Shocking BBC interview with marine, with transcript.

Zeekater

hasn't been using drugs
Joined
May 27, 2003
Messages
2,245
Location
Belgium
nonconformist said:
I just found this incredible BBC interview with a Marine. What he says is stunning.
BBC interview
And here is the transcript:
(warning, pretty long, that's why it's in spoiler tags, to keep the thread readable :) )
Spoiler :
Reporter: An American marine says the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq which he witnessed was inevitable giving what soldiers were told by superiors about the threat facing them. It’s such killings which have fueled the uprising against coalition forces. Jimmy massy is a former staff sergeant who left the marines in November after 12 years. I asked him about the way us soldiers treated civilians in Iraq.

Jimmy: we killed a lot of innocent civilians. We were given intelligence reports at that time saying that the faydeheen and the republican guard had taken off their uniforms and had started wearing civilian clothes and were mounting attacks against the US forces in Baghdad. They were telling us that there were ambulances that were loaded with explosives, that they were using copcars, you know for suicide bombings. So when we went in to Baghdad, my marines were pretty hiked up on all these intelligence reports. We didn't know who the bad guy was. To us every civilian in Baghdad was a terrorist. There was no other way for us to look at it. So when we would have these civilians come into our checkpoints with their vehicles we would fire a warning shot and tell them to stop but if they came within our perimeter we'd lit them up. And every time we'd lid them up we were expecting to have secondary explosions or hear ammunition go off in the car. And when we would pull the body out and we would search the car we would find nothing. This took place time and time again.

Reporter: didn't the soldiers learn from that, didn't they realize that many of these people were just civilians?

Jimmy: It's kinda hard when you don't know who to trust, when the bad guys are everywhere. It really plays on your psyche after a while. It’s like this you know this yeckell and Hyde mentality, one minute you are playing humanitarian passing out the candy to the little kids and then two seconds later you're having to switch over to be a killer.

Reporter: So there was nothing actually senior command could have done to try to change the way the.... US military were behaving?

Jimmy: The rules of engagement are determined by the intelligence reports that we received. If the intelligence reports say that these individuals these fedayeen are now in civilian clothes that makes everybody free game. And I know it says in the Geneva Convention as well you do not shoot nonenemy combatants, you do not shoot civilians. When you have a child die in your arms because of an American airraid and the concussion from the bomb that was landed right next to his window causes him to have internal damage and he dies right in front of your arms you start questioning what's going on.

Reporter: this why you said you felt we were committing genocide?

Jimmy: that is correct.

Reporter: and yet genocide is politically directed.

Jimmy: yes.

Reporter: would you say that of the war in Iraq that this genocide was politically directed, this killing.

Jimmy: yes, I feel that way. With these reports that were given out to us, it's giving the American soldier free reign to make the judgement call on the battlefield wheither or not that person is a civilian or it's not a civilian. However there is no consequences for him pulling that trigger if he pulls that trigger and discovers that that individual was a civilian, no harm no foul, that's ok, don't worry about it. Because this a new type of war, this is a eradication war, we are there to eradicate terrorists, or the democracy in Iraq to start to thrive, but we have to get rid of the terrorists first, what happens if you don't know who the terrorists are? What happens when you think that the kid that you see peddling his bicycle he looks fourteen years old but he could be a terrorist. And then you know you follow him and you see him doing something shady like pulling out an AK or something like that that he's got hid behind a shed. So you decide to pop him in the grave, you know shoot him in the head, and then you go over and you find out that the weapon that he was picking up didn't even work, it didn't even have the internal parts. Within the machinegun to fire. So wouldn't that make you a killer if you done something like that?

Reporter: you obviously felt very uncomfortable and you went to your superiors, what did they say?

Jimmy: after quite a few of the civilian casualties that we had taken over there I was really at a boiling point and we were at a morning battleplan meeting, my luitanant after the meeting came up to me and asked if I was feeling ok, and I told him no I wasn't feeling ok, you know I was having a hard time dealing with the things that we were doing over there and he asked me to elaborate and I told him I said well sir I honestly feel that we're committing genocide over here, and he didn't like that. Subsequently after me saying that I knew that my career was gonna be short in the Marine Corps. They basically forced my resignation from being a platoon sergeant. At that time I didn't have any polls about resigning my position that I told them that they were wrong and that I didn't their money and that I didn't want their benefits. When I got out of the marine corps I was gonna tell who ever would listen, it got really ugly, I had to hire an attorney because they tried to label me as a conscious objector and I told them that I wasn’t a consciousness objector I believe that there are some wars that were worth fighting however I don't believe in killing civilians and I’m not going to kill civilians for the united states marine corps.

