billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
I am not sure your response addresses what I said. What I meant was that if you have not been there yourself, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what our soldiers are up against, to really understand the complexities of this new brand of urban terrorist warfare that our military faces, therefore making it all too easy to take their actions out of context.
And I will say unequivocally and without apology that ANY combatant who for ANY REASON kills one of our soldiers should die as soon as possible. If I am confronted with a terrorist here and have the ability to kill him first, I will take it, ala Flight 93.
Just burning a hole in the sky.....
And I will say unequivocally and without apology that ANY combatant who for ANY REASON kills one of our soldiers should die as soon as possible. If I am confronted with a terrorist here and have the ability to kill him first, I will take it, ala Flight 93.
Just burning a hole in the sky.....
billvon 2,991
>that if you have not been there yourself, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what our soldiers are up against
I agree. And if you have not lived in an occupied country, it is just as impossible to know what it's like to live there.
>therefore making it all too easy to take their actions out of context.
Yep. Unfortunately that goes for both sides.
>And I will say unequivocally and without apology that ANY combatant
>who for ANY REASON kills one of our soldiers should die as soon as
>possible.
How about a 13 year old girl who kills a soldier because she saw her mother killed by them? You willing to pull the trigger on her?
That's the problem with the facile justifications of the "fog of war." Works both ways.
I agree. And if you have not lived in an occupied country, it is just as impossible to know what it's like to live there.
>therefore making it all too easy to take their actions out of context.
Yep. Unfortunately that goes for both sides.
>And I will say unequivocally and without apology that ANY combatant
>who for ANY REASON kills one of our soldiers should die as soon as
>possible.
How about a 13 year old girl who kills a soldier because she saw her mother killed by them? You willing to pull the trigger on her?
That's the problem with the facile justifications of the "fog of war." Works both ways.
mnealtx 0
Quote
That said, I think any soldiers guilty of misconduct should be fully prosecuted!!!
I do not know if you are a soldier or not, or have been; if not you might want to take a walk in their boots for a 4 year hitch before possibly taking out of context their actions in a war zone and holding them accountable to the same standards that apply to civilian or non war situations.
BULLSHIT - If they break the UCMJ or other applicable regs, they deserve whatever sentence is handed down.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Guest
From the Strategy Page:
The Lie Mutually Agreed Upon
July 16, 2007: Yet another Marine has won a court victory in the investigation of the battle at Haditha – adding more doubts to the claims of a massacre. In this case, the officer conducting an Article 32 hearing (equivalent to a grand jury hearing in civilian courts) has ruled that charges should be dropped. In essence, the claims of a massacre at Haditha are now looking false. That said, al Qaeda, through some adept media manipulation, has still won a victory.
It all began in 2005, when the ambush of Marines led to a battle in which eight terrorists and a number of civilians were killed. That said, the aftermath of the incident was mishandled, giving a reporter and a human-rights group enough room to make claims of a massacre. The initial Haditha investigations uncovered some apparent discrepancies in the Marines' stories, and a criminal investigation by NCIS was launched. NCIS filed criminal charges, and internal investigations showed that officers failed to ask the right questions. It was, in essence, a more refined version of the Palestinian claims after the battle of Jenin in 2002, in which 52 people, a majority of them combatants, were killed.
Al Qaeda faced the same problem that the Palestinian terrorists at Jenin faced in 2002. They have been unable to win in a straight fight with troops that are highly trained and motivated – and American and Israeli troops tend to be among the best in the world on a soldier-for-soldier basis. The terrorists needed to try a different approach. What they came up with was media manipulation, where lies and deceptions would make the Americans (or Israelis, as the case could be) look bad while winning. Sometimes, this involves exacting a high price on the attacking force in terms of casualties, but this is difficult. More often, it involves creating the impression that the American or Israeli troops are indiscriminate killers who routinely slaughter civilians. This would boost both recruiting (to avenge a massacre by the Americans/Israelis) and it would also get media play, undercutting the American war effort (by giving opponents of the global war on terror ammunition).
In the case of Haditha, the terrorists' media strategy worked and caused a lot of problems. An anti-war congressman claimed that a cover-up of cold-blooded murder by the Marines occurred. There was a controversy that has gone on for a number of months. And al Qaeda will come away with articles about massacres that never happened. It is a partial media victory for the terrorists – mostly because the lies have been somewhat unraveled, but the truth will not get the same airplay as the false claims.
That said, a partial victory is still a victory, and it will have a price that is yet to be determined. The new recruits will give them a larger talent pool – and that means they may find terrorists who can infiltrate into the West and carry out attacks like those of 9/11 and the London attacks of 2005. The ammo given to the anti-war movement will make it harder to sustain military operations against terrorists – and the investigations will have ripple effects around the military. As a result, Al-Qaeda may have more secure safe havens in the future.
All is not lost for the U.S. military. On the one hand, future claims of massacres and cover-ups will be somewhat harder to believe, since the military can point to its investigations of Haditha. The other benefit will be the lessons learned from this controversy – the military will apply them in the future, making it harder for terrorists and other opponents to succeed in the media after future battles. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
------------------------------------
Sometimes a convenient lie is more effective than truth - mh
edit to source
.
The Lie Mutually Agreed Upon
July 16, 2007: Yet another Marine has won a court victory in the investigation of the battle at Haditha – adding more doubts to the claims of a massacre. In this case, the officer conducting an Article 32 hearing (equivalent to a grand jury hearing in civilian courts) has ruled that charges should be dropped. In essence, the claims of a massacre at Haditha are now looking false. That said, al Qaeda, through some adept media manipulation, has still won a victory.
