PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq


Orwell
28th May 2006, 09:47 AM
Published reports say the U.S. Pentagon has evidence that its Marines deliberately murdered at least two dozen unarmed civilians in the Iraqi city of Haditha last November. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/05/26/marines05262006.html)

With "friends" like this, the Iraqis sure as hell don't need enemies...

thaiboxerken
28th May 2006, 10:02 AM
Only terrorist's friends would believe that article.

Orwell
28th May 2006, 10:09 AM
Then I guess I'm Ben Laden's bitch.

Just thinking
28th May 2006, 07:26 PM
With "friends" like this, the Iraqis sure as hell don't need enemies...

Riiiiiiiiiiiight ... as I'm sure terrorists that deliberately kill women and children in Iraq (and elsewhere) are right up there prosecuting those that step out of line.

Dustin Kesselberg
28th May 2006, 07:42 PM
The iraqi will become more hostile towards Americans being in iraq with news like this.

You've got alot of rednecks joining the military just to kill people..And when they don't get a chance in normal circumstances..they do it anyway! They don't think of it as a Job and have empathy towards people they kill..They get a rush out of it and enjoy killing people. These types of people should never be in the military because they are more likely to ignore orders and break the law.

pipelineaudio
28th May 2006, 07:47 PM
The iraqi will become more hostile towards Americans being in iraq with news like this.

You've got alot of rednecks joining the military just to kill people..And when they don't get a chance in normal circumstances..they do it anyway! They don't think of it as a Job and have empathy towards people they kill..They get a rush out of it and enjoy killing people. These types of people should never be in the military because they are more likely to ignore orders and break the law.

WOW!

Dr Adequate says people like you dont exist

Dustin Kesselberg
28th May 2006, 08:06 PM
WOW!

Dr Adequate says people like you dont exist


What people would that be?

joe1347
28th May 2006, 08:08 PM
Haditha Massacre: KR Reporter, Last August, Noted Worries There That U.S. Marines Might 'Crack'
Tom Lasseter

By Greg Mitchell

Published: May 28, 2006 12:50 PM ET

NEW YORK New revelations suggest that U.S. marines committed atrocities in Haditha, Iraq, last November, killing at least two dozen civilians after an American was slain by a roadside bomb. Three months before that, Tom Lasseter, longtime Baghdad correspondent for Knight Ridder, filed a report from that area noting concerns that the marines there might "crack under the pressure."

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576997&imw=Y




Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more similar incidents considering the difficult situation(s) that our leadership has put the troups in. Hopefully, the backlash from the region (Iraq and the rest of the Middle East) isn't too severe.

Dustin Kesselberg
28th May 2006, 08:12 PM
Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more similar incidents considering the difficult situation(s) that our leadership has put the troups in. Hopefully, the backlash from the region (Iraq and the rest of the Middle East) isn't too severe.


There probaly are more situations like that, The media just doesn't know about it.


And don't worry about the mooslems rioting over this. They care more about cartoons of muhammed than they do about their own people dying.

Cylinder
28th May 2006, 08:23 PM
You've got alot of rednecks joining the military just to kill people..And when they don't get a chance in normal circumstances..they do it anyway! They don't think of it as a Job and have empathy towards people they kill..They get a rush out of it and enjoy killing people.

Wow - a bona fide mind reader. Have you filled out your Million Dollar Challenge application yet? I think a remote reading that is accurate over 5000 miles should be fairly easy to test.

I think you should go for it.

Dustin Kesselberg
28th May 2006, 08:32 PM
Wow - a bona fide mind reader. Have you filled out your Million Dollar Challenge application yet? I think a remote reading that is accurate over 5000 miles should be fairly easy to test.

I think you should go for it.



Personal experience. I know atleast 40 people personally who are currently in Iraq. I know the mentality some of them have. They think war is like it is in the video games. They didn't join up because they needed to pay for college or because they care about the cause. They did it to shoot big guns, drive big vehicles...and kill people.

It doesn't take supernatural powers to know someone joined the military for these reasons when they SAY they joined the military for these reasons!

I didn't say this was the case in this case...But I am saying it's a good possibility.

Orwell
28th May 2006, 08:43 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiight ... as I'm sure terrorists that deliberately kill women and children in Iraq (and elsewhere) are right up there prosecuting those that step out of line.

Oh damn, you're right, how silly of me! Those Iraqis the US is "protecting" will surely drop down to their knees and thank the US Army for prosecuting those Marines! :rolleyes:

thaiboxerken
28th May 2006, 09:34 PM
Only anti-american zealots would think that any person would join the US Military for any reason that's not noble and just. All soldiers in the US Military are there to help the people in Iraq. To claim that any soldier joined just because they think killing people would be fun is insane. People only like killing other people in videogames and movies.

a_unique_person
28th May 2006, 09:35 PM
What people would that be?

Just put him on ignore.

Cylinder
28th May 2006, 09:36 PM
It doesn't take supernatural powers to know someone joined the military for these reasons when they SAY they joined the military for these reasons!

No - but it does take evidence. Got any?

Charlie Monoxide
28th May 2006, 10:08 PM
All this negative talk just helps the insurgents. We have to keep reminding ourselves that we may have to kill a few Iraqis in order to save them ...

Charlie (take it up with George W if you have a problem) Monoxide

Kopji
28th May 2006, 10:19 PM
Their expectations of the US must be pretty low by now. I doubt this atrocity (war crime?) will be a huge surprise to them, nor make much difference in how they already feel. They already hate us.

On the bright side, we share a common goal with the insurgents:

They want us out.
We want out.

thaiboxerken
29th May 2006, 08:24 AM
No - but it does take evidence. Got any?

The Marines kill people, it's what they do. It's reasonable to conclude that some people might join the marines so that they can kill. Especially when a high-ranking marine officers advertises that it's an enjoyable experience:

“Actually it’s quite fun to fight ‘em, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you, I like brawling,”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-2-2005_pg7_59

davefoc
29th May 2006, 09:45 AM
Sadly, this is exactly the kind of thing that happens in war, especially occupation type wars.

Because it is very likely that these kind of events will occur, the decision to occupy a country needs to have very significant benefits to justify the problems that will inevitably occur as the result of the occupation.

I am not sure the Bush administration has such justification for this occupation. We are constantly told that we need to be there to maintain order otherwise the Iraq would devolve into a big mess. We are told that when the Iraqi police and soldier training is completed the allied forces will be removed and Iraq will be stabilized.

