Globe and Mail:
Stark evidence is emerging of deliberate reprisal killings of about two dozen civilians, including women and children, by a handful of US Marines last November in what may prove to be the worst atrocity yet by US forces in Iraq.
On the eve of Memorial Day weekend, when Americans honor their armed forces with parades and marching bands, President George W. Bush's administration was girding for a new spate of horrific revelations. Although no charges have yet been laid, the Pentagon is in damage-control mode and the top Marine general has flown Iraq to steady his charges.
In closed sessions, senior military officers have been briefing key lawmakers about the two-month-old investigation, which is nearing completion. As many as a dozen Marines could face charges to include murder, dereliction of duty and making false reports for trying to cover up what happened.
It is alleged that a small squad of Marines killed at least three separate groups of people in cold blood -- five men in a taxi and two larger groups, including women and children, in two houses in the city of Haditha, It appears to have been a deliberate set of reprisal killings after a Marine was killed by insurgents, according to reports pieced together from those who have attended the briefings.
"This was not an accident," said Minnesota Republican John Kline, a former Marine colonel who was briefed about the killings along with other members of the House of Representatives armed-services committee. "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity," he told the New York Times.
In preparation for what will be a massive blow to morale in the intensely proud and close-knit Marine Corps, General Michael Hagee flew to Iraq yesterday.
"The most difficult part of courage is not the raw physical courage that we have seen so often on today's battlefield," the commander said in a statement to all his troops. "It is rather the moral courage to do the 'right thing' in the face of danger or pressure from other Marines."
The implication, that subordinates may have failed to resist an unlawful order to kill innocent civilians, awakened echoes of Abu Ghraib, the Baghdad-area prison where Iraqi prisoners were abused and humiliated by a group of army reservists on the orders of a former guard. It is the most vile stain to date on US forces in Iraq.
"It will be worse than Abu Ghraib; nobody was killed at Abu Ghraib," retired Marine Brigadier-General David Brahms told the Washington Post. A scandal of such magnitude could send shock waves all the way to the White House.
It was just this week that President George W. Bush described Abu Ghraib as "the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq." The pictures of abused Iraqis that rapidly circulated throughout the Arab world undermined Mr. Bush's claims that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq held the moral high ground and stood in sharp contrast to the wanton brutality of Saddam Hussein's regine.
"We've been paying for that for a long period of time," Mr. Bush said.
Allegations of an atrocity at Haditha, about 200 kilometres northwest of Baghdad, began circulating in the Arab media after a video of bloodstained walls surfaced. Time magazine published the first US report on the allegations in March.
At first, Marines said that 15 civilians had died in a roadside bombing. Then it was reported that some had died in the crossfire as Marines fought with Iraqi insurgents in Anbar province.
But John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and a 37-yeart Marine Corps veteran, said the investigation now indicates otherwise.
"There was no fire fight," said Mr. Murtha, one of the most respectad congressmen on military affairs and the first to openly call for a withdrawal from Iraq.
He added: "There was no IED [improvised explosive device] that killked these innocent people. Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Virginia Republican John Warner, chairman of the armed-services committee, confirmed there were "very serious allegations and there have been facts substantiated to date to underpin those allegations."
But he also said he hopes that people "will keep in mind the magnificent performance of nearly one million men and women of the United States armed forces who have rotated in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan."
The marines deployed to Haditha at the time of the alleged atrocity were from the Third Batallion of the First Marine Regiment of the First Marine Division. They have since returned to their home base at Camp Pendleton, California. Last month, the batallion commander and two company commanders were relieved of their duties; it is not clear whether it was related to the probe.
This is pretty much what the Americans do not need right now. I suppose the question now is, is it a few bad apples or a real epidemic undercurrent of psychotic behaviour within the Marine Corps and armed forces?
I really like how the press is basically making the Marines guilty of the alleged crime already. But hey, whatever.
Anyhow, anybody else think that there might be a rush to judgment?
Quote:
The press is already salivating over the prospect of the next Abu Ghraib-like public relations disaster for the U.S. in the war on terror - ballyhooing as yet unproven allegations that a group of U.S. Marines launched an "unprovoked" attack that killed 24 Iraqi civilians in town of Haditha on November 19, 2005.
But was the Marine response really "unprovoked" - as at least 40 press reports have claimed in recent days?
The Boston Globe reports that the confrontation was touched off when a roadside bomb struck a supply convoy of Kilo Company, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment. The explosion killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, who was on his second tour in Iraq.
"Everybody agrees that this was the triggering event," Paul Hackett, an attorney for a Marine officer with a slight connection to the case, told the paper.
If the roadside bomb was the "triggering event" for the developments that followed, however, then how can it be said that there was "no provocation"?
And while that provocation may not have been enough to justify the wanton murder of innocent Iraqis, it's far from clear at this point that all of those killed were indeed innocent. Or that any innocents who did die were killed in cold blood.
In an April report that pre-dates the uproar over the Haditha allegations, a Marine press release describes the Iraqi town as "a hotbed of insurgent activity less than a year ago." That would be about the time of the so-called Marine massacre.
