Marines killed Iraqi women and children in cold blood

John Murtha said it, not me. We'll all wait for the report and result of possible charges. You do agree with me though that the US military must be much tougher on war crimes. Right?

I have to agree. I've watched the videos they put out. We're not dealing with "just the men" shooting at our troops. If you ever watched the news when they show video of an American chopper being shot down, even the kids are chanting & dancing in the streets. If I was over there I'd be quite paranoid myself.

You mean bad things happen in war?

Innocent people get killed?

Mistakes are made?

Nahhh. War is a clean neat little package just like in video games.


Tell it to dresden.

If these men committed a crime they should be punished, but I'd like to know what was going on, and what went on, before I accuse them.

Or London

Or Tokyo

Or.....

There is, of course, no possibility that

a) The incident never happened, there are no dead at this site and time;

b) The incident was staged subsequent to (friendly) forces departure and for the benefit of (hostile) media;

c) The dead were, in fact, enemy combatants, killed in action, fraudulently identified later as women and children, with the lie swallowed hook, line, and sinker by a complicit media; or

d) Murtha knows one or more of the above and is betraying his brother Marines (again) to further his political agenda, the furtherance of which requires that the US be unsuccessful in bringing democracy to any part of the Middle East.

Go ahead. Support your enemies against those who are willing to die to free them and protect you. Enjoy dhimmitude and the jizya, those of you who survive.

Has anyone actually considered that killing innocents is a great way to relieve stress? Since the marines are so stressed up not being able to find the real enemies, they turn to the next best thing.

There is, of course, no possibility that intelligent thought was put into some of the posts on this thread.

Has anyone actually considered that they sound like a total idiot?


Just saying....

There is also the possibility that straight soldiers can have anal intercourse on lonely nights in the desert and still be straight.

Theres a whole bunch of children and women to rape. Can always shoot them before or after, depending on preference. Why bother with anal intercourse.

Actually you did, you just went back and deleted your posts where you said it. Fortunately part, though sadly not all, of your deleted posts remain in that I quoted when responding. If you felt you had said something you didn't really mean in the heat of it you should have just said so, retratracted your statement, and restated more clearly and correctly what your position is. Instead you apparently chose to delete your post and deny you ever said or implied what you did.

Going back and trying to change the record to get yourself out of an untenable statement tells me all I care to know about your particular position on this issue. Regardless of what the investigation eventually determines, you've made up your mind will adjust reality to support your preexisting conclusion.

Nuff said.

Yikes. You are scary. Do you really think that it would ever have made it to this stage without being far, far worse than our government will ever tell us??? If it were any of the above, it would never have seen the light of day in the U.S., nor would it be investigated and (I'm sure) excused.

========================================================
There's really no point in arguing with you. I hereby retract everything I've said, and delete it all. Here is my one and final statement.

1. The soldiers involved are innocent until proven guilty.
2. If proven guilty they should be prosecuted to the full extent of military law, up to and including summary execution.
3. The coalition has suffered a propaganda loss as large as Abu-Grahib regardless of outcome.
4. The US military in recent times has been very lax in sentencing its own war criminals.
========================================================

Those were British soldiers not American soldiers, nice try though. What that video doesn't show is beforehand those teenagers where throwing rocks at them before they started running away from the soldiers. They were trying to instigate a riot.

<ahem>
I for one, was not there. None of you were there. We have no access to the actual evidence yet. We have no witness accounts yet. We have no real idea what happened except for a possibly politically slanted report.

None of us, to a person, know's Jack.

So please, enjoy the following code! It's open source, and many use it at an expert level!

Media = AlwaysRight
Public = opinionated ignorance

state default
{
   information = readfile("newreport", Media);
   if (information == scary)
      state rightous_anger;
}

state rightous_anger
{
   if (soldiers == guilty)
      soldiers = HangEmHigh;

   if (soldiers == seemtobeguilty)
      soldiers = HangEmHighDamnIt;

   if (soldiers == notguilty && media == AlwaysRight)
      soldiers = HangEmHighAnywayButFeelBadAboutIt;
}

The ultimate point everyone is trying to make is that you have suckered into what some media talking head has told you like some bobbleheaded liberal tool.

You were virtually yelling GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY before you have even heard the barest of details.

If this really went down we will find out because this kind of shit ALWAYS floats to the top.

Far from it. This kind of shit is usually covered up very quickly and well. I know for a fact that it's happened a whole lotta times in other wars and never saw the light of day, press-wise or not.

"what kind of things have they seen or done. Being in a war zone does bad things to a persons way of thinking."

If a soldier gets driven to murder due to the stresses of war, it suggests the following:

1: That person is not soldier material, or,
2: The military or government has failed severely in having soldiers remain in a stressful environment long enough for their mental health to be impaired.

"Go ahead. Support your enemies against those who are willing to die to free them and protect you. Enjoy dhimmitude and the jizya, those of you who survive."

Iraqi civilians aren't our enemy.

And turning a blind eye to potential corruption in our own government and/or armed forces helps our enemies more than it helps us.

Remember, we're MEANT to be watching the watchmen.

