home

Murder in Haditha

New documents have been released in the Haditha killings of 24 Iraqis by U.S. Marines. They are chilling.

In a nutshell: After the roadside bombing in which a marine was killed, a white taxi with five unarmed civilians happened to drive by the scene.

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the squad's leader, shot the men one by one after Marines ordered them out of a white taxi in the moments following the explosion, which killed one Marine and injured two others, witnesses told investigators. Another Marine fired rounds into their bodies as they lay on the ground.

One of the witnesses, Sgt. Asad Amer Mashoot, a 26-year-old Iraqi soldier who was in the Marine convoy, told investigators he watched in horror as the four students and the taxi driver fell. "They didn't even try to run away," he said. "We were afraid from Marines and we saw them behaving like crazy. They were yelling and screaming."

The killings occurred in November, 2005. Following a year long investigation, four marines were charged with murder and four with covering up. Those charged with murder include:

Wuterich, who faces 13 counts of unpremeditated murder; Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz; Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt; and Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum. Each faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted.

Those charged with coverup are:

Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, Capt. Randy W. Stone and Lt. Andrew A. Grayson.

Defense lawyers assert their clients were lawfully following the rules of engagement -- even when they burst into residences and killed the occupants. But, the rules say otherwise:

The Marine division's rules-of-engagement card in effect at the time in western Iraq instructed Marines to "ALWAYS minimize collateral damage" and said that targets must be positively identified as threats before a Marine can open fire. It also told Marines that "nothing on this card prevents you from using all force necessary to defend yourself."

Parts of the incident are still unclear, particularly as to the killings at the fourth house entered by marines. The marines said when they got to the third and fourth houses, they observed some men who were "staring at them suspiciously."

Iraqi witnesses said the Marines angrily separated men and women into two lines before marching the men into the fourth house and shooting them. The three Marines told investigators they were searching for the men they had seen and separated the women into a safe area before Wuterich and Sharratt entered the house.

The U.S. didn't begin an investigation until months later when a Time Magazine reporter started asking questions.

All of our Haditha coverage is accessible here.

This post has a good summary of what witnesses reported.
< Peace Solutions for Iraq | Calling All Local Hunter Thompson Fans >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'll save you the trouble (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    This is nothing compared to Anzio, or Iwa Jima or the sack of Jerusalem during the First Crusade.

    or the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    atrocities in VN, South America, the Phillipines, the SouthWest. ....

    Parent
    or (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:21:17 PM EST
    the rape of nanking, occupations of manchuko, or korea....

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    Haditha (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by koshembos on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    Hadithas happen in every war, but there are many crimes and the commonality doesn't justify the crimes.

    It's true that the soldiers are subjected to enormous pressures and loss of their closest friends, but the best solution is not acceptance; it's leaving Iraq and stopping the soldier's terrible loss.

    The 'surge,' of course, will increase the likelihood Hadithas. The Haditha buck stops in the White House.

    I'm confused (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    Jim wants everyone to be responsible for their part in this mess except for us. He espouses the libertarian mantra, which is basically Darwin's theory of natural selection conveniently pushed into overdrive. Yet he refuses to accept responsibility for the chaos that has resulted from the neocons' mistaken invasion.

    Jim, not every act has one consequence. You, and apparently Fearless Leader, refuse to accept 2nd and 3rd order consequences of our foreign policy agenda. When we armed Saddam, he not only used those weapons aganist our desired targets, the Iranians. He also used them against any resistance to his own rule. The Dawa sect, while bombing our emabssies in Kuwait and Lebanon, was also fighting the secular regime of SH. So we felt it was OK for SH to murder their Shiite supporters in S. Iraq. During the 90's, in a complete reversal that should have been more noticeable, we actually embraced the Shiites outside of Iraq in order to break SH. Now we have invaded and because of the invasion the Shiites are getting their revenge.

    Th US has been trying to control Iraq (and the oil) for decades. This is the result. The chaos is not because of some Iraqi students or unemployed factory workers. WE created the environment for this chaos and we are responsible for the consequences. Your criminal VP looks at the world through grand views, and has little regard for the consequences at the street level. Yet you wish to use the individual insurgents as the scapegoat for the entire mess when the VP's plans go sour.

    Interesting how the most powerful country in the world suddenly becomes a finger pointing, powerless wimp, full of excuses when the grand plans don't pan out.

    Che - Don't misquote. (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 07:39:43 PM EST
    Che - I am asking no one to take responsibility for Iraq, just for their personal actions.

    And I have made no claim to be a libertarian, nor do you have to be one to accept responsibility for your actions.

    The weapons that you claim, with no proof, that we gave Saddam to fight Iran with were given to protect the US, and the millions of Sunni in SA that would have perished in an Iranian controlled ME. Do you happen to see that as a secondary result, or do you want to continute to ignore it.

    Let me guess. You only want to consider what you think are bad secondary results.

    Typical.

    Parent

    what else do you need to know (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:59:29 PM EST
    Marine officers said Chessani, the Marines' battalion commander, informed his superior, the regimental commander, of the civilian casualties the day they occurred and was told by that officer, Col. Stephen W. Davis, that no investigation was needed.

    "There was nothing out of the ordinary about any of this, including the number of civilian dead, that would have triggered anything in my mind that was out of the norm," Davis told military investigators, according to a transcript. "There is nothing about this incident that jumped out at any point to us."

    link

    winning hearts and minds, or at least not creating more enemies, has never been a priority. This has simply been a typical, run of the mill, brutal occupation, not some liberation.

    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    The weapons that you claim, with no proof, that we gave Saddam to fight Iran with were given to protect the US,...

    Yes therein lies the rub. How would an Iranian victory over Iraq threaten us? Or do you really mean threaten our inalienable right to that oil?

    As to proof, it's out there. But I don't do your work for you. Besides, dead tyrants tell no tales, eh? (non, nod, wink, wink). Must be such a collective sigh of relief in DC (and the catfish farm) these days.

    Peacrevol (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    The spitting incidents are urban legends. You have been brainwashed. All here support the troops, but not the ones who come here and lie to our faces.

    Haditha (2.33 / 3) (#1)
    by Fredo on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 01:11:21 PM EST
    The documents are, indeed, chilling; what is described are acts of murder.

    I think it is not quite accurate, and somewhat misleading, to suggest that the US did not begin an investigation until a Time reporter started asking questions.  The Marine Corps conducted an investigation quite promptly, but it was inadequate and erroneous.  Those who supervised it are themselves subject to investigation.

    If there is any comfort to be had in all of this, it lies in the fact that such events are very rare in the US armed forces, and particularly in the Marine Corps.  Given the circumstances under which large numbers of young men are operating with lethal weaponry, their performance overall is commendable.  And when they commit murder they are prosecuted for it.

    Fredo (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    Offer me some factual information that supports the notions that 1) this kind of violence is rare in Iraq; 2) that the military generally gets out in front of problems like this and comes clean regularly; and 3) that the descriptors "inadequate" and "erroneous" somehow translate into our getting right on top of this one, rather than, as it appears, trying to sweep it under the rug first.

    Do you really think this is the only example of this kind of crime?  Or that inadequate and erroneous investigations don't occur more often?  And if so, you are basing that assumption on what?  That war is hell, but not so hellish our troops would do more than the rare bad thing?  For heaven's sake, we don't even COUNT the Iraqis we slaughter and maim, we don't even consider them worth the trouble UNLESS WE ARE FORCED TO, which is the case here.  The same government that doesn't feel the need to keep any track of how many Iraqis they killed is not going to be one that comes clean in the majority of these kinds of cases.  Take care of a few high profile ones and give the impression of doing something.  Abu Ghraib, for instance.  

    An unjustified war of aggression, for which soldiers were rallied on lies, ignorance and sheer incompetence by their leaders, this pointless fiasco is precisely the type of no-win meat grinder that breeds this type of behavior.

    Parent

    that's not an investigation ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    ... that's a coverup:  
    The Marine Corps conducted an investigation quite promptly, but it was inadequate and erroneous.  Those who supervised it are themselves subject to investigation.
    Tho I understand how wrongwingers can mistake the difference.

    Parent
    Interesting language (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Al on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:02:11 PM EST
    Sounds like military damage control.

    Parent
    Difficult mission for military investigators (1.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    It's fortunate that, unlike many countries, we have processes in place to identify and prosecute crimes like these. While you've got the military on your mind, keep in mind the difficult job the NCIS, the CID, and the AFOSI do in investigating their own branches.

    Parent
    he's joking right? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    It's fortunate that, unlike many countries, we have processes in place to identify and prosecute crimes like these.
    just like Pat Tillman, the AP police captain source, 'we don't torture', and coverups of a multitude of other war crimes, unless reporters publish it there is no investigation. Even afterwards, no one but low level troops get prosecuted.

    It's a joke to say the processes worked.

    Parent

    you're reading, right? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:48:34 PM EST
    I didn't say "the processes worked." I said we have  a process. Please try to quote me more accurately in the future.

    Parent
    that's just silly (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    processes that don't work aren't processes. I can't believe you tried to parse that.

    keep in mind the difficult job the NCIS, the CID, and the AFOSI do in investigating their own branches.
    Another joke ... they don't want to investigate themselves. There should be independent investigations ... so bring on the congressional hearings.

    Parent
    haditha (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by diogenes on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 10:09:37 PM EST
    For every one Haditha incident of murder of Iraqi civilians there are one hundred suicide bombers murdering Iraqi civilians. I somehow think that the weight of evil, such as it is, is greater among the "insurgents" in Iraq.  


    provide stats (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:36:34 PM EST
    for that allegation
    For every one Haditha incident of murder of Iraqi civilians there are one hundred suicide bombers

    You also fail to note all the iraqi civilians that have been killed by US troops by mistake while targeting mosques and residential neighborhoods. Not to mention all the ones who have died as a result of poor medical facilities, bad water and sewage from resulting from the destroyed infrastructure we deliberately targeted.

    Parent

    Wrong argument (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    Saying that we don't kill as many innocent victims as somebody else does nothing for the innocent victims we DO kill, and sets the threshhold of morality so low that it's in the negative figures.

    If supporters of the war can only use the "somebody else is worse" argument, does it mean they are out of ammo?

    Parent

    DA picks the wrong starting point. (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    My point was a philsophical one, but since you can't seem to ever see things in a broader context, I will use your own source to go back further than the point you pick:

    It was also made in the context of the responsibility of the murders. You immediately go completely off subject. Oh well.

    Revolutionary sentiment was characteristic of the era in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. The stranglehold of the old elites (the conservative monarchists, established families, and merchants) was breaking down in Iraq. Moreover, the populist pan-Arab nationalism of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt would profoundly influence the young Ba'athist, even up to the present day.

    I also love your continual restating of the known and the obvious as if it had just sprung forth. I have never denied that we helped Iraq in their war. But the point remains.

    You can't deny responsibility by blaming someone else.

    All ppj (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    has done today is move the goal post and change the argument when he's losing

    And the sun will come up tomorrow.


    Parent

    After comment 16 you would never guess... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    ...that this thread had anything at all to do with Haditha.

    Hijacked again, and, as usual, for the worse.

    Haditha is an atrocity. An American-made atrocity. The logical consequence of sending troops back into a war zone time after time, many of whom are demonstrably mentally ill, and expecting them to referee a civil war.

    Our military is broken, a mere shadow, a tissue-thin paper tiger of the fighting forces we once possessed, and atrocities such as this will be repeated - and god-only knows how many have already been committed and covered-up to protect this maladministration.

    It is well-established in the world now that: America kidnaps, renders, tortures people endlessly (even when they have been confined for so long that they cannot possible possess any information of current value), holds prisoners forever with no trial, engages in wars of aggression and crimes against humanity, and does its best to coverup incidents such as this that are clearly, by anyone's definition, a crime against humanity and cold-blooded murder.

    My, what we have become, mr. boosh.

    Parent

    Hey (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    The logical consequence of sending troops back into a war zone time after time, many of whom are demonstrably mentally ill...

    ? Demonstrably mentally ill? ouch...Damn dewd what is your opinion of military personnel? I mean yeah war does have its affects but 'demonstrably mentally ill'? That makes it sound like you're ready to get out the straightjacket and lock us up. For almost all of us, I think the PTSD is mainly trouble sleeping, anxiety, general nervousness, bad dreams, etc. I wouldnt exactly call that 'demonstrably mentally ill'. That's how you demonize troops in your mind to make it easier to spit in our faces when we get back.

    Parent

    no (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    I wouldnt exactly call that 'demonstrably mentally ill'. That's how you demonize troops in your mind to make it easier to spit in our faces when we get back.

    Thats how to acknowledge the major stress this war has put on the soldiers which reflects poorly only on those who order them back into conflict without the breaks they deserve.

    PTSD can be more serious than you acknowledge, But i assume you know that but that it didn't suit your attack.

    Parent

    All That I know (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:31:53 AM EST
    about war is what I experienced and all that I know about about PTSD is what I experienced. In some cases, I'm sure it could be worse. But only in extremely rare cases is anybody ever 'demonstrably mentally ill' b/c of what they experienced in the war. The way to acknowledge the stress that this war puts on the soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors is to say 'overstressed undermanned military personnel who do not get the breaks they deserve'. But that doesnt fit into your argument now does it? You want to make troops look like they are all uncrontrollable criminals b/c of what war has done to them as an argument for why we shouldnt be there in the first place. But what that does is put a false and overly agressive negative connotation on any military personnel and when they get back from protecting your rights to be pissed off about the war that you think is illegal, you look at them like they're no longer human. Whose mental affliction is worse? Mine for going to fight a war and coming back stressed to the max or yours for calling me a monster for it?

    Parent
    sigh (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    But that doesnt fit into your argument now does it? You want to make troops look like they are all uncrontrollable criminals b/c of what war has done to them as an argument for why we shouldnt be there in the first place

    no not true and a strawman.

    The invasion was unjustified. It was based on lies and misinformation.


    you look at them like they're no longer human

    yet another baseless charge

    Whose mental affliction is worse? Mine for going to fight a war and coming back stressed to the max or yours for calling me a monster for it?

    I never called you a monster so another baseless charge.

    It should also be pointed out that Iraq represnts the first time soldiers have been rotated back through the war zone so many times for so long. I suspect that a bad case of PTSD will not be so rare. But only time will tell.

    Maybe your anger should be directed at those who sent you to fight for corporate interests, without  enough of the correct equipment, without a proper plan. It might be more useful than making up charges to level at me.


    Parent

    My contempt (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    comes from a group of people who seem to think I'm not in control of my actions enough to keep me from knowing wrong from right. 'Demonstrably mentally ill' to me means incapable of controlling one's own actions to the point that a serious mental illness is obvious upon first interaction. So when you use the term demonstrably mentally ill, it implies a lack of control that makes us seem a little less human. Almost like you're ready to find a padded room and some chains to make sure you can control me b/c I cant. PTSD is a mental illness, but it's not one that is obvious beyond control.

    Parent
    Now you're just trolling to insult. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    Grow up and learn something about life.

    Parent
    No insults from me, some info for you: (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    See HERE:

    But medical officers for the Army and Marine Corps acknowledge that medicated service members - and those suffering combat-induced psychological problems - are returning to war. And anecdotal evidence, bolstered by the government's own studies, suggest that the number could be significant.
    A 2004 Army report found that up to 17 percent of combat-seasoned infantrymen experienced major depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder after one combat tour to Iraq. Less than 40 percent of them had sought mental-health care.
    A Pentagon survey released last month found that 35 percent of the troops returning from Iraq had received psychological counseling during their first year home.
    That survey echoed statistics collected by the San Diego Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. The system has found that about 33 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from schizophrenia, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

    And HERE.

    The article indicates that the military is putting pressure on mental health professionals treating these soldiers to minimize the extent of their problems and to declare them fit for return to Iraq and combat. For example, some Army doctors are reporting that they are being told to diagnose combat-stress reaction instead of the more serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Further, the article reports that professionals treating emotionally disturbed soldiers "are under pressure" to approve their redeployment to Iraq. I have written about the moral issues involved in mental health treatment of soldiers in Iraq [To Heal or To Patch: Military Mental Health Workers in Iraq]. The issues are similar for those treating the soldiers when they return if the professionals play any role in deciding whether or not the soldiers should return to combat. The mental health professionals are not in a position to make unbiased judgments as to a soldier's readiness to return to combat when their own status and advancement in the military may depend upon how they exercise that judgment.
     
    One "implication" not even mentioned in the article is that sending "mentally ill" soldiers back into combat puts not only the soldiers' own mental health at risk, but endangers Iraqis as well. What is the quality of decision-making by highly stressed soldiers, whether they suffer from "PTSD" or only from "combat-stress reaction"? These soldiers are armed with lethal weapons and are often in a position to make split-second life-or-death decisions. After all, "stress" is often used as a defense when other armed authorities, such as police, are caught engaging in abusive or even murderous behavior. Surely the effects of stress can only be magnified on soldiers who spend a year or more being assigned to a country where they can never feel entirely safe.

    -snip

    Soldiers in Iraq routinely make split-second decisions whether to shoot or not, such as at the innumerable checkpoints or when on convoy. We already know from a study published in the July 1, 2004 New England Journal of Medicine [Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care: see their Table 2] that 14% of Army soldiers and 28% of Marines returning from Iraq reported "being responsible for the death of a noncombatant." To deploy mentally unstable soldiers [not to mention those with drug or alcohol problems] likely will increase these horrific numbers. This policy of returning potentially unstable soldiers to combat in Iraq is, thus, not only a serious threat to the mental health of the soldiers, but a threat to occupied Iraqis. This policy, already reprehensible because of the danger it poses to the long-term mental health of the US troops, is also in its reckless disregard for Iraqi lives yet another example of the innumerable war crimes being committed against the Iraqi people.
     
     
    Stephen Soldz is psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the Institute for the Study of Violence of the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He is a member of Roslindale Neighbors for Peace and Justice and founder of Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice. He maintains the Iraq Occupation and Resistance Report web page and the Psyche, Science, and Society blog.

    Your gratuitous insult where you say:

    That's how you demonize troops in your mind to make it easier to spit in our faces when we get back.

    Can be forgiven as you obviously are not aware I am a Vietnam vet, one of those held in such contempt by people who cannot understand the ravages of war.

    I have cited here at TL before, as well, that I suffer from PTSD, and you also diminish the seriousness of such a diagnosis. The consequences for many are much more grave than you allege, especially when you falsely claim to speak for "most of us" while being ignorant of how serious PTSD can be.

    Your personal attacks and insults would be better reserved for someone less informed than me, and your time might well be better spent researching some things before reflexively popping off (a symptom of PTSD, BTW).

    Parent

    Bill A, you write: (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    many of whom are demonstrably mentally ill,

    Of course you have links to prove this damnable claim? A claim that says military commanders, dedicatde and honorable men, would put an obviously sick soldier in harms way?

    Bill, you love to attack the country, love to attack the military. It is time that you prove it.

    Parent

    here (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    Sunday, March 19th, 2006
    Some troops headed back to Iraq are mentally ill
    Officials from the Defense Department and Camp Pendleton, where some units have been to Iraq three times, said they don't track personnel deployed while taking mental-health medication or the number diagnosed with mental illness.

    But medical officers for the Army and Marine Corps acknowledge that medicated service members - and those suffering combat-induced psychological problems - are returning to war. And anecdotal evidence, bolstered by the government's own studies, suggest that the number could be significant.
    ...
    A Pentagon survey released last month found that 35 percent of the troops returning from Iraq had received psychological counseling during their first year home.

    That survey echoed statistics collected by the San Diego Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. The system has found that about 33 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from schizophrenia, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Thank George for everyone will you, ppj?

    Parent

    Obviously you don't read comments. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    Take a good look at the sources cited immediately above your comment and tell me that all these researchers and mental health professionals are wrong.

    Yes, our military commanders, "dedicated and honorable men", are sending mentally ill soldiers back into combat.

    I never attack America, only those destroying it. I do not attack the military and anyone interpreting my comment that way doesn't fully grasp the English language or the plain meaning of the words I use.

    I do not have to prove that which is commonly know and that has been in the public domain for some time now, something you don't seem to understand.

    Consider my "damnable claim" proven beyond all doubt, as it is. You may not like the "reality-based" world of science, medicine, research studies and such, but when you ignore them to attack me personally you are simply indulging neocon fantasies where science and facts that don't conform to neocon "reality" are ignored.

    I care too much for America and its military to sit silently and see them both or either of them damaged beyond repair or destroyed.

    I am sorry if that doe not comport with your misapprehension of the facts and truth.

    Parent

    Also, the research I cited was posted 3... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:57:06 AM EST
    ...hours BEFORE your attack on me AND it is immediately above the comment you attacked me.

    Do you READ comments and follow links BEFORE attacking, or is it just easier to attack.

    Again, I sorry the truth so offends you.

    Parent

    SD can't (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    refute my point.

    Nothing new

    Parent

    who knows (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:48:50 PM EST
    what your point is, you change it every time you get your butt kicked.
    shorter ppj today

    " What I was really asking/stating..." and then change the question.

    This aint Middel School debate. You've come unarmed.


    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:39:07 PM EST
    Yada Yada Yada again.

    Since you don't want to debate, I'll just say,

    Ta! Ta!

    Parent

    SD (1.00 / 2) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 07:46:15 PM EST
    You are hardly worth the effort, but I will again note cause, effect and timeline.

    1. I made a point.

    2. DA provided a link that he thought refuted it.

    3. I noted that my original point was mostly philsophical and that DA was deliberately misunderstanding it in order to attack. But I also provided proof that Saddam's personality/character was formed long before the time DA wants to blame the US for.

    You like it both ways? I have it to you both ways.

    Off topic troll post (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 08:07:52 PM EST
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 08:32:20 PM EST
    just keep believing your own nonsense.

    Parent
    yet (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    another isolated covered up incident of American atrocities. But we never commit bad acts so they must of had it coming, right ppj?

    Im sure that ppj will now subject us to a diatribe rich in moral relativisim, hypocrisy and american exceptionalism


    Stop baiting (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:21:12 PM EST
    Soccerdad, lose the insults and baiting please.  thanks.

    Parent
    tell (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:37:27 PM EST
    your boy to stop also on all the other threads or is he immune?


    Parent
    Well.. (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 05:58:44 PM EST
    Im voting for immune. We draw the line at linking to the KKK.

    Haditha was a logical outcome certainly factored in in the diabolic algebra of the Straussian philosopher kings. The confederate lynch mob just knew 'somebody gotta pay'-- for 9/11, for not being Rapture Ready etc

    "Your brothers blood cries up from the ground."

    they will come home (none / 0) (#13)
    by numike on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    let me preface this by stating that i do not beleive that the soldiers that will inevitably come home are baby killers or intrinsicly evil
    BUT they will come home and some will be mentally really messed up....i would not want to be involved with one of these x soldiers in a road rage situation if you get my drift

    Yes Diogenes, (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:05:36 PM EST
    but we created them. We allowed them to thrive. We destabilized the country, allowing this to occur. Therefore WE are the heavier "weight of evil".

    Che Misunderstands (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    The enabler argument doesn't work well.

    If we created them, Saddam created us. But who created him? He was a fully grown adult and the dictator of Iran before we came along.

    And if we created the terrorist, then did they create the Marines that went out of control and did what they did?

    And does those who call for jihad against the west bear any responsibility? And does the religion that does not condemn war between the Sunni and the Shia bear any responsibility??

    The answer is that this is nonsense. We are all responsible for our own acts, not others.

    Parent

    calling (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    for personal reponsibility as a means of trying to deflect and minimize any responsibility of the US. Truly breath taking in its hypocrisy.

    Parent
    SD (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    As Colonel Potter said.... Well, I won't go there.

    As I wrote:

    The answer is that this is nonsense. We are all responsible for our own acts, not others.

    If the US has made a mistake, does that justify what the Marines did? Not in my mind.

    If the Moslem faith calls for war on non-believers does that justify what the terrorists do? Not in my mind.

    But I understand your view point. As a Leftie, your focus is solely on the group, and individuals opperate only within the group, and obtain their approval/disapproval only from the group.

    In your view the Marines' failings are failures of the US. Wrong, but I can see where it would make perfect sense to you.

    But I never understand you not addressing the point I made about the terrorists. If they have done wrong, then Soccerdad must believe the Moslem culture/religion that has huge problems, yet I never see you address that.



    Parent

    christofascist lies (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    If the Moslem faith calls for war on non-believers
    It doesn't, so your basic premise is flawed and the rest of your arguments are rendered sillier than usual.

    BTW, bush says Islam is a religion of peace, I don't know why you want to call your fearful leader a liar.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    Your inability to understand that I don't automatically agree with Bush has been evident for years.

    Thanks for restating it.

    BTW - I should have been plainer. Various leaders of the Moslem faith would have been more accurate.

    Link

    In nations where Islamic law is the basis of civil law, but has not been codified at the national level, as is the case of some Arab countries in the Middle East, fatwa by the national religious leadership are debated prior to being issued. Thus, they are rarely contradictory. If two fatawa were contradictory, the ruling bodies (combined civil and religious law) would attempt to define a compromise interpretation that will eliminate the resulting ambiguity. In these cases, the national theocracies expect fatawa to be settled law.

    Noun 1. fatwah - (Islam) a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar; "bin Laden issued three fatwahs calling upon Muslims to take up arms against the United States

    Link

    Parent

    christofascist say the same thing ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 04:59:56 PM EST
    ... and run training camps for kids where they teach them other religions are evil and how to use guns.

    By the definition of terrorism, (the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes), bush commited national terrorism when he attacked a country that had no ties to AQ, no WMDs, and nothing to do with 9/11 in order to institute 'regime change.'

    Killing all those iraqi civilians, ruining their infrastructure and inciting civil war was one of the worst acts of terrorism in history.

    Once again your original premise was wrong so everything after that, including all the shifting of the goalposts, doesn't matter.

    Parent

    sailor (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:44:49 AM EST
    Yeah, we better be watching all of those Baptist colleges.


    Parent
    I agree with Bush (none / 0) (#55)
    by peacrevol on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    bush says Islam is a religion of peace

    he does say that and he's right. For example, I think a lot of Americans misunderstand the meaning of jihad. Jihad simply means to live a moral and correct life and to spread the faith. It has nothing to do with aggression, though the extremists try to make it mean that. Let's not lump together a huge faith. It is important not to do so b/c then we might start something w/ some overly radical Christians or Buddhists or Agnostics or any other religion.

    Parent

    I'm not chasing the goal posts all over the field (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:44:40 PM EST
    SD - Shorter (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:35:10 PM EST
    I'm beat.

    Parent
    in your dreams (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    but delusions are your strong suit

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    But who created [Saddam]?

    Reagan and Rumsfeld, when they armed him with those WMD.

    if we created the terrorist, then did they create the Marines that went out of control and did what they did?

