It seems to me that the Western military has leaned nothing from the Mai Lai massacre except how to repeatedly alienate indigenous populations so they become enemy recruits. Irrespective of what actually happened, do you think it's a good idea to give these guys an easy time? (they have let everyone off so far). What message do you think this gives the local population. Imagine a local gunman firing from a family house in middle America and American children and old people being massacred in the resulting storming of the house. Are the assault group likely to get a pat on the back, or strung up by their testicles? Of course it's different over there, isn't it? asymmetrical warfare, what the hell does that mean, can't fire back at defenceless civilians?
Here are the facts.
the video shot .. shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack.
While the Marines claim that the victims had been killed by shrapnel from the roadside bomb and that the men "were saboteurs", Dr Wahid said that there were "no organs slashed by shrapnel in any of the bodies". He further claimed that it appeared that "the victims were shot in the head and chest from close range
9yo Child's statement "I couldn't see their faces very well - only their guns sticking in to the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny"
Military officials say they believe the delay in beginning the investigation was a result of the squad's initial efforts to cover up what happened
Republican John Kline said "There is no question that the Marines involved, those doing the shooting, they were busy in lying about it and covering it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
If they didn't do anything wrong why lie through their teeth? At the end of the day they just want Carte Blanche to use civilians for retaliation every time they get shot at, why not just do the job properly and flatten the entire town, so they will die from acceptable shrapnel rather than close in bullet wounds? Of course every single remaining person in the Muslim world can then be recruited into the enemies ranks.
Not fair? 3000 or so dead is a low casualty rate in relation to any previous war of this magnitude, unless you include the million civilians as well. It might be somewhat more tolerable if the excuse to invade didn't turn out to be completely false.