I am not convinced. The Iraqis had police before the alliance was there. The Iraqis had soldiers before the alliance was there. Will training police and soldiers make them less likely to take sides in a civil war?

Bushco has used the Iraq war as an excuse to enrich its corporate buddies. Will an administration that has acted with such cold corruption be capable and willing to sort out the issues in this conflict to make the best decisions for the Iraqis and the occupying allies? I have very little confidence that they can and I have concern that they are willing to expend the lives of soldiers to to cover up their incompetence and corruption.

Just thinking
29th May 2006, 04:26 PM
Oh damn, you're right, how silly of me!

Yes ... quite silly. Saddam and his goon squads were so much friendlier to his native Iraqis.

How many mass graves have we uncovered so far?

KelvinG
29th May 2006, 04:30 PM
Yes ... quite silly. Saddam and his goon squads were so much friendlier to his native Iraqis.

How many mass graves have we uncovered so far?

Then I guess they're probably used to it, and won't hold it against the Marines.

Just thinking
29th May 2006, 04:34 PM
Then I guess they're probably used to it, and won't hold it against the Marines.

But we will -- and there's the difference.

KelvinG
29th May 2006, 04:37 PM
But we will -- and there's the difference.

Yes, I've noticed how this thread has been full of the usual gang of US apologists who are expressing their outrage.

Oh, wait a minute...

Orwell
29th May 2006, 04:47 PM
Yes ... quite silly. Saddam and his goon squads were so much friendlier to his native Iraqis.

How many mass graves have we uncovered so far?

And that, of course, justifies all the crap that's going on in Iraq right now... :rolleyes:

What kind of goons do you think the Iraqis prefer? Domestic goons, or foreign ones?

Rob Lister
29th May 2006, 04:48 PM
And that, of course, justifies all the crap that's going on in Iraq right now... :rolleyes:

Yes, it does.

Just thinking
29th May 2006, 04:49 PM
Yes, I've noticed how this thread has been full of the usual gang of US apologists who are expressing their outrage.

Oh, wait a minute...

Who says I'm not outraged ... oh wait, you must be reading someone else's mind. By the way, have you applied for the $1,000,000? Before you do, I suggest you hone up a bit on your reception -- too much background noise.

rocketdodger
29th May 2006, 04:52 PM
No - but it does take evidence. Got any?

Come join the U.S. military as an enlisted person and report back in 2 years. I think you will change your opinion significantly.

Just thinking
29th May 2006, 04:53 PM
What kind of goons do you think the Iraqis prefer? Domestic goons, or foreign ones?

If it were my choice ... the ones that police themselves.

Tell me, Orwell, if your country was this moment to be invaded by either an army of Saddam's control or that of the US Marines, who would you rather it be? (If you live in the US, simply change US Marines to troops of Great Britain.)

Oh ... I almost forgot ... can you answer my questions?

Orwell
29th May 2006, 05:28 PM
If it were my choice ... the ones that police themselves.

Tell me, Orwell, if your country was this moment to be invaded by either an army of Saddam's control or that of the US Marines, who would you rather it be? (If you live in the US, simply change US Marines to troops of Great Britain.)

Oh ... I almost forgot ... can you answer my questions?

None of them, eh!

Do you know what false dichotomy means? It's when two horse manure possibilities are presented and you're supposed to choose between the two.

Rob Lister
29th May 2006, 05:43 PM
None of them, eh!

Do you know what false dichotomy means? It's when two horse manure possibilities are presented and you're supposed to choose between the two.

Not false dichotomy.

Your country is about to be invaded by Saddam. The Marines want to intervene.

Your vote is the deciding vote.

Abstain if you wish, but then shut-up.

Orwell
29th May 2006, 05:46 PM
Not false dichotomy.

Your country is about to be invaded by Saddam. The Marines want to intervene.

Your vote is the deciding vote.

Abstain if you wish, but then shut-up.

:rolleyes:

I got one for you: your country is about to be invaded by Cylons. You have a choice between intervention by Imperial troops commanded by Darth Vader, or intervention by Klingon troops.

Who do you choose? ;)

Rob Lister
29th May 2006, 05:53 PM
:rolleyes:

I got one for you: your country is about to be invaded by Cylons. You have a choice between intervention by Imperial troops commanded by Darth Vader, or intervention by Klingon troops.

Who do you choose? ;)

Cylons and Vadar are imaginary.

Saddam and U.S. Marines are not.

Vote or abstain.

TragicMonkey
29th May 2006, 06:10 PM
Cylons and Vadar are imaginary.


Um, so are the Klingons. I hope.

Orwell
29th May 2006, 06:22 PM
Cylons and Vadar are imaginary.

Saddam and U.S. Marines are not.

Vote or abstain.

Having Saddam invading a western country is as much in the realm of the imaginary as Cylons, Vader and Klingons.

Dr Adequate
29th May 2006, 06:28 PM
What people would that be? Relax, I believe that you exist.

Is there anything pipeline isn't wrong about?

Just thinking
29th May 2006, 08:03 PM
None of them, eh!

Do you know what false dichotomy means? It's when two horse manure possibilities are presented and you're supposed to choose between the two.

Big mistake, Orwell -- you posed the famous loaded question "Is it true you stopped beating your wife?"

Your post ... What kind of goons do you think the Iraqis prefer? Domestic goons, or foreign ones?

I do not believe the US Marines as a bunch of goons ... whether you think of them on a par with Saddam or not ... hence my answer. But if you still need clarification, it was the US Marines and not Saddam.

I now await your answer ... as does Rob.

Up to it?

Just thinking
29th May 2006, 08:05 PM
Having Saddam invading a western country is as much in the realm of the imaginary as Cylons, Vader and Klingons.

Western, maybe ... but why don't you ask someone from Kuwait? Who do you think they might prefer?

You see ... not everyone is so blessed as you are to be out of Saddam's reach --- so the question does have real world relevance.

thaiboxerken
29th May 2006, 08:27 PM
Cylons and Vadar are imaginary.

Saddam and U.S. Marines are not.

Vote or abstain.

Did you know that Saddam isn't in power anymore?

Huntster
29th May 2006, 08:38 PM
Sadly, this is exactly the kind of thing that happens in war, especially occupation type wars.

Because it is very likely that these kind of events will occur, the decision to occupy a country needs to have very significant benefits to justify the problems that will inevitably occur as the result of the occupation.

