Haditha is the tip of the iceberg - Iraq atrocities continue

This is getting silly.

No one's mind is going to change after reading rich's post about US/UK soldiers in Iraq.

C'mon guys, rich claims he's basically a human lie detector test... Then wants credibility?

Let this thread die.

Originally posted by GODFLESH


C'mon guys, rich claims he's basically a human lie detector test... Then wants credibility?

Let this thread die.

Amen to that. There is no such thing as a human lie detector. Further more he has no creditablity

War is hell

Lucky we just didn't take everyone out via WW2 style carpet bombing.

Do you want to know something Rich?

It makes me sick to the stomach when people spout off utter garbage about what things are like in Iraq. Yet they have never been there or fought there. They take their info from the media, and take it as gospel.

Try talking to someone who has been there, seen the human suffering, and came home and had to deal with what they saw.

Rich, you have not got a clue, except what you see and hear in the media. Tell me you have been there and seen the things you so openly believe happened. The media is just that. MEDIA. They give you facts based on their version of the truth.
You are not there. How do you know that what they are saying is correct?

Give absolute proof that what you say is gospel. You cannot. Why? because you are just one of the many arm chair brigade, that sit around openly slating what happens. Like you have a clue?

You want open and honest answers as to what it is like over there? Do you really want the real answers? Or do you want to just sit and digest what you think is right?
Sorry for the rant folks. This is not like me, but having read some of the comments, I am livid.......................

Some people just have not got a clue.

Eddie out..................................................

Originally posted by GODFLESH
No one's mind is going to change after reading rich's post about US/UK soldiers in Iraq.

C'mon guys, rich claims he's basically a human lie detector test... Then wants credibility?

Let this thread die.

What is clear is that your mind is not going to change no matter how much evidence is piled up in front of you. This is known to psychologists as being in denial. I provide link after link, and all you can come up with is the above? This is supposed to be some kind of argument you're putting forward?

You provide no data, and precious little in the way of rationality. I'm not claiming I'm a "human lie detector test". For the record, I said

Reports of this nature have been percolating out of Iraq in a steady stream since the occupation began. They form a coherent and internally consistent picture.

How do I know what is said is the truth? I look for internal consistencies and I'm reasonably good at gauging whether people are lying or not. And the fact that they have an anti war agenda is obvious. To suggest it means they are lying is not logical.

You omit the part about internal consistencies. The point is that it is an utterly coherent picture that's coming out of Iraq, but no matter whether it's Iraqis or the soldiers themselves as reported by the BBC, you consider this evidence to be all lies.

You offer no rational argument other than "I don't believe what these people are saying". Well, there's a lot of them, and the longer US troops are in Iraq, the more of them there will be.

More 12-year-old orphans.

More 2-month-old babies killed by US forces.

Obviously you don't think that's anything to do with you and your support for this ridiculous war. I disagree. Your taxes are paying for it and your gleeful acquiescence makes it possible.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Do you want to know something Rich?

It makes me sick to the stomach when people spout off utter garbage about what things are like in Iraq. Yet they have never been there or fought there. They take their info from the media, and take it as gospel.

Try talking to someone who has been there, seen the human suffering, and came home and had to deal with what they saw.

Rich, you have not got a clue, except what you see and hear in the media. Tell me you have been there and seen the things you so openly believe happened. The media is just that. MEDIA. They give you facts based on their version of the truth.
You are not there. How do you know that what they are saying is correct?

Give absolute proof that what you say is gospel. You cannot. Why? because you are just one of the many arm chair brigade, that sit around openly slating what happens. Like you have a clue?

You want open and honest answers as to what it is like over there? Do you really want the real answers? Or do you want to just sit and digest what you think is right?
Sorry for the rant folks. This is not like me, but having read some of the comments, I am livid.......................

Some people just have not got a clue.

Eddie out..................................................

And what exactly do YOU know, Eddie? What makes YOUR opinion so high and mighty?

I use all the media I can to figure out what is going on, and I have learned to spot certain odd patterns and even to be able to make predictions which have turned out to be accurate. Nothing fancy, but I got the date of the Iraq invasion within two weeks from six months away... not a crystal ball job, just a recognition of certain consistent patterns that played themselves out.

