NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5032018.stm

Read all about it! I just read this in BBC, looks like they tried to cover it up. Simple amazing, another reason why Bush must go.

I'm no fan of Bush, but, how exactly is he directly responsible for the actions of a group of heavily disgruntled marines? Even if he did extend their service through congressional authorisation, he didn't tell them to open fire on the innocent Iraqis, did he? He wanted them to unload a can of whupass on the insurgents though...

They would not been there in the first place, if he had not ordered them to go there.

Yes, that's true, but, the fact is, the marines showed little responsibility when they took this rage out on civilians instead of waiting to vent back home. No one can't change the fact that America went to war illegally, or even the actions of her troops, but the future actions can be changed.

They would not been there in the first place, if he had not ordered them to go there.
BBC eh?
The British Bullshit Channel right?
No thanks.

BBC eh?
The British Bullshit Channel right?
No thanks.

Would you prefer Capitalist Nonsense News

Power and corruption, thats what it basically is.

BBC eh?
The British Bullshit Channel right?
No thanks.
As opposed to Faux News, or the Capitalist Nationalist News?

Oh how the truth hurts... (by the way, Euronews is far better than the BBC, but I imagine it's for Liberal Pot Smoking Hippie Commies (thanks to Whittier for that!) like myself)

And it only gets worse.

This one (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_women_killed_7) is even more recent. I'd like to see the excuses for this one.

iraqis kill iraqis so why are you just pointing out the marines doing it huh?

iraqis kill iraqis so why are you just pointing out the marines doing it huh?

You really need this explaining?

iraqis kill iraqis so why are you just pointing out the marines doing it huh?

Because the Marines aren't supposed to kill innocent civilians!!! (especially pregnant women on their way to a hospital: see my previous post) Why don't you get that? Whatever happened to "winning hearts and minds"?

And it only gets worse.

This one (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_women_killed_7) is even more recent. I'd like to see the excuses for this one.


How were they supposed to know the difference between someone rushing to the hospital and a car bomb? It sucks but I work at a similar place: if you run the roadblock, they shoot at you. It's a matter of safety.

Would you prefer Capitalist Nonsense News

More like Communist Network News ;)

How were they supposed to know the difference between someone rushing to the hospital and a car bomb? It sucks but I work at a similar place: if you run the roadblock, they shoot at you. It's a matter of safety.

And yet it's proving to be "safe" for whom exactly?

This is the third or fourth thread on the subject, by the way...

And yet it's proving to be "safe" for whom exactly?


For the marines of course. They're not going to say, "Hey! Anybody: feel free to drive and walk freely right down this road where all of our guys/important stuff is located! We know we're the agressors here and you all probably hate us, but we trust you! No car bombs now, ya hear?" Why is that a bad/stupid thing to do? I bet there's quite a few stories that you haven't heard about a car running a road block and after it got shot up it turned out that it had malicious intent.

For the marines of course. They're not going to say, "Hey! Anybody: feel free to drive and walk freely right down this road where all of our guys/important stuff is located! We know we're the agressors here and you all probably hate us, but we trust you! No car bombs now, ya hear?" Why is that a bad/stupid thing to do? I bet there's quite a few stories that you haven't heard about a car running a road block and after it got shot up it turned out that it had malicious intent.

And there are also plenty of stories out there about guys driving their wives in labor to hospitals and getting chased down by cops who DON'T shoot them.

And why wouldn't stories of successfully stopping the bad guys be reported? There are entire news networks devoted to appologizing for this war, yet people like yourself are still hung up on the BS notion of the "liberal" media.

You simply don't get it do you? You think marines just like to shoot innocent people?
Accidents happen, what the hell are you trying to prove?

Just for your information, Iraq is the worlds most dangerous place now. With maniacal suicide bombers and IED's, soldiers get nervous.
I wonder how you'd take it...

I bet there's quite a few stories that you haven't heard about a car running a road block and after it got shot up it turned out that it had malicious intent.
Do us a favour? Find one such story? Link to an article, blog, whatever. Just find us one.

You simply don't get it do you? You think marines just like to shoot innocent people?
Accidents happen, what the hell are you trying to prove?
Which of the two cases are you talking about then?

Which of the two cases are you talking about then?

Any in which soldiers accidentally kill civilians?

BTW: Before you shout that because of this Bush should go, I suggest they find proof of this first...

And there are also plenty of stories out there about guys driving their wives in labor to hospitals and getting chased down by cops who DON'T shoot them.

And why wouldn't stories of successfully stopping the bad guys be reported? There are entire news networks devoted to appologizing for this war, yet people like yourself are still hung up on the BS notion of the "liberal" media.


I have no idea what you mean by me being hung up on "liberal" media, or how it pertains to this discussion, so I'll adress your other points. First off, how many people with malicious intent would actually say, "Hey, we ran that block and now they're chasing us.... maybe we should pull over." Not many, is what I'm guessing. So the marines thought the worse, "Shots were fired to disable the vehicle" as it said in the article, and unfortunately it turned out to be civilians who got killed. Unfortunate, but that's what happens when you run a military road check.

Any in which soldiers accidentally kill civilians?

You mean like the one in the OP where marines "accidentally" broke into people's homes, and "accidentally" gunned down old men and women on their couches and in their beds? Wow, sounds like a real bummer.

And there are also plenty of stories out there about guys driving their wives in labor to hospitals and getting chased down by cops who DON'T shoot them.

In fairness, criminals don't usually blow up police checkpoints with carbombs like the insurgents do to the Marines.

Because the Marines aren't supposed to kill innocent civilians!!! (especially pregnant women on their way to a hospital: see my previous post) Why don't you get that? Whatever happened to "winning hearts and minds"?


It dosen't matter if they are pregnant or not! When you have soldiers in a hostile area there is a lot of tensions and stress on the soldier. Plus if you look in the past little kids, women, pregnant women, etc have been used to get in close to soldiers just to blow themselves up. And when you have iraqis blowing up themsleves they end up taking out there own people. Talk about no respect for your fellow man.

Do us a favour? Find one such story? Link to an article, blog, whatever. Just find us one.

Again what are you trying to prove? That they don't try to kill US soldiers?
Listen to daily news, almost everyday there is a story of a soldier killed and very often it's because of exploding cars..

Three words:


VI - ET - NAM.

Great to see the Marines doing what the're trained to do :sniper: anything that moves.

Great to see the Marines doing what the're trained to do :sniper: anything that moves.

Dude you are taking this whole situation out of context.

Any in which soldiers accidentally kill civilians?

BTW: Before you shout that because of this Bush should go, I suggest they find proof of this first...
My question came because the one the OP is referring to (which there are multple threads on already) seems to be cold-blooded murder by soldiers taking revenge on an civilian populace, while there are no indications that the soldiers killing the pregnant women had any malicious intent.

You mean like the one in the OP where marines "accidentally" broke into people's homes, and "accidentally" gunned down old men and women on their couches and in their beds? Wow, sounds like a real bummer.

Hmm never heard of that one, care for a link?
Besides look at the logic of you thinking. You asked me about whicyh case I was referring to, I said that every case in which marines accidentally shoot civilians. And now you give this crap...
So according to you every marine that killed a civilian did it intentionally?
:rolleyes: NIIIIICEEE

I have no idea what you mean by me being hung up on "liberal" media, or how it pertains to this discussion, so I'll adress your other points. First off, how many people with malicious intent would actually say, "Hey, we ran that block and now they're chasing us.... maybe we should pull over." Not many, is what I'm guessing. So the marines thought the worse, "Shots were fired to disable the vehicle" as it said in the article, and unfortunately it turned out to be civilians who got killed. Unfortunate, but that's what happens when you run a military road check.

