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.

 

US marine pleads guilty over Haditha killings

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Indeed it is, a very scary place. Dagestan aswell




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Von Papen..an Ambassador, did not enter a house and murder 24 people.

I can assure you that all those with DIRECT blood on their hands were either executed or given life sentences.

There is a big difference between staying mute while in position to avert atrocity and actually carrying out those orders.

We all know the phrase..i was only following orders..the trials made it quite clear that every soldier has a duty to disobey any order that is illegal under all conventions.

Von Papen...a pen pusher...who (never actually gave any orders), is hardly an example i would care to use to justify the pathetic sentencing of these slimebags who were the perpetrators with their fingers on the trigger.

Epic Fail.


Cosmic..
edit on 24-1-2012 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2012 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by sonnny1
Personally, I beleived OJ Simpson killed his wife.


I was trying to avoid this, but since you brought it up... I did think about the similarity. Bloody glove, long shower, bloody socks and the missing knife that he did buy some time prior, and he was let go.

Same here -- bodies riddled with bullets... And that didn't matter.


Exactly. I dont think ANYONE here is trying to portray this any differently.
Yes,what happened is an atrocity. But the system is designed to take EVERYTHING under consideration, Civy and Military. If people want to scream injustice,they need look at the LAWS that govern the verdict.

This is my personal opinion.
I would hate to wake up EVERYDAY knowing I was part of something like this,or that I had a significant hand in it.
You dont forget war. No one can,when you have activly participated in one.Just think about this also. How many OTHER atrocitys have been committed,and the victims voice isnt heard?
War is Hell.

There is no exceptions.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life

There is a big difference between giving orders or staying mute while in position to avert atrocity and actually carrying out those orders.



Wow.

In my book,human life means a bit more. Besides,you said it didnt happen,and I gave you facts that it did.

Because it didnt fit under your "personal" guidlines of 'facts",the facts are not good enough. Typical.


In my honest opinion to your above statement??

Coward-A person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Cosmic4life

There is a big difference between giving orders or staying mute while in position to avert atrocity and actually carrying out those orders.



Wow.

In my book,human life means a bit more. Besides,you said it didnt happen,and I gave you facts that it did.

Because it didnt fit under your "personal" guidlines of 'facts",the facts are not good enough. Typical.


In my honest opinion to your above statement??

Coward-A person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.


Clearly your smoking something you shouldn't be, it seems to be screwing with your ability to read.

What exactly did i say "didn't happen" ????

The guidelines are not mine..they are clearly stated in the rule of law and the precedent for military conduct as laid down by the Nuremberg trials.

Because i would refuse to commit a war crime you would label me a coward ?? says more about you than me i think.

And for the record i have endured more danger and unpleasantness than you've had hot dinners, it didn't make me succumb to those forces and become the very thing i was fighting against.

I defend humanity..ALL of humanity...i wonder if you would be so lenient if it was 24 Americans murdered by Iraqis..i for one would not.

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
But the system is designed to take EVERYTHING under consideration, Civy and Military. If people want to scream injustice,they need look at the LAWS that govern the verdict.


There are Laws and there is application of same. That's the function of the judge. In this case IMHO it was all f4cked up big time.

According to the Laws of physics, planes can and should fly. Once in a while, due to pilot error, they crash.


War is Hell.


Obviously. Remember Haditha.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


You said:



The cold hard numbers show the US and her western allies have killed/murdered more civilains than their enemies, the terrorist. The War on Terrorism is terrorism, terrorizing the Middle East, and it's deadlier than any terrorist act committed to date.


I'd like to see those cold hard numbers, if you don't mind. You made the bold statement, so obviously you must have a link that backs it up. The one you provided does not. It said:



The 9/11 attacks resulted in 2,996 casualties, which included 343 firefighters and 59 police officers who were in trying to save victims inside the World Trade Center. The War on Terror launched by George W. Bush Jr. has led to at least 227,000 people (more than 300,000 according to other estimates). This includes 116,657 civilians (51%) between 76 - 108,000 insurgents or Taliban Islamists (34% to 36%), 25,297 Iraqi and Afghan soldiers (11%), and 8,975 American, British, and other coalition forces (3.9%).


Which does not address your claim.

It lumps all military actions into a single event, but dishonestly separates out terrorist events as stand-alone. It's an invalid comparison. Furthermore, it states that 116,657 civilians have been killed, but dishonestly fails to report who killed them, and how, with the intent that the reader infer they were killed by US forces in a single action.

A Statistics Professor once told me that there are lies, there are DAMN lies, and then the lowest part of the heap - Statistics. This is propaganda, fun with numbers.