I am not sure the Bush administration has such justification for this occupation....

Okay. Let's pull out. I'm game.

I think we're spending way too much money in Iraq, anyway.

**** 'em.

Get a vote. I'll vote with you.

I'm tired of listening to you guys.

It's now or later.

I'll be dead later, and I'm damned sure tired of the crying now.

Put an end to it.

Just thinking
29th May 2006, 08:40 PM
Did you know that Saddam isn't in power anymore?

Yes, it's a theoretical question (now) but for some it was quite real -- and they experienced the effects of both.

Orwell
29th May 2006, 08:51 PM
Big mistake, Orwell -- you posed the famous loaded question "Is it true you stopped beating your wife?"

Your post ...

I do not believe the US Marines as a bunch of goons ... whether you think of them on a par with Saddam or not ... hence my answer. But if you still need clarification, it was the US Marines and not Saddam.

I now await your answer ... as does Rob.

Up to it?

Did you see the subject of this thread? "U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq." These soldiers, for all kinds of reasons, have become goons. I don't see what else to call them. My "goon" question referred to them.

By the way, I've already answered Rob's stupid hypothetical question, and the answer was neither. I don't see why I should play along like a good doggie, and only accept his two possibilities.

But I know, it is confusing, I mean, you're probably very used to having only two choices, and it is hard to go beyond that... ;)

Orwell
29th May 2006, 08:54 PM
Dupe.

Orwell
29th May 2006, 08:55 PM
Western, maybe ... but why don't you ask someone from Kuwait? Who do you think they might prefer?

You see ... not everyone is so blessed as you are to be out of Saddam's reach --- so the question does have real world relevance.

The first Gulf war was a multilateral military action approved by most of the world. Your government could have gotten rid of Hussein back then, with wide international support, but it didn't.

The present Iraqi occupation is a nearly unilateral action based on lies, a colonial adventure gone terribly wrong.

Giz
29th May 2006, 09:18 PM
The first Gulf war was a multilateral military action approved by most of the world. Your government could have gotten rid of Hussein back then, with wide international support, but it didn't.

The present Iraqi occupation is a nearly unilateral action based on lies, a colonial adventure gone terribly wrong.

Bush Snr could have toppled Saddam, indeed with hindsight he should have toppled Saddam however he did not as he had no UN mandate to do so.

Are you now criticising the US twice over? Firstly for acting within a UN mandate, and then secondly, for exceeding a UN mandate?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, huh?

Orwell
29th May 2006, 09:21 PM
Bush Snr could have toppled Saddam, indeed with hindsight he should have toppled Saddam however he did not as he had no UN mandate to do so.

Are you now criticising the US twice over? Firstly for acting within a UN mandate, and then secondly, for exceeding a UN mandate?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, huh?

In case you don't remember, there was a widespread rising against Hussein conducted by Iraqis right after the end of the first Gulf War. The US urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, but it did nothing to assist the rebellions beyond enforcing the "no fly zones".

Giz
29th May 2006, 09:29 PM
In case you don't remember, there was a widespread rising against Hussein conducted by Iraqis right after the end of the first Gulf War.

I remember the UN authorising the liberation of Kuwait. I can't recall any mandate for regime change in Iraq, or taking sides in an Iraqi civil war.

The USA should have gone in and removed Saddam, no matter what wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of hair erupted from despots in the UN and moonbats in the West. I am glad you agree that US unilateralism can sometimes be for the best.

Mason
29th May 2006, 09:34 PM
Did you see the subject of this thread? "U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq." These soldiers, for all kinds of reasons, have become goons.Not to be too anal, but if it's not too much trouble, could you please stop speaking as if they've already been charged, tried, and found guilty? At this point, it seems progress has only made it to where they're about to be investigated.I don't see what else to call them.Call them "Marines". That's what they are, that's what they'd prefer to be called. If they are tried and found guilty, call them "Prisoners", which is what they'll be at that point. As an aside, they're Marines; "soldier" applies about as much as "airman" applies to a sailor.My "goon" question referred to them.The "goon" question...What kind of goons do you think the Iraqis prefer? Domestic goons, or foreign ones?It seems as if you've already made up your mind which type of goon the Iraquis would prefer. Maybe you'd like to simply answer your own question yourself and explain why that answer is correct? Would have saved the thread about a half a page of ******** had you simply done that in the first place.

pipelineaudio
29th May 2006, 10:06 PM
. Your government could have gotten rid of Hussein back then, with wide international support, but it didn't.
.

The bold part is a bold lie

Thats the whole reason we broke our promise to the Iraqi people was that there was wide international condemnation of finishing the job

THAT is why we are back.

davefoc
29th May 2006, 10:08 PM
I remember the UN authorising the liberation of Kuwait. I can't recall any mandate for regime change in Iraq, or taking sides in an Iraqi civil war.

The USA should have gone in and removed Saddam, no matter what wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of hair erupted from despots in the UN and moonbats in the West. I am glad you agree that US unilateralism can sometimes be for the best.

The great problem as far as I was concerned with the first gulf war was what to do with Iraq after the war was over. I thought it was unthinkable that the war could be fought and leave Hussein in power. If the war was to be fought Hussein needed to be removed. If Hussein was to be left in place the war should not have been fought.

So I am one who does criticize the US in both directions on this. Leaving Hussein in place looked like the same kind of thinking that led to WWII twenty years after WWI. But removing Hussein based on falsified evidence that he had WMD and falsified evidence of a Hussein/9-11 connection and with a fantasyland view of how easy it was going to be to stabilize a post Hussein Iraq looks to me to be one of the worst decisions in US history.

Grammatron
29th May 2006, 10:24 PM
But removing Hussein based on falsified evidence that he had WMD and falsified evidence of a Hussein/9-11 connection

Good thing neither happened.

davefoc
29th May 2006, 10:59 PM
Good thing neither happened.

I have been involved in several of these threads where the defenders of Bushco misrepresentations, exaggeration and downright, oldfashioned, lies attempt to parse and weasel the meaning of this stuff into innocent misunderstandings.

What a pile of crap. If you can not believe that Bushco presented falsified data with regard to the information about WMD and the 9-11 connection it is because you have decided that you don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe something you don't feel like believing.

Grammatron
29th May 2006, 11:03 PM
I have been involved in several of these threads where the defenders of Bushco misrepresentations, exaggeration and downright, oldfashioned, lies attempt to parse and weasel the meaning of this stuff into innocent misunderstandings.

What a pile of crap. If you can not believe that Bushco presented falsified data with regard to the information about WMD and the 9-11 connection it is because you have decided that you don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe something you don't feel like believing.

Any evidence that they FALSIFIED any of what you just said would be great.

Cylinder
29th May 2006, 11:07 PM
Come join the U.S. military as an enlisted person and report back in 2 years. I think you will change your opinion significantly.

Huh?

I did six. What's wrong, having trouble separating?

Just thinking
30th May 2006, 04:11 AM
I don't see why I should play along like a good doggie, and only accept his two possibilities.

I do (and possibly some others as well).

It would (most likely) expose your hypocrisy of your comparison of Saddam's goons (and mass graves) as opposed to the present US occupation and accountability. Now, I have clearly and concisely answered your question (which, may I remind you, only gave me 2 choices) ... we still await yours.

BTW: Those were my two possibilities. (Post #28)

Just thinking
30th May 2006, 04:24 AM
Bush Snr could have toppled Saddam, indeed with hindsight he should have toppled Saddam however he did not as he had no UN mandate to do so.

Are you now criticising the US twice over? Firstly for acting within a UN mandate, and then secondly, for exceeding a UN mandate?

Damned if you don't and damned if you do, huh?

It does seem to be Orwell's way ... hence his avoidance of my question. (See above.)

davefoc
30th May 2006, 08:36 AM
Any evidence that they FALSIFIED any of what you just said would be great.

Grammatron, thank you for your temperate response to my intemperate post. My apologies.

This issue has been discussed in numerous threads and for me the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco engaged in an organized, intentional effort to deceive people about the strength of evidence that Hussein had WMD and that Hussein was involved with the 9-11 attacks.

A small example of what I am talking about was the presentation by Bushco of falsified information by the selective and inaccurate leaking of information from a national intelligence estimate.

I think they justified the lying in their own minds because:

1, They felt that Hussein probably did have WMD even if they didn't have strong evidence to that effect.

2. They felt that there were other strong reasons why the war was in American interests so that even if Hussein wasn't associated with 9-11 attacks and he didn't have WMD the war was still in the American interest.

3. They felt that once Hussein was unseated Iraq would transform quickly into a stable, peaceful state so that the period of American military involvement with Iraq would be short.

If you disagree significantly with any of the above I think we should agree to disagree on this one in this thread. This topic has been discussed several other places and I thiink that a long discussion of it here would be off topic for this thread.

Grammatron
30th May 2006, 10:09 AM
Grammatron, thank you for your temperate response to my intemperate post. My apologies.

This issue has been discussed in numerous threads and for me the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco engaged in an organized, intentional effort to deceive people about the strength of evidence that Hussein had WMD and that Hussein was involved with the 9-11 attacks.

A small example of what I am talking about was the presentation by Bushco of falsified information by the selective and inaccurate leaking of information from a national intelligence estimate.

I think they justified the lying in their own minds because:

1, They felt that Hussein probably did have WMD even if they didn't have strong evidence to that effect.

2. They felt that there were other strong reasons why the war was in American interests so that even if Hussein wasn't associated with 9-11 attacks and he didn't have WMD the war was still in the American interest.

3. They felt that once Hussein was unseated Iraq would transform quickly into a stable, peaceful state so that the period of American military involvement with Iraq would be short.

If you disagree significantly with any of the above I think we should agree to disagree on this one in this thread. This topic has been discussed several other places and I thiink that a long discussion of it here would be off topic for this thread.

Cherry picking evidence(according to you), and emotionaly linking Sadam with 9/11 is not the same as falsifying evidence. That's what I take issue with.

rocketdodger
30th May 2006, 10:14 AM
Huh?

I did six. What's wrong, having trouble separating?

You were in the U.S. military for six years and you didn't encounter anyone who joined up for shady reasons?

I had trouble separating, but I won in the end because I am smarter than those POS. Frankly I have a very low opinion of the U.S. military.

aggle-rithm
30th May 2006, 10:43 AM
Did you see the subject of this thread? "U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq." These soldiers, for all kinds of reasons, have become goons. I don't see what else to call them.



You can call them young men that are trained to kill first and think about it later. They are trained this way because battlefield studies have shown that when they think first, they tend not to kill, and as a result are often killed themselves.

I'm surprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. When these soldiers are under constant threat of being killed, it's pretty unreasonable to expect them to turn their conditioning on and off at will.

Orwell
30th May 2006, 11:34 AM
I do (and possibly some others as well).

It would (most likely) expose your hypocrisy of your comparison of Saddam's goons (and mass graves) as opposed to the present US occupation and accountability. Now, I have clearly and concisely answered your question (which, may I remind you, only gave me 2 choices) ... we still await yours.

BTW: Those were my two possibilities. (Post #28)

Do you know what "rhetorical question" means?

I'm not being hypocritical! See, I'm telling straight up that I think that the US occupation is as bad as Hussein's dictatorship. That's why I answered "neither" to Rob Lister's stupid question. Is that clear, or do you want me to make it simpler?

Orwell
30th May 2006, 11:38 AM
Fresh evidence of 'executions' by rogue US marines in Iraq (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1784622,00.html)

Grammatron
30th May 2006, 11:54 AM
Fresh evidence of 'executions' by rogue US marines in Iraq (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1784622,00.html)

I won't deny the gravity of the situation if US marines did what they are accused of, nor the tragidy that was caused regardless of the outcome.

However, this is a poorly written article on many level. Particularly the end part about British soldier. To imply that such incidents (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2047227_1,00.html) did not happen with British soldiers is shady at best, to further imply that this is how all American soldiers act is even worse.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2006, 04:15 PM
If we had never gone to iraq...We could of provided over 13 MILLION
students four-year scholarships at public universities.


Imagine the difference that would of made for America as a whole.


Compaire that to the "difference" we're making right now since we invaded iraq.

thaiboxerken
30th May 2006, 05:11 PM
But Dustin, what's more important, winning Bush a re-election and vengeance on his daddy's assassination attempt or education?

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2006, 05:14 PM
But Dustin, what's more important, winning Bush a re-election and vengeance on his daddy's assassination attempt or education?


More important to whom? Bush or the American people?

thaiboxerken
30th May 2006, 05:16 PM
More important to whom? Bush or the American people?

Bush, because the american people are mostly stupid idiots that can't make good decisions.

Huntster
30th May 2006, 08:54 PM
Bush, because the american people are mostly stupid idiots that can't make good decisions.

Don't like it?

Move to Iran. With your rhetoric, you'd fit right in.

Dustin Kesselberg
30th May 2006, 09:25 PM
Don't like it?

Move to Iran. With your rhetoric, you'd fit right in.


Just because someone criticizes america does not mean they hate it or don't want to live there or want to live in IRAN of all places.


We criticize America because we want it to be better. It's constructive criticism.

Huntster
30th May 2006, 09:36 PM
Just because someone criticizes america does not mean they hate it or don't want to live there or want to live in IRAN of all places.


We criticize America because we want it to be better. It's constructive criticism.

I don't believe that. It's repeated, in some cases it's expected (depending on the poster), it's predictable, and it's often partisan.

It's the same-old, same-old.

It's like living in the 1960's again, but the hippies of today are even more unreasonble.

rocketdodger
30th May 2006, 10:09 PM
I don't believe that. It's repeated, in some cases it's expected (depending on the poster), it's predictable, and it's often partisan.

It's the same-old, same-old.

It's like living in the 1960's again, but the hippies of today are even more unreasonble.

So I suppose you live on the side of a mountain like a cave man, because you don't believe in trying to improve where you live?

Huntster
30th May 2006, 10:14 PM
Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't believe that. It's repeated, in some cases it's expected (depending on the poster), it's predictable, and it's often partisan.

It's the same-old, same-old.

It's like living in the 1960's again, but the hippies of today are even more unreasonble.
So I suppose you live on the side of a mountain like a cave man, because you don't believe in trying to improve where you live?

The only way to improve where I live is to drive the immigrants back out. This place was paradise, until the cultural refugees from America flooded in.

This place was a wilderness. There weren't even any grocery stores. I loved it.

If they tax me out of here, I'm going back to the wilderness. This time, I know a place where I can live the rest of my life in peace.

I only hope I can convince Mrs. Huntster to go with me.......

pipelineaudio
30th May 2006, 10:49 PM
thats how this beautiful desert felt a few years ago. Getting nasty here now

Just thinking
31st May 2006, 06:46 AM
Do you know what "rhetorical question" means?

I'm not being hypocritical! See, I'm telling straight up that I think that the US occupation is as bad as Hussein's dictatorship. That's why I answered "neither" to Rob Lister's stupid question. Is that clear, or do you want me to make it simpler?

I will then take in on very solid ground that you would prefer an invasion of US Marines over Saddam's troops given no other choices. Thank you.

If this is incorrect please tell all of us.

Orwell
31st May 2006, 06:57 AM
I will then take in on very solid ground that you would prefer an invasion of US Marines over Saddam's troops given no other choices. Thank you.

If this is incorrect please tell all of us.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, you know, I would probably prefer being gang raped to being brutally murdered!

Get a life, would ya?

thaiboxerken
31st May 2006, 08:20 AM
Don't like it?

Move to Iran. With your rhetoric, you'd fit right in.

What an very anti-american thing to say. Anyone that doesn't fit in with your religious and political views should move out of the USA, huh? You want me to move to Iran while turning the USA into another Iran.

Just thinking
31st May 2006, 08:35 AM
:rolleyes:

Yeah, you know, I would probably prefer being gang raped to being brutally murdered!

Get a life, would ya?

Yes, I guess you must rationalize it that way. Thanks being so frank.

BTW ... go ask the citizens of Kuwait if they agree with you. (Pssst -- that's an entire country, and guess who's still there.)

Orwell
31st May 2006, 08:58 AM
Yes, I guess you must rationalize it that way. Thanks being so frank.

BTW ... go ask the citizens of Kuwait if they agree with you. (Pssst -- that's an entire country, and guess who's still there.)

How the hell do you know what most of the citizens of Kuwait think? Not even half of the citizenry has the right to vote, there's no freedom of speech, and most of the people who live in Kuwait are foreigners.

Just thinking
1st June 2006, 05:37 AM
How the hell do you know what most of the citizens of Kuwait think? Not even half of the citizenry has the right to vote, there's no freedom of speech, and most of the people who live in Kuwait are foreigners.

Of course, we can always look at what evidence (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/cheney_003.htm) there is to check our opinions and biases ...

Yes, it shows quite clearly that the US and Saddam were/are on equal grounds there. :rolleyes:

(PS: Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you ... my life got in the way. :D)

Orwell
1st June 2006, 08:41 AM
Yeah, a link to what looks like a semi-official photo-op...

Now that's credible evidence of what the Kuwaiti people really think!

Heck, they might think Dubya is the best thing since sliced bread and Hussein to be the new Hitler, but we wouldn't know it.

zakur
1st June 2006, 10:25 AM
US troops to get ethics training after Haditha massacre (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2028367)

Training? Soldiers need to be trained to not kill innocent civilians?

Just thinking
1st June 2006, 10:38 AM
Yeah, a link to what looks like a semi-official photo-op...

Now that's credible evidence of what the Kuwaiti people really think!

Heck, they might think Dubya is the best thing since sliced bread and Hussein to be the new Hitler, but we wouldn't know it.

I await your evidence to the contrary.

(BTW ... that's a link to transcripts, prove that they are not of genuine interests as you are implying.)

Grammatron
1st June 2006, 10:42 AM
US troops to get ethics training after Haditha massacre (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2028367)

Training? Soldiers need to be trained to not kill innocent civilians?

First of all it's nothing but PR stunt, second of all you are not as subtle as you think you are.

Orwell
1st June 2006, 10:54 AM
I await your evidence to the contrary.

(BTW ... that's a link to transcripts, prove that they are not of genuine interests as you are implying.)

You need evidence that Kuwait is a very partial democracy and doesn't have freedom of speech?

'Cause, you know, that's on what I'm basing my affirmation, the one about not knowing what the Kuwaiti people think: no free speech, little democracy, hence no idea of what's going on in their heads.

Just thinking
1st June 2006, 11:30 AM
You need evidence that Kuwait is a very partial democracy and doesn't have freedom of speech?

'Cause, you know, that's on what I'm basing my affirmation, the one about not knowing what the Kuwaiti people think: no free speech, little democracy, hence no idea of what's going on in their heads.

Boy, you have such a short and confused memory ... I'm claiming that they prefer our presence to that of Saddam's invasion. These transcripts show that those in power welcomed us. I will also take it that they (in this instance) have the same attitudes as the people of Kuwait -- you show reson to believe otherwise.

Jocko
1st June 2006, 11:33 AM
You need evidence that Kuwait is a very partial democracy and doesn't have freedom of speech?

'Cause, you know, that's on what I'm basing my affirmation, the one about not knowing what the Kuwaiti people think: no free speech, little democracy, hence no idea of what's going on in their heads.

I'm sure Amnesty International has a full writeup on them, then. Or did they blow their whole budget at Gitmo this year? Come on, Orwell, you can do better than that.

Just thinking
1st June 2006, 11:37 AM
First of all it's nothing but PR stunt, second of all you are not as subtle as you think you are.

Don't you just love how some people will take the actions of a few and make it appear that this is the overall policy of the entire military? And then as one presents evidence to the contrary it's contered with name calling, insults and innuendo.

Orwell
1st June 2006, 11:39 AM
Boy, you have such a short and confused memory ... I'm claiming that they prefer our presence to that of Saddam's invasion. These transcripts show that those in power welcomed us. I will also take it that they (in this instance) have the same attitudes as the people of Kuwait -- you show reson to believe otherwise.

Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point. But maybe they prefer it in the same way I would: it's a lesser evil. But we would don't know what they really think: no freedom of speech.

Just have to look at neighbouring Saudi Arabia, where the ruling elite is firmly pro-US, whereas most of the population is thought to be anti-US.

Jocko
1st June 2006, 12:02 PM
Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point. But maybe they prefer it in the same way I would: it's a lesser evil. But we would don't know what they really think: no freedom of speech.


Amnesty International sees a much less dangerous threat to speech there.

Freedom of expression

Arrests and trials took place in violation of the right to freedom of expression.

* Yasser al-Habib, aged 21, who was arrested in November 2003, was sentenced in January to one year’s imprisonment and fined US$3,340. He was reportedly charged with “insulting the Prophet Mohammed’s companions, abusing a religious sect and distributing an audiotape without a licence”, in connection with an audiotape recording of a closed lecture that he gave on Islamic historical issues. In February he was released under an annual pardon announced by the Amir of Kuwait on the occasion of the country’s National Day, but his rearrest was ordered a few days later. The public prosecutor said the release had been an error. Yasser al-Habib went into hiding. An appeals court dismissed the original verdict and ordered a retrial, reportedly upgrading the charges. In May, Yasser al-Habib was sentenced in absentia to 10 years’ imprisonment. According to unconfirmed information, charges against him included seeking to overthrow the state and belonging to an organization that seeks to overthrow the state.

Well, that's not really a freedom of speech issue from where I'm sitting (even though A.I. put it under that heading, all by its lonesome)... those charges are more blasphemy/sedition.

Take a look yourself. (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/kwt-summary-eng) Certainly not a place I'd want to live, but it ain't the Taliban, either. I think you'd have to go as far as Qatar or Turkey to find a more progressive muslim country.

Just thinking
1st June 2006, 12:02 PM
Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point.

:dl:

Just have to look at neighbouring Saudi Arabia, where the ruling elite is firmly pro-US, whereas most of the population is thought to be anti-US.

Apples & oranges. They were not released from an invasion -- the people would clearly prefer the US military over an invasion of Saddam's troops. And that's my point; please stay on topic -- thank you.

Orwell
1st June 2006, 12:14 PM
'Scuse me, but can you prove those two things, the one about Kuwait and the one about Saudi Arabia? I'm talking about the man on the street, and I'm talking about things in the present context, with all the crap that's going on in Iraq. How do you know? Can you back it up? Proof? Or is that just your opinion?

Jocko
1st June 2006, 01:54 PM
'Scuse me, but can you prove those two things, the one about Kuwait and the one about Saudi Arabia? I'm talking about the man on the street, and I'm talking about things in the present context, with all the crap that's going on in Iraq. How do you know? Can you back it up? Proof? Or is that just your opinion?


I showed what Amnesty International has to say on the subject of Kuwait, and their critique of speech rights seems a bit thin, based soley on one example. I think that's rather relevant to making conclusions about the "man on the street," from a source you probably respect and trust.

I presume that the recent unpleasantness has removed your ability to ignore other posters, so perhaps you can see it now? We'll talk it over in a month. See you then!

Elind
1st June 2006, 08:48 PM
Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point. But maybe they prefer it in the same way I would: it's a lesser evil. But we would don't know what they really think: no freedom of speech.

Just have to look at neighbouring Saudi Arabia, where the ruling elite is firmly pro-US, whereas most of the population is thought to be anti-US.

Orwell, in these cases you can educate yourself quite easily, which you don't seem to have bothered to do. Both countries have several English language newspapers available online daily, and which often print translations from the main Arabic ones.

There are restrictions in that they don't call their leaders the same names that we can get away with and under the present climate of terrorism they don't go for calls to overthrow the government, and they don't show much exposed flesh, but beyond that you find a pretty open exchange of opinions that could easily be called "free speech". A bit wacky sometimes, IMHO, but pretty free nevertheless and hardly an example to set a contrary position on.

Art Vandelay
1st June 2006, 11:12 PM
Several posts of Dustin's and TBK in a row certainly does provide quite an overdoes of bulked-up avatars.

If we had never gone to iraq...We could of provided over 13 MILLION
students four-year scholarships at public universities. Your math really doesn't wash. 20,000*4*13 million=1.04 trillion. And I don't mean to nitpick, but it should be "could have".

US troops to get ethics training after Haditha massacre (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2028367)

Training? Soldiers need to be trained to not kill innocent civilians?Is that surprising to you?

a_unique_person
2nd June 2006, 12:17 AM
I have been involved in several of these threads where the defenders of Bushco misrepresentations, exaggeration and downright, oldfashioned, lies attempt to parse and weasel the meaning of this stuff into innocent misunderstandings.

What a pile of crap. If you can not believe that Bushco presented falsified data with regard to the information about WMD and the 9-11 connection it is because you have decided that you don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe something you don't feel like believing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57818

bobdroege7
2nd June 2006, 03:46 AM
I saw an interview of one of the children that survived the massacre, she apparently knew the roadside bomb was there, as she was hiding in her room awaiting the explosion.

So let's not call them innocent civilians, as they knew there was a bomb and were thus at least complicit in the attack on US marines.