Plainly, not all the residents of this terrorist hotbed were as innocent as Marine media critics are now claiming.
The Los Angeles Times reports that after smoke from IED cleared, the Marines quickly determined that it was "a type that would have required someone to detonate it."
Following standard procedure, the troops searched nearby houses, the closest of which was 50 yards away.
That's close enough for its occupants to have tracked the Marine convoy and timed the explosion.
It's also worth remembering that the press has so far reported only one side of the story.
All the witness accounts seem to come from residents of Haditha [that hotbed of insurgent activity] - who paint the Marines as modern day incarnations of Nazi storm troopers.
Alleged witness Aws Fahmi, for instance, told the Boston Globe: "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: `I am a friend. I am good,' But they killed him, and his wife and daughters."
According to the Los Angeles Times, the video that first raised questions about the how the Iraqis died was shot by Haditha residents themselves. Could it have been staged? We still don't know.
Then there's this intriguing tidbit, again from the Times, which notes that after the IED was detonated: "Marines and Iraqi forces searched houses and other structures in the narrow, dusty streets [of Haditha] - jets dropped 500-pound bombs."
Whoever ordered those airstrikes must not have believed the houses of Haditha were filled with Iraqi innocents who knew nothing about planting roadside bombs.
Despite the swirling questions, the press seems eager to jump to conclusions, taking its cue from Rep. John Murtha - who went public last week with charges that the Marines killed innocent Iraqis "in cold blood."
ABC News, for instance, reported Saturday morning that the military investigators had already determined that the killings were unjustified, and that several Marines would likely face murder charges. But instead of quoting anyone in uniform, the report offered a soundbyte from a Human Rights Watch spokesman.
It's also worth noting that House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who got the same insider briefing given to Murtha, says the "in cold blood" allegations are all wet.
"I totally reject that," Hunter told the L.A. Times.
The California Republican has pledged to conclude his own investigation in June. In the meantime he worries about the press using Haditha to further their campaign against the military.
"I don't want the actions of one squad in one city on one morning to be used to symbolize or characterize or tar the actions of our great troops," Hunter told a Washington news conference last week.
Besides, do you seriously believe that Marines picked out innocent people to massacre in a town that was a hotbed of terrorist activity that even required bombing from above?
Also, note that the article you posted Cycle makes no mention of the IED that killed the Marine, which set off this whole event. 'No provocation?' What a crock.
Those of us that shout 'support our troops' and then condemn actions at Abu Grahib and Haditha, are contemptible, sunshine patriots. Support our troops means exactly that. Support all our troops. When fired on in battle, any response deemed appropriate should be accepted and condoned, even if subsequent analysis finds it to be improper. The American military can handle and discipline its own on the battlefield. We don't need investigations designed to look good for the press and the rest of the world.
Let's walk through this step by step.
First, as far back as September of last year Haditha has been a problem. It's a Sunni stronghold and rumor has it that at one time mighty Al-Zarqawi himself was holed up there.
There is a Marine outpost near Haditha and hidden bombs are often found around the outpost, so let's state right now that Haditha is no friend to the American military.
Finally, after months of trying piece by piece to clear Haditha of insurgents, a joint operation by the Marines and the Iraqi army took place. It's very, very important to please note that the residents of Haditha were warned repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, to clear out, that a convoy of Marines and Iraqis was coming in.
On the day all this stuff came down, first, a humvee carrying Marines was blown up by an IED. There's some question that this IED was improvised to be attached to a propane tank which made the blast more horrific.
The driver of the humvee was killed, an American Marine. Right after the IED explosion, the unit was allegedly taking gunfire from nearby homes.
By now, all angry and likely scared, a bunch of Iraqi army soldiers and Marines headed to a house where they thought the gunfire was coming from. They broke into a home where the family was all huddled in the parlor, a room with a handy window, reading the Koran. Which is what we all do, of course, when explosions and gunfires erupts around us, we gather our children and grandchildren and congregate in a room to read the Koran (or whatever your particular holy book may be).
The Marines thought they heard the ratchet of an AK-47 so they burst into this lovely parlor room and it's questionable what happened then. EXCEPT, get this, the entire account of what happened was described by a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL. Allegedly she was in the corner, huddled, and trying to protect her younger, EIGHT year old brother. Said eight year old brother was too 'traumatized' to talk to Time magazine.
Hey, the kid's eight, he was there, why can't he talk? Perhaps he has a different story than his sister?
Some people in this house got shot and killed but it's not at all clear why. Silly me, I just don't think the Marines shot and killed people for no reason but hey, I could be wrong. The nine year old, eight year old and another woman and baby escaped from this house so it's not like the marines just willy-nilly shot everyone. A grandfather and son were killed, I forget who else...but please don't forget the warning given to residents of Haditha so why was this loving grandfather keeping his family so close to the danger?
The gunfire keeps going and the unit goes back outside to find out where. They think the gunfire is coming from yet another house so someone, could've been an Iraqi soldier (who knows), threw a grenade in that house. The grenade allegedly hit a propane tank in that house and went boom. A bunch of people in that house were killed.
