Thread: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’

Originally Posted by Wraith601

My favorite is this assclown.

Ted Rall

What gets me is that people read and believe this utter crap.

Of course they do. Half the people will believe anything, if it fits their own personal agenda.

If indeed murder was committed, the accused should be severely punished, for murder is a very serious crime that cannot be tolerated by our or any other army.

Originally Posted by shek

To expect that any nation could field a military that is void of any violations of any international convention or moral code is unreasonable and impossible.

That is a bang on target comment and broadly encapsulates the sentiment behind my first post on this thread.

The same off course holds good for India as indeed it does for the US.

I had hoped that when the State Departments observations on India met with the ugly reality of combating terrorism in Iraq, what you mentioned would come into play and I would not have to read more of the same.

That has not happened.

The US is a democracy and so is India, though certainly more raucous. Consequently we ought not to be sniping at each other on matters of combating terrorism, though in this case the sniping is perhaps more one sided.

In the end whether in India or in Iraq, or for that matter in Álava or Mindanao, a terrorist remains a terrorist, and should not be provided with any smidgen of sympathy or succor.

Meanwhile let me also say that I am far more trusting of a GOTUS assertion, that whatever atrocity was alleged to have happened was the act of individuals, than if that same assertion was made by the Governments of a number of other countries. The same goes for an assertion of getting down to the bottom of things.

The same holds good for GOI (Government of India).

Time for me to take a cigar break. A Cohiba Churchill should come in handy.

Originally Posted by Hari_Om

That is a bang on target comment and broadly encapsulates the sentiment behind my first post on this thread.

The same off course holds good for India as indeed it does for the US.

I had hoped that when the State Departments observations on India met with the ugly reality of combating terrorism in Iraq, what you mentioned would come into play and I would not have to read more of the same.

I disagree. Just as American incidents in Iraq deserve to see the light of day to ensure that they are properly investigated, so should incidents that occur at the hands of Indian forces. While I am not happy about Haditha, at least we can make some small amends by properly investigating and dispensing with justice after a fair trial has been conducted (assuming that the evidence being collected during the investigation supports the allegations, which it seems very likely). Unfortunately, our own chain of command wasn't able to identify this incident, and without some outside agency bringing it to the attention of officials in Baghdad, this would have passed quietly into the night.

Likewise, I see no issue with the State Department's report highlighting cases in India, serving the same function as the reporter that inquired about Haditha.

Originally Posted by shek

To expect that any nation could field a military that is void of any violations of any international convention or moral code is unreasonable and impossible.

My sentiments exactly. War changes human beings for the worse and entices them to do things they normally wouldn't do, regardless of their training, indoctrination, creed, and country.

There may be some doubt developing about this story. As the Duke lacrosse rape case continues to run into deep trouble the more time that passes, so this case has come into question over the past three days. More to come, and it may not be as we all accepted right off the bat.

Not that most of the Muslim world will be in the least little bit objective about it, no matter WHAT investigation of the facts reveals.

So, Muslims, I have a few questions:

What is it about the complete rejection of logic and the scientific method of proof that permeates the Muslim mind, leading to the belief in the most outrageous conspiracy theories and the inability to think critically?

Why is it that no amount of evidence is enough to shift the closed minds of most Muslims, and that the complete rejection of introspection leads to explosive tantrums and immediate outrage without a thought given to the possibility that the incessant rumors of yet more Muslim vicitimization and humiliation are usually WRONG (particularly the more flesh-creeping and rage-provoking they are) in the name of your religion on the flimsiest of pretexts, and usually involves bloodletting?

Is being credulous a pre-requisite to being a Muslim, or do you just have to believe that there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet? (Don't say it, fellas, we'll get bounced.)

Yet MORE doubt about this story today. Time is issuing corrections on an assembly-line basis now, and the lefties are almost frantic as they watch a terrific opportunity to lose the war that is almost won begin to wobble.

It may STILL turn out to be Marine mis-conduct (which could run the gamut from mass murder all the way down to poor judgement in combat), or it could be just the randomness and bad fortune that makes war the ugly mess that it is, and which most of us can't look at stand to look at and acknowledge.

Sometimes, even when you're following your TTPs/SOPs and doing everything right...the wrong people get in the way of all that lethality at your command. Let's see what the investigations tell us, and have a little faith that they'll get it as right as they can.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

There may be some doubt developing about this story. As the Duke lacrosse rape case continues to run into deep trouble the more time that passes, so this case has come into question over the past three days. More to come, and it may not be as we all accepted right off the bat.

Not all of us.

-dale

More on the story:

New Evidence Emerges in Haditha Case
Phil Brennan, NewsMax
Monday, June 26, 2006
New evidence continues to emerge that U.S. Marines did not wantonly kill Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November - and the soldiers' accounts of what happened are backed up by videotape shot by an ultralight vehicle, NewsMax has learned.


According to media reports, last Nov. 19 members of a Marine Corps company killed some 24 innocent civilian Iraqis in Haditha, a town 140 miles northwest of Baghdad and near the Syrian border.


In the ensuing media firestorm that broke out after the story was revealed, many news reports here and abroad compared the Haditha deaths to the infamous My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.


Michael Sallah, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his My Lai reporting, has said: "You would have difficulties finding a single newspaper in Germany or elsewhere in Europe which does not deal with My Lai."


But the facts and accounts from Marines and others on the ground tell another story.


What is not in dispute is that the Marines' engagement in Haditha began when an IED (improvised explosive device) detonated, killing a Marine from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division.



In the aftermath of the action two investigations were launched, one by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell, who was charged with investigating how the incident was reported through the chain of command. A second investigation, headed by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), is looking into any possible criminal aspects of the incident.


The Bargewell report has not been released and is still being reviewed by Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, a top U.S. commander in Iraq. But military officials told the Los Angeles Times that although it concludes there was no deliberate cover-up by senior Marine officers, the Corps failed to follow up and ask questions that the known details should have provoked them to ask.

The NCIS investigation is still ongoing.


In May, when Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, appeared on "Good Morning America," he accused the Marines of K Company of killing innocent civilians "in cold blood" and said that the killings had been covered up by higher officers.

The Bargewell report has disproved that allegation, and with the NCIS investigation so far incomplete and no soldier charged with a crime, how would Murtha know?


Intelligence sources tell NewsMax the facts of the Haditha incident paint an entirely different picture from the one Murtha and others are propagating.


Military sources familiar with the incident have told NewsMax:



Within minutes of the early morning IED explosion, a firefight erupted between insurgents and Marines. Civilians were caught in the middle of the firefight. Also, although civilians did die, their deaths were the result of door-to-door combat as the Marines sought to clear houses and stop the insurgent gunfire.


Ample evidence proves that a firefight took place. For example, every second of the ensuing firefight was monitored by numerous people at company, battalion, and regimental HQs via radio communications.


Video evidence supports the Marines' claims. Within a very few minutes, battalion, regimental, and division headquarters were able to watch the action thanks to an overhead ultralight aircraft that remained aloft all day. Photos of some of the action were downloaded and in the hands of Marines and the NCIS.


Some of the insurgents involved in planning the attack and firing at Marines during a daylong engagement have been apprehended and are in custody.

Much of the story claiming what really happened in the aftermath of the IED explosion was reported by the Washington Post on June 11. NewsMax can now reveal the rest of the story about what really happened at Haditha.


In order to fully understand what happened last Nov. 19, it is important to know what kind of city Haditha is.


"We require more manpower to cover this area the way we need to," one military official told the Los Angeles Times. One Knight Ridder reporter called Haditha, a town of about 100,000 people, "an insurgent bastion," reporting that "insurgents blend in with the residents, setting up cells in their homes next to those belonging to everyday citizens, some of them supportive."


Knight Ridder said that around the time of an August attack, when a total of 20 U.S. Marines were killed in two days, "several storefronts were lined with posters and pictures supporting al-Qaida. ... "There is no functioning police station and the government offices are largely vacant. The last man to call himself mayor relinquished the title earlier this year after scores of death threats from insurgents."


According to an August 2005 story in Britain's Guardian newspaper, Haditha, under the nose of an American base, "is a miniature Taliban-like state. Insurgents decide who lives and dies, which salaries get paid, what people wear, what they watch and listen to."


When the Marines first went into the city, they were aware of the tight control insurgents exercised over Haditha. They discovered that the insurgents had freshly paved over dirt roads leading into town under the auspices of civic works projects.


They were, according to a NewsMax source, "beautiful asphalt-surfaced roads" that even included painted lines. The only problem, the source recalled, was that insurgents had laid more than 100 mega-IEDs under that asphalt. And, in order to avoid having to change batteries in the triggering devices, they had wired them into the city power lines lining the road.


It is important to remember that the so-called details of the alleged massacre came from Iraqis and residents of Haditha, a city run by insurgents who have those residents not allied with them under their bloody thumbs.


In the Post story, an attorney for Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, said that his client told him that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. He insisted there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.


"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident, told the Post. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."


According to the Post, Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich's account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.


Wrote the Post: "On Nov. 19, Wuterich's squad left its headquarters at Firm Base Sparta in Haditha at 7 a.m. on a daily mission to drop off Iraqi army troops at a nearby checkpoint. "It was like any other day, we just had to watch out for any other activity that looked suspicious," said Marine Cpl. James Crossan, 21, in an interview from his home in North Bend, Wash. He was riding in the four-Humvee convoy as it turned left onto Chestnut Road, heading west at 7:15 a.m.


"Shortly after the turn, a bomb buried in the road ripped through the last Humvee. The blast instantly killed the driver, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20. Wuterich, who was driving the third Humvee in the line, immediately stopped the convoy and got out, Puckett told the Post, adding that while Wuterich was evaluating the scene, Marines noticed a white unmarked car full of "military-aged men" lingering near the bomb site. When Marines ordered the men to stop, they ran; Puckett said it was standard procedure at the time for the Marines to shoot suspicious people fleeing a bombing, and the Marines opened fire, killing four or five men.


"The first thing he thought was it could be a vehicle-borne bomb or these guys could be ready to do a drive-by shooting," Puckett said, explaining that the Marines were on alert for such coordinated, multistage attacks.


According to Puckett, as Wuterich began briefing the platoon leader, AK-47 shots rang out from residences on the south side of the road, and the Marines ducked.


A corporal with the unit leaned over to Wuterich and said he saw the shots coming from a specific house. After a discussion with the platoon leader, they decided to clear the house, according to Wuterich's account.

"There was a threat, and they went to eliminate the threat," Puckett said.


A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.


The Marine who fired the rounds - Puckett said it was not Wuterich - had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.


Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women, and children – most likely civilians – they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a fragmentation grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.


Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed.


As already stated, the Haditha massacre story reported by Time magazine was based entirely on accounts from Iraqis with an ax to grind. The facts of what happened tell a different story. The real story, it will eventually be revealed, is backed up by evidence Time didn't know existed. It gives the lie to the idea that there was anything like a massacre in Haditha on Nov. 19. Here, for the first time, is the truth about what happened.


NewsMax can verify Wuterich's account. The site of the IED explosion was in an area well known as an insurgent stronghold, where as many as 50 IEDs were found previously, and from where, on two previous occasions, insurgents launched small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar attacks on K Company.


Within five minutes of the blast, Marines on the scene reported they were receiving small-arms fire. Within 30 minutes of the blast, and while the house-clearing was still under way, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team en route to the site came under small-arms fire in a known insurgent tactic to ambush first responders.


At the same time, just 30 minutes after the house-clearing, an intelligence unit arrived to question the Marines involved in the house-clearing operation. NewsMax sources say the behavior of the Marines involved gave them no reason to believe anything but what they had been told.


At about the same time a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) arrived over the blast area and from that moment on, for the entire day , the UAV transmitted views of the engagement to the company command site, battalion headquarters, the regimental HQ, and the division HQ. What the UAV captured was a view of Marines in their perimeter, as they went about doing house-clearing. It was then vectored to the surrounding area to catch any fleeing insurgents. It showed four insurgents fleeing the neighborhood, loading weapons into their car, and linking up with their partners (the ones that had conducted the ambush on the EOD team).


Knowing what we now know about Wuterich's account, these fleeing insurgents were most likely the same ones who left through the back door of the house he was clearing.


There are photos of this, and they show the insurgents getting back into their car after loading the weapons The UAV then followed them south to their safe house. From that point forward, until about 6 p.m., the safe house was hit by bombs and an assault by a K Company squad. The UAV followed the insurgents who had been inside through town.

The final tally for these engagements was two insurgents killed by direct fire, one killed by GBU bombs, and one detained. The entire action was followed by the UAV overhead.


Keep in mind, the entire action was followed by keeping the UAV overhead all day.


The Haditha "massacre" being referred to is the 30 minutes to one hour that took place first thing in the morning. The rest of the day's activities, in fact, confirmed the nature of the morning's attack.

It is clear that the entire incident was planned and carried out by insurgents who detonated the IED, and then, in a familiar tactic, attacked the Marines responding to the blast – deliberately putting civilians at risk.


