Marines cover up massacre in Iraq

Originally Posted by Zato-1

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..

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Devo

Actually people were killed in their homes, and the homes were ransacked, despite none of them being armed, and one weapon being found. Marines in that area are instructed not to shoot unless there is a real and probable threat. Unarmed civilians are not something to be shot at.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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)).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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

I wouldn't doubt that children and women were being used to watch us. It happened in Vietnam and it happens here. Counter-insurgency warfare, y'know.

But still. It's no reason to kill the people. They should have called it in and blocked off whatever roads they could have and had investigation pass through and what-not for the civvies involved. The ROE say only fire if fired upon. Killing women and children for helping out their husbands because they don't know any better isn't sound logic.

Most amazing jew boots