    If we hadn't been so foolish as to send the Marines to Iraq, I don't see how the killings could have taken place.  Do you?

    I said it was a bad idea then, and I haven't seen anything since that would change my mind.

    And does the religion that does not condemn war between the Sunni and the Shia bear any responsibility??

    You are correct.  The so-called "Christian" leaders who encouraged and abetted this disaster have been curiously silent.

    And does those who call for jihad against the west bear any responsibility?

    Only if you want to arrest Ann Coulter for the same "crime" when she said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

    Do YOU condemn Coulter's hate speech?  Do you think she should be subject to the same punishment you reserve for those who call for the same thing from the other side?

    Parent

    RePacks writes (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    If we hadn't been so foolish as to send the Marines to Iraq, I don't see how the killings could have taken place.  Do you?

    If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas...(author unknown)

    The use of claimed and/or real bad acts by others for your own bad acts is not an acceptable defense.  

    I find your attempt to assign equivalency and importance between the statements of a somewhat popular Right Wing journalist and the expressions of hatred by a religion that is supposedly embraced by 1,500,000,000 people ridiculous.

    I condemn both. There. You feel better??

    Who created Saddam? Reagan and Rumsfeld? Please, Repack. Do you think that giving someone help makes you responsible for their bad actions?

    That's laughable.

    BTW - Provide some proof re the weapons charge. I've yet to see it. (Not that I believe we couldn't have.)

    But your belief does explain why the Left claims our giving OBL weapons to fight the Soviets caused them to attack the US.


    Parent

    Strawman much? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    But your belief does explain why the Left claims our giving OBL weapons to fight the Soviets caused them to attack the US.

    Who speaks for "the left," and can you provide both the quotation you are referring to and the evidence that this person was anointed to speak for "the left."

    Wait.  Strawman.  I forgot.  You don't use reason and logic.  You have to argue with your own creations, who say only what you want them to say.

    As far as selling weapons to Saddam, it's not exactly hot news, over 20 years old now.

    Parent

    What and when (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:42:25 AM EST
    Well, if it's not news, let's see a link.

    I repeat. I don't have any problem if we did, I'd just like to see some information on what and when.

    Parent

    you (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:44:00 AM EST
    must be the last person on earth who doesn't know.

    Try google

    Parent

    And insult us. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:45:50 PM EST


    Thank you, Che's. Nice to know that you... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    ...don't support this "spitting on soldiers" urban myth.

    Compared to those of us from 'Nam, I have never witnessed MORE public regard and respect than that extended to this latest bunch of vets.

    Anecdotally (and yes, it's not therefore true for everyone), when one of my son's friends returned from training prior to shipping out to Iraq, it was NOT POSSIBLE for him to pick up a restaurant or bar check as some citizen would inevitably come up to thank him for serving and pick up his check. It was amazing.

    This has been true for every veteran in uniform with whom I have spoken recently, so I just can't believe that they have been reviled as many Vietnam vets were. AND THAT'S FOR THE BETTER AND THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

    I bear no ill will against this youngster that would lecture and insult those who were there before he was even born. I do wish he would educate himself more fully and from a slightly different perspective - that of a person who cannot, and therefore does not, purport to speak for "most of us".

    Peace, peacrevol, I sincerely wish you the best.

    Parent

    And as to Haditha, from the citation I gave (none / 0) (#69)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    above #59, in the text is revealed THIS shocker:

    "...We already know from a study published in the July 1, 2004 New England Journal of Medicine [Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care: see their Table 2] that 14% of Army soldiers and 28% of Marines returning from Iraq reported "being responsible for the death of a noncombatant." To deploy mentally unstable soldiers [not to mention those with drug or alcohol problems] likely will increase these horrific numbers."

    14% of Army and 28 % of Marines ADMIT complicity in the death of a non-combatant.

    I'm no math genius, but I'm betting that's a whole lot of dead INNOCENT iraqis.