New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges

If you are willing to accept that just being in Iraq is not the atrocity then maybe the expeditious punishment of those guilty will make a difference. Unfortunately some would have us believe America is just a bunch of war-criminals on two legs and the immediate departure and solitary confinement of the US military is the only acceptable solution.

Today US DoD Sec. Rumsfeld said "99-point-nine percent of our forces conduct themselves in an exemplary manner." There are 150,000 Coalition Forces in Iraq. 150,000 * (99.9%) = 149.850 or almost 150 crooked troops. That is 150 too many crooked troops for me. If they 0.01% chance of foul play then why are they trying to spin it like it's just an anomaly? 1 per 1,000 troops is nowhere close to a statistical anomaly. What saddens me is that ones allegedly responsible for these crimes almost got away with it. What happen to the chain of command? This is tragedy of epic propropotions.

Comments?

Keld, you're right. There are plenty of good comments over there. The Gunnery Sargent angle/thread has piqued curiosity regarding US Marine leadership.

I sense that these "kill-the-messanger" commentaries concerning your use of the term terrorist are disheartening. I can only speak for myself but your use of the term has helped "break my eye" and review this tragedy from a historical perspective. Kudos. I needed my eye broken. This is a sorrowful mess we've gotten ourselves into.

I'm not debating. I've heard bits and pieces of this story since Sunday. US Congressman Murtha was on TV talking about it. I saw some stories here on the Vine. But overall the way it's been discussed here has been like it was a drive-by shooting. I didn't realize that the story was being softballed until tonight when heard that all the nearly 150,000 Coalition Forces in Iraq will be retrained. There calling it a stand down. As of 22:00 EDT CNN is reporting live that there are now three investigations. Unfortunately the pundits are trying to downplay severity of crimes.

isn't this different than haditha?

Yes. I caught the end of a report of another murder as late as April.

Come on Keld, there are lots of ways of describing the U.S. Marines that are accused of this, but I think calling them "terrorists" is inappropriate. Terrorists have ideological beliefs that drive them to commit acts of violence against others in an attempt to induce fear and enforce their moral beliefs.

I don't believe these kids fall into that classification. It's certainly possible, but I've seen no evidence that would lead to this conclusion. You're trying to be inflammatory, and in being so, you seriously discredit whatever argument you might be trying to make. These kids were young, and under great emotional stress. From what I read, one of their own was killed by an actual terror attack, and these guys responded. It certainly doesn't make what they are accused of right. But your argument is going to fall on deaf ears when you start out by making statements specifically intended to offend those that you are trying to have a debate with.

Now, if these guys are interviewed and they make statements to the effect that what they (allegedly) did was right, and that those killed deserved what they got, then I'll join you in your stance.

I know I'll be accused of being anti-American for seeding these articles, but that's not the case. I only blame the US government for these crimes; not the American people.

Give me a break. Your whole act revolves around painting the US government in as bad a light as possible while pointedly ignoring "bad things" routinely commited by other governments and non-government actors. It is folks like you that make it hard for folks like me to argue against the folks who claim that anybody opposed to Bush administration policies is just a "Bush hater" or part of the "blame America first" crowd.

murat (3.7)
I am glad you asked that. It reminded me of a bookmark I had and had not been to in some time. http://www.watchingamerica.com/index.shtml

WatchingAmerica reflects global opinion about the United States, helping Americans and non-Americans alike understand what the world thinks of current issues that involve the U.S. This is done by providing news and views about the United States published in other countries.

Keld,

You just don't get it, do you? These are soldiers in a WAR ZONE. They live under daily of fear and stress that you or I can't simply imagine. They had just been attacked and had members of their "family" injured and killed. They're thought process does not work the same as yours does while sitting behind the safety of your computer screen. They may not have been right, but things are not so black & white as you're trying to make them out to be. And, you really don't have the full story.

Now as to your assessment of Bush, I find that point harder to argue against...

