Marines cover up massacre in Iraq

I think they should start counting deliberate murder of innocent, unarmed civilians into collateral damage as well. Nerves go blank and such in wars.

I do not say that nerves cannot "go blank and such" in wars, but this proves that soldiers should not be trained to kill people, but to kill the right people.

Also, those victims didn't have anything to do with the death of that marine (?)

I am pretty sure they've had plenty ethics lessons before taking up the gun.

Yet, the most disturbing thing about that incident was the whole cover-up.

Note that the killings took place in November 2005. I'd say everyone involved did a tremendous job at hiding this from the public eye.

Quote:

I do not say that nerves cannot "go blank and such" in wars, but this proves that soldiers should not be trained to kill people, but to kill the right people.

That's what every nation on the planet already does. It's called "following orders."

American troops do receive ethics training, though not nearly enough. That said, no amount of ethics training could have prevented this situation from happening considering the amount of stress that our troops are placed under every single day. There has to be a breaking point at some point, and losing a pal is just the thing to bring the red mist.

Since so many of you have made up your mind already heres a somewhat different opinion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/...s_iraq_terraza

or this from a Seattle TV interview with the marine who was next to the Marine who was cut in half by the IED

Crossan: We used to go out on patrols and have the little kids count the patrols and all that stuff and we couldn’t really do anything except grab them and throw them inside their houses…
KING 5 TV interviewer: Why would you do that? Because you were afraid that the kids were scouting for the insurgents or you thought they were in danger?

Crossan: There are little kids that scout for ‘em. ‘Cuz later that day we, along the main road there, we cut behind a few buildings and the next patrol that went out got hit. And that little kid that was just there and there was people all around. But the day that I got hit they were planning a major attack and it got spoiled, so, and there was like 20 some people, insurgents, that were gonna attack the cop that day.

Then we got hit by an IED and the cops sent out a squad of Marines, and the insurgents just started attacking then, just right off the bat and we just foiled it. We were just driving back from the cop. I remember taking a left and then a right, and then remember waking up from the ground for a split second. And then waking up in the helicopter and then finally knew what happened in the hospital.

KING 5: So after you were injured, also tell me, you lost one of your guys. What can you tell me about him?

Crossan: We lost Lance Col. Miguel Terrazas. He was a good guy. He was from El Paso, Texas. And he was my point man. He was pretty much the guy I went to if I needed anything.

KING 5: Was he driving the Humvee at the time?

Crossan: Yes he was.

KING 5. And so you were sitting next to me?

Crossan: Yes, I was in the passenger side. I know in my heart if I was there, I possibly could have stopped what happened, so. ‘Cuz I know that the other team leaders and even staff sergeants…they both, they all kinda, listened to me and I just gave ‘em ideas and all that stuff. Things just went smoother. But I just don’t know.

KING 5: How do you feel about the villagers involved? Um, you know, do you have emotion as you think about them or not really?

Crossan: No. Because half of them were bad guys. You just never know, so. It really didn’t cross my mind.

KING 5: There are reports of, you know, little children being killed and women being killed.

Crossan: Little kids I can see being bad and even some of the women, but just over there, you just can’t tell who the bad guy was..."

or this from an imbedded CNN reporter

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.

So, all you Monday morning quaterbacks who have never faced a life or death situation except while playing a video game, perhaps you can manage to reserve judgement on these guys until we have all the facts.

Does anyone remember LT. Pantano..accused of murdering iraqis, crucified in the press..and found NOT GUILTY.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Since so many of you have made up your mind already heres a somewhat different opinion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/...s_iraq_terraza

Dude, what a freakin' surprise; I would not have guessed...

I'm glad to finally see a different side of it.

That seems like an extremely plausible reasoning behind the incident. It saddens me that insurgents would use their own people as meat shields.

"My son is no murderer!"

O rlly?

All of your posturing and justifications still don't change the fact that this case basically amounts to murder. These soldiers went berserk and took their aggressions out on whatever they could find. When they realized they killed a bunch of innocent people, they tried to cover it up.

We have the facts, and unless the Marines dispute them (which they haven't) you can piss in the wind and bury your head in the sand all you like. Call this a leftist agenda, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'm starting to wonder why we even let you keep posting in the Palace. We haven't tolerated blind opposition to reason before, and there's no cause not to do so again.

If you're saying that we should wait to draw conclusions when the marines have completed their investigation, then that's fine, but when ballistics evidence isn't sought until after the bodies are in the ground, eyebrows get fucking raised.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

"
If you're saying that we should wait to draw conclusions when the marines have completed their investigation, then that's fine, but when ballistics evidence isn't sought until after the bodies are in the ground, eyebrows get fucking raised.

Thats what i am saying. The press and certain political figures have been calling these marines butchers for a long, time, long before any conclusions were reached. the bodies were in the ground long before any investigation was started so thats irrelevant.

As to the so called cover up. If the Marines engaged in a firefight and the insurgents used human shields etc, given the currwent climate, perhaps the commnders thought it best not to say these people were collateral damage, they'd get skewered then too wouldn't they.

As th whether or not you want to let me continue to post thats your decision. i haven't name called, trolled or attacked anybody. if you want to ban me for my opinions then so be it. Tolerance i see seems to only be a one way street. You call it a blind opposition to reason, i see it as taking a more cautious approach and listening to all sides involved.

