[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

War by its very nature is not peaceful, but there are rules to engagement. You may be trained to spot the enemy and kill him or her without hesitation, but you need to also be trained not to kill civilians for the sake of doing it "because it's war."

And how exactly does one tell an insurgent from a civilian, given that this is a culture where civilians routinely fire AK47s into the air at family celebrations?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

We AREN'T better than they are. If you are speaking about the Iraqi populace. We are the same. We are human. We make mistakes.

You're only going on the offensive because you've misread what I stated. That isn't my belief either, but there are too many people who think otherwise, and the Bush Administration is puting up that facade. You can replace Iraq with Mexico and everyones' colors show. "Kill them at the border! Build a wall, if anyone tries to pass, shoot 'em!"

Originally Posted by Kevin

We atleast make accountable those that need to be. Instead of praising them and giving their families money for the bad things they do.

You mean like Ted Kennedy? I'm sure politicians are always punished for the bad things they do. Oh, and corporations like Microsoft.

Typically, you mix up terrorists with opposition.

Originally Posted by Kevin

There are no freedom-fighters as far as the terrorists go. They are terrorists. They aren't fighting for FREEDOM.

I disagree. There are people fighting against American forces on the prinicple that they don't want America or its western values in their country. They have legitimate concerns that the U.S. won't leave after the occupation, and that we are going to impose western culture on them through free markets. McDonald's and Starbucks on every corner.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And no, they aren't SUPPOSED to lack moral standings. They however CHOOSE to. That is their choice. A choice ANY ONE OF US can make. Regardless of where we live.

Their morals are governed by a different religion than yours. It doesn't make their beliefs any more or less than yours. You believe that your conduct as set by your Christian faith is the ultimate expression of "good" values, they believe the same about theirs.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not ONE of our soldiers "acts the same way"

When you see one of our soldiers purposely ripping the head off an innocent victim, knowing that person is innocent, you can say "the same way" until then it's hyperbole.

Did you miss the part about the murders of 24 innocent people? How about the senseless beating and torture of 3 innocent men in Guantanamo? How about how some of our soldeirs were treating P.O.W.s?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or just be human. BTW we already better off than them. We actually punish those that do harm.

Some of the time.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You are simply just making excuses. IMHO of course.

Excuses for what?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And how exactly does one tell an insurgent from a civilian, given that this is a culture where civilians routinely fire AK47s into the air at family celebrations?

Are you trying to be stupid?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Are you trying to be stupid?

Well, go on. Tell me how you tell the difference between an insurgent and a civilian. If you're so clever and all...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well, go on. Tell me how you tell the difference between an insurgent and a civilian. If you're so clever and all...

Generally, people who want to kill you will shoot at you. Besides the obvious, we have procedure for dertermining friendly/foe. The soldiers are supposed to be familar with Iraqi culture and customs, especially if those customs including firing weapons into the air during family functions (something that Americans do as well. Soldiers were criticized about that during the first Gulf War.)

I am not a soldier, I can't tell you what's in that handbook, but I can gaurantee that lining up men, women, children, and elderly and shooting them in the backs of their heads is not apart of that procedure.

There will be accidents. Civilians may not always listen to orders, and in that case, may lose their lives. The point is to reduce civilian casualties, not eliminate them; that would be nearly impossible.

I don't know why you're trying to justify or defend those particular soldiers when our own military is seeing a problem here, and the need to reeducate troops in Iraq about those procedures. That education includes determining friend or foe and information on Iraqi culture and what to expect.

[Spliffdaddy]

Wait until they shoot at you?

Brilliant.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Generally, people who want to kill you will shoot at you. Besides the obvious, we have procedure for dertermining friendly/foe.

You're aware that something called "guerilla warfare" has existed for a while now, no?

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I am not a soldier, I can't tell you what's in that handbook, but I can gaurantee that lining up men, women, children, and elderly and shooting them in the backs of their heads is not apart of that procedure.

I don't know why you're trying to justify or defend those particular soldiers when our own military is seeing a problem here, and the need to reeducate troops in Iraq about those procedures.