Chris,

YOU don't get it. Your assumptions are way off the mark. Having served in the military during a war, and having my best friend stationed in Baghdad right now, I can tell you that the murder of innocent civilians is NEVER justified. The old saying is correct, war IS hell, but even in war there are standards and morals that American soldiers are expected to uphold - in fact, especially during the most trying times are they expected to be honorable representatives of this great country.

My buddy in Iraq told me that he thinks these acts are a direct result of the culture of hate that this administration has passed down from the Commander-In-Chief to the bottom ranks of the military. It's no different than Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. All of this stuff is related - when will the American people realize that?? This administration has made the entire world feel that American leaders could give to @!$%#s about anyone but themselves and will torture, maim and kill anyone and make up the reasoning later. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of our soldiers participating in such heinous acts. But I put the blame squarely at the top. If we don't do something to change this path we're going down, we risk not only our own moral compass, but the "American experiment" as we know it will fail.

dd

I know I'm a pain in the ass to many Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-American. I just strongly oppose the US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. As I've said before: This war is not about liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. It's all about oil, greed, and world dominance. At least, that's how I see it.

That's fine, Keld. But please do try to show a little more respect for the soldiers who were placed into a difficult situation that was not of their own choosing. At least as much respect as you expect others to have for the "resistance", especially those that resort to deliberate suicide bombings of innocent people. Calling U.S. soldiers "terrorists" and "cold-blooded murderers" distracts from your arguments against U.S. foreign policy and it's leaders and shows that you have little understanding of what's it's like in a war zone.

When I stated the Keld doesn't get it, I was not implying that murdering innocent people is ever justified. What I meant was that inflammatory rhetoric such as "terrorists" and "cold-blooded murderers" does nothing to improve the discourse. See my misplaced comment in the thread below this one.

I really wish Newsvine would allow for comment editing...

YOU don't get it. Your assumptions are way off the mark. Having served in the military during a war, and having my best friend stationed in Baghdad right now, I can tell you that the murder of innocent civilians is NEVER justified.

Whoa! I never said that murdering innocent civilians was justified. If these soldiers did what they are accused of, then they are indeed murders. But I think the term "cold-blooded" is rhetoric and fails to take into account the situation these soldiers have been placed in, BY THE U.S. LEADERS. Some of these guys are serving 2nd and 3rd tours of duty, and many of them (the National Guard?) were never trained for this kind of thing. I'm just saying that if you want to have a civilized debate about the subject, and you expect you opinions to be listened to, you've got to dial down the inflammatory rhetoric like "terrorists" and "cold-blooded murderers".

And I agree with you 100% about (at least some of) the blame for this falling on the command-in-chief. However, you and I both know he's too thick-headed to ever see it...

Dang it! I posted the comment to the wrong thread again. It was meant to be in response to diggityDawg's comment above. Newsvine really needs to allow comment editing soon...

Newsvine can't allow comment editing - someone might change their comment after it had received a response, unless Newsvine allowed editing UNTIL a comment received a response...

Newsvine can't allow comment editing - someone might change their comment after it had received a response, unless Newsvine allowed editing UNTIL a comment received a response...

Sure they can. Most discussion forums allow it. You can simply indicate that the comment was edited. It doesn't necessarily make responses to the comment any less valid. Especially so in the case of responses made to the wrong comment. :-)

Now if they really wanted to by slick, they could keep a version history of a comment and display the current one, but allow you to view the changes.

One other thing - I would suggest that one of the side effects of editing a comment would be that the current vote count gets reset. This would be disincentive to constantly editing comments.

Good point Ballew74. I think even if the video shows troops shooting at innocent civilians there could be more then we know. Hopefully we will have a further investgation from both sides.

Whatever happen to innocent till proven guilty? If they are guilty, punishment should follow.

Whatever happen to innocent till proven guilty? If they are guilty, punishment should follow.

