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.

 

Massive civilian slaughter by US Marines in Falluja

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
They were told for days and days to get out if you will recall.

While I despise collateral damage...these people basically CHOSE it...for themselves, and unfortunately, for their children who had no say in the matter.

You can't expect to conduct urban warfare without civilian casualties. We did everything we could do to minimize this...more than any other power in history. If they chose to ignore the warnings....well, there you go.


+1




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I dont know if any of you have read this...I got it via Rense.com

"He said that bodies of children shot dead by American snipers yesterday or the day before as they tried to cross the street, were being devoured by the dogs. Neither the families nor the fighters are able to retrieve the remains of their mangled bodies because of the American snipers are still perched atop high buildings. The Commander described whole buildings that were totally burned with everyone inside"

www.jihadunspun.com.../home.php&

Thats just horrible..And we wonder why they hate us.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bootyac
Thats just horrible..And we wonder why they hate us.


What's horrible is people are going to actually believe obvious BS like that...



As far as the title:
Massive civilian slaughter by US Marines in Fallujah

Totally misleading.
1. The title suggest that it was done on purpose
2. Why mention the Marines? Why not say Massive civilian slaughter by Iraqi Troops in Fallujah?
3. If that number, 800, is true (which I doubt)...that's really not massive compared to what it could have been had we not warned, and warned, and warned.


People keep posting the Article that we told people to turn back as evidence that most civilians couldn't escape. But the article is about after the assult already started, not before. Since they were leaving after it started these people obviously were healthy and everything enough to leave before, they didn't believe we were really going to do it or something?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobobb
im sure lots of the civys that stayed behind may have been killed. either way something had to be done with the situation in falluja. they tried peaceful negotiations which failed so they went with a telegraphed invasion to allow innocents to leave. Yes some people did not have a choice either due to the terrorists (which are very scary people if you havnt noticed yet) or being a male and being turned back to prevent the insurgents themselves from leaving. The US forces did what they could to reduce the amount of civilian death's. Being in a free fire zone against an invading force which has only one thing on their mind, staying alive would be far from safe, especially with an incredible amount of firepower supporting the invasion.

I think the message is clear now... The gloves are off and if you choose to run around with a mask and a gun your going to be killed. Its the only thing that will make things better in iraq.

notice the word "invadeing" not liberateing force.
staying alive would mean they want to not get into combat, the goal of the mission was to stop any ressistance. yes or no?
this type of action only agrivates them.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Hypothetical question:

During an attack by 110 insurgents on US Marines, 10 non-combatants are caught in the cross fire and are killed. During this engagement, 60 of the insurgents are also killed. Before retreating, the 50 live insurgents each grab a weapon of one of the fallen insurgents.

The next day the bodies are discovered.
60 bodies without weapons.
10 bodies with weapons.

How many civilians were killed?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Hypothetical question:

During an attack by 110 insurgents on US Marines, 10 non-combatants are caught in the cross fire and are killed. During this engagement, 60 of the insurgents are also killed. Before retreating, the 50 live insurgents each grab a weapon of one of the fallen insurgents.

The next day the bodies are discovered.
60 bodies without weapons.
10 bodies with weapons.

How many civilians were killed?


the 10 civlians because originally.


dh

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Many photos of the Fallujah war crime posted here
This is only the start of the myriad war injured spread all over
The chaos generators only intend more of this
www.indymedia.org.uk...



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

the 10 civlians because originally.


Follow up hypothetical question:

You find 70 bodies after a battle, but did not witness any events prior to discovering the bodies. 60 of the bodies are without weapons and 10 of the bodies have weapons.

How many civilians were killed?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
A few things to point out here:

1. The civilians of Fallujah were given ample time to get out of the city before the fighting began. It does not matter if they were poor or not, if they wanted to live just walk out of the city. If they were poor then what did they have in that city that was so important to stay behind with?

2. The people who remained behind choose their path and unfortunately may have sealed their fate.

3. The US military does not indiscriminately kill Civilians but in a war zone soldiers do adhere to the philosophy, when in doubt pull the trigger, otherwise they could very easily end up dead themselves.

4. How many of the civilian deaths are actually due to the insurgents? This is a number we will never know because there is no way to know for sure but the media will be sure to place the blame for every single death squarely on the shoulders of the US military.

5. How many of this civilian deaths are actually insurgents? Again a statistic we will never know due to the dubious nature yet undoubtedly many were insurgents.

6. Lastly, I will believe 800 civilians are dead when the actual numbers are released because many times the Red Cross overestimates.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
combat is not pretty, people are going to die, some because of what they are fighting for, some just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. It is just the reality of it, there is no peaceful way of dealing with combat. Combat is cruel, grotesque, and inhuman at times, however when your life is on the line, you will do whatever is needed for you to do to stay alive, fear kicks in, your life flashes before your eyes, you disassociate everything rule it off try to escape reality, pretend it is a game, then you friend gets shot in the head, reality sets in really fast, you want to go home, you want to be some wheres else. you realize that if you are going to make it out you have to fight, and you have to fight hard, harder than you ever thought you could possibly fight, even if that means killing children, women, or men, and insurgents, terrorist what ever the case may be.

However to blame the Marines for there actions and condemming them, yeah like everything else in life there are "bad apples" and once these " bad apples" are found they will be found and taken care of legally. They didnt all get together and say, you know what lets all take leave and go to iraq and kill some people. They are just like everyone that you meet day to day. they are mothers, daughter, fathers, sons, etc.... they are people.

they are normal people in an abnormal situation. put yourself in there shoes, what would you do? Personally i would rather be judge by 12 than carried by 6. but that is me. But unless you are ever in combat you just wont ever know, no matter how it is explained to you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join