posts for the last hour or so, yet you simply regurgitate the same blindly nationalistic prose over and over again, justifying the massacre of innocent civilians by US Marines.

Thus, I come to the conclusion that you are either A) A troll, B) Insane or C) Blindly Nationalistic. Whichever one it is, I honestly don't care. Thus, I'll leave this thread, as you cannot be debated with.

If the massacre of civilians is to be considered inevitable, then where do we set the limit? What is the maximum number of people that can be killed before anybody is held to account?

Wow, there are a lot of trolls around today. Must be the mild winters we've been having.
That's funny, 'cause that was exactly what I was thinking? I'm a bit impressed! :p

Thus, I come to the conclusion that you are either A) A troll, B) Insane or C) Blindly Nationalistic. Whichever one it is, I honestly don't care. Thus, I'll leave this thread, as you cannot be debated with.
Meh, just ignore him. You know what'll happen when the sun comes out ;)

Wow, there are a lot of trolls around today. Must be the mild winters we've been having.
Geez. No kidding...(Even though by his logic he would support the holocaust.)

Point taken. Admittedly, those other armies weren't involved in any major wars within the last 50 years, but point taken neverthless.

Do remember that the Brits are currently peace-keeping in Southern Iraq (ie Basra) and Afganistahn. Plus, the Falklands wasn't more than fifty years ago. Not attacking you, just pointing out. :)

Do remember that the Brits are currently peace-keeping in Southern Iraq (ie Basra) and Afganistahn. Plus, the Falklands wasn't more than fifty years ago. Not attacking you, just pointing out. :)

I'd hardly call the Falklands a major war.... Considering Argentina didn't have a hope in hell of winning.

I'd hardly call the Falklands a major war.... Considering Argentina didn't have a hope in hell of winning.

I seem to remember they put up enough of a fight in that conflict...

Trying to stop the spectre of Communism at which we succeeded; if it wasn't for several interventions, you'd most probably be tilling the land on a collective farm right now.

No, trying to stop land and electoral reform and stop Latin Americas people move towards some form of equality. More than likely it was because some fat arsed gringo wanted to make more profit on his banannas....now piss off and do your homework.

They killed 3000 of our guys on 9/11 so its fair game. DOnt you remember how you felt when the towers fell?.

Not the same people or country, and I wasn't too pushed. Are you from the same class as the last clown?

I dont know why all you are jumping all over those guys. Im sure they had a really good reason for doing it, the facts arent out. They probably got caught in the cross fire or had bombs(like alot of Iraqis do). And even if that isnt the case why should I care? They killed 3000 of our guys on 9/11 so its fair game. DOnt you remember how you felt when the towers fell?
so we should act on rage and our ego no matter what? :rolleyes:

ignoring that most the highjackers were from Egypt.

By your logic the Japanese have the divine right to kill 600,000 of us right now

Not the same people or country, and I wasn't too pushed. Are you from the same class as the last clown?
Then you dont know how it felt. And what clown are you talking about?

[QUOTE]so we should act on rage and our ego no matter what?
as long as it protects America
ignoring that most the highjackers were from Egypt.
Saudi Arabia, actually


By your logic the Japanese have the divine right to kill 600,000 of us right now
no they dont, no one has the right to kill Americans.

no they dont, no one has the right to kill Americans.
Of course not but we have the right to test our latest weapon on them right..? :rolleyes:

(Oh and learn to use the fucking quotes right)

To my understanding US marines killing Iraqi civilians is no isolated "accident" here's a study that shows approx. 100,000 civilians have died so far. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm Also, let's make a distinction between the "insurgency" and the true rebellion that's fighting the American invasion, the rebellion needs support from the populace, why would they bomb weddings? Obviously, someone with their own agenda are enacting these horrid cowardly attacks in order to deter support from the rebellion.
Even at the time of a tyrant like Sadaam, the situation in Iraq has never been this bleak or chaotic. The situation in Iraq descended into this cacophony of military aggression, complete disregard of human rights, and political corruption only when the US decided to attack a sovereign country based on erronous information(for all which we now might have been concocted at the CIA) so, to put it simply, I disagree and I'm apalled that some people still believe that the US army has any sense or concept of morality or respect for human rights. The numbers of civilian deaths keep rising, and no hope of stability is seen in the near future. America is only worsening the situation, debiliating what little natural resources Iraq has, and attracting more hatred towards it by propagating Arabs and Muslims as terrorists and putting itself along with its army on a moral and civilised highground, aloof from the rest of the sinning mortals who inhabit the world with them. Please keep at least the basic neutral viewpoint when looking at America's actions in Iraq and other parts of the world from its inauguration till present day; you might get an answer of "why they hate us?" other than,"OMG! TEY'RE TEH JEALOUS FROM OUR DEMOCRACY! TEY TEH EVIL!!!!111!"

