Posted on 05/31/2006 4:01:53 PM PDT by Types_with_Fist
A preliminary military inquiry found evidence that U.S. Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in November, contradicting the troops’ account, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
President George W. Bush said he was troubled by news stories on the November 19 killings of men, women and children in the town of Haditha, and a general at the Pentagon said the incident could complicate the job for the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
“Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate,” Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, deputy director for regional operations for the military’s Joint Staff, told a Pentagon briefing.
You are correct - There are plenty of things popping out regarding the events in Haditha that simply to make much sense - Or give everyone reason for pause and the clear reason for giving our guys the benefit of the doubt.
Without question -
And people need to understand just because JAGs continue to want to bring a case means absolute nothing! - JAGs at times simply want to *win* once they've convinced themselves of this or that - Time and again soldiers are fully acquitted of over zealous chargers by JAGs -
All the evidence is not out regarding this specific case in Haditha - And it seems clear some very important evidence will likely never be available (the bodies for example - I was told the families have refused having the unburied and re-examied) - Yet doctor who did the original examination had a clear axe to grind (as he was arrested and held for possible pro-insurgent connections) before this all happened in Haditha.
We have a daughter of one of these family members clearly saying she (and her family) were aware of the IED and when it was going to go off - Giving reason again for pause that perhaps her family was actively supporting those blowing this IED.
There is just a tremendous amount not fully known....yet we watch our MSM trying and already convict these men simply to try and continue to run down this war (and our successes).
It's more disturbing to me that Tony Snow says that illegal immigration is "not an invasion". Tony Snow is where the spin begins.
So, I am not a liar and I am not evil.
Have a great weekend.
That's wonderful. Why would you bother to tell me that? I implicity accused your story of being full of manure. I stand by that post.
"I read it, so what?
A Marine was killed by that IED and the source of that attack was determined to be inside those two buildings nearby.
A survivor of the Marine attack has stated that she knew the IED was there and when to cover her ears when it went off.
It has always been drilled into every Marine that if you are attacked by some one that means to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force, that means you can kill them to prevent them from killing you.
and it doesn't matter if a single gunshot was ever fired back at the Marines after the IED went off, they had the right and duty to attack those that attacked them using deadly force.
Sounds kinda harsh doesn't it? Our Troops are fighting an enemy that refuses to wear uniforms, hides among the civilian populace, strikes at them from inside the homes of innocent iraqis and then runs away, and yet you worry about the legality of our actions.
When is it illegal for a Marine to fight back to prevent himself or other members of his unit from being killed during an attack on them?
Never."
So you are saying that it is possible that the Marines knew that the IED was triggered from one of these two houses, and based on this reliable knowledge, they went into these two houses and killed everybody inside, and this is justifiable? This is stretching it, to say the least. Even granting every hypothetical assumption, a single IED would not be triggered by people two houses, just one. So on that basis alone, an attack of this nature wouldn't even theoretically be justified.
Reported US Military Deaths in Haditha, Iraq
Apr 3, 2003 Haditha
US Captain Russell Brian Rippetoe SW of Haditha Dam - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide bomber
US Specialist Ryan Patrick Long SW of Haditha Dam - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide bomber
US Staff Sergeant Nino Dugue Livaudais SW of Haditha Dam - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide bomber
May 26, 2003 Haditha
US Major Matthew E. Schram Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire
Nov. 29, 2003 Haditha
US Staff Sergeant Stephen A. Bertolino Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - ambush
US Specialist Aaron J. Sissel Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - ambush
US Sergeant Jesse W. Strong Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack
US Lance Corporal Karl R. Linn Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack
US Corporal Jonathan W. Bowling Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack
May 7, 2005 Haditha
US Sergeant Michael A. Marzano Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
US Sergeant Aaron N. Cepeda Sr. Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
US Lance Corporal Lance Tanner Graham Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
US Petty Officer 3rd Class Jeffery L. Wiener Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
May 25,2005 Haditha
US Sergeant David Neil Wimberg Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
May 26,2005 Haditha
US Major Ricardo A. Crocker Hadithah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack
Aug 1, 2005 Haditha
US Lance Corporal Roger D. Castleberry Jr. Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Sergeant David J. Coullard Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin Jr. Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Corporal Jeffrey A. Boskovitch Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Lance Corporal Brian P. Montgomery Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Sergeant Nathaniel S. Rock Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
Aug 3, 2005 Haditha
US Lance Corporal Adam J. Strain Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Specialist Mathew V. Gibbs Baghdad (southwest part) Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb
US Sergeant 1st Class Charles Houghton Warren Baghdad (southwest part) Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb
US Specialist Jerry Lewis Ganey Jr. Baghdad (southwest part) Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb
US Lance Corporal Nicholas William B. Bloem Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal David S. Stewart Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Bradley J. Harper Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Kevin G. Waruinge Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Grant B. Fraser Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Justin F. Hoffman Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Eric J. Bernholtz Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Aaron H. Reed Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal David Kenneth J. Kreuter Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal William Brett Wightman Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Christopher Jenkins Dyer Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Michael J. Cifuentes Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Timothy Michael Bell Jr. Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Edward August Schroeder II Haditha (2 km S of) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
Nov. 16, 2005 Haditha
US Sergeant Jeremy E. Murray Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
Nov 19, 2005 Haditha
US Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas Haditha (near) - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
No US Military deaths have been reported in or near Haditha since the death of US Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas on Nov 19, 2005
"Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium."
Our Marines did not kill these people.
The terrorists did.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005321.htm
"They were attacked and fought back against those that attacked them, and civilians were killed but they weren't slaughtered without provocation or indiscriminately."
Or killed later by their own people using captured and/or black-market M16/M4/M249 weapons as a set-up. If they're not above blowing up women and children with IED's, they're not above shooting their own people for PR gain.
