Conflict in Haditha, Iraq

[dislocated214]

The Haditha massacre occured on November 19, 2005 in the town of Haditha in Iraq. A squad of United States Marines is alleged to have murdered about two dozen Iraqi civilians in the aftermath of an attack on the Marines.

In March 2006, the U.S. military opened an investigation into the November 19, 2005 deaths of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas and a number of Iraqi civilians in Haditha which followed a roadside bomb and small-arms attack on a convoy of the Marines of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines. A Marine Corps communique had initially reported that 15 civilians were killed by the bomb's blast and eight insurgents were killed when the Marines returned fire against those attacking the convoy. However, media reports have contradicted this story.

As of May 27, 2006, Western media is reporting that 24 Iraqis were killed, and that none were killed as a result of the bomb The news comes in anticipation of the results of the military's investigation, which is said to find that the 24 unarmed Iraqis—including women and children—were murdered by 12 members of the US Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division.

Wikipedia

What are your opinions on the *massacre* (can't think of a better word) of what happened in Haditha? And also in some cities in Afghanistan?

Do you think the military/government are/were trying to cover it up?


On Afghanistan:
Thousands of Afghanis have demonstrated and protested in Kabul beginning May 28, throwing stones at U.S. and other foreigners and literally risking death. They were shot at and some actually killed following a fatal auto crash on May 29 involving U.S. military vehicles. The explosion of popular fury exposed a White House myth.

What the “accident” and ensuing revolt did was clear away the myth of political stability that Washing ton had created about its puppet government in Kabul.

No, the situation will not be resolved by fixing the brakes on U.S. trucks. No, the new NATO forces now scheduled to replace U.S. troops won’t make it all better. No, it won’t put things right if it is proved that U.S. troops didn’t fire until someone fired on them—which is doubtful, anyway. No, a few more jobs for the unemployed Afghani youths won’t win their hearts and minds.

Workers World
(Yes, leftist bias).





I think what happened in Haditha is what happens in war generally, in all wars innocent people have been killed. Its estimated 30,000+ Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of the war. I might expand on this later.

[PepsiMetal]

Very sad however it happened.

And all of this for those Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found. :(

[SubtleDagger]

Very sad however it happened.

And all of this for those Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found. :(
You'd think you'd be bored of the unnecessary Bush-bashing by now.

[PepsiMetal]

Bush bashing? More like piss-poor intelligence of CIA.

[SubtleDagger]

The CIA made us go to war? :confused:

[peeted]

train people to kill, give em guns, send them of to some country torn up by war were they never know if there going to live another day or not...what do you expect?

[PepsiMetal]

The CIA made us go to war? :confused:

CIA made up those fake photos of Iraq's WMD and gave them to colin powell who's job was to convince China, Russia, and France that it was real, but obviously they refused which is the reason only 2/5 main UN countries supported the iraqi war. I don't think Bush actually knew CIA pictures were fake, but if he did, they yes, I blame both.

[Reaganista]

come back with sources that are more accurate than stirring some alphabet soup and reading what you think it says.

[Reaganista]

CIA made up those fake photos of Iraq's WMD and gave them to colin powell who's job was to convince China, Russia, and France that it was real, but obviously they refused which is the reason only 2/5 main UN countries supported the iraqi war. I don't think Bush actually knew CIA pictures were fake, but if he did, they yes, I blame both.

ok that's not true and also irrelevant.

go away

[PepsiMetal]

ok that's not true and also irrelevant.

go away

Umm, it's the truth. Go research then come back.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-03.htm

[dislocated214]

Where did Powell get the falsepictures?

I'm not implying you or Pepsi is right, I don't know the answer either.

[Reaganista]

I'm not doing reasearch for you

[SubtleDagger]

Umm, it's the truth. Go research then come back.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-03.htm
Calling that a source is like calling James Cameron's "Titanic" a documentary.

[PepsiMetal]

Where did Powell get the falsepictures?

I'm not implying you or Pepsi is right, I don't know the answer either.

Well unless Bush just used Google Earth to get the aerial images, and photoshopped them, they were probably made by CIA.

Calling that a source is like calling James Cameron's "Titanic" a documentary.

Because?

Anyways, it's the first site that popped up on google. You can easily find many more where Colin Powell was presenting pictures/evidence to the UN of these "WMD".

[SubtleDagger]

Well unless Bush just used Google Earth to get the aerial images, and photoshopped them, they were probably made by CIA.



Because?
Because it's obviously partisan-spun garbage?

[dislocated214]

I'm not doing reasearch for you
Thanks...true liberterian at his best ;)

But I don't understand how you can claim he is false by not providing sources but you assume you are correct but you do not provide sources either.

just sayin yo

[PepsiMetal]

Because it's obviously partisan-spun garbage?

Is this also partisan-spun garbage?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Which part of my posts are you doubting? The part where Colin tried to convince UN with the photos and other evidence? :confused:

[Reaganista]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-03.htm

first of all, that's not a credible source.

secondly, it's actual content doesn't confirm any of the specious claims you made, it makes no mention of the CIA, fake or doctored photographs or a conspiracy to lie to russia, france and china.

[SubtleDagger]

Anyways, it's the first site that popped up on google. You can easily find many more where Colin Powell was presenting pictures/evidence to the UN of these "WMD".
It shouldn't be that hard for you to find a good source for it then.

[Reaganista]

Is this also partisan-spun garbage?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Which part of my posts are you doubting? The part where Colin tried to convince UN with the photos and other evidence? :confused:

this source only mentions the CIA to say that they weren't involved.

[SubtleDagger]

Is this also partisan-spun garbage?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Which part of my posts are you doubting? The part where Colin tried to convince UN with the photos and other evidence? :confused:
secondly, it's actual content doesn't confirm any of the specious claims you made, it makes no mention of the CIA, fake or doctored photographs or a conspiracy to lie to russia, france and china.
...

[PepsiMetal]

this source only mentions the CIA to say that they weren't involved.

Are you blind?

"Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says."

Director George Tenet - ex-CIA director :rolleyes:

[dislocated214]

Haha, I guess there's a reason why he is the EX-cia director ;)

[PepsiMetal]

Haha, I guess there's a reason why he is the EX-cia director ;)

And why Powell resigned. :)

[SubtleDagger]

It still doesn't prove that photographs were doctored or that there was a conspiracy to lie to anyone, aside from one guy who lied about some information that both parties dismissed later. Thus cancelling any claims of conspiracy.

[PepsiMetal]

Well the pictures were there, 3/5 of main UN countries didn't believe Colin's speech and the evidence he presented. After 3+ years in Iraq, not a trace of WMD has been found.

I was wrong though. Pictures might not have been fake. Maybe they were of USA's WMD?

[SubtleDagger]

Well the pictures were there, 3/5 of main UN countries didn't believe Colin's speech and the evidence he presented. After 3+ years in Iraq, not a trace of WMD has been found.

I was wrong though. Pictures might not have been fake. Maybe they were of USA's WMD?
Uh no, if you're talking about the slides in the article they were just slides of trucks in all likelihood.

Regardless, you put an outrageous spin on something that has no relevance to the discussion just to lash out at Bush's cabinet/intelligence, which is a tad bit silly given what the thread is about.

[Reaganista]

Are you blind?

"Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says."

not involved in the 'conspiracy' to create the false presentation

[DBoons Ghost]

Yet another story in which conclusions are immediately drawn to make the Marines look like blind killers.

No facts, no precedence, only the fact the Marines "murdered" seemingly innocent Iraqi civlians.

Awesome.

[PepsiMetal]

not involved in the 'conspiracy' to create the false presentation

CIA director and Powell discussed how the presentation should be. Since presentation was later proven to be false and full of lies, then CIA was probably involved in it one way or another.

Powell was just like their puppet. He presents what they want him to present.

[Reaganista]

CIA director and Powell discussed how the presentation should be. Since presentation was later proven to be false and full of lies, then CIA was probably involved in it one way or another.

Powell was just like their puppet. He presents what they want him to present.
funny that's not what your source says

[PepsiMetal]

What doesn't the source say?

"CIA director and Powell discussed how the presentation should be." - That's written on that CNN article clearly.

"Since presentation was later proven to be false and full of lies," - No WMD in iraq, so yes, evidence was false.

"then CIA was probably involved in it one way or another." - They were the main people involved in getting Powell ready for presentation.

CIA director didn't meet with Powell to discuss how their lives are going. They were there to make sure powell presents "accurate" information. Accurate means anything CIA wants the world to think is true.

[SubtleDagger]

Uh no, not necessarily.

Again you're putting your own spin on things that weren't even suggested in the article.

[PepsiMetal]

Well regardless of whose idea was to go into Iraq for "WMD" they were very wrong.

I'll rephrase my 2nd post.

"Bush bashing? More like piss-poor intelligence of USA."

[bwbw]

Yet another story in which conclusions are immediately drawn to make the Marines look like blind killers.

No facts, no precedence, only the fact the Marines "murdered" seemingly innocent Iraqi civlians.

Awesome.

What do you expect? It seems fairly certain that some marines will be charged with murder, I don't think there's any bias to make the marines as a whole look like 'blind killers'. This is a truely shocking and tragic incident and should be reported accordingly.

[Reaganista]

What doesn't the source say?

"CIA director and Powell discussed how the presentation should be."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.


actually two guys spent 4 days trying to organize the scattershot packet of information

according to the White House
which powell agreed to present before the UN.

[Jude]

Yet another story in which conclusions are immediately drawn to make the Marines look like blind killers.

No facts, no precedence, only the fact the Marines "murdered" seemingly innocent Iraqi civlians.

Awesome.
What if that's what happened?

This happened in Nam too, I believe.

I have a feeling that, like Abu Ghraib, this is going to go unpunished in any high ranks, and probably uninvestigated. They'll penalize a few marines and that will be it. Not to say that officers were necessarily responsible for this, but there clearly has been a considerable effort to cover it up, since we're hearing about this over 6 months after it happened.

However, just like Nam, this kind of thing is going to happen when you put a bunch of young, immature and uneducated white boys with guns in a foreign country that doesn't want them. Another reason this war is insane.

[Reaganista]

they're actually disproportionately not white

not sure what race has to do with it at all though

[DBoons Ghost]

Yeah I'm just gonna ignore Jude.

Blind ignorance is bad. More facts please!

[-1up!-]

Yet another story in which conclusions are immediately drawn to make the Marines look like blind killers.

No facts, no precedence, only the fact the Marines "murdered" seemingly innocent Iraqi civlians.

Awesome.

Actually Iraqi witnesses talk about US soldiers crashing front doors, entering houses and shooting families to death.

Now I'm finding sources for it. I read on it in my newspaper this morning, but it's in French and I can't be bothered to translate it all.

[DBoons Ghost]

Actually Iraqi witnesses talk about US soldiers crashing front doors, entering houses and shooting families to death.

Now I'm finding sources for it. I read on it in my newspaper this morning, but it's in French and I can't be bothered to translate it all.

And I'm sure they did all that for fun.

I'm sure Marines, bored, kicked down doors of innocent civilians and murdered them in cold blood, simply because they could.

I will never believe that.

[-1up!-]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069.html
BAGHDAD, May 26 -- Witnesses to the slaying of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha say the Americans shot men, women and children at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing.

Aws Fahmi, a Haditha resident who said he watched and listened from his home as Marines went from house to house killing members of three families, recalled hearing his neighbor across the street, Younis Salim Khafif, plead in English for his life and the lives of his family members. "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: 'I am a friend. I am good,' " Fahmi said. "But they killed him, and his wife and daughters."

The 24 Iraqi civilians killed on Nov. 19 included children and the women who were trying to shield them, witnesses told a Washington Post special correspondent in Haditha this week and U.S. investigators said in Washington. The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates.

Two U.S. military boards are investigating the incident as potentially the gravest violation of the law of war by U.S. forces in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq. The U.S. military ordered the probes after Time magazine presented military officials in Baghdad this year with the findings of its own investigation, based on accounts of survivors and on a videotape shot by an Iraqi journalism student at Haditha's hospital and inside victims' houses.

An investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service into the killings and a separate military probe into an alleged coverup are slated to end in the next few weeks. Marines have briefed members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and other officials on the findings; some of the officials briefed say the evidence is damaging. Charges of murder, dereliction of duty and making a false statement are likely, people familiar with the case said Friday.

"Marines overreacted . . . and killed innocent civilians in cold blood," said one of those briefed, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who maintains close ties with senior Marine officers despite his opposition to the war. (Article goes on for a bit)

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2015052&page=1

May 28, 2006 — After a small group of Marines stormed the Younis family home in Haditha last November, everybody inside was killed — except one person.

ABC News has obtained an interview with the sole survivor, 12-year-old Safa Younis. The interview was done by a local Iraqi journalism student about one week after the killings on Nov. 19, 2005.

The U.S. military continues to investigate what happened in Haditha, where a total of 24 civilians died. But one congressman, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said today that he's convinced the incident was mass murder and that it was covered up.

"There has to have been a cover-up," Murtha told ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "There's no question about it."

'I Pretended to Be Dead'

On the new tape shot by an Iraqi journalism student and given to ABC News by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group in Iraq, Younis, soft-spoken, with rounded cheeks and a headscarf, begins by calmly telling the interviewer, "My name is Safa Younis. I'm 12 years old."

The interviewer asks, "What did the American soldiers do when they broke into the house?"

"They knocked at the door," Younis says. "My father went to open it, they shot him dead from behind the door, and then they shot him again after they opened the door."

She describes hearing the Marines go through the rest of the house, shooting and setting off a grenade before getting to the bedroom where she was with her mother and siblings.

"Then comes one American soldier and shot [at] us all," she says. "I pretended to be dead … and he did not know about me."

Changing Story

All of this happened after a small Marine convoy was struck by a roadside bomb, killing Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. At first, the Marines acknowledged civilian deaths, but said they were caused by the roadside bomb. Later, they said the civilians were caught in the crossfire of a gunfight with insurgents.

Now, military investigators believe the only gunfire came from the Marines themselves.

Hmm.

[dislocated214]

And I'm sure they did all that for fun.

I'm sure Marines, bored, kicked down doors of innocent civilians and murdered them in cold blood, simply because they could.

I will never believe that.
Similar things happened at Abu Gharib for "fun".

[Reaganista]

'witnesses' and a girl who quite possibly was put up to fabricate the whole story aren't credible sources. gimme actual evidence

[Ghostfire3]

Hm, you know what this reminds me of? The My Lai massacre that occured during the Vietname War. And what was the outcome of that? One person was punished with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I don't doubt that they did it.

[Reaganista]

Hm, you know what this reminds me of? The My Lai massacre that occured during the Vietname War. And what was the outcome of that? One person was punished with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I don't doubt that they did it.

actually Calley was released from his sentence because his rights were repeatedly violated during his 'trial'

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

'witnesses' and a girl who quite possibly was put up to fabricate the whole story aren't credible sources. gimme actual evidence
What is 'actual evidence'?

[Reaganista]

what is 'a stupid ****ing question'?

something that proves that this actually happened is actual evidence

[DBoons Ghost]

Similar things happened at Abu Gharib for "fun".

I have no sympathy for the people there. The only problem there is they got caught.

[dislocated214]

Hmm, so people put in prison without trials don't get sympathy? People ****ted on by American troops don't get sympathy? It's alright...as long as they don't get caught? Wow.

[Reaganista]

it was being used as a jail and a prison

[dislocated214]

So prisoners are allowed to be mistreated? What happened to basic human rights? What happened to trials?

[Reaganista]

you don't go into a prison without a trial
otherwise it would be a jail

[-1up!-]

what is 'a stupid ****ing question'?

something that proves that this actually happened is actual evidence
No, he's right. You're being excessively and unreasonably cynical in trying to defend your point, which is in this case undefendable. Of course there is no other "actual evidence" than the words of witnesses - who else could be aware of what happened? The soldiers who participated in the acts and who would be punished anyway, either for complicity or from not having denounced those acts earlier?

"Changing Story

All of this happened after a small Marine convoy was struck by a roadside bomb, killing Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. At first, the Marines acknowledged civilian deaths, but said they were caused by the roadside bomb. Later, they said the civilians were caught in the crossfire of a gunfight with insurgents.

Now, military investigators believe the only gunfire came from the Marines themselves.

What's with all the flip-flopping? Isn't it "actual evidence" that there is desire to hide the truth?

[dislocated214]

A US military investigation has found there was no misconduct by US troops over Iraqi civilian deaths in the town of Ishaqi, a spokesman says.

Maj Gen William Caldwell said reports that troops "executed" a family during a raid on a house in March and tried to cover it up were "absolutely false".

Questions over the 11 deaths in Ishaqi come amid a Pentagon inquiry into a bigger alleged massacre in Haditha.

The US has announced extra training in moral and ethical values for troops.

BBC

[Ghostfire3]

And I'm sure they did all that for fun.

I'm sure Marines, bored, kicked down doors of innocent civilians and murdered them in cold blood, simply because they could.

I will never believe that.

Who said anything about them doing it for fun? This act could have been carried out as a result of anger.

[DBoons Ghost]

Hmm, so people put in prison without trials don't get sympathy? People ****ted on by American troops don't get sympathy? It's alright...as long as they don't get caught? Wow.

That's about right.

I mean, I aint gonna lie. That's how I see it. I truly don't expect anyone to agree, and quite frankly, if even half the people they were holding there were members of a cell, then so be it. The rest suffer. It's not like they're gonna just answer questions, so you torture them. Oh well.

I mean, call me crazy, but for all the innocent people they killed on that fateful day, I say **** em. I say this knowing full well how many innocent people Uncle Sam has killed, but I can't say I hold any favor towards humanity versus the favor I hold towards the country of my birth. Mayhaps some blind patriotism mixed with a little bitterness even still. What can I say?

[DBoons Ghost]

Who said anything about them doing it for fun? This act could have been carried out as a result of anger.


I dunno which is worse, but either way I'd rather wait for more facts before making any sweeping generalizations.

People draw conclusions, and they write about them. Suddenly, those assumptions and conclusions become fact.

[The Real El Capitano]

I think there should have been some solid evidence, meaning something other than the word of a few "witnesses",before accusations were blown up by the media. The reason for my thinking this, is that even if these accusations are proven untrue and hold absolutley no water under the slightest scutiny, these things will still follow these Marines where ever they go. Their names are more or less ruined, even if these allegations aren't true. If they are indeed true, well then the proper actions should be taken, but if not, there is nothing that will restore their names and I find that a really unjust, unfair, and ungrounded punishment for something that didn't happen, just because the liberal media felt like driving a point home about a war that they don't support, and because they like to show the most negative images of anything they can find that happened during the Bush administration.

[Reaganista]

No, he's right. You're being excessively and unreasonably cynical in trying to defend your point, which is in this case undefendable. Of course there is no other "actual evidence" than the words of witnesses - who else could be aware of what happened? The soldiers who participated in the acts and who would be punished anyway, either for complicity or from not having denounced those acts earlier?
sorry witness 'testimony' alone isn't enough to convict anybody
especially witnesses with such credibility issues as these

[Jude]

And I'm sure they did all that for fun.

I'm sure Marines, bored, kicked down doors of innocent civilians and murdered them in cold blood, simply because they could.

I will never believe that.
Your problem is you will refuse to believe it even if it was true.

I'm not saying it necessarily is, but it happened in Nam (My Lai + other less publicized incidents) and it may be happening in Iraq. It's happened in practically every war ever. It's ridiculous to create this mythology around American soldiers that they are icons of virtue and heroes. They're young men thrown into a war in a foreign, hostile country with only other similar people to identify with. This isn't going to lead to healthy behavior even for the best of people.

I'm not saying they did this "for fun" but the attitude you have is insane.

That's about right.

I mean, I aint gonna lie. That's how I see it. I truly don't expect anyone to agree, and quite frankly, if even half the people they were holding there were members of a cell, then so be it. The rest suffer. It's not like they're gonna just answer questions, so you torture them. Oh well.

I mean, call me crazy, but for all the innocent people they killed on that fateful day, I say **** em. I say this knowing full well how many innocent people Uncle Sam has killed, but I can't say I hold any favor towards humanity versus the favor I hold towards the country of my birth. Mayhaps some blind patriotism mixed with a little bitterness even still. What can I say?
I know you aren't stupid but I can't believe this post. You're trying to use September 11 as a justification for soldiers mistreating Abu Ghraib Prisoners?

That's like white police in Alabama using a black-on-white rape in North Carolina as justification for abusing black suspects from their town.

I know you have more of a grip on reality than that, I've seen enough of your posts.

[what]

uh oh! and then they ramble about russia invading chechnya and killing poor chechen rebeles

[Carrionshine]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/march/

^Graphic images of the victims.Mostly pictures of children.

[Hababi]

The thing to remember is that these guys are under constant stress fighting a guerilla war. As it happens, it appears that a group of marines flipped out and went on a killing rampage. Soldiers are trained to kill, and sometimes they don't turn off that switch when they should. Atrocities happen in every war, and it really says nothing about the country or the soldiers in general.

That said, what they (in all likelyhood) did is really awful, and they need to be prosecuted for it. But that's what separates us from leaders like Saddam Hussein: He sanctioned and engineered such events, whereas when our soldiers do such things, they are prosecuted. Well, that's just one of the differences but it just goes against the ridiculous "moral equivelance" argument some far lefties are trying to use.

[what]

But hey, you invaded their country, and you promised them peace and your so-called democracy and freedom. Just that puts twice as much responsibility on you.

[Reaganista]

As it happens, it appears that a group of marines flipped out and went on a killing rampage
as it happens some iraqis are lying

[PepsiMetal]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/march/

^Graphic images of the victims.Mostly pictures of children.

Yup. Nothing surprising though.

The thing to remember is that these guys are under constant stress fighting a guerilla war.

That doesn't give them the right to kill random innocent civilians because they're stressful. Military is stressful, you gotta deal with it in a civilized manner.

as it happens some iraqis are lying

Or it actually happened? :confused:

[Hababi]

But hey, you invaded their country, and you promised them peace and your so-called democracy and freedom. Just that puts twice as much responsibility on you.


When did we promise peace? We promised to bring them democracy, and we have. It's on them to have peace. And, your post demonstrates the problem--you're using a group of flipped out marines to stand for the United States army and war mission, when in fact their alledged actions stand against it.


That doesn't give them the right to kill random innocent civilians because they're stressful.


I'm not saying it does. I'm just saying that there's a great deal of context to the situation--it's not as if some Marines got drunk one night, went off base and started shooting people up, with the support of the American government, which is basically what some are making it out to be. They were in a stressful situation and they broke down mentally, went off the deep end and alledgedly committed grave atrocities.



as it happens some iraqis are lying


With that other case, north of Baghdad, that was the case. But I don't think that's the situation with Haditha; a military investigation has already established enough hard evidence to charge the soldiers.

[Reaganista]

With that other case, north of Baghdad, that was the case. But I don't think that's the situation with Haditha; a military investigation has already established enough hard evidence to charge the soldiers.
it's really easy to fabricate enough evidence to get charges brought.

a conviction is harder, you have to have some kind of proof and all that

[PepsiMetal]

I'm not saying it does. I'm just saying that there's a great deal of context to the situation--it's not as if some Marines got drunk one night, went off base and started shooting people up, with the support of the American government, which is basically what some are making it out to be. They were in a stressful situation and they broke down mentally, went off the deep end and alledgedly committed grave atrocities.

There are about 100,000 US troops in iraq, a couple of them getting drunk and having fun wouldn't be surprising. It has nothing to do with US troops, it's about being human.

American government can't afford to support the killing of innocent people. Their world relations are low as it is, so they have to try to be fair and try to kill as less innocents as possible.

Stressful situations are to be handled the appropriate way. When you sign up for military, you know there will be stress sooner or later. It's part of the job.

[davser]

what is 'a stupid ****ing question'?

something that proves that this actually happened is actual evidence

Your f****in stupid.

Here's a scenario.

A guy walks into your home and shoots a relative dead. It is seen by yourself and another member of your family. I'd guess that your statement, witness statements no less, would be enough to convict the accused.

So, essentially, you are dismissing the witness statements becuase they are from Iraqi civilians. Way to show you are a total racist! Congratulations you bigot.

[davser]

as it happens some iraqis are lying

You got a source on that. A credible one of course. None of your republican right wing extremist sites like Fox, thanks.

[ringworm]

Did it really happen? I dont doubt it, it always does & will in war.

Until ANY of you have been in a situation like these guys have been in, stfu.

Getting shot at by chicken**** cowards that hide behind civilian clothes,
having to deal with boobytraps & roadside bombs, having civilian truck drivers BURNT & DRAGGED around
like trophies & hung on a bridge.
Lets not judge them so harshly, idiots. Its a part of WAR.

It is sad, but it does happen.
This is why the media should not be alowed in war situations.
Things happen that quite frankly, just dont need to be reported.
Then here come all the armchair quarterbacks with their useless input.

[davser]

What do they expect? For the insurgents to walk into the middle of the desert and ask to be bombed? It isn't going to happen. The problem is using personnel who are not trained in dealing with this situation.

However, if these marines are found guilty of this war crime they should be punished. Just because they are under pressure doesn't cut it. Plenty of other troops are under pressure and don't resort to this kind of action, if marines are responsible for Haditha. They are trained soldiers and should be able to deal with the death of a comrade.

[davser]

Did it really happen? I dont doubt it, it always does & will in war.

