Haditha
Wobbie
Posts: 30,482
From what I can tell, this was last "discussed" here about a year ago. Did anyone else see 60 Minutes tonight?
Reader's Digest version: In 2005 a vehicle in a Marine Corp. "convoy" was hit by an IED. One guy dies, 2 others are hurt. The squad leader (who was in Iraq because he "wanted to see combat." WTF?) focuses in on a car in the area. The five Iraquis who are in the car don't get on the ground ("They all know the drill") and they are shot. The squad leader then focuses on a house because "it seemed" some gunfire might be coming from there. The Marines "clear" the house, killing a man, 2 women and 4 children in the process. They run out of house #1 and into a second and third house. Long story short, 24 civilians are killed with scant evidence that any were involved in the IED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
Here's what struck me:
The squad leader "wanted to see combat." He wasn't there to spread democracy, free the Iraqui people, find WMD, etc.
He felt justified in everything he did.
It seemed he felt like Iraquis should do (without question) anything the occupying force tells them to do.
Charges have been dropped against 7 Marines involved in this. Only the squad leader is still facing a court martial. His charges have been reduced to manslaughter.
I mean, WTF???? Is it any mystery why the Iraquis never welcomed us and want us out now? I think the whole mission is so convuluted that many soldiers have different reasons or beliefs as to why they are there. The 24 deaths in Haditha are just 24 of 40,000. What ever happened to "winning hearts and minds"? Our soldiers are pawns of the original Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Wolfowitz charade and that's what's so sad and infuriating to me. :mad:
There is nothing that anyone can say to convince me this was ever a necessary or righteous war.
Reader's Digest version: In 2005 a vehicle in a Marine Corp. "convoy" was hit by an IED. One guy dies, 2 others are hurt. The squad leader (who was in Iraq because he "wanted to see combat." WTF?) focuses in on a car in the area. The five Iraquis who are in the car don't get on the ground ("They all know the drill") and they are shot. The squad leader then focuses on a house because "it seemed" some gunfire might be coming from there. The Marines "clear" the house, killing a man, 2 women and 4 children in the process. They run out of house #1 and into a second and third house. Long story short, 24 civilians are killed with scant evidence that any were involved in the IED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
Here's what struck me:
The squad leader "wanted to see combat." He wasn't there to spread democracy, free the Iraqui people, find WMD, etc.
He felt justified in everything he did.
It seemed he felt like Iraquis should do (without question) anything the occupying force tells them to do.
Charges have been dropped against 7 Marines involved in this. Only the squad leader is still facing a court martial. His charges have been reduced to manslaughter.
I mean, WTF???? Is it any mystery why the Iraquis never welcomed us and want us out now? I think the whole mission is so convuluted that many soldiers have different reasons or beliefs as to why they are there. The 24 deaths in Haditha are just 24 of 40,000. What ever happened to "winning hearts and minds"? Our soldiers are pawns of the original Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Wolfowitz charade and that's what's so sad and infuriating to me. :mad:
There is nothing that anyone can say to convince me this was ever a necessary or righteous war.
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Philly I & II, 16
Denver 22
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I was talking about what I thought was a conservative estimate of 40,000 Iraqis killed in the course of this war
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings
are Muslims responsible for any of these deaths?
Why, do you feel it is mostly Muslims who are responsible for these deaths?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Im sure there are muslims in the us military....
dont edit your insult. please keep it there. how about all the sunni-shitte killings. that went on for years. are they responsible for death? they are people too right?
for a large # of them, yes. do you remember the sunni-shiite "civil war" ?
So are you just trying to deflect from the fact our soldiers have killed many innocent people?
I mean does it matter if 50% were killed by the sunni-shiite civil war and the other 50% were killed by our soldiers?
Does this somehow make all those innocent peoples deaths somehow ok?
Or are those deaths from the civil war far worse? and ours were just sad mistakes that happened?
Come on man get real the fact is, if we had never invaded all these people would never have died, trying to share out the blame for the deaths does not minimize the fact that these people died.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
uhhh ... if a country is being occupied and a civil war breaks out - who's fault is that?? ...
no absolutely not.
yes
no
yes, I do think anytime US soliders killed innocent civillians, it was a sad mistake. still horrible though.
maybe, maybe not. one side would have continued to be oppressed tortured and killed however. all I'm saying is that violent muslim extremism is to blame for massive death in Iraq. is the US to blame as well, absolutely.
there are many to blame.
primary fault falls to the occupying force ... by dissolving the army and gov't (both secular agencies) and replacing them people that favoured sectarianism - they caused this civil war ... which was the intention all along ...
maintaining political instability has always been the goal of this administration and the resulting deaths of innocent iraqis along with its continued suffering is but little consequence to an empire ...
you want to place the US as the primary one at fault. ok. doesnt mean there aren't others to blame.
thats just your opinion. I very much disagree.
The fault would have to fall on the force who de-stabilized the country. Before we invaded, the Iraqis knew how to stay alive but once we were there, all bets were off. It basically became a "wrong pace at the wrong time" situation, as the Haditha incident illustrates :mad:
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
I keep hearing this and it just doesnt sound right to me. Iraqis "knew how to stay alive" Iraqis "knew how to avoid the wrath of saddam" thats not a good way to live. i'm not justifiing the invasion but to go on living like that is wrong. maybe now that the cycle of broken, ALL Iraqis can live in peace.......sometime down the road.
that's 400 times the casualty rate of 9/11 and that is not including the death toll in afghanistan ... 1.2 million deaths based on lies ... all in the name of greed ... how anyone can support a gov't like this is what makes this even more tragic ...
Yeah, we're to blame... no question about that...
we shouldn't be surprised by any repurcussions... but many will be
Look our countries are to blame, pure and simple, i just don't understand what's so hard to digest with those facts.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
you have trouble listening or comprehending I guess. I'm not saying the US isnt to blame. I'm saying there are more to blame then just the US for the 1.2 million deaths reported. muslimi extremism to directly responsible for massive death in Iraq. thats a fact.
iraq was one of the most non-secular countries to exist in the middle east - a place where al qaeda was disdained ... now, post-occupation - we have a thrivinig militant group - who's to blame for that?? ... stop looking for outs - the blood falls squarely on this administration ...
So u and Bush are the deciders now...who are u to say that its better for them to die than survive? These peoples LIVES, not a video game, or the NFL, or any other distraction that the administration wants this war to be. Some of the most self centered shit i've read on this board, that's saying a lot.
Before we invaded Muslim extremist were not an issue; so yes we are responsible.
non-secular? are you nuts? sunni/shiite = the biggest divide in the middle east.
uhhh yes it was. sunni's violently oppressed shittes. thats pretty extreme if u ask me
maybe you rather saddam was the decider then?
It was a secular regime.
If it meant 900000 people still being alive yes....