It all began in 2005, when the ambush of Marines led to a battle in which eight terrorists and a number of civilians were killed. That said, the aftermath of the incident was mishandled, giving a reporter and a human-rights group enough room to make claims of a massacre. The initial Haditha investigations uncovered some apparent discrepancies in the Marines' stories, and a criminal investigation by NCIS was launched. NCIS filed criminal charges, and internal investigations showed that officers failed to ask the right questions. It was, in essence, a more refined version of the Palestinian claims after the battle of Jenin in 2002, in which 52 people, a majority of them combatants, were killed.
Al Qaeda faced the same problem that the Palestinian terrorists at Jenin faced in 2002. They have been unable to win in a straight fight with troops that are highly trained and motivated – and American and Israeli troops tend to be among the best in the world on a soldier-for-soldier basis. The terrorists needed to try a different approach. What they came up with was media manipulation, where lies and deceptions would make the Americans (or Israelis, as the case could be) look bad while winning. Sometimes, this involves exacting a high price on the attacking force in terms of casualties, but this is difficult. More often, it involves creating the impression that the American or Israeli troops are indiscriminate killers who routinely slaughter civilians. This would boost both recruiting (to avenge a massacre by the Americans/Israelis) and it would also get media play, undercutting the American war effort (by giving opponents of the global war on terror ammunition).
In the case of Haditha, the terrorists' media strategy worked and caused a lot of problems. An anti-war congressman claimed that a cover-up of cold-blooded murder by the Marines occurred. There was a controversy that has gone on for a number of months. And al Qaeda will come away with articles about massacres that never happened. It is a partial media victory for the terrorists – mostly because the lies have been somewhat unraveled, but the truth will not get the same airplay as the false claims.
That said, a partial victory is still a victory, and it will have a price that is yet to be determined. The new recruits will give them a larger talent pool – and that means they may find terrorists who can infiltrate into the West and carry out attacks like those of 9/11 and the London attacks of 2005. The ammo given to the anti-war movement will make it harder to sustain military operations against terrorists – and the investigations will have ripple effects around the military. As a result, Al-Qaeda may have more secure safe havens in the future.
All is not lost for the U.S. military. On the one hand, future claims of massacres and cover-ups will be somewhat harder to believe, since the military can point to its investigations of Haditha. The other benefit will be the lessons learned from this controversy – the military will apply them in the future, making it harder for terrorists and other opponents to succeed in the media after future battles. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
------------------------------------
Sometimes a convenient lie is more effective than truth - mh
edit to source
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
kallend 2,027
QuoteJuly 19, 2007
CAMP PENDLETON – Marine Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum cried as he told an investigator that he helped his platoon sergeant shoot women and children in a house in Haditha, Iraq, the investigator said yesterday.
The testimony from Matt Marshall, an agent for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, came during a hearing to help determine whether Tatum should face court-martial on charges such as murder.
Marshall recalled Tatum saying that he and three other Marines stormed through two houses the morning of Nov. 19, 2005, minutes after a Marine was killed and two others were wounded in a bomb blast nearby.
Tatum and two other members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment are accused of killing 24 Iraqis that day. Prosecutors contend that they went on a vengeful rampage against civilians, while defense attorneys portray the deaths as sad but justified in the heat of battle.
Yesterday, Marshall recounted what Tatum told the investigative service about the second home he cleared during the Haditha incident.
Tatum heard M-16 rifle fire coming from a room that Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich had just entered. Then Tatum rushed to Wuterich's aid.
“He rolled into the room and began picking out targets. He ID'd them as women and children,” Marshall testified. “He was very remorseful about it and very contrite, to the point that he cried.”
Tatum's attorneys don't want the statements their client gave to the investigative service to be admitted as court evidence.
If it's all a lie or a hoax, why is it that four Marines and a Navy sailor have already pleaded guilty and received jail sentences ranging from one year to eight years?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Guest
To the best of my knowledge, those convictions stemmed from obstruction of justice and perjury. If I am misinformed, please correct me.
As for the alleged massacre, however, I would have to see the evidence.
If the GIs really did shoot those civilians, common forensics should bear that out (e.g., .223 wounds that came from the weapons of the accused, etc.). If they really did lose it and gun down unarmed civilians, then upon conviction, they should be punished in accordance with the UCMJ.
All I've seen thus far is "tearful testimony", and no information concerning the disposition of the bodies, so if you've got any links to truthful, reliable evidence, I'd appreciate seeing it.
The so-called "Jenin Massacre" was nothing but a masterfully staged propaganda effort. It succeeded.
As for the alleged massacre, however, I would have to see the evidence.
If the GIs really did shoot those civilians, common forensics should bear that out (e.g., .223 wounds that came from the weapons of the accused, etc.). If they really did lose it and gun down unarmed civilians, then upon conviction, they should be punished in accordance with the UCMJ.
All I've seen thus far is "tearful testimony", and no information concerning the disposition of the bodies, so if you've got any links to truthful, reliable evidence, I'd appreciate seeing it.
The so-called "Jenin Massacre" was nothing but a masterfully staged propaganda effort. It succeeded.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
kallend 2,027
QuoteTo the best of my knowledge, those convictions stemmed from obstruction of justice and perjury. If I am misinformed, please correct me.
So the GIs have admitted to lying. What are they lying about, and why, if they did nothing wrong?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
>possibly taking out of context their actions in a war zone and holding them
>accountable to the same standards that apply to civilian or non war
>situations.
Will you give the same latitude to an Iraqi who has lived in the war zone we created for 4 years, loses it and kills a dozen US soldiers? Or is that different?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites