Thread: Haditha Massacre.

i would have to sgree with you
becuase my dad was in the war
vietnam he came home in 72. anway
he said it was like that on both sides
and noone really said anything then
he even had said that some of the
children were boobytraped so that when an amrecan
soldure came near them somone a few yard away
would kill the soldure along with the child.
i think it cruel and inhumane but the government
turned there eye away from the tragic loss
of death. today though the government is more
making peace than anything so those guys
might get the brig or something. but i say
they were with in there rights in that
situation. yes it was wrong but givewn the
reason its acceptable and just another statistic
for the people to argue about

I saw an article on this as well. I believe an investigation is ongoing on the matter. I have to say that if they actually did kill those civillians, not in crossfire and not by accident, that they should definitely be prosecuted. These are the people we're supposed to be helping, protecting. It is not acceptable to assume that simply because it is urban combat and the enemy may be close by that it's alright to shoot everyone you can in the nearby area. That's not self defense and it's not a sad casualty, it's murder. It's tragic that one of their comrads was killed in the bombing, but it doesn't justify wholesale slaughter based on suspiscion. If a group of civillians did this in the US, they would be tried and executed to a man.

Now, if they are guilty, there is absolutely no way they won't face possibly the worst punishment in a military court. It is another dark scar on a war that already has extremely low public approval, in the midst of UN questions of torture in guantanamo bay. The international community dislikes the US more than almost ever before. If these men are innocent, they should walk. If they are guilty, there should be no getting off easy.

Well what allot of people don't get is that soldiers in Iraq are under extreme stress that people who haven't already fought in a war can't even begin to imagine. It's like having one of your family members or friends killed right infront of you, any self respecting person would want the murderer to drown in their own blood and the soldiers were completely surrounded by potential suspects. But I agree that they should be held responsible for their actions, but you have to give the guys a break under the circumstances, capital punishment is completely uncalled for. Also torture is implimented for a good reason, you get information faster that way, and it's a fools decision under these circumstances not to apply that kind of tool against an enemy who is unwilling to give valuable information that could save lives.

Originally Posted by Exoparadapsyphobia

Well what allot of people don't get is that soldiers in Iraq are under extreme stress that people who haven't already fought in a war can't even begin to imagine. It's like having one of your family members or friends killed right infront of you, any self respecting person would want the murderer to drown in their own blood and the soldiers were completely surrounded by potential suspects. But I agree that they should be held responsible for their actions, but you have to give the guys a break under the circumstances, capital punishment is completely uncalled for. Also torture is implimented for a good reason, you get information faster that way, and it's a fools decision under these circumstances not to apply that kind of tool against an enemy who is unwilling to give valuable information that could save lives.

We don't have to give them a break, nor should we. They are the friggin' marines, they are supposed to uphold a higher standard of conduct, especially in times of incredible stress. They are trained for it. This is their job, and death is listed as a possibility in the job description.

Furthermore, it's a huge mistake to use torture, especially right now. We went into Iraq first under the premise WMD's, and we stayed under the premise of securing Iraqi human rights. What exactly do you think torture is in violation of? We've got a lot of support in this war from our troops and about 80% of the Iraqi population. You know what's losing this war? Attitudes exactly like this, saying, "It's war, anything flies, right?"

Yes, they are "trained" for it, but you can't train someone to take one of their friends dying lightly. It's impossible to train someone to handle death. That's like saying "Ok, your mom is going to die in six months from cancer, so we're going to train you to take it like a man". Soldiers are trained to inflict casualties, however they are not trained to take them. The human mind can only handle so much stress and emotion before it finally snaps, like shaking a wine bottle. Can you train a wine bottle not to explode when you shake it? No. The same goes for people. And what is losing this war is not the freelance attitude towards killing you are discribing, and it is not what I am supporting nor suggesting either. I am saying the soldiers should have a reduced punishment under the extreme circumstances they were in. What is losing the war is the abismal treatment of our soldiers by the higher ups. They risk their very lives for this country, and then they get treated like shit when they make a slip-up, that's why so many people are disgusted with America, becuase we fail to show any appreciation for the sacrifice our troops have made and what they are going through. One thing people need to get about war and pull their heads out of their ass's is that war is far from perfect and that innocent people will always be cought in the "crossfire".

It is not abismal treatment. Listen to any Marine officer on this matter, their footage and quotes are out there. Just google Haditha. Extreme stress is no excuse for killing civillians in cold blood, which these marines have been accused of doing. There is a fair deal of debate about haditha and whether the allegations are even true. For instance, it has been rumored that the civillians were actually killed crossfire between marines and insurgents. However, it must be taken more seriously than what you are suggesting.

If these marines are proven guilty in military court, they are not going to, and should not, get a slap on the wrist. I'm not going to blab on about conditioning and biopsychology (god knows I could). Extreme stress is no excuse if these allegations are true. These are allegations of murder. These men are proffessional soldiers, accused of killing unarmed civillians. Keep in mind that there are many, many marines in Iraq, many platoons suffering the same losses in the exact same manner as these men. Yet these marines did not go on killing sprees. I will re-iterate. Extreme stress, the kind which is "unimaginable" as you put it, is no excuse for murder.

As Erosennin said, the troops over in Iraq have been trained to perform their duty. Even though during any war there are civilian casualties, if such cases are found then yes, the troops involved should face the consequence because they have comitted a criminal act. Collateral damage is considered acceptable during war time (collateral damage is when non-combatants/innocent people are killed), but when troops go from one house to the next killing anything in their path, that is straight up murder.

When word of the killing first got out, the military and those involved said that the civilians were killed by the explosion of the bomb......hmm.....so if the soldiers had a legitimate reason to go into the house and kill the civilians if they thought they were involved, why would they say that explosion killed them instead of gunfire? Can we say "cover-up"???"

I can guarantee you that either way, the troops involved will NOT be punished accordingly. The U.S. Military has a huge track record of not prosecuting their soldiers to the full extent when crimes are committed. Before going into the war, the U.S. renounced being part of the U.N. War Tribunal because they knew that such events like this were going to happen. (The War Tribunal is where complaints such as this would be brought up, and soldiers would be accused of war crimes). Instead, the U.S. chose to form their own little tribunal outside of the U.N, so that they could keep all these matters under wraps, without having to fully prosecute soldiers to the extent that the War Tribunal would.

As for torture, there's no need for it, and it's a completely useless form of getting information. Torture someone long enough and they'll tell you anything you want to hear, even if it's a lie, which is the reason why torture is not an acceptable form of evidence. You could torture a guy named Jack, and have him swear to God that his name is actually Sally.