Troops cleared in one civilian deaths probe!!!

Originally posted by Gools
YAY! One was cleared!

Horray for the home team!
Get me another hot-dog and beer!

hooah!

Too bad about those dead children and pregnant women though... let's just call them "collateral damage".

yep just wright them of as a statistic. blind leading the blind. do you ever think that american troops would be found guilty.


[edit on 4-6-2006 by andy1033]

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

oh my..... I think you should have an open dictionary when you type...


regieme=regime
inacent=innocent
bruitily=brutally
terrorisem=terrorism
piller=pillar

Sorry, but it just makes you sound ignorant when you type....its just hard to read.

Oh and thats good new for the soldiers.....

[edit on 3-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

You should be reminded that we have people posting here from all over the world and some dont know English very well?
Gawd, i hate it when people just dont understand these things.

Well, Surprise, Surprise...

Reuters

Iraq vowed on Saturday to press on with its own probe into the deaths of civilians in a U.S. raid on the town of Ishaqi, rejecting the U.S. military's exoneration of its forces.

Adnan al-Kazimi, an aide to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said the government would also demand an apology from the United States and compensation for the victims in several cases, including the alleged massacre in the town of Haditha last year.

"We have from more than one source that the Ishaqi killings were carried out under questionable circumstances. More than one child was killed. This report was not fair for the Iraqi people and the children who were killed," he told Reuters.

The U.S. military had issued a statement about Ishaqi saying allegations that U.S. troops "executed a family ... and then hid the alleged crimes by directing an air strike, are absolutely false".

Police in Ishaqi say five children, four women and two men were shot in the head, and that the bodies, with hands bound, were dumped in one room before the house was blown up.


"Ishaqi is just another reason why we shouldn't trust the Americans," said Abdullah Hussein, an engineer in Baghdad.

"First they lied about the weapons of mass destruction, then there was the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and now it's clear to the world they were guilty in Haditha," he told Reuters.

"We expect the American soldiers to commit any crime to control this country," added Sarhan Jasim, 55.

Well as Long as US Army find these US soldiers INNOCENT - I guess that Iraqi Local Authorities do NOT accept this Clearing of troops, accused of Killing Innocent Civilans, yet again in cold blood.

And hey - who could blame them;

First, it is THEIR Home and THEIR Land and THEIR Families that are Dying.

Second, as mister Abdullah Hussein; why should ANYBODY trust Americans?

Thridly, US forces in Iraq are totally and completly ABOVE the Law (as well as anywhere else, but we are talking about Iraq this time).

So I am Happy for the Iraqi people and for their goverment, which wants to have an INDEPENDANT investigation of their own, regarding this, yet another, Massacre of Iraqi Civilians.

Yes, good for them! THEY are the ones

that should be doing the "probing"

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

oh my..... I think you should have an open dictionary when you type...


regieme=regime
inacent=innocent
bruitily=brutally
terrorisem=terrorism
piller=pillar

Sorry, but it just makes you sound ignorant when you type....its just hard to read.

Oh and thats good new for the soldiers.....

[edit on 3-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]

You should be reminded that we have people posting here from all over the world and some dont know English very well?
Gawd, i hate it when people just dont understand these things.

yep i notice the geezer that pointed it out had spelling mistakes to. lol

[edit on 4-6-2006 by andy1033]

HEY!

If I rob a bank, can I do my own investigation? Im sure IM not guilty....roflmao.
thats what the army just did!

Ok seriously if im not mistaken the iraqis will want to do their own investigation...seems they are not happy with the findings either.

see story:Troops cleared in Ishaqi Killings

In which it says in the first paragraph that the death toll and the manner on which these civilians were killed remains disputed

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Investigators have determined U.S. soldiers followed proper procedure and will not face charges for the deaths of at least four Iraqis during a raid near the town of Ishaqi on March 15, Pentagon sources said Friday.

The death toll and the manner of the civilian deaths remains disputed. Iraqi officials say 11 people, including five children, were killed in the U.S.-led raid on a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq site about 60 miles north of Baghdad

Four women were listed among the dead and one of the children was 6 months old, the Iraqi officials said. (Watch why soldiers were found to be following procedures -- 1:14)

original source:cnn.com Friday, June 2, 2006; Posted: 6:58 p.m. EDT (22:58 GMT)

It is the only mention in the article, but it stood out to me in the aspect that; I dont think this is over.

have to keep and eye on this one alittle longer I think

hopefully, if the Iraqis do end up doing their own investigation, they will come to the same conclusion.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by TONE23]

And if the Iraqis do their own investigation and find the marines HAD been doing their job would you believe? I seriously doubt it.

