PDA

View Full Version : BBC: Another US massacre in Iraq?



Nicholas Carey
06-01-2006, 08:58 PM
The BBC World Service is reporting on another potential massacre of civilians in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5039420.stm

The video is available on the above link as well.


The BBC has uncovered new video evidence that US forces may have been responsible for the deliberate killing of 11 innocent Iraqi civilians.

The video appears to challenge the US military's account of events that took place in the town of Ishaqi in March.

The US said at the time four people died during a military operation, but Iraqi police claimed that US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people.

A spokesman for US forces in Iraq told the BBC an inquiry was under way.
.
.
.
The video pictures obtained by the BBC appear to contradict the US account of the events in Ishaqi, about 100km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, on 15 March 2006.

The US authorities said they were involved in a firefight after a tip-off that an al-Qaeda supporter was visiting the house.

According to the Americans, the building collapsed under heavy fire killing four people - a suspect, two women and a child.

But a report filed by Iraqi police accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people in the house, including five children and four women, before blowing up the building.

The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.

The pictures came from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces.

It has been cross-checked with other images taken at the time of events and is believed to be genuine, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Baghdad says. [full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5039420.stm)]

Phillip Allen
06-01-2006, 09:03 PM
As one soldier from the Somalia debacle said to me "When you see a woman holding a child on her hip and handing fresh magazines to a guy shooting at you...is she a combatant?"

geeman
06-01-2006, 09:06 PM
good point Phil,,we dont know ALL the details yet,,do we?

ljb5
06-01-2006, 09:12 PM
"When you see a woman holding a child on her hip and handing fresh magazines to a guy shooting at you...is she a combatant?"

If that's what happened, that's what they should have reported.

If they reported 4 dead and it turns out there were 11 -- that's a problem.

If they said they died in a building collapse, but it turns out they were shot -- that's a problem.

geeman
06-01-2006, 09:17 PM
Why dont we wait until the investigation plays out before we stand them in front of the firing squad.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 09:17 PM
she's not a combatant, she's experiencing liberation and freedom.

Phillip Allen
06-01-2006, 09:21 PM
At least one of us has his mind made up...it was made up before the incident in fact

LeeG
06-01-2006, 09:26 PM
the odd part Phillip is that Iraqis aren't that interested in this news, it's not like there's been an uptick in civilian killings by US forces,,it's more like there's a willingness to process these stories. The administration tried for a couple months to spin up "things are marching to freedom" stories but no one is buying it.

Phillip Allen
06-01-2006, 09:29 PM
I have no faith in the veracity of any story from there...it takes a lot of time to sort out and then I still wander.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 09:36 PM
Do you have any faith in the veracity of the leaders who sent soldiers to Iraq?
Bing West isn't exactly a left winger:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5441269


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-0242014-4207874?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=stripbooks%3Arelevance-above&field-keywords=bing%20west

March Up is good

geeman
06-01-2006, 09:38 PM
Just an aside here,I know several Iraqis that have business's here in Tenn,all with family still in Iraq btw.All do NOT seem unduly alarmed at these types of reports.

Mrleft8
06-01-2006, 09:39 PM
I have no faith in the veracity of any story from there...it takes a lot of time to sort out and then I still wander.
Wander all you want. It seems pretty clear that the boots on the ground aren't being as well minded as they ought to be. And these boots weren't made for wandering.

Phillip Allen
06-01-2006, 09:40 PM
I'll wait...

LeeG
06-01-2006, 09:52 PM
Just an aside here,I know several Iraqis that have business's here in Tenn,all with family still in Iraq btw.All do NOT seem unduly alarmed at these types of reports.

remember the issue of checkpoints and the Italian journalist that got shot up? Went on all the time,,aside from the journalist the reality wasn't supportive to the dominant theme of bringing democracy so it faded away. Who wants to hear about soldiers in a vulnerable situation? The solution is to not hear it.

When Rumsfeld said it's a War of Perceptions he was right.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-01-2006, 09:54 PM
... and not really care anway, because where the hell is Iraq?

geeman
06-01-2006, 09:59 PM
These Iraqi's I speak of go back and forth to Iraq all the time for business,so they ARE "in the know" about whats happening there.

ljb5
06-01-2006, 10:02 PM
I'll wait...


Good for you.

I'd hate to think you're the type of guy who might leap to a conclusion and spring to action based on partial or innaccurate information.

That type of recklessness could get you tangled up in an unjustified, pre-emptive war....

--------------------------

But don't let your new-found restraint prevent you from offering excuses to justify something that you don't even admit happened.....

...Ooops, too late! You've haven't yet made up your mind --- but you have already made up your excuse.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-01-2006, 10:02 PM
They sound like real philanthropists. Did they vote republican?

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:03 PM
Ya,,when Phil and I decided to go to war,,"we" jumped too fast,,"We" will be more careful next time,,,,,,,,

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-01-2006, 10:05 PM
Well, that's settled then. We won't speak of it again.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:06 PM
I don't doubt it. It's not news to them that people are getting shot.
It's an uncomfortable bit of news to us because it implies our troops are overstressed. I could imagine a soldier who's been through Falluja in 11/04 then back in Anbar province a year later could get tired of it. By the third rotation...?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5038026.stm

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:06 PM
Us "philanthropists" tend to wait until ALL the facts are in before we decide who did what.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-01-2006, 10:09 PM
It's the only christian thing to do. You should never judge other christians who are doing the morally right shootings.

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:11 PM
You have stats to show that ALL those soldiers stuck over there are Christians? You have this knowledge?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-01-2006, 10:12 PM
I know they're not shooting Christians. At least I hope not. That would be awful.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:13 PM
,,,by now we know what GW,Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al have done.

even something as teeny,tiny as a National Intelligence Estimate getting handed to Judith Miller a month before Congress got it in 9/02 is known. Handed by Libby with Cheneys blessing.

How about US undermining UNSCOM in '97? No problem, Charles Duelfer told Scott Ritter to not mention the CIA transmissions piggy backed on UN monitoring equipment. You remember Duelfer,,he finished the report on WMD that Kay didn't finish.

Kay? He wrote a recomendation for Khidir Hamzas book in '97,,one of INC/AEI/Chalabi sources on Saddams nuclear program,,who was totally bogus

So much is known to explain why we're gettin' the terrists who brung us 9/11.

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:13 PM
You 2 would be a prosecutors dream,,just tell you ""he did it" and "he's guilty"

Phillip Allen
06-01-2006, 10:14 PM
You have stats to show that ALL those soldiers stuck over there are Christians? You have this knowledge?

Don't let him lead you geeman...he said morally right shootings...intended to condemn from the start..."I come here not to praise..."

