U.S. Marines murdered 15 Iraqi civilians in their homes last November.

HelterSkelter

Heard about this on Dunphy's Breakfast Show the other morning, just found the article in Time Magazine now. I don't recall hearing anything about this on RTE/SKY/BBC or any other mainstream media. It's a disgrace. I'd say it is happening all the time and never gets reported.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1174682,00.html

Excerpt:

But the details of what happened that morning in Haditha are more disturbing, disputed and horrific than the military initially reported. According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. Human-rights activists say that if the accusations are true, the incident ranks as the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. service members since the war began.

samb

Thanks for sharing that with us, I hadn't heard anything about it. If 15 US soldiers died then we would have heard about it. Over 2,000 US soldiers have died, how many Iraq civilians?, nobody seems to bother counting, or is it just that they have lost count?
With Shannon, we are compicit, but does our government care or even follow what is happening anymore. everybody is suffering from fatigue on this issue

Dave!

Yeah I'd say it happens all the time... It's a shame, nearly anything can be 'collateral damage' when there's nobody to witness it.

Manic Moran

Nothing overly conclusive in the article, could go either way.

What disturbs me is the fact that the initial release stated 'killed by bomb', and it took an earlier investigation by the military to determine that this was incorrect, it was small arms fire. The very first question to ask is 'why was the bomb explanation used?', especially since they appear to have records of finding two AKs. (Not a statement of anything in itself, almost every house there has a rifle)

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

US troops investigated over Iraqi massacres

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Terrorist action from the US

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

Heard about this on Dunphy's Breakfast Show the other morning, just found the article in Time Magazine now. I don't recall hearing anything about this on RTE/SKY/BBC or any other mainstream media.

There was pretty extensive coverage of it on BBC news 24 and newsnight actually.

It's a disgrace.

It sure is,luckilly its being investigated and as such there will have to be justice if it is proven to have happened.

I'd say it is happening all the time and never gets reported.

I'd say theres Iraqi's blowing fellow Iraqi men women and children asunder every day(It's reported) but we dont get threads on each individual massacre here too often.
We dont get to hear of the investigations either because there are none.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Terrorist action from the US

Oh I see,you're prepared to be judge jury and convictor for those who may or may not have been involved in this incident before we hear the results of an inquiry...

Not very consistant of you I must say given that you take the opposite approach here ...
Surely rather than state outright what has gone on, you should say something like,"I wouldnt be surprised if" or "Thats as good as terrorism" if its shown to be the case

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Not very consistant of you I must say given that you take the opposite approach here ...
Surely rather than state outright what has gone on, you should say something like,"I wouldnt be surprised if" or "Thats as good as terrorism" if its shown to be the case

I have consistantly said that the US murdering civilians in Iraq is terrorism. Others have justified the murder by explaining it as collateral damage and phrases like 'excrement happens'.

In this instance, I would not be surprised if the US have been slaughtering Iraqi civilians including women & children in the name of 'Operation Freedom'

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I have consistantly said that the US murdering civilians in Iraq is terrorism. Others have justified the murder by explaining it as collateral damage and phrases like 'excrement happens'.

Oh I was referring to this bit "Those are the reported facts, at the moment anything inferred from them is speculation therefore we are discussing peoples opinion based on speculation presented as fact. Is this acceptable? of course it is but lets not kid ourselves that speculation = facts" which you stated in the post I linked to.
So lets not be kidding ourselves that in most instances like this,by your own standards,it would be consistant to await an inquiry before describing what happened as factually one thing or another

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Oh I was referring to this bit "Those are the reported facts, at the moment anything inferred from them is speculation therefore we are discussing peoples opinion based on speculation presented as fact. Is this acceptable? of course it is but lets not kid ourselves that speculation = facts" which you stated in the post I linked to.
So lets not be kidding ourselves that in most instances like this,by your own standards,it would be consistant to await an inquiry before describing what happened as factually one thing or another

Not sure what the point of all this is

It is widely reported that the US have killed civilians in Iraq, the US will not dispute this... do you? What they (and their apologists) will say is that civilians are inevitably killed in a war and they try and avoid killing civilians but if they get in the way, tough excrement. I contend that this is terrorism in action, do you disagree?

Again, I would not be suprised if the US were slaughtering Iraqi civilians including women and children, would you be surprised?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not sure what the point of all this is

Consistency across threads

It is widely reported that the US have killed civilians in Iraq, the US will not dispute this... do you? What they (and their apologists) will say is that civilians are inevitably killed in a war and they try and avoid killing civilians but if they get in the way, tough excrement. I contend that this is terrorism in action, do you disagree?

I've made my position very clear,I've agreed that its a disgrace but I've pointed out to you that,your position should really be consistent with the approach you took in the piece I quoted from you.In other words,in this case,the accusation is that the troops clearly and unambigously went wild with their guns for the sake of it.The accusation is that it is not even collateral damage, the accusation is that its deliberate murder with no objective other than murder.

There is to be an inquiry to establish the facts.You are expressing the view that it is terrorism and deliberate murder most fowl prior to any investigation /proving of the facts.It would be a bit rich to say the least of anyone to insist that its right that a definitive conclusion be made of guilt only when the facts are proven while at the same time being selective as to where one applies that standard.

Again, I would not be suprised if the US were slaughtering Iraqi civilians including women and children, would you be surprised?

Of course I wouldn't,thats a bit like asking me would I be surprised if the Earth moved during an Earthquake

meepins

Their very being there under false pretenses renders your arguement defunct.

the_syco

One thing I found intresting, was how the US only got the video later on, and not when it happened. Up to when they got the tape, they only had the word of their men. After they got the tape, they then reviewed the case.

How could they know what was on the tape without seeing it?

is_that_so

Lets' try reporting it this way.

15 people have been killed in Iraq.........

Soldiers shoot dead 15 people..............

Now either of those potentially suggests that either the 15 people were up to no good or based on what we hear from that country every day, they were quite likely killed by insurgents.

The choice of language colours the argument. The examples above are mere descriptions of events. We can make the people in the event anonymous, not involved or monsters by our words.

Even if some parts of the US justice system don't belive in innocence, at the very least the incident should be investigated before passing judgement.
This is why juries get to decide verdicts and not the rest of the public even where we are convinced someone should be strung up.

My own opinion is that it is good that it has been reported and an investigation will determine the veracity of the claims and pass judgement.
If they are found guilty then punishment will follow.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Consistency across threads

Funny that, it is rare sight when you pull people up on consistancy grounds across threads and 2 of them were mine (unsubstantiated)

I am consistant across threads

I've made my position very clear,I've agreed that its a disgrace

It may be a disgrace but do you think the murder of civilians is a terrorist action?

but I've pointed out to you that,your position should really be consistent with the approach you took in the piece I quoted from you.In other words,in this case,the accusation is that the troops clearly and unambigously went wild with their guns for the sake of it.The accusation is that it is not even collateral damage, the accusation is that its deliberate murder with no objective other than murder.

I have stated that the BA commited murder in NI, I have started that the IRA have committed murder in NI, I have stated that the US Army have committed murder in Iraq... where is the inconsistancy?

I have not said Rumsfeld has committed murder, I have not said Charles has committed murder, I have not said Murphy has committed murder... where is the inconsistancy?

There is to be an inquiry to establish the facts.You are expressing the view that it is terrorism and deliberate murder most fowl prior to any investigation /proving of the facts.It would be a bit rich to say the least of anyone to insist that its right that a definitive conclusion be made of guilt only when the facts are proven while at the same time being selective as to where one applies that standard.

I am expressing my view on the reported facts ie the US army have killed civilians

meepins

meepins wrote:

Their very being there under false pretenses renders your arguement defunct.

Are you referring to me?
How?
Thats an entirely separate subject
We are discussing here an incident which in my opinion was utterly wrong going on the information I have so far.
I want a lot more information though on the incident and I'd certainly like to see the results of an inquiry -though going on my current knowledge,I'd hope to see prosecutions.

tricky D

Hearts and minds...? http://www.filecabi.net/video/contractors-iraq.html

meepins

I fail to see how it is a seperate subject.The circumstances of the incident are irrelevant since the military forces are invaders and should not be there.

HelterSkelter

Earthman wrote:

There is to be an inquiry to establish the facts.

Yeah, an enquiry by the US military. That'll be a whitewash.

Earthman wrote:

You are expressing the view that it is terrorism and deliberate murder most fowl prior to any investigation /proving of the facts.It would be a bit rich to say the least of anyone to insist that its right that a definitive conclusion be made of guilt only when the facts are proven while at the same time being selective as to where one applies that standard.

I think when you find a family shot up like this (with video evidence of the aftermath) and the 9 year old daughter is able to give an eye witness account of what happened you don't need to be sherlock homes to work out who is guilty.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Funny that, it is rare sight when you pull people up on consistancy grounds across threads and 2 of them were mine (unsubstantiated)

I have given grounds for why I thought you to be inconsistant.You've given me none to think the contrary so far.

It may be a disgrace but do you think the murder of civilians is a terrorist action?

I'd equate the two in terms of awfullness,but I'd use different words to describe a democratically accountable armies actions to those of an unaccountable one.
What you're asking me, looks very similar to the approach taken towards Gerry Adams when being asked to condemn certain things to be honest

I have stated that the BA commited murder in NI, I have started that the IRA have committed murder in NI, I have stated that the US Army have committed murder in Iraq... where is the inconsistancy?

In this thread you are stating something without waiting for the results of an inquiry which is the standard you've espoused in the thread I linked -In one thread what you are stating you yourself would describe as speculation whereas in this thread you prefer to use the term murder outright without all the facts being established first or people convicted or even tried.
strictly speaking,It might well be shown that these were individuals in the US Army that went beserk and may be courtmartialed.If thats the case then theres no foundation for your assertion other than to assert the harm the event has done to the US army's reputation.
My own view would be though that they would have done a lot of harm to the reputation of the army that they are supposed to be serving in.

I'll give you a parallel.What you are doing is not too dissimilar to someone condemning the IRA for a murder even though it may have been carried out by a group of their members who just went beserk(as opposed to being ordered to go beserk)... if that rings any bells.
Mind you in a case such as that there would be an important difference-Public accountability.

I have not said Rumsfeld has committed murder, I have not said Charles has committed murder, I have not said Murphy has committed murder... where is the inconsistancy?

I've shown you where I've seen the inconsistancy already.It's not in relation to where you are protesting that you are consistant.

I am expressing my view on the reported facts ie the US army have killed civilians

I know its your view,It must be when you are stating a given (murder) before a trial or an inquiry.
However I'm only pointing out to you that in the other thread, you took the angle that it was only speculation untill the facts are proven.You are not taking that angle here.
Such selectivity across different debates would be better avoided

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

Yeah, an enquiry by the US military. That'll be a whitewash.

Would you still say that if there are court martials?

I think when you find a family shot up like this (with video evidence of the aftermath) and the 9 year old daughter is able to give an eye witness account of what happened you don't need to be sherlock homes to work out who is guilty.

Well you see I have no problem with that view,in fact it may be close to my own.
But thats not the issue I was disputing

Manic Moran

HelterSkelter wrote:

I think when you find a family shot up like this (with video evidence of the aftermath) and the 9 year old daughter is able to give an eye witness account of what happened you don't need to be sherlock homes to work out who is guilty.

At the risk of playing devil's advocate, neither is particularly conclusive. The video evidence, from the article, basically says "These are the bodies from the morgue. Please note the small arms injuries" which is not inconsistent with the military's investigation in February, and a traumatised 9-year-old-girl who may or may not be out for revenge for the killing of her family (Or encouraged to do so by others) and may not have been aware of exactly what went on in its entirety is hardly unquestionable either.

I don't envy the job of the NCIS investigators. (Which I doubt will be a whitewash, I should add. They tend to have a pretty good rep for integrity, even though I think personally that if they're anything like their army counterparts, they might be a bit heavy-handed). Neither would I envy the job of the prosecutors if it ever got to a court martial.

NTM

meepins

meepins wrote:

I fail to see how it is a seperate subject.The circumstances of the incident are irrelevant since the military forces are invaders and should not be there.

It's separate to the issue I had here with the consistency of an approach by one poster in the thread.
I never said it was irrelevant.
It's highly relevant.
Absolutely none of this should be happening at all.
But really if we get bogged down on the rights and wrongs of the US/UK presence in Iraq , we'll lose sight of the discussion on this incident.
The whole rights and wrongs of an occupation (and it is an occupation) would be better taking a separate thread

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

I have given grounds for why I thought you to be inconsistant.You've given me none to think the contrary so far.

I believe they are spurious grounds, you have given me nothing else to think the contrary so far

I'd equate the two in terms of awfullness,but I'd use different words to describe a democratically accountable armies actions to those of an unaccountable one.

I know, it is the classic justification line for governments to go on killing sprees. 'See those 100 bombs we dropped onto the residential area of a city, it is not terrorism stupid'

What you're asking me, looks very similar to the approach taken towards Gerry Adams when being asked to condemn certain things to be honest

Well lets be honest then, you obviously do not believe a government can carry out terrorist acts. I fundamentally disagree with that approach.

