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.

 

Haditha is the tip of the iceberg - Iraq atrocities continue

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I notice certain similarities between this war and the Vietnam war.

In the Vietnam war, our enemy was communism. The fear that the BIG RED SCARE oOooHhh AHhhHh was coming to get us and our way of living.

Fast Forward to now, TERRORISM, oOoOH AHHhHh we fight them there so we don't fight them here, soOo scary.

Only difference is the people in our time are so selfish in thier own lifestyles that it really doesn't matter what happens in a country far far away, as long as it doesnt interrupt thier 9-5 so they can come home and watch T.V. Hence the slim # of antiwar protestors. People were much more in sync in the 60's >_




posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
double post sorry.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Shortness]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Remember that according to the video evidence, the second massacre that we were looking at in this thread involved Marines shooting children from inside the house. This rules out manslaughter, I think. But in any case, it's irrelevant.


If the second massacre (Ishaqi) with the accompanying “video evidence” is to what you are referring, the American troops were cleared of any misconduct.

The BBC video shown in the Ishaqi case is very similar to the one displayed by the BBC for Haditha. The automatic assumption of guilt is riddled through the video....yes, this can be considered bias.



Propaganda flows more than one way.


mg



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
If the second massacre (Ishaqi) with the accompanying “video evidence” is to what you are referring, the American troops were cleared of any misconduct.



Somehow, I don't think that this verdict has anything to due with truth or justice. It seems like more of an attempt to make things look kosher int the intl community.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Somehow, I don't think that this verdict has anything to due with truth or justice. It seems like more of an attempt to make things look kosher int the intl community.


That’s really another topic, however one AQ member (known to be in the house at the time, Abu Ahmed) was found dead in the collapsed home and another apprehended alive from the house (Hamza), I would say the inteligence was good.

The Iraqi police reports wre found to be exagerated, conflicting and distorted stemming from a municipality known historically to be sympathetic to the insurgency. The families association with AQ members placed the entire family in danger first. If you want your children out of harms way, move them away from junk like this...then go on about your insurgency, unless risking 'them' has no real percieved consequence.


mg



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by rich23
Remember that according to the video evidence, the second massacre that we were looking at in this thread involved Marines shooting children from inside the house. This rules out manslaughter, I think. But in any case, it's irrelevant.


If the second massacre (Ishaqi) with the accompanying “video evidence” is to what you are referring, the American troops were cleared of any misconduct.

The BBC video shown in the Ishaqi case is very similar to the one displayed by the BBC for Haditha. The automatic assumption of guilt is riddled through the video....yes, this can be considered bias.

Propaganda flows more than one way.
mg


As someone who studied law rather extensively (I did a degree but elected not to make it my career) I can tell you there's a rather obvious legal principle that applies here: you cannot judge your own case.

For the US military to adjudge that its own soldiers are innocent of any misconduct would be like Saddam clearing himself of mass murder.

And you have the gall to talk of bias? The BBC was the favoured news service of the world for decades, stretching back to way before I was born.

I've already looked at bias in this thread so I don't intend to repeat myself.

But the legal principle I have stated here holds, and renders the verdict extremely dubious.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
This is such a typical anti-American troop thread.
Jumping on allegations as truth before bothering to wait until facts are investigated and proven.

According to dgtempe, rich23, etc. etc.: all American troops are evil murderous thugs and the UN peacekeeping troops are wonderful saints!
(WARNING: graphic images)

On July 6 in Cite Soleil, a weeping Fredi Romelus, recounted how UN troops lobbed a red smoke grenade into his house and then opened fire killing his wife and two children. "They surrounded our house this morning and I ran thinking my wife and the children were behind me. They couldn't get out and the blan [UN] fired into the house." Exclusive video footage from a HIP reporter captured the interview as well as the images of the three victims. Lying in blood on the floor of the modest home were Mr. Romelus's wife, 22 year-old Sonia Romelus who was killed by the same bullet that passed through the body of her 1 year-old infant son Nelson. She was apparently holding the child as the UN opened fire. Next to them was her four year-old son Stanley Romelus who was killed by a single shot to the ..

Those UN peacekeepers are such noble warriors of peace!

U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani – a secluded town on the Congo River – are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.



[edit on 6/3/2006 by pawnplayer]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by sbob
Rich23 said"But I know if I were an Iraqi I'd be out there with a gun trying to pick off as many US and UK soldiers as I could."

Wow you liked Stykis response and he is a US soldier going to Iraq soon.

So you want to kill Styki. Wow really nice man!

You are talking about war crimes and you are threatening to murder someone on this site if you and he were in Iraq in the same thread. Yeah credible and not one sided.

Just making a point.


I've seen your posts before, so the mendacity and distortions in just these few short lines are of no surprise to me.