It drips with dishonesty

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:15 PM
I thought we were discussing a specific incident,not rehashing the same old stuff ,again.As I said,,lets wait until the facts are in about THIS incident.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-01-2006, 10:16 PM
I'm paying attention, but I'm not outraged. I'm disappointed.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:16 PM
Cheney? Guilty as charged.

Phillip Allen
06-01-2006, 10:17 PM
Never believe your own bullsh*t

Phillip Allen
06-01-2006, 10:18 PM
this is not thread drift, it is thread pulling

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:20 PM
You may go around in circles as you choose gentlemen, I'm done with this one for the nite.I have better things to do Have a great nite!!!!!1

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:20 PM
geeman, what's to discuss,,it's a BBC article about one incident. If the Iraqis aren't concerned why are we?

Steve Paskey
06-01-2006, 10:21 PM
I know they're not shooting Christians. At least I hope not. That would be awful.
Right-o. As long as they're only murdering Muslim women and children, everything's okay by you?

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:22 PM
Outraged? ME? I didnt even hint that I was outraged,I simply choose to wait untill ALL the facts come in, on both counts.Saddam hasnt been found guilty either.And You wont find a post from me anywhere that says otherwise.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:24 PM
Saddam is guilty, GW is guilty, the important thing is that we can buy more bullets.

geeman
06-01-2006, 10:25 PM
GOODNITE gentlemen,,,,,,,,,

BrianW
06-01-2006, 10:28 PM
geeman, what's to discuss,,it's a BBC article about one incident. If the Iraqis aren't concerned why are we?

Exactly!

Also, if the terrorist would stop attacking our troops, there wouldn't be these sort of incidents.

Steve Paskey
06-01-2006, 10:30 PM
As one soldier from the Somalia debacle said to me "When you see a woman holding a child on her hip and handing fresh magazines to a guy shooting at you...is she a combatant?"
Yes, but she's not armed. And shooting an unarmed combatant is a war crime. You shoot him, you don't shoot her, and you CERTAINLY don't shoot the kid. Obviously, they may be caught in the cross fire, but you do not kill them deliberately. It's pretty simple, really.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:38 PM
Exactly!

Also, if the terrorist would stop attacking our troops, there wouldn't be these sort of incidents.

and if soldiers weren't on their third rotation where the situation gets worse each time they would have less of a reason to deal with these incidents.

Someone decided this venture was doable. At $9Billion a month with privatized militaries filling the gaps and no security for nation building it's not happening.

No nation building. He meant it.

BrianW
06-01-2006, 10:44 PM
Well since support at home has dropped, which I figured it would, I guess we should bring'em home.

We gave it a shot, too bad it didn't take.

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:46 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6853-2003Feb26?language=printer

The debate over nation building was a significant one in the 2000 campaign. Bush took the position that the Clinton administration had failed to prioritize strategic interests, acting as if U.S. interests in Haiti, Somalia and Kosovo were as great as in the Middle East, Western Europe or Asia. Gore responded that Bush's view of the world was overly simplistic and ignored the complexities of foreign entanglements.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Wednesday, Ari Fleischer said, "The president will talk in the speech about what the future may hold, not only for the people of Iraq, once liberated and allowed to become on their own democratic, but also what it means for the security of the region, because the president believes that a free Iraq will lead to a more stable Mideast."

Clinton made similar arguments about stabilizing the Balkans and promoting democracy in Haiti -- our own backyard. Bush's critics will argue that the difference is oil -- Iraq has it. Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans do not. Bush's defenders angrily deride that notion.

The president, said Eskew, will explain that nation building in Iraq is necessary, "because [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass murder, because he has used them before, because he has attacked his own people and his neighbors and because he has ties to terror."

LeeG
06-01-2006, 10:53 PM
can't and won't Brian,,there's that huge embassy and four big bases.

We're going to watch this civil war for years,,,support at home was sufficient for the task:
1.regime change, CHECK
2.support the troops, CHECK
3.re-elect the prez, CHECK


The reason we'll draw down is because we can't afford the tempo AND maintain forces elsewhere in the world AND make those super duper weapon systems AND not have mainstream American sacrifice.

Gas is over $3,,we're starting to hurt,,ouch, owee,,eech,,ouch.
Raytheon has to build those neat ABM systems in Europe,,We need that super duper Future Combat System,,those F-22 gotta get built.

For those things we'll draw down. Cindy Sheehan and a few noisy keyboard tappers mean squat.

htom
06-01-2006, 11:08 PM
Hmm, let's imagine ... goblin is shot, retreats to inside the house to get wound dressed, and the house falls on him. Do we give the shooter or the house credit for the kill?

BrianW
06-01-2006, 11:11 PM
Credit goes the President. He put the troops there. Or so I'm told. ;)

Paul G.
06-01-2006, 11:51 PM
As one soldier from the Somalia debacle said to me "When you see a woman holding a child on her hip and handing fresh magazines to a guy shooting at you...is she a combatant?"

As one freedom fighter says "whats the difference between an American civilian supporting an illegal invasion and the soldiers doing the shooting"

Paul G.
06-01-2006, 11:53 PM
Exactly!

Also, if the terrorist would stop attacking our troops, there wouldn't be these sort of incidents.

If we stopped invading and killing whoever we felt like there wouldnt be anymore incidents...

BrianW
06-01-2006, 11:56 PM
If we stopped invading and killing whoever we felt like there wouldnt be anymore incidents...

If Saddam had come out peacefully, we wouldn't have needed to kill anyone.

PeterSibley
06-02-2006, 02:46 AM
You're killing people 'cos Sadam wouldn't come out ?....I thought he was in gaol.


Brian ?

BrianW
06-02-2006, 03:09 AM
You're killing people 'cos Sadam wouldn't come out ?....I thought he was in gaol.


Brian ?

Oh yeah, anyone who gets in the way. Don't know where gaol is, but Saddam was in Iraq. :)

PeterSibley
06-02-2006, 03:13 AM
Yeah ...I guess you are and it was supposed to be jail

Paul G.
06-02-2006, 03:24 AM
That seems to be the American way, to get one person invent a preemptive reason and invade an entire country, ignoring any annoying collateral damage.

Get Osama, (man on donkey in hills) invade Afghanistan.
Get Saddam (Man in Baghdad Palace) invade Iraq

btw while we are at it, SECURE THE OIL

BrianW
06-02-2006, 03:36 AM
That seems to be the American way, to get one person invent a preemptive reason and invade an entire country, ignoring any annoying collateral damage.

Get Osama, (man on donkey in hills) invade Afghanistan.
Get Saddam (Man in Baghdad Palace) invade Iraq

btw while we are at it, SECURE THE OIL

Must be the fact it's illegal to assisinate world leaders. Or maybe that's just a myth. In any case, there doesn't seem to much support for the idea coming from political leaders anywhere. Can't figure that one out. :)

I had my weekly laugh today, at the expense of the stupid Iraquis as I filled my gas tank with that super cheap Iraqi oil. That's working out great! Hope everyone else is enjoying the cheap Iraqui oil as much as I am!

Salty Sea Dog
06-02-2006, 05:26 AM
The following is a quote from a respondent in India on the BBC web site about the above article: "When you fight evil it can embrace you".

Maybe he just about hit the nail on the head.

George.
06-02-2006, 07:08 AM
... wait until ALL the facts are in before we decide who did what.

This thought has been expressed by many, in this thread, in the ones about Haditha, and in the one about Murtha.

And it reveals a glaring double standard.

Whenever a village is bombed in Pakistan, or some Iraqis get shot at a checkpoint or killed by rockets fired from helicopters, these same people immediately assume that they were "terrorists" and had it coming. No concerns about due process, evidence, not denigrating people by calling them guilty before they are proved to be.

But when holy US soldiers are accused of killing innocents - which only happens after investigations, video, recorded testimony, etc. - then anyone who comments that it may be true is violating the defendents' rights, speaking prematurely, not giving them the benefit of the doubt, etc., etc.

Carry on, gentlemen.

George.
06-02-2006, 07:13 AM
"Isolated incidents"...

Iraqi Accuses U.S. of 'Daily' Attacks Against Civilians (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html)


BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.
...
In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people."

"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion," he said. "This is completely unacceptable."

ljb5
06-02-2006, 07:21 AM
I simply choose to wait untill ALL the facts come in.

In reality, one never gets to learn ALL the facts, do they?

What to do then? Are we doomed to a life of indecision and incompleteness. Can we never come to a conclusion about anything.

Fortunately, we are not automata. We are human beings with powers of logic, deduction, inference and judgement. We can see around corners.

So far, I've been right about:

Ken Lay
Jeff Skilling
Tom Delay
Scooter Libby
Karl Rove
Ahmed Chalabi
Abu Ghraib
Haditha
Duke Cunningham
Bob Ney
Jack Abramoff
and many more....

All the while, some timid sole has been telling me not to judge until ALL the facts are known (which will never happen.)

I've also been right about:
WMDs
Iraq's ties to al Qaeda and 9/11
Yellowcake
Aluminum Tubes
The Insurgency

What have you been right about? When has your policy of waiting for ALL facts ever led you to a correct conclusion?

LeeG
06-02-2006, 07:25 AM
sole?

I'm still waiting to find out what happened with the aborted investigation of Abrahmoffs lobbying for the Guam court in 2002,,,the prosecutor was removed a day after subpoenas were submitted ,,upon direction from the Whitehouse.

this stuff doesn't stop,,and no blow jobs!

The ironic part is that US attorney Black was started on this path for national security reasons looking at labor/immigration issues at the behest of the federal gov't. That put him at odds with the business community,,and Rove.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Guam_investigation

The Jack Abramoff Guam investigation involves an alleged plot by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others to control the functions of the courts in Guam. A federal grand jury investigation was halted in 2002 when the prosecutor was removed from office by the George W. Bush administration.

In 2002, Abramoff was retained under a secret contract by the Guam Superior Court to lobby against a bill proposing to put the Superior Court under the authority of the Guam Supreme Court.

The $324,000 was paid to Abramoff through a Laguna Beach, California, lawyer by means of 36 checks of $9,000 each. If done to avoid the federal reporting requirements for payment transfers this would constitute illegal 'structuring' under 31 USC 5324(a).[1] The form of payment might also be illegal if it was used to evade federal contracting rules requiring an open tender for contracts over $10,000.

On November 18, 2002, a grand jury issued a subpoena demanding that the administrator of the Guam Superior Court release all records relating to the contract.

On November 19, 2002, U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black, the chief prosecutor for Guam and the instigator of the indictment, was unexpectedly demoted and removed from the office he had held since 1991. The federal grand jury investigation was quickly wound down and took no further action.

geeman
06-02-2006, 08:07 AM
Sorry guys,,I dont care to argue simply for the sake of debate.Particulary with broken records.Normal procedure most every where is to get all the facts you can,,then make a decision.Maybe not ALL facts as was said,but at least get what you can.If that is a problem for you I suggest you reassess YOUR thinking .

Phillip Allen
06-02-2006, 08:30 AM
Yes, but she's not armed. And shooting an unarmed combatant is a war crime. You shoot him, you don't shoot her, and you CERTAINLY don't shoot the kid. Obviously, they may be caught in the cross fire, but you do not kill them deliberately. It's pretty simple, really.

Have you thought just how bogus that idea is...torpedo a merchant ship with unarmed sailors aboard...by your reasoning the only sailor that can be "shot" at is the one on the firing mechanism on the hastily mounted 3"-38 on the focsl. How about all those trains we shot up...you know the ones, taken from gun cameras on P-47 and P-51 aircraft...we all know the engineer and fireman in the destroyed cab of the engine (they were steamed to death) were not armed. Truck drivers in the rear areas might not be armed...personnel at air fields in England or Germany and France and on and on...BOGUS!

Don't forget all those factory workers killed with bombs

geeman
06-02-2006, 08:34 AM
I'm thinking Steve has never been in a situation with a gun pointed at him or been shot at,if he had I doubt he would have the time to pick and choose targets based on who is shooting and who's "just passing ammo".Both are trying to kill him,both have to be stopped.Of course he could always try and debate em to death,,,,,

George.
06-02-2006, 08:41 AM
Of course, the people we are discussing were not armed - NONE of them.

And they were shot all the same.

Phillip Allen
06-02-2006, 08:47 AM
Of course, the people we are discussing were not armed - NONE of them.

And they were shot all the same.

That is under investigation...still

George.
06-02-2006, 08:55 AM
Of course it is still under investigation. All we really have against those soldiers are allegations. And no one should be criticized, much less imprisoned or mistreated, based on allegations, without a fair trial.

Unless they are alleged terrists held in Guantanamo, in which case it is OK.

ljb5
06-02-2006, 09:01 AM
If that is a problem for you I suggest you reassess YOUR thinking .

Obviously, it's not a problem for me --- for as I have shown, I've been right all along.

Seriously, what have you ever been right about?

Maybe YOU shoud reassess YOUR thinking?

geeman
06-02-2006, 09:44 AM
I'm right about a lot of things,fair play,in court,did I vote for Bush? No.Do I love my country? yes.Do I think my country makes mistakes ? yes.Do I think your entitled to your opinion ,YES.You also have the perfect right to be wrong. Which you are.LOL

martin schulz
06-02-2006, 09:50 AM
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid207/p016fa4a15c4954204914ae10676459df/eeb5881a.jpg

geeman
06-02-2006, 09:52 AM
I've seen that picture Martin,,and giggle every time I see it.

Phillip Allen
06-02-2006, 10:01 AM
I know the type...

geeman
06-02-2006, 10:03 AM
For the record,I've not seen One gun that big in any pickup window around here LOL

ljb5
06-02-2006, 11:01 AM
You also have the perfect right to be wrong. Which you are.LOL

And you know this because....?

I thought you were going to wait for all the facts to come in before you told me I'm wrong.

geeman
06-02-2006, 11:07 AM
I'm not talking about the facts of the incidents,I'm talking about your much too early "perception" of them.Your "lets condemn before we know for sure what happened" line of thought.

ljb5
06-02-2006, 11:17 AM
So far, my "perception" has beed dead on.

What have you ever been right about?

Meerkat
06-02-2006, 02:37 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_civilians_killed;_ylt=AuW0tmZxpqqnuOD4oU42Ply s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
As accusations mount, Iraq furor grows
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A third set of allegations that U.S. troops have deliberately killed civilians is fueling a furor in Iraq"
and drawing strong condemnations from government and human rights officials. "It looks like the killing of Iraqi civilians is becoming a daily phenomenon," the chairman of the Iraqi Human Rights Association, Muayed al-Anbaki, said Friday after video ran on television of children and adults slain in a raid in March on the Iraqi village of Ishaqi north of Baghdad.
Al-Anbaki's comments came a day after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki upbraided the U.S. military over allegations that Marines killed two dozen unarmed civilians in the western city of Haditha, calling it "a horrible crime." They were his strongest public comments on the subject since his government was sworn in last month.
U.S. commanders have ordered new ethics training for all troops in Iraq. But the flow of revelations and investigations threatens to undermine Iraq's new government and public support in America for President Bush's management of the war. Iraq's government also began its own investigation of the deaths in Haditha.
In addition to the Haditha case, in which Marines are alleged to have gunned down 24 civilians in a rage of revenge for a bombing that killed a Marine in November, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman could face murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges as early as Friday in the April shooting death of an Iraqi man in yet another incident, a defense attorney said Thursday.
Military prosecutors plan to file the charges against the seven servicemen, who are being held in solitary confinement at Camp Pendleton, Calif., Marine Corps base, said Jeremiah Sullivan III, who represents one of the men.
The Iraqi man reportedly was dragged from his home west of Baghdad and shot. The Los Angeles Times and NBC News said troops may have planted an AK-47 and a shovel near the body to make it appear as if the man was an insurgent burying a roadside bomb. Neither suggested a possible motive.
The U.S. military had no additional comment Friday on the accusations stemming from a raid March 15 in the village of Ishaqi, about 50 miles north of Baghdad.
In March, the U.S. military said four people died when they attacked from the ground and air a house suspected of holding an al-Qaida operative. The house was destroyed.
But video shot by an AP Television News cameraman at the time and aired on March 15 shows at least five children dead. The video shows at least one adult male and four young children with obvious entry wounds to the head. One child has an obvious entry wound to the side caused by a bullet.
The March report spelled the village's name as Isahaqi.
Local Iraqis said there were 11 total dead, and charged that they were killed by U.S. troops before the house was leveled.
The video includes an unidentified man saying "children were stuck in the room, alone and surrounded."
"After they handcuffed them, they shot them dead. Later, they struck the house with their planes. They wanted to hide the evidence. Even a 6-month-old infant was killed. Even the cows were killed, too," he said.
The video included shots of the bodies of five children and two men wrapped in blankets.
Other video showed the bodies of three children in the back of a pickup truck that took them to the hospital in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's former hometown. Police Capt. Laith Mohammed said the March 15 attack that hit Ishaqi involved U.S. warplanes and armor.
Riyadh Majid, who identified himself as the nephew of Faez Khalaf, the head of the household who was killed, told AP at the time that U.S. forces landed in helicopters and raided the home.
Khalaf's brother, Ahmed, said nine of the victims were family members who lived at the house and two were visitors.
The U.S. military, which said in March that the allegations were being investigated, said it was targeting and captured an individual suspected of supporting foreign fighters of the al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist network. It had no further comment Friday.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for U.S.-led forces in Iraq, said at a news conference Thursday that "about three or four" inquiries were being carried out around the country, but he would not provide any details.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Friday defended the training and conduct of U.S. troops and said incidents such as the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians shouldn't happen.
"We know that 99.9 percent of our forces conduct themselves in an exemplary manner. We also know that in conflicts things that shouldn't happen, do happen," he said. "We don't expect U.S. soldiers to act that way, and they're trained not to."
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called the allegations "very, very serious" and said the world will see a thorough military investigation.
"If people are found to have committed crimes, those people will be held responsible and they will be held accountable," Gonzales said Friday in an interview with WOAI-AM, a radio station in San Antonio. "The president expects that, and I know the leadership in the military wants to see that happen as well."
Iraqi officials and relatives also said U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women one of them about to give birth when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.
The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings. It said the incident was being investigated.
Army Brig. Gen. Donald Campbell, the chief of staff of the Multinational Corps-Iraq, said at a briefing Friday that incidents of misconduct could result from the stress and fear of battling an enemy that doesn't abide by the rules of war, and often cannot be distinguished from the civilian population.
"It doesn't excuse the acts that have occurred, and we're going to look into them. But I would say it's stress, fear, isolation and, in some cases, they're just upset. They see their buddies getting blown up on occasion, and they could snap," Campbell said.

paladin
06-02-2006, 03:10 PM
It was RCA that made all the advancements in Saddams missile systems.....I have all the schematics and blueprints that I brought out of Baghdad in '91......so the majority of the "advanced weaponry" was actually carried out by U.S. companies......and also we supplied them with tons of advanced Hewlett Packard test equipment...

PatCox
06-02-2006, 03:15 PM
Well, a big part of the problem in Iraq is ethnic tensions and conflict between shiites (our traditional enemies, allied with Iran) and sunnis (whom we have generally been able to get along better with).

One solution to the problem would be good old fashioned "ethnic cleansing." If there's no more sunnis, there'd be no more insurgency, and no more shiite-sunni conflict.

PatCox
06-02-2006, 03:16 PM
Hey Ljib, you watch, they're gonna find those WMDs and the love letters between Saddam and Osama any day now.

George.
06-02-2006, 03:55 PM
The relevance of all this is not that innocents are being killed for no reason - thinking people figured that out before 2003.

The relevance is that in the US, the know-nothing secutity moms, terrist-panicked fat men, kill-em-all rednecks, and assorted idiots who supported this war will realize: "Wow, war is nasty, not like the video games at all - innocents get killed for no reason, soldiers sometimes behave like monsters, suffering is widespread and senseless, American troops are not holier-than-thou - better make sure it is really necessary before starting one."

They realized that after Mai Lai, they will do so again now.

And hopefully, someday, they will realize that before they support a new one.

John of Phoenix
06-02-2006, 04:13 PM
...seven Marines and a Navy corpsman could face murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges as early as Friday in the April shooting death of an Iraqi man in yet another incident, a defense attorney said Thursday.
Military prosecutors plan to file the charges against the seven servicemen, who are being held in solitary confinement at Camp Pendleton, Calif., Marine Corps base, said Jeremiah Sullivan III, who represents one of the men.

Hoo-wee! Held in solitary without even being charged?
Now who's jumping all over the conclusions?

I've seen pictures of the kids killed in Ishaqi. A bullet to the head for each of them. The motherf*ckers who did it should get a special place in hell.

George.
06-02-2006, 04:39 PM
Hoo-wee! Held in solitary without even being charged?


It's the new American way, didn't you know? Ever since Gitmo... :(

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-02-2006, 06:19 PM
I haven't been following this thread... Which massacre are we talking about... they're starting to pile up.

gary porter
06-02-2006, 06:31 PM
The one in which the military folks were just cleared.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-02-2006, 06:45 PM
Oh yeah, by the military :D..

George.
06-03-2006, 07:21 AM
The one in which the military folks were just cleared.


Marine commanders in Iraq learned within two days that civilians in Haditha had died from gunfire, but saw no reason to investigate.


...

paladin
06-03-2006, 07:28 AM
now suppose....just suppose.....that the bad guys had some captured weapons.......and during a search or limited firefight decided to scratch a few locals...then blame the U.S.......great publicity for them.....just suppose....I would think that the military would be smart enough to recover the rounds from the bodies and compare them ballistically with the weapons of the accused......

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 07:31 AM
now suppose....just suppose.....that the bad guys had some captured weapons.......and during a search or limited firefight decided to scratch a few locals...then blame the U.S.......great publicity for them.....just suppose....I would think that the military would be smart enough to recover the rounds from the bodies and compare them ballistically with the weapons of the accused......

I think that would be contrary to Peter's agenda

ljb5
06-03-2006, 08:01 AM
now suppose....just suppose.....that the bad guys had some captured weapons.......and during a search or limited firefight decided to scratch a few locals...then blame the U.S.......

...just like they did in abu Ghraib? :rolleyes:

Look, you're going to have to deal with reality, which is that the U.S. is not perfect, mistakes have been made, atrocities have been committed --- and occasionally the U.S. government lies to you and the army investigators cover it up.

If you have an unrealistic, idealized image of the U.S. that can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is lying, you will be fooled over and over and over again.

Some people think "Love your country" means to make excuses, deny reality and sacrafice your faculties of logic.

I think "love your country" means to help it be the best it can be, confront all realities and improve all imperfections.

Loving your country is like taking care of an old Victorian house. You may not want to believe there are termites in the frames and water damage in the floors --- but if you don't deal with it, you're in big, big trouble. If the plumber says the pipes are rusted, you can call him a liar -- or you can deal with the problem.

stevebaby
06-03-2006, 09:07 AM
Lt. William Calley was found guilty of murder by a US military court.
He was observed to kill a child,aged around 12 months,personally,and he also killed other civilian non-combatants.He bore command responsibility for hundreds of non-combatant deaths,and that made him guilty of their deaths also.
He was a mass murderer and he committed those murders with the imprimatur of the legally elected government of the united states of
america.The citizens of the united states are responsible,in exactly the same way that the us held the citizens of Iraq responsible for the actions of their leader.Let us not forget...the us has killed hundreds of thousands of people who,by their argument that these people were the victims of a dictator,had no ability to change their destiny.
Their destiny was that they stood in the way of the "American way of life".Which is not negotiable of course,especially if you are seeking re-election.
The latest atrocity by american troops was entirely to be expected.Regardless of what americans think of themselves,they have proven themselves to be among the most ruthless killers of history.Take a look at the history of the 20thC...take a good hard look at what the supposedly communist countries did..it never comes close to the way that the us interfered and meddled and bribed and murdered and invaded to advance us commercial interests,all in the supposed cause of "freedom",us style.
"Freedom",us style,amounts to the justification for the us to fulfill the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny".which has never been detached from the myths that the us has based itself on.
Americans really like to believe that their "revolution" was based on the rights of the individual.In fact,it was an act of treason by a small group of wealthy property owners who declined to pay one twentieth of the taxes that their peers in Britain paid for the defence of their property.Then they denied the franchise to anyone who did not own property,thus protecting themselves against the interests of the ordinary citizen.Women,slaves (let us not forget that Abe Lincoln said that if he had to allow slavery to protect the economic Union,then he would do so.)ordinary people...those who had no economic stake in in the economic revolution...disregarded then and since.American "history" is a myth.
This has been going on for a long time...how many Philipinos did the us kill at the turn of the last century?The us army says about a quarter of a million...other estimates are up to 3 million.
Would someone like to explain to me ,just what it is about "american democracy",that makes it any more attractive or different to any other sort of democracy?
Individually,americans are just as nice as the japanese,germans,vietnamese,russians...and everyone else for that matter.
Collectively,you're quite toxic and it's time that the UN intervened and ensured democratic elections.

stevebaby
06-03-2006, 09:27 AM
Lt. William Calley served 3 weeks in a US military prison...he was then confined to barracks (in the company of his girlfriend) for 3 years.Was this an appropriate sentence for mass murder?Should all mass murderers receive the same sentence?Should Saddam Hussein receive the same sentence as Lt. William Calley?If not...why not?
When the latest bunch of mass-murderers receive their sentences..what should it be?Hell...Saddam is on trial for wantonly killing civilians for revenge and there's no doubt that the Iraqi puppets will hang him at america's bequest.
If american troops have wilfully murdered civilians ,and their excuse (as Saddam's is),is "revenge"...why should they not be hanged,if and when convicted?
Please explain.

stevebaby
06-03-2006, 09:44 AM
...just like they did in abu Ghraib? :rolleyes:

Look, you're going to have to deal with reality, which is that the U.S. is not perfect, mistakes have been made, atrocities have been committed --- and occasionally the U.S. government lies to you and the army investigators cover it up.

If you have an unrealistic, idealized image of the U.S. that can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is lying, you will be fooled over and over and over again.

Some people think "Love your country" means to make excuses, deny reality and sacrafice your faculties of logic.

I think "love your country" means to help it be the best it can be, confront all realities and improve all imperfections.

Loving your country is like taking care of an old Victorian house. You may not want to believe there are termites in the frames and water damage in the floors --- but if you don't deal with it, you're in big, big trouble. If the plumber says the pipes are rusted, you can call him a liar -- or you can deal with the problem.I know that there are sensible people,and moral people,in the us.
Another parable...I can tell myself that I am the best rugby player in the world...I'm bigger,faster and just better than anyone else in the worlld.After having had the bejesus belted out of me a few more times than I care to recollect...maybe I made a few mistakes...hmmm?

Joe (SoCal)
06-03-2006, 10:01 AM
I'll wait...

How's that waiting going ?

geeman
06-03-2006, 11:04 AM
Unless I missed it,, I havent seen a post here saying it didnt happen.It may have,if it did those guys have to be held accountable 100%.No one here is saying otherwise that I have seen.

George Jung
06-03-2006, 11:20 AM
Interesting that on one hand, we have the folks who are convinced the US servicemen are guilty, regardless (and perhaps without benefit) of the findings, and who have no need for an investigation, either to prove or exonerate those men. I think most would identify as liberals.
On the other hand, there are those folks withholding judgment until all the facts are in; I think most would identify as 'middle of the road' spanning to conservative.

What's wrong with this picture?

Nicholas Carey
06-03-2006, 03:20 PM
Interesting that on one hand, we have the folks who are convinced the US servicemen are guilty, regardless (and perhaps without benefit) of the findings, and who have no need for an investigation, either to prove or exonerate those men. I think most would identify as liberals.
On the other hand, there are those folks withholding judgment until all the facts are in; I think most would identify as 'middle of the road' spanning to conservative.I think nobody is "convinced that they are guilty" -- I think most would think the evidence points pretty obviously in that direction -- and the coverup surrounding these incidents lends more credence.

I'd like to see them properly charged, not for murder, but under 18 USC 2441 -- The War Crimes Act -- seeing as how these incidents are "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions and meets the criteria set forth in 18 USC 2441(c). Which, given that death resulted from the "grave breach" means they get the death penalty upon conviction.

But that won't happen. They'll wind up charged with something like manslaughter or falsifying official reports and, assuming they are convicted, will get off with a mild sentence. :mad:

And virtually nobody up the chain of command will be charged at all.

ljb5
06-03-2006, 03:29 PM
What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with this picture is that you painted it wrong.

Despite what you say, I want to see an investigation. I want to see all the facts.

The people you say are 'withholding judgement' are not waiting for the facts --- they're trying to avoid them. They're cringing from the facts, and sniping at those who wish to look at the facts.

George Jung
06-03-2006, 05:10 PM
What's wrong with this picture is that you painted it wrong.

"Despite what you say, I want to see an investigation. I want to see all the facts.

The people you say are 'withholding judgement' are not waiting for the facts --- they're trying to avoid them. They're cringing from the facts, and sniping at those who wish to look at the facts."



Patently false; Read the posts again. The usual suspects are making the usual pronouncements.... trying to make the usual political hay. It's not working. Try letting the legal process run its course, and see how this develops. It's not as exciting as blaming the current Administration, but it's more honest, and supposedly the American Way....

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 05:12 PM
at least one of us in not limited by honesty (but he is ALWAYS right...at least that's the pathology)

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 05:15 PM
Nice to know there's never fire where there's smoke.

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 05:16 PM
yep :)

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 05:19 PM
Unless I missed it,, I havent seen a post here saying it didnt happen.It may have,if it did those guys have to be held accountable 100%.No one here is saying otherwise that I have seen.

Honesty dictates I not refute the supposition...the suggestion. It must be checked out. The lack of honesty is also displayed here by those who are shouting for a rope

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 05:48 PM
You think for a minute that allegations such as these would not be made in the mainstream press without carefully verification? Wouldn't the noise be less if there wasn't evidence of coverup?

If this had come out in the National Enquiror, I, and I suppose most people, wouldn't give it a moment's notice.

You guys on the right made the same apologetic "it really didn't happen and it's not as bad as you think" pig squeals over Abu Grahib too. :rolleyes:

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 05:50 PM
forget juries...just ask a reporter

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 05:53 PM
forget juries...just ask a reporterYou manifestly don't have a clue about the journalistic integrity of real reporters.

Ever seen "All The President's Men?"

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 05:59 PM
like I said...forget juries

BTW My aunt was a reporter/journalist/writer...so was my Dad at times

I learned many things from Dad...including, but not limited to... "Never believe your own propaganda"

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 06:03 PM
How was their integrity?

I took a class in journalism in school. Never made much use of it, but I did get a very good idea of what it means to be an honest reporter and what's required to publish a story.

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 06:03 PM
Dad's was very good...my aunt's (the professional) was less so but she didn't know it

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 06:05 PM
Yet you seem contenct to smear all reporters, seemingly based on whether or not you agree with what they report.

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 06:09 PM
I wonder if you would point out where I have smeared any reporters please?

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 06:11 PM
I meant to point out that to form a lynch mob based on anything from reporters while bypassing the legal system is a mistake...sorry if I was too oblique. I do that to people sometimes.

ljb5
06-03-2006, 06:12 PM
at least one of us in not limited by honesty (but he is ALWAYS right...at least that's the pathology)

Oh, I'm not always right --- just about a million times more often than you. :D

WMDs
Yellowcake
Aluminum Tubes
Links between Saddam and al Qaeda
Links between Saddam and 9/11
"Mission Accomplished"
"Cake walk"
"Greeted as Liberators"
"Dancing in the Steets"
"No insurgency"
Ahmed Chalabi
Abu Ghraib
"Last Throes"
Tom Delay
Duke Cunningham
Bob Ney
Jack Abramoff
Ken Lay
Jeff Skilling
Haditha

Put a "*" next to each of those you got right.
Put an "X" next to each of those I got wrong.

Post your results here so everyone can see your "honesty."

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 06:26 PM
I meant to point out that to form a lynch mob based on anything from reporters while bypassing the legal system is a mistake...sorry if I was too oblique. I do that to people sometimes.No problem. I'm oblique when I'm not obtuse... ;)

Reporters are at the mercy of their editors/publishers. Randolph Hearst did more to tarnish quality reporting/reporters than anyone else I can think of. IMO, he's notorious for dragging us into the Spanish-American War on the flimsy pretext of the 'Maine' incident - later, of course, proven to be an accidental coal bunker explosion.

On the other hand, if the account in "All The President's Men" can be believed, the editors and publisher of the Washington Post went to great lengths to ensure accureate reporting around the Watergate scandal.

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 06:26 PM
Yes...just so

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 06:29 PM
A quick search for an example of my aunt's stuff found a lot but I didn't want to read through it all so...here!

http://www.carolyar.com/Illinois/Misc/Cook3.htm

I liked my Dad's writing better but have no example

ljb5
06-03-2006, 06:43 PM
I meant to point out that to form a lynch mob based on anything from reporters while bypassing the legal system is a mistake....

Who's forming a lynch mob?

Who's bypassing the legal system?

No one here.

We are free to evaluate the information, form conclusions and state our conclusions. That's what we're doing here.

Forming a lynch mob would be wrong -- but it's not happening here.

A little less hysterical, next time, please.

George Jung
06-03-2006, 06:45 PM
You think for a minute that allegations such as these would not be made in the mainstream press without carefully verification? Wouldn't the noise be less if there wasn't evidence of coverup?


You mean like that story Dan Rather got in hot water over?

Listen to what's being said, instead of hearing what you believe is being said. I don't see anyone speaking out against this investigation. And I recognize that 'the press' is the defacto 4th branch of government; but it's not the judiciary. I expect you'd want a fair and balanced hearing were it your neck on the line; why would you deny that to these military men? If they are guilty, they will be punished. There may or may not be repercussions up the chain of command. I don't know; I'm willing to let due process run its course. And I don't feel the need to use this case to bash the Republicans and spout off about how great the Democrats are. That wouldn't be right; that would be partisanship, and I know no one here would ever indulge in that. Right. :rolleyes:

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 06:53 PM
Yes...Dan Rather, a bastion of journalistic jurist prudence...

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 07:02 PM
Does Dan Rather control the journalistic integrity of all reporters? If so, I guess Richard Nixon is the exmplar of all republicans. Come to think of it, that makes sense! :D

Meerkat
06-03-2006, 07:03 PM
Yes...Dan Rather, a bastion of journalistic jurist prudence...Like you're a bastion of english! :D

ljb5
06-03-2006, 07:44 PM
If they are guilty, they will be punished. There may or may not be repercussions up the chain of command. I don't know; I'm willing to let due process run its course. And I don't feel the need to use this case to bash the Republicans and spout off about how great the Democrats are. That wouldn't be right; that would be partisanship, and I know no one here would ever indulge in that. Right. :rolleyes:

George, have you never formed an opinion based on something you heard, read or saw?

Have you spent your entire life wandering in a fog of indecision, doomed for eternity to wait for more evidence to come in and someone more qualified to judge it?

Have you never felt there has been a miscarriage of justice -- or when a verdict is announced do you automatically and completely give yourself over to accept whatever has been decided?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-03-2006, 08:21 PM
I think that would be contrary to Peter's agenda


Yeah, I guess I'm responsible for the world press on these incidents. Wow, I'm drunk with power.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

George Jung
06-03-2006, 10:03 PM
"George, have you never formed an opinion based on something you heard, read or saw?"

Of course, lil'. I form opinions all the time; in fact, I formed one immediately upon reading your lil' diatribe.

"Have you spent your entire life wandering in a fog of indecision, doomed for eternity to wait for more evidence to come in and someone more qualified to judge it?"

Hehe - Hit a nerve there, lil'? you are sure a snot nosed lil' bastard. I suppose you can't help it; it certainly doesn't reflect well on your parents, or the job they did raising you. I was thinking what I would do/say to one of my kids, if they exhibited some of the irritating characteristics you do....
"quit yer pontificating, you lil' snot nosed brat - don't you know you come across looking like a moron when you pontificate like that? You are 100% likely to convince people to exactly the opposite view, with the approach you're taking - keep this up, and your mom and I are going to insist you change your name, so folks don't know we're related! .... just don't pick some moronic nom de plume that lends itself to caricature - you're going to have enough problems as it is.."

"Have you never felt there has been a miscarriage of justice -- or when a verdict is announced do you automatically and completely give yourself over to accept whatever has been decided?"

Well, lil', I know you're just a youngster, but I have some bad news for you.... life doesn't always work out the way you think it ought - but then again, maybe you're just wrong; maybe you don't know all of the facts; maybe you don't know half what you think you know. I think you ought to just keep yipping about everything, and howling at the moon (maybe chase a few cars while you're at it - hope you catch one...). Let us know how that turns out.

Phillip Allen
06-03-2006, 10:25 PM
Like you're a bastion of english! :D

You must capitalize English... :)

ljb5
06-03-2006, 11:59 PM
Wow, George, you really debased yourself with that tirade.

I'm not a child -- and I'm certainly not your child.

I don't care how you talk to your children, but you have no call to talk down to me like that.

If you want to discuss the facts, feel free. As I have posted several times, my record speaks for itself. So far, I've been right about all the significant issues of this conflict. If that offends you, that's your problem, not mine.

If you were dumb enough to believe the predictions about WMDs and the Iraqi insurgency, don't lash out at me for not being duped.

geeman
06-04-2006, 05:54 AM
Why is it always necessary when discussing a specific incident to always, ALWAYS,go back to the original start of the war,which I think most of us already agree was bogus by now.For what ever reason these soldiers are stuck over there,the rest of us over here,the LEAST we can do is give the system the chance to work.Granted our system has flaws,,,show me one that doesnt.

PeterSibley
06-04-2006, 05:59 AM
like I said...forget juries

BTW My aunt was a reporter/journalist/writer...so was my Dad at times

I learned many things from Dad...including, but not limited to... "Never believe your own propaganda"

That appears to be the fatal flaw with Iraqi invasion propanda.."They'll greet us with flowers "

Joe (SoCal)
06-04-2006, 06:21 AM
I wonder if you would point out where I have smeared any reporters please?

Lets start with your own aunt :rolleyes:


Dad's was very good...my aunt's (the professional) was less so but she didn't know it

ljb5
06-04-2006, 08:49 AM
Why is it always necessary when discussing a specific incident to always, ALWAYS,go back to the original start of the war,which I think most of us already agree was bogus by now.

Because it's relevant on at least two fronts:

It helps us evaluate the honesty and integrity of our leaders
It helps us evaluate the gullibility and intelligence of those who listened to them

geeman
06-04-2006, 10:44 AM
I'm not one of the "they" who listened to them.I didnt like Bush Before he was elected and I've seen nothing to change my mind.However, I do still feel that eveyone deserves their day in court.

geeman
06-04-2006, 11:01 AM
One more thing here,Because I have no experience in drivng down a road with shots fired and not knowing which direction the shots came from , or a bomb blasting my vehicle out from under me, nor have I experienced watching a follow member of my unit die in front of me,while he slowly bled to death,I dont feel qualified to prejudge anyone in that position until more facts come in.While I'm sitting here comfortably in my arm chair,I find it it occurs to me that all concerned would be better served by waiting for as many FACTS as possible.

ljb5
06-04-2006, 11:46 AM
One more thing here,Because I have no experience in drivng down a road with shots fired and not knowing which direction the shots came from , or a bomb blasting my vehicle out from under me, nor have I experienced watching a follow member of my unit die in front of me,while he slowly bled to death.