In this thread you are stating something without waiting for the results of an inquiry which is the standard you've espoused in the thread I linked -In one thread what you are stating you yourself would describe as speculation whereas in this thread you prefer to use the term murder outright without all the facts being established first or people convicted or even tried.
strictly speaking,It might well be shown that these were individuals in the US Army that went beserk and may be courtmartialed.If thats the case then theres no foundation for your assertion other than to assert the harm the event has done to the US army's reputation.
My own view would be though that they would have done a lot of harm to the reputation of the army that they are supposed to be serving in.

The other thread was referring to a named individual, I do not see any named individuals here. In the other thread I have stated that the BA committed murder on Bloody Sunday even though nobody was convicted of murder for the killings in Derry that day.. where is the inconsistancy?

I'll give you a parallel.What you are doing is not too dissimilar to someone condemning the IRA for a murder even though it may have been carried out by a group of their members who just went beserk(as opposed to being ordered to go beserk)... if that rings any bells.

No bells being rung but plenty of straws being clutched there

Mind you in a case such as that there would be an important difference-Public accountability.

When it comes to Iraq, there is no public accountability. If there was, Bush & Blair would be hauled in front of The Hague charged with war crimes.

I've shown you where I've seen the inconsistancy already.It's not in relation to where you are protesting that you are consistant.

If I have been consistant across threads, I cannot be inconsistant. If I have been inconsistant across threads, I cannot be consistant. I have shown you where I was consistant and you now say that is irrelevant.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I believe they are spurious grounds, you have given me nothing else to think the contrary so far

Theres nothing spurious at all.I've gone into detail as to why I thought what I did, and you reply with a one liner.
With respect that speaks for itself.

Well lets be honest then, you obviously do not believe a government can carry out terrorist acts. I fundamentally disagree with that approach.

No I never said that.Terrorism would have to be an unlawfull act.
This could well yet be proven to be an unlawfull act.I'd go so far as to say I'd expect it to be.
There really is a very big difference though between a group with no democratic authority carrying out killings and one that has.
With the former, the illegality and the terrorism description is blanket straight away by virtue of the indisputable illegality.

As regards,the US and UK's presence in Iraq,I know, its a perfectly plausable point of view when starting out with their presence there being illegal, that any killings there by them must be terrorist.
You said "Another Terrorist act by the U.S".
It could just be the guys went beserk, they may be courtmartialed.
We dont know.
You are not applying the the same standard here as you aspoused in the other thread.
I'm saying such inconsistancy would best be avoided that is all.

The other thread was referring to a named individual, I do not see any named individuals here. In the other thread I have stated that the BA committed murder on Bloody Sunday even though nobody was convicted of murder for the killings in Derry that day.. where is the inconsistancy?

Please tell me that you are not avoiding where I already stated I saw your inconstency (I'm assuming you havent read my post properly)

No bells being rung but plenty of straws being clutched there

Another one line reply with no substance to be honest with you

When it comes to Iraq, there is no public accountability. If there was, Bush & Blair would be hauled in front of The Hague charged with war crimes.

There is,theres a thing called voting...It may not be enough from your point of view but its more accountability by a long shot than you get from those who conform to the conventional description of terrorist.

If I have been consistant across threads, I cannot be inconsistant. If I have been inconsistant across threads, I cannot be consistant. I have shown you where I was consistant and you now say that is irrelevant.

You've shown me where you are consistant alright..
I've already told you that in my last reply to you but you've avoided the issue I raised with you ie where you actually were inconsistant.

bonkey

HelterSkelter wrote:

I think when you find a family shot up like this (with video evidence of the aftermath) and the 9 year old daughter is able to give an eye witness account of what happened you don't need to be sherlock homes to work out who is guilty.

I dunno.

Change the nationalities and setting involved to (say) Israeli/Palestinian in the disputed territories, or (perhaps) Irish/English in the North....and I'd be willing to bet that some people who claim this is an open-and-shut clearly-guilty case would suddenly discover reasons why such claims may not be universally unquestionable.

Hell, just change it to US soldiers allegedly gunned down by Iraqi terrorists posing as civilians, with aftermath video and a 9-year-old eyewitness account, and I'm pretty sure the "open-and-shut" proponents will decry it as clearly being US propaganda/misinformation to progress some conspiratorial plans.

Just to be clear - this is all speculation on my part.

jc