It wasn't only in Haditha...

[.Shane.]

Well, we tried, but he pwnzerd us noo0bs. But really consider the facts that we know. The agent was Italian. Itlalians are notorius for driving fast. He was also a secret agent. Secret Agents are cool as we all know. Its cool for Secret Agents to drive fast. Especially with a woman in the car. Double especially if the woman was hurt like this one was. How much for evidence do we need? I mean wowzers.

Now, see, if you always thought this way, we'd get along much better!

I did not see the "Italian Job", but that involve fast-driving Italian super-agents?

 

[malclave]

I expect I'd say to myself "I'm a soldier, and I joined the army knowing full well that I'm supposed to die if I have to, and if those poeple in those cars are civilians, then I have no business shooting at them".

Thank you for not serving.

 

[Xenocrates]

Just like statistically the 7 or so marines out of the 1 million+ that have served over there isnt "all of them" either.

Are you asking us to believe taht only 7 marines have killed without just cause? It seems to me that the marines commit fewer murders than the average US citizen! Despite having opportunity and ammunition to spare.

There's something fishy about these statistics that looks like 'cover up'.

People have mentioned the failure of the US government to submit to the ICC before. Could it be that this alone sends a message to the army that murder and torture is acceptable? It would appear so. It would appear that the hostility of the Iraqi citizenry to the US troops is understandable only if the soldiers had caused it themselves.

Who's the patriot here, the liberal who didn't believe that the war was a good idea or the right-winger who thought that if Mr Bush wanted a war it must be groovy?

 

[blackheart]

Well, we tried, but he pwnzerd us noo0bs. But really consider the facts that we know. The agent was Italian. Itlalians are notorius for driving fast. He was also a secret agent. Secret Agents are cool as we all know. Its cool for Secret Agents to drive fast. Especially with a woman in the car. Double especially if the woman was hurt like this one was. How much for evidence do we need? I mean wowzers.

You fail at leet speak

 

[RedWolf]

I'm with nonconformist on this one. Soldiers are volunteers - they choose to go into a war zone knowing full well the risks and problems that it entails.

In these checkpoint shootings, collateral bombing damage etc... they have willingly put themselves in situations that "accidently" lead to civilians being killed. "Just following orders" is not an excuse. Strangely for example I never get such orders because I made a choice NOT to fight in the Iraq war. All American teenagers have that same choice.

You can't engage in reckless bahaviour and then claim the bad results aren't your fault...

For example... You're in a gunfight and the insurgents run into a civilian populated building... instead of walking away you call down an airstrike and blow everyone to hell...

That's reckless and should be illegal but in this war we just get ridiculous lines like "They had to defend themselves"... Well the NEED to defend yourself wouldn't have existed if you hadn't of made the reckless decision to invade a foreign country for no apparent reason. Ultimately YOU are at fault.. or should be.

Last year in Toronto we had an incident where some thugs got into an argument on a busy street.. guns came out and everyone started shooting.. an innocent teenaged girl took a bullet. The city was outraged. Nowhere did I hear anyone say "Well they had a right to defend themselves". Why? As gang members carrying guns they willingly put themselves in a situation where their reckless, negligent, illegal behaviour killed somebody else. Ultimately you may have the right to defend yourself but if you hit a bystander you're at fault.

From a moral point of view - I hold soldiers in warzones to the same standard (including Canadian and US soldiers as well as Iraqi insurgents)

The interesting thing about incidents where civilians are killed at checkpoints:
We have heard numerous occassions in which a car sped blindly towards the checkpoints despite well marked signs etc.

Well since I never hear any follow up about how these people REALLY were insurgents with car bombs I have to assume they really were civilians. So this begs the question - if these checkpoints are so well marked and easy to see during the day and night WHY are Iraqis speeding toward them if they're not insurgents... They're not imbeciles any more then you and I are... So why do they do it? That tends to make me believe that possibly the checkpoints aren't well marked, well lit, known about by the civilian population etc...

In fact after one such incident I remember a reporter from a national newspaper here say (despite US military claims to the contrary) that the checkpoint was very difficult to see until you were right on top of it.. and considering roads are dangerous and people drive fast at night to reduce that risk...

People seem to forget that this is a war. Last time I checked, people died in wars. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way defending the soldiers in Haditha or any other possible act of war-crimes or murder. However, to think that soldiers are perfect, and that innocent civilians aren't going to die every once in awhile, is an idealists approach to war that just isn't plausible. If you don't like the war, which I don't, blame the administration official and the war planners. Soldiers are following orders in most cases, orders that they must follow. It's not their choice to be in Iraq, but they have to be their anyway...and while they are there, they are going to do everything possible to stay alive. If that means being a little on edge and possibly accidently killing a civilian...well, it happens.

 

[malclave]

Are you asking us to believe taht only 7 marines have killed without just cause? It seems to me that the marines commit fewer murders than the average US citizen! Despite having opportunity and ammunition to spare.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. They are disputing the people who seem to be tryng to claim that this is prevalent.

I would not be surprised at all to discover that the murder rate for marines (and other military services) was lower than the civilian rate. The military attempts to instill discipline in its members, and it is in the military's best interest to deny entrance/ discharge those individuals who would commit murder. Unfortunately, the screening process is not 100% effective.

People have mentioned the failure of the US government to submit to the ICC before.

I disagree in the characterization of such as "failure".

Could it be that this alone sends a message to the army that murder and torture is acceptable?

No. Rather it sends a message to soldiers (members of the army, as opposed to marines) that they will be accorded fair treatment under the UCMJ and not be "sold out".

It would appear so. It would appear that the hostility of the Iraqi citizenry to the US troops is understandable only if the soldiers had caused it themselves.

Appearance can be deceiving.

Who's the patriot here, the liberal who didn't believe that the war was a good idea or the right-winger who thought that if Mr Bush wanted a war it must be groovy?

"Groovy"?

Oh, please...

 

[Xenocrates]

Hmm I guess that there must be some other reason why the invasion has gone horribly wrong. The Army's doing a good job and the old government was unpopular and brutal. I wonder what the reason is?

 

[malclave]

Sorry, Xeno, but I couldn't begin to explain that to you on a message board.

If you're really interested, I'm sure you can find actual facts on the web.

 

[VoodooAce]

What good can come of having these claims released? All I see is another opportunity for fanatics to spill the blood of American soldiers.

And there we have it. Its the media's fault for finding out about this and reporting it. We'd all be better off in the dark. We're not worthy of the truth.

What good can come from having US military personell committing murders and slaughtering innocent women and children.

I speculated that there were probably conservatives that felt this way and MobBoss called it 'slander', lol, and said that kind of speculation should be beneath me.

Understand now, MB?

 

[MobBoss]

Are you asking us to believe taht only 7 marines have killed without just cause? It seems to me that the marines commit fewer murders than the average US citizen! Despite having opportunity and ammunition to spare.

Do you not think the average Marine far more disciplined than the average citizen? I certainly do. Anyway, I am not asking you to believe that only 7 have commited crimes, but I AM pointing out that even if it were 7, 14, 70 or even 700 who have done this, it is a teensy tiny fraction of how many soldiers have served in that theater. To me, that says such incidents are the EXCEPTION rather than the RULE and should be considered such.

You fail at leet speak

What do you expect? I am over 40.

 

[MobBoss]

For example... You're in a gunfight and the insurgents run into a civilian populated building... instead of walking away you call down an airstrike and blow everyone to hell...

Sorry, but this is just not realistic. We wouldnt call down an airstrike in this situation....we would gas/smoke the living hell out of it and force them out in an attempt to decrease the chance of civilian deaths.

Well since I never hear any follow up about how these people REALLY were insurgents with car bombs I have to assume they really were civilians. So this begs the question - if these checkpoints are so well marked and easy to see during the day and night WHY are Iraqis speeding toward them if they're not insurgents...

You may as well ask WHY do people not follow rules. You might..I might...but a lot of people simply wont - even when there are lives on the line. Who knows why people do the stupid things they do?

 

[MobBoss]

I speculated that there were probably conservatives that felt this way and MobBoss called it 'slander', lol, and said that kind of speculation should be beneath me.

Understand now, MB?

Actually, you used the word "you" in such context as you meant Padma or I, when we had both stated that we found such crimes to be abhorrent. To allege we would have preferred a cover up as opposed to the truth was directly insulting.

Now, if your allegation had been that there are conservatives who would have preferred a hidden cover up, then that is certainly debateable. But that is not what you said.

 

[Xenocrates]

Sorry, Xeno, but I couldn't begin to explain that to you on a message board.

If you're really interested, I'm sure you can find actual facts on the web.

I didn't find any solutions to the conundrum that you set for me on the web. I also didn't find any examples of liberating heros being attacked by a hostile population, but I did find many examples of invaders being repulsed. The Nazis didn't get such hostility in France for Pete's sake. Perhaps their uniforms were nicer?

 

[amadeus]

Are you serious rmsharpe? Innocent people were murdered. Women, the elderly, and CHILDREN. CHILDREN were MURDERED. I don't give a **** about what your ideology is, but when you say we shouldn't feel remorse for killing children and cast it off as not our problem, then you have a major problem.

It's wrong for me to say that each country should be concerned with their own problems? If you can go back and do it again, would you have deposed Saddam? I have a follow up question for this.

BLINDLY defending.

Nothing blind here, blackheart. Read what MobBoss wrote, even if you multiplied this by a hundred times, it's still statistically insignificant.

Crimes being acknowledged, murderers being punished for their crimes, condolences, etc. You know, the justice system America is based on being carried out, upholding the principles and virtues that America was founded on, that sort of stuff which people tend to forget about.

You can do an investigation without having to shout it on the rooftops, especially when you've got these al-Zarqawi nuts out there with AK-47s.

And there we have it. Its the media's fault for finding out about this and reporting it. We'd all be better off in the dark. We're not worthy of the truth.

Yes, I'm sure everybody would have been better off if in 1944 the New York Times had pictures of U.S. abuse of Axis soldiers splashed on every page for the last two years.

Can you not hear yourself? You're putting American lives in jeopardy because you want the "truth?" Here's the truth for you: something bad happened a few times, maybe from 10 men out of 100,000, in a country of 20,000,000.

And what about this story from the BBC? Maybe the Iraqi police reports aren't the most reliable sources of information, huh?

 

[Mulholland]

Yes, I'm sure everybody would have been better off if in 1944 the New York Times had pictures of U.S. abuse of Axis soldiers splashed on every page for the last two years.

Sorry to keep picking on you but the war in Iraq is no WW2. North America was directly threatened by the Nazis and most of the poulation was onside in standing up against this threat. Wars should not be simply embraced by a nation's citizens like thay have in the past, but properly questioned by thier representatives. Look at Britian's Neville Chamberlain he was wrong but at least he took a stand. People are not as stuipid as most of us might think.

 

[blackheart]

It's wrong for me to say that each country should be concerned with their own problems? If you can go back and do it again, would you have deposed Saddam? I have a follow up question for this.

That's not what you said in your original post. You said you didn't feel remorse the innocent murdered.

Yes I would have, except the second time around there would be a followup strategy.

Nothing blind here, blackheart. Read what MobBoss wrote, even if you multiplied this by a hundred times, it's still statistically insignificant.

You can do an investigation without having to shout it on the rooftops, especially when you've got these al-Zarqawi nuts out there with AK-47s.

Can you not hear yourself? You're putting American lives in jeopardy because you want the "truth?" Here's the truth for you: something bad happened a few times, maybe from 10 men out of 100,000, in a country of 20,000,000.

So you would rather have a secret investigation of military crimes conducted by military investigators that wouldn't be scrutinized but outside sources? Right .

Can you not hear yourself? American lives are already in jeopardy because they're in a warzone. We can't bury this as you would wish. We have to face our mistakes, own up to them, and learn from them.

You know rmsharpe, you're starting to sound like Stalin. "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Here's the truth for you: atrocities have to be recognized and dealt with accordingly, not played down and cast off.

And what about this story from the BBC? Maybe the Iraqi police reports aren't the most reliable sources of information, huh?

Not to question the validity of the findings, but that's what they said about the Haditha massacre the first time around.

 

[CaptainF]

It's wrong for me to say that each country should be concerned with their own problems? If you can go back and do it again, would you have deposed Saddam? I have a follow up question for this.


Nothing blind here, blackheart. Read what MobBoss wrote, even if you multiplied this by a hundred times, it's still statistically insignificant.


You can do an investigation without having to shout it on the rooftops, especially when you've got these al-Zarqawi nuts out there with AK-47s.


Yes, I'm sure everybody would have been better off if in 1944 the New York Times had pictures of U.S. abuse of Axis soldiers splashed on every page for the last two years.

Can you not hear yourself? You're putting American lives in jeopardy because you want the "truth?" Here's the truth for you: something bad happened a few times, maybe from 10 men out of 100,000, in a country of 20,000,000.

And what about this story from the BBC? Maybe the Iraqi police reports aren't the most reliable sources of information, huh?

But if a liberal senator takes a kickback, its time to pull out the bullhorns eh?

Americans are supposed to know when their country fumbles its receptions, so to speak.

Democracy dies behind closed doors.

 

[malclave]

What good can come of having these claims released? All I see is another opportunity for fanatics to spill the blood of American soldiers.

And there we have it. Its the media's fault for finding out about this and reporting it. We'd all be better off in the dark. We're not worthy of the truth.

I missed the top statement when I first read the thread.

My own stance is that the claims should be made public, but responsibly. The military should make it perfectly clear that an event like this is an aberration, and one that is taken seriously.

The individuals under investigation are still entitled to due process. I know people want someone to be punished, but IMO articles feeding the frenzy are among the worst sorts of yellow journalism.

 

[RedWolf]

Are you kidding? The news is full of the exact situation that I referred to. Just recently:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/22/terror/main1638730.shtml?source=RSS&attr=World_1638730

And the US response is always the same garbage: "Civilian casualties are regrettable but US forces have the right to defend themselves in the war against terror"

Could you imagine if a police force in North America called in an A-10 strike on a city block in order to catch some criminals? There would be outrage... but nobody cares when they're Afghans obviously. Some life is cheap...

Sorry, but this is just not realistic. We wouldnt call down an airstrike in this situation....we would gas/smoke the living hell out of it and force them out in an attempt to decrease the chance of civilian deaths.

You may as well ask WHY do people not follow rules. You might..I might...but a lot of people simply wont - even when there are lives on the line. Who knows why people do the stupid things they do?

 

[amadeus]

That's not what you said in your original post. You said you didn't feel remorse the innocent murdered.

Remorse? Why should I feel remorseful? I had nothing to do with their deaths.

Yes I would have, except the second time around there would be a followup strategy.

Good answer.

So you would rather have a secret investigation of military crimes conducted by military investigators that wouldn't be scrutinized but outside sources? Right .

Well, who do you want investigating alleged military crimes? Rockford?

Can you not hear yourself? American lives are already in jeopardy because they're in a warzone. We can't bury this as you would wish. We have to face our mistakes, own up to them, and learn from them.

You know quite well what I mean. Repeating this propaganda about U.S. "atrocities" when they've only been alleged and an investigation is underway doesn't help improve our situation in Iraq.

You know rmsharpe, you're starting to sound like Stalin. "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Here's the truth for you: atrocities have to be recognized and dealt with accordingly, not played down and cast off.

When did I ever say that an investigation shouldn't be done, or that if appropriate, prosecutions shouldn't result from those findings?

Not to question the validity of the findings, but that's what they said about the Haditha massacre the first time around.

Have any charges been brought?