Until ANY of you have been in a situation like these guys have been in, stfu.

It is sad, but it does happen.
This is why the media should not be alowed in war situations.
Things happen that quite frankly, just dont need to be reported.
Then here come all the armchair quarterbacks with their useless input.

Therefore, by your logic, we shouldn't judge the 9/11 terrorists because we haven't been in their situation and don't understand how they could undertake such an atrocity. Also, following your logic, 9/11 shouldn't have been reported either.

Don't think so.

[Jude]

When did we promise peace? We promised to bring them democracy, and we have. It's on them to have peace.


:confused:

They had peace before. We destroy that and then say it's their problem?


In any case, I doubt this will come to much more than the individual marines responsible being given a slap on the wrist. Nobody responsible for covering it up for 6 months will be punished, and any other similar cases will probably be covered up even better but this can be pointed to as an example of the military keeping good watch over its soldiers' behavior.

[davser]

sorry witness 'testimony' alone isn't enough to convict anybody
especially witnesses with such credibility issues as these


Speaking out of your arse again. In cases of sexual offence it only needs one witness it seems.

EX POST FACTO CLAUSE — ALTERING THE LEGAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

Case: Carmell v. Texas

Issue: Under the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, can a statutory amendment which authorizes conviction of certain sexual offenses on the victim's testimony alone, be applied retroactively to conduct which occurred prior to the amendment, at a time when the statute in question required that the victim's testimony be corroborated in order to convict?

Facts: In 1996, Scott Leslie Carmell was convicted on 15 counts of various sexual offenses against his stepdaughter. The offenses occurred over a period of four years from February 1991 to March 1995. During this period, the victim was 12 to 16 years old. Until 1993, a Texas statute stated that conviction of a sexual offense was supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim if the victim informed any other person within six months of the alleged offense or if the victim was younger than 14 years old. In 1993, Texas amended this statute to increase the minimum age exception from 14 to 18. Four of the 15 counts on which Carmell was convicted relied solely on testimony offered by the victim when she was older than 14 and did not inform anyone of the conduct within six months. Thus, those four convictions depend upon the applicability of the 1993 amendment to conduct which occurred from 1991-1993. Carmell appealed his conviction on these four counts, claiming that allowing his conviction solely on the basis of his stepdaughter’s testimony when she was over 14 but under 18 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas in Fort Worth denied his appeal, holding that the 1993 amendment only removed restrictions governing the competency of witnesses and was therefore a procedural rule, not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause.

You really must stop making things up, very childish.

[Hababi]

There are about 100,000 US troops in iraq, a couple of them getting drunk and having fun wouldn't be surprising.


Except that that's not what happened. And unless you are a soldier (which I'm not, but I know a few people who are), you can not understand the stress of being the target of a geurilla war in a foreign land. American soldiers don't get drunk and go shooting Arabs, despite the left wing anti soldier propaganda. As I said before, atrocities always happen in wars, especially of this nature. They happened in WW2, Korea, etc.


They had peace before. We destroy that and then say it's their problem?


If "peace" is living in constant fear of being brutally and arbitrarily murdered, then sure.

[davser]

If "peace" is living in constant fear of being brutally and arbitrarily murdered, then sure.

No change there then.

[Reaganista]

A guy walks into your home and shoots a relative dead. It is seen by yourself and another member of your family. I'd guess that your statement, witness statements no less, would be enough to convict the accused.
not if there was no corroborating evidence whatsoever

Speaking out of your arse again. In cases of sexual offence it only needs one witness it seems.
rape conviction rates are ridiculously low, even in cases where there is some substantial evidence

You got a source on that. A credible one of course. None of your republican right wing extremist sites like Fox, thanks.
lol
you got a source that says they did it? none of your eurocommie sites like the bbc or cnn thanks

[-1up!-]

Did it really happen? I dont doubt it, it always does & will in war.

Until ANY of you have been in a situation like these guys have been in, stfu.

Getting shot at by chicken**** cowards that hide behind civilian clothes,
having to deal with boobytraps & roadside bombs, having civilian truck drivers BURNT & DRAGGED around
like trophies & hung on a bridge.
Lets not judge them so harshly, idiots. Its a part of WAR.

It is sad, but it does happen.
This is why the media should not be alowed in war situations.
Things happen that quite frankly, just dont need to be reported.
Then here come all the armchair quarterbacks with their useless input.
Lol. I heavily doubt it happened in ALL wars that the soldiers of a mission to establish democracy would barge in a home and kill civilians inside. Stress is an important factor, no doubt. But NOTHING -- stress included -- NOTHING justifies crashing a door and killing civilians who pose no threat. Plus, the fact that it may or may not have happened in all wars is a bull**** reason to minimize the importance of the actions at hand. They remain extremely worrisome.

Stress does not excuse soldiers from comitting atrocities. They have a military mission which implies killing people, but they also have to restrain their warrior instincts in cases where it's flaring up and out of control.

Secondly, you're also an abysmal idiot for not wanting the media to report on wars. Just to remind you, these soldiers are on a mission for the United States, and de facto represent American values in foreign lands. The American people are in every way justified to know what soldiers are doing in their name, since it was their decision to send troops to war in the first place. Stop speaking our of your arse.

[ringworm]

Therefore, by your logic, we shouldn't judge the 9/11 terrorists because we haven't been in their situation and don't understand how they could undertake such an atrocity. Also, following your logic, 9/11 shouldn't have been reported either.

Don't think so.
Nope, WRONG, sorry, that wont work at all, you cant compare to totally different situations wanker.
Quit trying stunts like that like. WAR is different from a TERRORIST act.

I'll say again, Until ANY of you have been in a situation like these guys have been in, quit trying to figure out, what should have been done. IT HAPPENED. Buncha armchair quarterbacks is ALL u guys will ever be.

[ringworm]

These soldiers are on a mission for the United States, and de facto represent American values in foreign lands. The American people are in every way justified to know what soldiers are doing in their name, since it was their decision to send troops to war in the first place. Stop speaking our of your arse.
I'm not, moron. Yes, they are on a mission from the USA.
They are commanded by a General. I let him take care of ALL the actions,
that's what he is there for, to command. They know how to run things OK?

Atrocities will always happen in situations like these, anytime you have trained soldiers risking their lives, tempers flair & **** happens.

If you re-read my post, I NEVER condoned this activity, I just stated it is inevitible, it will always happen, that's all.

