Did US marines massacre Iraqi civilians? Options

[*mipadi*]

From MSNBC.com:

Witnesses to the slaying of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha say the Americans shot men, women and children at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing.

Aws Fahmi, a Haditha resident who said he watched and listened from his home as Marines went from house to house killing members of three families, recalled hearing his neighbor across the street, Younis Salim Khafif, plead in English for his life and the lives of his family members. "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: 'I am a friend. I am good,' " Fahmi said. "But they killed him, and his wife and daughters."

The 24 Iraqi civilians killed on Nov. 19 included children and the women who were trying to shield them, witnesses told a Washington Post special correspondent in Haditha this week and U.S. investigators said in Washington. The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates.

[…]

In Haditha, families of those killed keep an ear cocked to a foreign station, Radio Monte Carlo, waiting for any news of a trial of the Marines.

"They are waiting for the sentence—although they are convinced that the sentence will be like one for someone who killed a dog in the United States," said Waleed Mohammed, a lawyer preparing a file for Iraqi courts and the United Nations, if the U.S. trial disappoints. "Because Iraqis have become like dogs in the eyes of Americans.''

Read the full story

[magnificentmike]

I wouldn't be surprised. No offense to those who have family as soldiers in Iraq, but I think some of them are corrupt.

[Retrogressive]

Is this the same story that the marines went on a killing spree because an Iraqi killed their comrade?

[*mipadi*]

Yeah, that's pretty much the idea. They allegedly killed 24 Iraqi civilians in cold blood in retaliation for the loss of a Marine.

[Rampage]

Honestly, (and I know I'll probably piss someone off) but I don't think that it was the marines's fault. I think it is our fault for even being there. What are we going to expect from Iraqis except retaliation? Of course they are going to hate us for coming into their country!! In turn, we did ship men trained to kill to another country, they killed a bunch of people and now we're pissed? We should either stop calling unneeded wars or accept the consquences OF war. In war people on ALL sides get killed.

I honestly don't have a formed opinion about this. :/

[technicolour]

In war people on ALL sides get killed.

Pretty much.

But, really, is this supposed to be suprising? Because..well..it's not.

[*mipadi*]

Pretty much.

But, really, is this supposed to be suprising? Because..well..it's not.

Surely that's not to say it's acceptable.

[technicolour]

Well, of course i'm not saying it's acceptable. But, I mean, come on. You know stuff like this is going to happen.

And how are we supposed to know if this really happened or not? This could just be some Anti-Bush DIE! America, die! Iraqi who just hates us...a lot, so, he made up this story.

Honestly, we don't know what exactly happened, so, it seems rather stupid to judge the situation.In my mind, I suppose.

[Rampage]

Surely that's not to say it's acceptable.

None of it's going to be fair.

[*mipadi*]

It's pretty easy to pass it off as "Oh, we don't know what happened"—too easy in fact—but if you read the article and follow up on it, you'll see that there is a lot of strong evidence that a massacre did in fact happen.

I don't think it should be written off as "Oh, we should expect it to happen", either. This is a big deal. Marines should not be doing this, and we shouldn't be so passé and apathetic about it, either.

None of it's going to be fair.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this.

[Rampage]

I don't understand why it's wrong to kill someone but it's completely different during a war. How can we say certain deaths are justifiable in war and certain deaths aren't?

[*mipadi*]

I don't understand why it's wrong to kill someone but it's completely different during a war. How can we say certain deaths are justifiable in war and certain deaths aren't?

An admirable philosophical point, but from a pragmatic view, I'm not sure how that applies to this situation.

[Rampage]

Surely that's not to say it's acceptable.

[technicolour]

Wait a second..this happened last year...

[illumineering]

Well, of course i'm not saying it's acceptable. But, I mean, come on. You know stuff like this is going to happen.

And how are we supposed to know if this really happened or not? This could just be some Anti-Bush DIE! America, die! Iraqi who just hates us...a lot, so, he made up this story.

Honestly, we don't know what exactly happened, so, it seems rather stupid to judge the situation.In my mind, I suppose.

The Marine leadership is not denying the incident. Given the fact the US Senate is holding hearings about the killings, your claim of this being a made-up story lacks substance.

click

What does the fact that this happened last year have to do with anything? Truth does not have an expiration date.

[Simba]

What can I say. I'm not surprised.

[oOKittyKatOo]

I don't understand why it's wrong to kill someone but it's completely different during a war. How can we say certain deaths are justifiable in war and certain deaths aren't?

agreed

i think more of this kinda stuff happens.. it just doesnt get reported...

[misoshiru]

Well, of course, since America has "won" the Iraqi war, this is definately not deemed by the Americans as "massacre." In fact, some highly conservative Americans would probably be proud of this event. Afterall, as they are Bible-thumping, they'd say "An eye for an eye." Oh, but they always have some sort of 'military board' allegedly investigating into the event. But how far do you think its gone? Most likely no where. Did the marines actually think that they would be accepted with open arms in Iraq with absolutely no retaliation? Stupid kids. In war there will be casualties, and it is no surprise that the winners rely on any tactic to...win. Look at it this way, look at how many the Khmer Rouge had to kill to retain power in Cambodia, look at the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia in the 1970s. There were certainly massacres there, but was it right? No it certainly was not. It just merely shows that they can't play fair, or in this case, fight fair to win. Personally, this just reinforces my disdain towards America.

[Retrogressive]

Personally, this just reinforces my disdain towards America.

What you don't think EVERY nation has killed innocent people in war? America is incredibly corrupt, yes, but is there a country that isn't?

[misoshiru]

It's not the point that countries kill people in war. Perhaps I should have stated it clearer that it reinforced my disdain towards the American government and their controlling of Iraq.

[*mipadi*]

What you don't think EVERY nation has killed innocent people in war? America is incredibly corrupt, yes, but is there a country that isn't?

Does that make it okay? Is that to say that, since many countries have killed innocence, it's okay to let America do the same?

I think not. Since his Iraq-posseses-weapons-of-mass-destruction reasoning fell through, Bush has regularly said how attacking Iraq was a good thing, because it got rid of Saddam Hussein. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that was one of Bush's reasons. Is Iraq any better off? Do they have less violence than they did before in Iraq?

Let's look at these three families. At least under Saddam, armed men never ran through their home and shot their family members in cold blood.

America is supposed to be "liberating" Iraq. We're supposed to be bringing democracy to the country. We're supposed to be ridding it of the rule of fear and terror of Saddam. Yet here we are, murdering innocent civilians (and let's be honest—Fallujah alone saw far more massacres than just this one). Here we are, rounding up Iraq civilians and throwing them in jail for no reason and with no charges—and then abusing them. You have to ask, how much better are we than Saddam? Sure, maybe we're better, but none of these massacres, none of this prisoner abuse should be happening at all. This is not what America stands for.

[verlorenrivets]

I've got a lot of buddies in the military right now. Most of them are idiots (there's a 8/1 ratio of idiots I know to bright ones), and most of them have told me of at least one incident where they unjustly killed an innocent.

Blood for oil. Whatever. We don't currently have enough muscle or willpower as a people to do anything about it, now do we? Enjoy your convenience at the cost of human life while you can, right?

[Retrogressive]

America is supposed to be "liberating" Iraq. We're supposed to be bringing democracy to the country. *

I think not. Since his Iraq-posseses-weapons-of-mass-destruction reasoning fell through, Bush has regularly said how attacking Iraq was a good thing, because it got rid of Saddam Hussein. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that was one of Bush's reasons. Is Iraq any better off? Do they have less violence than they did before in Iraq?

*One country taking another country over to instill it's own beliefs into that country's government.... wait... that sounds a lot like...

an·nex
tr.v. an·nexed, an·nex·ing, an·nex·es
To append or attach, especially to a larger or more significant thing.
To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.
To add or attach, as an attribute, condition, or consequence.

and...

coup
n. pl. coups (kz)
A brilliantly executed stratagem; a triumph.

A coup d'état.
A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover: a boardroom coup.
Among certain Native American peoples, a feat of bravery performed in battle, especially the touching of an enemy's body without causing injury.

Iraq didn't ask us to save them.

Wade is right, we're blind to what Bush is doing. The worse part is we don't give a fuck as long as we're content within our little lives. That's humanity for you, when we're content we don't ask questions. We'd simply rather have our cell phones, our electricity, and our running water. Our gas prices go up, we bitch about it, but do you see people protesting in the streets? No, because we don't want to fight for anything anymore. We'll sit back and wait until we're completely f**ked over and our rights have been taken away, then will wonder how it happened.

Am I saying that innocent people being killed in war is right? No. I'm asking what is right when you have nothing to hold that up with besides a corrupt government and a lazy nation? There will never be a nation that stands for all that is good and pure like America claims. Democracy is just another idea for how a government should be run just like communism and so on.

[misoshiru]

^I think what Michael was trying to say in this about "America liberating Iraq" is not to say that what America is doing is correct, nor was it asked for by Iraq itself. But since America has indeed invaded Iraq and they call it the "liberation" of Iraq (if liberation is a word,) therefore, why is this happening instead of actually liberating the country and making it a democratic society?

[*mipadi*]

Iraq didn't ask us to save them.

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or other people in general, but I would like to point out that I explicitly said that I didn't condone that excuse as a justification for war. "Liberating Iraq" is not a good reason to attack a sovereign nation.

My point is that it was given as a justification for the war (a justification I feel does not hold up), yet we're not exactly bringing any sort of peace, or freedom from violence and terror, to Iraq anyway.

[Retrogressive]

^Yeah... I kind of got amped up over something that I don't know nearly enough about. It was probably an over zealous post.

[*mipadi*]

More testimony on the alleged massacre from NBC.

[*I Shot JFK*]

See, it irritates me when people say 'this is just like Abu Ghraib' (that SO doesnt look like it is spelled correctly), and try to label all soldiers as villainous bastards.

at anyrate, it is not.

What went on in Abu Ghraib was a premeditated act of calculated sadism. The soldiers involved degraded and abused prisoners FOR FUN, over an extended period of time. They enjoyed it. They photographed it. And so on.

This is a seperate instance. One can only imagine the horror of seeing your friends burnt to death, and pinned under an exploded army van. The majority, or at least a hefty percentage of soldiers who enlist do it for economic reasons, and are either a) not intelligent enough to seek employment elseweher, or at best are too unedcated. And these factors combine with the fact that the soldiers KNOW that they are not wanted in Iraq, and that any person who they walked past on the street could easliy be a member of a group plotting to kill them and more of their friends, to lead to huge amounts of stress, and that stress explodes into this kind of horror when things go wrong.

One should NOT be surprised by this. horrified, but not surprised.

However, as Michael said, just because this is to be expected does NOT make it acceptable. And blame must be dealt.

The Governments of the Coalition Forces ought to be investing more in the individual soldier. To investigate the cases of post traumatic stress disorder amongst soldiers, for one.

What these soldiers did was unacceptable. but unless steps are taken, it will happen again. and again. and again.