• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why no indignation in the US because of this?

John Mekki

Banned
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
535
This thread is about the (lack) of public indignation generated by the shooting of 20+ unarmed civilians in Iraq in 2005.
Again, this is not an anti-US tirade, just a simple question for the people who believe that the US justice system is any better than the Spain`s, Iraqi, Venezuelan, etc.
Also, I am not questioning the fact of whether the laws were followed during the trial or if the other laws were formally followed.
This is not the point.
The point I would like to make is why we had a US marine group that killed a number of unarmed, innocent civilians with none of them spent one day in jail and almost no US citizen, nor any citizen or the allied countries, made any fuss about it (save maybe few hundreds of people in a country of 300 million+).

As for the story itself, you can look here:
“The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha incident or the Haditha massacre) refers to the incident in which 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children were killed by a group of United States Marines on November 19, 2005 in Haditha, a city in the western Iraqi province of Al Anbar. All those killed were civilians.[1] The dead included several children and elderly people, who were shot multiple times at close range while unarmed."
[..]
"By June 17, 2008, six defendants had had their cases dropped and a seventh found not guilty.[11] The exception was former Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich. On October 3, 2007, the Article 32 hearing investigating officer recommended that Wuterich be tried for negligent homicide in the deaths of two women and five children, and that charges of murder be dropped.[12] Further charges of assault and manslaughter were ultimately dropped, and Wuterich was convicted of a single count of negligent dereliction of duty on January 24, 2012.[13][14] Wuterich received a rank reduction and pay cut but avoided jail time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings#Trial_of_Wuterich

Now, I know that crimes of war appear during all wars and that crimes are committed by soldiers of all countries.
I also know that military justice is not justice at all in many countries.
My point is why we did not hear big news, I mean, really big news stories in most TV shows, etc. about this.
Why actors and politicians (starting from the President down, ..) did not openly condemn the fact that Sgt. Wuterich did not spend one night in jail?
Why no marches for justice, no protests, people were not angry against Wuterich, why?
 
It's actually somewhat less outrageous than what the U.S. did to retreating Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death


Hmmmm.

Supposing that we accept the claims that Haditha was a massacre, those were civilians. The Iraqi Army was, well, an Army. An Army we were at war with. Just because they were losing miserably doesn't mean they weren't valid targets.

General Norman Schwarzkopf said:
The first reason why we bombed the highway coming north out of Kuwait is because there was a great deal of military equipment on that highway, and I had given orders to all my commanders that I wanted every piece of Iraqi equipment that we possibly could destroy. Secondly, this was not a bunch of innocent people just trying to make their way back across the border to Iraq. This was a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had raped and pillaged downtown Kuwait City and now were trying to get out of the country before they were caught.


The two incidents are similar in that they have both seemingly been wildly exaggerated by various leftists and media outlets in the course of their perpetual efforts to smear the American military.
 
It's actually somewhat less outrageous than what the U.S. did to retreating Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death



Couple of questions for you Joe - and these are rather more important than you may think they are. 1)Had a cease fire been set up? 2) Had the Iraquis surrendered to the US/allied forces? 3) Were white flags being flown? 4)Were all arms/armament of the vehicles and personnell left behind? If 2 or 4
are no, they are legitimate targets (running and raising a white flag is quite inappropriate) and, in surrender all weapons/related are turned in.

It sounds much like, as did brave Sir Robin, they bravely ran away - and, you are certainly a target if you are trying to flee with all your stuff.


You may be unhappy with this, but there's this thing called (generally) Rules of Warfare. Those Iraquis tried to get around it.


On the other hand, I agree with John on the other thing.
 
Last edited:
Couple of questions for you Joe - and these are rather more important than you may think they are. 1)Had a cease fire been set up? 2) Had the Iraquis surrendered to the US/allied forces? 3) Were white flags being flown? 4)Were all arms/armament of the vehicles and personnell left behind? If 2 or 4
are no, they are legitimate targets (running and raising a white flag is quite inappropriate) and, in surrender all weapons/related are turned in.
[..]