[-1up!-]

To say it is unavoidable and that it will always happen is blind pessimism and it sickens me. Plus it does not justify letting it go as a "sad but unavoidable" event, or minimizing the importance of it. Civilian murders is certainly not "knowing how to run things", and even if the problems reoccurs, it just emphasizes the need to fix it.

[Give me Beer]

Just because it is inevitable doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported on, and punished. Arm-chair quarterbacks? My opinion might not matter directly but as I live in a democratic nation, my vote counts. American opinion on this will count because they chose who is in charge and ultimately how the American Foreign Policy is conducted. My opinion of the USA as a foreigner is important because it determines how my nation will act towards the USA.

You are excusing these people for an act that can not be excused. What you are proposing would lead to a Chechnya like situation. Where the Russian public opinion doesn't care about what happens there, so the army is free to massacre, rape, torture and steal all they like.

[Jude]

If "peace" is living in constant fear of being brutally and arbitrarily murdered, then sure.
Um so you're saying things just stayed the same.


Oh...beaten :upset:

[Jude]

Nope, WRONG, sorry, that wont work at all, you cant compare to totally different situations wanker.
Quit trying stunts like that like. WAR is different from a TERRORIST act.


But you totally failed to explain how people on one side of a conflict are allowed to "screw up" but not the people on the other side.


I'll say again, Until ANY of you have been in a situation like these guys have been in, quit trying to figure out, what should have been done. IT HAPPENED. Buncha armchair quarterbacks is ALL u guys will ever be.
And I'll say again (or repeat what the other guy said) until you've been in a terrorist's situation don't make judgements on them. Which is a logical extension of what you said.

[Reaganista]

Um so you're saying things just stayed the same.

no you see they used to have a dictator and now they have an elected government

[Jude]

no you see they used to have a dictator and now they have an elected government
That isn't what we were referring to.

[Reaganista]

i don't care

[Jude]

Right on.

[davser]

Nope, WRONG, sorry, that wont work at all, you cant compare to totally different situations wanker.
Quit trying stunts like that like. WAR is different from a TERRORIST act.

I'll say again, Until ANY of you have been in a situation like these guys have been in, quit trying to figure out, what should have been done. IT HAPPENED. Buncha armchair quarterbacks is ALL u guys will ever be.

Fvck off you little c0ck.
War and terrorism are interchangeable depending on which side you are on. One persons freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. many Muslims regard the US as a terrorist state, imposing their will and breaching Islamic law on Islamic lands. Whether I agree with this is irrelevant. The fact is those behind 9/11 thought they were morally justified in doing what they did. Much like US troops do now.

If you can't see that you must be one ignorant dolt.

[davser]

not if there was no corroborating evidence whatsoever


rape conviction rates are ridiculously low, even in cases where there is some substantial evidence


lol
you got a source that says they did it? none of your eurocommie sites like the bbc or cnn thanks

Did you even read the article? It states you can have uncorroborated evidence from a single witness. Therefore any statement by you saying this is not the case is totally bogus. Who cares what the conviction rate is. It is the law on the statute that counts.

I asked you for the credible source that Iraqis are lying about Haditha. Where is it or can't you find one? To ask me to find a source in response smacks of a rather unsophisticated attempt at a diversion. Perhaps you should refrain from asking people for credible sources when you are so unwilling to provide them yourself.

As for the proof of the Haditha incident, I'll just wait for the official enquiry. It seems odds on already that they are guilty, judging by the noises coming out of Washingon, the re-training of troops and the re-deployment of key staff from Kilo Co. We will wait and see however, we don't want to pre-judge. I suppose you'll deny the findings if they do get found guilty. Ho hum.

[Reaganista]

Did you even read the article? It states you can have uncorroborated evidence from a single witness. Therefore any statement by you saying this is not the case is totally bogus. Who cares what the conviction rate is. It is the law on the statute that counts.

hahahahahaha


I asked you for the credible source that Iraqis are lying about Haditha. Where is it or can't you find one? To ask me to find a source in response smacks of a rather unsophisticated attempt at a diversion. Perhaps you should refrain from asking people for credible sources when you are so unwilling to provide them yourself.


I asked you for a source that proves that this even happened. You can't find one so you call me unsophisticated.

[ChickenStu]

As for the proof of the Haditha incident, I'll just wait for the official enquiry. It seems odds on already that they are guilty

The thing is...you aren't waiting for the "official enquiry". You have already made up your mind from the tiny bit of information you have received.


I asked you for the credible source that Iraqis are lying about Haditha.
You actually want these men and/or women to be guilty. You want to believe the Iraqis before you want to even think about believing the stories that our soldiers are going to tell.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. I thought that was a big deal here in america...

[PepsiMetal]

Umm, it happened. They aren't lying, end of story. Yes, americans can be cruel too for those of you who didn't know that. :rolleyes:

[ChickenStu]

Umm, it happened. They aren't lying, end of story. Yes, americans can be cruel too for those of you who didn't know that. :rolleyes:

It happened...but did americans shoot them or were they insurgents?

Did they have weapons?

Were they harbouring terrorists?

What are the circumstances?

There are so many things we don't know for sure. You can regurgitate news stories to me all day, but we still dont know the soldiers' side, and the investigation isnt even finished.

[PepsiMetal]

It happened...but did americans shoot them or were they insurgents?

Most likely Americans. When did you see insurgents going into individual houses and shooting random people? They usually try to suicide american soldiers, which causes civilian deaths.

[Reaganista]

Umm, it happened. They aren't lying, end of story. Yes, americans can be cruel too for those of you who didn't know that.
evidence, dumbass

[ChickenStu]

Most likely Americans.

What a terrible thing to say. At least before all of this got bad news coverage you guys were still "supporting the troops" no matter how much you disagreed with the war in Iraq.

Now that you have stooped to a level to judge our troops and sentence them before you even know the facts, your true feelings are out. You have so much hate for Bush and this war that you will go about defacing it and our own troops, american men and women, in any way you can.

When did you see insurgents going into individual houses and shooting random people? They usually try to suicide american soldiers, which causes civilian deaths.

When did you see the americans going into individual houses and shooting random people?

Answer me this: Who would be more likely to shoot innocent civilians (supposing they are innocent) american marines that are fighting for the freedom of Iraq or people that hate american with such a passion that they result to strapping bombs to their chest and to the chests of women and children?

Remember this...we are NOT there to kill people, we are there to give freedom and democracy to those people, which will hopefully spread across the middle east. The reason the insurgents are there are TO kill people.