So, to use one of the quotes you selected, "Shots were fired to disable the vehicle,"

Sure, killing the occupants can make a vehicle stop, but then you should call it what it is. If you say you're trying to "disable" the vehicle itself shooting the people inside is probably less likely to attain that result. It all boils down to the idea that everyone with brown skin is the enemy, is that a wise veiwpoint? There's nothing anyone can say that will convince me it is.

My question came because the one the OP is referring to (which there are multple threads on already) seems to be cold-blooded murder by soldiers taking revenge on an civilian populace, while there are no indications that the soldiers killing the pregnant women had any malicious intent.

Ok if a soldier broke into a home and out of the blue killed a pregnant woman because he wanted revenge, then fine that's horrible. But where is the proof that this happened?

So, to use one of the quotes you selected, "Shots were fired to disable the vehicle,"

Sure, killing the occupants can make a vehicle stop, but then you should call it what it is. If you say you're trying to "disable" the vehicle itself shooting the people inside is probably less likely to attain that result. It all boils down to the idea that everyone with brown skin is the enemy, is that a wise veiwpoint? There's nothing anyone can say that will convince me it is.

"Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," doesn't have to mean killing the driver...

Ok if a soldier broke into a home and out of the blue killed a pregnant woman because he wanted revenge, then fine that's horrible. But where is the proof that this happened?

What do you want?? A DVD of it? The article in the OP, and various others that have been posted here outline the event.

"Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," doesn't have to mean killing the driver...

It works, though. It's really the quickest and most gauranteed way to make the thing stop - shoot the tires, it's still gonna keep going. Doggedly, but still going. If they suspect he has a bomb in the car, they want him to stop as soon as possible. I'm assuming the person didn't react to their orders to stop, so they had to assume he was hostile.

And besides even if the guy did shoot a civilian on purpose why are you complaining the US Code of military conduct will be thrown in his face at a military court. The US watches its back and punishes those who do not follow the rules.

So, to use one of the quotes you selected, "Shots were fired to disable the vehicle,"

Sure, killing the occupants can make a vehicle stop, but then you should call it what it is. If you say you're trying to "disable" the vehicle itself shooting the people inside is probably less likely to attain that result. It all boils down to the idea that everyone with brown skin is the enemy, is that a wise veiwpoint? There's nothing anyone can say that will convince me it is.

Hm, I thought that they were trying to actually disable the vehical, because if they weren't, why did the driver survive? I like the way you argue, btw. Lemme rephrase what you just said: "Killing people is what they meant by 'disabling' the vehical. Because of this story, I conclude that the marines in Iraq are racist. Being rasist is bad and you know it is so don't try to convince me otherwise."

....this argument really doesn't make sense. If you want to give racism as the motivating factor here, offer some proof. But, aside from that I do believe that racism is bad. So you can win on that front. :)

What do you want?? A DVD of it? The article in the OP, and various others that have been posted here outline the event.

The article in the first post in this thread has no evidence whatsoever...
Anyone can write stuff like that and claim it's true.

"John Murtha, a former marine and Vietnam veteran who is now an anti-war Democratic congressman, said he believed civilians had been murdered in Haditha and senior officers had made an attempt to hide it."

He believed makes the big difference...

People, don't believe everything you read...

Hm, I thought that they were trying to actually disable the vehical, because if they weren't, why did the driver survive? I like the way you argue, btw. Lemme rephrase what you just said: "Killing people is what they meant by 'disabling' the vehical. Because of this story, I conclude that the marines in Iraq are racist. Being rasist is bad and you know it is so don't try to convince me otherwise."

....this argument really doesn't make sense. If you want to give racism as the motivating factor here, offer some proof. But, aside from that I do believe that racism is bad. So you can win on that front. :)

They're not racist, they suspect -everyone- of being the enemy, not just brown people. Brown people just happen to be the majority.

Oops, I misread. It was the driver's brother that survived. My bad.

And besides even if the guy did shoot a civilian on purpose why are you complaining the US Code of military conduct will be thrown in his face at a military court. The US watches its back and punishes those who do not follow the rules.

Forgive me if, after seeing what happened with Abu Graib (i.e. enlisted peons getting punished for, albeit gleefully, following orders, while the ones doling out the orders get to keep not only their freedom, but their jobs) I call BS on this one.

Forgive me if, after seeing what happened with Abu Graib (i.e. enlisted peons getting punished for, albeit gleefully, following orders, while the ones doling out the orders get to keep not only their freedom, but their jobs) I call BS on this one.

Well your not forgiven.:D

Forgive me if, after seeing what happened with Abu Graib (i.e. enlisted peons getting punished for, albeit gleefully, following orders, while the ones doling out the orders get to keep not only their freedom, but their jobs) I call BS on this one.

Again, show me evidence that they were ordered to do so...
I want some facts, not some speculations that you present as facts

It was an accident. Close quarters combat can be hard to figure out friend or foe. Don't forget a few months a terrorist pretend to be sick or hurt and than when the marines walked up to him thinking he wasnt a threat, he detenated. You cant be to careful with them Iraqis, and we shouldnt be quick to critize the marines actions.

Exactly, it's what terrorism does. I remember when after the bombing in london, the police shot a guy just because he was running and didn't stop after they told him to. Conditions like this make accidents like that happen more often...

I'd rather wait for the results of a full investigation before making any kind of judgement or decision on the matter. It is a disservice to the troops in Iraq and to those who command them to automatically recriminate them for something before any kind of legal proceeding or investigation has been done to verify the claims.

Murtha's actions are equally as irresponsible, and if politically motivated they are disgraceful. He is helping to inflame anti-American sentiment and put the soliders over there in a bad light even more than they are already by making accusations before the results of a legal and intensive inquiry is undertaken.
If he wants to show real leadership and responsibility, he needs to call for an investigation immediately and shut up about it until the matter is investigated thoroughly and justice is administered where it is necessary.

The article in the first post in this thread has no evidence whatsoever...
Anyone can write stuff like that and claim it's true.

"John Murtha, a former marine and Vietnam veteran ..I agree there is no proof, so.. it becomes a matter of credibility.

Who do my brains tell me to beleive: The Vietnam Veteran or the US Gov??

my brains says the Veteran, you brains says the US gov.

Again, show me evidence that they were ordered to do so...
I want some facts, not some speculations that you present as facts

You obviously don't read very much outside the National Review.

Try doing your own research, why should I have to do the work for you? I am sooo tired of people demanding "evidence" when it's glaringly obvious that nothing that could possibly be provided will satisfy them (basically what you're doing right now). Especially when it's plainly obvious that they own a computer too, and can find everything they need by typing a few words into a search engine.

Try making an effort if actually want to know.

Who do my brains tell me to beleive: The Vietnam Veteran or the US Gov?

If they provide verified facts and a public investigation that follows established legal procedures, I'll believe either side. Until it can be proven that the event did or did not happen and the Marines were guilty or innocent of commiting such a crime, it is little more than speculation by Murtha and little more than denial by the government to take either side of the issue.

There's a difference between CQB and the deliberate attacking of civilians. The news is very specific, they have witnesses and the bodycount is as close as you're going to get to a statement. Children, pregnant women; all in their homes, probably watching tele if they had any electricity.

This is a clear case of rage, where an Iraqi is an Iraqi and therefore must be terrorist. The Marines obviously were filled with rage over the death of their comrade in arms, and took it out on anyone who was nearby. I had similar thoughts when I saw men just running towards me screaming all this stuff - hate their only emotion.

But its not the answer to attack every Iraqi you see.

I'm not for this war. I do not support Bush. I don't think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq.

But when you send a bunch of kids (note that much of the military is made up of guys in their mid twenties or earlier) with guns over to a place where their friends are being shot and killed on a daily basis, they're going to get mad, and they're going to shoot at any time that they feel threatened. Add the fact that many of the shooters look the same as the civilians, and that the racism that made some of them join in the first place makes them look even more simmilar, there will be civilian deaths. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying that the men should not be punished. I AM saying that if we don't want civilian deaths, we shouldn't be over there. The best solution to the growing amount of military persons killing civillians is to take them out of there. I'm still not sure what connection Iraq has to 9-11.