Show me the evidence that this was done by US soldiers. And no, that video of the aftermath doesn't show who did it.

[Dakar]

So now we should kill suspicious Iraqis that may be the very innocent civilians we invaded to free because they could be insurgents that are attacking us for having invaded? Brilliant.

[analogika]

The absurdity of that logic has escaped the pro-war factions since at least 2003.

[Y3a]

The liberals had NO IDEAS, and NO SUGGESTIONS of what to do after Gulf War 1 ended and Saddam didn't comply with the UN. The corrupt, mostly liberal/leftist nations kept dealing with corrupt players in the Oil for Food scandal, and tried to block the investigations. Saddam kept playing "stall the inspectors" while the cowards in the UN got richer. The Clinton Admin set up rules and nonsence to block the intel community from doing it's job, and installed many political leftists in it to further keep the rest in the dark.

Bush is elected, and has little time to fix things before 9/11. All the while Lefties did nothing, or worse, aided the enemies. why are you liberals so blind to the past? Does it HURT TOO MUCH to see your liberal Icons as incompetent?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You're only going on the offensive because you've misread what I stated.

Not on the "Defensive" just replying to your posts. No need to project an emotion or agenda that simply is not there.

but there are too many people who think otherwise,

So? They are mistaken. We need to re-educate.

and the Bush Administration is puting up that facade. You can replace Iraq with Mexico and everyones' colors show. "Kill them at the border! Build a wall, if anyone tries to pass, shoot 'em!"

Hyperbole.

You mean like Ted Kennedy? I'm sure politicians are always punished for the bad things they do. Oh, and corporations like Microsoft.

For the most part yes. And I am talking about soldiers. Most Americans will agree however, Ted got off too easily.

There is the difference.

Typically, you mix up terrorists with opposition.

Not mixing anything. Just not spinning like you are. Esp since a great many of these terrorists aren't even from Iraq.

I disagree. There are people fighting against American forces on the prinicple that they don't want America or its western values in their country.

Yes, they want a tyrannical rule under Islamic law. These however are not the majority.

They have legitimate concerns that the U.S. won't leave after the occupation,

Hyperbole.

and that we are going to impose western culture on them through free markets. McDonald's and Starbucks on every corner.

It's not ours to do. However if the Iraq gov decides it wants to, it should be able to do so.

Their morals are governed by a different religion than yours. It doesn't make their beliefs any more or less than yours.

That's a bunch of politically correct nonsense. Yes when their beliefs tell them to murder kids than it IS less than mine. Much so.

You believe that your conduct as set by your Christian faith is the ultimate expression of "good" values, they believe the same about theirs.

Cept I don't personally hurt anyone with my beliefs.

Did you miss the part about the murders of 24 innocent people? How about the senseless beating and torture of 3 innocent men in Guantanamo? How about how some of our soldeirs were treating P.O.W.s?

No I did not miss them. Not everything is "out" on these things yet. And this is still not the same. Again, these people that did this will be punished instead of praised.

Some of the time.

More so than not. Most of the time yes.

Excuses for what?

Excuses to hold one human in a higher standard than any other human. Again, we are all human.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The liberals had NO IDEAS, and NO SUGGESTIONS of what to do after Gulf War 1 ended and Saddam didn't comply with the UN. The corrupt, mostly liberal/leftist nations kept dealing with corrupt players in the Oil for Food scandal, and tried to block the investigations. Saddam kept playing "stall the inspectors" while the cowards in the UN got richer. The Clinton Admin set up rules and nonsence to block the intel community from doing it's job, and installed many political leftists in it to further keep the rest in the dark.

Bush is elected, and has little time to fix things before 9/11. All the while Lefties did nothing, or worse, aided the enemies. why are you liberals so blind to the past? Does it HURT TOO MUCH to see your liberal Icons as incompetent?

Right now the Bush administration are being incompetent as well in fighting this war. While Bush actually did something against these scumbags he seems to have gotten weak kneed. What's the deal with him stading with Murtha and the other on this "alleged massacre?" He should be standing with the troops he sent into harms way until they are PROVEN to be found guilty. He is commander in chief and he should be standing by his troops not throwing them under the bus.

