It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraqi residents say bodies in video from US raid

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah


Anyway - here is another article about this "Incident":


Allow me to enter in the important part you left out


Iraqis say U.S. troops massacred families

However, Time said the available evidence did not prove conclusively that the Marines deliberately killed innocent people.



As you can see once again you are on the loosing end since there is no conclusive evidence this actually took place.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by shots]




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
As you can see once again you are on the loosing end since there is no conclusive evidence this actually took place.


Not true. It just says there's no evidence it was deliberate. Lack of evidence that it was a deliberate act is not lack of evidence of the act itself.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
As you can see once again you are on the loosing end since there is no conclusive evidence this actually took place.

OK, lets Examine this Event once again.

First - the US Military says, that there was an Ambush on a joint US-Iraqi patrol that left 15 civilians, eight insurgents and a US Marine dead. And the statement said the 15 civilians were killed by the BLAST - the claim Iraq Residents AND Police DENIED.

Then, the US Military said there Might have been an Incident and that the Civilans were not killed by the Blast but by Fire coming from the US Marines.

THEN the Video comes out, for which the Iraqi Residents claim, the Bodies come from an US Raid, which killed 15 Civilans, which were Not, and I repeat NOT killed by any Blast.

AND THEN the US Military announced how "The Dirty Dozen" Marines are under investigation for possible War crimes in Iraq.

Now what does that tell you?

And the Bodies are Filled with Holes of BULLETS - which were according to the only Witnesess there (the Local Iraqi Residents) shot by US Marines;


The residents said the only shooting done after the bombing was by U.S. forces.


So what happened?

There was an IED planted on the Road that killed a Marine - and then his fellow Marines went to the first House, and killed Everybody Inside.

And if the Only Shooting was done by US Forces - the Marines, then it is obvious that there was no Fire coming from the Houses, which were suppose to "Host Terrorists and Insurgents" and need to be "Cleaned".

There were families inside - including a 3-year old Girl.


"American troops immediately cordoned off the area and raided two nearby houses, shooting at everyone inside," said Rsayef, who did not witness the events."It was a massacre in every sense of the word."



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
OK, lets Examine this Event once again.



Snipped the redundant inforamtion since it will not change one fact


Iraqis say U.S. troops massacred families

However, Time said the available evidence did not prove conclusively that the Marines deliberately killed innocent people.


Now can you get off the Merry go Round and come up with something that proves conclusively that it actualy took place?


[edit on 3/23/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
However, Time said the available evidence did not prove conclusively that the Marines deliberately killed innocent people.


Now can you get off the Merry go Round and come up with something that proves conclusively that it actualy took place?

The Times say what the US military does.

What about the Locak Residents, whos Neighbours and Relatives are Dead and the Video of their Piled corpses in the living proof of Gunfire wounds not bomb wounds?

What about the Iraqi Police?

And why are then Dozen marines being interrogated and questioned for War crimes?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
What about the Locak Residents, whos Neighbours and Relatives are Dead and the Video of their Piled corpses in the living proof of Gunfire wounds not bomb wounds?

What about the Iraqi Police?

And why are then Dozen marines being interrogated and questioned for War crimes?


Well if they have a video tape as it is alleged, then it would be cut and dried in an instant wouldn't it? Oh wait the alleged video shows people in bags or covered up in what appears to be a morgue doesn't it? Yup sure does, so all you have is hearsay stating that the bodies had bullet holes nothing more. Your own source the times clearly stated there was not enough evidence,(and they have the video DUH) yet you insist it happened. :shk: Give us all a break, just because you think it is so does not make it so.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots


Iraqis say U.S. troops massacred families

However, Time said the available evidence did not prove conclusively that the Marines deliberately killed innocent people.


Now can you get off the Merry go Round and come up with something that proves conclusively that it actualy took place?



My god, what kind of obfuscation is this? Topic at hand:

Iraqi residents say bodies in video from US raid

I repeat what I said:


Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by shots
As you can see once again you are on the loosing end since there is no conclusive evidence this actually took place.


Not true. It just says there's no evidence it was deliberate. Lack of evidence that it was a deliberate act is not lack of evidence of the act itself.


It's not conclusive evidence that the Marines deliberately killed innocent civillians. Let me go over that again.

1. The marines killed innocent civillians.
2. Evidence is not conclusive that the act was deliberate.

It's not conclusive evidence that the Marines deliberately killed innocent civillians. But they did kill innocent civillians. Just that there is no conclusive proof that it was deliberate.

