I do not condone what the marines did, far from it, BUT, are we in possession of the full facts about the case?

Cast your mind back to the LA riots in 1992. 53 people died, thousands injured and over $Billion in damage. What was the cause of the riots? The cops being found not guilty? What actually caused the riots was the US media, they only aired on TV the cops beating the crap out of Rodney King, what they didn't show was Rodney King attacking a police officer BEFORE they began to clout him with their batons. Typical media, why ruin a good story with the truth.

History is full of miscarriages of justice, the Great Train Robbers got 30 years for robbing a mail train when murderers get 10 to 15 years, a young boy of 9 years old was hanged in Enfield in the 1800's because he stole an apple from the Lord of the Manor's apple orchard. The Lord of the Manor also happened to be the local judge who sentenced the boy to death, despite the fact the boy was starving. And it goes on and on.

For the past 12 years I have actively been fighting the gun laws in South Africa, the vast majority of people don't give a damn INCLUDING gun owners. I will bet my last cent that the vast majority of people around the world will read about the killings then turn over the page. That doesn't make it right, sad to say that's human nature.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I do not condone what the marines did, far from it, BUT, are we in possession of the full facts about the case?

Cast your mind back to the LA riots in 1992. 53 people died, thousands injured and over $Billion in damage. What was the cause of the riots? The cops being found not guilty? What actually caused the riots was the US media, they only aired on TV the cops beating the crap out of Rodney King, what they didn't show was Rodney King attacking a police officer BEFORE they began to clout him with their batons. Typical media, why ruin a good story with the truth.

History is full of miscarriages of justice, the Great Train Robbers got 30 years for robbing a mail train when murderers get 10 to 15 years, a young boy of 9 years old was hanged in Enfield in the 1800's because he stole an apple from the Lord of the Manor's apple orchard. The Lord of the Manor also happened to be the local judge who sentenced the boy to death, despite the fact the boy was starving. And it goes on and on.

For the past 12 years I have actively been fighting the gun laws in South Africa, the vast majority of people don't give a damn INCLUDING gun owners. I will bet my last cent that the vast majority of people around the world will read about the killings then turn over the page. That doesn't make it right, sad to say that's human nature.

Ok then I will rephrase things, what conditions can you think of that would lead to the 6 of them being let off?

I an not a subscriber to the "we don't know the full story" argument, had the situation been reversed I am prepared to bet that 24 dead Americans at the hands of 6 Iraqi's would not be getting the "you don't know the full story" line it would be "fanatical Islamic terrorists who slaughtered brave Americans executed this morning" and lets be honest here people don't have to throw themselves off cliffs to be able to speak rationally on the effects of sudden impacts.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Ok then I will rephrase things, what conditions can you think of that would lead to the 6 of them being let off?

I wouldn't know, I'm not a lawyer or a judge and neither was I an eye witness.

The bottom line is, if this incident is allowed to pass unpunished, this will endorse reprisal style massacres against innocent civilians whenever combatants use guerrilla style fighting.

It's nothing new of course, but we are living in a media society with cameras and communications were this sort of thing can't be so easily hidden, and the full horrors of war are known. Voters will take account of this when deciding whether to endorse campaigns abroad. It will prevent the use of 'defense' abroad whenever attacked at home in situations such as 9/11.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I an not a subscriber to the "we don't know the full story" argument, had the situation been reversed I am prepared to bet that 24 dead Americans at the hands of 6 Iraqi's would not be getting the "you don't know the full story" line it would be "fanatical Islamic terrorists who slaughtered brave Americans executed this morning" and lets be honest here people don't have to throw themselves off cliffs to be able to speak rationally on the effects of sudden impacts.

I never said "we don't know the full story" I said "are we in possession of the full facts about the case?" It was a question not a statement.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Has anybody mentioned it was a plea bargain after two days of testimony?

I was unaware that there was a plea bargain, so once again I ask, "Do we have all the facts of the case?" It looks like we don't.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I do not condone what the marines did, far from it, BUT, are we in possession of the full facts about the case?

I'd say, "Definitely not", and the main reason that we are not in possession of the facts, has been demonstrated by such events as the original efforts to cover up the fact that it actually happened, and followed up by such lies as "they were killed as a result of grenades being thrown into the rooms" Something that those present would have known to be false. There is a reason why people tell lies when asked what happened, and more to the point there is a reason why these obvious discrepancies were not followed up to find the facts.

These were clearly lies that would not have been necessary if it was actually a case of mistaken identity in the heat of battle. Although how you can mistake a pre school child for an armed insurgent is beyond me, and even if you did with the first child what about the subsequent children and old women etc. Naaahhh,... the story accepted would make Hans Christian Andersen blush with envy.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I'd say, "Definitely not", and the main reason that we are not in possession of the facts, has been demonstrated by such events as the original efforts to cover up the fact that it actually happened, and followed up by such lies as "they were killed as a result of grenades being thrown into the rooms" Something that those present would have known to be false. There is a reason why people tell lies when asked what happened, and more to the point there is a reason why these obvious discrepancies were not followed up to find the facts.

These were clearly lies that would not have been necessary if it was actually a case of mistaken identity in the heat of battle. Although how you can mistake a pre school child for an armed insurgent is beyond me, and even if you did with the first child what about the subsequent children and old women etc. Naaahhh,... the story accepted would make Hans Christian Andersen blush with envy.

What I would like to know is what the plea bargain consisted of and why was it offered.

From all I have seen about the killings, those that carried it out should be nailed to the wall and made an example of. But what I have seen I firmly believe is not the whole story.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

What I would like to know is what the plea bargain consisted of and why was it offered.

From all I have seen about the killings, those that carried it out should be nailed to the wall and made an example of. But what I have seen I firmly believe is not the whole story.

I never mentioned the plea bargain, but if it was offered, and I presume that 03USMC has his facts right (he usually does). Why was it offered? From what is available, it would appear that there is ample reason to raise a lot of questions as to the veracity of the evidence given. Evidence that it would appear was never followed up on.

The only thing I might concede in the court's favour, is that the accused were obviously not coached as to their stories, as their stories were so easily shown to be fabrications.

Unfortunately history shows us that events like these have always happened in conflict.
The perpertrators of these crimes, if ever caught, rarely ever get an appropriate sentance.
Only 25% of known NAZI war criminals were ever prosecuted.
The further away from the event that they were caught, the more lenient the sentances handed out were, despite the severity of the crime.
After the My Lai massacre, Lt Calley was sentenced to life in prison following his court martial, only to be released two days later on the direct orders of President Nixon!
This has happened, and will always happen.
The only punishment the perpertrators of these crimes will ever face will be with their own conscience, if they have one that is.

As per the rules of engagement you are allowed to attack all enemy strongpoints that opens fire upon you.
Did they do it in a clumsy way? Yes.
Was it illegal? According to the court: Yes.

However..

The Marines had if they were shot at from that building, the right to clear it with frags and automatic fire..
The outcome would have been the same, but no courts.

Lesson: If you let insurgents use your house to shoot up coalition forces and want no part of it.. Get the hell out before the attacked fire back..

Persus: Do you really think that the terrorists will wait for an "excuse" to attack the western world?
Do you not think they will attack our way of life wherever they are capable of doing so?
If you do infact believe they will wait untill they have an eye for an eye case... Then WHO decides this?
Do you think AQ has judges and jurys?
I reckon you started with a valid point/question, uninformed perhaps but a valid question.
Now you are just spinning your wheels in thin air.

Back on point, we should go back to clearing strongpoints with grenades and automatic fire to avoid civilians crying wolf on a messageboard.
I´m for it.. It´ll probably be safer for the troops as well..

KJ sends..