Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Haditha Child: I Knew of Bomb Plot to Kill Marines
NewsMax.com ^ | June 3, 2006 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 06/03/2006 8:26:22 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax

A 12-year old survivor of the alleged massacre of innocent civilians by U.S. Marines patrolling Haditha has admitted she had prior knowledge of the plot to detonate an IED as their convoy was passing by her house on the morning of Nov. 19, 2005.

In a CNN interview broadcast Wednesday, Safa Younis - who says eight members of her family were killed by U.S. troops - recalled that she was getting ready for school as the Marine Humvee approached.

"I was planning to go to school. I was about to go out of bed. I knew the bomb would explode so I covered my ears," the youngster said, according to a CNN translator.

"The bomb [then] exploded," she explained. "The bomb struck an armored vehicle. I don't know if it was a Humvee or an armored vehicle. When the bomb exploded, they came straight to my house."

Younis complained that after the bombing killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, his fellow Marines broke down the front door of her house.

"The American forces entered the house and started shooting with their guns. They killed my mother and my sister Nour. They killed her when she shot her in the head. She was only 15 years old. My other sister was shot with seven bullets in the head and she was only 10 years old."

The Haditha co-conspirator continued:

"And my brother Muhammad was hiding under the bed when the U.S. military hit him with the butt of the gun and the started shooting him under the bed. The U.S. military then shot me and I was showered in blood. We couldn't leave the house because the U.S. military surrounded the area with a large number of soldiers."

Younis said she survived by pretending to be dead.

But the "innocent" Haditha 12-year-old failed to give any further details about which other family members knew about the bomb plot. Or whether one of her relatives had detonated the blast.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: haditha; ied; innocentchild; iraq; iraqichildren; murthaisapileofslime; murthastinks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-187 next last
To: TexKat

Thank you TexKat...your prayers are very much appreciated......I just feel that our troops lives are going to be that much harder over there....this will cause needless hesitation, therefore getting our troops killed....Enjoy your time with your son, give him a big hug from me...


161 posted on 06/03/2006 5:34:02 PM PDT by mystery-ak (Army Wife and Army Mother.....toughest job in the military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Rsayef, the lawyer, said that during the first meeting between families of the Haditha victims and U.S. military officers, the Americans told the families that the 24 deaths were caused by the roadside bomb and by "terrorists."

"We had a heated argument," he said.

He said the U.S. officers also said during the meeting that they had no objection to TV news teams visiting the Euphrates River town to report on the deaths.

"In reality, they did not make good on their promises and sealed off the town for a month after the shootings," said Rsayef, who had a brother and sister-in-law, an uncle, an aunt and several cousins among the 24 killed.

Despite blaming insurgents for the killings, the U.S. military gave the families $2,500 for each person killed in the incident about a month later, except for four brothers, all of fighting age, he said.

"When I received the compensation money, I found out that it was $2,500 for each victim," Rsayef said. "I told them that it's a small sum that does not match the magnitude of the disaster."

He noted that Libya's government paid millions of dollars in compensation to the families of the Lockerbie airline bombing victims. "Is American blood worth more than Iraqi blood?" he asked.

Haditha lawyer criticizes U.S. payments

162 posted on 06/03/2006 5:56:40 PM PDT by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
The fact that we are dealing with this publicly means that we have quite lost our way in this war. We have lost the war and it is time to get out. It is time to come home and do what we can to be secure here until we get that series of major attacks here that we were forestalling by being there. This president cannot do any further good in the Middle East and from this point on willl cause our position to further deteriorate. This is a major strike against the morale of our soldiers and it is being carried out by our commander in chief. Bush is setting the stage for serious Republican losses in November with his insistence on being overrun by the Latins, and for a Democrat, any Democrat, to win in 08. I hope that the incoming Democrat president will be a bit nuts. When nukes go off inBoston and LA we need a Democrat who will panic and sling nukes, not one who will invite the enemy to Washington for a surrender.

