U.S. Marines may face murder charges over killings in Iraq

[Just thinking]

Yeah, a link to what looks like a semi-official photo-op...

Now that's credible evidence of what the Kuwaiti people really think!

Heck, they might think Dubya is the best thing since sliced bread and Hussein to be the new Hitler, but we wouldn't know it.

I await your evidence to the contrary.

(BTW ... that's a link to transcripts, prove that they are not of genuine interests as you are implying.)

 

[Grammatron]

US troops to get ethics training after Haditha massacre

Training? Soldiers need to be trained to not kill innocent civilians?

First of all it's nothing but PR stunt, second of all you are not as subtle as you think you are.

 

[Orwell]

I await your evidence to the contrary.

(BTW ... that's a link to transcripts, prove that they are not of genuine interests as you are implying.)

You need evidence that Kuwait is a very partial democracy and doesn't have freedom of speech?

'Cause, you know, that's on what I'm basing my affirmation, the one about not knowing what the Kuwaiti people think: no free speech, little democracy, hence no idea of what's going on in their heads.

 

[Just thinking]

You need evidence that Kuwait is a very partial democracy and doesn't have freedom of speech?

'Cause, you know, that's on what I'm basing my affirmation, the one about not knowing what the Kuwaiti people think: no free speech, little democracy, hence no idea of what's going on in their heads.

Boy, you have such a short and confused memory ... I'm claiming that they prefer our presence to that of Saddam's invasion. These transcripts show that those in power welcomed us. I will also take it that they (in this instance) have the same attitudes as the people of Kuwait -- you show reson to believe otherwise.

 

[Jocko]

You need evidence that Kuwait is a very partial democracy and doesn't have freedom of speech?

'Cause, you know, that's on what I'm basing my affirmation, the one about not knowing what the Kuwaiti people think: no free speech, little democracy, hence no idea of what's going on in their heads.

I'm sure Amnesty International has a full writeup on them, then. Or did they blow their whole budget at Gitmo this year? Come on, Orwell, you can do better than that.

 

[Just thinking]

First of all it's nothing but PR stunt, second of all you are not as subtle as you think you are.

Don't you just love how some people will take the actions of a few and make it appear that this is the overall policy of the entire military? And then as one presents evidence to the contrary it's contered with name calling, insults and innuendo.

 

[Orwell]

Boy, you have such a short and confused memory ... I'm claiming that they prefer our presence to that of Saddam's invasion. These transcripts show that those in power welcomed us. I will also take it that they (in this instance) have the same attitudes as the people of Kuwait -- you show reson to believe otherwise.

Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point. But maybe they prefer it in the same way I would: it's a lesser evil. But we would don't know what they really think: no freedom of speech.

Just have to look at neighbouring Saudi Arabia, where the ruling elite is firmly pro-US, whereas most of the population is thought to be anti-US.

 

[Jocko]

Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point. But maybe they prefer it in the same way I would: it's a lesser evil. But we would don't know what they really think: no freedom of speech.

Amnesty International sees a much less dangerous threat to speech there.

Freedom of expression

Arrests and trials took place in violation of the right to freedom of expression.

* Yasser al-Habib, aged 21, who was arrested in November 2003, was sentenced in January to one year’s imprisonment and fined US$3,340. He was reportedly charged with “insulting the Prophet Mohammed’s companions, abusing a religious sect and distributing an audiotape without a licence”, in connection with an audiotape recording of a closed lecture that he gave on Islamic historical issues. In February he was released under an annual pardon announced by the Amir of Kuwait on the occasion of the country’s National Day, but his rearrest was ordered a few days later. The public prosecutor said the release had been an error. Yasser al-Habib went into hiding. An appeals court dismissed the original verdict and ordered a retrial, reportedly upgrading the charges. In May, Yasser al-Habib was sentenced in absentia to 10 years’ imprisonment. According to unconfirmed information, charges against him included seeking to overthrow the state and belonging to an organization that seeks to overthrow the state.

Well, that's not really a freedom of speech issue from where I'm sitting (even though A.I. put it under that heading, all by its lonesome)... those charges are more blasphemy/sedition.

Take a look yourself. Certainly not a place I'd want to live, but it ain't the Taliban, either. I think you'd have to go as far as Qatar or Turkey to find a more progressive muslim country.

 

[Just thinking]

Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point.

Just have to look at neighbouring Saudi Arabia, where the ruling elite is firmly pro-US, whereas most of the population is thought to be anti-US.

Apples & oranges. They were not released from an invasion -- the people would clearly prefer the US military over an invasion of Saddam's troops. And that's my point; please stay on topic -- thank you.

 

[Orwell]

'Scuse me, but can you prove those two things, the one about Kuwait and the one about Saudi Arabia? I'm talking about the man on the street, and I'm talking about things in the present context, with all the crap that's going on in Iraq. How do you know? Can you back it up? Proof? Or is that just your opinion?

 

[Jocko]

'Scuse me, but can you prove those two things, the one about Kuwait and the one about Saudi Arabia? I'm talking about the man on the street, and I'm talking about things in the present context, with all the crap that's going on in Iraq. How do you know? Can you back it up? Proof? Or is that just your opinion?

I showed what Amnesty International has to say on the subject of Kuwait, and their critique of speech rights seems a bit thin, based soley on one example. I think that's rather relevant to making conclusions about the "man on the street," from a source you probably respect and trust.

