Haditha....

[RougeUnderoos]

but I just find it ridiculous that people would think these Marines would kill somebody in cold blood,

Well, what does that mean? What we're hearing is that they did indeed kill somebody in cold blood but here you are saying it's ridiculous to believe it. Wouldn't that make somebody a liar?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thank you very much. Those Marines didn't kill innocent civilians because they wanted too. Unless we have served in the conditions they are currently in, there is no way we can understand what they go through.

I'm not declaring them innocent either, but I just find it ridiculous that people would think these Marines would kill somebody in cold blood, while "knowing" it was innocent civilians they were shooting at.

I don't think the marines initiated anything with the idea of killing anyone in cold blood. I think things likely escalated out of control and it turned into a blood bath. It happens. It happens more when you are sending 18 year old KIDS into the theatre without proper support and leadership. This has been the biggest failure in Iraq IMO (they shouldn't be there in the first place, but when analyzing the peformance in Iraq) and should see someone's head roll (Rumsfeld). No way should there be so many inexperienced soldiers in the field with so little leadership. My best friend down here, that I golf with regularly, is a vet of Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He's a young pup at 27, but has done and seen stuff that would make your head spin. His greatest complaint (and he doesn't think we should be there either) is the lack of leadership and the way that leadership was eliminated to go forward with the administrations plans. The civilians are running the show, and if you stand up and say they are wrong, you're out of a job. The generals who should be running the show are on the sidelines having been "retired" for their own good. I can see why the services are torn about how they feel.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thank you very much. Those Marines didn't kill innocent civilians because they wanted too. Unless we have served in the conditions they are currently in, there is no way we can understand what they go through.

I'm not declaring them innocent either, but I just find it ridiculous that people would think these Marines would kill somebody in cold blood, while "knowing" it was innocent civilians they were shooting at.

Even though I'm a supporter of the conflict in Iraq, I would have no problem at all believing these particular Marines may have deliberately and knowingly killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

In fact, you would expect incidents like this to come up in any prolonged conflict.

On one of the few points I'll ever agree with Looger on, atrocities coming out of the stress of unceasing hostilities are something that eventually crop up even among the most professional of soldiers, in at least limited instances.

I also don't have a problem with the account, unlike Lanny, of the CNN reporter who blandly and likely accurately described her observations of professionalism among the soldiers she was with. Exposing baby killers, after all, would have been a career-making story for her. If anything, being a common ghoul as most journalists are, she probably regrets not being able to put it out there first.

I would equate her report to that of you being surprised to learn that your next door neighbour ax-murdered his family the night before. "He seemed like such a nice, quiet guy," you honestly tell the police officer. How many times have you heard that one before?

Well, something snapped.

Whether or not this is "important" in the big picture remains to be seen as it will always be the political process, not the body count, that will be the most important thing in the end.

For the victims, the incident is 100% important but in terms of the politics of the moment, this is probably a bigger impact item in America than it will be in Iraq where it might be just another day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800373.html

Cowperson

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

His greatest complaint (and he doesn't think we should be there either) is the lack of leadership and the way that leadership was eliminated to go forward with the administrations plans. The civilians are running the show, and if you stand up and say they are wrong, you're out of a job. The generals who should be running the show are on the sidelines having been "retired" for their own good. I can see why the services are torn about how they feel.

the generals want to fix the problems, arrest the wicked, restore order.

that is not the agenda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm

Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said the men - possibly working undercover - were arrested for allegedly shooting dead a policeman and wounding another.
Richard Galpin said al-Jazeera news channel footage, purportedly of the equipment carried in the men's car, showed assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit.
This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations, he said.



yep, standard SAS equipment...

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6559

Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations:

"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and *****es. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."

sounds like they want the much vaunted three-state iraq long wanted by israel.

http://www.pakobserver.net/200605/27...%20the%20world

The objective: break up Iraq into mini-States and then pit them against one another. Just like Yugoslavia! To divide Iraq has been an old Israeli dream. In 1982, Obed Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign office, wrote “To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short-term, it’s Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter- Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces.” Washington has found the solution. An article by Michel Collon was published by Global Research (December 2003). “It outlines with foresight the strategy of the US, through covert intelligence operations, of breaking up Iraq into a number of separate States. The unleashing of a civil war with a view to deliberately breaking up Iraq was part of the US war agenda from the outset.” The New York Times published an editorial (November 25, 2003) carrying Leslie Gelb’s byline.

we've given these guys their playground, and they are going to town.

black ops, mercenaries, sick agendas. same things that always happen when you unleash the intellectual gangsters on an occupied population, and give them all the money they need.

that anyone can consider the motives of these sickos as altruistic, is extremely troubling to me.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thank you very much. Those Marines didn't kill innocent civilians because they wanted too. Unless we have served in the conditions they are currently in, there is no way we can understand what they go through.

I'm not declaring them innocent either, but I just find it ridiculous that people would think these Marines would kill somebody in cold blood, while "knowing" it was innocent civilians they were shooting at.

So would you say that an "insurgent" has the same kind of stresses on him? Would you downplay his attack as one that possibly came from the stress seeing family killed and justified as "collateral damage"..wouldn't that cause a man to "snap" as well?


I'm not saying it wasn't a result of severe stress and lack of judgement..but if you're going to say that for one side..its probably the same thing that causes "the enemy" to do what they do.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

but I just find it ridiculous that people would think these Marines would kill somebody in cold blood,

Well, what does that mean? What we're hearing is that they did indeed kill somebody in cold blood but here you are saying it's ridiculous to believe it. Wouldn't that make somebody a liar?

Do you think that these Marines saw innocent civilians, and promptly took action to kill them? Or is there any room for an accident? Something was done wrong, called wrong and innocent civilians ended up dying.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Igottago

So would you say that an "insurgent" has the same kind of stresses on him? Would you downplay his attack as one that possibly came from the stress seeing family killed and justified as "collateral damage"..wouldn't that cause a man to "snap" as well?


I'm not saying it wasn't a result of severe stress and lack of judgement..but if you're going to say that for one side..its probably the same thing that causes "the enemy" to do what they do.

Wouldn't you say its different because those insurgants do it everyday? I wouldn't call it stress disorder to walk into a corner mall and blow yourself up.

Incidents like this, involving the US Military happen very rarely. There are 150,000 troops in Iraq. A very tiny bunch of them killed innocent civilians. Like Cowperson said, to us it will be a big deal, but in Iraq its just another day.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wouldn't you say its different because those insurgants do it everyday? I wouldn't call it stress disorder to walk into a corner mall and blow yourself up.

Incidents like this, involving the US Military happen very rarely. There are 150,000 troops in Iraq. A very tiny bunch of them killed innocent civilians. Like Cowperson said, to us it will be a big deal, but in Iraq its just another day.

So these soldiers committed a crime out of misjudgement and stress..but a suicide bombing is purely a result of "evil" and hatred? You have no idea what that suicide bomber has seen or been through. Both instances are wrong, and both are atrocious acts. And both have stresses that caused them. However, you seem to be able to justify one of them.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Igottago

So would you say that an "insurgent" has the same kind of stresses on him? Would you downplay his attack as one that possibly came from the stress seeing family killed and justified as "collateral damage"..wouldn't that cause a man to "snap" as well?


I'm not saying it wasn't a result of severe stress and lack of judgement..but if you're going to say that for one side..its probably the same thing that causes "the enemy" to do what they do.

That might explain a case or two but it hardly explains beheading people on videotape or strapping explosives and nails to yourself and walking into a hospital filled with fellow Muslims to blow it up.

Daily.

No, one does not explain the other nor does it excuse the former, the apparent murder of innocent civilians by Marines.

So these soldiers committed a crime out of misjudgement and stress..but a suicide bombing is purely a result of "evil" and hatred? You have no idea what that suicide bomber has seen or been through. Both instances are wrong, and both are atrocious acts. And both have stresses that caused them. However, you seem to be able to justify one of them.

Do you think Marines were promised an afterlife of vestal virgins and milk and honey if they murdered fellow Americans? Do you think Marines families were promised monitary awards if there son blew himself up? Do you think, as with many instances in Iraq, the families of bombers were threatened with extermination if the son or father didn't carrry out a suicide mission?

Different thing.

The objective: break up Iraq into mini-States and then pit them against one another.

If that's the objective you'd just blow the place up a bit and walk away, not hang around going through the time and expense of the democratic experiment.

Saddam has apparently said he was less worried about the Americans than his country fracturing at the seams.

The intent of the statement above is to level the accusation America and Britain invaded to break Iraq into pieces.

In fact, critics of the conflict warned the country would fracture if they did invade.

Its also inconsistent with your earlier statements - no surprise - warning of a fracturing as a negative consequence of the conflict, implying at the time that it wasn't an American aim. Why are you changing your story?

Incidentally, the brilliant Fareed Zakharia talks about such a fracture today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...053001180.html

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do you think that these Marines saw innocent civilians, and promptly took action to kill them?

That's the way it looks right now, doesn't it? That they intentionally killed innocent civilians? The way we are hearing it there were people shot from close range while in their house and maybe in their bed. That can't be an accident.

Like you said, there are 150 thousand troops there. Is it so hard to believe that there are a few bad apples and some of them saw innocent civilians and promptly took action to kill them? Not for me it isn't. As has been pointed out by several posters, this kind of thing happens every time.

Anyhow, this "it's not a big deal in Iraq" is the worst thing I've heard in a while about the whole situation.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Its also inconsistent with your earlier statements - no surprise - warning of a fracturing as a negative consequence of the conflict, implying at the time that it wasn't an American aim. Why are you changing your story?

i guess it depends on what i meant in that case, did i mean stated 'aim' or the actual 'aim'.

if i implied it, then what are we talking aboot?

i'm 'changing my story' based on what you think i was implying in something?

who's the wacko conspiracy theorist again?

EDIT:

as to your link,

It will be Lebanon in the 1980s, except that 130,000 American troops will be in the middle of it all.

i hope that the precedent does not repeat. that is, groups like hezbollah going from humanitarian organizations to paramiltary, and 18-year occupations by foreign governments.

i guess we'll see if the death squad proxy armies start massacreing... oh.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So it's all a pack of lies that we're hearing?

Its not a pack of lies, its what happens when people who are not ready and even some people who are, are thrown into a war situation and have to watch people die every day, including their friends.

I dont think you would ever understand it, nor I for that fact.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That might explain a case or two but it hardly explains beheading people on videotape or strapping explosives and nails to yourself and walking into a hospital filled with fellow Muslims to blow it up.

Daily.

No, one does not explain the other nor does it excuse the former, the apparent murder of innocent civilians by Marines.

So these soldiers committed a crime out of misjudgement and stress..but a suicide bombing is purely a result of "evil" and hatred? You have no idea what that suicide bomber has seen or been through. Both instances are wrong, and both are atrocious acts. And both have stresses that caused them. However, you seem to be able to justify one of them.

Do you think Marines were promised an afterlife of vestal virgins and milk and honey if they murdered fellow Americans? Do you think Marines families were promised monitary awards if there son blew himself up? Do you think, as with many instances in Iraq, the families of bombers were threatened with extermination if the son or father didn't carrry out a suicide mission?

Different thing.

So is one more justifiable than the other? That's what some here seem to think..Let's give the American soldiers the benefit of the doubt because they're our boys. There's a reason behind what they did. But we don't have to attempt to understand the reasoning behind the other side.

[jolinar of malkshor]

We should defenitly not excuse the soldiers actions, they need to be held accountable for what they did tot he full extent of the law. However, it just seems to be a suprise to some people that this would happen in a war situation.

Same goes for the other side aswell.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That might explain a case or two but it hardly explains beheading people on videotape or strapping explosives and nails to yourself and walking into a hospital filled with fellow Muslims to blow it up.

Thomas Friedman explained this quite well in his books "The Lexus and the Oile Tree" and "The World is Flat". He explained that the middle east feels humiliated and that they must strike back at someone/something. That someone/something is the west, for all the things that we do to make them feel inferior. He acknowledges that they feel poorly about themselves because of how great Islam was at one point (arguably the dominant society on the planet during the 7th through 14th centuries) and how they have been left in the dust by the west. Spain is a very large burr under the saddle of Islamists like bin Laden, as it was once a muslim land and now has the collective GDP of all islamic states combined. The solution is to help them up, not push them down further. Education is the key, not bombing them. By bringing their standard of living up through education they can help themselves down the road. By appealing to the Islamists, and holding the muslim world down, we continue to set ourselves up as targets for those with an axe to grind. The poor have nothing to lose when they blow themselves up.

BTW... the beheading of people on video tape is also well thoughtout in their minds. The victims are usually dressed in the same orange jumpsuits that prisoners wear in American facilities (Guantanimo for example). The removal of the head is the greatest and most final of insults that can happen to you. So the staging and beheading of a westerner in this fashion is meant to demean and make us feel inferior, as much of the muslim world does.

[bluejays]

Every soldier involved has to be held accountable in my books. I would buy the temporary insanity plea if it was only 1 soldier who went crazy after his friend was killed, but when a group of them does this, it's pure BS. Soldiers are dying every single day, and their mates don't go crazy. When a group does this, it's saying they were on a powertrip and it purely says gross negligence on the part of whomever commanded them to do that. It's purely a guess, but it sounds more and more like the soldiers did this because they believed the civilians knew where the insurgents and therefore caused their friends' death, so the soldiers decided to kill them for staying quiet. Absolutely disgusting that they'd kill innocent people, let alone children and elder people.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by fleury

Every soldier involved has to be held accountable in my books. I would buy the temporary insanity plea if it was only 1 soldier who went crazy after his friend was killed, but when a group of them does this, it's pure BS.

Actually you're more likely to go mental in a group where everyone is feeling the same anguish. They all lost a friend. They are all thinking the same thing: Revenge. The fact that one thinks it fans the flames on the others. Because they are all thinking it they begin to think it may be the right idea because it is the general consensus.

The human brain works in funny ways and definately likes to follow the pack in confusing times.

[Bobblehead]

And it is highly counterproductive. It turns the perception of the American Army from liberators to oppressors. And for this who already viewed the US as oppressors, these killings confirm that opinion and gives the anti-US contingent more authority over those with flexible allegiences.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's the way it looks right now, doesn't it? That they intentionally killed innocent civilians? The way we are hearing it there were people shot from close range while in their house and maybe in their bed. That can't be an accident.

Like you said, there are 150 thousand troops there. Is it so hard to believe that there are a few bad apples and some of them saw innocent civilians and promptly took action to kill them? Not for me it isn't. As has been pointed out by several posters, this kind of thing happens every time.

Anyhow, this "it's not a big deal in Iraq" is the worst thing I've heard in a while about the whole situation.

Not really it doesn't. The situation was an accident, and I'm positive those Marines never "intended" to kill innocent civilians.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not really it doesn't. The situation was an accident, and I'm positive those Marines never "intended" to kill innocent civilians.

Just like they never intended to torture people at Abu Gharib?