This is what happened in Haditha that day. It was a daylong engagement with armed insurgents that involved civilian casualties who died as a result of being caught in the middle of a firefight. It had been reported as a blast followed by a TIC – Marine Corps terminology for "Troops in Contact." In other words, gunfire directed at the Marines.


As the battalion went about compiling information on the insurgents' identities and determining who had been involved in the attack, its actions in the ensuing weeks resulted in the detention of several insurgents who masterminded the attack, and who remain incarcerated in Abu Ghraib prison today.

Time to bring this one back. From Power Line:

The New York Times had a lot invested in Haditha. Gateway Pundit reviews the Times' coverage of the sad story, culminating in the paper's mourning for an atrocity lost:

Last year, when accounts of the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group of marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a generation ago.

That sentence led the paper's coverage of the collapse of the Haditha prosecutions:

[O]n Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case. The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and children.
In the recent case, against Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the investigator recommended that he be charged with negligent homicide if the case moved ahead to court-martial. In the other two cases, the investigator recommended dropping all charges.

This development could have prompted an apology from the newspaper for jumping to the conclusion that the accused Marines were guilty. (We're still waiting to hear from Mad Jack Murtha.) Or, at least, the theme of the Times' coverage could have been that the Marines weren't guilty after all. But no: the paper undertakes to explain how the Marines, still presumed guilty, could have gotten off.

The apparent miscarriage of justice is explained by "several factors having to do with the quality of the evidence, including a delayed investigation and the decision to conduct hearings in the United States, far from the scene of the killings and possible Iraqi witnesses."

In addition, the Times criticizes Lt. Col. Paul Ware, who recommended the dismissals:

The cases also reflect the particular views of Lt. Col. Paul J. Ware, who presided over the hearings and concluded that all three cases lacked sufficient evidence. He made clear in his recommendations to the commander who ultimately decides the cases that he felt that the killings should be considered in context — that of a war zone where the enemy ruthlessly employed civilians as cover.

Well, that's a "particular" view, I guess, but isn't it obviously a correct one? In some respects, the Times' critique of Col. Ware's work is almost humorous:

[Gary D. Solis, a former Marine judge] added: “He’s aggressive, and he seems to make his judgments without regard for anything but the law. He must know that people — civilians, primarily — are going to howl about this, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern.”

This can only have been intended as a compliment, but it is far from clear that the Times sees it that way. On the contrary:

Other military law experts also noted that in his two reports on the charges against Lance Corporals Sharratt and Tatum, Colonel Ware revealed a willingness to give the men the benefit of the doubt, and to consider the impact of the prosecutions on the morale of troops still fighting in Iraq.

"Giving the men the benefit of the doubt" is also known as the presumption of innocence, a bedrock principle of our system of justice which the Times selectively supports.

Actually, the Times cites just one expert who voices what is evidently the paper's own disappointment at the collapse of the case against the Marines: Eugene R. Fidell, who is identified as "an expert in military law in Washington." Mr. Fidell has the article's money quote:

“It does surprise me to see that the killing of seven women and children by grenades and rifles, for the purposes of clearing structures, is being treated the way this investigating officer has treated it."

Where did the Times go to find an expert who would articulate the house view of the Haditha killings? Well, to be fair, I think Mr. Fidell is indeed an expert on military law. He is also, however, married to Linda Greenhouse, the hyper-liberal reporter who covers the Supreme Court for the Times--a fact that the paper did not consider it necessary to mention. So the Times didn't have to look far for an expert whose opinion would give the right conclusion to an article on how guilty Marines beat the rap.

More:

AL QAEDA IN HADITHA:
THE BATTLE THE
MEDIA IGNORED

© Nathaniel R. Helms 2007

Al Qaeda in Haditha: The battle the media ignored

by Nathaniel R. Helms




October 6, 2007 – Buried in the mountain of exhibits attached to the once secret Haditha, Iraq murder inquiry prepared by US Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell is an obscure Marine Corps intelligence summary (see pdf) that says the deadly encounter was an intentional propaganda ploy planned and paid for by Al Qaeda foreign fighters.

Veteran military defense attorney Gary Meyers said he never understood why the Naval Criminal Investigative Service special agents leading the Haditha criminal investigation didn’t “examine the linkage” between Al Qaeda, the local insurgency and the events at Haditha. Meyers was an attorney on the defense team that successfully defended Justin Sharratt, a Marine infantryman accused of multiple murders at Haditha.

The report – apparently overlooked by a Washington press corps awash in leaked Bargewell documents and secret Naval Criminal Investigative Service reports – shows that Marine Corps intelligence operatives were advised of the scheme to demonize the Marines by an informant named Muhannad Hassan Hamadi. The informant was snared by 3/1 Marines on December 11 2005 and decided to cooperate.

Planning a "massacre"

The attack was carried out by multiple cells of local Wahabi extremists and well-paid local gunmen from Al Asa’ib al-Iraq [the Clans of the People of Iraq] that were led by Al Qaeda foreign fighters, the summary claims. Their case was bolstered by Marine signal intercepts revealing that the al Qaeda fighters planned to videotape the attacks and exploit the resulting carnage for propaganda purposes.

Eleven insurgents involved in the attack are identified by name and affiliation in the details of the summary. All of them were killed or captured in the days immediately following the Haditha incident.

During the November Haditha battle, the insurgents secreted themselves among local civilians to guarantee pursuing Marines would catch innocent civilians in the ensuing crossfire. On January 6, 2006 six insurgents who tried to do the same thing at another location in Haditha were turned in to Coalition authorities before they could mount a similar assault, the report says.

On January 18, 2006, almost two months after the infamous Haditha attack, Iraqi insurgents identified as Talal Abdullah Yusif and Omar Ramsey “planned to attack a dismounted C[oalition] F[orces] patrol” along with four brothers named Khalif Muhammad Hassan.

It wasn’t coincidental that brother Sa’ib Khalif Muhammad Hassan lived next to an Al Qaeda “safe house” destroyed on November 19 by Marine jets. Sa‘ib had rented the house to the foreign fighters. That attack was stopped by local Iraqis and Sa’ib Hassan was arrested, the report says.

The summary also details the Marines finding three dead bodies near the Sub Hani Mosque after the November 19 fight was over. The dead men are described as “military-aged males” wearing “chest rigs.” Two of the decedents were “missing parts of lower torso.” The authors opined the victims were foreign fighters killed in one of the Marine bombings during the day-long combat.

Our media, the enemy within

The prosecutors in the case against eight Marines charged with murder and cover up at Haditha still maintain the besieged infantrymen acted solely out of malice and poor judgment when they killed 24 Iraqis there. The prosecution’s investigation was launched after a story by Time magazine reporter Tim McGirk on March 6, 2006 accused the Marines of cold blooded murder in retaliation for the death of a brother Marine.

McGirk received his video “evidence” and contacts from two known Iraqi insurgent operatives already under observation by Marine Corps counter intelligence teams. One of the Iraqi witnesses McGirk relied on had just been released from almost six months captivity for insurgent activities and the other witness was considered a useful intelligence tool by Marines listening to him talk on his cell phone. McGirk never interviewed the Marines, who ironically had prepared a similar intelligence summary in anticipation of his canceled visit.

Captured insurgents revealed plan to detonate IEDs

The summary – labeled "Bargewell Discovery" pages “001083” thru “001108” –- was prepared by 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines using UAV images, statements obtained from the informants, and intelligence gleaned from captured insurgents to explain what happened. The information was detailed in 13 Draft Intelligence Information Reports (DIIR) from a Marine Humint Exploitation Team (HET) operating in the area.

The captured insurgents revealed the attack was planned in Albu Hyatt, a nearby town where numerous Marines have been killed and wounded since the beginning of the war. The two main elements of the attack were the IED-initiated ambush on Route Chestnut and two IED ambushes planned along the so-called River Road that parallels the Euphrates River about 1.5 kilometers north of the Chestnut location.

The prisoners claimed the multi-pronged assault on the Marines was intended to garner local support by discrediting the Marines among the civilian population. If the coordinated attack had gone off as planned all three IED ambushes would have been sprung on the patrolling Marines almost simultaneously, the prisoners said. The insurgents plan depended on the Marines aggressively responding to the assaults to create as much carnage as possible.

Marine patrolling along the River Road spotted two of the IEDs in time to avoid the danger. Marine Explosive Ordinance Demolition teams sent to disarm the devices were then ambushed by insurgents using small arms and rocket propelled grenades.

A US Air Force Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles orbiting the area subsequently launched a Hellfire missile attack on fleeing insurgents running through the palm grove. Other insurgents were tracked for more than four hours as they moved from house to house trying to escape the battlefield.

All of the intelligence data generated by the UAVs – including the mission reports, video, and internet messages between the UAV operators, 3/1, Regimental Combat Team 2, and Multi-National Force headquarters in Baghdad – was later seized by NCIS special agents. A Marine who was there said the NCIS agents told the UAV operators on duty at VMU-2 (the Scan Eagle squadron operating the aircraft over Haditha) that they would be interrogated as well, but it never happened, the operator said.

More than a year after the coordinated attack eight Marines from Kilo Company, 3/1 were charged with multiple murder and covering up the incident. Four Marines have subsequently been cleared on any wrongdoing and four more are still awaiting their fates.

"Anyone who tries to compare this event to My Lai is an absolute fool."

Almost four decades ago Meyers successfully defended a soldier accused of murder at My Lai, South Vietnam while he was a captain in the US Army JAG Corps. After Tim McGirk wrote his specious report claiming a squad of Marines massacred 24 civilians at Haditha the world press immediately compared the incident to the massacre at My Lai. The unwarranted comparisons still anger Meyers.

“From our perspective - from a legal perspective - we knew it was a kinetic event,” said Meyers. “We knew enough to present to the IO (Investigating Officer) that this was not an isolated event; that the entire city was in a kinetic state that day. Anyone who tries to compare this event to My Lai is an absolute fool.”

The 13 DIIRs were prepared by members of a Humint Exploitation Team identified as HET03. Marine HET units investigate and record local intelligence-worthy activities for interpretation and consumption by Intel officers trying to understand the enemy’s Tactics, Techniques & Procedures (TTP) as well as divine their intentions.

One of the DIIRs names five other insurgents involved in setting up the IED that killed LCpl Miguel "T.J." Terrazas. One of their number, Majid Salah Mahdi Farraji, was killed when Marine Corps F-18s bombed the so-called “safe house” were the battle migrated to after the initial IED ambush decimated Wuterich’s squad.



Nathaniel R. Helms
Defend Our Marines
6 October 2007

Gee, a bunch of U.S. Marines didn't murder a bunch of civilians in cold blood.

And the charges that they did were thoroughly investigated.

And the New York Times is sad that it didn't happen.

Color me 100% un-bleeping surprised.

Sometimes words fail me.

-dale

Originally Posted by highsea

UNSC Resolution 1546.
I know India doesn't care. My post was in response to your countryman who decided that this was a good opportunity to sling more arrows at the US.

I would like to know how he can define the US presence in Iraq as an occupation, when we are there at the request of the Government of Iraq and with UN authorization.

It was Hari_Om who made the comparison, not me.

What would be the terminology that would be appropriate for the invasion and continued presence of the US in Iraq?

If you wish to compare Kashmir, you must understand that the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession as per the terms and conditions laid down by the British for Princely States to join either India or Pakistan. Saddam did not invite the US to take over Iraq, or did he?

The UN did not categorically ask for the invasion either. It was unilateral decision of the US.

Unlike the US, in Kashmir, we do not use any other weapons except infantry weapons and not even infantry platoon mortars!. No air, no napalm and no air force. If there is still atrocities, then imagine what is the degree of atrocities one can howl about where helicopters, air or mortars are used!

Therefore, the comparison is flawed!

To me, it makes no difference what the US does. It is her war and if the US and Iraqis have no problem with it, why should I?

Well. Ya don't say.

Frontline convinces me- Haditha Marines innocent
Posted By Uncle Jimbo
In a shocking turn of events the PBS documentary on Haditha was overwhelmingly even-handed and convinced me they should face no punishment. The show was fair and I have no complaints about bias or slant. This is what PBS ought to do all the time.

This is my in-depth look at the incident from a decision point perspective. What are our troops thinking and is that the right decision. Haditha was a horrible loss of life, but the decisions were correct if not perfect. Jules Crittenden reviewed the show here.

Not surprised the Marines have been all but formally vindicated.

Shocked as all hell that PBS will say so, though.

Its war. Stuff happens. I know the tone now is very different but I guess time changes ones mindset and opinions. Not being in a warzone myself, I can just imagine all the tension and pressure a soldier must go through. Above that, he is expected to make split second decisions which can mean life and death for him and fellow soldiers. And then imagine having to go through such phsycological trauma of being branded a "murderer" by the media. Hard to judge accidents from intentional murders. Investigation lasted 2 years; hope that revealed the intent and the truth.