Iraqi soldier “Caesar” killed three American soldiers as they kicked , beat a pregnant woman

Sorry, doublepost.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by v01i0]

This talk about bad apples in a lot is bit misleading in my opinion. Let's take Abu Ghraib for examble: Media and officials sources suggests indeed that it is few bad apples in question, but when approx. thirty people can be counted from photographs that went through the military investigation, talking about few apples is misleading.

SPC CHRISTOPHERSON
SPC AMBUHL
SSG FREDRICK 2
SGT WALLIN
SGT WAYLAN
CPL GRANER
SGT CATHCART
SGT J. DAVIS
PFC ENGLAND
CPL NAKHLA
SPC RIVERA
SPC KROL
SPC CRUZ
SPC HARMAN
SPC SMITH
CINZANO
ZAYTER
SPC HARMAN
SPC GOODMAN
SSG FREDERICK
SPC SIVITS
PFC HARMAN
SGT CORDONA
SPC STROTHERS
HOFECKER
RICHARDS
HUBBARD
BARHOUTI

And there were at least 8 unknowns, which may include previously listed people.

It's been about 2 years since I compiled above list from photos presented in Salon.com, so it may have changed. Even so, everyone can personally check the names from link I just posted.

Happy watching

PS. In my opinion, this is almost whole guard company - or what ever unit - that took part in the attrocities, or at least (if were ignorant) knew very well about them.

[edit: Added post script]

[edit on 13-1-2008 by v01i0]

Originally posted by v01i0
Being serious, I've heard that in some cases, they don't count victims that die in hospitals later enough being lethally wounded. And somehow I have feeling that UN would be motivated to underestimate the casualties, for the sake of everyone's reputation.

I would think the UN would love to jump on higher numbers if they could. The problem, as I stated before, is where are the bodies? Where are the death certificates? Where is anything other than one flawed consensus?

With numbers as high as 2.5 million that people are spouting, people just do not think about the sheer amount of dead that would be unaccounted for. Also the vast majority of these dead are not at the hands of the US, but are caused from all the Muslim on Muslim secular fighting that has been going on. As example the US kills around 100 to 200 per month and the secular fighting accounts for over 10 times that in deaths.

For your calculations how do you figure in that out of the 4000 about 800 died to non battle accidents and most of the others were from IEDs and not direct fighting? There just isn’t any massive bombing campaigns going on to account for your 600k plus, nor are there large scale battles on the Army side. And there just isn’t any massive troop build ups to attack.

The majority of fights are from small groups attacking the military convoys. There is some from the door to door patrol, but that is usually snipers or IED traps, and lastly from surgical air strikes on a small group or one house type scenarios.

Yes, at times there is Collateral Casualties, but those are rare and when it does happen the numbers are in the single digits max for any given firefight or bombing.

Even if someone wanted to say that secular fighting has killed 100s of thousands or millions once again there needs to be physical evidence backing it up, and there just isn't any other than the 2k to 3k per month max that we have seen these past four years.


[edit on 13-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by v01i0


Ok, great! Someone that does research. That's a good thing

So now, what does your research say about this incident that two soldiers supposedly kicked a pregnant woman?

Remember, it was the Muslim Scholars Association that made the claim.
Not any of the other American or Iraqi soldiers that were there have said anything. Iraqi soldiers even helped identify the man.

Just because someone says something negative about soldiers doesn't make it necessarily true.

Originally posted by Midav
So now, what does your research say about this incident that two soldiers supposedly kicked a pregnant woman?

I guess your remark is justified; I haven't yet commented the issue at hand. For that, I haven't yet reached any conclusions; while it may be possible, majority of "evidence" posted here suggest contrary. In fact, I'd like to believe that there were no kicking of pregnant woman, but keeping in mind that media is unreliable, especially in warzone - and that US troops have committed attrocities before with approval higher from command chain - I have no reason make conclusions about truthfulness of original claim of this thread.

I was in contact with someone that actually lives in Iraq, and he cannot confirm either if the story is true or false, everything in there is just as messy about this particular event.

[edit: typoes]

[edit on 13-1-2008 by v01i0]

reply to post by Xtrozero


I don't know. In mass graves? Those blackwater guys are not nice to civilians either. I can see that both sides of this conflict are trying to minimize it's own impact in humanitarian crisis - wise, while accusing other side as much as possible. The number must be something between 100,000 and 1.5 million as stated. Thats why I guessed around 400k in some of my previous posts.

reply to post by v01i0


Ok, fair enough. My nephew is currently in Iraq as well as several friends. They all say the same thing: It was an insurgent attack. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing would be achieved in kicking a pregnant woman anyway.

Just because a small minority of people have done bad things, does not mean ever bit of news, as well as propaganda, is true.

None of the other American or Iraqi soldiers/civilians have come forward. No pregnant woman was taken to the hospital for bruising, internal injuries or the like.

There is absolutely nothing there.

Some people (not meaning you) have already made up their mind that this incident is true. They have convinced themselves even with the lack of evidence:

No Iraqi soldiers or civilians have come forward.