While the Liberal/Dems may have done little to nothing, Bush has done something but is also trying to side with the libs on many things as well about the war. He should forget his numbers and since they are already in teh tank just say screw it and do what needs to get done to fight and WIN this war as much as possible. Not listen to some whiney politicos on both sides of the isle. Bush has the authority to tell the generals to do whatever is necessary and use whatever force is necessary to get the job done. Instead it seems like he's saying get the job done but you can't do this and that but we still want you to win this war. I'll also not stand up for you so that your moale is lowered but I still want you to do a good job.

[Spliffdaddy]

U.S. Troops Cleared of Misconduct in Iraqi Civilian Deaths at Ishaqi

WASHINGTON — A military investigation into allegations that U.S. troops intentionally killed Iraqi civilians in a March 15 raid in a village north of Baghdad has cleared the troops of misconduct, two defense officials said Friday.


"The investigation concluded that the U.S. troops followed normal procedures in raising the level of force as they came under attack upon approaching a building where they believed an Al Qaeda terrorist was hiding, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the results had not been publicly released.

The Army's Criminal Investigation Division reviewed the results of the investigation and found no reason to probe further, the officials said."

full text> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198029,00.html

[abe]

Originally Posted by Spliff

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I don't think that a military that has been trained to kill and defeat the enemy makes a very good peace-keeping force.

I disagree. Who on earth would be a better choice?

A military force that isn't a 'crack' fighting unit can't necessarily be relied upon to act effectively when the those who don't want to be peaceful rise up against the peace-keepers.

I know that, typically, the most dangerous POLICE call is the domestic dispute, where cops are called to establish or maintain peace between two related parties.

Maybe the UN peace keeping forces have an undeserved negative reputation, but my impression is that their performance has suffered in past engagements due to poor leadership and a lack of military discipline and/or skills.

Does someone here know different?

[abe]

Originally Posted by analogika

The absurdity of that logic has escaped the pro-war factions since at least 2003.

It does seem to be an almost impossible mission doesn't it? Well, the fact is that SOMEONE is working to prevent the new Iraqi government from being established and gaining control.

SOMEONE is targeting and killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis who only want to be free to live their lives as THEY wish.

Fact is there are a few thousand SOMEONES who don't want Iraq to be free.

A few thousand SOMEONES interspersed amongst the millions of Iraqis who voted to be free.

Tell us how you would find and neutralize these SOMEONES?

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Generally, people who want to kill you will shoot at you. Besides the obvious, we have procedure for dertermining friendly/foe. The soldiers are supposed to be familar with Iraqi culture and customs, especially if those customs including firing weapons into the air during family functions (something that Americans do as well. Soldiers were criticized about that during the first Gulf War.)

I am not a soldier, I can't tell you what's in that handbook, but I can gaurantee that lining up men, women, children, and elderly and shooting them in the backs of their heads is not apart of that procedure.

There will be accidents. Civilians may not always listen to orders, and in that case, may lose their lives. The point is to reduce civilian casualties, not eliminate them; that would be nearly impossible.

I don't know why you're trying to justify or defend those particular soldiers when our own military is seeing a problem here, and the need to reeducate troops in Iraq about those procedures. That education includes determining friend or foe and information on Iraqi culture and what to expect.

You are right that there ARE clues to determining who may be guilty. But just like in the USA determining guilt or innocence isn't as easy as shining a black light on someone's wrist to see if there are any telltale signs.

There is NO EASY WAY and there are false positives where you THINK someone may be guilty but they aren't.

What's going on here is the phenomenon of believing something is a larger problem than it is because it is the subject of attention. Blowing the things way out of proportion.

I can tell you that from the TV news coverage of the 1989 Bay Area earthquake people would have thought the entire city of San Francisco and the entire East Bay was in flames and rubble-ized. It wasn't. Far from it. There WERE problems in certain areas. DEFINITELY!

A section of the Bay Bridge roadway fell. The Oakland Cypress structure collapsed. The Marina District was hard hit. There were a few other buildings or places which suffered major damage. But the city was 99% functional the next day. 63 people died.

The focused and highly sensationalized news coverage led some to believe the problem was greater than it actually was.

Same thing here.

IF there were excesses they will be investigated and prosecuted and the individual(s) who MIGHT be guilty will be punished appropriate to the severity of their crime and their guilt.

Period.

But in a theater of intense COMBAT, where hundreds of thousands of military personnel have all types of instruments of death and destruction and the skill to use them effectively, how amazing is it that these recent events stand out because they are so RARE?

In Iraq the only people being killed aside from the actual combatants are the THOUSANDS who die every month at the hands of the enemies of freedom.

These enemies of freedom are the people who will CONTINUE killing innocent Iraqis whether we are there or if we leave.

Right now the way it stands is that if we left Iraq, the enemies of freedom would win.

If you believe in freedom then there is no magic trick to determine who is or isn't guilty. Even with the use of some impressive new technology and advanced new techniques it's still boils down to old fashioned soldiering and criminal investigation to get the job done.

It isn't pretty. It isn't easy. It isn't surgically exact. It's being conducted by smart, well-trained, disciplined men and women who live with their team members 24/7 and who have to know and depend on each other. When these young people suffer the grotesque loss of one or more of their 'brothers' it takes all of their training and professionalism not to strike out at anyone and everyone they believe MAY have allowed or participated in that attack.

That it happens SO INFREQUENTLY is the AMAZING thing!

It's a testament to our nation's values, our dedication to freedom and our intent to help the Iraqi people as they fight for their own freedom that we are there and that we do the fine job that we do.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by abe

If you believe in freedom then there is no magic trick to determine who is or isn't guilty. Even with the use of some impressive new technology and advanced new techniques it's still boils down to old fashioned soldiering and criminal investigation to get the job done.

And don't forget that old fashioned making **** up and covering your ass!

Really now, if this was an accidental event due to misappropriation of blame then there would have been no need to cover up the truth.

But I'm sure your narrowly focused conscience is hardly perturbed. After all, when "freedom's on the march" you need every trick in the book!

[abe]

Originally Posted by saddino

And don't forget that old fashioned making **** up and covering your ass!

Really now, if this was an accidental event due to misappropriation of blame then there would have been no need to cover up the truth.

But I'm sure your narrowly focused conscience is hardly perturbed. After all, when "freedom's on the march" you need every trick in the book!

Just as you are unable to accurately read my position even though it is all here in black and white, so are you similarly challenged to accurately interpret the meaning of an event in Iraq.

Your opinion doesn't have weight or importance other than as an indication that you consume and that you occupy space.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by typoon

Right now the Bush administration are being incompetent as well in fighting this war. While Bush actually did something against these scumbags he seems to have gotten weak kneed. What's the deal with him stading with Murtha and the other on this "alleged massacre?" He should be standing with the troops he sent into harms way until they are PROVEN to be found guilty. He is commander in chief and he should be standing by his troops not throwing them under the bus.

While the Liberal/Dems may have done little to nothing, Bush has done something but is also trying to side with the libs on many things as well about the war. He should forget his numbers and since they are already in teh tank just say screw it and do what needs to get done to fight and WIN this war as much as possible. Not listen to some whiney politicos on both sides of the isle. Bush has the authority to tell the generals to do whatever is necessary and use whatever force is necessary to get the job done. Instead it seems like he's saying get the job done but you can't do this and that but we still want you to win this war. I'll also not stand up for you so that your moale is lowered but I still want you to do a good job.

[Y3a]

He's been listening to his 'moderate' advisors. This can't be good. Moderates lack conviction the way liberals lack practicality, and historical perspective.

[SimeyTheLimey]

This is rather shocking if true. This is a blog entry from a link I got off Instapundit.

Apparently, the Times of London has admitted that it ran pictures of people massacred by Iraqi insurgents under a headline that said the bound and executed men were murdered by US Marines. Even if this is an accidental error, this is how myths are created.

Here is how the Times ran it:


Here is how the AP ran the picture much earlier.



It's clearly the same group of murdered men. They were not bound and executed by Marines. They were bound and executed by the other side (insurgents, Ba'athists, or Al-Queda). That is an unbelievably wrong mistake to make, and one that will be hugely damaging.

The Times apparently says it will correct the error, and as far as it goes, that is well and good. But really, it is too late, the harm to the truth has been done. And if this is an example of the kind of misreporting done by one of the better and more fair-minded papers out there, then it is truly depressing when you know what is coming from other quarters.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is rather shocking if true. This is a blog entry from a link I got off Instapundit.

Apparently, the Times of London has admitted that it ran pictures of people massacred by Iraqi insurgents under a headline that said the bound and executed men were murdered by US Marines. Even if this is an accidental error, this is how myths are created.

Terrible to think of how this "error" or "mistake" is going to effect the lives and deaths of so many people in the next few months.

[Kerrigan]

Ya I'm surprised the Times would do something like that. I still prefer them to the NYT, WSJ or FT.

NYT editors appear to be living in outer space, WSJ flirts a bit too much with neocons, and the FT is written strictly for people whose offices view St. Pauls.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is rather shocking if true. This is a blog entry from a link I got off Instapundit.

Apparently, the Times of London has admitted that it ran pictures of people massacred by Iraqi insurgents under a headline that said the bound and executed men were murdered by US Marines. Even if this is an accidental error, this is how myths are created.

Here is how the Times ran it:


Here is how the AP ran the picture much earlier.



It's clearly the same group of murdered men. They were not bound and executed by Marines. They were bound and executed by the other side (insurgents, Ba'athists, or Al-Queda). That is an unbelievably wrong mistake to make, and one that will be hugely damaging.

The Times apparently says it will correct the error, and as far as it goes, that is well and good. But really, it is too late, the harm to the truth has been done. And if this is an example of the kind of misreporting done by one of the better and more fair-minded papers out there, then it is truly depressing when you know what is coming from other quarters.

So on whom will you rely on for Fair and Accurate News then?

[Spliffdaddy]

Fox.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

So on whom will you rely on for Fair and Accurate News then?

Apparently, not the Times of London, since what they reported was neither fair nor accurate.

[Kerrigan]

Maybe you should write a letter to the Times about it

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Maybe you should write a letter to the Times about it

Do you know what you should do? No, or else you wouldn't be here making inane suggestions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is rather shocking if true. This is a blog entry from a link I got off Instapundit.

Apparently, the Times of London has admitted that it ran pictures of people massacred by Iraqi insurgents under a headline that said the bound and executed men were murdered by US Marines. Even if this is an accidental error, this is how myths are created.

It's clearly the same group of murdered men. They were not bound and executed by Marines. They were bound and executed by the other side (insurgents, Ba'athists, or Al-Queda). That is an unbelievably wrong mistake to make, and one that will be hugely damaging.

The Times apparently says it will correct the error, and as far as it goes, that is well and good. But really, it is too late, the harm to the truth has been done. And if this is an example of the kind of misreporting done by one of the better and more fair-minded papers out there, then it is truly depressing when you know what is coming from other quarters.

I had not seen this before. What the hell?!? How many here seized on instant marine guilt over this only to find out a month from now it was a friggin' reporting "error". I'm tired of it. I want heads to roll. It'll never get beyond blog entries I'm afraid.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I had not seen this before. What the hell?!? How many here seized on instant marine guilt over this only to find out a month from now it was a friggin' reporting "error". I'm tired of it. I want heads to roll. It'll never get beyond blog entries I'm afraid.

Now, about that Times "error" which Simey mentions... ...if you spend time checking AP vs British press reports, you'll notice that this goes on *a lot*, especially for UK domestic events.

Now, I might be reaching for the tinfoil here, but I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't "powers that be" involvement in this kind of thing.
What I've seen when I *know* that the government has issued press-gagging orders has a certain pattern to it. This is looking somewhat similar.

[ghporter]

Doofy, there's no way the U.S. government could get away with a gag order on this. It's a lack of background, a lack of objectivity, and most of all, a lack of journalistic integrity that leads to stupidity such as what Simey pointed out. This is criminal, in my opinion, primarily because it leads, as Simey suggests, to rumors that spiral out of control and taint the reality with impossible to quash speculation. I've posted above that if the events occurred as reported that Marines WOULD be held accountable. I'm now very concerned that Marines with no contact to this event will also be punished.

One more thing: the U.S. and U.K. governments are not the only ones with a potential profit from manipulating how events are reported. There are powerful people with lots of money still interested in keeping Iraq in turmoil and strife, and I would not put it past any idiologue in the "radical Islamist" camp to push for serious anti-Western manipulation of news. Look at what happened in Afghanistan recently; when a truly accidental collision occurred, a crowd was whipped into an anti-American frenzy which threatened EVERYONE involved. Even the locals say the reaction was inflamed by radicals at the scene. It's not hard to see how placing a sympathetic person near where Westerners might be can be useful in manipulating how the world sees events. Hell, at least my government was fairly open about paying reporters for positive stories...

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by abe

Do you know what you should do? No, or else you wouldn't be here making inane suggestions.

welcome to my ignore list

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

welcome to my ignore list

Your loss.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Doofy, there's no way the U.S. government could get away with a gag order on this.

I'm aware of that. Just stating that the pattern looks sort of similar to what happens when the UK government interferes with the reporting of domestic events.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the UK government had a hand in the Times mistake, simply to make the US look bad (the majority of people in the UK government are US-hating marxists, despite appearances).

[Kerrigan]

Being a Fettes boy is probably the only reason Blair has an affinity for the US. Outside the walls of boarding schools, you aren't likely to find many pro-US, pro-capitalist people.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the UK government had a hand in the Times mistake, simply to make the US look bad (the majority of people in the UK government are US-hating marxists, despite appearances).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

When you spend six+ hours per day watching what the UK government is doing - instead of six+ hours per day selling iPods - get back to me.

I seriously wouldn't put something like that past them. I ain't kidding.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's a lack of background, a lack of objectivity, and most of all, a lack of journalistic integrity that leads to stupidity such as what Simey pointed out.

Whilst I agree that this is a very bad mistake to make, I think we also need to talk about WHY the information coming out of Iraq is not always accurate.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I420...h=lara%20logan

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Troll

Whilst I agree that this is a very bad mistake to make, I think we also need to talk about WHY the information coming out of Iraq is not always accurate.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I420...h=lara%20logan

The uppity blonde from that movie needs to realize that Laura Ingraham HAS been to Iraq, and HAS gone to the locations she has mentioned. Nice argument, but many many people in America don't trust what she or her colleagues have to say, and there's a very good reason for that.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Being a Fettes boy is probably the only reason Blair has an affinity for the US. Outside the walls of boarding schools, you aren't likely to find many pro-US, pro-capitalist people.

And being that most, if not all of the rest of the world see biased "news" and think it's the truth, the opinions of those 3rd world types (including Europe) are worthless.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Here is an update on the Times of London running pictures of people murdered execution-style by the insurgents, and falsely attributing the crime to the US Marines. The Times has done the honorable thing and publicly apologized for their casual smear.

Times of London

'Massacre Marines blinded by hate'
From Tim Reid in Washington
Corporal claims that his comrades, who were accused of killing Iraqi civilians, lost control

[Note: This story originally appeared with a picture of slain Iraqis whose caption erroneously described the scene as being related to the alleged incidents in al-Haditha. The image was in fact from a separate incident in the area in which Iraqi insurgents are believed to have massacred local fishermen. We apologise for the mistake.]

Unfortunately, "a picture is worth a thousand words." So this is certainly too little, too late. The damage is done.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

The uppity blonde from that movie needs to realize that Laura Ingraham HAS been to Iraq, and HAS gone to the locations she has mentioned. Nice argument, but many many people in America don't trust what she or her colleagues have to say, and there's a very good reason for that.