Dude you are taking this whole situation out of context.

I don't think so. these soldiers have simply not beeen taught restraint or respect for non-combatants.

And besides even if the guy did shoot a civilian on purpose why are you complaining the US Code of military conduct will be thrown in his face at a military court. The US watches its back and punishes those who do not follow the rules.
...or try to cover it up, and hope TIME doesn't start an investigation into the matter...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060100343.html

or pretend they weren't civilians really

Again, show me evidence that they were ordered to do so...
I want some facts, not some speculations that you present as facts
No orders, they seem to have done it on their own volition.

I'm assuming Greed isn't going to respond so I'm out, peace!

You obviously don't read very much outside the National Review.

Try doing your own research, why should I have to do the work for you? I am sooo tired of people demanding "evidence" when it's glaringly obvious that nothing that could possibly be provided will satisfy them (basically what you're doing right now). Especially when it's plainly obvious that they own a computer too, and can find everything they need by typing a few words into a search engine.

Try making an effort if actually want to know.

That's just funny. How about YOU read more then just some one anti-gov blog huh? (Ofcourse BBC doesn't count because they even said there is no evidence).
And you are the lazy person. If you say something is true, someone asks you to prove it and you say go search for yourself then who is the lazy guy?
If you present this crap as "facts" then you should be able to support them.

Oh let me guess... you can't because they're not a fact?

The Marines were in a hostile situation, their convy was just hit by a roadside bomb, so what do you do when it's hit by a roadside bomb? You go and try to find out who did it, and blow their brains out so they can't do it again. In any of the militatry branches, you are taught that you have very little time to think. If you think you're dead. You can't be going "Well maybe he's just having a bad day?" or "Maybe I got the wrong perosn etc." No, in a hostile enviorment, you got to move quickly and defuse the situation. Espically right after you've been hit, with either an ambush, bullets, or bombs. I'm sorry that innocent people died, but this is War. War is not a game, War is not pretty, War is Hell. Innocent people get killed all the time in War. IT's just the nature of the beast.

The Marines were in a hostile situation, their convy was just hit by a roadside bomb, so what do you do when it's hit by a roadside bomb? You go and try to find out who did it, and blow their brains out so they can't do it again. In any of the militatry branches, you are taught that you have very little time to think. If you think you're dead. You can't be going "Well maybe he's just having a bad day?" or "Maybe I got the wrong perosn etc." No, in a hostile enviorment, you got to move quickly and defuse the situation. Espically right after you've been hit, with either an ambush, bullets, or bombs. I'm sorry that innocent people died, but this is War. War is not a game, War is not pretty, War is Hell. Innocent people get killed all the time in War. IT's just the nature of the beast.
Maybe so, but the killing of innocent civilians - the execution of babies and cripples in their own homes, after the threatening situation has passed - is never acceptable!

War might be Hell, but murder is Murder.

What kind of carbomber would drive like a maniac towards the road block? Drive slowly, and when they ask for ID, you blow yourself up. I can almost forgive the case with the pregnant woman, what with the situation and all, but the first case is so disgusting it makes me gag. Marines have ages of training. Insurgents have very little. Yet they are the same, basic killers inside.

What kind of carbomber would drive like a maniac towards the road block? Drive slowly, and when they ask for ID, you blow yourself up. I can almost forgive the case with the pregnant woman, what with the situation and all, but the first case is so disgusting it makes me gag. Marines have ages of training. Insurgents have very little. Yet they are the same, basic killers inside.

http://www.psucollegio.com/media/storage/paper437/news/2004/10/07/WorldBriefs/Car-Bomb.Kills.16.At.Iraq.Checkpoint-746396.shtml?norewrite200606011631&sourcedomain=www.psucollegio.com

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.main/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19318-2004Nov29.html

Here's three. Google is your friend.

And it only gets worse.

This one (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_women_killed_7) is even more recent. I'd like to see the excuses for this one.
Dramization
Soldier: I'm going to use my Mental Powers to know exactly what's in that car speeding right towards the Road block!
Soldier: It's just people needing the hospital!
Soldier2: IT'S COMING RIGHT AT US.
......

Let's see, Car speeding towards a road block, usually cars speeding towards roadblocks intend to cause harm, if they had only slowed the heck down. But they say bullet holes were in the windshield... That's suspious, and if they were trying to kill someone wouldn't they have hit the Driver? Something doesn't add up in my opinion.
Another Dramaization:
Soldier: It's coming right at us, don't shoot the driver or the wheels or the engine, Shoot the passengers!
Soldier2: Sure that'll stop them!

Makes no sense.


And about the Marines... They've watch guy after guy after guy die while the Enemy hides from them, I think they just got so mad that they went postal with an "Eye for an Eye" feeling. (You kill X amount of Soldiers, we'll kill X amount of people.) Which while it was done in Soviet Russia and WW2 Germany, it shouldn't be done today.

I don't think so. these soldiers have simply not beeen taught restraint or respect for non-combatants.

Yes, they have been, but anger is a very clouding emotion. One of their friends just got killed, and two others maimed. These are guys that they've served with, lived with, and probably trained with. They're like brothers. When that Marine got killed, something snapped in the others. It's no excuse, but it isn't lthe same thing as if one of them suggested out of the blue that they commit murder.

Marine1: "Gee, I feel like killing some civillians. What do you guys think?"
Marine2: "That sounds great, Joe! Just let me finish desecrating the Koran and we'll go out for a spin!"

To everyone trying to defend these actions:
Stop. The actions that these marines took is disgraceful under any circumstances. I know exactly what they were going through that pushed them to kill non-combatants and i know that you can control your anger and direct it in more positive actions. Everyone deserves at the minimum natural life in jail.

Yall are forgetting that the enemy in Iraq does not wear uniforms, they wear street clothes, and just like in Vietnam, they do use women and children.

Yall are forgetting that the enemy in Iraq does not wear uniforms, they wear street clothes, and just like in Vietnam, they do use women and children.
You are forgetting that you have never been in a war zone and have no idea how it goes down. Usually when the ied goes off, the insurgent is long gone. To go and kill many innocent civilians with no proof is just damn wrong. There is no way that you can justify it.

This is the 5th post on this topic. Way to go. We get it, you hate the military.

You are forgetting that you have never been in a war zone and have no idea how it goes down. Usually when the ied goes off, the insurgent is long gone. To go and kill many innocent civilians with no proof is just damn wrong. There is no way that you can justify it.

and you are forgetting that theres an invesigation going on right now to look into this matter, until the invesigation is over, it's pure herasy.

and you are forgetting that theres an invesigation going on right now to look into this matter, until the invesigation is over, it's pure herasy.

All the evidence, even the language from the Chairman of the JCS himself seem to indicate that the story has been verified as true.

The killings happened, we know that and the perpetrators will be punished, but the real investigation should be about the cover up and who authorised it.

All the evidence, even the language from the Chairman of the JCS himself seem to indicate that the story has been verified as true.

The killings happened, we know that and the perpetrators will be punished, but the real investigation should be about the cover up and who authorised it.

Isn't it in the relams of possiblity that the insurgents actually learn from Vietnam and realize that if our soilders are found to be killing "women and children" that it would undermine the effort? Look I'm not saying that it's ok the kill innocent people. If anyone in the armed services kill any innocent people, then they should be court martialed and sent to jail. However, the problem we are having here is that the insurgents did learn from Vietnam, and they're using the same tatics that Viet-Chongs use. They are putting women and children on the front line in order to get headlines here to say "Marines killed women and children!"

