Marines cover up massacre in Iraq

I know this is yet another "Iraq"-topic and while these are generally frowned upon in Political Palace, I think issues such as these absolutely need to be discussed:

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A preliminary military inquiry found evidence that U.S. Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in November, contradicting the troops' account, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

President George W. Bush said he was troubled by news stories on the November 19 killings of men, women and children in the town of Haditha, and a general at the Pentagon said the incident could complicate the job for the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate," Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, deputy director for regional operations for the military's Joint Staff, told a Pentagon briefing.

Forensic data from corpses showed victims with bullet wounds, despite earlier statements by Marines that civilians were killed by a roadside bomb that also claimed the life of a Marine from El Paso, Texas, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a defense official said.

"The forensics painted a different story than what the Marines had said," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

The official said there were wounds that would not have been caused by an improvised explosive device. "Did someone shoot somebody just for the sake of taking him out?" the official said. "Bad things happened that day, and it appears Marines lied about it."

(...)

The incident could represent the worst-known case of misconduct by U.S. troops in Iraq, and comes at a time when opinion polls show falling U.S. public support for the 3-year-old war. Ham emphasized the importance of U.S. troops having the support of the Iraqi people and government.

(...)

Source: reuters.com

Another related article

There's absolutely no denying that things like these are happening in wars. The question arises, however, as to how much more the US government, military and public can take of this. There seems to be a high probability that this incident will turn out to be larger in scale than even Abu Ghureib. It's already put a damper on relations between the newly elected Iraqi government and the US.

So what do you make of this?

As usual the left wing press has rushed to judgement against the U.S. military over the alleged "Haditha Massacre". The press and the left have already tried and convicted the Marines invovled, portraying them as nothing short of SS stormtroopers. They've been described as cold blooded killers of innocent children. All this of course before all the facts have been brought to light. Do these brilliant leftists have access to all the ballistic evidence? Do they know what happened prior to and during this incident. Have they accounted for the fact that insurgents comminly use civilians as shields? No, of course not...it Mai Lai all over agian, and they're salivating over the chance to drag the military through the mud again. Oh, they'll say, but we have the accounts of witnesses...well lets look at the veracity of those witnesses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...553969,00.html

Hmmm, seems like this town is a shithole of terrorist activity. No reason anyone from Haditha would lie about what happened. I'm not saying that The Marines are innocent, I'm just saying that we don't know yet, and that it's pathetic how the left wing press seems almost eager to convict them.

I understand the ROE is unshakable and MUST be obliged to. But when a roadside bomb explodes next to you, the first thing one wants is the find the one responsible. I can easily see how civilians could have looked like the first people responsible... I have sympathy for the Marines, but they are bound by their vow to duty. They should pay for their transgressions.

Originally Posted by Wesker

As usual the left wing press has rushed to judgement against the U.S. military over the alleged "Haditha Massacre". The press and the left have already tried and convicted the Marines invovled, portraying them as nothing short of SS stormtroopers. They've been described as cold blooded killers of innocent children. All this of course before all the facts have been brought to light. Do these brilliant leftists have access to all the ballistic evidence? Do they know what happened prior to and during this incident. Have they accounted for the fact that insurgents comminly use civilians as shields? No, of course not...it Mai Lai all over agian, and they're salivating over the chance to drag the military through the mud again. Oh, they'll say, but we have the accounts of witnesses...well lets look at the veracity of those witnesses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...553969,00.html

Hmmm, seems like this town is a shithole of terrorist activity. No reason anyone from Haditha would lie about what happened. I'm not saying that The Marines are innocent, I'm just saying that we don't know yet, and that it's pathetic how the left wing press seems almost eager to convict them.

Yeah, this is all about bipartisan politics, and has nothing to do with the photographic and ballistic evidence that has already been brought to light. Wait, what?

Seriously, if you want to say "We don't know yet," then don't turn around and blame some kind of obfuscated liberalist agenda-pushing as the sole cause of the investigation.

Originally Posted by SemperFidelis

I understand the ROE is unshakable and MUST be obliged to. But when a roadside bomb explodes next to you, the first thing one wants is the find the one responsible. I can easily see how civilians could have looked like the first people responsible... I have sympathy for the Marines, but they are bound by their vow to duty. They should pay for their transgressions.

Yes you are quite the Marine veteran aren't you? Keep dreaming.

Also I guess since TIME originally reported on this, they're pinko commies in hiding.

I personally don't find this surprising. It's a war, people die. Sometimes, innocent people die. I don't think it's right, but I think it's inevitable.

Agreed. War is terrible. Collateral damage is an unfortunate but necessary price we pay for waging war. However, I believe this incident could have been better handled by the Marines, you know?

And Devo, don't make me shove my cock down your slutty mouth. Christ, leave me the fuck alone. You're as annoying a piggybacking a dead fucking polar bear.

Originally Posted by SemperFidelis

Agreed. War is terrible. Collateral damage is an unfortunate but necessary price we pay for waging war. However, I believe this incident could have been better handled by the Marines, you know?

And Devo, don't make me shove my cock down your slutty mouth. Christ, leave me the fuck alone. You're as annoying a piggybacking a dead fucking polar bear.

We're not talking mistakes here, and blowing up a building cause the coordinates were off. We're talking the calculated killing of innocent civilians within their homes while they're completely unarmed.

Devo's right.. These attacks were planned.. well not planned, but taken in account when producing the plan.. They're not "Unfortunate Mishaps" , they're "Acceptable losses"..

Which are only acceptable cuz its not on their side..

No, no, not collateral damage or saturation bombing. Freedom Power. Third-degree freedoms necessitate some hospital time; what?

Wish it were just Hospital times they "necessitate"..

Originally Posted by Zato-1

Devo's right.. These attacks were planned.. well not planned, but taken in account when producing the plan.. They're not "Unfortunate Mishaps" , they're "Acceptable losses"..

Which are only acceptable cuz its not on their side..

Acceptable losses is when you achieve something like take an objective in battle with enough losses to make things look rational. It was done for the greater good, they gave in to the cause.

Unfortunate mishaps are unplanned and they shouldn't have happened. This is one of them. Nothing was gained here except civilian losses. If you think this was "planned," you need your god damn head examined. An IED went off near troops, one got killed, some of the other soldiers jumped the gun and went on a rampage of sorts.

That's all there is to it. There is no underlying plan. Something unfortunate happened. The marines involves should be prosecuted/punished.

Of course, the media in general will take this unfortunate happening as a chance to mudsling at the military along with all its members, past and present. That's what bothers me about this. I figured there'd be something like this eventually.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Acceptable losses is when you achieve something like take an objective in battle with enough losses to make things look rational. It was done for the greater good, they gave in to the cause.

Unfortunate mishaps are unplanned and they shouldn't have happened. This is one of them. Nothing was gained here except civilian losses. If you think this was "planned," you need your god damn head examined. An IED went off near troops, one got killed, some of the other soldiers jumped the gun and went on a rampage of sorts.

That's all there is to it. There is no underlying plan. Something unfortunate happened. The marines involves should be prosecuted/punished.

Of course, the media in general will take this unfortunate happening as a chance to mudsling at the military along with all its members, past and present.

Actually people were killed in their homes, and the homes were ransacked, despite none of them being armed, and one weapon being found. Marines in that area are instructed not to shoot unless there is a real and probable threat. Unarmed civilians are not something to be shot at.

Originally Posted by Devo

Actually people were killed in their homes, and the homes were ransacked, despite none of them being armed, and one weapon being found. Marines in that area are instructed not to shoot unless there is a real and probable threat. Unarmed civilians are not something to be shot at.

I never denied this. They went on a rampage. My guess is that their buddy being killed was enough for them to think they should go gun down folks in hopes that one of them set up the bomb.

It's to be expected. After all, the enemy in this situation doesn't wear a uniform.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

I never denied this. They went on a rampage. My guess is that their buddy being killed was enough for them to think they should go gun down folks in hopes that one of them set up the bomb.

It might not have been "planned" but the commander in charge needs to face real criminal charges and probably will. I read in TIME that a couple of the higher ups and marines are facing Murder charges.

The only folks who should be blamed were the ones on-site who caused this situation. By higher ups, did TIME mean stuff like Generals and stuff like that? I hope to god not. Just punish the dumb bastards that screwed up. I seriously doubt the higher ups would want them to do this. Slaughtering civilians is counter-productive to the whole "stomping out terrorism" goal ((if that is even realistic)).

Originally Posted by Gechmir

The only folks who should be blamed were the ones on-site who caused this situation. By higher ups, did TIME mean stuff like Generals and stuff like that? I hope to god not. Just punish the dumb bastards that screwed up. I seriously doubt the higher ups would want them to do this. Slaughtering civilians is counter-productive to the whole "stomping out terrorism" goal ((if that is even realistic)).

Time meant officials who covered it up, they would face criminal conspiracy charges. The sergeant on site I believe is facing murder charges.

I found one of the magazine articles I read today:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...8892-1,00.html

Marines have a de-centralized view of leadership. A leader is anyone with initiative to lead at that moment. Therefore, the higher-ups should not be held responsible. However, they're still taking flak because officers are taught that their men are a reflection of themselves.

Originally Posted by SemperFidelis

Marines have a de-centralized view of leadership. A leader is anyone with initiative to lead at that moment. Therefore, the higher-ups should not be held responsible. However, they're still taking flak because officers are taught that their men are a reflection of themselves.

No it's because they covered up the incident. Please read.