See the difference? Now, can you stop with the obfuscation? Geez...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
It's not conclusive evidence that the Marines deliberately killed innocent civillians. Let me go over that again.

1. The marines killed innocent civillians.
2. Evidence is not conclusive that the act was deliberate.



1. No it is alleged that marines killed innocent civilians, yet the marines claimed it was a bomb that killed them.

2. That is what I have been saying all along,


I mean one does not have to be a rocket scientist to get to the truth. Exhume the bodies it is that easy. The do and autopsy to find the cause of death. Presto case solved



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
1. No it is alleged that marines killed innocent civilians, yet the marines claimed it was a bomb that killed them.


I wasn't aware that bombs these day contain bullets. You mean like a claymore mine or something?


US military probes Iraq killings

[...]

Time reporter Bobby Ghosh told the BBC that a videotape, given to the magazine by an Iraqi human rights group, had shown the civilians "could not have been killed by a roadside bomb".

"Their bodies were riddled with bullets," he said. "There was evidence there had been gunfire inside their homes, there were blood spatters inside their homes."

[...]

The preliminary investigation established that members of two Iraqi families were indeed killed by the marines, though it described the deaths as collateral damage.

[...]

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I reassert my statement. The Marines killed innocent civillians, but there is not enough evidence to conclude that it was a deliberate act.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

I reassert my statement. The Marines killed innocent civillians, but there is not enough evidence to conclude that it was a deliberate act.


How can you say the marines killed them when the sources clearly say there may have been a road side bomb involved?

Logic says if it was a roadside bomb it must have been planted there by people other then the marines. I mean Marines do not go around plating bombs to kill themselves do they?

Obviously this so called video proves nothing more then dead people were involved the rest is all hearsay.

My guess is this so called human rights group is just trying to turn this into a disinformation campaign. I mean why did it take them so long to come forward. Kind of makes you go HMMMMM and ask more questions doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
How can you say the marines killed them when the sources clearly say there may have been a road side bomb involved?


I can say it because not only did the Iraqi eyewitness claim that the marines killed civillians, not only did the Time magazine report back that claim, but even the US investigation into it says so.

Sure, it's claimed to be collateral damage. But it doesn't stray from the fact that the marines are involved in the deaths of innocent Iraqi civillians.

Here are the supposed facts from the various sources:

  1. A roadside bomb detonated.
  2. Insurgents opened fire from all directions.
  3. The initial reports state that the bomb blast killed 15 civillians.
  4. Local eyewitness accounts state that the civillians were killed by the marines' gunfire.
  5. Time reporter Bobby Ghosh said the civillians' bodies were riddled by bullets, negating the initial claim that the initial bomb blast was their cause of death.
  6. The magazine presented their findings to the US military, which continued the investigation.
  7. The investigation revealed that at least two Iraqi civillians were in fact killed by the marines, though it was argued that this was collateral damage.

So, collateral damage or not, even the US military concedes that their marines did in fact kill innocent civillians. Perhaps not deliberately, but it did happen.

Now, are you gonna continue to deny that fact?

[Edit - to make the list nicer with the [list=1][/list=1] tag]

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Now, are you gonna continue to deny that fact?



[edit on 24-3-2006 by Beachcoma]


Lets make one thing clear I never denied anything. What I am doing is asking common sense questions. Unlike you and your cohort I do not jump too one conclusion without evidence.

Again I ask you why did it take them a month to complain and come forward with the alleged video??

If someone killed a friend of yours or a family member would you just sit there for a month without complaining? No of course you wouldn't you would scream bloody
murder the instant it happened.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Alright, my mistake. You didn't deny anything, but it did appear like you were obfuscating the issue.

Anyway, did it ever occur to you that maybe they did complain earlier, but it took a month to actually reach a media outlet that made the information available to the public?

I'm pretty certain complains like these occur frequently in Iraq, and I'm sure that a portion of those complains cannot be proven or at least cannot be proven conclusively, as in this particular case. I'm also pretty certain that only a small percentage actually gets out to the MSM.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Anyway, did it ever occur to you that maybe they did complain earlier, but it took a month to actually reach a media outlet that made the information available to the public?


Stop with your pontificating will you?

Again use some common sense if they had complained there would have been or should have been a report but as far as I can tell from what information I have this never happened, which brings us back to the primary question why did it take them so long to come forward with the tape?