I think you missed the all important phrase "if I were an Iraqi". I am not, so I won't do it. I'm from the UK so I try and persuade people here and on this board and whomever I talk to that this war is evil, evil shizzle.

You obviously missed the main point of my post which is that I wish Styki well and that I hope he makes the right decision for himself, and gets enough information to be able to make that decision.

Why I am responding like a rational person to a post like this, however, is a mystery even to me.



The reason why you are responding like a rational person is because you are a one. You said you are to old to join the military. Keep beign rational, is what separate humans from animals.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pawnplayer
This is such a typical anti-American troop thread.
Jumping on allegations as truth before bothering to wait until facts are investigated and proven.

According to dgtempe, rich23, etc. etc.: all American troops are evil murderous thugs and the UN peacekeeping troops are wonderful saints!
(WARNING: graphic images)

On July 6 in Cite Soleil, a weeping Fredi Romelus, recounted how UN troops lobbed a red smoke grenade into his house and then opened fire killing his wife and two children. "They surrounded our house this morning and I ran thinking my wife and the children were behind me. They couldn't get out and the blan [UN] fired into the house." Exclusive video footage from a HIP reporter captured the interview as well as the images of the three victims. Lying in blood on the floor of the modest home were Mr. Romelus's wife, 22 year-old Sonia Romelus who was killed by the same bullet that passed through the body of her 1 year-old infant son Nelson. She was apparently holding the child as the UN opened fire. Next to them was her four year-old son Stanley Romelus who was killed by a single shot to the ..

Those UN peacekeepers are such noble warriors of peace!

U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani – a secluded town on the Congo River – are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.

Once again this makes it ok because it didnt contain american troops. Ohh my mistake it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Peace to all,
M4S



[edit on 6/3/2006 by pawnplayer]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I fully agree with rich23.

What did you expect, missedgear, that the very people who are responsible for the actions of the troops will be fair and impartial in their investigation of the guys they see every day who are their comrades in arms?

The troops and their superiors are clearly responsible for the deaths of the innocent Iraqi civilians that were killed at Haditha and Ishaqi. Shooting blindly into a house in total disregard for the safety of others who may be there, just because an Al Qaida member is suspected to be inside, is heinously criminal.

Calling for and executing air strikes upon such a house is seriously criminal on the part of all involved, from the jack boot in the field who calls for the strike, to the radio operator who conveys it, to the commander who approves it, to the pilot who executes it, to the chain-of-command superiors whose policy it is to allow and encourage it. The radio operator may be less culpable than the others.

The prevailing pro-war attitude that the murder of any number of civilians is justified if the occupying forces manage to kill one “enemy” in the process is madness. The euphemisms of “collateral damage” and "war is hell" are pathic attempts to excuse the inexcusable.

Pawnplayer, this is an anti-American troop thread??? Read it again. It’s against the commission of crimes and murder by American troops! Your statement is perverse. Are you suggesting we should condone and encourage the commission of crimes and murder by American troops?

Pawnplayer, your exaggeration is laughable. Nothing said by dgtempe, rich23, etc. etc. (who is “etc. etc.?”) remotely suggests they hold the view the “all American troops are evil murderous thugs” or that “the UN peacekeeping troops are wonderful saints!” That's a stupid thing for you to say. Go wash your keyboard and fingertips with soap. Your attempt to misdirect this thread is pathetic.

Missedgear, I hope you can get your transmission fixed soon. But maybe it's the clutch.


[edit on 6/3/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
As someone who studied law rather extensively (I did a degree but elected not to make it my career) I can tell you there's a rather obvious legal principle that applies here: you cannot judge your own case


The premise for the argument of law is not one to which you have made or affixed.... “Judging”, as you so flippantly throw-out (with your ever so extensive knowledge...please explain the degrees of seperation), has a multi-faceted crown with many thorns…none, not one, pointing in toward your armchair… how fortunate for you.


Originally posted by rich23
For the US military to adjudge that its own soldiers are innocent of any misconduct would be like Saddam clearing himself of mass murder.


Nice try.


Originally posted by rich23
And you have the gall to talk of bias? The BBC was the favoured news service of the world for decades, stretching back to way before I was born.


Born?..when?..yeserday?... last week? On what turnip truck have you been watching the Tele?

And no “no gall” involved… the obvious is apparently not clear to you, perhaps it is you with the desire…


Originally posted by rich23
I've already looked at bias in this thread so I don't intend to repeat myself.


Well there you have it…what you say must be true...forget about everything surrounding…protocol…investigations…politics …law…reason….logic…evidence….because you have the facts, (all the facts)…you know!…Damn it you know!....so

Where, WHERE is your lawsuit?