This is all thrown out the window if you are a troop in an unpopular war, at least that's my best guess.

Yea, its like deja vu from Vietnam War.

One thing I like to point out in this war is that the enemy is not simply in a different uniform from you. The enemy is very well hidden with civilians around him. Knowing that would make me very edgy and ready to use my trigger finger. It was the same with the Vietnam. You didn't know who you were fighting. That's #1 reason we lost the Vietnam War. I do not want this War to be lost against Terrorist.

Yes, civilian casualties from both sides will happen, but did that stop us from War World II? Please before throwing judgement at our troops lets hear from their side and the courts.

Another excellent point Levi,
Not only do these terrorist hide amongst the civilians, they truly have no problem with killing and injuring as many innocents as they can to get their crazy point across. I also believe it is time for the Iraqis to start policing their own. If they wanted America out so bad you would think they would do their best to show they can handle the threat these insurgents pose.

When criminals, terrorists, rapist hide among civilians it is a job for the Police, not the Marines or the Soldiers. The problem in Iraq is a police action not a job for the military. You that speak such non-sense never spend a day in the military otherwise you would know what the objective of the military is. You don't use a bulldozer to exterminate a cockroach. There are other tools available for that. Oh ye of little knowldege and much ignorance, get a Grip.

Wtf Jones, I served in Iraq how dare you come with that BS, I am insulted. Have you been to Iraq?

74- I did serve in Shield and Storm. I served in Kosovo and in Afghanistan. It pains me when anyone compares our Military to the terrorists in justifying illegal actions. The fact that they do, does not make it ok for us to do it. I blame the brass, the civilian leadership for their lack of leadership and vision that leads to such atrocities. Our militray professials as they are are ultimately human and to be deployed on a second and third tour and to see your buddies get blown away by criminals takes a toll, it burns people out. We needed to go in with overwhelming force and many other things we could have, should have, but didn't because we have a bad DECIDER as president.

Jones While I agree with a lot of what you have said on that last comment. I think there are lot better and more respectful ways you can go about getting your point across. No reason to offend people it detracts from whatever point you might want to get across. And it gets you in trouble with Calvin Tang, and none of us want that.

Levi, if you know what war is why don't you go enlist? If you're too old, encourage your children, your nephews and nieces to go enlist. What do you know about the feel, look and smell of War? What does your president know about any of this. There are many bad people in the world, but when I took the oath to become a soldier, it was to defend the consititution of the US and not defend the people of Iraq.

What do you know about the feel, look and smell of War?

Your right, I don't know whats like to be in war but I least have a idea from friends who have served from Iraq and Vietnam War. I take there word for it since they were there.

here are many bad people in the world, but when I took the oath to become a soldier, it was to defend the consititution of the US and not defend the people of Iraq.

You forgot this part:

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me

chill888, what makes it worse is the fact that there are no definite, solid figures on how many civilians have actually died since the invasion of Iraq was launched.

Jason, I'm fully behind Keld's opinion on this. How can you call their acts anything other than acts of terrorism. There was a post earlier in this thread i think where someone claims that there is a difference between terrorists and these soldiers, that terrorists act on their moral and religious beliefs. I'm sorry but I can't see the difference between them and these soldiers. I hope that maybe you can point them out to us.

Chris Anthes says

Terrorists have ideological beliefs that drive them to commit acts of violence against others in an attempt to induce fear and enforce their moral beliefs.

Does the military not have its own ideological beliefs? The military might not be deliberately committing acts to induce fear, actually, that's not true any more is it. I don't think I need to continue.

Terrorists have ideological beliefs that drive them to commit acts of violence against others in an attempt to induce fear and enforce their moral beliefs.

Does the military not have its own ideological beliefs? The military might not be deliberately committing acts to induce fear, actually, that's not true any more is it. I don't think I need to continue.

kayjay, I don't get it. In a comment below, you said you wouldn't apply the term "terrorist" to the entire U.S. military, just the one's who commited these supposed crimes. But here, you seem to be trying to apply my definition to all U.S. military.