She notes that at the end of the interview. Laura Ingraham spent 8 days in Iraq. EIGHT days and she thinks she's an expert! Lara Logan has been there since before the war started. Last week a journalist was killed INSIDE an armoured Humvee while on patrol with the Army. Journalists have been dying at an unprecedented rate in Iraq. But Ingraham says that the stories are bad because journalists are reporting from their balconies. She has the cart before the horse and should get her a$$ into Iraq and bring those stories if she's so much braver than all of the other journalists there.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Y3a

those 3rd world types (including Europe)

nice.

[Kevin]

So I wonder where von is.

[Cody Dawg]

I haven't read all the way through this thread, but one thing is for sure: If the United States army, marines, or boy scouts did this heinous crime, they should all be put on trial and if guilty be eligible for the death penalty by firing squad.

I'm conservative but I'm totally with Murtha on this issue. It is only when it was revealed by the media that the U.S. government acknowledged that perhaps there should be an investigation. Why has it taken this long? Why did it take the media revealing it for it to become an issue worth investigating? The general(s) over there in Iraq, when they heard about this, should have begun an investigation IMMEDIATELY.

It's disgusting.

It reminds me of that website that the military was contributing to where they'd post pictures of dead and maimed Iraqis and even U.S. soldiers.

All of you arguing about how "noble" the U.S. military is should think back and remember those disgusting photos where our military posted pictures of dead Iraqis and made sick and disgusting jokes about them. There was even a sick and disgusting joke about a woman soldier that they made a joke about.

Some of those "soldiers" of ours are the most vile disgusting human beings that exist. Think of Guantanamo and Abu Graib and what they did to some of the Iraqis.

And, as long as we're calling for justice from the Oval Office, put Rumsfeld in the bullseye. He's one sick bastard and guilty of being the supreme crony.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

All of you arguing about how "noble" the U.S. military is should think back and remember those disgusting photos where our military posted pictures of dead Iraqis and made sick and disgusting jokes about them. There was even a sick and disgusting joke about a woman soldier that they made a joke about.

Some of those "soldiers" of ours are the most vile disgusting human beings that exist. Think of Guantanamo and Abu Graib and what they did to some of the Iraqis.

The acts you cite are in fact disgusting and vile. Unfortunately, human nature in and of itself can be disgusting and vile. The ones arguing about US military "nobility" are the ones stating that these acts should not be viewed as indicative of the entire US military even if true. I've not seen anyone excuse the "alleged" atrocity. BTW; where is your proof the US military conducted the Hadith massacre? The enemy has also acted in vile and disgusting manners up to and including hiding amongst civilians, in mosques, and using US military uniforms. Why would the US military open a formal investigation of an enemy act? So people like you can continue to falsely and prematurely indict them for war crimes?

As a Conservative; while you're thinking of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, be also thinking of why there are so few Chinese and Middle Eastern posters here. Some of these vile and disgusting creatures we call the US military have given you one hell of a livelihood.

I am for justice and support those in favor of it. If justice requires the incrimination of the entire US military because of a few alleged bad apples however, I will support the vile and disgusting US military every day of the week. Let's wait for the fruits of the investigation before we liken this action (arguably one of the enemy) with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

[ghporter]

The ideal in the U.S. military is to be above reproach in all things. Ideals are not always reached. That means that sometimes people do bad things. But the U.S. military also has a serious and powerful means of preventing abuses and punishing those who commit them; it's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While it's not perfect, no justice system is. And prosecutions under the UCMJ tend to have a "high success rate." That means that somebody is going to be found guilty of something in almost all cases where charges are prefered and brought to trial. Interestingly, it's typically in a member's best interest to elect to have a trial by only a military judge, rather than a panel of officers or officers and enlisted members-panels tend to be much more harsh on the guilty than military judges alone.

I believe that there was some sort of command and discipline breakdown involved in the case at hand, and that there will be charges. Once those charges are filed we can expect to learn much more about the incident and see where this goes.

Having spent over 23 years on active duty, I believe that the system really does work. But I am also seriously aware of the impetus for our adversaries to use any event to make the United States look bad-as ebuddy points out above. I want to see evidence that this thing happened one way or another. The relatives of the dead are not allowing the victims' bodies to be exhumed for forensic purposes, so that's going to make things harder on the U.S.; how can you show that the fatal wounds were inflicted by U.S. ammunition-or NOT by U.S. ammunition-if you can't even examine the victims' remains?

[spauldingg]

White House correspondent:On a somewhat related issue, as Secretary Rumsfeld correctly said, our troops can get morals and ethics training. And now, after these possible massacres, General Casey has ordered additional training for all hands. Isn't that a little late? Doesn't it smack as spin control as all of this is going on?

Tony Snow: Well, Ivan, let's do a couple of things. Number one, understand that there is a presumption of innocence in all American courts of law. Number two, let's also try to figure out what the facts are. I'm simply not going to be talking about two later -- smacks of this or smacks of that when neither you nor I has seen the evidence, neither you nor I has heard the prosecution or the defense, you nor I has seen any of the documents. That would be moral grandstanding, and I think we owe it to ourselves to figure out what the facts of the case are, and we all may be able to draw appropriate morals at the appropriate time.

[Cody Dawg]

The POINT is that our entire military has been involved in a SERIES of deceits where the military at one point or another tried to cover up wrongdoing.

Why IS it that Lyndie England is in prison for 3 years...yet the general whose orders she was following is in the free and clear?

There are many reasons...the military needs their "generals" and can't have them locked up...the generals are exempt from reproach because it would look bad...the "higher ups" don't pay the way the average military man or woman does...

When the U.S. military reduces itself to foul play then they've got too much time on their hands and we need to get out of Iraq...maybe it's time to come home and guard the borders, eh?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

The POINT is that our entire military has been involved in a SERIES of deceits where the military at one point or another tried to cover up wrongdoing.

Why IS it that Lyndie England is in prison for 3 years...yet the general whose orders she was following is in the free and clear?

There are many reasons...the military needs their "generals" and can't have them locked up...the generals are exempt from reproach because it would look bad...the "higher ups" don't pay the way the average military man or woman does...

When the U.S. military reduces itself to foul play then they've got too much time on their hands and we need to get out of Iraq...maybe it's time to come home and guard the borders, eh?

Cody, I was on active duty through October of 2004-are you saying that I had something to do with this? If not then DON'T USE THE TERM "ENTIRE MILITARY." That term, used as you did, is completely false and both scandalous and libelous. I take this sort of thing very seriously, because I spent my life as a proud, professional Airman, and I required those I led to behave appropriately.

Lyndie is in prison becaue HER INTERPRETATION of the LACK OF DIRECT AND DETAILED ORDERS violated rules that were drilled into her in Basic Training. The leadership of this particular group failed so miserably and completely to lead or even supervise the people running Abu Ghraib that they are still being investigated. Note that retiring cannot shield an officer from prosecution under the UCMJ; an officer can be recalled to active duty at any time, even a reserve officer. In particular, BGen Janis Karpinski, the general who was responsible for this issue has been relieved and is being investigated for failing to do her basic job-lead. The officers under her are also being investigated-each one closer to the actual abuse was more and more responsible for direct leadership and supervision, and each one failed on every count.

DO NOT paint the entire U.S. military with a brush dipped in Abu Ghraib. We are not those people; those people diverged from the rest of us on their own and for their own reasons. There are a lot of reasons for those divergences, but all in all it comes from superiors expecting their workers to know their jobs without determining what those jobs are or whether the workers were trained in them, and then not bothering to check on their performance. It's a corporate problem, but an isolated one. Note that there are tens of thousands of Military Police in the Army who have rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet only a few have taken advantage of their position of trust to abuse prisoners. The intital fault in this is the "genius" who decided that they could use military cops-who lack actual prisoner management training and experience-as prison guards. Throw in the fact that Gen Karpinski failed to explicitly instruct everyone from the top down in what the chain of command and supervision was, led to the junior people feeling they were supposed to "make it up as they went," and follow whatever instructions and guidance they felt they received-like from CIA interrogators instead of the Law of Armed Conflict and Army Regulations.