I presume that the recent unpleasantness has removed your ability to ignore other posters, so perhaps you can see it now? We'll talk it over in a month. See you then!

 

[Elind]

Yeah, they probably prefer a US presence to an Iraqi occupation, although there's no way of knowing it for sure. That's my point. But maybe they prefer it in the same way I would: it's a lesser evil. But we would don't know what they really think: no freedom of speech.

Just have to look at neighbouring Saudi Arabia, where the ruling elite is firmly pro-US, whereas most of the population is thought to be anti-US.

Orwell, in these cases you can educate yourself quite easily, which you don't seem to have bothered to do. Both countries have several English language newspapers available online daily, and which often print translations from the main Arabic ones.

There are restrictions in that they don't call their leaders the same names that we can get away with and under the present climate of terrorism they don't go for calls to overthrow the government, and they don't show much exposed flesh, but beyond that you find a pretty open exchange of opinions that could easily be called "free speech". A bit wacky sometimes, IMHO, but pretty free nevertheless and hardly an example to set a contrary position on.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Several posts of Dustin's and TBK in a row certainly does provide quite an overdoes of bulked-up avatars.

If we had never gone to iraq...We could of provided over 13 MILLION
students four-year scholarships at public universities.

Your math really doesn't wash. 20,000*4*13 million=1.04 trillion. And I don't mean to nitpick, but it should be "could have".

US troops to get ethics training after Haditha massacre

Training? Soldiers need to be trained to not kill innocent civilians?

Is that surprising to you?

 

[a_unique_person]

I have been involved in several of these threads where the defenders of Bushco misrepresentations, exaggeration and downright, oldfashioned, lies attempt to parse and weasel the meaning of this stuff into innocent misunderstandings.

What a pile of crap. If you can not believe that Bushco presented falsified data with regard to the information about WMD and the 9-11 connection it is because you have decided that you don't want to believe it and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe something you don't feel like believing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57818

 

[bobdroege7]

I saw an interview of one of the children that survived the massacre, she apparently knew the roadside bomb was there, as she was hiding in her room awaiting the explosion.

So let's not call them innocent civilians, as they knew there was a bomb and were thus at least complicit in the attack on US marines.

I would not call it murder, maybe some lesser charge perhaps

 

[Wudang]

I saw an interview of one of the children that survived the massacre, she apparently knew the roadside bomb was there, as she was hiding in her room awaiting the explosion.

So let's not call them innocent civilians, as they knew there was a bomb and were thus at least complicit in the attack on US marines.

I would not call it murder, maybe some lesser charge perhaps

It's not a Disney movie with plucky kids foiling the bad guys plot. She'd quite possibly have been taking her and her families lives in her hands if she's warned the US troops. People who plant roadside bombs tend not to play nice.
If the marines lost it and killed unarmed civilians then that is murder.

 

[Just thinking]

'Scuse me, but can you prove those two things, the one about Kuwait and the one about Saudi Arabia? I'm talking about the man on the street, and I'm talking about things in the present context, with all the crap that's going on in Iraq. How do you know? Can you back it up? Proof? Or is that just your opinion?

If you will simply scroll back to my original question that I posed to you, you will see that it concerns the issue of choosing between having an invasin of Saddam's troops or the US Marines. The people of Kuwait had seen both, and from the press coverage with reports and photos of the time it was obvious who they preferred -- and how they were treated by each. (Let's also not forget what Saddam's troops did as they were leaving and who repaired the damage.)

The purpose of the US military in Iraq is to give Iraq to the Iraqis -- they vote, they choose, they control. The purpose of the terrorists or insurgents is to take over for themselves without having the people choose. I believe it a very safe bet to put money on the US military as being preferred over a bunch or terrorists; and to think that the US military is now behaving like Saddam's troops did in Kuwait in 1990 is simply absurd.

 

[GroundStrength]

If the marines lost it and killed unarmed civilians then that is murder.

This is not specifically directed at Wudang.

Everyone seems to be falling over themselves to believe that the Marines in question actually committed the crime. Video tape of the dead people at Haditha, while very convincing evidence that there were dead people at Haditha makes no case that these Marines killed them. Perhaps ballistics tests could be of use.

While we're all speculating, how 'bout the insurgents found some already dead bodies and shot them in the head then video-taped it and used this as an oppertuntity to get all the whiney-liberals up in arms.

Thirdly, marines are killers, but they kill the enemy. They are currently engaged against a foe that has no qualms about killing themselves, innocent iraqi citizens and anyone else who gets in their way. The terrorists/insurgents/wacko's have shown this type of behaviour repeatedly.

I think I'm okay with pulling out now. They seem to prefer to live in the 15th century.

 

[Wudang]

This is not specifically directed at Wudang.

Okay but note I did say "if".
Personally I have no idea of the stress levels those marines are under. I knew some guys who served with the British Army in Northern Ireland and how stressed some of them were. Interestingly one came home and joined the Troops Out movement. And remember folks, judging and condemning without all the facts is what those marines are accused of.

 

[GroundStrength]

Okay but note I did say "if".

Noted.

Also, I have changed my mind about supporting the war in Iraq (I still support the war on Terror, and the troops). However, this incident or incidents like this are not and would not be reason enough to stop supporting the war or the troops. Its war and things like this happen. It only makes the people who do perpetrate such acts bad, not the entire military or war effort.

That said, I am sick of this thing in Iraq. Perhaps stress levels would be less if the full force and might of the United States Military were brought to bear to end this thing.