Iraqi soldiers pointed out the culprit.

No US soldiers have come forward.

No pregnant woman was seen at a hospital for bruising/injuries.

A group made the statement on the beating... a group that had no individuals at the location at that time.

To me it's clear cut. An insurgent took the chance to kill an American Captain in a war zone. He also was able to kill an NCO along with it and wound several others.

"Suddenly, one of the Iraqi soldiers opened fire intentionally and immediately killed two American soldiers," said Brig. Gen. Mutaa Khazraji, commander of the Iraqi army's 2nd Division.

He declined to discuss the soldier's background, but another brigadier general, Noor Din Hussein, told the Reuters news agency that he was an "insurgent infiltrator."

"It was not an accident," Hussein told Reuters. "There is some penetration [by insurgents], and we want to purify the Iraqi army. Our soldiers are good and doing well."

Now cut to

In June 2004, two National Guardsmen from California were killed by Iraqi security forces they were helping train. The U.S. military originally attributed the deaths of National Guard Spc. Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr., 34, of Tracy and 1st Lt. Andre D. Tyson, 33, of Riverside to an ambush by insurgents.

And finally

"This is not an isolated case," McCaffrey said. "It has happened before; it will happen again if we don't look into it and protect the soldiers."

www.latimes.com...

That's coming from the LA Times, a newspaper that has not always been kind to the US presence in Iraq...

Anywho, I believe the above speaks for itself. In my personal opinion, the insurgent should be executed for wearing the uniform of the Iraqi army. I believe that falls under some espionage act doesn't it?

It would be no different than the German soldiers who wore American uniforms during the Ardennes offensive. Once found, they were rounded up and shot. But, I digress...

Originally posted by Midav
Just because a small minority of people have done bad things, does not mean ever bit of news, as well as propaganda, is true.

Exactly, we actually don't know a poop of what happens there if we rely on corporate media alone. During years of my personal interest on middle-east region, I've seen all sides doing questionable media tricks where even photo-ops aren't out of question.

Also I think that in this particular case which this thread is about, media and propagandist may even have confused two different events. All kind of violence takes place in that kind of setting - I'll be meaning Iraq's situation. There may have been kicking of a pregnant woman, but not necessarily when this shooting took place; after all it's nothing new that there are some lunatics in ranks that uses violence to terrorize or satisfy their own pervert needs (note: I'm not saying that all marines are lunas).

And also we need to remember (as people have mentioned earlier in this thread) The americans are not there for nothing, but neither are insurgents. U.S is trying to invade the country and insurgents are trying to fight the invaders back. And in this kind of situation, if you want to get reliable info, I guess you'll have to go there by yourself

Originally posted by Midav
My nephew is currently in Iraq as well as several friends.

Hmm, then you are american I assume? So your nephew and friends are with military right? Or some contractors? Anyway, I'm bit surprised that they claim it to be insurgent attack in such certainty, when my contact - who is native Iraqi, lives and works there as a doctor - can't say anything for sure about what happened. Well, I'm sure that your nephew would tell you things lot more confidental than would my "acquitance" in Iraq to me.

...But, I really don't want to engage into a debate about the truthfulness of this incident; Reason for posting was that I wanted to people to realize that the talk about 'few bad apples' is misleading.

I think that future trend will be more like that these incidents where american/allied troops are engaged, will decrease, while the incidents where iraqi militants and foreign contractors(like Blackwater) will increase. This will be the "handwash": First artificial secterian violence is created(this phase has been going on for a while) - then the people shall be so confused that what once was artificial secterian violence, becomes real and will uphold itself, and after that allied forces are really seen as a saviours and peacekeepers.

Oh well, there I went again wide out of the subject

[edit on 13-1-2008 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0


Atrocties at Abu Ghraib? Nope, sorry. No atrocites there. Abuse? Yes, the prisoners were abused. That's wrong.

An atrocity is different. A good example would be the US Soldiers that were executed after capture by the Saddam Fedayeen in the beginning of the war. Most people seem to forget about that. Good ol' Al Jazeera had photos of the Soldiers with bullet holes in their heads.

And how many Troops are in Iraq? 160,000, give or take a few? And you have that list to show about how horrible we are behaving over there?

Not sure what you mean by "guard company". A company in the US Army is about 200 or so troops, I think.

reply to post by v01i0


America is not trying to invade Iraq, and being fought back by insurgents.
America is in Iraq, and is working with the Iraqi security forces trying to reduce violence and provide a safe and secure setting, where Iraqis can go about their business without fear. What you have is competing ideologies between various groups of criminal thugs, who are worried that they're gonna be irrelevant if Iraq is no longer dysfunctional.

reply to post by v01i0


Would you care to give us in terms of a percentage what number those names you mentioned with regards to Abu Ghraib are, relative to the number of US servicemembers that have served in Iraq? How is the bad apple analogy wrong in light of that?