Isn't it in the relams of possiblity that the insurgents actually learn from Vietnam and realize that if our soilders are found to be killing "women and children" that it would undermine the effort? Look I'm not saying that it's ok the kill innocent people. If anyone in the armed services kill any innocent people, then they should be court martialed and sent to jail. However, the problem we are having here is that the insurgents did learn from Vietnam, and they're using the same tatics that Viet-Chongs use. They are putting women and children on the front line in order to get headlines here to say "Marines killed women and children!"

No. It's not.

No. It's not.

and why not?

and why not?

Sorry. When and where are you alledging these so-called tactics took place in Vietnam?

You are forgetting that you have never been in a war zone and have no idea how it goes down. Usually when the ied goes off, the insurgent is long gone. To go and kill many innocent civilians with no proof is just damn wrong. There is no way that you can justify it.

Obviously you have mystical powers letting you know who the innocent civilians are and who the insurgents are. Obviously all we need to do is put you on the front lines of any war and you'll be proud to point out everyone who is not the enemy.

Because, you know, it's sometimes hard to tell when the enemy doesn't wear a uniform.

and why not?
Because you are comparing Vietnam to Iraq, two completely and utterly different conflicts. The only thing they have in common is the presence of US troops.

All indications from the Chairman of the JCS (himself a Marine) give the impression that this is indeed accurate. Eye witness accounts, video footage of the aftermath, the continuing changing stories of the Marines involved and the investigative journalism from Time magazine and others all point towards one conclusion.

It happened.

Now get your head out of your ass.

More like Communist Network News ;)
whats wrong with communism

Sorry. When and where are you alledging these so-called tactics took place in Vietnam?

Oh comon, it's widely known fact that the Viet-Chong used women and children! ne of my dad's friend was in Vietnam, and they saw a girl's foot being anchored to a land mine with a bambo stick that goes through her foot to the land mine. The friend wanted to move the girl, but if he did, the mine would've gone off. So the Viet-Chong did use this tatic.

geeze why dose every one freak out about a few people dieing here and there you know russia to clear land minds had there troops or civs go hand in hand thought he mine field blowing them selves up

Oh, this is just great. There might be another of these cases being uncovered as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039714.stm
According to the Americans, the building collapsed under heavy fire killing four people - a suspect, two women and a child.

But a report filed by Iraqi police accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people in the house, including five children and four women, before blowing up the building.

The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.
Might be that the "ethics lessons" the US wants to start are sorely needed by the troops.

*snip*
"Viet-Chongs" :)

Really sad.

Criticize all you want British folk, but I don't see you guys over there helping all that much. I suppose you all would demand the immediate and total withdrawal from the area? I mean civil war is preferable to perhaps a hundred unnecessary killings?


Car bombs have blown up buildings in Iraq. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of news stories shown and printed by the media in both Britain and the US.

The US is currently trying to install non-lethal methods of stopping cars from running check-points, but doing so costs lots of money and has logistical problems: names thousands of miles, lots of unhappy soldiers, and getting power sources for lasers and sonic devices in place.


I'll be the first to admit that I think going into Iraq was a mistake. It really was the wrong choice of country to go after. Syria and Saudi Arabia are far greater breeding grounds for hate, religious fundamentalist, and terrorist training. The thing is Iraq was politically convenient for the US. Sadam was a known "bad guy" in the US, and so "justification" could be arrived at. I think going in without UN approval and without proper pretense (WoMD's instead of the legitimate UN violations that should have been enforced years ago) was a bad idea.

Yeah, Bush has done some bad things. And just for all the rabid Bush supporters out there: the President is the head of the US military. If the military is not conducting itself with honor and correctness, then it is at the very least partially the President's fault since it is within his authority to cease whatever the offending behaviors are.



Now that the US is in Iraq and has caused a mess it is the US' responsibility to fix that mess. The same holds true in Afghanistan, though I do seem to notice a distinct lack of criticism for the US invasion and presence in Afghanistan...

NT

Hey, some of my family are in the british armed forces and they were not surprised after the abu-ghraib scandal. Our forces are stretched to tehe limit

P.S Afghanistan is still a bad place. Recently a few thousand more RAF (dunno about other forces) personal got stationed back out there

And they want to protect these mens' funerals?

Hey, some of my family are in the british armed forces and they were not surprised after the abu-ghraib scandal. Our forces are stretched to tehe limit

No doubts, and I mean no disrespect to those who do their part or are abreast of the situation.

I don't condone what happened there, but I do understand why it happened. Poor military management plus world-wide deployment of soldiers with long-term tour of duty makes just about any soldier cranky and vastly increases the propensity for violence and dishonorable conduct.

NT

Obviously you have mystical powers letting you know who the innocent civilians are and who the insurgents are. Obviously all we need to do is put you on the front lines of any war and you'll be proud to point out everyone who is not the enemy.

Because, you know, it's sometimes hard to tell when the enemy doesn't wear a uniform.


Are you being serious? Have you even read the article? The Americans shot womena and children, some of them as young as 3! I dont know about you mate but I've never heard of a 3 year old insurgent, so when they burst into those families homes and started shooting like American cowboys I think it would have been pretty easy to tell they were innocent.

At the end of the day it's this, America (in general) is a very trigger-happy, dramatic country that thinks there all-powerful military can solve anything. The majority of Americans dont even have passports, which says allot about how ignorant they are about the world outside their borders.

Really sad.

Criticize all you want British folk, but I don't see you guys over there helping all that much. I suppose you all would demand the immediate and total withdrawal from the area? I mean civil war is preferable to perhaps a hundred unnecessary killings?


Oh we're there old boy, and let me tell you that by and large, the conduct of Her Majesties Armed Forces (of which I was a member) has been exemplary. We have a smaller armed force in Iraq because we have a smaller armed force overall. Thats fact, look at the figures. The US presence in Iraq used to be the equivalent of the ENTIRE British Army.

It's not about a complete withdrawl from the area. Thats not the issue here. The issue is that the USMC jocks should have a higher respect for life than that demonstrated. Obviously the British Armed Forces are no angels- at least not when I was there, but there is a clear line between justifiable and non-justifiable action regarding insurgent attacks. Having been under fire, the chain of command should have been informed, and defensive positions taken until they are advised otherwise. Creating a roadblock (unless that was the original purpose of their patrol) and house clearing in the vicinity would certainly not be my chosen course of action.

The bloke was probably enraged at the death of his mate, which is understandable. However, if he showed any signs of a mental breakdown he should have had his rifle removed immediatly- as happened in WW2 when possible. He took it out on civilians, unarmed Iraqis, because they were all that were there. I know the feeling well.

Undefensable, but understandable.

former Private
A Coy
1st Battalion
Royal Regiment of Wales
British Army

geeze why dose every one freak out about a few people dieing here and there you know russia to clear land minds had there troops or civs go hand in hand thought he mine field blowing them selves up

Yeah and during Apartheid in South Africa the government thought that the lives of non-white people were expendable as well, millions of them were killed, so does that make all other atrocities commited acceptable? Because they weren't as bad? Dont be naive.

The point is this, I don't think the US and UK should just pull their troops out because then there would be civil war. I don't think they should have gone in the first place (especially since Bush and Blair both knew that Saddam and his regime would use civilians as human shields thereby making the human cost of the war too great). Be that as it may, the US need to show a little more respect for Iraqi lives, you really cannot tell me that they are, not with the regularity with which they kill them. How often do you hear about UK troops killing innocent civilians? I'm not saying the British are great, not at all, they're just a little less trigger-happy.

geeze why dose every one freak out about a few people dieing here and there you know russia to clear land minds had there troops or civs go hand in hand thought he mine field blowing them selves up

What if it were Iraqi's killing your family, including your pregnant sister and 3 year old neice?





Still so flippant?








Thought not.

