Color me paranoid. About that NBC Fallujah tape...

[CornField]

I saw it again this morning. The Marines come around the side of the Mosque and they are speaking to other Marines (?) inside. The two groups of military converge at a door and have a brief conversation. One of the Marines who just arrived asked if there were insurgents inside. The other group tells him there were two.

"Did you shoot them?"

"Yeah. Yeah."

"Did they have any weapons?"

That's where my throat stuck. I guess shooting Iraqis who are not holding weapons is common enough that they need to ask?

This war has got to end. We've got to bring our troops home now.

[Junkdrawer]

1. You're not alone. On DemocracyNow,

the head of the Center for Constitutional rights said that every indication from that tape and what went on before is that Fallujah was a killing field and the order of battle was "no prisoners".

[HeeBGBz]

4. Chilling

eom

[Flammable Materials]

2. Unfortunately, your pleas are futile.

The blood is on our hands, and the hands of our spouses and partners, and on the hands of our children.

We are all guilty, and there's nothing we can do about it.

"In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police." - 1984

[Rose Siding]

3. I would've tended to think

the question might have been about a stash or stockpile of weapons. We read that those are sometimes found in Mosques and the Marines are tasked with collecting them, but who knows. With the level of crazy stuff on the rise, you might be right.

[cali]

5. Dream on.

This war isn't ending until bushboy can find an excuse to get out. We can march until our feet are in bloody tatters. We can yell until we're voiceless. We can write letters until there's no more paper. The dark has fallen.

[bowens43]

6. The US military has done far worse

to the Iraqi people then saddam has done.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. I think you're posting to the wrong board.

[jac7656]

20. Am I posting on the wrong board...

because I'm posting a few thoughts that may not follow lock-step with everyone else here? Please explain.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. No, no! Keep posting here, really

Tell us more about how that brown-skinned terrorist had it coming. Your insights are fascinating.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. That's right

Out of the millions and millions of man-hours of military action occurring in Iraq, just because one of the few moments broadcast on television happened to depict what seems to be a war crime, is not reason to get upset.

It's highly likely that nothing at all like this is happening any where else in Iraq, and that the cameras captured this single, unusual occurence.

Oh, and the guy undoubtedly deserved it. I mean, he lives in Iraq, fer crying out loud! That's what they get for 9/11!!


/freeper

[skooooo]

10. How do you know he was a terrorist?

Has that been proven? I don't think so.

[jac7656]

19. The guy may have been totally innocent...

as you say. We simply don't know. But I'm willing to given the military the benefit of the doubt on this one, so I chose terrorist rather than, say, freedom fighter, or innocent civilian, or imam. Many of you don't seem to getting my main point, and frankly, I don't quite understand all the overt hostility to a pretty rational post.

[skooooo]

28. Innocent / Guilty, doesn't matter..

Shooting an unarmed prisoner who's been captured is a war crime.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. Look, I have a huge amount of sympathy for our military

They have been put in a situation where it must seem to them at every minutes that they have to choose between preserving their lives and preserving their humanity/non-criminal status.

Shooting people, even in a way that constitutes a war crime, is understandable (but not necessarily legal) when you think your life is in danger.

The issue here is putting our soldiers in a situation where they feel they have to make that choice - FOR NO GOOD REASON. That is the real war crime.

But combat war crimes need to be prosecuted, to maintain the thin veneer of civility over our blood barbarism. Wouldn't you agree?

[skooooo]

40. would agree mostly...

It is a veneer you could argue, but at the same time we have to take those laws seriously, as it's the only thing between us and total brutality. You may say we are already there, but we're not. It could get a lot worse. That's why even a veneer can be of critical importance.

[Stephanie]

32. What is the definition of terrorist anymore?

Every Iraqi is now a terrorist? I thought terrorists were the guys flying planes into buildings. Now anyone who opposes or resists American policy is a terrorist. Words have no meaning.

[NJCher]

41. exactly

Has that been proven? I don't think so.

That's what made me angry when I heard the NBC report this morning. They called him an insurgent. How do we know? Are they carrying cards now? Soon we'll have them wearing gold stars for an extra dose of that good ole' American humiliation.


Cher

[mhr]

11. "Iraqi Terrorist" - Now How Do You Know That He Was Not

An "Iraqi Patriot?"

Just because someone ends up on the wrong side of a US weapon does not automatically make them a terrorist.

I seriously think you need to recalibrate your opinions here.

You are way out of line.

[jac7656]

14. RECALIBRATE MY OPINIONS?

Am I not in line with your groupthink?

[Webster Green]

29. Our "groupthink" is in line with the Geneva Conventions.....

In your hysterical fear of "terrorists" your "groupthink" has abandoned the Geneva Conventions, and international law in general.

Very cowardly if you ask me.

Hey dude....there's one now!...........Boo!

Scared aren't ya?

[Cat Atomic]

34. You're in line with the groupthink, alright.

"Terrorists". What a load of bullshit.

[mhr]

37. Yes You Read It Right The First Time - I See KKK Karl's Reeducation

has worked wonders on your psyche!

Per chance, did you vote for Bush, your indignation would suggest that this be so.

[Junkdrawer]

12. "fog of war" ---or--- "smoke screen of war"...There is a difference.

There is such a thing as a War Crime. The world decided that after WWI - or are you saying that is now a "quaint notion" like our new Attorney General?

[Solomon]

13. Reminds me of the Rodney King thing. We saw the cops beat the shit out

of the guy, but people said, "you don't know what happened before the videotape started running."

[jac7656]

16. poor analogy

there is a SLIGHT difference between a traffic violation and a major theatre of war.

[skooooo]

33. A war crime is a war crime, no matter how you try to justify it..

[Solomon]

38. Poor analogy my ass. You're doing the same thing that the cop

appologists did. You got evidence right in front of your eyes, but you make excuses. Same old shit. Whether it's war, traffic violation, crime or whatever, the same old shit.

I like how you elevate a unjustified slaughter into a "major theatre of war". World War II it ain't, bub. But you minimize the King beating to a "traffic violation". Nice try.

[Vickers]

18. Was he a terrorist or an enemy combatant?

Talk about jumping to conclusions... :eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

24. There have been 100s of thousands of Iraqi casualties, loser.

What are you still doing posting here? Time for you to support the President and enlist. He doesn't need apologists typing on computers...he needs warm bodies to continue this immoral war.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. It's pretty obvious where you stand.

"Don't let the death of one Iraqi terrorist send you into a the-sky-is-falling, this-is-Vietnam-all-over-again meltdown. Your hyterical last line "We've got to bring our troops home now." in response to a single enemy casualty, is exactly the type of overreaction this country can least afford when so many innocent Iraqis are depending on the US to support and protect their fledgling democracy and fragile freedoms."

You are trying to paint a pretty picture when the only color on your pallet is blood red.

You call the Iraqi a terrorist and say he was an enemy casualty when, of the app. 50,000 people who remained in the city fewer than 3000 were thought to be insurgents. And is an insurgent by definition a terrorist? Only by the administration's definition.

A soldier shoots an unarmed prisoner. And your only question is about the context of the question "Did they hve any weapons?"

This is precisely the sort of situation that Kerry spoke of before congress during Vietnam. Maybe the young Marine was jittery from 24 hours of being sniped at, maybe he was pissed that the man was feigning unconsciousness, I don't and cannot know. I didn't see the video, but heard the recording on the radio and it was clearly not a cold execution, single shot to the head type of thing. What I heard was a five or six round burst. Panic or anger. Do you really think the military will investigate to decide which it was?

Do you have any concept of who these 'insurgents' are? Do you really believe that they are all hard-line Baathists. or Al-Queda terrorists? Most are simply people defending their homes and their country against outside aggression. Shop keepers, mechanics, teachers, ex-soldiers, students. The same type of people who would rise up in this county if we were invaded by an overwhelming enemy force.

That enemy would call us terrorists too, in that context.

The only way to stop this tragedy is to bring our troops home, immediately. We can't prevent a civil war there. Now, or a year from now, or ten years from now, there will be one. Us staying any longer will only make it more bitter, more deadly than it is destined to be.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. good post

but you should try to quit talking sense to that guy. He seems a little . . . set in his ways.

[TahitiNut]

43. "set in his ways"? No, more like 'interred in his ways' ...

Now providing feed for his relatives: the worms.

[Nordic]

48. You say - "many innocent Iraqis are depending on the US"

I appreciate your desire to not want to jump to conclusions.

However you make some really faulty assumptions, such as your quote above.

The only thing fueling the "insurgency" is our presence in the country. If we leave, there will be no insurgency, except against the puppet government, which everybody knows is the same thing as the US.

What the Iraqis don't need is gasoline thrown on the already-blazing fire. Fallujah is just that.

Here's what the Iraqis don't need either. How do you think this father and his kid feel about "their fledgling democracy?"

[G_j]

15. the ONLY reason IMO

that the military is "investigating" this, is that it happened to get photographed.

[jac7656]

17. Agreed (in part)

that's probably right, in terms of how QUICKLY the investigation is occurring, but there is no reason to believe that instances such as this are not investigated even when no cameras are around. Remember that soldiers, like you and I, are capable of posessing integrity...if someone sees a blatant war crime take place, there's probably a good chance it would get reported to a commanding officer.