There are just so many things we dont know, and the media doesnt know for that matter. I just ask for you to not jump to the conclusion so fast with little to no facts.

[PepsiMetal]

What a terrible thing to say. At least before all of this got bad news coverage you guys were still "supporting the troops" no matter how much you disagreed with the war in Iraq.

How is it a terrible thing to say? If I had said "Most likely an Iraqi" you wouldn't have responded the same way. Yes, Americans too kill innocents, have done it before, and will always do it like all people. If you think all 100,000 US troops in iraq are so nice and wouldn't never do anything bad then you need to get out of the dream world.

Now that you have stooped to a level to judge our troops and sentence them before you even know the facts, your true feelings are out. You have so much hate for Bush and this war that you will go about defacing it and our own troops, american men and women, in any way you can.

I'm not american. I'm judging Americans like how they judge foreigners too. And you're blinded by the media if you think out of those 100,000 american soldiers in iraq neither will do something horrible. It's just impossible for human beings.

When did you see the americans going into individual houses and shooting random people?

Answer me this: Who would be more likely to shoot innocent civilians (supposing they are innocent) american marines that are fighting for the freedom of Iraq or people that hate american with such a passion that they result to strapping bombs to their chest and to the chests of women and children?

Remember this...we are NOT there to kill people, we are there to give freedom and democracy to those people, which will hopefully spread across the middle east. The reason the insurgents are there are TO kill people.

There are just so many things we dont know, and the media doesnt know for that matter. I just ask for you to not jump to the conclusion so fast with little to no facts.

Insurgents aren't there to kill people. They're there to force US to withdraw its troops.

Likelyness doesn't really matter at this point as many iraqi witnesses have said Americans are guilty of this crime. I'm not going to ignore these people just because they're iraqis. That is exactly why Americans are ignoring these witnesses. If American civilians saw this incident and said Insurgents did it, all Americans would immediately believe it.

But in general, there isn't one war that has perfect soldiers. There will be some idiots who'll overuse their powers sooner or later. And US' military by it's size means it'll happen. Regardless, these american troops will not be charged if they're innocent, whereas there are many innocent Afghans who were brought to Guantanamo Bay even if they're not ralated to terrorist attacks.

evidence, dumbass

Witnesses, dumbass. I guess witnesses only matter when they're agreeing with you right? :rolleyes:

[ChickenStu]

How is it a terrible thing to say? If I had said "Most likely an Iraqi" you wouldn't have responded the same way. Yes, Americans too kill innocents, have done it before, and will always do it like all people. If you think all 100,000 US troops in iraq are so nice and wouldn't never do anything bad then you need to get out of the dream world.

I'm not american. I'm judging Americans like how they judge foreigners too.

Sorry I took you for an american, you dont have a location.

You are just jumping to conclusions to fast...I'm not saying they are definitely innocent, im just saying the evidence isnt out yet.

Other soldiers have been treated the same way by the media...and when it got to court martial, all charges were dropped, like Ilario Pantano.

And you're blinded by the media if you think out of those 100,000 american soldiers in iraq neither will do something horrible. It's just impossible for human beings.

This is just completely laughable. Don't comment on the media in another country unless you know what its like.



Insurgents aren't there to kill people. They're there to force US to withdraw its troops.

Are they having talks with us? Are they trying to get a treaty signed? What are they doing to make us withdraw? They don't want us to withdraw, they want to kill americans. If anything they are prolonging our stay.


That is exactly why Americans are ignoring these witnesses. If American civilians saw this incident and said Insurgents did it, all Americans would immediately believe it.

HAVE YOU SEEN AMERICAN MEDIA?

That is all they are quoting and they have already sentenced these soldiers in their own mind. There is no ignoring of these witnesses going on. The media in America is holding them to higher regard than our own troops.


Witnesses, dumbass. I guess witnesses only matter when they're agreeing with you right? :rolleyes:

You automatically take them as credible? Like the strippers/ prostitutes in the Duke Lacross case?

[Reaganista]

Witnesses, dumbass. I guess witnesses only matter when they're agreeing with you right?
do you need me to explain how a reasonable doubt standard works

[PepsiMetal]

Are they having talks with us? Are they trying to get a treaty signed? What are they doing to make us withdraw? They don't want us to withdraw, they want to kill americans. If anything they are prolonging our stay.

What are you talking about?

All of US' responses to negotiations with Insurgents have been "We dont negotiate with terrorists." They do want to negotiate, US doesn't.

HAVE YOU SEEN AMERICAN MEDIA?

Yea, I live in US. I've seen CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews daily and recently.

That is all they are quoting and they have already sentenced these soldiers in their own mind. There is no ignoring of these witnesses going on. The media in America is holding them to higher regard than our own troops.

They are witnesses. They saw what happened. When there is a car bomb in iraq, and an American Soldier says he witnessed it, do you question him? I doubt it. You're just siding with Americans because you're an American. I'm siding with Iraqis because I'm neutral in this case and believe that's what happened from witnesses and pictures I've seen.


You automatically take them as credible? Like the strippers/ prostitutes in the Duke Lacross case?

I don't know or care about Duke Lacross case. In this case, yes I think witnesses are credible. I don't automatically take them as credible though. The kids in these houses were killed by guns, not bombs. They could have simply tested bullets and seen which ones were in the body. Most likely if it's Aks then it's insurgents if it's M16s or M4 it's Americans. But whatever, we'll wait to see their conclusion of investigation.

do you need me to explain how a reasonable doubt standard works

Maybe you shouldn't doubt people because they're not on your side? :rolleyes:

Like I said, if there was an american civilian there saying Insurgents did it, you would immediately believe him and dismiss this case right then and there.

[Reaganista]

Maybe you shouldn't doubt people because they're not on your side?
omg you seriously don't understand how the reasonable doubt standard works.

you must be from a horrible place.

[PepsiMetal]

omg you seriously don't understand how the reasonable doubt standard works.

you must be from a horrible place.

Explain to me why this is a reasonable doubt.

I know you're next response will be BS, so I'll go ahead and do it in advance.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Reaganista]

If you entertain a reasonable doubt as to any fact or element necessary to constitute the defendant's guilt, it is your duty to give him the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict of not guilty. Even where the evidence demonstrates a probability of guilt, if it does not establish such guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit the accused."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri09.htm

[davser]

The thing is...you aren't waiting for the "official enquiry". You have already made up your mind from the tiny bit of information you have received.



You actually want these men and/or women to be guilty. You want to believe the Iraqis before you want to even think about believing the stories that our soldiers are going to tell.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. I thought that was a big deal here in america...