You're right. I haven't been there. But I didn't have to be there to recognise that initial UK story about Saddam Hussein having WMD that could hit our boys in Cyprus within 45 minutes as the utter tosh it was as soon as Trevor McDonald uttered it in his calm authoritative tones. My first thought was, this is a country under sanctions that can't even generate enough electricity for its nation's capital. WMD? Don't think so.

I didn't have to be there to recognise the dodgy dossier for what it was. I didn't have to be there to be instantly suspicious of the yellowcake uranium accusations in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

I don't, as your post implies, implicitly believe everything I see and hear in the media. I try and weigh up the likelihood of what is reported. These reports of what US troops do have been a consistent thread in eyewitness accounts since day one. Now US troops are saying the same thing. Am I surprised? No.

And where, exactly, does your expertise come from in this subject? I note that it's pretty much a personal attack on me, which is to be expected, as you have NO EVIDENCE to deny anything that I have said.

If any of you lot have any evidence, I wish you'd post it rather than resorting to personal attacks. I can deal with it, I even expect it from right-wingers, but I'd rather deal with evidence. Personal attacks are just a sign of not dealing with the arguments.

Originally posted by rich23


You omit the part about internal consistencies. The point is that it is an utterly coherent picture that's coming out of Iraq, but no matter whether it's Iraqis or the soldiers themselves as reported by the BBC, you consider this evidence to be all lies.

You offer no rational argument other than "I don't believe what these people are saying". Well, there's a lot of them, and the longer US troops are in Iraq, the more of them there will be.

More 12-year-old orphans.

More 2-month-old babies killed by US forces.

Obviously you don't think that's anything to do with you and your support for this ridiculous war. I disagree. Your taxes are paying for it and your gleeful acquiescence makes it possible.

First off, the BBC is a biased news outlet....and they spew garbage and jump to conclusions. I give them no more credibility than world news weekly .

anyway, you have to pay taxes regardless of whether your at war or not, I find that a weak argument.

and what about all the insurgents using women and children as human shields? and sometimes their own families?

oh but that is the "resistance" right?

your biasedness is quite evident and dont say that im biased because Im not the one whining about poor Iraqis......

just forget it....no matter how much anti-war rhetoric you put out there it isnt going to change anything until the next election, then get out and vote. Until then Iraq stays occupied. The opposing party doesnt hold enough of the government to do anything about it.




[edit on 2-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

Rich, the Bilderbergers had the date down pat, but that's cool that you figured it out yourself.

XPhan, we both know that whoever's in control of the US politics (left/right) is NOT an indicator on whether Iraq will be occupied or not. The bosses of both sides will make sure we're there.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
First off, the BBC is a biased news outlet....and they spew garbage and jump to conclusions. I give them no more credibility than world news weekly

.

Well, Bikereddie, here's someone who agrees with you... except they don't think much of the BBC. "English and proud" now? What do you think of the beeb, is it the same as this poster?

Obviously XphilesPhan is a Fox News devotee and therefore any views that this person may have will be riddled with inaccuracies. There was even a study about this. Can I be bothered to look it up? It's late, aahh, what the hell, I'll treat this "argument" with more seriousness than it deserves and see what I can dig up.

If you lot put more effort into your posts, this might rise to the level of a debate, rather than a battle of wits with an unarmed man...

So let's look at bias in American news sources. Oh, what have we here?

...Equally notable is the public's receptivity to the idea that news organizations embrace a decidedly "pro-American" viewpoint, which coexists with continuing support for neutrality in news coverage. Seven-in-ten Americans see it as a good thing when news organizations take a "strong pro-American point of view." However, when asked specifically if it is better for coverage of the war on terrorism to be neutral or pro-American, fully 64% favor neutral coverage. And these views are largely unrelated. Even most of those who see a pro-American point of view as a good thing favor neutral war coverage (62%).

...The growing audience for the Fox News Channel, nearly half of whom identify themselves as conservatives, has more consistently negative views of media, especially regarding its patriotism. Nearly two-thirds of Fox News viewers (65%) believe some news outlets are becoming too critical of America, compared with fewer than half of CNN and network news viewers (48%, 45% respectively). (Note: Respondents are asked "How have you been getting most of your news about national and international events?" Multiple answers are allowed. )

I particularly like the way the US public would want coverage to be neutral and yet pro-US at the same time. That's really funny. But this is not what I was looking for... ah. Here we are!