[ProfessorPlum]

21. Yeah, there's no reason to believe every war crime isn't investigated

I mean, they would have investigated Abu Graib . . . eventually. Just because the administration knew about it for months and months before the public was told . . . I'm sure they would have paid it the proper attention . . . eventually.

Just trust the military. They are totally responsible for themselves and entirely capable of self-disciplining. Nothing to see here. Move along . . .

[G_j]

22. not sure what they think of as a "blatant war crime"

when they have already forced civilians back into the city, cut off people from food, water, medical supplies and hospitals.

[Old and In the Way]

35. Do you believe in fairy tales, too?

There's no good chance that war crimes will be reported, because this administration is responsiblefor the biggest war crime of all. Attacking another sovereign nation under false pretenses.

Perhaps you ought to go back and read your history. Germany staged an incident of Polish border guards "attacking" Germany to justify their invasion and takeover of Poland, Checkoslovakia, Hungary, et al. You remember how that ended up, right?

[Cat Atomic]

39. There's no reason to believe

that fish don't have tea parties when we aren't looking, either.

[The Stranger]

26. This instance we know about. But how many are there we don't know about?

This time there was a reporter there. This time there was a reporter who was a practicing journalist. This time there was audio. This time the video and audio tape made it past the censors and out of the country. This time the video and audio tape were picked up by a major news media outlet. This time the video and audio tape were actually broadcast.

How many, many, many other times has something like this happened that we do not know about? Will we ever know about them?

[G_j]

27. U.N. Rights Boss Urges Falluja 'Abuses' Probe

from LBN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x993860

U.N. Rights Boss Urges Falluja 'Abuses' Probe


GENEVA (Reuters) - Top United Nations (news - web sites) human rights official Louise Arbour called on Tuesday for investigation of alleged abuses in Falluja, Iraq (news - web sites), including disproportionate use of force and the targeting of civilians.



Those responsible for any violations -- U.S. and multinational forces, Iraqi government troops or insurgents -- should be brought to justice, the former U.N. war crimes prosecutor said in a statement.


"There have been a number of reports during the current confrontation alleging violations of the rules of war designed to protect civilians and combatants," Arbour said.


She gave no specific examples. But on Monday, Amnesty International accused both sides of breaking rules designed to protect civilians and wounded combatants during conflict.

~snip~

[RBHam]

30. They're just following orders...

It's a tried and true defence, isn't it?

[Aristus]

42. Hey jac7656, don't let 'em push you around, okay?

Now come over here. This, my friend, is the Brooklyn Bridge. It has stood here proudly since 1883. Millions of New Yorkers and tourists have crossed over it from Brooklyn to Manhattan and back again.

And now, it can be YOURS! Yes, my friend, for the right price, YOU can OWN the Brooklyn Bridge. Be the envy of your friends. Get your checkbook out and let's talk turkey.

[TahitiNut]

44. As former military, one thing stands out on that video.

I see a breakdown of combat leadership. This squad was NOT operating under the proper discipline of battlefield leadership - more like a mob or gang of looters. When I look at their deployment, the way they were variously holding their weapons, the failure to position sentinels, and a total failure to engage in proper squad tactics, I see rabble: a collection of vandals and thugs. This is not "military."

[Aristus]

45. I agree, TahitiNut. One thing I was told over and over when I

was in was "You have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to disobey unlawful orders." And then to clarify what was lawful and unlawful, we had an hour-long course on the subject. Unlawful weapons (dum-dum bullets, glass mines, etc.) and unlawful actions (bombing schools, hospitals, shooting civilians and prisoners.) What are our boys being taught nowadays? :shrug: :cry:

[TahitiNut]

46. It's not just that, it's the apparent failure to 'secure' the area.

It was reported that this mosque was already cleared by an earlier squad/platoon of Marines. If it was, then there should've been no significant concern for hidden weapons or booby-traps. If there were a concern, I would even more expect the tactics of the squad to follow the disciplines of securing the area. That would include covering the wounded and examining them for any kind of weaponry. It would also include two-by-two cover and clear every room and anything above or below. Even on entering the mosque, I'd expect staged cover and enter techniques.

The implication is that they didn't have confidence in whatever Marine unit preceded them to do the job properly. That they also didn't follow proper battlefield tactics indicates to me that there's a ubiquitous breakdown in proper battlefield tactics and command.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. But I heard on the news this morning, repeatedly, that the entire

city was secure. Yes, there are still a lot of snipers, and bands holed up that are resisting, and a lot of shooting and bombing, but the city is secure. Therefore, everything in the city is secure.

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the word 'secure'?

Perhaps it's a secondary definition of 'Mission Accomplished'.

[RBHam]

49. This incident happened last Saturday...

The mosque was "secure" however...