Two Iraqi Women Killed by Marines

Originally posted by xmotex


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.

They lost because they stretched themselves. We had more resources and we fought on two ocean fronts from Europe to Japan. We bombed the hell both of them. We firebombed and we nuked and won. Civilians was secondary.

Anyways.

Link

Heres a sign that reads don't freaking enter or you be shot both in English and Arabic.

They lost because we could build tanks, planes, and ships at a rate they simply couldn't hope to match. Look at the order of battle of the IJN versus the USN in 1941, and then in 1945. Look how many T-34's and Shermans the US and USSR could produce, vs. the numbers of Tigers and Panthers the Germans could produce. Yes, they were stretched - and so were we, especially early in the war. But unlike them, we had the logistical and material capacity to stretch as far as we wanted.

As for strategic bombing, it was arguably the least effective component of our war strategy - it may have hastened an end that was all but inevitable, but did not precipitate it. The Germans simply moved their production facilities deep underground, the Japanese dispered them. The strategic bombing campaigns never accomplished their stated goals, and were arguably a huge waste of resources (all apologies to the brave airmen involved), fortunately we had so much excess capacity that it didn't matter much. In one sense they were effective - they forced the Axis air arms to switch from an offensive to a defensive role. Where they got slaughtered by our escorts...

If you want to see a really effective campaign, look how the USN fleet boats strangled the Japanese' ability to move resources from their conquered territories. The USN fleet subs, which never seem to get the credit they deserve, succeeded where Donitz's U-Boats failed.

Still, "toughness" on a large scale simply didn't matter much. Both the Japanese and the Germans were incredibly tough, and shockingly brutal. Still, they got their behinds handed to them, in a few short years, despite starting the war hith huge advantages. Not because they weren't "tough" enough, but because they were led by fools who though "toughness" and martial rigor alone were enough.

Originally posted by xmotex
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.

What actually happened?...seems?...on this you certainly can not have and do not have enough to information to even begin to presume you know enough to cast any judgment(s)…nor can purport to know “what actually happened”, you sir/madam may only speculate, period.

Originally posted by xmotex
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.

These are the issues before to investigators, yes?

Originally posted by xmotex
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

On the contrary, I will not allow you to stick my “head in the sand” nor let you tell me what to think… especially on the extremely limited fluid evidence currently before you…
nor will I allow you to cast whole judgments fully and completely without comment and prematurely before a full investigation has run its course (especially since this has become politicized) and these Marines are afforded the benefit of a trial…

Case and point:

Originally posted by dgtempe
Preliminary- secondary who cares!!!!!

I do!

I hope those Marines pay for what they are doing.

You should!

Might…may…could…would…should…etc..are not convictions nor are they sentences that represent any judgment.

…one must wonder why all the concern about a ‘loss of rights’…throw-out the investigations, the courts, the law…when by G-- !...we have already figured it all out! Convict them now!

Pffft…the Patriot Act is zero danger to civil liberties compared to this type of chronic and incessant pizzing…


mg

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by Souljah
Well if you shoot at the Windscreen you KILL everybody inside.
Sure works in stopping the Vehicle.
And it also works in Pissing off even MORE Iraqis.
But I guess you have no problem with that.
Two Innocent Civilans are dead - one possibly Pregnant.

Ok, and these Iraqis dont at least have the common sense to stop and show the pregnant woman in the car? How are the troops supposed to know who is in the car. You dont take chances like that. It would be stupid to do so. Iraqis are smart enough to understand the consequences of their actions, and running a checkpoint reguardless of the situation will git you shot. It would only take a second to stop let the soldiers see the woman is pregnant and see them on their way. It aint rocket science, you see a checkpoint and signs telling you to stop, you stop. They could have saved their own lives this way.

and is she was in labor the troops most likely have a medic with them to help in the birth if it came to that

These are the issues before to investigators, yes?

These are facts the investigators have already disclosed.

By all means they should get a fair trial.

However I don't need to wait for the trial to happen before reaching my own conclusions based on the evidence already released - which happens to be pretty damning.

Lets put it this way, did you feel the need for Osama Bin Laden to be tried before you came to the conclusion he was guilty of staging the 9-11 attacks? No? Because it was fairly obvious that he did, right?

Well, it's also becoming pretty obvious that some of these Marines did what they're being accused of. Which soldiers exactly? We don't know yet. But someone apparently shot a bunch of civilians in the head in Haditha. We know these particular Marines were there at the time. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes-like skills to figure it out...

Originally posted by helium3

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 !!!!!

You know about the X-Men, right?

Well, we, the US, are like the Juggernaut, except we're not a bad guy. Once our military starts moving, it's unstoppable. So, there's no need to play "what if it were you" here.

Besides, the women insurgents probably hide bombs on their stomachs to make it look like they're pregnant. So, why wait to see if it's a pregnant woman when you can shoot her first? What's that Pentagon motto, "ready, fire, aim?"

I'm with Deltaboy, Nygdan, and the others on this one.

(sarcasm yet again)

Originally posted by xmotex
They lost because we could build tanks, planes, and ships at a rate they simply couldn't hope to match. Look at the order of battle of the IJN versus the USN in 1941, and then in 1945. Look how many T-34's and Shermans the US and USSR could produce, vs. the numbers of Tigers and Panthers the Germans could produce. Yes, they were stretched - and so were we, especially early in the war. But unlike them, we had the logistical and material capacity to stretch as far as we wanted.

I won't deny the fact that the Axis were outproduced.

As for strategic bombing, it was arguably the least effective component of our war strategy - it may have hastened an end that was all but inevitable, but did not precipitate it. The Germans simply moved their production facilities deep underground, the Japanese dispered them. The strategic bombing campaigns never accomplished their stated goals, and were arguably a huge waste of resources (all apologies to the brave airmen involved), fortunately we had so much excess capacity that it didn't matter much. In one sense they were effective - they forced the Axis air arms to switch from an offensive to a defensive role. Where they got slaughtered by our escorts...

Its true that Germany manage to produce more then we expected in the bombings, but however the Germans admit they were losing facilities, methods of transportations and raw materials. Also much of its manpower were redistributed to manned antiaircraft guns to defend the cities and facilities. Thats what makes it significant.

If you want to see a really effective campaign, look how the USN fleet boats strangled the Japanese' ability to move resources from their conquered territories. The USN fleet subs, which never seem to get the credit they deserve, succeeded where Donitz's U-Boats failed.

Attacks from land, air and sea pretty much contributed to cutting Japan from its war production, however that don't mean the Japanese got the message until we nuked 2 cities, as well as firebombing for along time prior to nuking.

Still, "toughness" on a large scale simply didn't matter much. Both the Japanese and the Germans were incredibly tough, and shockingly brutal. Still, they got their behinds handed to them, in a few short years, despite starting the war hith huge advantages. Not because they weren't "tough" enough, but because they were led by fools who though "toughness" and martial rigor alone were enough.

We were brutal enough for ourselves. Firebombing and nuking. Supported and approved by our leaders.

When the IED's stop.
When the suicide bombing stops.
When non-iraqis insurgents stop coming into the country, bringing in money and weapons.
The checkpoints will stop, people will be able to travel freely, and in safety.

The insurgency (terrorists) gives much less of a hoot than the average American cares for people killed like this, at checkpoints, and by other means. It's just fodder for the agenda!
"Look, those evil Americans killed more civilians!"

Ever wonder how many of these situations might be set-ups?
Maybe not this one specifically, but how many situations are created by hit n run Guerrilla tactics, only to let the locals take the brunt of the repercussions?

If the daily bombings stopped, the US would leave a lot sooner. The insurgency knows this, yet they continue. HMMM....I guess they are happy about civilian casualties, the ones they cause directly, and in this case, indirectly..