Reporter: how many of your fellow soldiers felt the same?

Jimmy: I had quite a few of my younger troops coming up to me and asking me off the record about what was going on, and of course with me being in a senior position, you know, I’m not gonna tell em my true feelings I just looked at them and told them, listen, you know, marine, you 're over here to do a job, you're over here to help establish a democracy here in Iraq and it's tough.
Reporter: and when you saw the pictures about what was happening in Abu Graib, were you surprised?

Jimmy: now I wasn't surprised.

Reporter: did you think that sort of thing was widespread?
Jimmy I think it’ s widespread in the us military, period.

Reporter: what, around the world?

Jimmy: correct, army, navy, airforce marines...
Reporter: and why do you think that is?

Jimmy: I think because American soldiers, and especially American marines are dehumanized, they are dehumanized from day one that they enter bootcamp. And the American armed forces has worked with the Israelis, quite extensively, and we 've patterned a lot of our training after the Israelis, well we all know what's going with that. That uh, to, you know basically dehumanize a soldier so they, you know, they have the self-confidence or have the selfdirection to pull the trigger even if it's a civilian.

Reporter: jimmy massy many thanks
 
Hooyah! Kerry is making a last minute sprint.. :p

This is pretty sick.. "Every civilian in Bagdad was a terrorist... we felt we were commiting genocide" :eek:

Worst thing is, nothing has changed! The US forces are still behaving this way, and it's all because of dodgy American inteligence reports :sad:

Edit: Thanks zeekater for providing this mod-required transcript. Btw, there's an error in the first sentence: giving should be given. I didn't read anything more of the text, preferring to download the mp3 :thumbsup:
 
You are correct about the mistake :)
There probably are more, but I think I did fine for a non-english speaker and listener.
 
If anyone remembers, before the invasion began, I posted in this very forum reservations about this war.

I felt that any military put in that situation would experience great difficulties in distinguishing between innocent civilians and insurgents, but I was being sarcastic when I asked if they were planning to kill every civilian!

My assumption was that the military would stuggle to remove insurgents, due to fear of hitting civilians. The US military proved me wrong; never did I think they would intentionally kill those civilians! :cry:
 
Thanks Zee its a good read, but unfortunatelly its true for many wars :(...
 
I guess Kerry was telling the truth about Vietnam.
 
stormbind said:
If anyone remembers, before the invasion began, I posted in this very forum reservations about this war.

I felt that any military put in that situation would experience great difficulties in distinguishing between innocent civilians and insurgents, but I was being sarcastic when I asked if they were planning to kill every civilian!

My assumption was that the military would stuggle to remove insurgents, due to fear of hitting civilians. The US military proved me wrong; never did I think they would intentionally kill those civilians! :cry:

I like to point out that the Dutch also control a certain part of Iraq. They certainly have much better relations with the Iraqis and in general the Iraqis cooperate with the Dutch and they are glad that the Dutch are in Iraq.

I also have read a story in the (Dutch) newspapers that the people of Fallujah were intitially happy with the liberation by the Americans, but their opinion has seriously changed because of the rude and cruel behaviour of the American soldiers. And IMHO above interview (of an American soldier) confirms this is another sign that the Americans are doing a bad job in the USA.

I guess it's the result of a different mentality in the USA army, at least compared with the mentality in the Dutch army.

And @zeekater, thanks for the transcript.
 
AVN, the Dutch opinion is mirrored in the British :thumbsup:
 
He stormbind, it is great that you see so clearly and directly linked genocide to George W. Bush. Even if the Marine was not talking about him.

I must agree, that is what Bush represents.

IMO: Cruelties like this probably happen and happened in every war so far. This is no excuse for them, but unfortunately a fact.


But relating this to the US Election campaign and directly to G.W. Bush, now this tells a lot.
 
Longasc said:
But relating this to the US Election campaign and directly to G.W. Bush, now this tells a lot.
I don't recall him mentioning George W Bush.
He does, however seem to pretend that the US are intentionally killing civilians, which is nonsense, pure and simple. The reason the soldiers are killing civilians is from fear, confusion, faulty intelligence, and the inability to distinguise friend from foe.

If stormbind thinks the UK are less guilty than the US, he is wrong, same goes for the Dutch.
I consider myself anti-American, but the way others painting the American soldiers as being more evil than any other army is simply wrong. The reason the Americans kill more civilians is because they are in crowded urban areas such as Baghdad (the British are in Basra, but Basra is far smaller and there is no real enemy resistance there), where there is far more confusion, and of course, far more civilians.
 