Of course not but we have the right to test our latest weapon on them right..? :rolleyes:

(Oh and learn to use the fucking quotes right)
its only fair

its only fair
How th-... ah never mind the concept of equality is beyond you

WTF is all of this? Oh, wait, of course. None of you have ever even come close to being in the military.
The classic response.

Because I've never been in the military, I am in no position at all to judge what is right and what is wrong, and when soldiers are misbehaving.

Tell me, do you drive a car? Because if you don't, I might just run over your neighbours, and you better shut up about it.

The classic response.

Because I've never been in the military, I am in no position at all to judge what is right and what is wrong, and when soldiers are misbehaving.

Tell me, do you drive a car? Because if you don't, I might just run over your neighbours, and you better shut up about it.

If you threaten any of my friends, I'll give you a headache that Aleeve can't help.

I was however, referring to the fact that because most people have not been in the military, and through the intensive training, and all of that, they automatically assume that infantry are knuckle-dragging morons.

screwed up
should be agree insted of disagree

I don't know man, My Lai was pretty damed close to being covered up.
But it didn't get covered up.

On bad days in Vietnam, 2000 soldiers would die in a single day. In Iraq, it's something like thirty. Let's not get our wars mixed up, shall we?
You have overexaggerated the number of US casualties in Vietnam, my friend. During the worst weeks of nam, 500 soldiers died. And that I believe was during the Tet offensive. I think the most US soldiers that died in a month in Iraq was 135.

I'm a regular soldier in the British Army and what you said about foreign forces is no way acceptable! i've worked with many forces in iraq and they all do a great job!.The u.s marines are still human however and humans get angry and this was just revenge.It will happen,IO dont blame them at all!
Sorry, I didn't mean to devalue your contribution to your nation, which is also an ally of mine. I respect your sacrifice and contribution as much as I respect the sacrifice and contribution of US soldiers.

my god, some americans are absolutely blinded by their leaders, wake up!!

1. Obviously (from my name) im from Iraq. I only left Iraq 3 years ago, and stayed for a few months in Haditha after the war started (i originally lived in Baghdad, but Haditha, being a isolated town, seemed to be alot safer)
There, we were treated like we were inferior to the Americans. American soldiers, 19 years old and a drop out from college, was telling people who had lived in Iraq their whole life the rules they have to live by, the American rules. Under the American military dictatorship (that is the only thing I believe I can call it, rule by a military is a military dictatorship) we were not allowed to turn our homes lights on at night, the reason was because they thought that if someone turns their lights on at night, it must be the Ba'ath party having a meeting (that makes sense, I mean, who turns their lights on at night) Quite a few people had generators in Haditha, so it was not uncommon to see people capable of having reliable electricity having to do everything in the dark. We also were not allowed to have cars parked outside our house for the same reason. The punishment for this was the house being bombed, without warning, without search.