Originally posted by xmotex
However I don't need to wait for the trial to happen before reaching my own conclusions based on the evidence already released - which happens to be pretty damning.

Damning, just like in these cases….

Ilario Pantano Shane Werst UK: Scott Evans, Billy Nerney, Samuel May, Morne Vosloo, Daniel Harding, Roberto Di Gregorio, and Scott Jackson.

Originally posted by xmotex
Lets put it this way, did you feel the need for Osama Bin Laden to be tried before you came to the conclusion he was guilty of staging the 9-11 attacks? No? Because it was fairly obvious that he did, right?

Apples and oranges, BL has a long…advertised…history of personal terroristic behavior and actions…none the less, if caught he too will stand trial for any of his sorted deeds, for all I know it may really have been a lower level decision and he did not directly order it himself etc.

Originally posted by xmotex
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes-like skills to figure it out...

In the words of one of the falsely accused from above:

In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report
Source

mg

Missed gear, you get my way above vote for that post. Excellently done.

Pantaro was accused of having shot someone while they weren't resisting, people witnessed it and said so in court. There was no evidence besides that. It was rejected. These haditha guys are accused of storming into a village, knocking down doors, and shooting up the place. There are bodies, there are bullets. Pantaro had one guy that he said was resisting, the evidence fits either description. Similar to this incident with the women and the checkpoint. There's no way to show that they didn't give verbal and hand signal stop commands, or that the vehicle was threatening.


For Haditha, it doesn't look like there's much to indicate that these guys didn't do it.

And, again, American's aren't saints, things like Haditha have happened before.

This just seems really strange. You'd think any person would be more than willing to stop when they see a bunch of highly equipped US soldiers brandishing rifles, esp with a pregnant woman in the car, but they somehow decided to take that suicidal risk? Yes, it does seem strange. I wonder what REALLY is going on out there...I just can't rely on these supposed reports anymore.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Pantaro was accused of having shot someone while they weren't resisting, people witnessed it and said so in court.

Correct, but the witness testimony in the two killings in the Pantaro case was conflicting (similar to Haditha); however at the end of the day forensic evidence disqualified the key witness’s (Sgt. Coburn USMC) statements that had originally lead the investigation to recommend the charges of premeditated murder.

Originally posted by Nygdan
These haditha guys are accused of storming into a village, knocking down doors, and shooting up the place. There are bodies, there are bullets.

I agree with some reservations.

There is conflicting testimony, exhaustive evidence and facts are not available (yet), moreover Murtha has highly politicized and charged this event (like so many others), officers have possibly/probably given news.yahoo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> false reports, The NCIS has not leveled any charges and the final report is possibly due in June, the probe has not reached Maj. Gen. Bargewell, bodies will not be exhumed and some are calling into question the authenticity of the initial scenes (loading of bodies in a white pick-up truck) of the ‘Haditha video’ into question.

That said, unfortunately atrocities will happen and have happened…in the Haditha case people/civilians died and something did indeed happen…however IF after the conclusion of a thorough investigation and proper trial; the findings produce the guilty and sentences are assigned, my vote is to let them suffer the full consequences of law without a second thought or exception…

Originally posted by Nygdan
Similar to this incident with the women and the checkpoint. There's no way to show that they didn't give verbal and hand signal stop commands, or that the vehicle was threatening.

An affirmative defense common to both cases (women at the checkpoint and Pantaro) is that they can claim/claimed they felt as if their lives were in danger. The drivers own statements concerning driving his car “as fast as it would go” and possibility of failing to heed warnings…are really enough for the checkpoint case.



mg

It's long past time for the U.S. to pull out and allow the Iraqis to engage in self-determination of their future, civil war or not.

Why is possible for civilian vehicles to approach close enough to these sensitive locations such that the jumpy troops start shooting in the first place?

Why isn't there a perimeter that prevents civilian vehicles from approaching dangerously close? Seems not too difficult to create obstacles such that any vehicle that tries to come close by going over or around such obstacles is clearly doing so intentionally and despite any warnings and, in effect, inviting a barrage of bullets.