Originally posted by zerbot565
enlighten me once again as to why i shouldent belive the story to be true when i once again read about a U.s soldier who´s raped an other human and now it even seams he cut her throut and burned her and tried to burie the remains....

Because you have evidence of a crime in one story, and no evidence of a crime in the other. No evidence=presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Originally posted by zerbot565
the question is how to count the the victims since apparently the lower stats dont contain ppl that have died in hospitals from wounds.

Can you show us where the lower stats don't reflect those that have died at hospitals? If a stat excludes hospitals, it's not much of usefu stat is it? This is just as ridiculous a claim, as saying the US doesn't count fatalities, if the victim made it onto a helicopter before dying. You'd still have to see a certain number of people wounded in an attack prior to them being taken to a hospital, to allow for those numbers of people dying in hospitals.
Once they died, they'd have to be buried somewhere, and now that Saddam isn't in power, I'm just not seeing hospitals loading up truckloads of corpses to be taken to mass graves, so they could hide their civilian casualties from the US and UN.

Originally posted by jerico65

Atrocties at Abu Ghraib? Nope, sorry. No atrocites there. Abuse? Yes, the prisoners were abused. That's wrong.

An atrocity is different. A good example would be the US Soldiers that were executed after capture by the Saddam Fedayeen in the beginning of the war. Most people seem to forget about that. Good ol' Al Jazeera had photos of the Soldiers with bullet holes in their heads.

Thanks for correcting me there, but isn't atrocity synonym to cruelty? I'm not native english speaker, but my english dictionary - which should be decent one - defines atrocity as cruelty. Not sure about the emphasis tho, I guess its just a word. And I wonder whether you be meaning that "death by force" is an atrocity because thats what you're saying: "An atrocity is different. A good example would be the US Soldiers that were executed". Well, as you know there were at least one case of death in Abu Ghraib.

Originally posted by jerico65

And how many Troops are in Iraq? 160,000, give or take a few? And you have that list to show about how horrible we are behaving over there?

Not sure what you mean by "guard company". A company in the US Army is about 200 or so troops, I think.

Sorry about confusing that company size. In my language word closest to company is around 30 man excluding the officers. By guard company I meant the unit which runs the facility, isn't it about a that size?

Originally posted by GT100FV
How is the bad apple analogy wrong in light of that?

Did I say wrong anywhere? No I didn't. I said it's misleading.

Originally posted by GT100FV
America is not trying to invade Iraq, and being fought back by insurgents.

You're dead right there. It has already invaded Iraq.

Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by GT100FV
How is the bad apple analogy wrong in light of that?

Did I say wrong anywhere? No I didn't. I said it's misleading.

Originally posted by GT100FV
America is not trying to invade Iraq, and being fought back by insurgents.

You're dead right there. It has already invaded Iraq.

A- how is the Bad Apple analogy misleading(seeing as how you admitted that it wasn't wrong)? 30 individuals out of countless hundreds of thousands=somewhere in the tenths to hundreths of a percent levels. What's misleading is trying to make every US soldier into a mindless killer who kills, rapes, and tortures Iraqis for fun.

B-Iraq has a government. The US is working with that government and the Iraqi military/police. I'm sorry, but the insurgent as freedom fighter isn't gonna fly. They are criminal thugs desperately trying to hold onto power, influence, and relevance, in a Post Saddam world, and trying to make sure that democracy is unsuccessful.

Originally posted by v01i0
The number must be something between 100,000 and 1.5 million as stated. Thats why I guessed around 400k in some of my previous posts.

Honestly checkout iraqbodycount.com. They are actually used by both the pro and con parties of the war, and they do slant against the war. It would be very hard to prove 200k much less anything higher.

Just a few bad apples

At least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have committed a killing or been charged in one in the United States after returning from combat.

The 121 killings ranged from shootings and stabbings to bathtub drownings and fatal car crashes resulting from drunken driving, the newspaper said. All but one of those implicated was male.

About a third of the victims were girlfriends or relatives, including a 2-year-old girl slain by her 20-year-old father while he was recovering from wounds sustained in Iraq.

A quarter of the victims were military personnel. One was stabbed and set afire by fellow soldiers a day after they all returned from Iraq.

But they don't kick pregnant women! really.

reply to post by Legalizer


If there is evidence that they kicked a pregnant woman, I'd like to see it. If not, why the irrational need to believe that they did? You can quote all the stats of bad behavior that you want, and unless they involve this case, they're irrelevant. How about the 800,000 that haven't done any of those things- is that irrelevant to you?

hear no evil speak no evil see no evil

www.wsws.org...

heres some reading i stumbled across where they mention some of the figures that has to be taken into the equation,

i guess most of you who read the NY times today read an article regarding soldiers that has come home and brougth something with em ,
something that has changed them , and for the military to push these cases of trauma aside shows even more of a neglect to understand humanity

reply to post by Legalizer


And how many civilian-on-civilian deaths were committed during that same timespan???

How many Average Joes abused/killed someone?

Seems like the MSM is trying to push for the "Crazed Iraqi War Vet" like they did during the Vietnam War.