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.

 

Two Iraqi Women Killed by Marines

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris




It doesnt involve stepping out of the car. If the woman is pregnant simply stop and let the troops know that there is a pregnant woman in the car(if she was in labor and about to give birth) and that they are heading to the hospital. You think soldiers would shoot them if they just stopped and showed them the problem? How long would it take for the troops to realize she needs to get to the hospital or they are just driving through? Not but a few seconds.
Are you serious? Do you think stopping the car and showing the troops the pregnant woman would have stopped this massacre? Why would the speeding car have stopped in the first place, THERE WERE NO SIGNS TO INDICATE THEY MUST STOP.


[edit on 31-5-2006 by dgtempe]




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
THERE WERE NO SIGNS TO INDICATE THEY MUST STOP.





The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   


The reference is to a preliminary investigation’s findings last week.


Yes I'm aware it's a preliminary investigation.
However it seems there is little actual doubt or dispute now as to what actually happened, when, or how.

The Marines in question claimed that the civilians involved were killed by a carbomb. Autopsies revealed they died from 5.56 mm rifle rounds to the head and chest, fired at close range - execution style.

However if you'd like to continue sticking your head in the sand until the full investigations reach the same conclusions and murder charges are filed, feel free


[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by dgtempe
THERE WERE NO SIGNS TO INDICATE THEY MUST STOP.





The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.


That's BS with all due respect.
You want to know why this came to light? Turns out the ambassadors cousin, a youth, who minded his own business and went to school, AND had big plans for the future was one of the 24 killed in Haditha. Due to this, all of this is coming to light now.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Just 2..Thats it?

If only 2 innocent Iraqi women have been killed in the illegal invasion then I guess things are going well then.





posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Preliminary- secondary who cares!!!!!

I do!

I hope those Marines pay for what they are doing. The days of VietNam are gone. Now we have instant communication- instant pictures. Everything is right here for the whole world to see. And the whole world can see that we are comitting some attrocities that must be stopped NOW.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

That's BS with all due respect.
You want to know why this came to light? Turns out the ambassadors cousin, a youth, who minded his own business and went to school, AND had big plans for the future was one of the 24 killed in Haditha. Due to this, all of this is coming to light now.


Well in your view thats pretty much all BS. I guess every Iraqi killed in Iraq was pretty much by the U.S. military. Have you ever notice why the Pentagon do investigations but the enemy side don't do that whenever they killed Iraqis. But then we are just talking about the U.S. only right? No investigation whenever Iraqis killed by the opposing side, but investigations for the U.S. military only. Weird ain't it?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I agree dgtempe. freeing those people from their evil leader, who by the way has been displaced....and shooting women in the face are two very different isues. The latter being very serious and I hope to see a few *SNIP* marines put away for a long long time

Mod Edit: Decorum.


[edit on 31/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   


Have you ever notice why the Pentagon do investigations but the enemy side don't do that whenever they killed Iraqis.


Yeah the nerve of us, expecting a higher standard of the US Marine Corps than we do of a bunch of terrorist Wahabbi fanatics


To their credit, a couple ex-USMC guys I know were the first to say that if these guys did it (and it appears pretty clear they did), they should hang.



[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Yeah the nerve of us, expecting a higher standard of the US Marine Corps than we do of a bunch of terrorist Wahabbi fanatics


To their credit, a couple ex-USMC guys I know were the first to say that if these guys did it (and it appears pretty clear they did), they should hang.



Yeah, whoever says war is ever fair. Let terrorists, insurgents or guerillas fight the way they want, if belief they can win the war. I remember the atrocities committed by the Vietcong and the NVA, along with the U.S. Army in Vietnam and they did no investigation into those atrocities on their side. And they beat us.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
They beat us because they had a reason to win - in their eyes it was part of their war for independence, and the South was a colonial puppet regime (pretty much true, too) - and we didn't. In the end, they won because they had vastly superior motivation and morale, despite our vastly superior capabilities. We had what, a 20 to 1 kill ratio? And it still wasn't enough to defeat them.

It's a lesson that if any attention had been paid to it, could have saved us a lot of trouble in Iraq. Unfortunately there are none so blind as those who refuse to see what is right in front of them.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Simple, they were insurgents.

They had bombs in the car. That's why they didn't stop. They were trying to kill our boys, so they had to die.


Lets just say China had invaded the US, how many NORMAL citizens would become so called "insurgents" doing anything to expel the invaders ?. I find it extremely troubling that some people cannot perceive a situation from multiple view points.

So Truthseeka if China invaded your country would you not figth back ?


PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND !!!!!



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Yes xmotex they won with all means, which even means killing civilians intentionally. They won with more motivation as well, that also includes I am willing to kill innocent civilians to win the war against Americans. You have yet to explain about that xmotex. The will to win at all cost. At all costs.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Well we seemed to have no problem with it in WW2, I seem to remember Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc burned to the ground, complete with plenty of civilians.

Of course back then we actually had good reasons to fight and kill and die, unlike in say, Vietnam, or Iraq...

Killing to prevent a blatantly murderous fascistic takeover of the planet is such a reason.
Killing to keep Exxon and Haliburton in the black, and to keep our fairweather friends in Israel safe from any conceivable threat, and prove to the world what badasses we are and that we haven't lost our mojo, is not.

[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Well we seemed to have no problem with it in WW2, I seem to remember Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc burned to the ground, complete with plenty of civilians.

Of course back then we actually had good reasons to fight and kill and die, unlike in say, Vietnam, or Iraq...




Good reasons? In wars there is no just thing as good reason or reasons. You go to war and you fight to win by all means. You might as well as be saying its a good reason to kill all those Japanese and Germans to win the war. But now we can't do such a thing since then. If we had a problem and worried about being criticize for killing civilians during WW2, we probably lost.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Just from reading the source I would say the Marines did the correct thing, although it might sound bad. Since there really is no other way of knowing the intentions of an oncoming car, their rule or orders are that if it doesn't stop you shoot the people. I hear they are coming up with a better way to prevent the need of killing the passengers that may simply not know that it is a US military roadblock.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Clearly, anyone who has a problem with this doesnt understand the military. You dont mess around a militarized area!! under no circumstances! This guy stated clearly that he was driving as fast as he could to get this lady to a hostpital. That was his first mistake. Driving at full speed right away sends the wrong signal to the marines there, when they see a car flying around turns and such they are going to suspect what is usually the reality, that they are terrorist. Second I'd bet there were warnings both visual and audiable, and he wasnt paying attention because he was driving to fast! In Iraq the number one killer is car bombs, people that either park a car or drive a car into a military convoy, civilian, outpost what ever, these troops thought they were saving them selves. Have any of you tried to stop a car going "At full speed"? No you probably have not, if the car is going to fast to attempt the tires or the egine its self, wich sometimes you need a 50. cal to do, you take out the people inside. Obviously the car did indeed stop after people inside were killed so good job stoping the car, and to the idiot that was driving, the faults on you


Dont blame these deaths because folks are to damn dumb to slow down and take caution around marines, and note, this guy never denied seeing the marines just claimed they never warned him


Dont put this incident with the massacre at Haditha. Two diferent cases, two diferent groups of marines involved, and DONT assume that all marines enjoy killing.


You can hate Bush for going there in the first place, whatever but why is when every somebody acts like a fool and gets themselves killed the marines are seen as murderers and that theres a fishy conspiracy covering their actions?


--Edited to remove my vulgar language. Sorry.


[edit on 5/31/2006 by Rockpuck]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Canned response #1720. Please, no swearing or circumvention of the censors.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
One Woman was about to Give Birth?

Maybe that explains it, why they did not stop.

But it surely does NOT approve any shooting at the windscreen.

I am - as usual - VERY skeptic about the official Army report of this story.

AND if you want stop a Vehicle, SHOOT AT TYRES!



Do you honestly think the marines were aware that a women was pregnant?
What exactly are you trying to say, that they could see her big rounded belly in the car and decided to shoot her so there would be less Iraqi's in the world?

You never seem to post anything except anti-american bashing. I have read your posts, and always try to be objective, but sometimes you go too far. Do you ever think how disrespectful you sound, when you bash a country, you bash the people.

You should find yourself a new obsession. How come you never post stories like this.
www.guardian.co.uk...

Oh yeah, I guess it's ok to shoot women if your not an American Soldier.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   


You go to war and you fight to win by all means.


Or, if you have one tiny iota of common sense, you don't go to war at all unless you have damned good reasons. In WW2 we literally had no choice but to go to war, we were attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war on us the next day.

All this talk about "we never would have won WW2 if we worried about ethics" is so much excreble drivel anyway. We won WW2 largely because we had massively superior resources to the enemy, and used them far more effectively. By your theory, the NAZI's should have won easily, since they were obviously far more comfortable (enthusiastic even) with the mass slaughter of noncombatants that any other participant in the conflict. Instead they got stomped like insects... regardless of "how far they were willing to go to win" they lost, and badly at that.

For instance, their use of reprisal killings against civilian populations in retaliation for resistance attacks never accomplished much except ensuring that the very same resistance movements never ran short of new recruits. Not only was it brutal, it was actively self defeating.

In the same way every Abu Ghraib, every Haditha, every questionable checkpoint shooting, guarantees the insurgents in Iraq droves of fresh new volunteer cannon fodder. Being "tough" usually loses out to being smart, in the real world.

[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join