Problems like Haditha should be dealt with by pulling back the questioned troops to rear areas until the end of the war. Investigation should be done and snothing should be announced. When the war is over then it is time to straighten stuff out. From this point on we will have troops that are afraid to shoot because Washington is watching every shot and does not see with immediate eyes. We have commanders that will fear ordering an action because they may get court martialed if the effects are not politically correct. That fear may not stop some necessary actions but it will delay them, maybe only a minute or two while the captain has a twinge of doubt but that minute or two may well be crucial to the continued existence of his troops.

IT IS TIME TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME and it is time for citizens to seriously improve their private armament.

163 posted on 06/03/2006 6:33:52 PM PDT by arthurus (It was better to fight them OVER THERE than here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gardencatz; xzins
Where's your "proof" of a slaughter? Time for you to put up.

The USMC courts martial will provide the proof, pro or con.

I don't trust a word printed in NewsMax.

This girl's (12 or 13 yrs. old) story has changed several times at this point:

The story, as relayed in the news media. The court martial will hammer these things out.

That ANYONE would believe the (CHANGING) story of a girl, a "doctor" & "photographer" (both held by US as terrorist sympathizers or worse, thus having a grudge) and the MSM over a Marine is just astounding. So tell me, just what is it that makes you inclined to believe these Marines are coldblooded killers of innocent Iraqi's?

The fact that the USMC is taking these allegations quite seriously. I have absolutely nothing but respect for the military justice system - and, if the servicemen are guilty of what they are alleged to have committed, I want them hung out to dry.

164 posted on 06/03/2006 7:03:01 PM PDT by jude24 ("I said the law was powerless to help you, not punish you." - Chief Wiggam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Let's determine: (1) That these GI's actually killed someone, and (2) That there was no battlefield explanation that mitigates the killing.

The court martial will determine that. If both those elements are present, then and only then should the USMC come down upon them like the wrath of Almighty God.

165 posted on 06/03/2006 7:06:36 PM PDT by jude24 ("I said the law was powerless to help you, not punish you." - Chief Wiggam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

bttt


166 posted on 06/03/2006 7:08:00 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jude24; P-Marlowe

We are agreed.

I have a preference, however, to speak of them in terms of their innocense. Call it my military career makes me a softie for troops. Call it my fanaticism about: INNOCENT until proven guilty.

Therefore, every article should be proclaiming their innocense and showing reasons for it. We are their comrades, their supporters, the ones who believe in them, who believe they did not commit crimes.

Let my heart then be terribly broken if my extreme bias toward them is proven wrong.


167 posted on 06/03/2006 7:10:24 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Innocence


168 posted on 06/03/2006 7:11:59 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: xzins
We are agreed. I have a preference, however, to speak of them in terms of their innocense. Call it my military career makes me a softie for troops. Call it my fanaticism about: INNOCENT until proven guilty.

I trust 99% of the troops - but because of my prosector's bent, I am fanatic about prosecuting that 1% who abuse the military to the fullest extent of the law. If, after a full investigation, it is determined that the Haditha massacre indeed occured (and from the sounds of things, and the way the military is behaving, there is a very real possibility that one occured), then for the good of the service, the military must show no mercy to the servicemen who broke the laws of war. Make an example of them - but only if they actually committed the crime.

169 posted on 06/03/2006 7:17:42 PM PDT by jude24 ("I said the law was powerless to help you, not punish you." - Chief Wiggam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Innocence

Innocent until proven guilty applies only to the jury. It does not apply to the prosecutors. "Where there's smoke, there's fire" will get you bounced off a jury, but it's true enough for prosecutors.

170 posted on 06/03/2006 7:18:54 PM PDT by jude24 ("I said the law was powerless to help you, not punish you." - Chief Wiggam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

The little girl made a big boo boo and didn't follow the script. Her handlers immediately dismiss her mistake and say she was "confused" when she spilled the beans about knowing about the bomb and covering her ears. She was never asked a follow up question to this new revealing detail like, "what do you mean you knew there was going to be an explosion?" or "how did you know there was going to be an explosion?"


