Originally Posted by senojekips

I dunno what sevice you were in, from your answers here I'd hazard a guess at, The Salvation Army? In most countries other than where you signed up, you sign up to "Serve" that means you do what your country expects of you, and if you are sent to a war zone, the enemy are often found to be quite grumpy about it all and are often somewhat antisocial in their behaviour towards you. It goes with the Job description. If you expected the enemy to throw cream cakes at you, you were in the wrong job.

I'll believe you if you can provide a credible source that shows they were ordered to execute innocent women and children. Until then, No! they did not do as they were told. I think that you might find their own UCMJ has something to say about this behaviour.

It never is, but the fact remains these murderers executed innocent women and children in cold blood. And there is not a single mitigating circumstance in the information found, in fact it is virtually all condemnatory right down to the facts that the info itself was supposed to have been destroyed, and never seen the light of day, the atrocity was lied about (caused by grenades) and the admission the the command structure has become far too off hand regarding civilian casualties.

Not at all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Perhaps it was not premeditated in this case, we'll never really know, but that does not make it manslaughter, it was deliberate murder, and the perpetrators knew that it was a crime against the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions,... they just didn't think that they'd be caught.

You fail to understand under which conditions they had to operate. Put the guy who placed the IED next to a innocent civilian and you cannot see the difference (which is in violation of laws of war). And if that civilian also has a personal AK-47 then mistakes are easily made. Maybe you are the superhuman who knows in advance who is who and how they will react or , if not, are you going to ask very politely who the terrorist is?
Did you ever thought about the fact why the bomb was placed nearby civilian homes? And how would you react if they just blew up your friend?

Originally Posted by MontyB

To be honest you got what you deserved on this one, to argue what they did was wrong but nothing should be done about it because you want to look after your own is a position that deserves the kick in the nuts it got.

I disagree. lolwhassup never approved the killings but pointed to the circumstances, and I agree with him. When you talk about justice you must also take the circumstances into consideration.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

I disagree. lolwhassup never approved the killings but pointed to the circumstances, and I agree with him. When you talk about justice you must also take the circumstances into consideration.

You are incorrect, a thief is a thief, a murderer is a murderer the law should not take circumstances into account sentencing should, but then I have read your posts around the forums and realise that you would find a good word for the devil if he was fighting Islam so I didn't expect a different response from you.

In short I suspect you are a man with a mission.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

You fail to understand under which conditions they had to operate.

No, quite simply, I don't misunderstand anything. They operate under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions and their own Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The act that was committed here was pure barbarism and there is no excuse for it. 99.999% of troops uphold their obligations.

One wrongful killing may be an accident,... but 24 obviously unarmed civilians including women and children?..... You feel that it would be difficult to establish if pre-school aged children are armed terrorists? You are clearly either delusional, or most likely a liar, making childish excuses.

Once again, you are no more than an limp wristed apologist for murderers. You need to grow up, and enter the 20th century then maybe we'll try for the 21st.

Originally Posted by senojekips

No, quite simply, I don't misunderstand anything. They operate under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions and their own Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The act that was committed here was pure barbarism and there is no excuse for it. 99.999% of troops uphold their obligations.

One wrongful killing may be an accident,... but 24 obviously unarmed civilians including women and children?..... You feel that it would be difficult to establish if pre-school aged children are armed terrorists? You are clearly either delusional, or most likely a liar, making childish excuses.

Once again, you are no more than an limp wristed apologist for murderers. You need to grow up, and enter the 20th century then maybe we'll try for the 21st.

They were killed inside a house, were they not? I have seen a documentary about this, a long time ago. (CBS 60 Minutes) and read something briefly about this event. The Marines were hit by an IED and then by small arms fire from a building complex. The Marines assaulted the building and killed everyone inside, right? How could they know who were inside that building? If the insurgents responsible for the ambush had left the building, we cannot know that. The normal routine for an ambush, if it is longer than 5 seconds, it is failed ambush (we were trained in similar fashion as the Finns when they were fighting the Russians during the winter war 1939-40) you are dead if it takes longer than 5 sec, so they could have regrouped, the insurgents were not stupid. Then the Marines assaulting the building, you do not open doors and check who is there; if you do you may get a 7.62 in your body. Then something about these Marines, they had taken casualties and the adrenaline is pumping in their bodies. Countries can train and educate their soldiers, nevertheless, we cannot remove the fact they are all humans, with all the strengths and weaknesses we all have. They made the wrong decision at this time, it is not an excuse for what they did, and they reacted to the situation and responded to the information and the interpretation of this information. The Marines and soldiers are humans and under the uniform we have what we call here "the Bird Chest" and there is a frightened little heart

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

They were killed inside a house, were they not? ---snip---

Everyone is killed somewhere, the location has no place in the argument here, it is reason why it was done and the fact that it happened at all that is under scrutiny.

Before you go off surmising what night have happened, I think you should perhaps read what is known and what has been admitted to.

What happened was deliberate and absolutely inexcusable.

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

They were killed inside a house, were they not? I have seen a documentary about this, a long time ago. (CBS 60 Minutes) and read something briefly about this event. The Marines were hit by an IED and then by small arms fire from a building complex. The Marines assaulted the building and killed everyone inside, right? How could they know who were inside that building? If the insurgents responsible for the ambush had left the building, we cannot know that. The normal routine for an ambush, if it is longer than 5 seconds, it is failed ambush (we were trained in similar fashion as the Finns when they were fighting the Russians during the winter war 1939-40) you are dead if it takes longer than 5 sec, so they could have regrouped, the insurgents were not stupid. Then the Marines assaulting the building, you do not open doors and check who is there; if you do you may get a 7.62 in your body. Then something about these Marines, they had taken casualties and the adrenaline is pumping in their bodies. Countries can train and educate their soldiers, nevertheless, we cannot remove the fact they are all humans, with all the strengths and weaknesses we all have. They made the wrong decision at this time, it is not an excuse for what they did, and they reacted to the situation and responded to the information and the interpretation of this information. The Marines and soldiers are humans and under the uniform we have what we call here "the Bird Chest" and there is a frightened little heart

I am not sure about Seno and Monty, but I get what you guys are saying; I just can't agree that 90 days and a pay reduction is "just" considering 24 civillian lives were lost... in CQC, it is not like it was an artillery shell or grenades, but shots to the body.


It may have been a mistake, but even if it was, the sentence he got is still mediocre. Of course situation will be taken into account during sentencing, I am definitely not saying it is a black and white case. Just want you guys to know that I understand where you guys are coming from, but for this particular case, it seems really wrong.

I know for fact that if this happened in U.S, we (not me but majority of U.S citizens) would be hoping these guys would get the death penalty, even if they were under the same conditions. We can't have it our way all the time, it will make us look bad.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I am not sure about Seno and Monty, but I get what you guys are saying; I just can't agree that 90 days and a pay reduction is "just" considering 24 civillian lives were lost... in CQC, it is not like it was an artillery shell or grenades, but shots to the body.


It may have been a mistake, but even if it was, the sentence he got is still mediocre. Of course situation will be taken into account during sentencing, I am definitely not saying it is a black and white case. Just want you guys to know that I understand where you guys are coming from, but for this particular case, it seems really wrong.

I know for fact that if this happened in U.S, we (not me but majority of U.S citizens) would be hoping these guys would get the death penalty, even if they were under the same conditions. We can't have it our way all the time, it will make us look bad.

The sentence is not in correlation with the crime committed, I agree with that. However, the documentation about this is extremely bad, the absence of an independent investigation create a lot of questions. The only thing the media can be used for in this case is to do the opposite from what they have done, because this is so bad so it cannot pass the Political Science class at a Junior High School, but journalists are generally bad with the bias problem. In this case, they were aware of the fact the Americans were investigating themselves; but the Iraqis were also biased.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I know for fact that if this happened in U.S, we (not me but majority of U.S citizens) would be hoping these guys would get the death penalty, even if they were under the same conditions. We can't have it our way all the time, it will make us look bad.

You are starting to see the reality of the situation. If you think that is true for the USA, imagine how it looks to people who live in other countries.

It was clearly a whitewash, and the only reason people aren't kicking up more, is that they expect no better from the US based on previous judgments. Get yourself a free cigar.

Personally I feel that Wuterich was made into the sacrificial lamb. All of the participants should be up there with him. I don't feel that it is his job to have to point out to his squad that they are bound by all of the normal laws every time they go into a combat situation.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You are incorrect, a thief is a thief, a murderer is a murderer the law should not take circumstances into account sentencing should, but then I have read your posts around the forums and realise that you would find a good word for the devil if he was fighting Islam so I didn't expect a different response from you.

In short I suspect you are a man with a mission.

Laws do take into account the circumstances. I'll give you an example.

Fact : mother in law killed.
circumstance 1 : son in law made a plan to kill her.
circumstance 2 : during a heated discussion the son in law hit her and she dies.
Both killings should be sentenced but no 1 more heavily than no 2

let's go back to Haditha:
Fact : innocent civilians killed.
circumstance 1 : they drove to town and killed them.
circumstance 2 : they were attacked, normal procedures were applied but the implementation wasn't.
Both killings should be sentenced but no 1 more heavily than no 2

I am not a man with a mission. I dislike (any) religious fanatics. Religion has no place in a government.