Longasc,

I believe these sorts of things happen in all wars, but I also believe they happen more frequently in Amercan wars.

Jimmy Massy points out that policy on the ground is dictated by inteligence reports; those come from the Pentagon. George Bush is The Commander in Chief, and his administration strongly influences the Pentagon.

For me to put those things together says nothing of my political bias.
 
~Corsair#01~ said:
He does, however seem to pretend that the US are intentionally killing civilians, which is nonsense...

Jimmy Massy disagrees with you. When asked if US forces could have handled the situation differently, "The rules of engagement are determined by the intelligence reports that we received." which means "YES".

American inteligence reports demand that US soldiers treat civilians as terrorists because "it's giving the American soldier free reign to make the judgement call on the battlefield wheither or not that person is a civilian or it's not a civilian. However there is no consequences for him pulling that trigger if he pulls that trigger and discovers that that individual was a civilian, no harm no foul, that's ok, don't worry about it."
Reporter: this why you said you felt we were committing genocide?

Jimmy: that is correct.
~Corsair#01~ said:
If stormbind thinks the UK are less guilty than the US, he is wrong, same goes for the Dutch.
The Spanish, Italians, Polish, Dutch, and British armed forces have all complained - from squady to senior generals - about the unique way in which the US handle affairs in Iraq.

This is a clear indication that they do not all carry equal blaim. The British most senior general said the doctrines [defined by inteligence reports] of American and British forces are fundamentally different and incompatible.

Also, the above mentioned nations answer to the International Court of Justice. US forces do not, and therefore lack accountability! Jimmy Massy mentioned the Geneva Convention, and that the USA is ignoring it.
 
Basing your arguments on the opinions of one man, who is representative of 1/100,000 of the US forces in Iraq is not proper.

He didn't say they were intentionally killing civilians anyway. In order to intentionally kill them, they'd first have to know they were civilians. Instead you have people shooting and then realising afterward that the person was innocent.
 
~Corsair#01~ said:
Basing your arguments on the opinions of one man, who is representative of 1/100,000 of the US forces in Iraq is not proper.

He didn't say they were intentionally killing civilians anyway. In order to intentionally kill them, they'd first have to know they were civilians. Instead you have people shooting and then realising afterward that the person was innocent.

There is footage of US troops shooting wounded Iraqis crawling on the floor, and then cheering.
Also, when combined with instances such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the general massacring happening, then you get an idea of what is going on.
For a guy to give his career up for this would mean he is fairly trustworthy.
 
~Corsair#01~ said:
Basing your arguments on the opinions of one man, who is representative of 1/100,000 of the US forces in Iraq is not proper.
Actually, I'm basing my opinions on the statements of several American servicemen, many British servicemen, one British general, one Polish general, one Italian general, and the assumption that AVN has similar statements suitably qualified Dutch servicemen.

~Corsair#01~ said:
He didn't say they were intentionally killing civilians anyway.
No, but he does say that no efforts were taken to avoid killing civilians! He calls it Genocide.
 
~Corsair#01~ said:
Basing your arguments on the opinions of one man, who is representative of 1/100,000 of the US forces in Iraq is not proper.

He didn't say they were intentionally killing civilians anyway. In order to intentionally kill them, they'd first have to know they were civilians. Instead you have people shooting and then realising afterward that the person was innocent.

Do you shoot first and think then, or do you think first and shoot then if necessary. maybe that's the difference between the attitude of the European armies and the USA army (although to be honest I'm not sure about this).

But it's clear (at least for me) that at the moment the European armies have a better relation with the Iraqi civilians than the USA army. And I'm really looking for a good explanation for that difference.
 
Hmmm... A car is coming to a checkpoint. You are unsure if it is friend or foe. You say stop. Car keeps coming. You shoot a warning shot. Car keeps coming. at this point I would say it is a foe and start shooting. Before you disagree with this scenario, please mention if you would even BE at that checkpoint to begin with...
 
Paradigne said:
Hmmm... A car is coming to a checkpoint. You are unsure if it is friend or foe. You say stop. Car keeps coming. You shoot a warning shot. Car keeps coming. at this point I would say it is a foe and start shooting. Before you disagree with this scenario, please mention if you would even BE at that checkpoint to begin with...
If the checkpoint was set up properly, the car could never come close to the soldiers at that checkpoint.
 
Back
Top Bottom