Still the gunfire continued and the Iraqi soldiers charged another house. A man and four of his sons were killed in this encounter. One of that guy's sons lived next door and he's telling Time a story that you'll not believe.
He says that the Iraqis keeping guard outside the house and told him that the Americans are killing everybody and that he better go hide. The next day this guy goes into the house and finds his four brothers killed.
The guy then says there the way the blood was dragged across the room that it was 'obvious' that the Americans put his four brothers in the closet and shot them there.
Now why would the Marines bother to put four men inside of a closet and shoot them? Why not just shoot them right out in the open? The same Americans that had (allegedly) shot everybody else in the town right out in the open?
Or could those four brothers have been HIDING in the closet and when the Marines found them, THEN they got shot? That would explain the bloody drag marks.
TWO AK-47's WERE recovered from somewhere so where did they come from? I'm thinking from inside that closet but I could be wrong.
Also, even before this all began, the Haditha hospital was believed to be a safe house for Sunni terrorists. So guess where all those lovely pictures came from? That very same hospital.
When you deliberately keep women and children around you to keep the Americans from killing you, and some of them end up getting killed anyway, well the next step is to exploit this and get the story out there.
The biggest problem in this story, at least as I see it, is that the house that got the grenade suffered the loss of a lot of civilians. According to this corrupt terrorist Haditha hospital, the victims of this blast had bullet wounds and were not killed by the propane.
The pictures seem to show bullet wounds but how do we know they were the people in the propane tank house?
Anyway, folks this story has many holes in it and really has questionable sourcing. A terrorist-sympathizing-and-protecting hospital and a nine year old child?
If anything comes of this, believe that there will be a great big mountain built from a molehill. Why didn't those residents leave, what with over two months notice? I suppose people in Iraq might have propane tanks in their kitchens but that sure is odd.
Also, don't forget the Iraqi army. Could the Iraqi soldiers have thrown that grenade or shot those bullets?
But I digress. It is war. So far, America's been fighting under ROE. Those who haven't have been punished. Let's also not forget that we are fighting terrorists who do not wear identifying clothing. They do not fight under a recognizable banner. They blend in with civilians, and supposed innocent civilians may not turn out to be quite so innocent.
From my understanding of this, this is all a situation that escalated due to 'fog of war'. Unfortunately, we have a media (and a certain Congressman named Murtha) who just won't shut up.
Quote:
is it a few bad apples or a real epidemic undercurrent of psychotic behaviour within the Marine Corps and armed forces?
It's probably a mixture of both if what I heard (that the soldiers involved were on their third deployment at the time) is true. Not everyone handles war nicely and the one aspect that doesn't get reported on are the psychological damages that some soldiers end up with. However, in comparison to the numbers sent, the ones that end up going over the deep end seems to be small. But it only takes a small number to do something bad, whether in war or "normal" life.
Quote:
Not everyone handles war nicely and the one aspect that doesn't get reported on are the psychological damages that some soldiers end up with. However, in comparison to the numbers sent, the ones that end up going over the deep end seems to be small.
Thank you.
Quote:
Ultra Sonic 007 said stuff
Totally, 100% agree. People seem to be forgetting what we're dealing with here. ESPECIALLY the whole civillian attire thing, which I have a friend who is in the army and he's come back and told me about this stuff, and from what he says, folks, it is the most nerve-wrecking thing to do which is to open fire on your "enemies", when in fact it's more of a 50-50 chance every time, unless you see weapons on them 100% of the time.
Not to mention hearing his stories about children applauding and cheering these a-holes, and teens holding fire-arms and bombs... I mean christ.
Abu Ghraib was one thing, and one I believe was totally uncalled for. This, well this is just completely different. This is REAL war, not detainees that had no power over anything, this was part of war, no questions asked. So, I have to say "what the hell" to the whole investigation.
Quote:
Those of us that shout 'support our troops' and then condemn actions at Abu Grahib and Haditha, are contemptible, sunshine patriots. Support our troops means exactly that. Support all our troops.
Bullsh*t. Bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t.
If somebody screws up and the wrong people die because of it, the condemnations should be shouted from the mountaintops from sea to shining sea. The bad apples MUST be removed or else they'll make the whole bunch rotten. Whatever the investigation turns up will decide if the 'bad apple' group has a few new members.
You're supporting some dangerously nationalistic thinking here, Ultra. It's my god-given right as a member of the United States of America to condemn whatever actions my government and ANYONE in it from the president to the lowest grunt on the armed forces totem pole takes that I feel are worthy of condemnation. I'll support ALL of the troops when ALL of the troops do things worthy of my support. Even a very small ratio of bad apples negates the 'All'.
America was founded on challenging authority that seems to forget where the real power lies. America was founded on questioning the status quo. It is my DUTY as an American to do so, because if I do not and others follow my apathetic stead in just accepting the status quo with little protest, then it isn't America anymore. That's why I call foul on my leaders and the people who are the leader's proxy in other countries: because I'm a far better patriot than anyone who'd say "don't question authority" and mean it.
Quote:
When fired on in battle, any response deemed appropriate should be accepted and condoned, even if subsequent analysis finds it to be improper.
I'm pretty sure that Abu Gharib wasn't a battlefield. But hey, what do I know anyway?
