Marine: Unit Was Ordered to 'Crank Up Violence Level' in Iraq

Nick_oliveri

Didnt know where to post this so i settled for here.
(from another forum/site)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289345,00.html

CAMP PENDLETON, California — A Marine corporal said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to "crank up the violence level," the Los Angeles Times reported.

Cpl. Saul H. Lopezromo testified Saturday at the murder trial of Cpl. Trent D. Thomas.

"We were told to crank up the violence level," the newspaper quoted Lopezromo as saying in testimony for the defense.

I don't see it as an execution, sir," he told the judge, according to the newspaper. "I see it as killing the enemy."

He said Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency.

"Because of the way they live, the clans, they're all in it together," he said.

Source

Mmm. Very strange. I wonder who gave those orders.
To quote the original poster (Um_Gazz) from abovetopsecret.com.

Um_Gazz wrote:

The fact that this is being presented as defense in a murder trial, lends more credibility to it, if it fails the prosecution will rip it apart. I suspect the defense may have some evidence on hold to back this testimony up. This case could potentially reveal a major conspiracy.

Jocksereire

How about uk agents undercover dressed as civilians shooting at police
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4260894.stm
get broken out of jail later by british tanks in a "rescue mission"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/4262728.stm
now why are they are dressed as civilians shooting at loacals and police.

Keep the violence going? destabalise the country?

jessop1

Yeah this stuff is totally wrapped in bbc newsspeak but its obvious whats really going on

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

How about uk agents undercover dressed as civilians shooting at police
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4260894.stm
get broken out of jail later by british tanks in a "rescue mission"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/4262728.stm
now why are they are dressed as civilians shooting at loacals and police.

Keep the violence going? destabalise the country?

Firstly your ignorance of the situation is telling. Iraq police are often sympathetic or indeed part of the insurgency. Particularly Shia it's been suggested that the ministry of interior used Shia troops as a private army attacking Sunni enemies. Secondly there is only two ways to travel in Iraq, in highly visible convoys of heavily armed troops, or incognito.

You're working of the assumption that the motives of one organisation, the Iraq police, are honest and above reproach. While the motives of the british army, are in your mind sinister and dubious. Could it be that the British army couldn't trust these police and felt urgent action was required to rescue their men?

Finally this idea that the British and Americans want to keep the violence going is inane, and insane. What possible goal do they hope to achieve? A permanent military presence. Look at Germany and Japan, they have large bases there and have done for decades since the 2nd world war. Yet they didn't feel the need to keep "the violence going"

What do you feel is the justification to do so now?

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

Finally this idea that the British and Americans want to keep the violence going is inane, and insane. What possible goal do they hope to achieve? A permanent military presence.

I think you just answered your own question. Either that or im going question mark blind. Damn these glasses!:D
There was no reason for those men to be dressed as civs, id like to see the iraqi police killing an American soldier and getting away with it. If anything, that would be the justification for a permanent military presence.

If the defence is telling the truth (on the OP!!), were gonna hear a lot more about this.

It will probably turn out to be nothing more than an officer getting bored or something and telling them to crank up the violence. Either that or the defence is lying. If it is indeed part of a larger conspiricy, you can spank my ass and call me Daisy!

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

I think you just answered your own question. Either that or im going question mark blind. Damn these glasses!:D
There was no reason for those men to be dressed as civs,

There was every reason for them to be dressed as civs. Surveillance is one obvious example, you cannot do clandestine surveillance from a challenger or a Chinook. If you look at photos of special forces in Iraq/Afghanistan they're invariably dressed as civs and even using AKs.

id like to see the iraqi police killing an American soldier and getting away with it. If anything, that would be the justification for a permanent military presence.

Again not to sound rude, but the US doesn't need justification, and create an elaborate ruse to maintain a permanent military presence in the region. They have a military presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, there's no reason for them to create an insurgency to "justify" their continued presence in Iraq.

Just look at the facts, the constant death of US soldiers is the lightening rod for both sides in the presidential race. Both republicans and democrats are calling for a pull out from Iraq. Are they calling for a pull out from Saudi Arabia or Qatar? No. Why? Because their boys aren't getting killed there. There's no rhyme or reason to the argument that the US want to "keep the violence going".

If the defence is telling the truth (on the OP!!), were gonna hear a lot more about this.

It will probably turn out to be nothing more than an officer getting bored or something and telling them to crank up the violence. Either that or the defence is lying. If it is indeed part of a larger conspiricy, you can spank my ass and call me Daisy!

Again pretty much, its the "I was only following orders" I'd be surprised if anyone came forward with evidence that this was anything more than a few steps up the chain of command.

Jocksereire

Diogenes wrote:

Firstly your ignorance of the situation is telling. Iraq police are often sympathetic or indeed part of the insurgency. Particularly Shia it's been suggested that the ministry of interior used Shia troops as a private army attacking Sunni enemies. Secondly there is only two ways to travel in Iraq, in highly visible convoys of heavily armed troops, or incognito.

Ignorance!?!? oh the irony. again you have nothing to support YOUR opinion. Dids you ignore the fact that the agents were in civilian clothes shootiing at police or forget about it already???

You're working of the assumption that the motives of one organisation, the Iraq police, are honest and above reproach. While the motives of the british army, are in your mind sinister and dubious.

LOL and YOU are working on the assumption that the US and UK have never lied about iraq(wmd). have never been involved in flase flag oerations(e.g. gladio)....oh look see youre wrong on both accounts...fancy that!! LOL

Could it be that the British army couldn't trust these police and felt urgent action was required to rescue their men?

Could it be that the US governmant lies through its ass at every oppoutinuity?!?!.....rescue their men indeed

Finally this idea that the British and Americans want to keep the violence going is inane, and insane. What possible goal do they hope to achieve? A permanent military presence. Look at Germany and Japan, they have large bases there and have done for decades since the 2nd world war. Yet they didn't feel the need to keep "the violence going"

god its all going wrong for you eh? they are NOT welcome in iraq. they invaded the country ILLEGALLY...... im amazed at people trying to defend their actions.

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

Ignorance!?!? oh the irony. again you have nothing to support YOUR opinion. Dids you ignore the fact that the agents were in civilian clothes shootiing at police or forget about it already???

Oh dear. Care to read this Article on Iraq police death squads.

disturbing is the growing evidence that the massacres and others like it are being tolerated and even abetted by Iraq's Shi'ite-dominated police forces, overseen by Iraq's Interior Minister, Bayan Jabr. On his watch, sectarian militias have swelled the ranks of the police units and, Sunnis charge, used their positions to carry out revenge killings against Sunnis. While allowing an Iranian-trained militia to take over the ministry, critics say, Jabr has authorized the targeted

The Iraq police situation is a complicated, and boiling it down to Iraqs good, Americans bad, does a disservice to this complex matter. I'll agree that UK special forces attacking police looks pretty bad

LOL and YOU are working on the assumption that the US and UK have never lied about iraq(wmd). have never been involved in flase flag oerations(e.g. gladio)....oh look see youre wrong on both accounts...

See again Jockseire, you're working off the assumption that I support the war, believed in WMD. I didn't on either count, In 2003 like hundreds of thousands of my countrymen, I walked down O'Connell street to protest the war one cold March Saturday.

fancy that!! LOLCould it be that the US governmant lies through its ass at every oppoutinuity?!?!.....rescue their men indeed

You're right, we should be suspicious of US versions of events

However you've taken this suspicion and clouded your worldview, you automatically assume the US/UK are lying, or have an ulterior motive.

god its all going wrong for you eh? they are NOT welcome in iraq. they invaded the country ILLEGALLY...... im amazed at people trying to defend their actions.

Am I defending their actions? No. Am I not reading paranoid conspiracy theories into them? Yes. Jockseire I'll ask again, what possible motive do the US administration have to continue the violence in Iraq. Its costs a fortune, its deeply unpopular at home, there is no benefit for them at all.

Also Jockseire who declared the war illegal?

Jockseire you'd get on better on this forum if you stop assuming everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy theories is some right wing neo conservative liberal hating Bush lover.

Jocksereire

Diogenes wrote:

Oh dear. Care to read this Article on Iraq police death squads.

article says we could be heading for civil war in iraq. thats what the US want alright. How could they ever leave now with a civil war about to start right.

The Iraq police situation is a complicated, and boiling it down to Iraqs good, Americans bad, does a disservice to this complex matter. I'll agree that UK special forces attacking police looks pretty bad

yeah its pretty bad and still no excuse for it.

See again Jockseire, you're working off the assumption that I support the war, believed in WMD. I didn't on either count, In 2003 like hundreds of thousands of my countrymen, I walked down O'Connell street to protest the war one cold March Saturday.

so you agree the americans lied? what else have they lied about then? where and when did they stop lying?



You're right, we should be suspicious of US versions of events

However you've taken this suspicion and clouded your worldview, you automatically assume the US/UK are lying, or have an ulterior motive.

i have no reason to believe they tell the truth at all when it comes to the middle east. have you?

Am I defending their actions? No. Am I not reading paranoid conspiracy theories into them?

no paranoia about it mate. why are UK agents shooting at police? they got orders to do it. why?
an american soldier is told to crank up the violance....why? by who? if its more than one person then that is a consiprancy.

Jockseire I'll ask again, what possible motive do the US administration have to continue the violence in Iraq. Its costs a fortune, its deeply unpopular at home, there is no benefit for them at all.

No benefit??? OIL. the oil companies are making record profits. Bush and his mates have their fingers in oil companies right? Weapons weapon companies are making record profits. Federal reserve. They make huge profits during wars. ill refer you to Zeitgeist.

Also Jockseire who declared the war illegal?

So it is Legal?? A legal invasion of iraq? based on what?? what did you march for?

Jockseire you'd get on better on this forum if you stop assuming everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy theories is some right wing neo conservative liberal hating Bush lover.

your assumptions are not correct. Facts are conspiracies, false flag events and governments lying to the public are widespread in todays society.

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

article says we could be heading for civil war in iraq. thats what the US want alright. How could they ever leave now with a civil war about to start right.

But the opposite is happening. Candiates from both parties are insistenting on a troop withdrawl. They would not be doing this if there was peace in Iraq. There is no ryhme or reason to your thinking here.

yeah its pretty bad and still no excuse for it.

Yes actually it is, your men are captured by Iraq police. There's a possibility these police are sympathetic or indeed members of the insurgency. Do you allow your men to be "kidnapped" from the police station and executed on video?

See neither one of us knows the specifics of this instances, but you're attributing malice to their actions based on a preconcieved bias aganist the UK/US.

so you agree the americans lied? what else have they lied about then? where and when did they stop lying?

I will take each statement the US takes on the merits and arguments of each individual event. I mean you seem to be working off the assumption that everything the Bush administration says is a lie.

You're right, we should be suspicious of US versions of events

i have no reason to believe they tell the truth at all when it comes to the middle east. have you?

Well in this instance, yes I do. There's no logic to your claim the US want to keep the violence going, it defies logic, and the current US political climate.

no paranoia about it mate. why are UK agents shooting at police? they got orders to do it. why?

Because their fellow soldiers were imprisoned there.

an american soldier is told to crank up the violance....why? by who? if its more than one person then that is a consiprancy.

What happens if the person is just their sargent acting off his own bat? How is this proof the entire USAF want to "keep the violence going"

No benefit??? OIL. the oil companies are making record profits. Bush and his mates have their fingers in oil companies right? Weapons weapon companies are making record profits. Federal reserve. They make huge profits during wars. ill refer you to Zeitgeist.

Zeitgeist is utter nonsense.

So it is Legal?? A legal invasion of iraq? based on what?? what did you march for?

The war has never been declared illegal. No international body has ruled that the war is illegal. Lord Goldsmith ruled that the case for going to war was unsafe. But as of yet no court in the UK or US, or international court, has ruled the war illegal. Is it immoral yes? Was the justification spurious, yes. Has any declared the war illegal? No.

your assumptions are not correct.

Which assumptions? I'm just asking you to stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a dyed in the wool conservative republican

Facts are conspiracies, false flag events and governments lying to the public are widespread in todays society.

And apparently by how effectively they're exposed by people on youtube, one wonders how they get off the ground in the first place. :rolleyes:

Eeb

Diogenes wrote:

The war has never been declared illegal. No international body has ruled that the war is illegal. Lord Goldsmith ruled that the case for going to war was unsafe. But as of yet no court in the UK or US, or international court, has ruled the war illegal. Is it immoral yes? Was the justification spurious, yes. Has any declared the war illegal? No.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Diogenes

Eeb wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Again thats Kofi Annan speaking not the UN. In his opinion the war was illegal, but the UN did not declare it illegal.

This is just a minor quibble of mine when people declare the was in Iraq illegal, Immoral, poorly planned, and justified using the most spurious cover story yes. Illegal, No, not yet.

Eeb

Diogenes wrote:

Again thats Kofi Annan speaking not the UN. In his opinion the war was illegal, but the UN did not declare it illegal.

This is just a minor quibble of mine when people declare the was in Iraq illegal, Immoral, poorly planned, and justified using the most spurious cover story yes. Illegal, No, not yet.

The question of legality is always a matter of opinion, a matter of how one understands the law. If someone breaks into your house, is it okay to call that act illegal? Do you need to have a trial before you can call the act illegal?

Diogenes

Eeb wrote:

The question of legality is always a matter of opinion, a matter of how one understands the law. If someone breaks into your house, is it okay to call that act illegal? Do you need to have a trial before you can call the act illegal?

I think that a very trite comparison to a complex international legal issue. Breaking into someone else's property is explicitly against the law, while the issues surrounding the 2nd Iraq war are tied up in the UN mandate from the 1st Iraq war, Saddam's compliance with UN weapons inspectors, and a variety of issues.

For example one argument was that Saddam was a growing threat to the region, as presented in say, the 45 minute dodgy dossier. To give it a more domestic version, it's the US and UK murdering someone and arguing justifiable homicide. Saying "he had a gun". Their defense council would argue that Saddam had a gun, had used it before on a defenseless neighbour, threatened us with the gun before, and was threatening us with it now.

No one has come forward and successful put forward the case, that yes, while Saddam had a gun before, and yes had used a gun before, and was threatening you with a gun, the gun was deactivated, rusting and didn't have any bullets and the US and UK government knew this, when they killed him. Thats very difficult to prove. This is why the war while most of us suspect is illegal, hasn't been declared illegal, and calling it "illegal" is factually accurate its just an opinion.

Eeb

Diogenes wrote:

I think that a very trite comparison to a complex international legal issue. Breaking into someone else's property is explicitly against the law, while the issues surrounding the 2nd Iraq war are tied up in the UN mandate from the 1st Iraq war, Saddam's compliance with UN weapons inspectors, and a variety of issues.

For example one argument was that Saddam was a growing threat to the region, as presented in say, the 45 minute dodgy dossier. To give it a more domestic version, it's the US and UK murdering someone and arguing justifiable homicide. Saying "he had a gun". Their defense council would argue that Saddam had a gun, had used it before on a defenseless neighbour, threatened us with the gun before, and was threatening us with it now.

No one has come forward and successful put forward the case, that yes, while Saddam had a gun before, and yes had used a gun before, and was threatening you with a gun, the gun was deactivated, rusting and didn't have any bullets and the US and UK government knew this, when they killed him. Thats very difficult to prove. This is why the war while most of us suspect is illegal, hasn't been declared illegal, and calling it "illegal" is factually accurate its just an opinion.

So you're waiting for the UN to declare its illegality before you permit yourself to use the word - that's your prerogative. Chastising someone because they believe the invasion to be illegal, especially when you seem to agree that it probably is illegal seems extremely petty to me.

Diogenes

Eeb wrote:

So you're waiting for the UN to declare its illegality before you permit yourself to use the word - that's your prerogative.

Not even the UN, it's not been successfully challenged in a US, UK or EU court. One of the only examples of this is the Shannon five's successful defense for damaging a US Navy plane in 2003. But thats not a precedent.

Chastising someone because they believe the invasion to be illegal, especially when you seem to agree that it probably is illegal seems extremely petty to me.

Not really Jockseire posts are littered with basic factual errors, about Iraq, the US, the war on terror, the justification of war. When I challenged him on this he demanded to know where the war had been declared LEGAL (his emphasis) that seems to suggest he doesn't no the first thing about international law.

It's common behavior on both sides. For example many pro war people believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and Saddam had links to Al Qaeda. Meanwhile many anti war types, don't realise Saddam had and used weapons of mass destruction before, and Iraq's existence hung on a knife edge constantly threatening the use of WMD against Iran. Saddam had to give the impression he had WMD, to keep Iran at bay, while at the same time his position was threatened if he didn't dismantle said programs. Saddam was constantly saber rattling in the region.

If people are going to pontificate about the reasons for the war on terror and the Iraq war, I would suggest that they research the subject properly before calling it "illegal".

Eeb

Diogenes wrote:

Not even the UN, it's not been successfully challenged in a US, UK or EU court. One of the only examples of this is the Shannon five's successful defense for damaging a US Navy plane in 2003. But thats not a precedent.




Not really Jockseire posts are littered with basic factual errors, about Iraq, the US, the war on terror, the justification of war. When I challenged him on this he demanded to know where the war had been declared LEGAL (his emphasis) that seems to suggest he doesn't no the first thing about international law.

It's common behavior on both sides. For example many pro war people believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and Saddam had links to Al Qaeda. Meanwhile many anti war types, don't realise Saddam had and used weapons of mass destruction before, and Iraq's existence hung on a knife edge constantly threatening the use of WMD against Iran. Saddam had to give the impression he had WMD, to keep Iran at bay, while at the same time his position was threatened if he didn't dismantle said programs. Saddam was constantly saber rattling in the region.

If people are going to pontificate about the reasons for the war on terror and the Iraq war, I would suggest that they research the subject properly before calling it "illegal".

Yeah, that Kofi Annan guy is always shooting his mouth off. What the hell was he thinking, calling the invasion illegal. Does he not have a clue about interntaional law?

Diogenes

Eeb wrote:

Yeah, that Kofi Annan guy is always shooting his mouth off. What the hell was he thinking, calling the invasion illegal. Does he not have a clue about interntaional law?

Remind me, which one of us is being petty here?

Eeb

Diogenes wrote:

Remind me, which one of us is being petty here?

Utterly pointless, this.

Jocksereire

Again for more information on why the they do false flag attacks, crank up violence and dress up as muslims and shoot at locals and police to keep violence levels up, to stay for the long term etc etc goolge Operation gladio and read up on P2OG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group
According to a classified document, "Special Operations and Joint Forces in Countering Terrorism" prepared for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, a new organization has been created to thwart potential terrorist attacks on the United States. This counter-terror operations group— the "Proactive Preemptive Operations Group" (P2OG) will require 100 people and at least $100 million a year. The team of covert counter-intelligence agents will be responsible for secret missions designed to target terrorist leaders. The secret missions are designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.
http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/4.html
http://www.wanttoknow.info/021027latimes
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001021.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/P2OG.html

civil warn between sunni and shiite muslims obviously means they do not unite to fight the criminals who invaded their country to claim all their natural resources under the basis of clear outragous lies.
check out this neo cons plans " Ethnic cleansing works. "
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899 these are now the people in power in the US Their plans are to "divide conquer and redraw"(Bernard Lewis....google it) the whole middle east and its borders.

or STILL continue shamelessly to think this stuff does not go on like some people
Is there still any doubt who the real terrorists in this world are?