The Marines were in a hostile situation, their convy was just hit by a roadside bomb, so what do you do when it's hit by a roadside bomb? You go and try to find out who did it, and blow their brains out so they can't do it again. In any of the militatry branches, you are taught that you have very little time to think. If you think you're dead. You can't be going "Well maybe he's just having a bad day?" or "Maybe I got the wrong perosn etc." No, in a hostile enviorment, you got to move quickly and defuse the situation. Espically right after you've been hit, with either an ambush, bullets, or bombs. I'm sorry that innocent people died, but this is War. War is not a game, War is not pretty, War is Hell. Innocent people get killed all the time in War. IT's just the nature of the beast.

Without engaging everything else in this post-- and accuse me of abusing context if you like-- there are 5 words in that post that always alarm me.

"If you think, you're dead."

Now say whatever you like about the necessities of war-- in general, or in the particular case of contemporary Iraq-- but I have to wonder if that message ("if you think, you're dead") is ever what any military ought to drill into a nation's protectors.

If you think, you're dead. It sounds simple enough-- it's meant to keep soldiers alive by removing a potentially lethal moment of hesitation. But considered more closely, as a message that people are meant to assimilate, what kind of mindset does it produce? "Don't think, react." And what, then, when people you've trained to live by that in war, come home and are expected to function in society during peacetime? I'm seriously concerned about the implications of training people to respond to any perceived threat without reflection or consideration.

And yes, the alternative ("think before you act/pull the trigger") has consequences. It could very well cost lives. Hesitation could and probably would mean more casualties, sometimes. But sometimes it would mean fewer casualties. And moreover, it would achieve a couple of other things. For one, thinking first-- in a combat theatre where the enemy can be difficult to differentiate from innocent civilians-- shows the civilians that you do care about the difference. Not to care renders everyone the enemy, and eventually, when your unthinking soldiers have killed enough civilians, the civilians increasingly take the side of the enemy, and then you're in a more dangerous situation than before.

But beyond that pragmatic consideration is another question, perhaps a more 'spiritual' question. If your soldiers have committed their lives to-- and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for-- defending a virtuous nation, should they not be prepared to die if it means doing the right thing? "If you think you're dead." It makes survival, at any cost, #1. It elevates their individual life to be more important than anything else, and I always worry that that can come to include the nation and the values that they're supposed to be fighting for. How can you tell a soldier "you're dedicating your life, and if necessary your death, to this our nation and these our values" on Monday, and then "suvive, no matter what! don't think, just survive!" on Tuesday, and then expect him to resolve the two lessons? Either that larger values are worth dying for, or they're not. Either a soldier enlisted ready to sacrifice their life for something greater than themself, or they didn't.

The readiness of a nation's guardians to die (and I conceive of this with genuine awe and respect and admiration-- to die) for the ephemeral "values" of that nation says something about the nation's worthiness to survive. If the values-- supposedly worth killing and dying for-- that you seek to bring to other people around the world are truly worthy, then is "if you think, you're dead" the right message to indoctrinate your soldiers with? Wouldn't it be nobler, and wouldn't it go farther to acknowledge and respect the soldiers, to teach them something along the lines of... "remember your home, and all the things that you love about it, all the things that make it worth fighting for. See its virtues, and how much they could mean to those who haven't known them. Carry that with you every second of every day, like grace. And think of it-- are you doing the right thing, something your mother or father or your friends could be proud of-- before you ever pull your trigger."

Yes, in the heat of combat, that pause to consider the weight of their actions could cost any given soldier their life. But, if what they're fighting for is worthy of their loyalty, isn't it worth dying for, to make sure they're doing the right thing? Would it not be more honourable to die because you want all of your actions to be right and just, than to live knowing that you may have killed innocent people? I only hope that if it fell on me, I could hesitate and die, if my sacrifice was in keeping with the values that supposedly made my way of life worth dying for.

It's just something I think about whenever I see those 5 little words strung together. I always question its merit as a mantra for people I think of as 'guardians.'

:eek:

Good God you have a great turn of phrase TGSM.

Personally I was never told that during training. Maybe the British Army is different to the US Army. Any US grunts about?

I got my hands on the trigger
And I don't know who to trust
When I look into your eyes
I see just devils and dust.

*shrug* Those Iraqis could have focussed on being good little boys, you know?

I got my hands on the trigger
And I don't know who to trust
When I look into your eyes
I see just devils and dust.

*shrug* Those Iraqis could have focussed on being good little boys, you know?
What, the two-year old or the elderly man in the wheelchair?

What, the two-year old or the elderly man in the wheelchair?

Anyone who was idling outside their own homes.
Basic rule of warzones: chaps confine themselves to being inside their own dwellings, lest they get shot - or conscripted - or impressed.
The ladies go out and do the food-gathering.

Anyone who was idling outside their own homes.
Basic rule of warzones: chaps confine themselves to being inside their own dwellings, lest they get shot - or conscripted - or impressed.
The ladies go out and do the food-gathering.
Ah, but the problem here - they were killed in their homes. And mostly women and children too.

I'd say that this is a mixture of irresponsibility and nerves. Wilgrove has a valid point. One of their buds was just killed. As protocal requires, they get off the convoy, sweep the area. Those Marines shouldn't have killed them, but after an attack, anything would have looked suspicious. I highly doubt that it was out of cold blood. Even if it was an accident, criminal charges will still be pressed.

Ah, but the problem here - they were killed in their homes. And mostly women and children too.

One assumes AFTER several years of troubles?
*checks kalender*

It's about nerves, alright...

One assumes AFTER several years of troubles?
*checks kalender*

It's about nerves, alright...
Not sure what you mean...

I'd say that this is a mixture of irresponsibility and nerves. Wilgrove has a valid point. One of their buds was just killed. As protocal requires, they get off the convoy, sweep the area. Those Marines shouldn't have killed them, but after an attack, anything would have looked suspicious. I highly doubt that it was out of cold blood. Even if it was an accident, criminal charges will still be pressed.
If the allegations are correct, then these killings are executions and cold blooded murder.

However, even if criminal charges are pressed, I honestly doubt we'll see many convictions or harsh punishments for the perpretrators. Unfortunately.

I'd say that this is a mixture of irresponsibility and nerves. Wilgrove has a valid point. One of their buds was just killed. As protocal requires, they get off the convoy, sweep the area. Those Marines shouldn't have killed them, but after an attack, anything would have looked suspicious. I highly doubt that it was out of cold blood. Even if it was an accident, criminal charges will still be pressed.

Yeah, that 3 yr old girl and that 77 year old wheelchair bound blind man sure looked suspicious sitting in their homes. I'm sure that after the first house was stormed, the 'insugents' put up a fight in the second and third homes, and in the taxi at the checkpoint...

Oh wait. There were no insurgent. And the Marines lied twice about what happened.

snip
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that I could tell the difference between a potential threat to my life and a little girl inside her own home.

:eek: Good God you have a great turn of phrase TGSM.

uh, I'm not sure if that's good or bad... my genetic memory and ancestral language is a bit diluted from all the orange pekoe, so I'm not sure if that means "well said" or "find an editor, you rambling prat" :)

Gay Street Malitia and Psychotic Mongooses you both make very valid points. Thank god there are people like you or who knows where the future would lead us.

It's all very well for someone to say 'that's war, yes its ugly, yes its inhumane, but thats war' well then dont go to war in the first place instead of superficially declaring how bad it is.

At the end of the day the American government is too quick to go to war, its soldiers too quick to pull the trigger and both are too quick to cover up their actions like small children.

One assumes AFTER several years of troubles?
*checks kalender*

It's about nerves, alright...

I've had a bad year. Can I kill you? Murder of innocent civilians is murder, no two ways. These people were rounded up and executed in the same way we expect the SS to do. Crammed in the cupboards and pumped full of lead without provocation. For what? For being in their homes apparently.

If you think that's alright, I have news for you.

You're mentality is no better than a thugs.

Being stressed out, even in war situations, is no free pass to shoot whoever you want.

I've had a bad year. Can I kill you?

Spoken like a true supporter of Hamas and/or Fatah.

