There are some gaping holes in this story, the way I’m reading it. I don’t understand why they are making this claim, when they are also making a claim of self-defense. Also, it bugs me that they make no mention of how many ‘military-aged men’ were killed during this raid and whether or not they were fighting back or just mowed down. WTF?
That seems to be fairly common; I recall how during the attack on Fallujah male refugees were turned back into the city on the assumption that all males were enemy insurgents. That let us designate them as terrorists/insurgents and slaughter them.
As far as it being self defense; it’s the American belief that killing any non American is self defense, as far as I can tell. After all he might have attacked you, at some point in the indefinite future.
I do wonder if the “human shields” were, say, family members. Did they rescue prisoners, or kill the husbands/fathers of the women and children ? Did they rape the women or kill them afterward ? I see no mention of their point of view; perhaps they are too dead to have one.
I’m curious as to how raping a 14-year-old girl would defend oneself against military-aged males. Must be a new tactic.
Oh, I’m sorry, I had this trial mixed up with the other case. It’s so hard to remember which murder-of-civilians case is which.
The soldiers story leaves more questions than it answers.
The possession of these weapons are offered as proof of hostile intent? Note they “found” these weapons, not that the alleged victims had such weapons at hand. Which, if that were the case, they would have said, no? But aren’t we given to understand that many, many Iraqi civilians possess AK 47s, as a means of self defense from their fellow Iraqis? Surely our soldiers are as well informed as I? Surely they know this?
And “other evidence” not included in the statements? Huh? Wha?
Lawyers are allowed to plead several logically incompatible theories of the case “in the alternative.”
Consider as well that these are American soldiers, from a country where many consider gun ownership a right. What would be the response be in America if the cops shot some guys and said it was self defense because they owned guns ? Not “were armed” but “owned guns”.
Is it just me or does an order to “'kill all military aged males” sound like genocide?
So, when were you in Fallujah again?
Question #1 in my mind is: If those guys thought they were actually following the Rules of Engagement, why did they then order some others to not talk about it?
Question #2 of course is: What part of “It is a crime to follow an illegal order” did they not comprehend?
Question #3 is: Do they perhaps have any proof of that purported order?
< erase vitrolic post > I read the news and pay attention. You are obviously trying to discredit me without actually arguing about what I have said. Afraid I’m right ?
Only because it’s not very hard.
This is true enough…as far as it goes.
This is you talking out your ass again, through your own perverse anti-US filter of events. Its is completely faith based bullshit…as usual for one of your posts. Or, in other words…cite? Since you are so well read and all, and since you ‘pay attention’ and ‘read the news’ and all, should be a piece of cake (or a piece of something in any case).
:rolleyes: What reality do you live in again? Oh, thats right…its the reality that everything the US does is evil…and evil by design.
:rolleyes: Did anyone besides me actually READ the cited article? ‘Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are charged with murder and other offenses in the shooting deaths of three of the men during the May 9 raid.’ The shooting deaths of ‘3 men’…since when does the shooting of 3 men (or 30, or 300, or 3000) constitute ‘genocide’? :dubious: Unless the gene pool is getting rather shallow in Iraq of course. Or did you use ‘genocide’ as an over the top hyperbole to achieve some effect you desired?
Since few here seem capable of looking at things critically, let me ask a few basic questions here. IF the ROE were issued to shoot all males of ‘military age’, A) Why weren’t these orders carried out by the entire battalion? Obviously ALL males of military age were NOT shot…as several lived to give testimony. B) If those ROE were issued to the entire battalion, why has no one (except the accused) come forward to vouch for their story? Am I to believe that EVERYONE (except these 4 schlubs) was in on it…and no one is willing to talk? C) If the orders were specifically to shoot all males on sight, why did the soldiers attempt to take them into custody?
Yeah, that America…we definitely sweep things under the rug because we don’t believe in that rule of law stuff.
Look…I don’t know whether these guys were guilty or not of a crime. It LOOKS like they were, though its always hard to tell in these kinds of situation. Maybe they really did feel threatened…maybe they saw one too many buddies blown appart in car bombs and went off the reservation. Maybe they just wanted to kill those folks for reasons of their own…or no reason at all. I don’t know (and neither do any of you). But when you start speculating that this was official, that the ROE were to kill all adult (or ‘military age’ whatever the fuck THAT means exactly) males, at least TRY and use the same critical thought process you would use for other (non-Iraq, non-Bush) related things. Just reading the article, anyone who is at all skeptical would start to detect the strong odor of bullshit. They were going to take them into custody here:
Why? If they were ordered to kill all males of military age, why would they even be bothering with ‘heavy-duty plastic ties’?? Also, though I suspect that there is a fairly large percentage of nut balls in Iraq, I have my doubts that AFTER they had surrendered they would have attacked fully armed (and high strung, pissed off) soldiers…with guns trained on them.
I did read the article. I meant the order “kill all military age males” sounded genocidal (military age overlaps with breeding age). I find it highly unbelievable that the US military would issue such an order because of the implications. I was not suggesting that the soldiers were commiting genocide.
Troubling detail, XT. In answer to Red Shirt’s point about turning young men back who were attempting to leave Fallujah you say that is “True as far as it goes”. Sort of leaves the implication dangling, suspended by its neck in midair.
If it went farther, where would it go? Would it arrive at a perfectly reasonable and humane purpose? Some benign intent on sending a young man back into the shitstorm, with a good liklihood of dying? Does it build character?
You know, if it doesn’t kill you… it only makes DT pissed because he can’t blame it on the nefarious intent of the US.
:dubious: What is it you want a cite for ? You’ve admitted we sent them back, we killed plenty of people there, and called them terrorists and insurgents while we did it.
As a rule, yes. Have you looked at the people running the country ? Pro-torture mass murderers = evil.
Monsters do monstrous things, and America is run by monsters.
And whose word do we have they did, besides the accused soldiers ? According to their own testimony, they shot one man though a window just because they saw him; that’s not the sort of thing people who want prisoners do.
Assuming that actually happened, perhaps they were already making noises about killing the men and they attacked because they had no reason not to; perhaps they were tearing off the women’s clothes in preparation for rape; perhaps they grabbed the kid and made like they were going to smash it’s skull against the wall. There are many possible reasons.
If the intent behind the action (that is, forcing young men to return to a place where they might very well be killed) is not nefarious, then what is? If you have an alternative explanation, what is it?
Got it, bring it. Ain’t got it, best to be quiet about it, don’t you think?
No, I blame the sometimes non-lethal atrocities like rape and torture on America, too.
Really? Why wouldn’t you rather blame the actual persons, the individuals, who committed the crimes? Of course, so far in this thread, you’re ignoring the obvious problems with your stance, but why bother paying attention to those?