171 posted on 06/03/2006 7:24:51 PM PDT by snowstorm12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24
only to the jury

I won't argue the finer points of that statement, because it isn't a constitutional statement.

In that regard, I firmly believe no accused person should be deprived of ANYTHING without due process of law, and that they MUST be assured that they will be able to confront those who are witnesses against them.

172 posted on 06/03/2006 7:27:10 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Concur, not even Oliver Stone would touch that..

Sure he would. Lots of folks would take it as gospel too. The "loathe the military" types.

173 posted on 06/03/2006 7:41:36 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Official Version Is at Odds With Evidence (Washington Post)

The Marine Corps is saying only that it would be inappropriate to comment while investigations are underway. But since that Saturday afternoon in November, evidence has been accumulating steadily that the official version was wrong and misleading. The more military investigators learned about what happened that day in Haditha, the more they grew disturbed.

On Nov. 29, the Marine unit in question -- Kilo Company of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment -- had a memorial service at a Marine base for Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a well-liked 20-year-old from El Paso, Tex. He was killed in a roadside bomb explosion that appears to have been the trigger for what looks to investigators like revenge shootings of Iraqi civilians. Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones said that Terrazas had been "like a brother to me." Staff Sgt. Travis Fields, Terrazas's platoon sergeant, called him "a man of heart." Not long after the bodies were discovered, Maj. Dana Hyatt, a Marine reservist whose job in part was to work with the civilian population when damage was inflicted by the U.S. military, paid out $38,000 in compensation to the families of the 15 dead. The Iraqis received the maximum the United States offers -- $2,500 per death, plus a small amount for other damage.

Kilo Company did not dwell on what happened Nov. 19. Mike Coffman, who was a Marine Reserve officer in Haditha at the time, recalled that another officer, telling him about the incident, "indicated to me that he thought from the beginning that it was overreaction by the Marines, but he didn't think anything criminal had occurred."

When the Haditha city council met in January for the first time in many months, "none of them [Iraqi members] ever raised it as an issue," said Coffman, who attended the meeting. Rather, he said, they complained about how car and truck traffic in the area had been shut down after two Marines were killed at a checkpoint bombing.

That same month, a top military official arrived in Iraq who would play a key role in the case: Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the new No. 2 military officer in the country. He is an unusual general in today's Army, with none of the "good old boy" persona seen in many other top commanders. He had praised an article by a British officer that was sharply critical of U.S. officers in Iraq for using tactics that alienated the population. He wanted U.S. forces to operate differently than they had been doing.

Not long after Chiarelli arrived in Baghdad, an Iraqi journalism student gave an Iraqi human rights group a video he had taken in Haditha the day after the incident. It showed the scene at the local morgue and the damage in the houses where the killings took place. The video reached Time magazine, whose reporters began questioning U.S. military officials. Pool, the Marine captain, sent the reporters a dismissive e-mail saying that they were falling for al-Qaeda propaganda, the magazine said recently. "I cannot believe you're buying any of this," he wrote. Pool declined last week to comment on any aspect of the Haditha incident.

But Army Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a more senior spokesman in Baghdad, notified Chiarelli of the questions. The general's response to his public affairs office was short: Just brief the Time magazine reporter on the military investigation into the incident that Chiarelli assumed had been conducted.

The surprising word came back: There had been no investigation.

Chiarelli told subordinates in early February he was amazed by that response, according to an Army officer in Iraq. He directed that an inquiry commence as soon as possible. He wanted to know what had happened in Haditha, and also why no investigation had begun.

Army Col. Gregory Watt was tapped to start an investigation and by March 9, he told Chiarelli that he had reached two conclusions, according to the Army officer.

One was that death certificates showed that the 24 Iraqis who died that day -- the 15 the Marines said had died in the bomb blast and others they said were insurgents -- had been killed by gunshot rather than a bomb, as the official statement had said. The other was that the Marine Corps had not investigated the deaths, as is the U.S. military's typical procedure in Iraq, particularly when so many civilians are involved. Individually, either finding would have been disturbing. Together, they were stunning.