The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.
Douglas MacArthur




One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda.
Douglas MacArthur



In war there is no substitute for victory.
Douglas MacArthur


Battle is an orgy of disorder.
George S. Patton


Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.
George S. Patton


These guys know a thing or two about war..

At any rate ..the soldiers know " right " from " wrong "

They all have to know the military code of justice .

They KNOW under the rules of engagement when they can use force and how .

Killing civillians is not nor has it ever beeen the policy of the US military in Iraq . In fact weapons and tactics have been developed and used that reduce the chance of not only civillian casualties...but..also damage to civilian property...NEVER before used durring war .

26 million Iraqi's
Only 150, 000 troops....
You cant AFFORD to be killing civillians.
You want to talk about a massacre..

So here we have...possibly..an incident ... Marines may have killed 24 civillians after an attack...ITS being investigated...any cover up or attempt at cover up is ALSO being investigated.

All accusations of misconduct from when the war started where investigated...court marshalls were held the guilty were PUNISHED .

So WTF is wrong with this picture ?

Without knowing the facts ...there has been a trial and the Marines have been found guilty...in the press ...in this thread...Without ANYONE here knowing the circumstances .

There are also four other investingations and trials being held...one a murder trial...the accused being tried for an execution..

But this has a catchy name attached..ITS a " Massacre" and can thus be marketed and the tools will be attracted to it by the puppet masters and be made more easily to jump at their command .

So this gets all the piblicity ..while the facts gets ignored and the band plays on .

Its been compared :rolleyes: to Mai Lai ... Only by those who have no fucking clue ...but it has been compared ..


So what of the fact that while bad and horrible things do happen in a war...and especially in a fight against aninsugency...criminal charges are brought and the guilty are ...and have been TRIED...and PUNISHED ..???


Why is that being ignored ?

It does'nt "FIT " the message ...


CAN it be more clear ?

Spoken like a true supporter of Hamas and/or Fatah.
That has what, to do with Iraq?

Oh right. Nothing at all. Way to lose your point.

snip

Here is a diagram of the two differeing versions of events:
Firstly the Marines:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41714000/gif/_41714948_haditha_blast.gif
1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in attack on US convoy.
2) US military initially says bomb also killed 15 Iraqi civilians.
3) Eight insurgents killed after attacking convoy. US later says the 15 civilians were not killed by bomb, but shot accidentally in battle.

Secondly the eye witnesses:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41716000/gif/_41716844_haditha_eyewitnesses_2_416.gif
1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in bomb attack on convoy of four Humvees. Troops then "go on rampage".
2) At roadblock, four students and taxi driver killed.
3) Eight people killed in one of three houses.
4) Seven killed in a second house.
5) Four brothers put in wardrobe and shot dead in a third house
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm)

Now, its not that I go around calling all troops liars and murderers for the sake of it, but when all the evidence (eye witness statements, video footage, physical evidence, investigative journalis, et al) appears to back up the second viewpoint and discredits the first, I'll will call it as I see it.

The problem is not due process, but the very fact that it happened. The very fact that the soldiers are there to protect and 'free' the people. The very fact that they lied twice about it.

And then murdered innocents they were supposed to protect. Accidents happen in war where civilians die. This was no accident. Well, I suppose those people are the 'free-ist' they'll ever be, now.

Spoken like a true supporter of Hamas and/or Fatah.

Spoken like a moraly bankrupt chickenhawk.

You can't even bother to argue my points and go straight for ad hominems in the face of your utter lack of mental ability/willingness to debate logically.

You're making excuses for these soldiers who have committed murder of the first degree. To my eyes, that makes YOU no better than any front line soldier of the Hamas.

That has what, to do with Iraq?

Oh right. Nothing at all. Way to lose your point.



Here is a diagram of the two differeing versions of events:
Firstly the Marines:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41714000/gif/_41714948_haditha_blast.gif
1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in attack on US convoy.
2) US military initially says bomb also killed 15 Iraqi civilians.
3) Eight insurgents killed after attacking convoy. US later says the 15 civilians were not killed by bomb, but shot accidentally in battle.

Secondly the eye witnesses:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41716000/gif/_41716844_haditha_eyewitnesses_2_416.gif
1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in bomb attack on convoy of four Humvees. Troops then "go on rampage".
2) At roadblock, four students and taxi driver killed.
3) Eight people killed in one of three houses.
4) Seven killed in a second house.
5) Four brothers put in wardrobe and shot dead in a third house
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm)

Now, its not that I go around calling all troops liars and murderers for the sake of it, but when all the evidence (eye witness statements, video footage, physical evidence, investigative journalis, et al) appears to back up the second viewpoint and discredits the first, I'll will call it as I see it.

The problem is not due process, but the very fact that it happened. The very fact that the soldiers are there to protect and 'free' the people. The very fact that they lied twice about it.

And then murdered innocents they were supposed to protect. Accidents happen in war where civilians die. This was no accident. Well, I suppose those people are the 'free-ist' they'll ever be, now.

And there are plenty more than the two versions of events you posted ..why did you only post those? Are trying to frame things the way you want others to se it ?

If its not an accident it could just as well have been murder...or it could have been something in between..YOU DO NOT KNOW . I do not know..
But I would like to find out.
Thats were we are different .
You already think you know...and I can only judge you by your own words.
You already tried and convicted without all the facts.
I guess that makes you a liberal ? A fair and objective person ?

The only troops that are liars are the ones that lied and the only murderers are tthose that murdered...what of the other 150,000 ? Are they liars and murderers too ? ...You did say the " troops " did you not? I did not seee you make a distinction ..why is that ?


The truth of the event lies somewhere else..the whole event..including what lead up to and beyond...the " LIES " the cover up anything and all things that can be uncovered will be...
So you can call what you you want...but your calling what you cant see .
Because you do not know..you have only the information that has been planted on you . Thats been thrown at you and shoved down your throat...you also have your own pre concieved notions ....thats what you are calling .

And there are plenty more than the two versions of events you posted ..why did you only post those? Are trying to frame things the way you want others to se it ?

What other versions? Show me.


If its not an accident it could just as well have been murder...or it could have been something in between..YOU DO NOT KNOW .
It...could...have...been...something... in between...murder and an accident? Like what perchance? A Maccident?

You already tried and convicted without all the facts.
I am using the evidence that has been in the public domain for quite a while now. There is more than enough to refute the Marines original two stories. Why should I believe a bunch of liars?

I guess that makes you a liberal ? A fair and objective person ?
Makes me have my eyes open.

The only troops that are liars are the ones that lied and the only murderers are tthose that murdered...
Congratulations. Have a medal for figuring that out.

what of the other 150,000 ? Are they liars and murderers too ?
Did I mention the other 150,00 US troops? No.

...You did say the " troops " did you not? I did not seee you make a distinction ..why is that ?

Well, when talking about the incident and the troops involved, it would make sense in using the context "the troops" to describe those involved.

And actually, nowhere did I use the phrase "the troops" to in any way blanket any military.
Way to pluck that out of thin air.

The truth of the event lies somewhere else..the whole event..including what lead up to and beyond...the " LIES " the cover up anything and all things that can be uncovered will be...
"Lies".... whats with the " ". They lied about what happened, changed their story when it was found to be originally false, and then stuck with their second version of events.

The truth lies where then?

So you can call what you you want...but your calling what you cant see .
Because you do not know..you have only the information that has been planted on you .
Planted on me? Yep. I'm just a regular insurgent spy alright.

Thats been thrown at you and shoved down your throat...you also have your own pre concieved notions ....thats what you are calling .

No one shoved anything down my throat! :D

What pre-conceived notions? From the evidence? Wow.

You already tried and convicted without all the facts.
I guess that makes you a liberal ?
Huh?

CAN it be more clear ?
Yes, very much so...

