Originally Posted by brinktk

I wasn't saying they were drugged, I was showing you how it COULD have happened. You are using the knowledge you already know of the situation and years of speculation and hind sight on your side to make a call. Those guys had seconds to react with NONE of the knowledge that we have. The only thing they had to go off of was previous experiences and training. You can try to apply logic to an illogical situation all you want, the fact is, all your moral superiority application to this process means nothing on the ground when the sh!t hits the fan. You keep saying key words like "no threat" and "innocent" and "cold blood"...when you have the benefit of years of study. Those guys on the ground had none of this...all they had was training, they took a KIA, and they went too far. You're acting like it was premeditated murder, as if they had sat around and talked about how they were going to grease as many civilians as they could. I'm trying to point out how this could have happened and be OBJECTIVE about it.

BTW, they were already in the cab when the incident happened and were approaching the scene. They were stopped at a distance and they attempted to flee. So, they got lit up. It happens. When a vehicle is hit by an IED it's very confusing and the entire convoy is at its most vulnerable state. Ever heard of a VBIED? They're these cars that are filled with...explosives...and then they drive them towards coalition forces...often after an attack...you know... because it's all confused and stuff... and the men have to get out of their vehicles to help the wounded...wait a minute...you mean to tell me that dismounts and bombs don't go together...holy crap batman! These are the types of things you have to look out for all the time and especially after an attack. We are constantly being tested for weaknesses by the bad guys and we are especially vulnerable after an attack...We know it and they know it... So these guys get hit, and then they are hyper vigilant about a vehicle approaching their convoy, the car stops but the men flee...

Don't presume to know the first thing about these matters. You simply don't. Maybe you have rose colored glasses of how war is supposed to be, but I can tell you that this mentality will just get you and your men killed. You can THINK whatever you want, but instead of trying to use this as your pedestal of moral superiority over the rest of us, why don't you come down from the heavens and look at the world the way it is for a second so we can talk about this objectively.

As I mentioned in the first series of posts I don't entirely agree with you but it has taken until now to figure out what it is I don't agree with.

I can accept the the need for split second decisions, I can accept that things were confused, I can accept a whole lot of things that led to this happening what I have trouble with is people believe mistakes that led to deaths of 24 people none of which were actual combatants can be left unpunished and what I find unfathomable is how people find excuses for this.

We can all see how these things can happen we don't have to have been there to understand that and better yet we have your experiences to fall back on as proof that it can happen but like it or not mistakes (and I am being generous in calling it a mistake because I don't entirely believe it was) still end up in front of courts and they still receive sentences relative to the size of the mistake made and in this case that has not happened.

People can drone on about stress, pressure, lack of wind down time anything you like and that explains why it happened but it does not make it acceptable and the general perception I get from the responses here is "it happened, its a rough job so they should be absolved of responsibility for mistakes made" and I find that rather appalling.

In closing I would suggest that it is not the fact that this happened that is causing the problem it is the lack of ensuing justice that is causing the problem.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

'He told me to treat the house as hostile': Marine remembers day he and comrades stormed homes and killed 24 Iraqis in Haditha massacre

The squad was returning from a supply run at a combat outpost in the early morning when one of the four humvees in their convoy hit a roadside bomb, killing Lance Cpl Miguel Terrazas and wounding two others.
Tatum said he rushed to help someone trapped under the humvee when he heard small arms fire hit the vehicle in front of him. Wuterich and another Marine ran toward the nearest home.
Tatum testified that when he caught up to Wuterich, the sergeant told him to 'treat the house as hostile'.

Charged: Wuterich is the last defendant in one of the biggest criminal cases against U.S. troops from the Iraq war. He faces nine counts of manslaughter.
Tatum said he understood that to mean there were armed individuals inside and he did not need to identify his target to attack.
The Marines tossed grenades in rooms and fired off rounds.
One man was killed near the kitchen.
Others were killed in a back room, where Tatum fired alongside Wuterich but said he was unable to see what he was shooting at because of the darkness and flying debris after a grenade exploded.
The Marines left when someone yelled that they had seen a person running out of the home.
They ran to a neighboring house, tossing grenades in rooms and shooting off rounds.
Tatum saw the body of an Iraqi man near the kitchen when he went in after his fellow Marines.
While checking an empty room, Tatum said he heard people in a nearby room moving then Wuterich firing his M-16.
He rushed to help him, shooting at what he said were silhouettes in the dark, some big, some small.
'The only thing that gave me any indication there was a hostile act in there would be Staff Sgt. Wuterich firing sir,' Tatum told military prosecutor Maj Nicholas Gannon.
He returned later when the house had been determined to be safe and learned they had killed an unarmed woman and children in the room.
The defense says Wuterich believed insurgents were in the homes and that's why he ordered his Marines to shoot first and ask questions later.