The media is an extremely powerful tool, it can change minds and views in a short amount of time. Now if you knew public support in the West was virtually non-existent wouldn't you make the war seem even more unfavourable and play up to the cameras? I'm not saying the events didn't happen but a country under 'occupation' is hardly going to roll over and accept events, instead they are playing on their own 'WMD' the medias influence on the Western world.

Originally posted by Knights
And if the Iraqis do their own investigation and find the marines HAD been doing their job would you believe? I seriously doubt it.

The media is an extremely powerful tool, it can change minds and views in a short amount of time. Now if you knew public support in the West was virtually non-existent wouldn't you make the war seem even more unfavourable and play up to the cameras? I'm not saying the events didn't happen but a country under 'occupation' is hardly going to roll over and accept events, instead they are playing on their own 'WMD' the medias influence on the Western world.

did you not see the bottom line of my post,

original quote by:TONE23
hopefully, if the Iraqis do end up doing their own investigation, they will come to the same conclusion.

I believe sir you have mistaken me, with someone that wishes to see our countrymen found guilty of murder. I'm only pointing this out because the author(of this thread) seemed convinced that this is the end of the story...I hope it is. My observation is merely that this may in fact: not be over. Just an observation, not hope of murder... HUGE diffrerence. I understand that there are people that DO wish for these things to be true. But I am not one of them. While I disagree with this war IMMENSLY, it does not have any bearing on how I feel our fellow countrymen should conduct themselves while there. If they are innocent then the facts will show this... and probably will. But IF they are guilty they are expected to face the full consequences; as they have not only, will have have committed these crimes, but also brought dishonor to our nation and peoples as a whole. Hopefully this case will turn out diffrerent then the Haditha case. But because of cases like Hadtiha, and also Abu Grahib and such; that you can see why there would be doubt from many people, as to whether or not the Army is conducting a proper investigation.

The part I didnt agree with about this whole thing is that the Army investigated itself. To me this just doesnt make sense.. as I already made light of in my joke

original quote by:TONE23
If I rob a bank, can I do my own investigation? Im sure IM not guilty....roflmao.
thats what the army just did!

to me the best humor is, often times, truths and tragedies in life. We sometimes must laugh at the tragedy in order to deal with it. The second line is my point of source: being that it was the army that nvestigated themselves. the joke is the guilt(one way or another). I hope this makes sense.

Because in the end, regardless of who killed them and why... those people are still dead and we must not forget that.

But to assume that I will or will not believe the Iraqis one way or another(we havnt gotten that far yet) And so far There is nothing yet to disprove the army investigation. I am trying to remain objective in my observation; and hopeful of the outcome, at the same time(not an easy thing to do). Like I said Ill wait to see what happens next and re-evaluate as needed from there.

thank you for your time

[edit on 4-6-2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 4-6-2006 by TONE23]

This is BS.

It's BS because, as several people have already pointed out, you can't be judge in your own cause. (I don't see skippy, for all his "go USA! rhetoric, stepping up to the plate to deal with this argument.)

It's also BS because on the one hand, this house was a "legitimate military target" and on the other, there is onlysuspected AlQaeda involvement.

Therefore on the merest hint of suspicion, it's "legitimate" to go and shoot up a house full of children?

Don't think so.

Why is it that any debate such as this always degenerates into a shouting match of "the ones you're defending were at fault!" versus "the ones we're defending were justified or are innocent," and the important point - that people were killed, regardless of who was at fault - is lost?

Rather than getting bogged down in the labyrinthine quagmire of blame games, why not consider the broader themes and issues that lead to such tragic deaths, regardless of who was at fault? I'm not endorsing zero accountability, nor am I in favor of convicting people without evidence. I simply feel that, important though those points are on both sides, the overriding issues that result in death inevitably regardless of who is at fault should take precedence in terms of what the real problems - and potentially, someday, solutions - are.

Most important of all though: people are dead, and it's sad, and it's tragic, regardless of what "side" they were on, or who was at fault. And no, saying "that's what happens in a war" doesn't make it any less tragic, even if it is 100% true. I see so many people confuse the notion that deaths are inevitable in war with the notion that deaths are right or even a good thing in the context of war. Does this sense of/belief in the inevitability of tragic deaths in war constitute righteousness in tragic deaths? That's the question at the heart of the matter, ultimately. For me, the answer is no, but it's more productive to debate that than it is to focus on blame, in my opinion.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by AceWombat04]

ludaChris, your posts of 6/3/2006 at 03:22 and 6:16 say that a court cleared the soldiers of wrongdoing. Try reading the article again. Do you find the word "court" anywhere in that article. Reading your posts is like reading the old fish story. The fish just gets bigger and bigger with each retelling. How about a correction, lest others read only your posts and not the article and spread this misinformation far and wide.

The troops were "cleared" by military investigators. LOL

The fact remains: What these guys did caused the death of many innocent civilians, including at least one infant.

Oh, yeah, they only "intended" to kill the one bad guy. Too bad all these innocent people happened to be in the way. But that's OK. They just happened to get killed unintentionally. Therefore, we aren't at fault. BULL#!!!!

If these guys are blameless because they "followed procedure" then their commanders and those who established the "procedures" are guilty of these murders. Wasn't the excuse that "I followed procedure" rejected by the tribunals at Nuremburg? Wasn't the U.S. represented on those tribunals? Therefore, didn't the U.S. reject that as a defense? So, why are you supporting the military investigators' use of that defense in exonerating the soldiers in this case?

The "investigators from the Army Criminal Investigation Command concluded that the troops used appropriate force on a legitimate military target after coming under fire, the Pentagon sources said." "Appropriate force"??? A "legitimate military target???". It was peoples' home!! This would be laughable if not so tragic! So, now, in Iraq, anyone's home is a legitimate military target, subject to being riddled with bullets and an air strike, regardless of who is inside, whenever the occupying forces "suspect" that an insurgent or an Al Qaida member may be visiting.

You say "the question in these cases is whether it was done with malicious intent". Oh, I see, it's OK to murder if done with benevolent intent? Or because the person you intended to kill was standing too close to the innocent one you also happened to kill, maim, or wound?

It's attitudes like yours that keep these atrocities happening on a regular basis. And don't reply with the tired old song that the other side commits atrocities, so ours are excusable. Doesn't work except for the feeble minded and morally challenged.

[edit on 6/4/2006 by dubiousone]

i must say well said dubiousone. i agree completly

Skippytj, do you really believe your statement that "Now when the insurgent terrorist dogs stop hiding among and fighting within civilians these types of incedents will stop completly."

That is utterly morally depraved. Think about it. I won't explain. If you can't see it, that says it all for me.

Editor&Publisher

The U.S military said Saturday it had found no wrongdoing in the March 15 raid on a home in Ishaqi that left nine Iraqi civilians dead. But, as with the apparent massacre in Haditha, will a military "coverup" in this case come undone?

The Iraqi police charge that American forces executed the civilians, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old baby. The BBC has been airing video of the dead civilians, mainly children, who appeared to be shot, possibly at close range. Photographs taken just after the raid for Agence France-Presse, and reports at the time by Reuters and Knight Ridder, also appear to largely back up the charge of an atrocity.


Matthew Schofield, a Knight Ridder reporter in Baghdad, has obtained an Iraqi police report which, he reveals today, accuses American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to the police. Then the soldiers burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew up the house. Knight Ridder has distributed a copy of the report.


"Brig. Gen. Issa al-Juboori, who heads the center, said that his office assembled the report on Thursday and that it accurately reflects the direction of the current police investigation into the incident.":

"According to police, military and eyewitness accounts, U.S. forces approached the house at around 2:30 a.m. and a firefight ensued. By all accounts, in addition to exchanging gunfire with someone inside the house, U.S. troops were supported by helicopter gunships, which fired on the house."

"But the accounts differ on what took place after the firefight."


"According to the U.S. account, the house collapsed because of the heavy fire. When U.S. forces searched the rubble they found one man, the al-Qaida suspect, alive. He was arrested. They also found a dead man they believed to be connected to al-Qaida, two dead women and a dead child."

"But the report filed by the Joint Coordination Center, which was based on a report filed by local police, said U.S. forces entered the house while it was still standing.


"'The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men,' the report said. 'Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals.'"

"The report identified the dead by name, giving their ages. The two men killed were 22 and 28. Of the women, one was 22, another was 23, a third was 30 and the fourth was 75. Two of the children were 5 years old, two were 3, and the fifth was 6 months old, the document said."

Kind of CONTRACITING Reports here.

Smells like a US Army Cover-Up to me.

They sure would not want TWO Massacre-Scandals at once in the Press.

So let's set this Boys free - and convict the ones from Haditha.

No wonder Iraqi Officials wants an Independant Investigation.

Who wouldn't?

[edit on 4/6/06 by Souljah]

Originally posted by dubiousone
ludaChris, your posts of 6/3/2006 at 03:22 and 6:16 say that a court cleared the soldiers of wrongdoing. Try reading the article again. Do you find the word "court" anywhere in that article. Reading your posts is like reading the old fish story. The fish just gets bigger and bigger with each retelling. How about a correction, lest others read only your posts and not the article and spread this misinformation far and wide.

The fact remains: What these guys did caused the death of many innocent civilians, including at least one infant.

Oh, yeah, they only "intended" to kill the one bad guy. Too bad all these innocent people happened to be in the way. But that's OK. They just happened to get killed unintentionally. Therefore, we aren't at fault. BULL#!!!!

If these guys are blameless because they "followed procedure" then their commanders and those who established the "procedures" are guilty of these murders. Wasn't the excuse that "I followed procedure" rejected by the tribunals at Nuremburg? Wasn't the U.S. represented on those tribunals? Therefore, didn't the U.S. reject that as a defense? So, why are you supporting the military investigators' use of that defense in exonerating the soldiers in this case?

The "investigators from the Army Criminal Investigation Command concluded that the troops used appropriate force on a legitimate military target after coming under fire, the Pentagon sources said." "Appropriate force"??? A "legitimate military target???". It was peoples' home!! This would be laughable if not so tragic! So, now, in Iraq, anyone's home is a legitimate military target, subject to being riddled with bullets and an air strike, regardless of who is inside, whenever the occupying forces "suspect" that an insurgent or an Al Qaida member may be visiting.

You say "the question in these cases is whether it was done with malicious intent". Oh, I see, it's OK to murder if done with benevolent intent? Or because the person you intended to kill was standing too close to the innocent one you also happened to kill, maim, or wound?

It's attitudes like yours that keep these atrocities happening on a regular basis. And don't reply with the tired old song that the other side commits atrocities, so ours are excusable. Doesn't work except for the feeble minded and morally challenged.

[edit on 6/4/2006 by dubiousone]

Ok, I corrected that with my next post saying the investigators cleared them. The act of accidently shooting an innocent carries a stigma because the killing of another human being is a behavior described as "mala en se." Meaning a behavior that is inherently evil. But without intent this guy probably wont even go to jail(for very long anyhow) Intent does play a part when you are prosecuting someone, while it may have been inadvertent, in our society today we require someone to take responsibility reguardless, usually at the request of those who lost a loved one. They want justice and they take it any way they can. In a court case involving these kinds of circumstances you must proove intent to get say the death penalty of life in prison. You wont get such a penalty for the accused if you dont have intent.

I should clarify that I do believe someone should be held responsible. Read this, this is the War Crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
War Crimes-Broken Down

What if these Marines were just arrested without question by the Iraq authorities? Would you be fine with that? Since you believe the Military Investigation is innaccurate, do you think an Iraqi led investigation would be better? They would be declared guilty in no time at all. If the investigators did their homework, interviewed the necessary people to find out what happened and found no foul-play involved, then I have no problem with the investigation.

I dont deflect the issue at hand. Even though I would honeslty like to see some others condemn those as well, you can do what you like, I dont care. In a war zone, if you are going to charge someone with a war crimes you better be able to proove intent if you are the prosecution. If these people are caught in the middle of the fighting you cant blame the troops. Setting expectations way too high.

But the fact is, you seem very eager to jump the gun and call this investigation a sham and these troops guilty. Guilty until prooven innocent seems to be the mind-set of coice on this board, which would go against your so called moral high ground.

Well, SOMEONE shot those little kids. And it's not disputed that the US raided the house, although the reason went from "arresting an Al-Qaeda operative" to "arresting a suspected AQ operative". which is interesting in itself.

Are we really to believe that Iraqis shot up their own kids just to make the US look bad?

Originally posted by rich23
Well, SOMEONE shot those little kids. And it's not disputed that the US raided the house, although the reason went from "arresting an Al-Qaeda operative" to "arresting a suspected AQ operative". which is interesting in itself.

Are we really to believe that Iraqis shot up their own kids just to make the US look bad?

I'm not saying that no one be made accountable, I addressed that someone should be in my last post. As for the difference between arresting AQ operatives, and suspected AQ operatives, that all depends on the wordings used by the news agency who reports it doesnt it. I dont find it unusual at all that the wording between two seperate sources are different, it happens all the time no? I'm not saying the Iraqis shot their own kids, infact that sounds downright out there. What I am saying is that if you are truely willing to intertain all ideas about what possibly could have happened, is it not possible that the insurgency are using this as a propoganda ploy now. It doesnt take much to get the Iraqis to turn against the coalition forces already there anyhow, a story like this gives them so much ammunition. I'm not saying thats what happened but is it not possible?