Yeah, that 3 yr old girl and that 77 year old wheelchair bound blind man sure looked suspicious sitting in their homes. I'm sure that after the first house was stormed, the 'insugents' put up a fight in the second and third homes, and in the taxi at the checkpoint...

Oh wait. There were no insurgent. And the Marines lied twice about what happened.


I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that I could tell the difference between a potential threat to my life and a little girl inside her own home.
All I'm saying is that some of their own guys were just killed, when you bust down a door, in an area where you were just attacked, do you put you weapons on safe and empty the chamber? No, it was a hot zone, I am in no way shape or form, condoning our marines' actions. But you don't know what goes on in a soldier's head during that. My cousin is a green beret. He was shipped out to afghanistan. Served for a year and came back. Once they come under fire from an enemy you can't see, jesus, all you can do is find cover behind a small rock. Until you understand what goes through you mind when you see a good friend be blown up by a soviet-era tank shell and a Nokia, you can't say they should have sone this or that.

What other versions? Show me.


It...could...have...been...something... in between...murder and an accident? Like what perchance? A Maccident?


I am using the evidence that has been in the public domain for quite a while now. There is more than enough to refute the Marines original two stories. Why should I believe a bunch of liars?


Makes me have my eyes open.

Congratulations. Have a medal for figuring that out.

Did I mention the other 150,00 US troops? No.



Well, when talking about the incident and the troops involved, it would make sense in using the context "the troops" to describe those involved.

And actually, nowhere did I use the phrase "the troops" to in any way blanket any military.
Way to pluck that out of thin air.


"Lies".... whats with the " ". They lied about what happened, changed their story when it was found to be originally false, and then stuck with their second version of events.

The truth lies where then?


Planted on me? Yep. I'm just a regular insurgent spy alright.



No one shoved anything down my throat! :D

What pre-conceived notions? From the evidence? Wow.


excuse me...but what " evidence " did you see ? Are you in Iraq ? have you even seen an iraqi in your life ?


Or are you making your decision on press reports ?


Again you are basing your " conviction " on what ?

It's not a massacre. Get it out of your head.

It's not a massacre. Get it out of your head.
How do you figure? Just murders then?

How do you figure? Just murders then?

Unlawful killings. There have been many cases where more than 24 were killed by a carbomb yet you never heard the worse massacre....if it's gonna be called a Massacre atleast be consistent!

Just like the other gazillion bomb blast, gunfire, Rocket, carbomb, and IED victims....

How do you figure? Just murders then?

Probably not enough dead bodies I guess. You need at least a whole village of corpses before it becomes a massacre.

You mean like the one in the OP where marines "accidentally" broke into people's homes, and "accidentally" gunned down old men and women on their couches and in their beds? Wow, sounds like a real bummer.
Nothing like assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty. :rolleyes:

But of course you wouldn't believe it if they established that someone ELSE besides Marines killed those civilians, so why even have this conversation? I often wonder why I bother trying to lead "horses to water" when all they're really interested in is "poison." Sigh.

YAYAYA!!! Marines being charged with Murder. Marines being charged with murder.

YAYAYA!!! Marines being charged with Murder. Marines being charged with murder.

:confused:

:confused:

I guess you didn't here that JAG is charging the marines?

In fairness, criminals don't usually blow up police checkpoints with carbombs like the insurgents do to the Marines.
"Fairness?" HERE??? Aahahahahahahahahahaha!

Riiiight! :rolleyes:

Three words:

VI - ET - NAM.
And your point?

I guess you didn't here that JAG is charging the marines?

Ahh. No. I heard they were looking into it.

Your comment made it hard to follow. ;)

Great to see the Marines doing what the're trained to do :sniper: anything that moves.
You're either a total blithering idiot, or a muslim with a mission. Take your pick.

In the March raid, NO MISCONDUCT (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198029,00.html)

But in the death of an Iraqi Man Eight Troops maybe charged with Murder (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197916,00.html)

Spoke to soon! my bad.

They would not been there in the first place, if he had not ordered them to go there.

If thats your deductive reasoning then behold.
It wasn't Adolf Hitler's fault with all the concentration camps and killing etc. The jew generations before those affect are at fault. They should simply have stopped having kids ?

or

Lil Timmy commit DUI and kills bud is it timmy's fault ? oh hell no blame Carlsberg for make such a delicous beverage that is beer :D


But anyways yeah i agree Bush needs to go :S

YAYAYA!!! Marines being charged with Murder. Marines being charged with murder.


I wouldn't say that. :mad: They ARE STILL GOOD MARINES until they are convicted. Then it's off to Club Fed and a violent removal of any corps related items from their uniform...

Thank you so very, very much for clearly stating essentially what I think. If the Palestinians had a happier life, and helicopters and fighter-bombers, then they'd wage war "normally".

As it stands, as a repressed people, with no real hope of fighting back in an orthodox way, they fight in what I would call an acceptable fashion.

Hell back in the 70's the israelis discovered warehouses full of tanks and artillery. And either way, even if you are getting whooped up on by the underdog, it STILL isn't right to intentionally target his civilians.

Who kills the children ?

According to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group, 603 Palestinian children were killed since the start of the second Intifada; 529 (87.7%) were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed, and they have ambiguous data on 31 children others.

Meanwhile, Israeli children killed by Palestinians are below 100.

The difference is that while Israel has tanks, helicopters and bombers, Palestinians have nothing but their own lives. And that while Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of their historical lands, Israel is still occupying and trying to annex part of the 22% remaining land, in violation of international laws, UN charters, UN resolutions and La Haye international court decision.

I don't support at all the suicide bombers, but don't forget there is an occupied land and an occupation force, don't forget there is one of the best equiped army of the world against people who have nearly nothing, don't forget there are some who want more than 78% while some accept 22%.

Because using kids to fight your wars is uber-cool. Not only are they cheap and easy to replace, you can use them as ammo against your enemies! "THE ANIMALS!!11!! THEY MURDER in [murtha] COLD BLOOD! [murtha]!!!!111!!!

Kid's aren't good soldiers. When they are young they still have a lot of maturity to gain...combat is very violent and doesn't leave a good mark on a young kid. If you do have young boy as a soldier and he survives he'll end up as a pyscho killer. War can MESS YOU UP. It even messes adults up too-there are a few PTSD cases coming back from the sandboxes.

If thats your deductive reasoning then behold.
It wasn't Adolf Hitler's fault with all the concentration camps and killing etc. The jew generations before those affect are at fault. They should simply have stopped having kids?

You have two failures. First was the Godwin.

Second, Hitler did order the construction of those concentration camps. And the invasion of surrounding Europe. So he is ultimately responsible for those incidents.

You have two failures. First was the Godwin.

Second, Hitler did order the construction of those concentration camps. And the invasion of surrounding Europe. So he is ultimately responsible for those incidents.

Despite the fact that the people gave him the power to do so?

Despite the fact that the people gave him the power to do so?

One could use that same argument with certain democratically elected presidents. That kind of argument however, can then be boiled down to "if a gun is used to commit a crime, is the dealer culpable?"

1. What is JAG - Are they like the redcaps? (military police)?
2. This sounds very like that big massacre that happended in vietnam dont you think?

P.S Whoever said that Brirtain did nothing to stop hitler you are a retard!

We unlike the USA actually faught the whole of WW1 and thus had our armies decimated. Also, we decided unlike the US to join WW2 at the start, even although we had been ruined by the depression rather than getting rich off of the war like the US Did

1. What is JAG?

It's a really crappy TV show.

One could use that same argument with certain democratically elected presidents. That kind of argument however, can then be boiled down to "if a gun is used to commit a crime, is the dealer culpable?"

I guess it depends on whether or not the buyer tells the dealer he's about to head off and shoot lots of people.

1. What is JAG - Are they like the redcaps? (military police)?
2. This sounds very like that big massacre that happended in vietnam dont you think?

1. Judge Advocate General. A division of the US Military that deals with military law matters for the United States.

P.S Whoever said that Brirtain did nothing to stop hitler you are a retard!