If you read my post you would see the phrase, which you so kindly boldened for me, relates to noises coming out of washington, retraining etc. Thats the US admin essentially admitting it. However, as I put further into the post which you have omitted, I said they shouldn't be pre-judged. What part of that can't you understand? It's very basic English.

I don't want them to be found guilty. I just want the truth to be known and if they are guilty then so be it. If not then again, so be it.

[davser]

hahahahahaha.

A response full of intellectual vigour. You are so full of bullsh1t. You can't even admit you are totally wrong in your own countrys law. Only one witness required and uncorroborated for sex offences. It's there in black and white, only someone either totally ignorant or who cannot read could fail to see that. I'm pretty sure you are neither so get of the high horse eh.



I asked you for a source that proves that this even happened. You can't find one so you call me unsophisticated.

I haven't stated that US marines are responsible for this so why would I supply a source to back up a statement I haven't made. You however have made a statement that the iraqis are lying. Provide your credible source for this or are you just bull****ting, yet again. Twice in one thread eh. NO credibility son, none whatsoever.

[-1up!-]

Answer me this: Who would be more likely to shoot innocent civilians (supposing they are innocent) american marines that are fighting for the freedom of Iraq or people that hate american with such a passion that they result to strapping bombs to their chest and to the chests of women and children?


Iraqi insurgents have absolutely nothing to gain from shooting civilians in their own country. Think about it; an insurgent movement needs popular support to fuel its actions. The insurgents need legitimacy and credibility in their quest to drive out US forces out of the country and label them as invading forces. That being said, why the **** would they go and shoot civilians from which they seek support?

[SubtleDagger]

Sorry, if you believe the accusers without them supplying any evidence aside from (questionable) witnesses, you are jumping to conclusions. That is not a claim that the accusers are lying, it is a claim that you do not prosecute anyone until enough evidence is gathered to prove definitively who is responsible.

[StreetlightRock]

Iraqi insurgents have absolutely nothing to gain from shooting civilians in their own country

Depends. The Sunni's and Shia's are at each others throats in Iraq, hence, the worry about Civil war. Throw some Kurds in there, and mix it up with foreign insurgents who are trying there gosh darn hardest to incite a civil war, and its a tense situation.

[davser]

Sorry, if you believe the accusers without them supplying any evidence aside from (questionable) witnesses, you are jumping to conclusions.

If only the CIA had done this regarding WMD in Iraq we wouldn't be where we are now. Hindsight eh.

The problem in this situation is how the official position of the US forces has changed as further 'evidence' has been uncovered, notably after the video and Time article being released. If this change in evidence is proven to be part of a cover up then surely this will lead any court of law to seriously question the legitamacy of any US military witness to the incident as it will have been shown that they have already lied regarding this and as such their statements will probably be disregarded due to their own cover up. The cover up has to be proved though, of course.

Now that it seems likely that the soldiers have been found guilty of shooting the disabled man and pretending he was planting an IED, the credibility of US forces looks to fall further as evidence of another alleged cover up re US war crimes comes to light. Not looking good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13171771/

"WASHINGTON - U.S. military investigators believe the killing of an Iraqi civilian on April 26 was planned by a small group of Marines who shot the man and then planted a shovel and an AK-47 rifle at the scene, a senior Pentagon official said Tuesday.

The official, who has direct knowledge of the investigation under way by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said evidence found thus far indicates Marines entered the town of Hamdaniya in search of an insurgent and, failing to find him, grabbed an unarmed man from his home and shot him."

[davser]

Iraqi insurgents have absolutely nothing to gain from shooting civilians in their own country.

Not the case. There is plenty of infighting alongside any anti american actions in Iraq. Search sectarian violence Iraq and I assure you will be flooded with articles.

[-1up!-]

I stand corrected.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13171771/

"WASHINGTON - U.S. military investigators believe the killing of an Iraqi civilian on April 26 was planned by a small group of Marines who shot the man and then planted a shovel and an AK-47 rifle at the scene, a senior Pentagon official said Tuesday.

The official, who has direct knowledge of the investigation under way by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said evidence found thus far indicates Marines entered the town of Hamdaniya in search of an insurgent and, failing to find him, grabbed an unarmed man from his home and shot him."

Sickening.

[Reaganista]

A response full of intellectual vigour. You are so full of bullsh1t. You can't even admit you are totally wrong in your own countrys law. Only one witness required and uncorroborated for sex offences.
obviously the absolute bare minimum required to even convict anyone is uncorroborated testimony of one person. anything less and the person wouldn't even stand accused

that's not to say that this ever happens except in ridiculous circumstances

I haven't stated that US marines are responsible for this so why would I supply a source to back up a statement I haven't made. You however have made a statement that the iraqis are lying. Provide your credible source for this or are you just bull****ting, yet again. Twice in one thread eh. NO credibility son, none whatsoever.
nope sorry I don't have to prove a negative that's not the way debate works

[Rounder]

I stand corrected.



Sickening.


Well, I look at it this way. How many troops have gone to Iraq? Several hundred thousand? Roughly the size of a mid sized urban city? Compare the murder rates to that city with the ALLEGED murders by US soldiers in Iraq. It's about humanity, not Americans troops. Your going to have some slip in who cannot handle seeing their buddy split in half. It's not a pretty sight. I am in no away excusing what MAY have happened, but personally I think we (Americans) need to give them the same rights an accused person in the states gets, the presumption of innonence. If found guiltly, they should be held accountable. But if anyone deserves to be innocent until proven guilty, it's a soldier fighting a dirty ugly war.

[Jude]

Well, I look at it this way. How many troops have gone to Iraq? Several hundred thousand? Roughly the size of a mid sized urban city? Compare the murder rates to that city with the ALLEGED murders by US soldiers in Iraq. It's about humanity, not Americans troops. Your going to have some slip in who cannot handle seeing their buddy split in half. It's not a pretty sight. I am in no away excusing what MAY have happened, but personally I think we (Americans) need to give them the same rights an accused person in the states gets, the presumption of innonence. If found guiltly, they should be held accountable. But if anyone deserves to be innocent until proven guilty, it's a soldier fighting a dirty ugly war.
It's about circumstances, which have far more impact on how people act than what country the people are from/who they are.

[PepsiMetal]

Your going to have some slip in who cannot handle seeing their buddy split in half. It's not a pretty sight.

So when they see american planes bombing their houses, and they become terrorists and kill american soldiers, would you feel the same way then? Basically roles reversed.