In Haditha, people live the usual small town way, a very tight knit group of people who like to socialise. One thing they like to do every friday (the "sabbath" day in muslim countries, equivalent to sunday) is have dinner at one of their homes for the whole group, then go out in the evening and simply rest and chat on the top of the hill in the middle of Haditha. Now, I wasn't one of those people, obviously because I had only moved there a month earlier, and did not even leave the house for anything, as it was far too dangerous, we had a very close family friend who was under command of my father during the iraq-iran war who was willing to risk his life everyday to run errands for us. While i was watching my sister play "the sims" on her computer (pretty much the only thing we could do, board games were a no-no at night as there was no light) we heard an extremely loud rocket, no more than 200m away, being fired from a helicopter, at the hill. Apparently, Americans saw a group of people on top of a hill sitting and chatting, and thought it was a group of Ba'ath party loyalists, and, again without warning or further investigation, opened fire. The soundwaves were so powerful that the window in front of the computer shattered all over us, and my mother immediately told us to pop our ears, as they had been blocked the same way as they block when you are in an aeroplane. I started laughing out of nervousness, my 2 sisters were crying and thought they were going to die that night. We were told to crawl up into the corner and hold a mattress over our heads, where we heard 5 more rockets be fired.

The result, over a dozen civilians, many of them elderly, died that night, and no body ever knew about this, nor can anybody prove this, as, unlike the recent massacre, no human rights group caught it on tape.

The point is, americans had come and told everyone wat to do. This shows that peoples arguements of "o well i understand y they did it, they were under alot of pressure" is just as valid an arguement as if i support terrorists for the same reason, being told by foreigners how to go about ur life kind of makes you want to kill them, especially if they act arrogantly to you or act like ur stupid and dont no anything, obviously, as u can tell from my english, i am well educated, alot better than many soldiers where the army is their only option, pointing and shooting a gun does not require much skill.

It also proves the point that these massacres are not rare, they are quite common, its just difficult for the media to show or prove them. This is the reality of the situation in iraq.
About the lights: I suspect they can be used to signal insurgents, so that's why you weren't allowed to use them. I understand that you're pissed off that foreigners told you what to do, but cooperation is needed when fighting an insurgency. Now, about the helicopter shooting: Do you know for a fact that the people killed were not Ba'ath party leaders? I'm not claiming they were, but do you know for sure they weren't?

Thank you very much for your input, it was refreshing to get it from the viewpoint of an Iraqi civilian.

If you threaten any of my friends, I'll give you a headache that Aleeve can't help.
I'm so impressed.
Fact is that standards of behaviour apply universally. Not shooting civilians out of revenge is part of those standards. I can criticise anyone who violates these standards, regardless of who they work for, just as you can criticise me for my driving regardless of whether or not you drive.

I was however, referring to the fact that because most people have not been in the military, and through the intensive training, and all of that, they automatically assume that infantry are knuckle-dragging morons.
These infantrymen were obviously either insane (unlikely) or badly-trained. That's all there can be said about that.

Do remember that the Brits are currently peace-keeping in Southern Iraq (ie Basra) and Afganistahn. Plus, the Falklands wasn't more than fifty years ago. Not attacking you, just pointing out. :)
I said major wars. None of these are major wars. Even Iraq isn't a major war by 20th Century standards, and while the Brits do have a force there, they aren't the main force, we Americans are.

I said major wars. None of these are major wars. Even Iraq isn't a major war by 20th Century standards, and while the Brits do have a force there, they aren't the main force, we Americans are.
When was the last one then? Korea?

To my understanding US marines killing Iraqi civilians is no isolated "accident" here's a study that shows approx. 100,000 civilians have died so far. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm Also, let's make a distinction between the "insurgency" and the true rebellion that's fighting the American invasion, the rebellion needs support from the populace, why would they bomb weddings? Obviously, someone with their own agenda are enacting these horrid cowardly attacks in order to deter support from the rebellion.
Even at the time of a tyrant like Sadaam, the situation in Iraq has never been this bleak or chaotic. The situation in Iraq descended into this cacophony of military aggression, complete disregard of human rights, and political corruption only when the US decided to attack a sovereign country based on erronous information(for all which we now might have been concocted at the CIA) so, to put it simply, I disagree and I'm apalled that some people still believe that the US army has any sense or concept of morality or respect for human rights. The numbers of civilian deaths keep rising, and no hope of stability is seen in the near future. America is only worsening the situation, debiliating what little natural resources Iraq has, and attracting more hatred towards it by propagating Arabs and Muslims as terrorists and putting itself along with its army on a moral and civilised highground, aloof from the rest of the sinning mortals who inhabit the world with them. Please keep at least the basic neutral viewpoint when looking at America's actions in Iraq and other parts of the world from its inauguration till present day; you might get an answer of "why they hate us?" other than,"OMG! TEY'RE TEH JEALOUS FROM OUR DEMOCRACY! TEY TEH EVIL!!!!111!"
Two major points I would like to make:
1. There was political corruption under Saddam, and plenty of it. However, I will concede that there was hardly any crime and Iraq was indeed safer because of the police regime.
2. Most of the 100000 civilians have died at the hands of the jihadists. They are the ones who kill 50 people a day (at least) through suicide bombs, IEDs, and such. Only a small fraction of the civiians killed were killed by Americans.

When was the last one then? Korea?
For Britain, I think it was World War 2. Korea, like Vietnam, and Iraq, was a medium war. The kind of wars that are hardest for democracies to fight because small wars (like Grenada, Falklands) can be easily fought by the professional force, and large wars are not as easily fought, but they have the support of the populace as it is clear to people that their nations are in mortal danger. I believe the latest "big" war was WW2. Hopefully, it will be the last.

The thing is, you have only heard one side of the story, I know many Marines and Soldiers, and the thought of them deliberatly killing them for no purpose is highly unlikely. The media is just showing you one side of the story, did anyone remember to ask the Marines what really happened? Frankly it is sad that anyone dies in war, however this is not the first, nor the last time that civvies will die in war. Nowadays, everyone is very quick to put blame on our soldiers or Marines, they are fighting for you, and they dont choose what war they are fighting, they fight regardless of personal bias, they fight so that you and your children can grow up living in a society where it is alright to protest, share your views. Imagine if people in WW2 had the same attitude about the military as they do today.

The thing is, you have only heard one side of the story, I know many Marines and Soldiers, and the thought of them deliberatly killing them for no purpose is highly unlikely.
It's not the media making this claim, it's the military's investigation.

Face it, this time there is no way to get out of it.

But it didn't get covered up.
My point was that it is possible to cover these things up. And I'm sure more than a few have been (unfortunately).

my god, some americans are absolutely blinded by their leaders, wake up!!

1. Obviously (from my name) im from Iraq. I only left Iraq 3 years ago, and stayed for a few months in Haditha after the war started (i originally lived in Baghdad, but Haditha, being a isolated town, seemed to be alot safer)
There, we were treated like we were inferior to the Americans. American soldiers, 19 years old and a drop out from college, was telling people who had lived in Iraq their whole life the rules they have to live by, the American rules. Under the American military dictatorship (that is the only thing I believe I can call it, rule by a military is a military dictatorship) we were not allowed to turn our homes lights on at night, the reason was because they thought that if someone turns their lights on at night, it must be the Ba'ath party having a meeting (that makes sense, I mean, who turns their lights on at night) Quite a few people had generators in Haditha, so it was not uncommon to see people capable of having reliable electricity having to do everything in the dark. We also were not allowed to have cars parked outside our house for the same reason. The punishment for this was the house being bombed, without warning, without search.

In Haditha, people live the usual small town way, a very tight knit group of people who like to socialise. One thing they like to do every friday (the "sabbath" day in muslim countries, equivalent to sunday) is have dinner at one of their homes for the whole group, then go out in the evening and simply rest and chat on the top of the hill in the middle of Haditha. Now, I wasn't one of those people, obviously because I had only moved there a month earlier, and did not even leave the house for anything, as it was far too dangerous, we had a very close family friend who was under command of my father during the iraq-iran war who was willing to risk his life everyday to run errands for us. While i was watching my sister play "the sims" on her computer (pretty much the only thing we could do, board games were a no-no at night as there was no light) we heard an extremely loud rocket, no more than 200m away, being fired from a helicopter, at the hill. Apparently, Americans saw a group of people on top of a hill sitting and chatting, and thought it was a group of Ba'ath party loyalists, and, again without warning or further investigation, opened fire. The soundwaves were so powerful that the window in front of the computer shattered all over us, and my mother immediately told us to pop our ears, as they had been blocked the same way as they block when you are in an aeroplane. I started laughing out of nervousness, my 2 sisters were crying and thought they were going to die that night. We were told to crawl up into the corner and hold a mattress over our heads, where we heard 5 more rockets be fired.

The result, over a dozen civilians, many of them elderly, died that night, and no body ever knew about this, nor can anybody prove this, as, unlike the recent massacre, no human rights group caught it on tape.

The point is, americans had come and told everyone wat to do. This shows that peoples arguements of "o well i understand y they did it, they were under alot of pressure" is just as valid an arguement as if i support terrorists for the same reason, being told by foreigners how to go about ur life kind of makes you want to kill them, especially if they act arrogantly to you or act like ur stupid and dont no anything, obviously, as u can tell from my english, i am well educated, alot better than many soldiers where the army is their only option, pointing and shooting a gun does not require much skill.

It also proves the point that these massacres are not rare, they are quite common, its just difficult for the media to show or prove them. This is the reality of the situation in iraq.

This is very unfortunate news...*sigh* I wish we could with draw our troops form Iraq...unfortunately we can't do that...Iraqiya I wish you luck in surviving the night mare our country has turned yours into...and hope fully our "evil liberal" media will get a hold of this information...

About the lights: I suspect they can be used to signal insurgents, so that's why you weren't allowed to use them. I understand that you're pissed off that foreigners told you what to do, but cooperation is needed when fighting an insurgency. Now, about the helicopter shooting: Do you know for a fact that the people killed were not Ba'ath party leaders? I'm not claiming they were, but do you know for sure they weren't?

Thank you very much for your input, it was refreshing to get it from the viewpoint of an Iraqi civilian.

Well really this would be very easy to explain, this happened about a month or two after the invasion, before groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq and tactics such as sucide bombings and IEDs came on the scene. What used to happen at this time, if you remember, was ba'ath party loyalists would attack the US soldiers, and people against the occupation would hurl abuse, whether in the form of gestures, words, or bricks at the soldiers.

Saying lights should not be used because they can signal insurgents is like saying that we should not use the internet because it could be used for piracy. Besides, if EVERYONE turned on their lights, the "signal" would vanish, also, as my point above showed, there wasn't even an insurgency to begin with, just Ba'ath party officials on the run.

The group of people were obviously not Ba'ath party officials, because they were not part of the wanted list of Ba'ath party leaders, they were ordinary townsfolk, that is how I know they were not part of the Ba'ath party. Also, they would not be in small towns in Western Iraq, they would more likely be in either Baghdad or Tikrit, usually on the outskirts, however that area can be increased to the entire bank of the Tigris river. Haditha on the other hand is on the bank of the Euphrates river.

US soldiers do not cooperate with the Iraqi people, and before I go further realise that nearly all attacks on the occupying forces in Iraq happen to the US soldiers. It is very simple, imagine your driving down to see your mother, when you are stopped at a checkpoint. A, for example, British soldier would signal you to stop, and would say "Hi there sir, we just need to spend a minute checking your car for any weapons or explosives," obviously, since your not a terrorist, like 99.99% of iraqs population, you happily oblige. Now, if that was a US checkpoint, the soldiers would point their guns right at you (and if your daughter was in the car she would obviously get upset and frightened) and would start yelling at you, telling you to get on the ground, put your hands on your head, and then start searching you. This can be compared to airport security, imagine if that is how your treated everytime the metal detector beeps when you go through, you will get extremely angry at the airport.

This can also be compared to US soldiers searching homes, they will not ring the doorbell, they would rather kick the door down and start yelling orders at each other as if it was a highly skilled and organised search, when they simply woke up a sleeping family at night, and keeps them tied up in a room for hours (and note those people are usually women, who are always looked after by men in iraq and are always 6 feet away from any danger) and now they suddenly have the barrels of guns pointed at them, they will no doubt start crying. Finally the father comes home, and finds this scene at his home, and he was innocent. This would make him absolutely furious at US troops.

Bottom line: They were not ba'ath party officials, lights should be on, and americans are not easy to cooperate with.

Well really this would be very easy to explain, this happened about a month or two after the invasion, before groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq and tactics such as sucide bombings and IEDs came on the scene. What used to happen at this time, if you remember, was ba'ath party loyalists would attack the US soldiers, and people against the occupation would hurl abuse, whether in the form of gestures, words, or bricks at the soldiers.

Saying lights should not be used because they can signal insurgents is like saying that we should not use the internet because it could be used for piracy. Besides, if EVERYONE turned on their lights, the "signal" would vanish, also, as my point above showed, there wasn't even an insurgency to begin with, just Ba'ath party officials on the run.

The group of people were obviously not Ba'ath party officials, because they were not part of the wanted list of Ba'ath party leaders, they were ordinary townsfolk, that is how I know they were not part of the Ba'ath party. Also, they would not be in small towns in Western Iraq, they would more likely be in either Baghdad or Tikrit, usually on the outskirts, however that area can be increased to the entire bank of the Tigris river. Haditha on the other hand is on the bank of the Euphrates river.

US soldiers do not cooperate with the Iraqi people, and before I go further realise that nearly all attacks on the occupying forces in Iraq happen to the US soldiers. It is very simple, imagine your driving down to see your mother, when you are stopped at a checkpoint. A, for example, British soldier would signal you to stop, and would say "Hi there sir, we just need to spend a minute checking your car for any weapons or explosives," obviously, since your not a terrorist, like 99.99% of iraqs population, you happily oblige. Now, if that was a US checkpoint, the soldiers would point their guns right at you (and if your daughter was in the car she would obviously get upset and frightened) and would start yelling at you, telling you to get on the ground, put your hands on your head, and then start searching you. This can be compared to airport security, imagine if that is how your treated everytime the metal detector beeps when you go through, you will get extremely angry at the airport.

This can also be compared to US soldiers searching homes, they will not ring the doorbell, they would rather kick the door down and start yelling orders at each other as if it was a highly skilled and organised search, when they simply woke up a sleeping family at night, and keeps them tied up in a room for hours (and note those people are usually women, who are always looked after by men in iraq and are always 6 feet away from any danger) and now they suddenly have the barrels of guns pointed at them, they will no doubt start crying. Finally the father comes home, and finds this scene at his home, and he was innocent. This would make him absolutely furious at US troops.

Bottom line: They were not ba'ath party officials, lights should be on, and americans are not easy to cooperate with.

And the faster the iraqis can handle their own security than the faster the American military can get out. The military is good at killing people and blowing things up . not as an occuping force . the Brits have alot more experiance at it..the US soldier is not trained that way .

And I do not doubt for a moment the accuracy of your story...its from your point of view and its quite illuminating. how are the new Iraqi soldiers treating you BTW ? Or have you even seen any ?

The military is good at killing people and blowing things up . not as an occuping force . the Brits have alot more experiance at it..the US soldier is not trained that way .
EXACTICALLY!

That's the problem. Why is it possible for the British to train their soldiers to be nice to people, but not for the Americans? Afterall, the US military spends many multiples of the MoD budget on silly projects like the missile defence.

Or have you even seen any ?
Probably not, he's in Australia now, I believe.

Two major points I would like to make:
1. There was political corruption under Saddam, and plenty of it. However, I will concede that there was hardly any crime and Iraq was indeed safer because of the police regime.
2. Most of the 100000 civilians have died at the hands of the jihadists. They are the ones who kill 50 people a day (at least) through suicide bombs, IEDs, and such. Only a small fraction of the civiians killed were killed by Americans.


No it was the Aerial bombardement that killed the majority of Iraqi civillians.

No it was the Aerial bombardement that killed the majority of Iraqi civillians.
To be fair, that's probably quite unlikely. Even the 100,000 figure I have never seen seriously argued for (Iraq Body Count only has 44,000 maximum) although it's possible.

But to kill 100,000 people with modern aerial bombardment is actually quite difficult. Even if they aimed for civilian areas only, they might not have used enough ordinance.

And the faster the iraqis can handle their own security than the faster the American military can get out. The military is good at killing people and blowing things up . not as an occuping force . the Brits have alot more experiance at it..the US soldier is not trained that way .

And I do not doubt for a moment the accuracy of your story...its from your point of view and its quite illuminating. how are the new Iraqi soldiers treating you BTW ? Or have you even seen any ?

Really, the security problem lies around one huge mistake that I believe is not getting enough attention, when Rumsfeld disbanded the Iraqi military. This military was not a "Saddam loyalist" army, this was an army comprised of regular soldiers like what you would find in any army, my father and 2 of my uncles served in the Iraqi army, yet they are strongly anti-saddam, one of my uncles was in fact under survelliance by saddam and could not leave the country until he was toppled. When the army was disbanded, it allowed terrorists like Abu Musab Al-Zarkawi to enter Iraqs now defenceless borders, it allowed the looting of homes and museums, and it required an entirely new police force and army to be built from scratch. All problems that are currently brewing in Iraq are the direct or indirect result of that decision.

Iraqi soldiers are very brave men that I have a huge amount of respect for, they risk their lives just to enlist. However, many of them are in fact shia terrorists that thinly veil themselves as security forces, who go and torture random sunnis (I am a sunni btw.) I have not seen them in action as I am not in Iraq anymore, however family contacts there are saying that they simply ask the supervising American soldiers what to do for every step, that they might as well be robots. Oh well, all in due time i guess.

"War is hell." --General Tecumseh Sherman

There has never been, and I think never will be, a war that does not kill civilians. War is aimed at killing in general, and is not accurate enough to pick and choose who will die.

In Iraq, the majority of the casualties have been from the fighting that has ensued, although it is difficult to estimate the number who died because they could not get medical care, clean water, or other resources due to the idiotic "shock and awe" tactic of bombing infrastructure.

US and allied troops have directly killed a relatively small number of the total casualties; nevertheless, we cannot ignor the fact that it was the US invasion that set off the violence and chaos which led to so many deaths. Anybody with a brain could tell what was coming, even Bush, Sr. predicted what would happen if Hussein were toppled, citing the destabilization of the the Middle East, sectarian violence, and magnet for extremists as the major reasons why the United States did not go on to Baghdad in the first Gulf war.

Two major points I would like to make:
1. There was political corruption under Saddam, and plenty of it. However, I will concede that there was hardly any crime and Iraq was indeed safer because of the police regime.
2. Most of the 100000 civilians have died at the hands of the jihadists. They are the ones who kill 50 people a day (at least) through suicide bombs, IEDs, and such. Only a small fraction of the civiians killed were killed by Americans.

To my understanding, most of the deaths have been caused by unrestrained air strikes, and random shots of bullets by Brit and American forces. Read the article again. I greatly doubt(I disbelieve, actually) that the "insurgency" would kill that many civilians. They don't have as much access to the modern weapons that the US has.

Consider this a bump...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5030960.stm

I am well and truly fed up with lackwits and morons who THINK they have the right to defend the US military when the concept of independent and critical thinking have yet to grace their brain cells.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am a retired Lt. Colonel, I served in the first Gulf War.

I am here to tell you there is NO EXCUSE for what those Marines did, NONE WHATSOEVER. Since this story has come out both their Company and Battalion Commanders have been relieved of their commands. This sort of punitive relief effectively ends an officer's career. Officers are supposed to be held directly responsible for the conduct of the men and women in their commands.

These young men, regardless of the reasons they acted, must be held accountable as well. Gross misconduct on the battlefield and murder are not what Marines are supposed to be about. If all goes the way I expect it will, these Marines will all face General Court Martials (the severest of the three military courts). If convicted under Punitive Articles of the UCMJ, they could face penalties up to their lives being forfeit (though there has not been a hanging at Fort Leavenworth or any other military prison in decades).

918. ART. 118. MURDER
Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

930. ART. 130. HOUSEBREAKING
Any person subject to this chapter who unlawfully enters the building or structure of another with intent to commit a criminal offense therein is guilty of housebreaking and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

These are the absolute minimum number of charges and specifications I foresee. There will likely be multiple counts of these charges and specifications.

For those of you out there who feel you must defend the military, please know something FIRST about the rules, regulations and the way of life BEFORE you open your ignorant mouths.

I agree. A few civilians were shot and killed by marines. In the meantime, more are blown up by insurgent car bombs...it's a rare occurence for loose trigger control to happen.
This wasn't just some accident. Marines dragged people out of their beds and shot them like that. Among the people they did this to was a 3 year old girl.