I beg to disagree.
Failure of the enemy to do the right thing does not exempt you from doing all you can to avoid casualties as much as possible
 
Again, this is not an anti-US tirade, just a simple question for the people who believe that the US justice system is any better than the Spain`s, Iraqi, Venezuelan, etc.

  • Not holding that belief, this thread is not for me.
  • I predict this will soon degenerate into bickering derails.
 
I beg to disagree.
Failure of the enemy to do the right thing does not exempt you from doing all you can to avoid casualties as much as possible

Your assertion does not stand up to scrutiny, as the obligation does not exist. The enemy combatants had not surrendered, they were trying to avoid contact. Ergo, the trashing of a retreating army. Nothing at all new to this, ever.

As to the initiating post, it would appear that not many of the public share your sense of outrage. Why do *you* think that might be?
 
Last edited:
Don't vote for war or politicians that advocate war. Its really all we can do. Don't encourage your kid's to sign up for it maybe? What else?

btw: Some of us are outraged. We're just not heard.
 
This thread is about the (lack) of public indignation generated by the shooting of 20+ unarmed civilians in Iraq in 2005.
Again, this is not an anti-US tirade, just a simple question for the people who believe that the US justice system is any better than the Spain`s, Iraqi, Venezuelan, etc.

It is better then Iraq's and Venezuela... I don't know about Spain. It is ok, but maybe the worst of any "Western Nation".
 
I beg to disagree.
Failure of the enemy to do the right thing does not exempt you from doing all you can to avoid casualties as much as possible

That is not the point of war though, it is to defeat the enemy and get them to surrender. Retreating enemies are and always will be valid targets. Today's retreating enemy is tomorrows entrenched defender.
 
That is not the point of war though, it is to defeat the enemy and get them to surrender. Retreating enemies are and always will be valid targets. Today's retreating enemy is tomorrows entrenched defender.

I beg again to disagree.
I do not think there was any need to kill Iraqi soldiers, considering that the war was already been won (AFAIK, maybe I wrong in this).
It is exactly trying to limit casualties as much as humanly possible what makes the difference between a moral army and an immoral army
 
Last edited:
I beg again to disagree.
I do not think there was any need to kill Iraqi soldiers, considering that the war was already been won (AFAIK, maybe I wrong in this).
It is exactly trying to limit casualties as much as humanly possible what makes the difference between a moral army and an immoral army

So there was a surrender agreement at that time? What is your evidence for this?

They could have surrendered.
 
I assume most soldiers were not responsible of signing any agreement.
Maybe the generals were, not the soldiers

So why didn't they surrender? Tons of Iraqi soldiers surrendered then, even to unarmed drones. They had a choice, and they chose to retreat as a military unit instead of surrender.
 
So why didn't they surrender? Tons of Iraqi soldiers surrendered then, even to unarmed drones. They had a choice, and they chose to retreat as a military unit instead of surrender.

I was not there so I do not know.
I am not justifying them, what I am saying is that everybody is responsible for his own actions and if the enemy behaves not as they should this is not an excuse for you to do murders, unless it can be avoided.
So the question to ask is: was it really necessary to bomb them?

But, again, we are diverting from the OP
 
During both US wars against Iraq the US corporate-controlled media cooperated with the regime in Washington by limiting reportage of all descent, and spreading official lies. We protested the war but Bush and the elite tried to suppress us at every turn. This made it difficult to get information to the public that could evoke outrage. What we did manage to communicate was met with an overwhelming barrage of counter-propaganda from the ruling-class.

That's how it was, generally, during the incident explained in the OP and during many others.

In this environment at home where the threat of military retaliation was almost non-existent you could not rally a majority of the public against Bush & Co. It took losing jobs, going broke, becoming homeless, and the realization that the future looked pretty grim after years of war spending to register in the minds of the public that something had to change because staying at home and pretending it would all go away was not going to work any more.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom