Political Crossfire Forums

[pharaoh]

Quote: Troops cleared in Ishaqi killings

Military looking into three other incidents of Iraqi civilian deaths

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Investigators have determined U.S. soldiers followed proper procedure and will not face charges for the deaths of at least four Iraqis during a raid near the town of Ishaqi on March 15, Pentagon sources said Friday.

The death toll and the manner of the civilian deaths remains disputed. Iraqi officials say 11 people, including five children, were killed in the U.S.-led raid on a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq site about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Four women were listed among the dead and one of the children was 6 months old, the Iraqi officials said. (Watch why soldiers were found to be following procedures -- 1:14)

Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Friday that three civilians were killed along with an insurgent, whom he said was a bomb maker and recruiter. A man suspected of being a Kuwaiti-born al Qaeda cell leader was taken into coalition custody and questioned.

Other U.S. officials said Army soldiers conducting the raid near Balad came under fire and called in an airstrike that destroyed a building and killed the civilians.

Caldwell said investigators reported that up to "nine collateral deaths" may have occurred but that "a precise number could not be determined due to the collapsed walls and heavy debris."

Investigators from the Army Criminal Investigation Command concluded that the troops used appropriate force on a legitimate military target after coming under fire, the Pentagon sources said. (Watch bodies and bullets pulled from a ruined house -- 2:12)

A Balad police official said at the time of the raid that witnesses claimed U.S. troops had kept an entire family in a room before spraying them with bullets.

Caldwell said that account was "absolutely false."

"The ground forces commander, while capturing and killing terrorists, operated in accordance with the rules of engagement," Caldwell said.

The police official further said U.S. troops destroyed the building and killed livestock belonging to people in the house. In the house police found bullet casings of the type used by U.S. soldiers, the official said.

Haditha bodies
Friday's announcement clears U.S. troops in one of four incidents in which they are alleged to have intentionally killed innocent Iraqis, including women and children.

Other investigations are under way into an alleged massacre in Haditha and the death of an Iraqi civilian near Hamandiya, west of Baghdad, on April 26.

Also, the military is looking into reports that soldiers killed two women, one of whom was pregnant, in Samarra on Tuesday. Witnesses said the women were killed when their vehicle drove through a checkpoint.

Investigators in Haditha are hoping to exhume victims' bodies to look for forensic evidence that may explain how 24 Iraqi civilians were fatally shot on November 19, according to a senior U.S. military official with knowledge of the probe.

The families of the Haditha victims are refusing the exhumation request, contributing to a delay in the Naval Criminal Investigative Service's investigation into the deaths, the military said Friday.

Sources said that military investigators strongly suspect that a small number of Marines snapped and went on a rampage after one of their own was killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha, a city on the Euphrates River northwest of Baghdad.

Source: Murder charges likely
Military prosecutors "likely" will file murder charges against seven Marines accused in the April 26 shooting death of an Iraqi civilian in Hamandiya, a source familiar with the investigation said Thursday.

"Somewhere around seven Marines are likely to face charges," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because charges have not yet been filed. "Murder charges are likely," the source added but they may not come on Friday.

The Associated Press quoted a defense lawyer, Jeremiah Sullivan III, as saying that a Navy Corpsman is also expected to face charges, which include kidnapping and conspiracy.

The Iraqi civilian reportedly was dragged from his home and shot. Both the Los Angeles Times and NBC News said troops may have planted an AK-47 and shovel near the body to make it appear the man was an insurgent burying a roadside bomb.

Neither media outlet suggested a possible motive for the killing.

The eight men are being held in the brig at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in California, the AP quoted Sullivan as saying.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/02/iraqi.probes/index.html

Usually I dont make posts about American soldiers committing massacres in Iraq cause I usually say to myself that they are the exception and they dont represent most soldiers. However, it is getting clearer every day that such massacres are not random acts or exceptions. It seems that alot of soldiers view the Iraqis as lesser than humans, that explains all the atrocities done to the Iraqis whether in Abu Greib or in the numerous massacres that occured so far.
I can also say that because of this massacre the violence in Iraq will increase and alot of US soldiers will pay the price for the craziness of their comrades.

[uzi]

Oh, look! Arabs committed yet another massacre!


http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

[pharaoh]

uzi wrote: Oh, look! Arabs committed another massacre!


http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

edit:Nico What does this has to do with this topic? Go troll somewhere else.

[henri]

pharaoh wrote: uzi wrote: Oh, look! Arabs committed another massacre!


http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

edit:Nico What does this has to do with this topic? Go troll somewhere else.


*****

In the first 18 months of the Iraqi war 100,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children were precision bombed to pieces.

Dubya's armed forces are the best civilian killers in the world because civilians can't shoot back.

[Zeeman]

Well first they told us this war was because of the connection to 911,then switched to the non existant WMD,then downgraded to Saddam is a bad guy and the Iraqi's will welcome Americans with roses as liberators...

None was true and to the contrary Americans committed atrocities since day one that would make Saddam proud,WMD werent found and more and more Americans are losing their lives because of a stupid war not to count that hundreds of thousands of poor Iraqi souls that went from one ruthless regime to another bloodthirsty one...Oh yeah and there is alot of resistance.

I dont see how anyone can defend this war anymore.

[Plato & Socrates]

Zeeman wrote: Well first they told us this war was because of the connection to 911,then switched to the non existant WMD,then downgraded to Saddam is a bad guy and the Iraqi's will welcome Americans with roses as liberators...

None was true and to the contrary Americans committed atrocities since day one that would make Saddam proud,WMD werent found and more and more Americans are losing their lives because of a stupid war not to count that hundreds of thousands of poor Iraqi souls that went from one ruthless regime to another bloodthirsty one...Oh yeah and there is alot of resistance.

I dont see how anyone can defend this war anymore.

But many pee-brain suckers will continue to try. :lol: At least their attempts will have comedic value.

[nrhy]

uzi wrote: Oh, look! Arabs committed yet another massacre!


http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

umm, they´re africans...

and now back to topic. It´s quite sad really, all these people dying with no justified cause. A bit like vietnam eh?

[Nico]

I think massacres are what happens when you put people under immense pressure [one factor anyway]. Guerilla warfare is something hard for troops trained for open fightoing to come to grips with. Their buddies get killed and they feel impotent when they have all this power at their disposal and nothing to use it on, then someone snaps and it's all over.
I can't excuse what these guys have done, or may have done, but it is understandable that it does happen. americans are no more likely to do it than any other soldier from any other country, but it doesn't help that these guys are in the situation that sparks this kind of thing. i think it says more about misuse of the troops than the troops themselves. Their enemy has used his resources and set the stage for a reaction like this, which is why guerilla warfare works in an occupied nation.

[Muslima]

i saw it on the news, how hideous of them...

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Soldiers in combat are "creatures" rather than "human beings", which is why it is not surprising to see this happening. Even the best of them commit hedious acts on a battlefield one way or another. Such is the nature of power where a man given weaponary and power will abuse it to deliver what they view as "just".

[pharaoh]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Soldiers in combat are "creatures" rather than "human beings", which is why it is not surprising to see this happening. Even the best of them commit hedious acts on a battlefield one way or another. Such is the nature of power where a man given weaponary and power will abuse it to deliver what they view as "just".

It is understandable that these things happen but the problem is that it seems to happen alot. Look at the soldiers who were condemned for torturing Iraqis in abu Greib, most of them if not all got minor punishment. This could entice others to do whatever they want and do not dear the repercussions. The thing is that there are reports that say the soldiers were given orders from their commanders to torture Iraqis, now this is even more alarming.

[henri]

Nico wrote: I think massacres are what happens when you put people under immense pressure [one factor anyway]. Guerilla warfare is something hard for troops trained for open fightoing to come to grips with. Their buddies get killed and they feel impotent when they have all this power at their disposal and nothing to use it on, then someone snaps and it's all over.
I can't excuse what these guys have done, or may have done, but it is understandable that it does happen. americans are no more likely to do it than any other soldier from any other country, but it doesn't help that these guys are in the situation that sparks this kind of thing. i think it says more about misuse of the troops than the troops themselves. Their enemy has used his resources and set the stage for a reaction like this, which is why guerilla warfare works in an occupied nation.


Well, the Geneva Convention is declared void for the USA by his immaculate excellency Jorge Bush.

In other words, torture of prisoners and killings of civilians is allowed for US soldiers.

[Nico]

henri wrote: Nico wrote: I think massacres are what happens when you put people under immense pressure [one factor anyway]. Guerilla warfare is something hard for troops trained for open fightoing to come to grips with. Their buddies get killed and they feel impotent when they have all this power at their disposal and nothing to use it on, then someone snaps and it's all over.
I can't excuse what these guys have done, or may have done, but it is understandable that it does happen. americans are no more likely to do it than any other soldier from any other country, but it doesn't help that these guys are in the situation that sparks this kind of thing. i think it says more about misuse of the troops than the troops themselves. Their enemy has used his resources and set the stage for a reaction like this, which is why guerilla warfare works in an occupied nation.


Well, the Geneva Convention is declared void for the USA by his immaculate excellency Jorge Bush.

In other words, torture of prisoners and killings of civilians is allowed for US soldiers.


Ethically I agree with your position. However my opinion is more about humans when you put them in certain situations. They behave in similar ways, which is why I disagree with the policy of putting them there. The double standard of torture being OK for some but 'evil' for others just demonstrates the human condition. Which is also why I think people are misguided when they cast a glow around their own side and villify the enemy, as pretty soon they be can seen to look remarkably similar to each other. defence is what you do on your own soil, not someone else's.

[Duchifas]

Zeeman wrote: I dont see how anyone can defend this war anymore.

I can defend this war.

What I can't defend is how it was mis-managed from day one.

From playing nice with Muqtada al Sadr and his bandits to handling Fallujah with kid gloves.

Human nature is such that people learn best from examples. Americans had an opportunity to provide an example of happens if Americans are messed with in Fallujah. Instead, the upper management handled Fallujah with kid gloves and impotence, sending our soldiers to fight one on one. No s**t they are stressed after three years of that.

The terrorists in Fallujah should have received a clear message. Surrender or Fallujah will become desert. Give civilians and whoever else wants a few days to get out and then level whatever is standing.

That's the type of strategy that made the traditionally militant Germans not want war for the next 60 years and counting. That's the type of strategy that convinced Japan that they better build VCRs than mess with America.

When it came to Iraq, it was one show of impotence after another from our leadership. This is not how you fight wars. Like Nico said, an army is to be used for an overwhelming force, not for foreplay with bandits, watching friends being blown up by IEDs. There is a time for diplomacy and there is a time for war. Playing diplomats and peacemakers in the middle of war is ridiculous, yet that is what White House and Pentagon put our army to do. You don't do that. You do it before the war or after the war, because generally the other side is much more amenable to negotiations after they get the s**t beaten out of them. Not during the war. That's stupid.

Having said all that, I don't see how anyone can argue that the war is indefensible or unjustified.

Saddam is out of power.
Iraqis got a chance to vote and decide on their future for the first time in their lives.

If nothing else, those two accomplishments outweigh the negatives of this war.

[MALIK]

Duchifas wrote:
I can defend this war.

The terrorists in Fallujah should have received a clear message. Surrender or Fallujah will become desert. Give civilians and whoever else wants a few days to get out and then level whatever is standing.

That's the type of strategy that made the traditionally militant Germans not want war for the next 60 years and counting. That's the type of strategy that convinced Japan that they better build VCRs than mess with America.



Do you think the suicide bombers would stop if the US troops had leveled Fallujah ?

Iraq is a bit different than Nazi Germany or Japan in WWII. GER and JAP were both the attackers, this time, US is the one who is messing up with Iraq. Terrorists can think the other way, i.e "We showed them what messing up with us brings".

You cant stop anything if you level a city. Because, unlike Japan or Germany in WWII, there is no Iraqi goverment fighting the US. You destroy the whole city instantly, the government which attacked you regrets and stops. But there is no goverment fighting you in Iraq. When you destroy Fallujah, the new government and the people will get upset and angry, but they cant stop anyhting unless the suicide bombers decide to stop. Would the suicide bombers care if you level the Fallujah to ground? Nope, they themselves destroy historical mosques and kill 10s of civilians each day, why would they stop when you destroy Fallujah ?

[Duchifas]

MALIK wrote: Duchifas wrote:
I can defend this war.

The terrorists in Fallujah should have received a clear message. Surrender or Fallujah will become desert. Give civilians and whoever else wants a few days to get out and then level whatever is standing.

That's the type of strategy that made the traditionally militant Germans not want war for the next 60 years and counting. That's the type of strategy that convinced Japan that they better build VCRs than mess with America.



Do you think the suicide bombers would stop if the US troops had leveled Fallujah ?

Yes. Or at least drastically reduced the numbers and motivation.

The suicide bombers and those who send them think differently than us in terms of how they value life. But that doesn't mean that they don't have a grasp on simple tactics. They do, and judging by their performance, it is quite good.

Thus, the way to counteract them is to show them that any and all of their efforts will be in vain. If I am an Iraqi insurgent and I know that I have the ability to target American soldiers and kill them, even if I lose my life, I will do it.

If I am an Iraqi insurgent and the closest I can get near Americans is the thousands of feet from which they are dropping bombs at me, I will think twice.

There are two ways to convince the enemy to give up his fight. One is to give in to his demands. In this situation, this would be very uwise. The other way is to demonstrate to him that his struggle is absolutely and completely futile. Japanese got that message loud and clear when two of their cities evaporated in matter of seconds. Iraqis are no stupider than Japanese, and would get the message too.

But instead of sending that message, American leadership is toying with them, sending US soldiers to die in street battles. Now what the hell is the point of that?

Quote: Iraq is a bit different than Nazi Germany or Japan in WWII. GER and JAP were both the attackers, this time, US is the one who is messing up with Iraq. Terrorists can think the other way, i.e "We showed them what messing up with us brings".

Yes, obviously the tactic works both ways. But I am, of course, describing the American strategy for success.

Quote: You cant stop anything if you level a city. Because, unlike Japan or Germany in WWII, there is no Iraqi goverment fighting the US. You destroy the whole city instantly, the government which attacked you regrets and stops. But there is no goverment fighting you in Iraq. When you destroy Fallujah, the new government and the people will get upset and angry, but they cant stop anyhting unless the suicide bombers decide to stop. Would the suicide bombers care if you level the Fallujah to ground? Nope, they themselves destroy historical mosques and kill 10s of civilians each day, why would they stop when you destroy Fallujah ?

I am not talking about destroying Fallujah empty. I am talking about doing it when the insurgents are in it.

There is a difference, and you bet they would care.

Place yourself in their shoes -- the closest you come to Americans is when they see you in the sights of their bomber planes, followed by certain death.

What's your course of action?

[Kane]

Duchifas wrote: Zeeman wrote: I dont see how anyone can defend this war anymore.

I can defend this war.

What I can't defend is how it was mis-managed from day one.

From playing nice with Muqtada al Sadr and his bandits to handling Fallujah with kid gloves.

Human nature is such that people learn best from examples. Americans had an opportunity to provide an example of happens if Americans are messed with in Fallujah. Instead, the upper management handled Fallujah with kid gloves and impotence, sending our soldiers to fight one on one. No s**t they are stressed after three years of that.

The terrorists in Fallujah should have received a clear message. Surrender or Fallujah will become desert. Give civilians and whoever else wants a few days to get out and then level whatever is standing.

That's the type of strategy that made the traditionally militant Germans not want war for the next 60 years and counting. That's the type of strategy that convinced Japan that they better build VCRs than mess with America.

When it came to Iraq, it was one show of impotence after another from our leadership. This is not how you fight wars. Like Nico said, an army is to be used for an overwhelming force, not for foreplay with bandits, watching friends being blown up by IEDs. There is a time for diplomacy and there is a time for war. Playing diplomats and peacemakers in the middle of war is ridiculous, yet that is what White House and Pentagon put our army to do. You don't do that. You do it before the war or after the war, because generally the other side is much more amenable to negotiations after they get the s**t beaten out of them. Not during the war. That's stupid.

Having said all that, I don't see how anyone can argue that the war is indefensible or unjustified.

Saddam is out of power.
Iraqis got a chance to vote and decide on their future for the first time in their lives.

If nothing else, those two accomplishments outweigh the negatives of this war.

Well, I think that's the problem. This war was never meant to be one of "force." If it were, I believe some 500,000 plus would've been sent over. I think some were under the false impression that the sectarian violence largely present today would erode away with the oppressive regime out of power (Saddam).

This war is more about attempting to counter the tide of Anti-Western education vastly present in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Unfortunately...they would've been better served at dumping that into alternative energy sources thus beginning the elimination of US support for such "Oil Regimes."

[Nico]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5049214.stm
Quote:
It studies the successful British campaign to put down a communist insurgency in Malaya from 1948 and compared it with the failure of Vietnam. Colonel Nagl argued: "The British army was a learning institution and the US army was not."

The difference, he suggested, was that the British, unlike the Americans, employed "underwhelming force" as part of their strategy.

[Duchifas]

Nico wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5049214.stm
Quote:
It studies the successful British campaign to put down a communist insurgency in Malaya from 1948 and compared it with the failure of Vietnam. Colonel Nagl argued: "The British army was a learning institution and the US army was not."

The difference, he suggested, was that the British, unlike the Americans, employed "underwhelming force" as part of their strategy.

I was talking more about how to nip insurgency in the bud, and the time for that was 3 years ago. That was the time to use overwhelming force, so they learn from the get go.

What to do now that the opportunity has been missed is a different question.

Anyway, from the rest of your article, Nico:

Quote: It can be argued from one side that nothing the US can do will make the occupation acceptable. And from another, that all wars, from high to low intensity, produce their own massacres, that Iraq is no different and the US military no worse.

Indeed, the French in Algiers, the Russians in Chechnya did not produce examples of war with kid gloves and the British army had its Bloody Sunday in Derry, Northern Ireland, in 1972.

Even during the Malaya Emergency, the handling of which won the admiration of Col Nagl, there was a massacre in 1948 at a place called Batang Kali. A total of 24 unarmed civilians were shot there, the same number as at Haditha.

[Nico]

Duchifas wrote:

Anyway, from the rest of your article, Nico:

Quote: It can be argued from one side that nothing the US can do will make the occupation acceptable. And from another, that all wars, from high to low intensity, produce their own massacres, that Iraq is no different and the US military no worse.

Indeed, the French in Algiers, the Russians in Chechnya did not produce examples of war with kid gloves and the British army had its Bloody Sunday in Derry, Northern Ireland, in 1972.

Even during the Malaya Emergency, the handling of which won the admiration of Col Nagl, there was a massacre in 1948 at a place called Batang Kali. A total of 24 unarmed civilians were shot there, the same number as at Haditha.


I agree with this part as well . I doubt there is any perfect way to get through a conflict.