I'll wait for you to give some verifiable and properly addressed numbers.



edit on 2012/1/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well there's the thing Slayer.

In 1945 the US actually had a moral code and stood by it.

Today the US is morally bankrupt and behaves as if people of other nations are of a lesser value than Americans.


Do you mean like the fire bombing of civilians in Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? THAT sort of "moral code"? How have things changed?

Listen up, war has a different "moral code" than the luxuries afforded by peace. You do what you have to do to force the enemy to capitulate, in order to save your own. He does the same to you. Whichever breaks first loses.

THAT is the "morality" of war.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Listen up, war has a different "moral code" than the luxuries afforded by peace. You do what you have to do to force the enemy to capitulate, in order to save your own. He does the same to you. Whichever breaks first loses.


I think you went waaaaay off in this tangent -- off topic, I mean. How does wasting 24 Iraqi individuals help the US war effort? Why NOT KILLING CIVILIANS is called a "luxury"? Seriously?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well there's the thing Slayer.

In 1945 the US actually had a moral code and stood by it.

Today the US is morally bankrupt and behaves as if people of other nations are of a lesser value than Americans.


Do you mean like the fire bombing of civilians in Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? THAT sort of "moral code"? How have things changed?

Listen up, war has a different "moral code" than the luxuries afforded by peace. You do what you have to do to force the enemy to capitulate, in order to save your own. He does the same to you. Whichever breaks first loses.

THAT is the "morality" of war.




BS...Both Churchill and Truman and several others admitted that if the war had gone the other way, it would've been them in the dock for war crimes.

Being the victor does not make it right.

Those 24 civilians were NOT the enemy.

So that's your justification is it ? do what you have to do...Well you listen up...they didn't have to do it.

You just carry on trying to defend the indefensible.

Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The war in Iraq has killed more than 3000 civilians. Over a hundred thousand civilians have died in Iraq because of the occupation of western forces and contractors. Am I saying all of these civilians were killed in cold blood? No. My point is that over 100,000 civilians are dead because the USA invaded Iraq. It's thats simple. A war that most of us look back on as a huge mistake, a war crime, not that anyone is going to trial for war crimes as the most recent trial shows us.

www.iraqwarlogs.com...

At least 122,000 civilians were killed during the US-led occupation of Iraq, 15,000 more than previously thought. The civilian toll accounts for 80 per cent of all deaths in the Iraq conflict.


Here's the cold hard numbers,

www.guardian.co.uk...


Data journalism works best when there's a lot of data to work with. Wikileaks' Iraq war logs release has dumped some 391,000 records of the Iraq war into the public arena. We've had them for a few weeks - what have we found out?

This is in a different league to the Wikileaks Afghanistan leak - there's a good case for saying the new release has made the war the most documented in history. Every minor detail is now there for us to analyse and breakdown but one factor stands out: the sheer volume of deaths, most of which are civilians.


edit on 24-1-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
THREE MONTHS IN PRISON FOR ORDERING THE KILLI..ERR COLLATERIZING OF 25 CIVILIA...ERRR POTENTIAL TERRORISTS JUSTICE IS SERVED THE WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE WE DID IT GUYS!!!!!!

Okay, seriously? If I went on a rampage and killed 25 elderly men, children, and women, I think I would deserve more than three months in prison. How can this guy live with himself, knowing that the blood of so many innocents is on his hands.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
During Vietnam, our government carpet bombed and used chemical weapons (agent orange and napalm) against hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Vietnamese.

These actions were viewed as normal or even promoted as positive and effective.

Yet the My Lai Massacre was condemned.

We see the same type of twisted "morality" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mass murder on a monumental scale is considered absolutely normal and even praised: "shock and awe". Yet, every so often, "minor incidents" are condemned.

Everyone who advocates war, should be required to live under a US style attack and occupation. Most of these "pro war" types have never experienced a broken fingernail let alone lived in a country which has been subjected to thousands of tons of American bombs laced with radioactive depleted uranium.




edit on 24-1-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
First you said..........


Originally posted by Cosmic4life
The Nazi's were convicted in an International court, not by themselves in their own court.


EVERYONE here knows that is FALSE.

I showed you clearly that wasn't the case.............

Then you decided that "fact" has no merit,because he didn't actually "kill" anyone.

But,he was in Power,and knew of the atrocity's......................Acquitted,by Nuremberg, and then TRIED AGAIN!

Franz von Papen was a war criminal,and with it,LIABLE in the atrocitys of the Nazi Regime.

Unless your brush ONLY has "red white and blue" atrocity colors running through it........

And BTW,Inferring I am "smoking something" doesn't take away the fact that you are WRONG.

PERIOD.

And "NOW" this.........