I would not call it murder, maybe some lesser charge perhaps

Wudang
2nd June 2006, 06:39 AM
I saw an interview of one of the children that survived the massacre, she apparently knew the roadside bomb was there, as she was hiding in her room awaiting the explosion.

So let's not call them innocent civilians, as they knew there was a bomb and were thus at least complicit in the attack on US marines.

I would not call it murder, maybe some lesser charge perhaps

It's not a Disney movie with plucky kids foiling the bad guys plot. She'd quite possibly have been taking her and her families lives in her hands if she's warned the US troops. People who plant roadside bombs tend not to play nice.
If the marines lost it and killed unarmed civilians then that is murder.

Just thinking
2nd June 2006, 07:35 AM
'Scuse me, but can you prove those two things, the one about Kuwait and the one about Saudi Arabia? I'm talking about the man on the street, and I'm talking about things in the present context, with all the crap that's going on in Iraq. How do you know? Can you back it up? Proof? Or is that just your opinion?

If you will simply scroll back to my original question that I posed to you, you will see that it concerns the issue of choosing between having an invasin of Saddam's troops or the US Marines. The people of Kuwait had seen both, and from the press coverage with reports and photos of the time it was obvious who they preferred -- and how they were treated by each. (Let's also not forget what Saddam's troops did as they were leaving and who repaired the damage.)

The purpose of the US military in Iraq is to give Iraq to the Iraqis -- they vote, they choose, they control. The purpose of the terrorists or insurgents is to take over for themselves without having the people choose. I believe it a very safe bet to put money on the US military as being preferred over a bunch or terrorists; and to think that the US military is now behaving like Saddam's troops did in Kuwait in 1990 is simply absurd.

GroundStrength
2nd June 2006, 09:23 AM
If the marines lost it and killed unarmed civilians then that is murder.

This is not specifically directed at Wudang.

Everyone seems to be falling over themselves to believe that the Marines in question actually committed the crime. Video tape of the dead people at Haditha, while very convincing evidence that there were dead people at Haditha makes no case that these Marines killed them. Perhaps ballistics tests could be of use.

While we're all speculating, how 'bout the insurgents found some already dead bodies and shot them in the head then video-taped it and used this as an oppertuntity to get all the whiney-liberals up in arms.

Thirdly, marines are killers, but they kill the enemy. They are currently engaged against a foe that has no qualms about killing themselves, innocent iraqi citizens and anyone else who gets in their way. The terrorists/insurgents/wacko's have shown this type of behaviour repeatedly.

I think I'm okay with pulling out now. They seem to prefer to live in the 15th century.

Wudang
2nd June 2006, 01:20 PM
This is not specifically directed at Wudang.

Okay but note I did say "if".
Personally I have no idea of the stress levels those marines are under. I knew some guys who served with the British Army in Northern Ireland and how stressed some of them were. Interestingly one came home and joined the Troops Out movement. And remember folks, judging and condemning without all the facts is what those marines are accused of.

GroundStrength
2nd June 2006, 01:40 PM
Okay but note I did say "if".

Noted.:)

Also, I have changed my mind about supporting the war in Iraq (I still support the war on Terror, and the troops). However, this incident or incidents like this are not and would not be reason enough to stop supporting the war or the troops. Its war and things like this happen. It only makes the people who do perpetrate such acts bad, not the entire military or war effort.

That said, I am sick of this thing in Iraq. Perhaps stress levels would be less if the full force and might of the United States Military were brought to bear to end this thing.

:confused:

Wudang
2nd June 2006, 02:07 PM
Perhaps it would end it. But what would that end do to America's opinion of itself? Your troops are going in there because they believe they can do good, they deserve to be allowed to leave with honour and without (too much) innocent blood on them.

a_unique_person
2nd June 2006, 06:18 PM
The purpose of the US military in Iraq is to give Iraq to the Iraqis -- they vote, they choose, they control. The purpose of the terrorists or insurgents is to take over for themselves without having the people choose. I believe it a very safe bet to put money on the US military as being preferred over a bunch or terrorists; and to think that the US military is now behaving like Saddam's troops did in Kuwait in 1990 is simply absurd.

What if one of their choices is that they want the American troops out?

Elind
2nd June 2006, 08:24 PM
I saw an interview of one of the children that survived the massacre, she apparently knew the roadside bomb was there, as she was hiding in her room awaiting the explosion.

I haven't seen that. Where did you?

Elind
2nd June 2006, 08:25 PM
What if one of their choices is that they want the American troops out?

Another bland ass question. Are you really going to pretend that you don't know the quickest solution to that goal?

Polaris
2nd June 2006, 08:27 PM
:dl:



Apples & oranges. They were not released from an invasion -- the people would clearly prefer the US military over an invasion of Saddam's troops. And that's my point; please stay on topic -- thank you.

And to thank us, the Saudi people sent planes into buildings. Saddam invaded the wrong country.

Polaris
2nd June 2006, 08:30 PM
I haven't seen that. Where did you?

Not to mention that even if she was, how did the Marines know that? Sounds like a coincidence to me.

Elind
2nd June 2006, 09:01 PM
And to thank us, the Saudi people sent planes into buildings. Saddam invaded the wrong country.

Stupid comment.

Elind
2nd June 2006, 09:03 PM
Not to mention that even if she was, how did the Marines know that? Sounds like a coincidence to me.
Huhh?

Just thinking
2nd June 2006, 09:03 PM
And to thank us, the Saudi people sent planes into buildings. Saddam invaded the wrong country.

They were of al-Qaeda ... not Saudi Arabia. To put the blame on Saudi Arabia for their actions is like blaming the US for Timothy McVeigh. But I agree it would have been great if Saddam attacked the forces of al-Qaeda, but that did not happen.

Plus, I believe Saudi Arabia was all too happy to let the coalition forces (mainly US) to use their country as a launching platform against Saddam.

Polaris
2nd June 2006, 09:34 PM
Huhh?

Even if the civilians had known about the IED beforehand, it doesn't seem that the Marines stopped to find out before firing on the civilians.

Polaris
2nd June 2006, 09:40 PM
They were of al-Qaeda ... not Saudi Arabia. To put the blame on Saudi Arabia for their actions is like blaming the US for Timothy McVeigh. But I agree it would have been great if Saddam attacked the forces of al-Qaeda, but that did not happen.

Plus, I believe Saudi Arabia was all too happy to let the coalition forces (mainly US) to use their country as a launching platform against Saddam.

Al-Qaida which is of the same ideology that is propogated and funded around the world BY Saudi Arabia in the hope that as long as they fill the Wahhabist jihad coffers, the terrorists will attack everybody BUT the Saudis themselves. I personally have the lowest regard for anything Saudi - I don't consider them allies, or even civilized people. I'm saying Saudi Arabia is full of Wahhabist scum who think that bin Laden is a hero, and that Saudi Arabia deserved the brutality that Kuwait got. McVeigh isn't lionized in America. He's not known as a "glorious martyr" as the 19 hijackers are. Bad comparison.

Art Vandelay
2nd June 2006, 10:52 PM
It's not a Disney movie with plucky kids foiling the bad guys plot. She'd quite possibly have been taking her and her families lives in her hands if she's warned the US troops. People who plant roadside bombs tend not to play nice.
If the marines lost it and killed unarmed civilians then that is murder.And if Rommel had defected, his family would have been killed. Doesn't make him a civilian. If they're participating in military attacks, they are valid targets.

a_unique_person
3rd June 2006, 02:31 AM
They were of al-Qaeda ... not Saudi Arabia. To put the blame on Saudi Arabia for their actions is like blaming the US for Timothy McVeigh. But I agree it would have been great if Saddam attacked the forces of al-Qaeda, but that did not happen.

Plus, I believe Saudi Arabia was all too happy to let the coalition forces (mainly US) to use their country as a launching platform against Saddam.

The fundy wahabists are encouraged by the house of Saud.

Just thinking
3rd June 2006, 08:19 AM
Al-Qaida which is of the same ideology that is propogated and funded around the world BY Saudi Arabia in the hope that as long as they fill the Wahhabist jihad coffers, the terrorists will attack everybody BUT the Saudis themselves. I personally have the lowest regard for anything Saudi - I don't consider them allies, or even civilized people. I'm saying Saudi Arabia is full of Wahhabist scum who think that bin Laden is a hero, and that Saudi Arabia deserved the brutality that Kuwait got. McVeigh isn't lionized in America. He's not known as a "glorious martyr" as the 19 hijackers are. Bad comparison.

So, are you saying that back in 1990/1991 the people of Saudi Arabia would have preferred an invasion of Saddam over having the military set up bases to stop him? I too have no great like for Saudi anything -- but letting Saddam have control over all that region was not an option at the time.

Wudang
3rd June 2006, 10:22 AM
And if Rommel had defected, his family would have been killed. Doesn't make him a civilian. If they're participating in military attacks, they are valid targets.

No they were not participating. They were hiding. I believe there is an enormous difference between failing to act to prevent something and actively helping it. A better analogy is perhaps German civilians who knew of the Holocaust.

Polaris
3rd June 2006, 01:16 PM
So, are you saying that back in 1990/1991 the people of Saudi Arabia would have preferred an invasion of Saddam over having the military set up bases to stop him? I too have no great like for Saudi anything -- but letting Saddam have control over all that region was not an option at the time.

No, I'm saying they're perfectly ungrateful for their protection - since they're supporting terrorists who got honked off at America for providing that very protection.

Art Vandelay
3rd June 2006, 05:21 PM
No they were not participating. They were hiding. I believe there is an enormous difference between failing to act to prevent something and actively helping it. A better analogy is perhaps German civilians who knew of the Holocaust.I was addressing the implied claim that a person who is coerced is not a valid target, not advancing the claim that they were participating.

Elind
3rd June 2006, 05:29 PM
No they were not participating. They were hiding. I believe there is an enormous difference between failing to act to prevent something and actively helping it.

Under law the former would likely get you a life sentence and latter death, if allowed. You can call that an enormous difference if you wish, I tend to think it sounds like a cheap excuse.


A better analogy is perhaps German civilians who knew of the Holocaust.

Lousy analogy.

Wudang
5th June 2006, 02:26 AM
I was addressing the implied claim that a person who is coerced is not a valid target, not advancing the claim that they were participating.

A person who is coerced into participating is a different case from one who is coerced into standing by. And a person who has been coerced is not an immediate threat whereas a person who is being coerced may be.

Wudang
5th June 2006, 02:27 AM
Under law the former would likely get you a life sentence and latter death, if allowed. You can call that an enormous difference if you wish, I tend to think it sounds like a cheap excuse.

So the kid should have got a life sentence for hiding in her room? Are you serious?

Elind
6th June 2006, 06:26 PM
So the kid should have got a life sentence for hiding in her room? Are you serious?

No of course not, but that information came from parents who had choices and I have suspicions about what their involvement might have been. If they knew of the IED and weren't the trigger, then what kind of parents would leave their children in a house with a bomb outside the door, never mind if they wanted Americans killed (but that's another story). Think the Marines would have noticed if they had slipped out the back door?

Did the girl say someone was holding a gun to their heads?

Wudang
7th June 2006, 01:05 AM
You may have all the suspicions you like. Can you say "due process"?

Elind
7th June 2006, 06:06 AM
You may have all the suspicions you like. Can you say "due process"?

Yeah I can say it. I can say smart as too. We were exchanging opinions. You think that can only be done in court? Go away.

Wudang
7th June 2006, 06:58 AM
Yeah I can say it. I can say smart as too. We were exchanging opinions. You think that can only be done in court? Go away.

(shrug) You're the one who brought up courts.

zakur
8th August 2006, 10:15 AM
US troops to get ethics training after Haditha massacre (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2028367)

Training? Soldiers need to be trained to not kill innocent civilians?
Well, it appears that one soldier (in a different incident) is using his lack of training in such matters as a defense for not reporting such activity:

Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/07/iraq/main1872164.shtml)
At Monday's hearing, Pfc. Justin Watt testified that Howard told him before the incident that Green, Cortez and Barker had planned to rape a girl, and Howard was to be the lookout.

"There's nothing I've read that says what to do if your buddies have raped and murdered a family," Watt said.Wow. The guy needs specific instructions on what to do in a case like this. Is the military so strictly "by-the-numbers" that a trooper can't figure out what to do in a situation that isn't covered by a specific procedure/rule/regulation?

ETA: I stand corrected. In further reading, I found this longer article from NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html), which shows that Pfc. Watt was not directly involved but was able to piece together what happened and eventually reported what he found out. This "in contrast with several other soldiers in his unit, who knew or suspected wrongdoing but kept quiet."

Elind
8th August 2006, 10:34 AM
(shrug) You're the one who brought up courts. No, you said "due process". What does that mean to you?