I mean any fool knows all video cameras these days are instant record and replay in a matter of minutes. Again why did it take the stupid journalist student a month to get the video out? Sure sounds fishy to me knowing that Iraq and US forces are investigating this as a campaign of miss-information.


Another question that comes to mind knowing cameras and the way they work; why were there no stills taken. I know that one source captured one picture from the video and even that one photo showed very little to prove the accusations being made. Come on man use some common sense will you, there are far to many unaswered questions here too bad you do not want to see them.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
*Sigh*

I was just pointing out a possibility. As you said, there are many unanswered questions. Your questions are just as valid as mine.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So that's how it goes - execution style tactics.

What makes it execution style by the way?
Wounds to the chest?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma


I was just pointing out a possibility. As you said, there are many unanswered questions. Your questions are just as valid as mine.


But most of the time you do not ask questions you make statements like this



"So, collateral damage or not, even the US military concedes that their marines did in fact kill innocent civillians. Perhaps not deliberately, but it did happen."


Now as you can clearly see you are sayng as a fact, the US is conceding the Marines killed them which is not true. They are investigating the incident there in lies the difference. Again too bad you and others refuse to see it.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I don't think you actually read what I'm saying properly. We keep on going through this same exact discussion over and over again. The point is neither of us know the full story. We only have a couple of news reports to go from.

The difference here is I say that the US military has said that 'preliminary investigation established that members of two Iraqi families were indeed killed by the marines, though it described the deaths as collateral damage.'

The implication here is that at least two Iraqi civilians were killed by the marines. Period. Accidental or not, it happened. At worse it's cold-blooded murder. At the very least it's involuntary manslaughter.

Lets go over the news piece again, but lets go straight to the part where we seem to be stuck.


US military probes Iraq killings

The preliminary investigation established that members of two Iraqi families were indeed killed by the marines, though it described the deaths as collateral damage.

Time says there is not enough evidence to show US soldiers deliberately targeted the civilians.

Now the case has been referred for criminal investigation by the US' Naval Criminal Investigative Service to establish whether the 12 marines involved were guilty of misconduct.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


BOLD EMPHASIS so that you can finally see the keywords.

Take note of that last line. It says investigations are underway to establish if there was any misconduct. By misconduct I'm assuming it means "intentionally targeting civilian" because if it's collateral damage, there won't be an inquiry, or will there?

While I'm saying it as it appears in the reports, you are saying something different altogether. You say:


Originally posted by shots

Allow me to enter in the important part you left out


Iraqis say U.S. troops massacred families

However, Time said the available evidence did not prove conclusively that the Marines deliberately killed innocent people.



As you can see once again you are on the loosing end since there is no conclusive evidence this actually took place.



Originally posted by shots
How can you say the marines killed them when the sources clearly say there may have been a road side bomb involved?



Originally posted by shots
Now as you can clearly see you are sayng as a fact, the US is conceding the Marines killed them which is not true.


All this while I have been saying the marines killed the civilians, but it may not have been on purpose, it could have been an accident, collateral damage -- whatever you want to call it. At least I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that it could have been a mistake. What I do NOT want to hide is the FACT that some civilians died and the marines were the reason here.

You won't even acknowledge that it could have been an accident, collateral damage -- whatever. In fact, you keep on making it out as though it never happened. As though nobody got killed. Why is this?

[edit - spelling: extra 'l' in the word civilian... it seemed right until Google said otherwise]

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Lead by the US Army???? Give me a break the US is not leading a misinformation campaign you just want people to think they are. :shk:


ALL US Reporters are embedded. They go where the US says, and they see what the US wants, and the US decides whether to censor or not.

Media embed ground rules

If there is a misinformation media campaign it is America running it. Reporters only know what happens in the green zone, and what they are told.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

ALL US Reporters are embedded. They go where the US says, and they see what the US wants, and the US decides whether to censor or not.

Media embed ground rules

If there is a misinformation media campaign it is America running it. Reporters only know what happens in the green zone, and what they are told.


If you would have paid attention you could have seen in this instance it was not a US News Source. It just so happens in this case it was a middle eastern journalist student who allegedly claimed he took the pictures.

Non US media are not embedded as is the case with the US media and even not all US media are embedded, some are some aren't, at least according to a recent piece I saw on MSNBC they are not.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join