Thankfully, I have also not had these experiences.

Neither has Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle or the dozens of other chickenhawks who got us into this mess. That's the heart of the problem. We have people who don't know anything about the reality of war trying to make decisions and predictions.

The chickenhawks don't understand the importance of issues like clear objectives, realistic goals, achievable timelines, sufficient troops and adequate equipment. The chickenhawks decide to use stop-loss procedures like extended tours, indefinite deployment and denied retirement --- and then they act surprised when troops crack under pressure.

That's a failure of leadership -- not an isolated incident in the heat of battle.

Like you, I have sympathy for the marines who did this. I'm hesitant to say it's all their fault, because I realize that the situation they are in is so awful that it inevitably leads to this type of atrocity.

Certainly, they bear some responsibility --- but they didn't create the situation. Those who created this mess are responsible, at least in part, for the outcome.

Like I said earlier, war and violence are like a disease which poisons the mind. Normal people can't be exposed to this type of stress without suffering some adverse reactions. You can't infect a person with a disease and then act surprised when they come down with the symptoms.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2006, 12:08 PM
Quit yer pontificating, you lil' snot nosed brat - don't you know you come across looking like a moron when you pontificate like that? You are 100% likely to convince people to exactly the opposite view, with the approach you're taking.... I have some bad news for you.... life doesn't always work out the way you think it ought - but then again, maybe you're just wrong; maybe you don't know all of the facts; maybe you don't know half what you think you know. I think you ought to just keep yipping about everything, and howling at the moon.... Let us know how that turns out.


Wow, George, you really debased yourself with that tirade.

I disagree. I think Mr. Jung expressed the view of many of us on this forum.

ljb5 -- while I agree with your political point of view probably 95% of the time, I find your attitude and rude behavior ABSOLUTELY INSUFFERABLE.

I cannot believe you behave this way in the real world.... you would constantly be in fist fights.

ljb5
06-04-2006, 12:19 PM
I haven't been in a fist fight since grade school. (Except for hockey, naturally.)

I honestly don't know what you're complaining about. Looking back over the thread, I see that George Jung has said some really nasty, personal things -- and I haven't said anything out of line.

What, specifically, is your complaint?

ljb5
06-04-2006, 12:25 PM
Seriously, Tom, what's your complaint?

Can you highlight something specific I said that bothered you?

Compared to George Jung's nasty comments, what have I said?

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2006, 12:26 PM
It ain't this thread alone. I am not ABOUT to engage in a debate with you over your insufferable behavior. I know your game.

Maybe it's time for a "The bell on ljb5" thread....

Anybody else interested?

ljb5
06-04-2006, 12:37 PM
Well, Tom, you're entitled to your opinion....

But it's not hard to show that others (George Jung, Jagermeister, Donn...) have had their moments of nastiness and insults at least as bad, if not worse, than anything I've said.

I'm no angel -- but I'm not so much worse than others.

I've received plenty of nice compliments and encouragement from others, so I won't lose any sleep over your opinion --- especially since you are unable to back it up with anything.

If you could show me anything specific that I have said which you consider to be out-of-line, I'll consider apologizing for it.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2006, 01:16 PM
Good for you.

I'd hate to think you're the type of guy who might leap to a conclusion and spring to action based on partial or innaccurate information.... But don't let your new-found restraint prevent you from offering excuses to justify something that you don't even admit happened..... Ooops, too late! You've haven't yet made up your mind --- but you have already made up your excuse.

What have you been right about?

Seriously, what have you ever been right about?

What have you ever been right about?

A little less hysterical, next time, please.

Oh, I'm not always right --- just about a million times more often than you.

George, have you never formed an opinion based on something you heard, read or saw?

Have you spent your entire life wandering in a fog of indecision, doomed for eternity to wait for more evidence to come in and someone more qualified to judge it?

If you were dumb enough to believe....

All gratuitously provocative personal remarks. Of course, I do not expect you to see it.... you seem to be, if not a moron, then certainly tone-deaf to the snotty attitude you habitually display.

But it's OK because Donn and Jagermeister are insufferable as well? LOL!

George Jung's response to you in this thread was of righteous indignation.

I'm not interested in engaging in an interminable and fruitless dialogue with a troll. As I said before, I know your game.

ljb5
06-04-2006, 01:24 PM
Well, Tom, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Each of those comments was relevant to the topic at hand and in direct response to others' comments.

If a person is mistaken, it is not an insult to tell them they are mistaken.

If a line of reasoning is illogical, it is not an offense to inject some logic.

If a person contradicts themself, it is not wrong to point out the contradiction.

A question like "What have you been right about?" is not an insult -- it's an invitation to the person to present their reasoning.

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with being right.

Just for comparison, this is what a real insult looks like:

you are sure a snot nosed lil' bastard...

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2006, 01:49 PM
Well, Tom, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
You betcha.


Of course, I do not expect you to see it.... you seem to be, if not a moron, then certainly tone-deaf to the snotty attitude you habitually display.

ljb5
06-04-2006, 02:00 PM
Like I said, I'm no angel --- but not so much worse than anyone else.

Is there no one else you might also consider "snotty?"

htom
06-04-2006, 03:16 PM
Part of the reason for the reductions in Lt. Calley's sentences was pre-trial publicity and pre-trial prejudice.

Keep right on, you're going to save anyone accused in Iraq.

George Jung
06-04-2006, 03:32 PM
"Wow, George, you really debased yourself with that tirade." lbj

No, Lil', I debased you. Your self righteous pronouncements are akin to fingernails on a chalkboard. Get over yourself, kid. Grow up. Learn to play nice with the other children. If you do, we'll get you some icecream!;)

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2006, 03:54 PM
Like I said, I'm... not so much worse than anyone else.
Uh huh. :rolleyes:

Anybody else find it interesting that ljb5 has no objection to being characterized as a troll?

ljb5
06-04-2006, 04:07 PM
:rolleyes:
Anybody else find it interesting that ljb5 has no objection to being characterized as a troll?

It's just that I don't care about your irrelevant opinions.

Just like I don't give much weight to Jung's snotty-nosed, insult-ridden tirade in which he accuse me of being snotty-nosed and insulting. Keep the insults flowing -- then lecture me about insults.

:rolleyes:

Insult me again, George --- let everyone see what type of son your mother raised. Then tell us again how you'd abuse your kids.

That doesn't reflect on me at all -- but it doesn't make you look very good.

Like everything else, there's an issue of credibility here -- if you want to accuse me of being insulting, you shouldn't insult me quite so much.

If you wish to accuse me of being wrong, it would be helpful if you were right.