Marines cover up massacre in Iraq

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

WHO COULD IT BE!?

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

I do not say that nerves cannot "go blank and such" in wars, but this proves that soldiers should not be trained to kill people, but to kill the right people.

That's what every nation on the planet already does. It's called "following orders."

American troops do receive ethics training, though not nearly enough. That said, no amount of ethics training could have prevented this situation from happening considering the amount of stress that our troops are placed under every single day. There has to be a breaking point at some point, and losing a pal is just the thing to bring the red mist.

Most amazing jew boots

"My son is no murderer!"

O rlly?

All of your posturing and justifications still don't change the fact that this case basically amounts to murder. These soldiers went berserk and took their aggressions out on whatever they could find. When they realized they killed a bunch of innocent people, they tried to cover it up.

We have the facts, and unless the Marines dispute them (which they haven't) you can piss in the wind and bury your head in the sand all you like. Call this a leftist agenda, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'm starting to wonder why we even let you keep posting in the Palace. We haven't tolerated blind opposition to reason before, and there's no cause not to do so again.

If you're saying that we should wait to draw conclusions when the marines have completed their investigation, then that's fine, but when ballistics evidence isn't sought until after the bodies are in the ground, eyebrows get fucking raised.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

"Why won't people let me voice my unreasonably insane opinions? DISCRIMINATION!"

Sure thing, Billy. Tons of dead civilians and maybe, maybe one dead combatant, and no investigation takes place. That's totally irrelevant. Yup. Just because the Marines waited to try and investigate the bodies when it basically amounts to desecrating the corpses for their loved ones doesn't mean anything at all.

Quote:

If the Marines engaged in a firefight and the insurgents used human shields etc, given the currwent climate, perhaps the commnders thought it best not to say these people were collateral damage, they'd get skewered then too wouldn't they.

But they weren't involved in a firefight. Ballistics evidence taken from the houses indicate that no shots were fired from the houses. This isn't a liberal media hype, it's a matter of public fucking record.

You're denying truth because of its inconvenience, not out of any objective reasoning.

I was speaking idiomatically.

"The facts we do have tell that a carbomb hit a Marine convoy, a firefight ensued, and fifteen civilians were killed along with eight or nine terrorists."

These aren't facts. Your mouthpiece is pretty much wrong.

Quoted more directly from Murtha's statements:

"
MURTHA: Well, what I worry about, Wolf, is that this happened six months ago.

And nothing -- you heard nothing about it. As a matter of fact, the original story was that an IED killed these 15 people. It became very confusing to the public. "TIME" magazine came out with an article, and they still tried to cover it up.

Now, there were payments made to victims, which aren't made unless we kill them, one way or the other. And, secondly, they knew about it the day afterwards. So, there's no excuse for not having this be more open and know exactly what -- and the longer it goes, the worse it is for us, because it looks like it's the policy of our troops to do something like this."

Murtha is referring to the military's tendency to cover up their massacres, not execute civilians.

Admittedly, my only source on this matter is Murtha himself. Though, Murtha claims that his conclusions are based on what he's seen of the evidence, and nobody is disputing what he's saying.

Your recent example seems to be more an indication of an incident the military was fully aware of wasn't their fault, which led to an expedient investigation.

What happened at Haditha seems to be more an example of the military attempting to silence news of the massacre with hush money while they would attempt to investigate the incident in secret, if at all.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It should be noted to Niekon that The Daily Show is not actually news.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Americans can shake their fingers at these guys all they want, but you put them there, so you share the blame.

So what, you're saying that we should absolve them of any wrongdoing?

I'm all for the President getting the shaft over this, but the fact of the matter is that these troops still committed voluntary manslaughter.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?