On March 10, the findings were given to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, the first Marine ever to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld told aides that the case promised to be a major problem. He called it "really, really bad -- as bad or worse than Abu Ghraib," recalled one Pentagon official. On March 11, President Bush was informed, according to the White House.

Conflicting Accounts Of Haditha Killings

174 posted on 06/03/2006 8:01:44 PM PDT by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Haditha eclipses Marines' heroic reputation on streets of the US
175 posted on 06/03/2006 8:11:28 PM PDT by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

Your report gave an inaccurate impression.

The full quote from your link states the following:

"A U.S. military probe has found U.S. forces did nothing wrong in a March raid in the town of Ishaqi in which civilians were killed, saying they "properly followed the rules of engagement," the military said on Friday.

"Allegations that the troops executed a family living in this safe house, and then hid the alleged crimes by directing an air strike, are absolutely false," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a senior U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said in a statement released in Baghdad."

This exoneration and defense were for an incident at another town, at Ishaqi. This quote does not refer to the incident at Haditha.


176 posted on 06/03/2006 8:13:40 PM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Well, that's good to know.

But i still want an answer about Roberts' treason column.

177 posted on 06/03/2006 8:13:56 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Try Jesus--If you don't like Him, satan will always take you back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Felony Charges Filed Against Hanford Marine

June 3, 2006

- The Hanford Marine at the center of a military investigation has been charged in a hit-and-run crash in his hometown.

Lance Corporal Ryan Briones is accused of driving a stolen truck while drunk into a house in April. Briones claims he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder after disposing of bodies of 24 Iraqis in the city of Haditha. However, the owner of the damaged home, who's also in the military, says post traumatic stress is a serious condition, but he questions if it's just an excuse.

"My concern is if we move to a point where we utilize that as a legal defense our own actions, at what point do we take responsibility?" said homeowner Craig Dalle.

Felony charges filed against Briones Friday also include possession of marijuana for an arrest in 2003, before he went to Iraq.

Briones is out on bail and expected in court later this month.

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=local&id=4234392

178 posted on 06/03/2006 8:24:31 PM PDT by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Innocent until proven guilty applies only to the jury. It does not apply to the prosecutors. Where there's smoke, there's fire" will get you bounced off a jury, but it's true enough for prosecutors.

Would you care to identify your jurisdiction, so any FReepers there can move to have your license lifted?

As a matter of fact in the military system, it does apply to the prosecutor. The military system, despite Hollywierd mis-portrayals, is not as adversarial as the civilian one has become. The "prosecutor" is after the facts, and assumes innocence until proved guilty. He has an obligation to present the facts, even those which indicate innocence, to the court, not just to the defense.

You sir or mamm, are supposed to do the same. You must be convinced of guilt before you even begin prosecution, after seeing the facts brought to you by the police or other investigators. If you prosecute based on "smoke", you are guilty of prosecutorial abuse. You choose to seek an indictment, or in other cases choose to take the matter to court.

The military system is different in that the convening authority brings the charges, and may do so with or without the advice of the prosecutors. Their job them is to bring out the truth. At least that's the way it worked on the Court Martial I was part of the Court for. The "prosecutor" emphasized that, the "judge" did as well. The Judge's role is considerably different as well, he's there to advise the Court as to what the law and regulations are, he or she does not control the proceedings as a civilian does.

The senior officer controls the proceedings, with the advice of the Judge. In a Court Martial, the members of the Court, who are analgous to the jury, are allowed to ask questions of witnesses, and of the prosecution and defense JAG officers. The Judge too, come to that.

179 posted on 06/03/2006 8:34:18 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
Amazing knowledge of US military vehicle names for a 12 year old Iraqi child.

When I was 12 I knew the names of nearly every military vehicle and airplane used in WWII. I had models of them all over my room. I knew more about warfare and military tactics at the age of 12 than I do now.

180 posted on 06/03/2006 8:44:30 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-187 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson