Marines cover up massacre in Iraq
 

I know this is yet another "Iraq"-topic and while these are generally frowned upon in Political Palace, I think issues such as these absolutely need to be discussed:

Source: reuters.com

Another related article

There's absolutely no denying that things like these are happening in wars. The question arises, however, as to how much more the US government, military and public can take of this. There seems to be a high probability that this incident will turn out to be larger in scale than even Abu Ghureib. It's already put a damper on relations between the newly elected Iraqi government and the US.

So what do you make of this?

Rush to judgement on Haditha
 

As usual the left wing press has rushed to judgement against the U.S. military over the alleged "Haditha Massacre". The press and the left have already tried and convicted the Marines invovled, portraying them as nothing short of SS stormtroopers. They've been described as cold blooded killers of innocent children. All this of course before all the facts have been brought to light. Do these brilliant leftists have access to all the ballistic evidence? Do they know what happened prior to and during this incident. Have they accounted for the fact that insurgents comminly use civilians as shields? No, of course not...it Mai Lai all over agian, and they're salivating over the chance to drag the military through the mud again. Oh, they'll say, but we have the accounts of witnesses...well lets look at the veracity of those witnesses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...553969,00.html

Hmmm, seems like this town is a shithole of terrorist activity. No reason anyone from Haditha would lie about what happened. I'm not saying that The Marines are innocent, I'm just saying that we don't know yet, and that it's pathetic how the left wing press seems almost eager to convict them.

I understand the ROE is unshakable and MUST be obliged to. But when a roadside bomb explodes next to you, the first thing one wants is the find the one responsible. I can easily see how civilians could have looked like the first people responsible... I have sympathy for the Marines, but they are bound by their vow to duty. They should pay for their transgressions.

Yeah, this is all about bipartisan politics, and has nothing to do with the photographic and ballistic evidence that has already been brought to light. Wait, what?

Seriously, if you want to say "We don't know yet," then don't turn around and blame some kind of obfuscated liberalist agenda-pushing as the sole cause of the investigation.

I personally don't find this surprising. It's a war, people die. Sometimes, innocent people die. I don't think it's right, but I think it's inevitable.

Agreed. War is terrible. Collateral damage is an unfortunate but necessary price we pay for waging war. However, I believe this incident could have been better handled by the Marines, you know?

And Devo, don't make me shove my cock down your slutty mouth. Christ, leave me the fuck alone. You're as annoying a piggybacking a dead fucking polar bear.

Devo's right.. These attacks were planned.. well not planned, but taken in account when producing the plan.. They're not "Unfortunate Mishaps" , they're "Acceptable losses"..

Which are only acceptable cuz its not on their side..

No, no, not collateral damage or saturation bombing. Freedom Power. Third-degree freedoms necessitate some hospital time; what?

Wish it were just Hospital times they "necessitate"..

Acceptable losses is when you achieve something like take an objective in battle with enough losses to make things look rational. It was done for the greater good, they gave in to the cause.

Unfortunate mishaps are unplanned and they shouldn't have happened. This is one of them. Nothing was gained here except civilian losses. If you think this was "planned," you need your god damn head examined. An IED went off near troops, one got killed, some of the other soldiers jumped the gun and went on a rampage of sorts.

That's all there is to it. There is no underlying plan. Something unfortunate happened. The marines involves should be prosecuted/punished.

Of course, the media in general will take this unfortunate happening as a chance to mudsling at the military along with all its members, past and present. That's what bothers me about this. I figured there'd be something like this eventually.

I never denied this. They went on a rampage. My guess is that their buddy being killed was enough for them to think they should go gun down folks in hopes that one of them set up the bomb.

It's to be expected. After all, the enemy in this situation doesn't wear a uniform.

The only folks who should be blamed were the ones on-site who caused this situation. By higher ups, did TIME mean stuff like Generals and stuff like that? I hope to god not. Just punish the dumb bastards that screwed up. I seriously doubt the higher ups would want them to do this. Slaughtering civilians is counter-productive to the whole "stomping out terrorism" goal ((if that is even realistic)).

Marines have a de-centralized view of leadership. A leader is anyone with initiative to lead at that moment. Therefore, the higher-ups should not be held responsible. However, they're still taking flak because officers are taught that their men are a reflection of themselves.

Really, though, what is there to talk about? The sociopolitical ramifications this incident will have on our Arab allies?

BORING.

If anything this'll just increase ticket sales for Valley of the Wolves.

IED goes off, kills a marine, his buddies go apeshit because they have no targets to retaliate against and killed a bunch of innocent people. End of story.

What'll be really damaging is how much effort is revealed to have been made by the military or the government in covering the massacre up.

And all of you are also rushing to judgement..based on what. Rumors? Press reports? Accounts from "unbiased" civilians? The investigation isn't over, all the facta aren't out yet you're all so damn sure these guys went on a bloodthirsty rampage.

Dozens of innocent people that weren't killed by roadside bombs.

WHO COULD IT BE!?

Colonel Mustard with the candlestick. In the dining room.

Wesker --
Dude. Forensics have inspected it and debunked the stories the marines gave (see top article). It'd be hard for this NOT to be what it appears as. All signs point to troops going on a rampage. I'm all for glory in the military and what-not. But you have some folks who do the wrong stuff without thinking it through often.

All signs point to: They did it. If they are found to be innocent, then you are right to assume that they didn't. If it turns out that they did murder a bunch of civilians, then the rest of us were right to consider it 'bad'.

Why is it that it is considered inappropriate for such 'negative' news to be spread and commented on? Everyone knows damn well that nothing is proven yet, but that doesn't mean that it should not be looked at based on the evidence available at the moment and tentative conclusions drawn.

How many people assumed that Islamic terrorists were to blame for 9/11 before there was any confirmation? Oh, oops, that was one you wanted to believe.

Everyone jumps to conclusions. The only trick is to reserve !final! judgement until everything is on that table. There is nothing in this thread to suggest that this is not the case.

There is a difference between unintentional collateral damage and deliberate murder of innocent, unarmed civilians =/