Quote:
If somebody screws up and the wrong people die because of it, the condemnations should be shouted from the mountaintops from sea to shining sea. The bad apples MUST be removed or else they'll make the whole bunch rotten. Whatever the investigation turns up will decide if the 'bad apple' group has a few new members.
Which is what the military is doing. However, when the press keeps reporting information that may turn out to be false that completely inflames the Middle Eastern populace for no reason, it becomes an issue. Remember the 'Koran got flushed down the toilet' story that turned out to not be true but led to protests and a brief rise in anti-Americanism? That's what I'm talking about.
I'm not against questioning what the military does. However, there are military tribunals that take care of the bad apples behind the scenes. Heck, the guards and reserve members responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib were being court-martialed when the press got a hold of it. Then everything bloomed into a big mess that only made the job of our troops harder and only recruited more people to the cause of the terrorists.
Quote:
It's my god-given right as a member of the United States of America to condemn whatever actions my government and ANYONE in it from the president to the lowest grunt on the armed forces totem pole takes that I feel are worthy of condemnation.
Gotta love the 1st Amendment, eh?
Quote:
Even a very small ratio of bad apples negates the 'All'.
So...you're saying that getting rid of a dictator, instating a new democratic regime at the hands of the American-led coalition is negated because of some idiots who thought they could screw around without getting punished?
Heck, let's be hypothetical. Are you saying that if one fire team ends up killing about twenty civilians in cold blood (and I'm sure this sort of thing happens in most, if not all wars. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning it), then it immediately makes all of the other positive actions brought about by the military - which the fire team belongs to - null and void? Even though the military is going to punish them for their actions?
Okay... 
Quote:
That's why I call foul on my leaders and the people who are the leader's proxy in other countries: because I'm a far better patriot than anyone who'd say "don't question authority" and mean it.
And I said "don't question authority"...when?
This is my point: we don't need the press inflaming more people against the American military when those responsible are being investigated and - if found guilty of any alleged war crimes - punished by the military itself behind the scenes.
Questioning authority is fine. But there's a point when questioning authority is detrimental to the cause. So far, that seems to be the case in Haditha.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that Abu Gharib wasn't a battlefield. But hey, what do I know anyway?
And like I said, the ones responsible were punished. By the American military. But the media got hold of it, and - like any and all bad news that comes out of Iraq - it was blown out of proportion and only made the military's job more difficult.
And how does that fit with my quote you quoted? In battle, troops are under intense psychological pressure (gunfire, sight of the dying, smell of blood, shock, wounds, fear of death, rage at the enemy, etcetera). Troops must think on the second, and in heated moments (like after nearly being killed by an IED, seeing a fellow soldier dying, and being fired upon like at Haditha) they start getting twitchy/scared/instinctive/what have you. It's called 'fog of war'.
If this was an act of cold blood, then punish those responsible. If it was done out of retaliation (as evidence seems to indicate), then leave them alone and let them go back to the battlefield. Soldiers don't need the anti-war, Murtha-esque prattlings of the press; it's bad for morale.
Oh, one more thing.
Quote:
Totally, 100% agree.
The third time. *tallies* Sign of the apocalypse? oo
Quote:
So...you're saying that getting rid of a dictator, instating a new democratic regime at the hands of the American-led coalition is negated because of some idiots who thought they could screw around without getting punished?
You're over-interpreted what I said. If there are bad apples, 'all' does not apply. You requested that I support all the troops, but I refuse to support the bad apples. Therefore, I refuse to support the all. The majority: yes. The all: no.
Quote:
it's bad for morale
Yes, sometimes the truth does tend to shake beliefs. And it always should.
Quote:
You're over-interpreted what I said. If there are bad apples, 'all' does not apply. You requested that I support all the troops, but I refuse to support the bad apples. Therefore, I refuse to support the all. The majority: yes. The all: no.
Ah. My bad. Perhaps I should've clarified; by saying 'support all the troops', I meant to support all the troops as a whole military. Which means that the bad apples are taken care of by the military itself (as what happened in the cases of Abu Ghraib and IS happening in Haditha). Considering the cause, I support the military.
Now, if the military were slaughtering innocent civilians in a bid for world domination, then I would definitely be disagreeing with them in an unpleasant manner. 
Quote:
Yes, sometimes the truth does tend to shake beliefs. And it always should.
Indeed. My beef is with those who report the actions of the few as if they were the actions of the majority...or, in some cases (Koran flushing, Haditha Marines are cold-blooded killers, etcetera), those who jump the gun and report false information.
Quote:
However, when the press keeps reporting information that may turn out to be false that completely inflames the Middle Eastern populace for no reason, it becomes an issue.
Er... isn't reporting "information that may turn out to be false" what the press does all the time, on every subject, anyway?
Whenever a criminal trial is covered, the populace will generally make assumptions that the person on trial is guilty. Covering this issue differs how?
Because unlike a criminal trial in which the populace has no effect on the proceedings, false information by the press CAN (and, in most cases, DOES) have negative consequences on the battlefield. False information can make the enemy more emboldened, or negatively affect morale, or enrage the opinions of the civilian populace for no reason at all.
I do know this; the stories the media prints out today wouldn't have flown in WWII.
<i>Ugh.</i> I love how they're automatically guilty because someone posted this. It's just...Whatever happened to due process? No, the people are tried by the media FAR before any real legal work happens. And because of this, they're condemned to being guilty, right or not. I see one of two things happening next.
1. They're guilty, they did murder civilains. What will happen? The entire Bush government is horribly flamed for the actions of a few Marines. Because obviously Bush and his Big Bad CIA ordered the murders. of COURSE.
2. They're found innocent, a small story is published somewhere that noone sees it. End.
<i>Ugh.</i> Stop assuming everything the media says is true. And I find it funny that Cyc is the one that posted this.
And to silence critics early: Am I calling for the censorship of press reports on any ongoing investigation? No! Our country is founded on things like Freedom of Press. However, do I feel the media should show quite a lot more restraint over what they publish, and when? I mean, reading that article, it says, in roundabout language, "They're guilty." And it's not true. They are NOT guilty. "Innocent until <i>proven</i> guilty" is also one of the things this country was founded on.
Don't bother writing long winded posts to rebuff me. I skip any political post over one page long.
Sorry, Matt. In advance.
Quote:
Sorry, Matt.
How did you know I was even going to read this thread? o.o
And just so you know, I read through the main story quickly and pretty much just skimmed down through the posts to the quick reply window and saw my name mentioned and I wondered what it was. You told me not to rebut that and in this case I won't.
Anyway, I don't know much about this as I haven't been watching the news very much for the past few days. But going by what I've read I'd say it's a case of a few bad apples, IF this is true, (and as others have said it's possible that it isn't) I wouldn't support the idea of blindly supporting ALL of the troops including the ones that kill civilians. Yes, they're for the most part giving their lives for their country. But it's different to die than to kill. Killing enemy government officials is one thing. Killing enemy soldiers for your country is one thing. Killing civilians of an enemy country by accident when trying to get at the government and/or military is another. But it's COMPLETELY something else to kill civilians out of frustration when that frustration isn't really at the civilians, though as someone mentioned some children were cheering on the insurgents. It's really hard to draw the line between civilian and soldier in a place like Iraq anyway, I'd say it's somewhat of a blurred line to some extent.
Also, I agree that this is worse than Abu Grahib since nobody died in Abu Grahib... and if I remember correctly Abu Grahib involved prisoners of war anyway, not civilians.
And I find it funny that Cyc is the one that posted this.
Why?
"How did you know I was even going to read this thread? o.o"
The magical happy import ponies of east Ecuador told me.
And the line is perfectly clear. If he tries to blow you up, he's not a civilian.
Quote:
Because unlike a criminal trial in which the populace has no effect on the proceedings,
You mean aside from the fact that the jury is composed of them?
Quote:
You mean aside from the fact that the jury is composed of them?
Unlike the rest of the population, the 12-15 people that make up a jury are not allowed to hear information about the case from anywhere else other than the trial. Jurors are not allowed to speak with members involved in the trial outside the jury, and they are not allowed to watch the news or other accounts of the trial. In some high-profile cases, the jurors are sequestered.
Bit of a difference from the guy who forms his opinion while watching Bill O'Reilly.
Quote:
Bit of a difference from the guy who forms his opinion while watching Bill O'Reilly.
Mostly because Bill O'Reilly and truth aren't on speaking terms. 
Quote:
Unlike the rest of the population, the 12-15 people that make up a jury are not allowed to hear information about the case from anywhere else other than the trial. Jurors are not allowed to speak with members involved in the trial outside the jury, and they are not allowed to watch the news or other accounts of the trial. In some high-profile cases, the jurors are sequestered.
You just stated the principles. Practically, juries are biased by popular opinion. Case law and past history show this.
Even a sequestered jury has plenty of time to be bised beforte the trial begins.
There's a reason the UK abolished civil juries, y'know. They never live up to the ideals they're supposed to.
Okay, so these Marines are driving along through Haditha. A bomb goes off and kills one of their guys. I mean, yeah, yay america, F the terrorists, whatever. So here's where they go wrong. Instead of, I dunno, calling for backup, or getting cover, or figuring out who the hell is shooting at them, it is alleged (and backed up by mounting evidence) that they ran to the nearest house and shot everyone inside, including a 60-year-old woman and a 77-year-old blind man.
They run to the next house and kill everyone inside, execution style. One person survived because she played dead and these guys were too busy with their roaring rampage of revenge to make sure everyone was 100% not breathing.
Whoever was shooting at them a minute ago is still shooting at them, so they run outside, pull five guys out of a taxi and shoot them. Then they run up the street, bust into a third house, and, you guessed it, kill everyone inside.
Ultra, your contention is, we cannot believe the story we are given because it is an eyewitness account from a nine-year-old girl. Right. Ultra, please give me a reason, any reason at all, why this girl would make something like this up. Also, and I'm going out on a limb here I know, but I would venture to guess that if the story were given by anyone over the age of 12, you'd say we can't believe them because they have a "pro-terrorist agenda" because that's what you always do. And actually, it's not just one person giving us this story. The BBC tells us that it's being backed up by at least a dozen people, including a journalist and a few Marines who were sent in to clean up the resulting mess.
So you say, first off, the media, including the Canadian paper Globe & Mail, shouldn't be reporting this, essentially because the American public doesn't have a right to know that your military, your beloved harbingers of democracy who are representing you and your interests abroad at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year, murdered dozens of people including little children and a 77-year-old blind man in cold blood.
No. This is some Heart of Darkness sh-t. This is atrocity personified. This is the blackness of the human spirit gurgling up from places we like to pretend don't exist in polite society, hammering the life out of innocent civilians and little children. This should be known. This should be more than just investigated. This should be turned inside out, such that every little detail, every speck of blood and chunk of bone and piece of brain matter, is blared on monitors and radios the world over for all to see and hear. At the very least, it should be sung from the rooftops until every man, woman and child in America is aware that, in their name, something profoundly evil has been carried out.
Anyways. Your other argument is, if they didn't want to get shot, these people shouldn't have been living in a war zone. Fair enough, but you could say the same thing about the people in New Orleans. I mean how many people stayed and got pwned by the hurricane? Lots. But I'll bet you none of them got their heads blown off with M16s simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is nothing suspicious about what these people were doing at the time, and if they looked even remotely suspicious, that wouldn't even begin to justify murdering them.
Plus the whole thing about those guys having AK47s in their house. I mean I'm sorry, but if I lived in a war zone, you bet your ass I'd buy an AK47. Owning the world's most common automatic rifle is not exactly evidence of being a terrorist. Hell, I have an uncle who probably owns three, but that doesn't make him the leader of the goddam Taliban.
Finally, you pull out the old "this is war" excuse, to which I say eat sh-t and die. If what the military and press have been told has an ounce of truth to it, these men roved about and deliberately murdered dozens of innocent people. This was not some stray bullet or grenade, nor were there any unfortunate but accidental secondary explosions. At the absolute least, this was bloody revenge. At the worst, the American government is knowingly and deliberately putting guns in the hands of crazed psychopaths and setting them loose in civilian zones.
I suppose people in Iraq might have propane tanks in their kitchens but that sure is odd.
JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST, I know someone who lives in NEW WESTMINSTER who owns a propane refridgerator. Odd? ODD? What the hell is wrong with you?!
Anyways. Pics!
CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pentagon sources say some of the most incriminating evidence against Marines under investigation in the deaths of civilians at Haditha is a set of photographs taken by another group of Marines who came along afterward and helped clean up the scene.
CNN is the first news organization to examine those images. They were snapped before an aspiring Iraq journalist videotaped the aftermath of the November 19 deaths. That video convinced Time magazine to pursue the story earlier this year.
Pentagon sources say the 30 images of men, women and children are some of the strongest evidence that, in some cases, the victims were shot inside their homes and at close range -- not killed by shrapnel from a roadside bomb or by stray bullets from a distant firefight, as Marines had claimed. (Watch what the new images show about the civilian deaths -- 2:51)
Senior Pentagon officials have said a probe into the November deaths tends to support allegations that Marines carried out an unprovoked massacre after one of their comrades was killed by a roadside bomb. The military is investigating both the deaths and a possible cover-up.
The Marines originally reported that Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha, a town on the Euphrates River in northwestern Iraq that was the scene of heavy fighting in 2005. They later added that eight insurgents were killed in an ensuing gun battle.
The Marine photographs are evidence in a criminal probe, and only investigators and a few very senior officials have access to them.
"I have seen the photographs, but they are part of the investigation and I'm not going to talk about those photographs," Marine commandant Gen. Michael Hagee told reporters Wednesday.
But a source allowed CNN to examine copies of the photographs, which a military official said match in both number and description the pictures in the possession of investigators.
The source would not allow CNN to have copies of the images out of concern over personal repercussions.
There are images of 24 bodies, each marked with red numbers. Some of numbers are written on foreheads, others on the victim's backs. A senior military official told CNN that in some cases the numbers may denote the location of bullet wounds.
Among the images:
# A woman and child leaning against the wall, heads slumped forward.
# Another woman and child shot in bed.
# A man sprawled face down with his legs behind him.
# An elderly woman slumped over, her neck possibly snapped by the force of gunfire.
All of the victims were wearing casual attire. Some had been shot in the head. Some were face down, others face up.
The pictures appear to show the locations of the bodies in the houses before a Marine unit loaded them into a truck and brought them to a morgue.
Pentagon officials said there are no plans to release the gruesome images, even after the criminal investigation is complete.
The Haditha photos, like the images of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, would incite anti-American fervor and therefore constitute a threat to national security, they said.
In a separate incident, seven Marines and a Navy medical corpsman are being held in a brig at Camp Pendleton, California, to face possible murder charges in connection with the April killing of an Iraqi man in Hamandiya, a military officer with direct knowledge of the investigation said.
Briefing reporters Wednesday, Hagee was tight-lipped about the investigations but said Marines "absolutely know right from wrong."
Hagee flew to Iraq two weeks ago on a trip the Marine Corps said was already scheduled. But he used the time to lecture his Marines on what he called "the American way of war" amid the two probes.
Hagee said he is "gravely concerned" by the allegations and promised that the investigations now under way will be thorough and complete.
The U.S. command in Baghdad ordered an investigation into the Haditha killings in February, after Time magazine reporters presented video of the scene to American commanders.
So far there has been no evidence to suggest that anything we have been told about this by the "salivating liberal press" is false. If anything, daily revelations have filled in the blanks, painting a picture of calculated malice.
I saw at least two sets of photos - of the same scene of a row of bodies, all blindfolded with the victims' hands tied tied behind their backs! - with one photo labeled 'killed by Marines' and the other set labeled 'shot by terrorists.' In multiple articles. So color me skeptical.
'Photos of dead bodies' do not tell you who killed them. These photos also do not contradict anything the Marines said.
Period. End of discussion.
CNN is the first news organization to examine those images. They were snapped before an aspiring Iraq journalist videotaped the aftermath of the November 19 deaths.
This does not pass the smell test.
Possible scenario:
A roadside bomb goes off, you take small arms fire, you see people running into houses, you organize a group of Marines and storm into a house knowing that you face a suicidal enemy, you charge in the door and there is a black figure you shoot along with another hiding in a bed, who later turn out to be women and children (though not necessarily innocent).
End result: Oh that was bad, you hope next time you have more time to identify threats, but if not then too bad.
To people arriving long after with cameras, the pictures taken are next to meaningless to what actually happened. The pictures simply don't give the full story, no matter how 'bad' they look.
I support the war.
However, I also support the prosecution of those who break the rules of war. However, the facts of the case aren't clear yet, and these troops have basically become subject something known as GUPI. Which is very unfortunate.
Anyhow, a different perspective.
Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- It actually took me a while to put all the pieces together -- that I know these guys, the U.S. Marines at the heart of the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians in Haditha.
I don't know why it didn't register with me until now. It was only after scrolling through the tapes that we shot in Haditha last fall, and I found footage of some of the officers that had been relieved of their command, that it hit me.
I know the Marines that were operating in western al Anbar, from Husayba all the way to Haditha. I went on countless operations in 2005 up and down the Euphrates River Valley. I was pinned on rooftops with them in Ubeydi for hours taking incoming fire, and I've seen them not fire a shot back because they did not have positive identification on a target. (Watch a Marine's anguish over deaths -- 2:12)
I saw their horror when they thought that they finally had identified their target, fired a tank round that went through a wall and into a house filled with civilians. They then rushed to help the wounded -- remarkably no one was killed.
I was with them in Husayba as they went house to house in an area where insurgents would booby-trap doors, or lie in wait behind closed doors with an AK-47, basically on suicide missions, just waiting for the Marines to come through and open fire. There were civilians in the city as well, and the Marines were always keenly aware of that fact. How they didn't fire at shadows, not knowing what was waiting in each house, I don't know. But they didn't.
And I was with them in Haditha, a month before the alleged killings last November of some 24 Iraqi civilians.
I'm told that investigators now strongly suspect a rampage by a small number of Marines who snapped after one of their own was killed by a roadside bomb.
Haditha was full of IEDs. It seemed they were everywhere, like a minefield. In fact, the number of times that we were told that we were standing right on top of an IED minutes before it was found turned into a dark joke between my CNN team and me.
In fact, when we initially left to link up with the company that we were meant to be embedded with, the Humvee that I was in was hit by an IED. Another 2 inches and we would have been killed. Thankfully, no one was injured.
We missed the beginning of the operation, and ended up entering Haditha that evening. The city was empty of insurgents, or they had gone into hiding as they so often do, blending with the civilian population, waiting for U.S. and Iraqi forces to sweep through and then popping up again.
But this time, after this operation, the Marines and the Iraqi Army were not going to pull out, they were going to set up fixed bases.
Now, all these months later, while watching the tapes, I found a walk and talk with one of the company commanders that was relieved of his duty as a result of the Haditha probe.
After being hit by an IED, his men were searching the area and found a massive weapons cache in a mosque. Although it wasn't his company that we were embedded with, the Marines had taken me to the mosque so we could get footage of the cache.
And so began the e-mails and phone calls between myself and my two other CNN crew members, Jennifer Eccleston and Gabe Ramirez: Do you remember when we were talking with the battalion commander and his intel guy right outside the school and then half an hour later they found an IED in that spot? Do you remember when we were sitting chatting with them at the school? And all the other "do you remember whens."
There was also -- can you believe it? -- the allegations of the Haditha probe.
Photos of dead bodies' do not tell you who killed them. These photos also do not contradict anything the Marines said.
According to the article I linked, the Marines issued an official statement saying that 15 civilians were killed by a roadside bomb. The photos reportedly show 24 people who were killed by gunfire at close range. So they may not necessarily tell you who killed them, but they certainly tell you that the Marines were lying about the exact nature and scale of this massacre. And that, I'm afraid, is pretty devastating to their case.
A roadside bomb goes off, you take small arms fire, you see people running into houses, you organize a group of Marines and storm into a house knowing that you face a suicidal enemy, you charge in the door and there is a black figure you shoot along with another hiding in a bed, who later turn out to be women and children (though not necessarily innocent).
"Not necessarily innocent"? Little kids? Are you completely insane?
That aside, I might buy a story that if it were just the one house, but two other houses and a taxi? After which time you lie through your teeth about how these people died? No, that definitely does not pass the "smell test".
To people arriving long after with cameras, the pictures taken are next to meaningless to what actually happened. The pictures simply don't give the full story, no matter how 'bad' they look.
The pictures support the eyewitness accounts of several people. We now have corroborating evidence against these gentlemen.
Quote:
"Not necessarily innocent"? Little kids? Are you completely insane?
From the aforementioned link:
Quote:
Yet, Iman reveals in one interview that she knew in advance of the IED that would explode to kill the passing Marines. If the child knew, isnt it likely their adults knew? Isnt it likely that they may have more than knew?
Just to reiterate, the Marines were hit by an IED and then ambushed from the closest house.
Walls are not bullet proof. If you attack a squad of Marines, you are a dead man. If you attack them in the company of your family, they will likely be killed or wounded along with you.
The first thing that will happen is that the house will be riddled with rifle and machine-gun fire until the shooting stops. Chances are the shooter is dead at that point and his companions are also dead and wounded. Then before entering the house to finish it, they may send a grenade through he door, so that by the time they enter the house for a room to room, everyone is dead. If there were children in the house, chances are they are dead. The fault lies, not with the Marines fighting for their lives, but with the shooter who was stupid and suicidal and cowardly enough to attack from among non-combatants.
We know from the little girl who survived that she knew about the ambush in advance. If her family is dead, she owes her uncle or brother or dad for it. They killed her family. You could call it suicide by Marine.
And this story is only becoming more fishy by the minute to me...at least, the attempts to make the Marines look like cold-blooded killers.
Quote:
A roadside bomb that killed a US Marine in the restive town of Haditha on Saturday also killed 15 Iraqi civilians and led to intense clashes with insurgents.
The powerful bomb detonated as a US military convoy was passing through the town, which is 220 kilometres north-west of Baghdad.
The US military says immediately after the blast, gunmen opened fire on the convoy.
US and Iraqi soldiers returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another in a firefight.
A cameraman working for Reuters in Haditha says bodies had been left lying in the street for hours after the attack.
He says the town has been virtually shut down for the past two days as US and Iraqi forces try to impose order.
US troops have been trying for months to quell the insurgency in Haditha and other Sunni Arab towns on the Euphrates.
It was suspected several months ago that Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was hiding out in the area.
The casualties from Saturday's blast raised the death toll from attacks across Iraq over the past three days to at least 166.
Sunni-led insurgents are stepping up their battle against US and Iraqi forces ahead of parliamentary elections in December.
No mention of a massacre. If there had been, would Reuters have been silent about it for EIGHT MONTHS?
And no, the photos still don't mean anything without context. There could have been jihadists inside one or more of the homes, using the people as civilian shields. Or the terrorists could have killed them for propaganda value. Just knowing someone was shot at close range does not begin to tell the whole story. Whose bullets, under what circumstances, etc. For all we know, those 24 people killed might have had nothing to do with the 15 civilians killed by a roadside bomb. That's the thing; we just don't know.
The pictures do not prove who shot these people.
The pictures do not prove when they were shot.
The pictures do not prove that they were shot inside the houses and not in the firefight outside, which was in the Marines report.
The pictures do not prove that these were not insurgents.
And about the photos of the dead civilians, there are still some discrepancies...and some outright lying. For example, here's a photo from the UK Times (it has since been removed). Look at the caption closely.
(Copy and Paste)
Now, compare this picture with a captioned photo from Newsweek.
(C & P)
It is clearly the same location. The same set of dead bodies. The second is a wider shot with three additional bodies in the foreground. But guess what? The photo, according to this Newsweek caption of the scene, is not of the Nov. 19 incident in Haditha involving our Marines, as the UK Times would have you believe.
I'm still convinced that this a rush to judgment on part of the media, seeking to make these Marines guilty of an alleged war crime. It is not GUPI, it is IUPG.
Intresting, even though I read all that I have nothing to say.
Intresting, even though I read all that I have nothing to say.
Then why did you even post?
Quote:
No mention of a massacre. If there had been, would Reuters have been silent about it for EIGHT MONTHS?
The reporters were not with the troops in question at the time to document what they did. A cameraman could be in your own town/city, Ultra. I seriously doubt that the cameraman could report on everything that occurred in your town/city. Therefore, whether or not something happened would not be something that they could report immediately.
So, yes, that's extremely possible. Despite the silly claims that media is inherently biased against [insert any supposedly conservative thing], the media gives the benefit of the doubt all the time to what any branch of the military says.
And no, the media is not making the Marines out to be cold-blooded killers, unless just mentioning the fact that some Marines may have done things that they shouldn't have done is making the Marines cold-blooded killers. That's like saying mentioning that some cops in NYC area were convicted for working for the MAFIA recently is saying that the police are working for the MAFIA. ;p