I've read the accounts.

There you go, no attempt was made to ensure that the occupants were not unarmed civilians. Other than which the headshots and the lack of any evidence to backup the grenade story, (no shrapnel wounds no signs of blast related injuries) which ties in perfectly with the surviving child's description of what happened, clearly show that the account given above was a lie.

I might be able to believe that a single man may me accidentally shot in the heat of battle (if they were fighting against return fire which they were not), but 24 people including a high percentage of women and children? I'll bet you believe in the tooth fairy too.

Monty,

We are in agreement that there should not be absolution for these guys. I too believe they should have recieved a much harsher sentence. I think the disagreement is the intent. Some of us believe it was murder, and others believe it was manslaughter. This makes a huge difference in sentencing. I'm in the corner that bad decisions were made by those on the ground and lives were lost. They should be tried based off of that, negligence resulting in the loss of civilian life. I don't think anyone here agrees they should have gotten off with the sentence they recieved. I think the main sticking point is trying to decide how to approach a situation like this. Too much of a crack down, then the example that is set before the rest of the military will cause hesitation in combat because the guys on the ground will feel as if anything they do will result in them being put away. Too little punishment sends the message that soldiers are above the law.

Even though this sentence is terribly thin, the ramifications for the remainder of the military have been felt. The controversy in the wake of this incident did in fact force policy makers and commanders to re-evaluate their approach to the situation in Iraq. The US military took a more hands on approach with the populace and the ROE got very restrictive. Essentially, soldiers and Marines in the wake of this incident were put on VERY short leashes...some fallout was felt, still, I believe a lot more good came out of the situation because it forced the Iraqi people and the US military to deal with one another. I strongly believe that this helped in allowing a majority of the Iraqi population to see Americans as what we had wanted them to see us as in 2003, unfortunately the fruits of that labor were not seen until 2007.

Ultimately, I believe a lot more Iraqi lives were spared as a result of this incident. It is unfortunate that the families of the Iraqi's killed will be disappointed with the result of this sentence. At the same time, they can be grateful that the event itself forced the US military to look at its' policies and change them, probably saving thousands or tens of thousands of lives as a result.

Originally Posted by brinktk

Monty,

We are in agreement that there should not be absolution for these guys..

I'd be happy to settle for that too.

Never the less, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind, that this court case was a deliberate and blatant whitewash, and although I do understand why a government does these things I am still very much against it, as it does nothing to show that this was a flagrant breach of the intent of the Geneva Conventions.

It puts us in the same camp as those whom we say are the "bad guys".

Originally Posted by brinktk

I strongly believe that this helped in allowing a majority of the Iraqi population to see Americans as what we had wanted them to see us as in 2003, unfortunately the fruits of that labor were not seen until 2007.

How you arrived at this conclusion just leaves me scratching my head. I would be more inclined to say that all it has done, is further confirm to the Iraqi people that US troops are no more than poorly controlled and undisciplined thugs, backed by a chain of command that is willing to tacitly turn a blind eye to their cowboy behaviour, whilst paying minimum lip service to the truth of the matter.

Yes,... I know, this is only a very small percentage of all the troops, but what must be remembered is that, it's the bad events that stick in the memory of the people concerned.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I'd be happy to settle for that too.

Never the less, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind, that this court case was a deliberate and blatant whitewash, and although I do understand why a government does these things I am still very much against it, as it does nothing to show that this was a flagrant breach of the intent of the Geneva Conventions.

It puts us in the same camp as those whom we say are the "bad guys".

How you arrived at this conclusion just leaves me scratching my head. I would be more inclined to say that all it has done, is further confirm to the Iraqi people that US troops are no more than poorly controlled and undisciplined thugs, backed by a chain of command that is willing to tacitly turn a blind eye to their cowboy behaviour, whilst paying minimum lip service to the truth of the matter.

Yes,... I know, this is only a very small percentage of all the troops, but what must be remembered is that, it's the bad events that stick in the memory of the people concerned.

If the US troops are "poorly controlled and undisciplined thugs" shouldn't we see more cases similar as this event? In Iraq, they were working in a very difficult situation, these guys went over the line, but why we are even discussing it is prove it was not a normal incident, so therefore, the majority of the US troops and the other national troops active in Afghanistan and the troops, which were active in Iraq acted according to the rules. You cannot generalize about it, it is a quite bold statement to say the whole Iraqi population reevaluated their opinion about the US troops presence in Iraq after this

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

If the US troops are "poorly controlled and undisciplined thugs" shouldn't we see more cases similar as this event? In Iraq, they were working in a very difficult situation, these guys went over the line, but why we are even discussing it is prove it was not a normal incident, so therefore, the majority of the US troops and the other national troops active in Afghanistan and the troops, which were active in Iraq acted according to the rules. You cannot generalize about it, it is a quite bold statement to say the whole Iraqi population reevaluated their opinion about the US troops presence in Iraq after this

You mean like the urinating on corpses video, the Abu Ghraib incidents, this incident, Sgt Calvin Gibbs opening fire on Afghan civilians incident which also reopened cases from Iraq where he was involved in a similar incident and there are other cases which are just to numerous to post here.

The problem is I am not seeing the same reports about the other multinational troops in the region so while I would suggest that Spikes description is a bit extreme I think it does indicate a problem inherent to the US military however I would also suggest that the numerical disparity between the US and other forces in the region contribute as well.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The problem is I am not seeing the same reports about the other multinational troops in the region so while I would suggest that Spikes description is a bit extreme

I'd bet serious money that my description of how the local populace see US troops in respect to this incident, is a damned sight lot closer to the facts, than what was suggested by Brinktk...

I was being deliberately circumspect in my choice of those words, as strongly suspect the truth is a great deal worse.

With that attitude you wouldn't be a good academic as we use the word "Theory" to cover this instance in other words a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, regarding something as wrong until proven right is not good science or engineering for that matter.

I am referring to four high profile incidents that took 2 minutes to search on the net I would suggest there are thousands of lesser know or covered incidents as well but on the whole I would agree I would expect that the level of crime would be no more or less than an average city of the same population.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You mean like the urinating on corpses video, the Abu Ghraib incidents, this incident, Sgt Calvin Gibbs opening fire on Afghan civilians incident which also reopened cases from Iraq where he was involved in a similar incident and there are other cases which are just to numerous to post here.

The problem is I am not seeing the same reports about the other multinational troops in the region so while I would suggest that Spikes description is a bit extreme I think it does indicate a problem inherent to the US military however I would also suggest that the numerical disparity between the US and other forces in the region contribute as well.

lol, I was going to mention the numerical disparity between U.S and the rest of the coalition. Also we been there for like 10 years, incidents are inevitable.

They are correct when they say negativity of a country stays in the mind of others more than their positivity, Ghostrider. As far as I know though, most Iraqi civillians didn't want us to leave despite these incidents.

If you want, I can look for incidents the coalition had taken part of.

Originally Posted by Ghostrider
If the US troops are "poorly controlled and undisciplined thugs" shouldn't we see more cases similar as this event

Remember, the reason why no-one involved in this incident was originally charged is because it "happened all the time"

On 19 November 2005 a US marine squad was struck by a roadside bomb in Haditha, in Iraq's Anbar province, killing one soldier and seriously injuring two others. According to civilians they then went on the rampage, slaughtering 24 people. They included a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair and a three-year-old child. It was a massacre. "I think they were just blinded by hate … and they just lost control," said James Crossan, one of the injured marines.

When he heard the news, Major General Steve Johnson, the American commander in Anbar province at the time, saw no cause for further examination. "It happened all the time … throughout the whole country. So you know, maybe, if I was sitting here [in Virginia] and heard that 15 civilians were killed I would have been surprised and shocked and done more to look into it. But at that point in time I felt that it was just a cost of doing business on that particular engagement."