And even if the Marines did do it, I have no doubt those who planted and/or detonated the IED that killed the Marine (or assisted those that did) were among those killed. That's why it was in an empty lot between homes, not to avoid alienating the population but to not blow up their own houses.
"No US Military deaths have been reported in or near Haditha since the death of US Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas on Nov 19, 2005"
Thanks for the feedback.
I can only repeat what I believe we should do in Iraq.
1) Provide the Iraq the Army with modern tanks, effective artillery, and training in both between now and November, 2008.
2) Pull all US ground troops out of Iraq by November 2008.
3) Elect a Republican president.
4) After the pullout of ground troops, continue to provide full air support inside Iraq, primarily from Afghanistan.
5) Start providing the Iraqis with air power.
The problem of pockets of anti-government resistance will be solved by the Iraqi Army after the US pullout, utilizing whatever rules of engagement are necessary.
"The problem of pockets of anti-government resistance will be solved by the Iraqi Army after the US pullout, utilizing whatever rules of engagement are necessary."
With that I agree, they will not have the PC-motivated restrictions that our troops suffer under and will be free to use whatever methods are effective. As for providing them with the latest weaponry, I don't know. The Iraqi PM's show of support for Iran's position on the nuclear issue doesn't give me much in the way of trust.
"As for providing them with the latest weaponry, I don't know. The Iraqi PM's show of support for Iran's position on the nuclear issue doesn't give me much in the way of trust."
I take your point. I still assume that we are going to try to give this government some chance to survive on its own after the US pulls out on the ground---which I do not believe is a very long time away.
Otherwise, you are abandoning Iraq to outside forces---which probably means Iranian occupation---or assuming that US forces will be there a long time to protect them.
I do not believe a Republican will be elected President in 2008 without making it clear that he intends to pull US ground forces out pretty quickly. If a Democrat is elected President, the country will be abandoned to its fate.
Pathetic. And yes, bad for morale; but worse for morale, no doubt, is the response of the MSM. . .the self-serving 'body politic'and the President et al. ..
Leadpenny knows combat. Same area my Dad was in as I recall. He has, what the kids call "creds".
:0)
Not in my book, he doesn't.
"I take your point. I still assume that we are going to try to give this government some chance to survive on its own after the US pulls out on the ground---which I do not believe is a very long time away."
Continued air support by the USA will be critical. Plus we have massive amounts of mothballed armor that even WE should be pulling out for use in Iraq. An M113 upgraded to A4 with the full ACAV kit is a formidable APC. It's what should've already replaced most of those Humvees. There are upgrade kits (originally designed by the Israelis) that can give the T-55 the combat capability of an M48A5. Both of which have been used to good effect by them. It's nowhere as good as an Abrams, but one has to consider the possibility of Abrams tanks becoming the property of Iran. Same goes with Apache attack helicopters. I would have the Iraqi's scrap all of the T-72's, their side/rear armor is actually weaker than the T-55's. And they blow up like tracked pipe-bombs due to the large quantity of combustible-case ammo in that small tank.
"Continued air support by the USA will be critical."
This is 100% true. But would you not agree that this is entirely dependent on the election of Republican president? Something that will be difficult---primarily because we will still have troops on the ground on 11/2008. How do I know this? Because Bush has said so. In fact, this is the one thing we know for sure about the schedule in Iraq---Bush has said in advance that you will not be the one to terminate the campaign. The reason is, ironically, that he is weak.
"Plus we have massive amounts of mothballed armor that even WE should be pulling out for use in Iraq. An M113 upgraded to A4 with the full ACAV kit is a formidable APC. It's what should've already replaced most of those Humvees."
This sounds interesting. However, since we overlooked it four or other forces I suppose we will overlook it for Iraq.
"There are upgrade kits (originally designed by the Israelis) that can give the T-55 the combat capability of an M48A5. Both of which have been used to good effect by them."
Again, I lack the expertise to evaluate this idea. The fact is, as far as I can see, the US has not addressed the question of Iraqi tanks at all. They have simply purchased some used ones from some Europeans, utilizing money in their budget.
"It's nowhere as good as an Abrams, but one has to consider the possibility of Abrams tanks becoming the property of Iran. Same goes with Apache attack helicopters."
Reluctantly, I'll admit you have a point. I still haven't completely reconciled myself to looking at things this way.
"I would have the Iraqi's scrap all of the T-72's, their side/rear armor is actually weaker than the T-55's. And they blow up like tracked pipe-bombs due to the large quantity of combustible-case ammo in that small tank"
An interesting analysis that I had not heard before. Are you ex-military or just someone interested in the subject?
"Again, I lack the expertise to evaluate this idea. The fact is, as far as I can see, the US has not addressed the question of Iraqi tanks at all. They have simply purchased some used ones from some Europeans, utilizing money in their budget."
Just like them to buy from the back-stabbers at higher cost, than to use US components to upgrade what they already have eh? The upgrade involves the same steering system as the Abrams plus the tank engine, transmission, fire-control, 105mm cannon, and gun-stablilization of the M48A5.
"Are you ex-military or just someone interested in the subject?"
I'm ex-Navy, but I've always had high interest in all things military. From infantry to satellites. In the early weeks of the Iraq campaign many Bradley crew were stunned when they shot at T-72's to distract them (so that an Abrams could come from a direction they weren't looking) and the tanks blew up. When they examined the wreckage they found the AP rounds had cleanly pierced the hull/turret sides at ranges that had no effect on T-55/62 tanks. With a T-72 the ammo is stored in the bottom under a grate, so the burning depleted-uranium fragments just needed gravity to finish the job.
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.