Pfft…no where, zero, does not exist… self proclaimed ‘studied the law extensively’ individual…these feeble words are the extent of your evidence… coupled with lackey expertise... the courts, the ruling, defendants, respondents, the respondents families and the military corps…all end with something you can not provide…proof to the contrary.






mg



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It's so sad to read the posts of those who have no heart, no empathy, no soul, and who so readily condone the killing of others who are far away, in a foreign land, out of sight, out of mind, and thus don't matter. Not much different than the drone soldiers who kill the defenseless over there. Challenge them and they respond with barely intelligible fumings.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
It's so sad to read the posts of those who have no heart, no empathy, no soul, and who so readily condone the killing of others who are far away, in a foreign land, out of sight, out of mind, and thus don't matter.


Such as the US and coalition troops?...good call.


Originally posted by dubiousone
Not much different than the drone soldiers who kill the defenseless over there. Challenge them and they respond with barely intelligible fumings.


Please provide an example.


mg



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
...The Marines in Haditha that slaughtered civilians are guilty of murder, imo...

children with no weapons = don't fire
women with no weapons = don't fire
men with no weapons = don't fire


ok...but wht if the marines shot them thinking one or more of them had explosives strapped on ready to sacrifice himself and his entire family?

therefore no weapons but lets say the marines might have seen a detonator...shot and killed them to protect themselves...murder still?

add:-

if man/woman/child with no weapons = shot dead = murder charge = death penalty = big serious problems for us troops

remember the iran-iraq war...iran recruited masses of men/women/children and sent them onto the battle field weaponless to swarm their enemy in human wave attacks...the basij iirc...

so if the iraqi insurgents use this tactic on a smaller scale and if us troops are forced to defend themselves and kill them...are they liable for murder when they kill unarmed iraqis?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
It's so sad to read the posts of those who have no heart, no empathy, no soul, and who so readily condone the killing of others who are far away, in a foreign land, out of sight, out of mind, and thus don't matter. Not much different than the drone soldiers who kill the defenseless over there. Challenge them and they respond with barely intelligible fumings.


You know your whole statement is just as applicable to the militant Muslims, including those that wished to sneak in bomb making material near Seattle from Canada.

Drone soldiers who kill the defeseless? Can you please name these people so that we can begin prosecution?

There are always bad soldiers, bad commanders, and sick killings in war. I have no problem with these people being court marshalled. But the other 95%+ are busting their butt and wanting to come home to their kids. I suggest watching the Military channel if you can get it and see that these "drones" are human and make friends with some Iraqis and don't make friends with some Iraqis...some military people are punks and some are heroes.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   


missedgear says: Please provide an example.


Why? ATS is filled to over-flowing with examples.

To Atomic:

True, my statement is as applicable to the militant Muslims. But we aren’t the militant Muslims, are we? We’re talking about what we're doing in a country where we are an occupying force which contains far more non-militant civilians whom we have a duty to treat with human dignity.

You ask: Drone soldiers who kill the defenseless? Can you please name these people so that we can begin prosecution?

Examples are those who order and execute air strikes upon buildings in residential neighborhoods where an Al Qaida member is “suspected” of being present. Do you condone that behavior? I don’t know their names. Their commanders and colleagues over there know who they are. Ask them. They likely won't tell you. After all, "war is hell", "collateral damage", "catch 22", "peer pressure", "I was scared", "too stressful", other b.s., and they only killed Iraqis and wouldn't have done it if they hadn't been placed in that hell hole in the first place. The circumstances made them do it. No personal responsibility, after all.

Those who execute the "shoot anything that moves after an IED expodes" policy. There are other scenarios that have been discussed at length on ATS. It's the "gotta gun, gotta use it" mentality. The "got authority, gotta exercise it mentality". A gun lends a lot of authority to the one holding it over those who don't have one in their hands. I don't know their names. Does that exonerate them? Their commanders and colleagues know who they are. Ask them.

I fully support bringing all the soldiers home and letting the Iraqis determine their own future. But that won’t happen. The current administration and its puppet masters are there on an agenda which would not be served by bringing the boys home. They need the human inventory in the field to “get the job done.” But they won't tell us quite what the "job done" is supposed to look like. Oh, I almost forgot, our (mis)leader proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" quite some time ago. So why are we still there?


[edit on 6/3/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpanishFly
ok...but wht if the marines shot them thinking one or more of them had explosives strapped on ready to sacrifice himself and his entire family?

What if there were big circus mirrors that made them look tall, like adults?
There's a million what ifs...don't even go there. Are you trying to say they cleared a building with multiple rooms (I think) and some how shot everyone thinking that they were strapped?



therefore no weapons but lets say the marines might have seen a detonator...shot and killed them to protect themselves...murder still?

Enough with the 'what ifs'. Well yeah, if a little kid had a detonator and was ready to kill me...I would probably kill him first. But are you saying that a dozen or so civilians had detonators?



if man/woman/child with no weapons = shot dead = murder charge = death penalty = big serious problems for us troops

I seriously doubt that the Marines will get the death penalty for the Haditha incident. I leave that up to the courts, but I think if found guilty then a stiff prison term will suffice.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Pawnplayer - what you have posted is simply off the point. I have not referred to UN troops AT ALL. All that came from the mysterious recesses of your own psyche. The point that I am trying to make is that Haditha is but one in a long line of "incidents" (to use a term verging on the euphemistic in its neutrality) and that the "rotten apple" approach is being applied here.

This approach is exemplified in what is going on. Take the most serious, high-profile incident - Haditha - and, knowing that you can't wriggle out of it - take the soldiers involved and prosecute them to show willing.

Meanwhile, to reassure the troops on the ground that life can go on as normal and that they can treat Iraq as a free-fire zone (of which more below), you take another case and make sure that the troops involved are exonerated. This is simple realpolitik: it has nothing to do with truth, justice, and the (by now rather tattered and besmirched) American way. It's just how your Dear Leaders are running the war.

Now... circling back to "free fire zones". Has anyone here NOT heard this expression before? Does anyone NOT know its etymology? It first surfaced in Vietnam as a euphemism (none too subtle) for "kill whoever you want". This is because, in Vietnam, those sneaky slopes were using the civilian population as (gasp!) human shields. In other words, they were mingling with other people from their own country as they were trying to drive the US out of that country. Does no-one here remember the phrase "we had to destroy the village in order to save it"? And does anyone recognise the parallels with Fallujah?

See, what we have here in some people (missed_gear being an egregious example) is this ideologically-driven refusal to recognise some obvious but inconvenient truths. Despite the fact that mg would no doubt be the first out of the house with an assault rifle if his town were occupied by an invading foreign army come to liberate the people from the tyrant Bush, he seems unable to appreciate that the Iraqis are doing exactly the same thing.

He also seems unable to put any kind of coherent argument together to answer the idea (which is plain and simple and easy to understand) that one cannot be judge in one's own case. I mean, it's a long time (longer than you think, mg) since I did my degree, and things may have changed, but I doubt that they would have changed that much.

And please, please explain the degrees of separation. I studied UK law, and the common law of our country formed the basis of US law, but there may be variations of which I know nothing. Explain it simply, so that everyone who reads the post can follow your logic, please. Don't just refer to it loftily as something I don't understand. I try not to resort to that kind of obfuscation, myself.

And, see this kind of thing


originally posted by missed_gear
Born?..when?..yeserday?... last week? On what turnip truck have you been watching the Tele?


... is what people resort to when they know they can't be rational. You may not know it, mg, but people were listening to the BBC for decades, back to my knowledge to the thirties and probably beyond, on the radio as a source of news. Voice of America was not usually people's favoured source of news in Eastern Europe, it was the rather calmer tones of the BBC which did have a culture that disdained bias (they liked to think it was possible in those days, bless 'em, and they gave it a good shot).

Yeah. Turnip truck. Sooooooooo funny.

And, if you can, please try to write in English, rather than in "rant". It just helps you think. If you can't think straight, you can't make an argument, and therefore there can be no counter-argument, and hence no discussion. I mean...



The premise for the argument of law is not one to which you have made or affixed.... “Judging”, as you so flippantly throw-out (with your ever so extensive knowledge...please explain the degrees of seperation), has a multi-faceted crown with many thorns…none, not one, pointing in toward your armchair… how fortunate for you.


That first "sentence" (I don't know what else to call it, frankly)... it just doesn't make sense. "Affixed" is a transitive verb, requiring an object. You affix something to something else but what it is that is being affixed, and to what, is unclear.

I mean, I had assumed that you were American but perhaps the assumption that English is your first language is going too far, pehaps you are an immigrant, in which case I'm sorry for the above. The only language in which I have any fluency, I regret to say, is French, so unless that is your first language, we're stuck with English, and with you having to try to express your thoughts more rationally.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 4-6-2006 by rich23]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
dude...your posts are looong winded...i cringe everytime i see such long posts



anyway...youre saying one cannot be judge in one's own case...k fine...so who would u suggest then...the iraqis?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpanishFly
dude...your posts are looong winded...i cringe everytime i see such long posts



Sorry if too many words make your . spin. There was more to my post than that, but you can always have another crack at it.

And in answer to your question: well, the crime took place in Iraq, which is supposedly a sovereign nation, so why not the Iraqis? Or, if not, then there's always the International Criminal Court... except the US won't sign up, because they know damn well that if they did they'd be open to criminal charges going back decades.

Was that short enough for you?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join