Posted on 05/27/2006 9:57:27 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
The press is already salivating over the prospect of the next Abu Ghraib-like public relations disaster for the U.S. in the war on terror - ballyhooing as yet unproven allegations that a group of U.S. Marines launched an "unprovoked" attack that killed 24 Iraqi civilians in town of Haditha on November 19, 2005.
But was the Marine response really "unprovoked" - as at least 40 press reports have claimed in recent days?
The Boston Globe reports that the confrontation was touched off when a roadside bomb struck a supply convoy of Kilo Company, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment. The explosion killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, who was on his second tour in Iraq.
"Everybody agrees that this was the triggering event," Paul Hackett, an attorney for a Marine officer with a slight connection to the case, told the paper.
If the roadside bomb was the "triggering event" for the developments that followed, however, then how can it be said that there was "no provocation"?
And while that provocation may not have been enough to justify the wanton murder of innocent Iraqis, it's far from clear at this point that all of those killed were indeed innocent. Or that any innocents who did die were killed in cold blood.
In an April report that pre-dates the uproar over the Haditha allegations, a Marine press release describes the Iraqi town as "a hotbed of insurgent activity less than a year ago." That would be about the time of the so-called Marine massacre.
Plainly, not all the residents of this terrorist hotbed were as innocent as Marine media critics are now claiming.
The Los Angeles Times reports that after smoke from IED cleared, the Marines quickly determined that it was "a type that would have required someone to detonate it."
Following standard procedure, the troops searched nearby houses, the closest of which was 50 yards away.
That's close enough for its occupants to have tracked the Marine convoy and timed the explosion.
It's also worth remembering that the press has so far reported only one side of the story.
All the witness accounts seem to come from residents of Haditha [that hotbed of insurgent activity] - who paint the Marines as modern day incarnations of Nazi storm troopers.
Alleged witness Aws Fahmi, for instance, told the Boston Globe: "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: `I am a friend. I am good,' But they killed him, and his wife and daughters."
According to the Los Angeles Times, the video that first raised questions about the how the Iraqis died was shot by Haditha residents themselves. Could it have been staged? We still don't know.
Then there's this intriguing tidbit, again from the Times, which notes that after the IED was detonated: "Marines and Iraqi forces searched houses and other structures in the narrow, dusty streets [of Haditha] - jets dropped 500-pound bombs."
Whoever ordered those airstrikes must not have believed the houses of Haditha were filled with Iraqi innocents who knew nothing about planting roadside bombs.
Despite the swirling questions, the press seems eager to jump to conclusions, taking its cue from Rep. John Murtha - who went public last week with charges that the Marines killed innocent Iraqis "in cold blood."
ABC News, for instance, reported Saturday morning that the military investigators had already determined that the killings were unjustified, and that several Marines would likely face murder charges. But instead of quoting anyone in uniform, the report offered a soundbyte from a Human Rights Watch spokesman.
It's also worth noting that House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who got the same insider briefing given to Murtha, says the "in cold blood" allegations are all wet.
"I totally reject that," Hunter told the L.A. Times.
The California Republican has pledged to conclude his own investigation in June. In the meantime he worries about the press using Haditha to further their campaign against the military.
"I don't want the actions of one squad in one city on one morning to be used to symbolize or characterize or tar the actions of our great troops," Hunter told a Washington news conference last week.
Right. The original article said the media is "salivating" over this. They actually want it to rise to the level of an "atrocity" so the trial is moved to the Hague, Nurenburg, or some other such bastion of justice, where the only way out is to die od old age (i.e. Milosovic).
I didn't want to say anything about this media event, but there is a lot of speculation and it is getting off into uncharted terrain. The media is going crazy over this. They know nothing and are extrapolating as far as their agendas allow. Too much 'what if.'
In spite of the media hoping for another My Lai, what actually happened hasn't been established yet. At the very least, the accused marines should be given a chance to tell their side of the story.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq Announces Ongoing Battles in Haditha, and Claims Responsibility for Several Bombings and Attacks upon American and Iraqi Forces throughout Iraq
By SITE Institute
August 8, 2005
Al-Qaeda in Iraq [Tanzeem Qaedat Al-Jihad Fi Bilad Al-Rafidayn], in ten separate communiqués issued today, August 8, 2005, announces that the mujahideen in Haditha are in “very good condition” and lauds their alleged success in the ongoing battles, and claims responsibility for several bombings and attacks on American and Iraqi forces throughout Iraq:
1. Announces the Whereabouts of the Mujahideen in Haditha, al-Anbar [Province]
2. Claims Responsibility of Destroying a Truck and Two Humvees Belonging to the Crusaders in Rabya’a
3. Claims Responsibility of Destroying an American Vehicle in al-Mosul
4. Claims Responsibility of an Attack on a Police Patrol in Rasafat Baghdad
5. Claims Responsibility of Attacking a Police Patrol in Baquba
6. Claims Responsibility of Killing 14 of the National Guards in al-Fallujah
7. Claims Responsibility of Bombing the National Guard Barracks in the Area of al-Haswa
8. Claims Responsibility of Bombing the National Guard Barracks in the Area of Abu Ghraib
9. Claims Responsibility of Confrontations with the Crusaders in al-Amerya One Hour Ago
10. Claims Responsibility of Detonating Two Explosive Packages on a Crusaders’ Patrol in al-Ishaqi
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qAK3JhB9M_wJ:siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi%3FID%3Dpublications80705%26Category%3Dpublications%26Subcategory%3D0+haditha+battles&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
Thank you, Carl.
sure, they just remained frozen in the kneeling position after the Marines shot them - long enough to be photographed.
It was, reportedly, a previously planned trip.
It was, reportedly, a previously planned trip.
"Another point of dispute is whether some houses were destroyed by fire or by airstrikes. Some Iraqis reported that the Marines burned houses in the area of the attack, but two people familiar with the case, including Hackett, the lawyer, said warplanes conducted airstrikes, dropping 500-pound bombs on more than one house.
That is significant for any possible court-martial proceedings, because it would indicate that senior commanders, who must approve such strikes and who would also use aircraft to assess their effects, were paying attention to events in Haditha that day."
Imagine that, senior commanders were paying attention to events in Haditha. I can't imagine why these Marines didn't just drag their dead brother back to the base of operation and eat supper.
Because "reporters" like Carl seem to believe it's not responsible for other reporters to report on this until charges have been made or people convicted in a court marital. You make a big ASSumption. You seem to think I want it to be true. I don't. But I'm not so ignorant as to believe that our guys never do wrong. Look at how damage the bitch and her buddies at Abu Garab created for the US.
"...they are still victimized. Their careers are over. There will be no promotions or commands for them."
Not to mention all the other Marines, etc., who remain in Haditha and have sacrificed so much to clear that area of a viscious insurgency.
"In fact, the picture it paints is of a panicked platoon rushing into a house, shooting everyone in sight then going to the next house."
Try a new pair of glasses. I didn't see panicked. I saw pissed.
Well said.
I bought my son a new knife today.
Never needs sharpening.
So what is your point? And since when did Al Qaeda become your source for truth?
Amen.
Perhaps they were relieved because too many of their men were dying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.