Of course the administration would NEVER sacrifice a few marines in order to keep their agenda intact and molify their critics.

"Why won't people let me voice my unreasonably insane opinions? DISCRIMINATION!"

Sure thing, Billy. Tons of dead civilians and maybe, maybe one dead combatant, and no investigation takes place. That's totally irrelevant. Yup. Just because the Marines waited to try and investigate the bodies when it basically amounts to desecrating the corpses for their loved ones doesn't mean anything at all.

Quote:

If the Marines engaged in a firefight and the insurgents used human shields etc, given the currwent climate, perhaps the commnders thought it best not to say these people were collateral damage, they'd get skewered then too wouldn't they.

But they weren't involved in a firefight. Ballistics evidence taken from the houses indicate that no shots were fired from the houses. This isn't a liberal media hype, it's a matter of public fucking record.

You're denying truth because of its inconvenience, not out of any objective reasoning.

Where is your evidence? Site your sources. The investigation is not over, the Marines haven't been able to give their side or speak in their defense, yet its too difficult for you to give them the benefit of the doubt.

My name is Mark, not Billy, unless you're trying to make some insulting reference.

Here's another alledged massacre, complete with similar pictures and accusations, that has been proved false....but my assertions that the Marines just might be innocent is insane.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...2032795&page=1

I wouldn't doubt that children and women were being used to watch us. It happened in Vietnam and it happens here. Counter-insurgency warfare, y'know.

But still. It's no reason to kill the people. They should have called it in and blocked off whatever roads they could have and had investigation pass through and what-not for the civvies involved. The ROE say only fire if fired upon. Killing women and children for helping out their husbands because they don't know any better isn't sound logic.

This article highlights by opinions quite well

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...538&catcode=13

Yes, all the soldiers in our armed forces recieve ethics training. That is part of the soldiers creed, something that every soldier is required to memorize. Giving soldiers more "training" in ethics will do nothing against situations like this. If you want to help these people, give them counceling on how to deal with this sort of stuff. They need to know what to expect from themselves and others when they are exposed to this sort of violence and stress.

Wesker, chances are these Marines have orders not to give their side of the story. I'm not sure you will hear the full story of what they have to say until after they are released from the military or if they are found innocent. If they are found guilty... that could be a long time while they sit in prison.

Personally speaking from what I have see, Marines hold themselves to some rather high standards. The murdering of civilians just don't sound like the well trained and harded soldiers in the Marine Corps. I'm not saying that what happened was impossible, I am however wary of what the media has to say on this as there has been a great deal of negative coverage on our military and no coverage on what is really going on over there 99% of the time. I'll wait to hear what the military investigation comes up with.

"The facts we do have tell that a carbomb hit a Marine convoy, a firefight ensued, and fifteen civilians were killed along with eight or nine terrorists."

These aren't facts. Your mouthpiece is pretty much wrong.

Quoted more directly from Murtha's statements:

"
MURTHA: Well, what I worry about, Wolf, is that this happened six months ago.

And nothing -- you heard nothing about it. As a matter of fact, the original story was that an IED killed these 15 people. It became very confusing to the public. "TIME" magazine came out with an article, and they still tried to cover it up.

Now, there were payments made to victims, which aren't made unless we kill them, one way or the other. And, secondly, they knew about it the day afterwards. So, there's no excuse for not having this be more open and know exactly what -- and the longer it goes, the worse it is for us, because it looks like it's the policy of our troops to do something like this."

Murtha is referring to the military's tendency to cover up their massacres, not execute civilians.

Admittedly, my only source on this matter is Murtha himself. Though, Murtha claims that his conclusions are based on what he's seen of the evidence, and nobody is disputing what he's saying.

Your recent example seems to be more an indication of an incident the military was fully aware of wasn't their fault, which led to an expedient investigation.

What happened at Haditha seems to be more an example of the military attempting to silence news of the massacre with hush money while they would attempt to investigate the incident in secret, if at all.

I'm not arguing that there wasn't some kind of cover up, but that can have occurred for various reasons. It seems more likely to me that after the IED went off there was gunfire directed at the Marines, as this is standard operating procedure for the insurgents. The Marines probably returned fire, perhaps with less discrimination than usual, at the houses and other areas from which, even 1 or 2 gunmen, could keep the squad pinned down. After the action, the Marines may have checked these houses and had an "oh shit" moment when they saw the collateral damage. That scenario is far more believable than insane bloodthirsty Marines bursting into houses and indiscriminatley killing 1 year olds. But again, I prefer to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and refrain from calling this a massacre or a rampage.

Oh yeah, is there a reason why my signature has been removed?

The cover up could have happened for various reasons, true. All of the reasons I can come up with boil down to "I (or We) were just involved in something bad. And we don't want to get caught." This right there, is an indication of someone being a bad person.

If it was an accident, and all those people were shot while the marines were trying to shoot the lone gunman behind them, then that'd be bad. If they deliberately shot those people, even worse. Trying to cover up the truth is wrong in and of itself, there is no reason for this, even if one can rationalize it to themselves.

Current climate would excuse neglecting one's duty to report on issues such as this? How so? If things were going well, or you were at least following SOP, you'd have nothing to fear from being open about it. Unless you are openly proposing that bad news, even if it is true, should not be spread because it would hurt 'the cause' or some such thing.