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.
"In the meantime he worries about the press using Haditha to further their campaign against the military. "
===
This is exactly what the MSM is doing.
We will probably know some info in the summer, and more in the Fall. Right now, it doesn't look good.
Thank you for this article. I'm seeing a lot of "rushing" even on FR--and I'd really like to wait until the truth seeps out. MSM will be reluctant to tell the real story, if it's not the scandal they're hoping for.
Be patient.
Because the support hating the military
"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.
What is it with attorneys blabbing to the press these days? Unless this Marine officer gave consent for him to comment to the evil press he should keep his mouth shut and focus on the best possible defense for this young man.
Do you seriously believe that Marines picked out innocent people to massacre in a town that was a hotbed of terrorist activity that even required bombing from above?
Hollywood and the John Kerry types have done an amazing brainwashing job on some people. Even when common sense should show otherwise, some people will just assume it must be a massacre because they have been conditioned to leap to the most negative assumption.
I don't think it will work on the majority of the public. It might have a few years ago but I think most people have left that mentality behind and most Americans have felt frustrated enough by the situation our men face there, with criminals setting mines and blending into the population, that they will sympathize with these Marines.
In the end I think it will be judged to be "collateral damage"... Semper Fi Marines, Hang Tough....
Earth to MSM...
"It is a war. People, including innocents, get killed in war. The Marines are not playing a video game with "time outs for a do-over."
The MSM and leftist drooling over this story is disgusting!
. . . yuppers to post # 4
... but [BTW] , there isn't anything about it in the NYTimes deadTree edition
. . . almost like that often used line in old movies
. .. . " its quiet out there , too quiet "
I haven't believed it all along.
There's a chance I'll be wrong and have to eat crow, but if that's the case, I'll do it.
I'll wait to hear the details come out. But I'm not going to fall into a Murtha-led media trap on this.
No, but they could have shot first and checked later... we will need to wait and find out. A number of people in the DoD are leaking info this early for a reason, and normally that reason is to get the bad news out early. But we need to wait and see.
I suspect Murtha has slipped a gear. His comments are totally irrational.
Or so I have been told by an unidentified source.
Ping
If the reports are true that many died of head shots to the back of the head while in a neeling position and they came from weapons used by the marines, it doesnt look good. What provocation can there be that would justify executing unarmed women and children?
You got that right my friend. What I can't understand is why so many others don't get this. Well, maybe I do. They are under the sway of those who want us to lose.
WHERE did you get this from?
I want to believe the best of our marines too, but its possible that after the officers uncovered a massacre, they called in the 500 pound bombs to obliterate the evidence. The use of the bombs cuts both ways.
You can sit at your computer and ponder such questions. But don't pass judgement on those who are engaged is something about which you cannot know. Perhaps this quote from a famous American will bring you some solace.
“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it.”
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.