Probe Finds Haditha Killings Unprovoked

Reuters ^ | 5-31-06 | Will Dunham

[Steve_Seattle]

"You believe that if an IED goes off, anybody within a one block area can be shot and killed, even if they had nothing to do with the IED. Right?"

Belated comment - That is NOT at all what he said. Your inaccuracy rivals that of Reuters. He said that whatever happened - even if it was in fact an excessive response - was triggered by the initial IED explosion. There is a difference between troops overreacting after an IED - which may have been what happened - and a truly "unprovoked" attack, in which troops randomly kill civilians apart from the stress and confusion of a combat situation. Moreover, it is highly likely that a good percentage of those killed - including women and children - were in fact acting on behalf of the insurgents, or were aware of and sympathetic to their activities. The difference between "insurgent" and "civilian" is extremely blurry - deliberately so, in fact. It is part of the insurgents' M.O.

[notigar]

Coop, what should be of concern is not whether someone is speaking before the investigation is complete, but rather whether someone high up wants the story getting out like this to soften the blow. Lawmakers, Dem and Repub alike are getting briefed, apparently.

[sinkspur]

Moreover, it is highly likely that a good percentage of those killed - including women and children - were in fact acting on behalf of the insurgents, or were aware of and sympathetic to their activities.

What is a proportionate response to being "sympathetic" to insurgents? To the children of those who are "sympathetic" to insurgents?

[Coop]

Coop, what should be of concern is not whether someone is speaking before the investigation is complete, but rather whether someone high up wants the story getting out like this to soften the blow. Lawmakers, Dem and Repub alike are getting briefed, apparently.

I disagree. I don't like public lynchings, especially by the very folks who sent the accused into combat in the first place.

[Steve_Seattle]

"What is a proportionate response to being "sympathetic" to insurgents?"

The proportionate response is governed by the rules of warfare. My comment was not intended as a justification for killing insurgent sympathizers, but merely to point out that there are many civilian collaborators - including women and children - so that it is difficult to tell the difference between mere sympathizers and actual collaborators, especially when the insurgents base themselves in civilian areas.

[Steve_Seattle]

To finish my point: when civilians cozy up with the insurgents, act as lookouts, act as spies, offer aid and comfort, allow their homes to be used as staging areas for attacks, these situations become almost inevitable. It's a mark of the professionalism of our soldiers that there haven't been dozens of incidents like this. And keep in mind what this story is distracting everyone from: the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians is the DAILY practice of the insurgents, not of the U. S. Marines.

[ohioWfan]

Thank you all......

The point that FV seems to keep missing is that even if her private 'sources' are accurate, it doesn't lessen the sin of what she has done here.

Spreading malicious unprovable gossip is just as wrong as direct lying. True or false, FV has no moral right to have done what she has done here, 'free speech' or not.....and it's obvious with her continued sarcasm and defense that she doesn't understand that.

And why she used a thread like this to spread her malice about Laura is something that only she knows. The hijacking of a thread of this import to spread ugly rumors is beyond understanding.

And swheats, I agree..........the Bush's marriage has withstood enormous pressure, and they have gotten closer because of it. That's what happens in solid, God-centered marriages when the attacks come from the outside.

We do, however, need to keep praying for both of them, because they are each other's ballast and support.......and the attacks against them are inhuman.

[MissAmericanPie]

I know it's a judicial process, but things can get changed and be influenced by an angry public opinion, on rare occasions.

Do we want diplomats, or enemy killers? Do we want our military's hands tied, or do we want them to wipe out strong holds and those that give aid and comfort and a base of operations to road side bombers?

Do we want our son's to win, like they are trained to win and come home safe? Or play by "rules of engagement" in a new kind of war, where these rules don't work and they come home in boxes, killed by a road side bomb and never having had a chance to face his enemy or defend himself? This enemy is not a signature to any Geneva Convention. No one observes or is demanded to observe it but us, and to our disadvantage.

President Bush is the "Commander in Chief", no general is higher than him, they answer to him. President Bush sent out the warning and defined the enemy before we ever sat foot in the Middle East. "If you support terrorists, if you give aid and comfort to the terrorists, you are a terrorist".

We all heard it, we supposed he meant it. And these Marines supposed he meant it. To me they were following the orders of the "Commander in Chief", they discovered the enemy, they defined the enemy, they destroyed the enemy.

Now this city is no longer a terrorist strong hold. They should keep going and bulldoze it to the ground. I may sound like Patton/Attila the Hun squared to you. I don't care. This is a new type of war, fought against an enemy with no uniform, military organization, just hit and run killers supported by some towns and cities that give them aid comfort and a base of operations.

You don't spend months killing one ant at a time, you take out the hive. You keep them moving right out of your area or die. I'll never understand the way our guys are expected to fight and I will never let mine enlist because of the stupid way our guys are expected to fight.

[suijuris]

Good! I was dreading reading your post, and am relieved that you agree.

We may strongly disagree on Bush handling of immigration and I pull no punches, but on other issues we are probably more closely aligned than you think.

Have a good day; got to get back to work.

Sui

[robowombat]

If the muslim dickweeds prevail they will be right. Those who win write the history books and for that reason the victors are always right. The Chinese, pragmatic folks they are, called it the Mandate of Heaven. The deposed dynasty lost it the new dynasty had it. In war as in a gunfight there is no consolation prize, winning is all that matters. If you win all your sins are forgiven if you lose you are never right. Witness the US in Viet Nam. Doesn't matter what anyone says at the end of the day our side lost and that war will always be tagged with 'doomed effort'. If the islamos 'win' by staying on their feet until we finally virtually depart Iraq and then gin up some coalition with parts of the new Iraqi Army and topple the government then the US and all who participated in this campaign will be tagged with being part of a 'mistaken, doomed to failure operation' and all the viciousness of the terrorists will be relegated to the footnotes that nobody much reads. If we outlast the ba#tards and create an Iraqi proxy force big enough to overawe the islamos then we can claim victory and our sins will quietly be forgotten.

[spunkets]

"I doubt that muthra has seen a complete picture as well, he's jumped to his own conclusions and damned them all without realizing what he is being told by his sources inside the Corps"

He's fabricating. He's not using sources from the Corps. These people are creating facts to back up their fairy tale.

I think the terrorists setup these families to be hit hard and they were. That's all they really have.

[GVnana]

You believe that if an IED goes off, anybody within a one block area can be shot and killed, even if they had nothing to do with the IED. Right?

Hmmm. If someone in my neighborhood used an IED to attack Marines would I stand around and watch?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Hmmm. If someone in my neighborhood used an IED to attack Marines would I stand around and watch?

Hmm. If someone in your neighborhood used an IED to attack troops of a foreign power, what would you do?

[spunkets]

"...the last sentence"

Do you want the link that shows it?

[rodguy911]

This might be an occasion where one or two snapped

It also might be an occasion where true terrorists were firing at our guys and using the locals,or sympathizers, as human shields, what do you do in a situation like that?

[ohioWfan]

You have a good day too.

(Just for the record, I'm not sure that we DO disagree on his handling of immigration......at least not completely).

[GVnana]

Depends on whose side I'm on.

[onyx]

BUMP your #487.

[GeronL]

The media jumps to all the worst conclusions but they still believe Saddam is innocent until proven guilty

[Go Gordon]

Look at photo #9 at the feet of the soldier standing next to a perp(?), who is apparently in cuffs. It looks like that photo was taken after apprehension and shows ammunition/weapons at the doorway of the dwelling. Innocent civilians?