"If you ever watched the news when they show video of an American chopper being shot down, even the kids are chanting & dancing in the streets."

dancing != shooting down helicopters.

Now think on this: We have "liberated" Iraq from its system of government to replace it with one that we think is better, and now we're complaining that some Iraqis are acting ungrateful.

Now remember the Soviets...those people who were dead set intent on liberating Americans from their system of government and replacing it with communism, a system they thought was better...

...now just imagine how you (or, more likely, your parents) would have felt if they'd have succeeded.

However you want to look at it, there is no denying that we are an invading force...and history has shown that no country or people appreciates an invading force, no matter how benevolent they are.

Musuko.

I never claimed they weren't British soldiers, but sure I'll play your game. --

I guess having rocks thrown at a soldier with protective gear on justifies kicking a child in the balls when he's fully restrained.

It was a revenge attack in any case - they chased down some kids after the fact who may or may not have had anything to do with throwing rocks.

What some political hack says the probe "will show" is not the same thing as a VERIFIED FACT. It's political rhetoric.

Hmm...so if it was totally covered up and never saw the light of day...how can you say you "know for a fact" it happened? Were you there? Are you the Amazing Kreskin? Sounds like you're just validating Lupus' statement that "If this really went down we will find out because this kind of shit ALWAYS floats to the top".

Bottom line, there's only really two ways you could know. Because the truth finally floated to the top...or because you've accepted someone's poorly or biasedly sourced research (or well written fiction) as truth.

You can argue that it took longer to float to the top than you would have liked...but that's not what you said, and Lupus' put no time limit on the truth surfacing.

Well I know you were listing out possible alternative explanations, and I agree that this is within the range of possible explanations, I don't personally think it to be as likely. It's also a very serious charge that would require significant evidence, and I think serious charges like that should be made sparingly...even in hypothetical.

Personally I think a more likely possible alternative explanation is that he's made the mistake several others have made in accepting something as true and making an inflamitory statement before all the facts are in.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" as Hanlon's Razor says.

Never saw the light of day to the general public and press. I guess I should have been more specific. I've talked to two first-hand witnesses of terrible things done to innocents in war-time, and many accounts have come out far after the fact. And if you read history at all, you will see that these types of incidents are far from rare in times of war and strife, and rarely are they focused on by either the press (who can't find out the facts because of military close-mouthed coverups), or by the government in charge of the military (the government wanting to shield and cover-up anything that shows war as a horrible thing and our soldiers acting in a horrible fashion in some cases).

For you to think they don't is pretty amazing to me. But many folks go through life with self-attached blinders on. And for you to even suggest that it reaching the point of investigation within our horribly corrupt government will bring out the truth just proves once again how terribly niave and tunnel visioned alot of folks still are.

Do you think the real people responsible for the prison tortures and cruelty were found and prosecuted after it was siezed upon by the press? Or was it "just a handful of over-zealous guards"?

Yes, you probably should have. The fact that you said "...never saw the light of day, press-wise or not" seemed to indicate that you were certainly not limiting your comment to just the press.





The only problem is, as you are not indicating that you are responding directly to anyone but me, I've not said anything to the contrary. If you can find anywhere in this thread where I have denied that horrendous acts occur in wartime, show me. If you can find anywhere in this thread where I have said that cover-ups don't occur, show me. Otherwise you’re just pulling an argument out of your ass that isn't there so you can vent your spleen.

What I *have* said is that people might actually want to...oh I don't know...actually read the report itself instead of let someone tell them what it says or what "the probe will show."

What I *have* said is perhaps people might give the investigators a chance to complete their investigation as there'll be plenty of time for you to say they're covering up the truth after the investigation is done and the results are published. Pace yourself.

What I *have* said IF the investigation shows they are guilty of a violating the Uniform Code ONLY THEN do I believe they should be found guilty and punished. Their punishment should be in keeping with what is defined by law, taking into account any mitigating circumstances that may apply under the Articles. However until such time, since ours is a country of laws, we should follow the established principle that they are innocent until proven guilty. But that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is just a part of my terrible naiveté and tunnel vision fed by my ignorance of history.

I have stated categorically and will now repeat that *I* don't know if they are guilty or not. If they are found guilty *I* think they should be appropriately punished. But *I* don't claim to even begin to have enough facts to make that sort of call. As such, I don't think I'm in a position to call for their heads. And unless you've got some inside information on the case we're talking about here, you aren't in such a position either. The fact that attrocities were committed by other individuals in the past are is not sufficient evidence to convict these specific soldiers of a crime or punish them in my little world, you obviously may think differently.

But I'm open minded. If you've got a hotline to the absolute undisputed truth of what happened in the incident this thread was talking about (hey, Oral Roberts claimed he held conversations with God, right?), maybe some evidence that we in the unwashed masses you referre to as "the general public and press" aren't privy to, trot it out so we can all have a look.





You are of course entitled to believe that when someone doesn't see things the way you see them it's because they are naive, ignorant, blind. But I think that's pretty stupid and narrow minded myself, but by all means knock yourself out. That's what's great about freedom of expression.

[Note: This is WAY too much typing for a post on a Sunday. I'm going to seek absolution in a bowl of ice cream and some porn.]