Well they didn't until AFTER he went on his little rampage across europe.

We unlike the USA actually faught the whole of WW1 and thus had our armies decimated.

And the US didn't fight in World War 1?

Also, we decided unlike the US to join WW2 at the start, even although we had been ruined by the depression rather than getting rich off of the war like the US Did

And yet we sold you everything you had to stay afloat. We lost destroyers escorting convoys across the Atlantic. We were pretty much involved in World War 2 from the start, just not officially.

But in the death of an Iraqi Man Eight Troops maybe charged with Murder (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197916,00.html)
Wait, what? Another one?

There seems to be a lot of investigations going on...
Why just now, I wonder?

What is this fuss about..? Keepers of freedom and liberty snuff some mud people.. Big deal. Move on.

P.S Whoever said that Brirtain did nothing to stop hitler you are a retard!

We unlike the USA actually faught the whole of WW1 and thus had our armies decimated. Also, we decided unlike the US to join WW2 at the start, even although we had been ruined by the depression rather than getting rich off of the war like the US Did

I don't get it...

We don't go to war to remove a psychotic (European) dictator, and you get pissed at us for not getting involved.

We do go to war to remove a psychotic (Arab) dictator, and you get pissed at us for getting involved.

Is there any way we can ever please you Europeans?

Well they didn't until AFTER he went on his little rampage across europe.

And what do you suppose British troops were doing on the beaches of Dunkirk hmmm? Were they on vacation perhaps?


And the US didn't fight in World War 1?


Latecomer. Arrived after most of the butchery was done.


And yet we sold you everything you had to stay afloat. We lost destroyers escorting convoys across the Atlantic. We were pretty much involved in World War 2 from the start, just not officially.

Lend lease ensured that America would come out of the heap as the richest dude around so long as it's side won. America's role was that of an arms dealer until the actual invasion, selling materials to both sides of the conflict. Remember IBM and what it sold the Nazi regime?

And what do you suppose British troops were doing on the beaches of Dunkirk hmmm?

Retreating?

Latecomer. Arrived after most of the butchery was done.

Because we didn't have much of a reason to be at war in Europe.


Lend lease ensured that America would come out of the heap as the richest dude around so long as it's side won. America's role was that of an arms dealer until the actual invasion, selling materials to both sides of the conflict. Remember IBM and what it sold the Nazi regime?

Yes, I believe they sold them punch-card machines. And then went on to produce M1s and BARs for the allies...

I think the European and US forces that fought SIDE BY SIDE in order to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny would be mortified if they saw the petulance on display in this thread.

I think the European and US forces that fought SIDE BY SIDE in order to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny would be mortified if they saw the petulance on display in this thread.
How so?

As much as I'm against the American involvement (and other coalitions) in Iraq, the once intact Iraq is no more (thanks to Bush) BUT leaving Iraq abruptly will not unite Iraqis. Top officials understand that running away from Iraq will allow Iranian influence to gain full control over Iraq. You know what, I know what will get Iraq all united, set Saddam Hussein free. :D

What pre-conceived notions? From the evidence? Wow.
Sadly the evidence is nothing more than some Bodies, some bullets, and a "He said" "She Said".

Nothing like assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty. :rolleyes:

But of course you wouldn't believe it if they established that someone ELSE besides Marines killed those civilians, so why even have this conversation? I often wonder why I bother trying to lead "horses to water" when all they're really interested in is "poison." Sigh.
Here's an out there theory. Terrorists grabs some M16s, Dress up and go in killing also. I assume that if the girl was playing dead then her eyes were closed correct? Though I doubt the above situation happened, you must not automaticly assume, "US soliders MUST have done it because the Media says so."

Retreating?

And why would they be retreating if Britain wasn't involved in the mainland of Europe until Hitler had rampaged through there hmmm? Britain was involved nearly at the start.


Because we didn't have much of a reason to be at war in Europe.


Similarly, one can argue the same thing for the second World War. The ones who started the fight with the US was Japan, which involved the Pacific theatre.


Yes, I believe they sold them punch-card machines.

Which was used to identify undesirables for execution by death camp. The greatest atrocities of the Nazi regime wouldn't have been extensive had it not been for that. If Sweden can catch flak for selling ball bearings, the US can sure as hell can catch a lot more flak for selling the tools that helped facilitate the "final solution"


And then went on to produce M1s and BARs for the allies...

If you think IBM produced M1 Garands and Browning Automatic Rifles, you've obviously failed to look up the manufacturer names for both weapons.

Wait, what? Another one?

There seems to be a lot of investigations going on...
Why just now, I wonder?

The US Army investigates everything :rolleyes:

And what do you suppose British troops were doing on the beaches of Dunkirk hmmm? Were they on vacation perhaps?

HELLO!!!! Did I say they weren't fighting? no. I said they didn't stop him till AFTER he started his little war.

Latecomer. Arrived after most of the butchery was done.

I was making a point but meh.

Lend lease ensured that America would come out of the heap as the richest dude around so long as it's side won. America's role was that of an arms dealer until the actual invasion, selling materials to both sides of the conflict. Remember IBM and what it sold the Nazi regime?

We still lost lives and ships and material in supporting the British. Not to mention we were literally fighting them without a declaration of war.

And why would they be retreating if Britain wasn't involved in the mainland of Europe until Hitler had rampaged through there hmmm? Britain was involved nearly at the start.

But did nothing to stop him BEFORE his rampage. That is what we are getting it NAS.

The US Army investigates everything :rolleyes:

Otherwise it wouldnt be able to bury it.

The US Army investigates everything :rolleyes:
Well, it does now, after failure to follow its own guidelines and investigate Haditha last year as they should have done.

They're probably afraid of further criticism, or maybe even that it's not an isolated incident.

And what do you suppose British troops were doing on the beaches of Dunkirk hmmm? Were they on vacation perhaps?



Latecomer. Arrived after most of the butchery was done.



Lend lease ensured that America would come out of the heap as the richest dude around so long as it's side won. America's role was that of an arms dealer until the actual invasion, selling materials to both sides of the conflict. Remember IBM and what it sold the Nazi regime?

Wonder who helped fund Britian and much of Europe after the war...seems to me that money was invested in you guys.

Wonder who helped fund Britian and much of Europe after the war...seems to me that money was invested in you guys.

Money that had to be paid back mind you. Lend lease was not a handout. It was a loan/sale with a long term payback clause.

HELLO!!!! Did I say they weren't fighting? no. I said they didn't stop him till AFTER he started his little war.

That makes even less sense. How do you stop someone's war until after he starts it? Unless you're clairvoyant or have a time machine, that's not possible.


Not to mention we were literally fighting them without a declaration of war.

Technically not true. America was supplying arms and materials to all parties involved until the actual declaration of war. An arms dealer does not fight the people his clients is fighting, even if he does suffer losses in the process of shipment.

It was only after the declaration can it be said that there was actual fighting. Selling equipment, and I say selling since it had to be paid for eventually, does not a fighting nation make.

Otherwise it wouldnt be able to bury it.

Military trials are never publicized. Well hardly ever. Who says they bury it?

Well, it does now, after failure to follow its own guidelines and investigate Haditha last year as they should have done.

You do know that they did investigate that right? yea I thought you might have known that they did.

That makes even less sense. How do you stop someone's war until after he starts it? Unless you're clairvoyant or have a time machine, that's not possible.

Do I have to point to you the appeasement policy? Yea I thought not.

You do know that they did investigate that right? yea I thought you might have known that they did.
Yep. Was it four or five months too late the investigation started? I'll have to look it up again.

Edit:
The Haditha-incident took place on November 19.
Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli directed that an inquiry commence "as soon as possible" in February the next year. So it was about four months.
And an NCIS team was not sent to investigate the possible criminal acts before after March 12.

(Source) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300710.html)