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

Oh dear, it's just like Colbert says... "reality has a liberal bias"

anyway, you have to pay taxes regardless of whether your at war or not, I find that a weak argument.

You may not care what your taxes go on, but I do. Or at least about my taxes. I can't really say I care that much about what happens to your money, but I harbour goodwill, however vague. I'd rather constructive things were done with it than it get pissed away on wars and "reconstruction" projects that never materialise. And I think you'll find if you look at the facts, the US has been at war with someone or other almost all the time since 1939.

and what about all the insurgents using women and children as human shields? and sometimes their own families?

oh but that is the "resistance" right?

Firstly, insurgents or resistance would have nothing to fight if you weren't there. Secondly, the "human shields" argument is just an excuse for US soldiers to ignore the inconvenient stuff in the Geneva Conventions about not shooting up civilians. And were the two sisters, one about to give birth, who were shot the other day, were they human shields?

your biasedness is quite evident and dont say that im biased because Im not the one whining about poor Iraqis......

WHY EVER NOT? If you can post a logical reason why I should not say you're biased then please go ahead. (The above wasn't it, btw, it barely counts as English let alone as a logical proposition.)

just forget it....no matter how much anti-war rhetoric you put out there it isnt going to change anything until the next election, then get out and vote. Until then Iraq stays occupied. The opposing party doesnt hold enough of the government to do anything about it.

Firstly, can you tell me what is WRONG with being anti-war? Logically, that makes you pro-war and we should all be killing each other right now. And secondly, I'm not, strictly speaking, anti-war. I would certainly have joined up to fight the Nazis. But that's about the only war I can justify, frankly. This is just a war to keep the US hand on the oil spigot.

And, actually, Iraq will stay occupied long past the next election - plans for the stealing of which are already well in hand you will no doubt be comforted to know. There are permanent bases being built and of course the new US embassy will be the first building of its kind that's so huge it will be visible from space.

The US isn't getting out of Iraq any time soon. Cue lots more bloodshed.




[edit on 2-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

Rich, im going to let you in on a little something.

I am a US soldier. I will be going over to Iraq soon. So believe me when I say these articles and all the information coming out of that area mean a lot more to me than they do to you. But the question I have to ask myself is not how can these soldiers do what they do, but what kind of mental state has being in a war zone put them in? It can't be easy wondering who is going to want to shoot you or your friends in the head or blow you up with an IED. It can't be easy knowing that if I shoot, and god forbid I miss, wondering what I am going to hit. Also knowing that it's not just one time that I am going to have to deal with that but for an entire year.

See I was once on your side of this issue. I couldn't deal with the inhuman acts that some people would do to innocent people. Want to know what I did? I joined the army because who better to fight over in Iraq than somebody really cares. I think that I would be safe saying that I have talked with quite a few soldiers and I have not once talked to a soldier who just wants to kill people. I have seen my buddies chaptered out of the army because they just couldn't keep things together after leaving that place. If it makes you feel any better here is a promise from me to you that I will do my best to be as human as possible during my time there. But also, if you feel so strongly about the things going down in Iraq then you too should join the military. Because who better than you to fight with the standards you have for yourself?

Knowing how things work in the military. I can tell you that not all of the marines in that unit wanted to go and do what happened that day. There could have been a mix up. But those soldiers no matter what the reasoning are all going to be punished the same because the media made it such a big story. From and individual soldiers standpoint there are so many things that have to be taken into into consideration that we could never understand. Im not saying that any of them are innocent but if there were then I feel sorry for them because the military has to come down hard on them, it's public and they have to give the people what they want.

Going to Iraq soon I hear things, look out for the camel spiders, drink water, take bug spray. Then I hear other things but I just don't think you would understand because you are not seeing both sides of the picture.

I've been reading and I guess I'm confused. These Marines if guilty of anything would be guilty of manslaughter not murder. Rember their using automatic weapons with a ROF between 600 - 1200 Rounds/PM. If they sprayed the area with cover fire... Oh hell I'm just quessing. I wasn't there but one fact does remain. If a person commits a felony and during the commision of that felony a homocide occures (doesn't matter who commits the homocide) the person commiting the original felony is charged with murder. Meaning, If Pres. Bush commited perjury (a felony) to get this war then shouldn't he be charged with prejury and Felony Murder.

Originally posted by Styki
...I am a US soldier. I will be going over to Iraq soon...

good luck dude...and when travelling around in a vehicle...sit with arms and feet as close to your body as possible...and try not to be the gunner

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Do you want to know something Rich?

It makes me sick to the stomach when people spout off utter garbage about what things are like in Iraq. Yet they have never been there or fought there. They take their info from the media, and take it as gospel.

Hear hear!

The media is not the holder of truths, their shotgun firing approach to reporting, in hopes of getting a hit damages a lot of people's lives. But they don't care...off to the next story and hopes of some reporter making it big for their company. People sitting at home never hear of the damage the media leaves behind. Yeah...that includes Fox News too, so stop stereotyping people Rich.

I have no doubt that the military has probably killed innocent people, but Death Squads is a reckless use of words. If you have knowledge of Death Squads and Nazi like tactics the US is using Rich then I suggest you take your info to the US Congress and stop wasting your time here.

Information Clearinghouse links do nothing to persuade me. I suggest you skip linking to them and link directly to the BBC or other news organization.

[edit on 2/6/06 by Atomic]

Originally posted by rich23
The Iraqis are defending their turf in the few ways they have left. I'm not exactly happy about it,

There are better ways to defend your ground without killing your own people. There's huge a difference between defending one's turf and going on a slaughter campaign killing the occupation/comatants and also killing your own people in the name of religion. Yes, believe it or not, the so called freedom fighters are killing innocent Iraqis.

rich, are you justifing the actions and killing of innocent civilians by the insurgency, freedom fighters, call 'em whatever?

Back on topic. The Marines in Haditha that slaughtered civilians are guilty of murder, imo. Even if shots were fired from the house, they still went inside the house to clear it of any threats and the last time I checked....

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

I can understand children and innocents dying from stray bullets and cross fire and even a few mistaken identities, as much as it sucks, that's just innocent casulties of war. But I don't see how any unit could sweep a building and shoot as many civilians as they did....even if there were firing and threats coming from the house they still should have a little self control to not kill civilians.

I think a stiff prison term is a good punishment.

Sporty



[edit on 3/6/2006 by SportyMB]

Originally posted by Styki

See I was once on your side of this issue. I couldn't deal with the inhuman acts that some people would do to innocent people. Want to know what I did? I joined the army because who better to fight over in Iraq than somebody really cares. I think that I would be safe saying that I have talked with quite a few soldiers and I have not once talked to a soldier who just wants to kill people. I have seen my buddies chaptered out of the army because they just couldn't keep things together after leaving that place. If it makes you feel any better here is a promise from me to you that I will do my best to be as human as possible during my time there. But also, if you feel so strongly about the things going down in Iraq then you too should join the military. Because who better than you to fight with the standards you have for yourself?

Knowing how things work in the military. I can tell you that not all of the marines in that unit wanted to go and do what happened that day. There could have been a mix up. But those soldiers no matter what the reasoning are all going to be punished the same because the media made it such a big story. From and individual soldiers standpoint there are so many things that have to be taken into into consideration that we could never understand. Im not saying that any of them are innocent but if there were then I feel sorry for them because the military has to come down hard on them, it's public and they have to give the people what they want.

Going to Iraq soon I hear things, look out for the camel spiders, drink water, take bug spray. Then I hear other things but I just don't think you would understand because you are not seeing both sides of the picture.

Styki,

thanks for this temperate letter. I respect your beliefs and I wish I could agree with you.

I'd just like to know what you think you're going out there for. If it's to save Iraqi lives, my option would be not to go, and to try and resist the military machine. If it's to "give Iraq democracy", well, I'm afraid that one utterly consistent theme of US foreign policy is actually to deny the peoples of other lands democracy. Back in the immediate post-war period there was a very influential US planner called, if memory serves, George Kennan, and in policy paper #23 of, I think, 1947, he said something like the following (I'm quoting from memory):

"The US has 5% of the world's population and uses 50% of the world's resources. If we wish this state of affairs to continue, we have to abandon romantic notions like democracy for those lands that are our major trading partners in order to maintain our favourable trading relationship." Hence the CIA coups all over the world, the assassinations... you name it.

If you read my posts you will see that tempered in with the rhetoric and the anger that comes from seeing little children shot, there is compassion for the soldiers too. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their actions, who have to wake up seeing the people they've killed in their dreams. Unlike their superiors. They are also the ones who take the consequences. That whole torture thing in Abu Ghraib goes all the way up the line to Rumsfeld, yet for form's sake only a very few soldiers, none of them especially high ranking, were chosen to take the rap.

No rational human being wants to hurt others, but the people in power find ways to manipulate ordinary people to make this happen. If the authority figures are there, many people will simply obey, and allow the Iraqis to be dehumanised. Will you resist calling them "hajj"? Will you speak out when others around you seek to dehumanise them? Will you always remember as you're being shot at that you actually have no right to be there and they're just trying to be their own kind of patriots? It's going to be tough.

When the time comes and you're out there, will there be an occasion, I wonder, when you see something repugnant going on and be faced with a choice: denounce the wrongdoing and face severe consequences, or support your fellow troops and keep quiet? Maintain the "honor of the unit"?

I also really hope that you have investigated, thoroughly, the effects of Depleted Uranium munitions on soldiers. There are other threads on this forum that go into this, with many useful links and a lot of useful information. My feeling on this is that, for various reasons, the military is sitting on the fact that DU is extraordinarily harmful both to civilians and the men who use it. It can cause birth defects and other hideous health problems. If you really insist on going, then you might want to think about having some sperm samples frozen before you go off if you're thinkig about having children in the future. Please listen to both sides of the story on this and consider the possibility that the military might have a bunch of powerful reasons for suppressing the truth about this.

I'm actually way too old to enlist in the military and my society is far less militarised than yours. It's about the last thing I'd do. 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. We've invaded their land for no good reason, destroyed their infrastructure, killed LOTS of their people, polluted the place with radioactive and highly toxic DU that causes cancers and birth defects, sold off their companies to international investors, turned a secular society into a fundamentalist nightmare... but wait! THEY CAN VOTE now. As long as it's for someone that the US thnks is ok.

It's really not a project I'd have anything to do with, myself. But I wish you luck, and I personally hope you read up lots about DU and think, well, am I prepared to make THAT much of a sacrifice for people who want to put me in a really hazardous situation AND cut benefits to health-impaired vets?

Stay safe, son.

R23

Originally posted by hawk74
I've been reading and I guess I'm confused. These Marines if guilty of anything would be guilty of manslaughter not murder. Rember their using automatic weapons with a ROF between 600 - 1200 Rounds/PM. If they sprayed the area with cover fire... Oh hell I'm just quessing. I wasn't there but one fact does remain. If a person commits a felony and during the commision of that felony a homocide occures (doesn't matter who commits the homocide) the person commiting the original felony is charged with murder. Meaning, If Pres. Bush commited perjury (a felony) to get this war then shouldn't he be charged with prejury and Felony Murder.

What they should be charged with are war crimes, and these charges should go all the way to the top, to Bush and Blair.

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.

What I think will happen is that the soldiers in Haditha will be treated as rotten apples, tried and punished and this will be held up as evidence that the US deals with the problem. Meanwhile they will try and keep the lid on as many other incidents as they can and very little will actually change, especially if the US goes into Iran. I think there's still quite some chance that that will happen before the end of Bush's term. Or maybe they'll just wait this term out, rig another election and kick it all off again under the next guy - who might even be Jeb to keep it all in the family.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
And another item, should one choose to do a bit of study of wars past, the things alledged here invariabley occur during war, and have throughout history.

Doesn't make them right though does it.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Apoc
War is hell

You know, these 'Cliches" are so old and tiring. Its bad enough we have to listen to them from the gov everyday. That's bumpersticker talk. Newspeak.
Its like:
Roll em
Bring em on
We're gonna fight 'em there, so we dont have to fight 'em here