Originally posted by Cosmic4life
And for the record i have endured more danger and unpleasantness than you've had hot dinners, it didn't make me succumb to those forces and become the very thing i was fighting against.


So enduring dangers, that you "say" you have been through,makes you into this grandiose "someone" that "knows" right or wrong ? Better then,say me,or anyone else?

Really?

People do really bad things,regardless if they are wearing a Uniform or not. You dont have to see UNPLEASANTNESS to know that. You also dont have brag to me,about it.



Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Because i would refuse to commit a war crime you would label me a coward ?? says more about you than me i think.



NO ONE said you refused to commit one,please show me where I said "COSMIC refuses to commit a war crime,and hes a coward."

It was a general statement to the sentence you provided.

Actually ANYONE that clearly lets atrocity's take place,has a chance to stop them,has the power to stop them, is and will ALWAYS be a coward,in my eyes.


Originally posted by Cosmic4life
I defend humanity..ALL of humanity...i wonder if you would be so lenient if it was 24 Americans murdered by Iraqis..i for one would not.


I defend all humanity also. The difference is I am not gung ho on one particular country's atrocity's.

As YOU have clearly shown.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Are you trying to give me some moral equivalence BS here.

The Nazi's were convicted in an International court, not by themselves in their own court.

This case and all cases of atrocity should be held in International courts.

Do you think these guys would've got 3 months prison if they had been convicted in an international court ?

Cosmic..


If these civillians would have been jewish these men would have been hung. That is the main difference in this situation. lol



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by nenothtu
Listen up, war has a different "moral code" than the luxuries afforded by peace. You do what you have to do to force the enemy to capitulate, in order to save your own. He does the same to you. Whichever breaks first loses.


I think you went waaaaay off in this tangent -- off topic, I mean. How does wasting 24 Iraqi individuals help the US war effort? Why NOT KILLING CIVILIANS is called a "luxury"? Seriously?




It was my response. I wasn't the one claiming some sort of moral superiority in days gone by that has somehow degenerated into a moral bankruptcy in the modern age. I was responding to that fantasy, and calling it out.

If folks don't want it going down that road, they ought not to start going that way.

It is what it is, just as it was what it was. The more things "change", the more they stay the same. There were no "good old days" when the armor of the knights shone like the sun as they battled the Black Knight. War is as it always has been, and always will be. It's never BEEN pretty, nor will it ever be.

Killing civilians won't help anyone's war effort - nether theirs nor ours. Hiding among civilians and thus making targets of them won't either, but it is what it is, and will remain so.

Just as it always has.

There are no "White Knights", and there never have been. There are only the quick and the dead, and perceptions not based upon reality on the ground. Those perceptions depend entirely on which side one sympathizes with - they're not objective, they are subjective. To claim some sort of moral superiority in days gone by is to ignore realities - and to cloud judgement by throwing smoke to hide behind.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life

BS...Both Churchill and Truman and several others admitted that if the war had gone the other way, it would've been them in the dock for war crimes.


Exactly. Where does that leave your claimed moral superiority in days of yore?

Before you try to claim you never said that, I'll re-quote it right here for posterity:



In 1945 the US actually had a moral code and stood by it.

Today the US is morally bankrupt and behaves as if people of other nations are of a lesser value than Americans.




Being the victor does not make it right.


Churchill and Truman seem to differ from you in that opinion.



Those 24 civilians were NOT the enemy.

So that's your justification is it ? do what you have to do...Well you listen up...they didn't have to do it.


I don't know who was the enemy and who was not. I wasn't there. Nor do I know what the situation was - I'm not privy to all the facts of the case.

It's easy to stand in judgement from a safe distance, isn't it?

Justification? Nope. It's not my situation to justify. that's up to the men who were there. I'll tell you this much, though - I'll ALWAYS do what I have to do, and neither you nor anyone else will ever get to determine for me what that is. When it's MY ass in the sling, YOUR butterflies and unicorns matter nary a bit, especially when your counting them from a nice safe distance.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Fair enough. I'll take that as an admission that you don't have the numbers or the breakdown of who killed who.

Lies, DAMN lies, and unsorted statistics. Fun with numbers. Propaganda.

It's always good to know who is propagandizing for each side. It shows where loyalties lie.






edit on 2012/1/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Have you actually searched all the links? The information you want is most likely there. Believe what you want to believe, I've said my peace and I'm not going to argue with you.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Have you actually searched all the links? The information you want is most likely there. Believe what you want to believe, I've said my peace and I'm not going to argue with you.


I looked through the links, yes. The breakdown of who killed who is not there.

Of course you're not going to argue with me. I didn't really expect you could, nor am I looking for an argument. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in your claims.

The emperor is naked.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join