Seems this would end the parade of innocents being killed at these locations. So why havn't the brilliant commanders in the field done this? I'll leave the cynical remarks to others.

[edit on 6/1/2006 by dubiousone]

They did as they were told to do....can't we just leave it at that?

Another US Cover-up Surfaces

What was not reported, according to an Iraqi human rights investigator who spoke with IPS on condition of anonymity, was that both women were shot in the back of the head by U.S. snipers.
...
Two men who witnessed the incident from a nearby home also said they saw no signs of any warning.

"These kinds of killings by the Americans happen daily in Iraq," said Jassim, "They gave no warning to us before killing my cousin and sister. Of course we know they have no respect for the lives of Iraqis."

The NCIS needs to pull their heads out of their butt and come to the realization that we are at war bottom line! I am sorry if I hurt someone's feelings with this but if your country is at war and you are driving into a roadblock you need to have enough common sense to stop and tell someone of your situation. If you are in labor stop and say "I am in labor." If you keep driving into this road block what are the marines supposed to do just move out of the way, hell no. These boys have a job to do and that is to protect someone or something on the other side of this road block by any means necessary. If they felt threatened they did nothing wrong. In this type of environment it is basically kill or be killed. Some of those people do not respect human life. When I was leaving Iraq we had mothers throwing their children into the streets to attempt to stop military vehicles, did this work, no. Do you think we should start an investigation about some children that were run over because their families are stupid. An investigation in a time of war is a waste of time and someone needs to find other things to do with their time.

There were witnesses to this shooting as well as a survivor that was in the car.

Here is a news report about this shooting of the two women.

This news is from free speech tv, no gov. or corporate sponsorship, this is a totally viewer supported channel, whch also means no commercials and programming unlike anything else on the network, if you do not get this channel you can view the program online, or view and read the reports & transcripts. This is a link to yesterdays show www.democracynow.org...

Also below the story about the two women is a story with the video footage of someone who appears to be a member of the US miliary singing about killing Iraqis. To see the video I am assuming one would have to watch the show, although I am sure someone will be able to post a direct link to it, I hope. Update I found a link, the marine in the video apoligized. Look halfway dwn page it's called the Hadja girl
www.cair.com...

www.democracynow.org.../06/14/1424235

AMY GOODMAN: We also invited a representative from the Pentagon to be on the program, but they did not respond to our request. Dahr, tell us the story from the beginning, as you understand it.

DAHR JAMAIL: Well, much like what was played there on the clip, Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, a 35-year-old mother of two children, a 3-year-old boy named Ali and a 4-year-old daughter named Hashmiya, were shot by a U.S. sniper in Samarra while Nabiha was being raced to the hospital in order to give birth. Her brother, Redam Nisaif Jassim, was driving the car and the two women were in the back seat when they were fired upon. And I spoke with an Iraqi human rights investigator about the situation. This investigator went and investigated it firsthand after they obtained news about what happened there.

And it was very, very clear that the car was shot from actually behind by a U.S. sniper. There was no warning in the area. There was no sign put up by the U.S. military; nothing marking the area that showed that it was prohibited or that these people should not have been there. Instead, after the shooting occurred, the U.S. military, who did not come out and try to provide any aid to these people whatsoever, actually then drug a sign out to the area, a small sign. There was actually an A.P. photograph of it, and the initial story that the A.P. ran about the event. And that was brought after the shooting actually took place.

www.democracynow.org.../06/14/1424228
Video Shows Marine Singing About Killing Iraqis
And finally in Iraq, the US military is facing a new scandal over the conduct of its soldiers. A video has been released showing a man who appears to be a Marine performing to applauding troops. He sings a song about killing Iraqis. The undated video comes at a time the US military is dealing with the fallout over allegations it massacred civilians in Haditha and Ishaqi. The Pentagon says it’s investigating. Human rights groups condemned the video Tuesday

[edit on 15-6-2006 by goose]