While the U.S military (or rather it's leaders) might have an ideological belief driving its actions, I don't believe they deliberately commit acts of violence against unarmed non-combatants to instill fear or enforce their moral convictions.

In the case of the boys who are accused of these crimes, are you saying that they had an ideological belief that drove them to commit these acts of violence? You don't think it was possibly a combination of fear, stress, fatigue, anger, etc.?

As for the term "cold-blooded", that refers to an act done without feeling or remorse. When these guys come out and say they they're happy for what they did, and they'd do it again, then I'll join you on that one.

What happened was horrible and unforgivable. But the terms you and Keld are throwing about are distracting from any real debate of why this happened and how we can prevent it from happening in the future.

The military might not be deliberately committing acts to induce fear, actually, that's not true any more is it. I don't think I need to continue.

1. "The military" does not = a few individuals committing horrible criminal activities

2. You can't have "terrorism" without deliberate acts to create terror. Events without malicious intent are simply terrible accidents.

3. Saying "I rest my case" almost guarantees a response on NV :-)

Do you Danes, Claus, Keld, et al, think that US soldiers are terrorists?

Of course not, Ugly Bastard. I was only referring to these particular soldiers.

So what is the distinction between "criminal" and "terrorist"? Between "murderer" and "terrorist"?

Ugly, I don't think anyone is calling the entire US military a terrorist organisation/ terrorists, just these particular soldiers involved in these incidents.

Murat, i don't think you can distinguish between criminal and terrorist as both can be one. The same with murderer and terrorist. But when you see Islamic extremists kill people, what do you see first in the news, 'criminals', 'murderers' or terrorists?

Murat, i don't think you can distinguish between criminal and terrorist as both can be one.

The words can be distinguished. Not all criminals are terrorists. All terrorists are criminals.

Murder is a terrifying criminal act.

That's the way it'll always be unfortunately. From a neutral standpoint, I've got the impression that Iraqi lives have become expendable.

From a neutral standpoint, I've got the impression that Iraqi lives have become expendable.

This is a real concern I have with the American people, and I think it goes beyond just the Iraqi people. I think the current American culture believes that Americans are more important that other human beings, in all aspects. Most people don't actually realize this bigotry because it is fueled by U.S. politics and is not discussed openly. But when you believe that you have the right to pursue the best life possible for yourself, but that someone who's born in Mexico can't because you have determined it to be "illegal", you suffer from a false superiority complex that manifests itself as a form of bigotry. This is a topic I am planning on exploring in a future article.

I think the current American culture believes that Americans are more important that other human beings, in all aspects.

War disputes aside, I also sense this having spent a large part of my life abroad before coming to live in the US. Although I disagree with you on the source and the nature of the superiority complex. I look forward to reading your forthcoming article on this.

Chris Anthes - 23.2

Excellent point. I agree.
In my travels around the world, I could see the difference in the way we Americans look at people from other countries and how others look at people not from their countries. Not just look but how they treat.

In many cases, it shows up as bigotry, like you said. In other cases, it is very subtle.

In many countries, I have been offered the warmest hospitality while on my travels. I've had complete strangers take me to their homes and offer me meals. (Among the best tasting in my life, I must add.) Sad to say, that is next to impossible to imagine here in the USA. After all, how many of us here on Newsvine have offered our hospitality to a complete stranger from China, or Iraq, or Burkina Faso, or Tajikishtan, or any other country? I'm guessing, if at all, not more the fingers of one hand.

I fear that this arrogance of ours will be our doom, sooner than later. Humility always beats arrogance in the long run. The ancient civilizations like the Indus valley or the Mesopotamian ones were based on humility and they survived for thousands of years. The British Empire that was based on arrogance and imperialism lasted ~400 years.