What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
273 Comments
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -39/+93Gosh, those ungrateful Iraqis. I mean, we LIBERATED them. Sure, we're making their lives worse than they were under Saddam, but at least they're free now.
*salutes flag* - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -33/+81HE KILLED 18 Civilians!!! Yes!! Let's give him some medals!!
You can't be ***** serious! - MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -67/+114The guy and his men murdered innocent people. If he doesn't think that that's wrong, he needs to be locked up. It sucks that war does that to people, distorts their views, but shouldn't we think of that BEFORE we doom an entire generation of people of these problems?
- Oculus, on 10/12/2007, -62/+109@ idandfei "They didn't make the choice to go to Iraq, and we really can't judge this guy."
I can judge him based on the actions of the other troops over there NOT killing unarmed men, women, and children. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -29/+73He killed women and children in an act of revenge.
This merits a life sentence at the outside. - Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -27/+58Sadly while I agree with your sentiments, none of that excuses his actions. In the end it doesn't matter WHY, only that he DID.
- gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -17/+47So why are we at war? I still don't know.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40I'm surprised how many people are defending this guy. OK, you have five unarmed people with your backs turned to you. You think they may pose a threat to you. So you shoot them? WTF? That's the worst logic I've EVER heard. Detain them. Call the MPs and have them picked up for interrogation. Zip-tie handcuff them if you feel the need. Shoot them out of hand? ***** no. I could understand if they were acting hostile, even if unarmed, but not if they were being at least reasonably compliant. Completely unacceptable.
I don't BLAME this guy, I think he has just been pushed to edge of his limits and needs to be given psychological care. For the record, I am on the last 60 days of an 8 year Army enlistment, I got lucky and haven't been sent to Iraq yet, but I think that I have some basis to judge this situation. - gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+39If you going to shoot civilians, expect the civilians to start shooting back.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27As a Canadian, I can unequivocally tell you, with that kind of attitude, You Are Not Welcome.
Oh, and all you USofAmericans who claim to be Canadian when you travel, please stop that shiat too. We dont want you representing us. - Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28So, this is part of the Hearts and Minds strategy, right?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+43If you have not been in a war situation or if you have not been in the military then you cannot fully understand the situation. The comment idandfei made is correct. Your mind works differently when you are in an environment where your mistake could mean you or your men die. I am sure the Marine does feel regret for the loss to be civilians/women and children, but I am glad he is sticking to his actions.
Civilians here can complain all they want, and say how wrong the Marine is in his statement, but until youve been in that situation - you have no idea. You are not going to go around and check people to see if they are civilian or enemy when you are being shot at. You are going to do whatever it takes to survive and eliminate the threat.
If you want to blame anyone - blame the Insurgents who are firing at the military in the presence of their own civlians. They are the reason innocents are being killed.
I was in the Army - I volunteered - I was not depraved and had a very good full time professional job. I know what its like. - klawz, on 10/12/2007, -26/+42quote
In the end it doesn't matter WHY, only that he DID.
/quote
It sure the hell does matter WHY. It never matters why when you're on your own (safe) end of the stick. If I come at your daughter, and you think I'm going to kill her, and you kill me in her defense, then find out I was her teacher. You better sure the hell do the same thing in the future, because 9/10 times (in the context or war in Iraq) the person going after your daugher IS out to kill her. Do you some-what understand more now? Yes, you WILL and SHOULD do the same split-second decision AGAIN, with the info you have (e.g. you think someone is about to kill your daughter). I hope this sheds a little light on those who have 1/2 an open mind left. - Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -16/+31ahhell: Well I'm not sure the "enemy" wears a uniform and identifies themselves before battle, so figuring out who's who might be harder than you think.
- grobinson, on 10/12/2007, -16/+30@an0nymous
and you know that he killed children in Revenge, HOW?
You were not there; you don't know.
You don't know what was happening that day. What we do know is that those Insurgents use children as human shields. They even train the kids to hold rifles. - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22@gtitian
Actually, "WHY" is a very important question. If he did it because he thought he was in danger, and his suspicions were reasonable, then he's justified. Just like you would be if you shot someone for breaking into your house at night. You might find out later that the person meant you no harm, but you didn''t know that at the time, and you would be justified.
We don't just lock up people for things like this. The WHY questions is crucial. - Tempest811, on 10/12/2007, -38/+51I love how everyone on digg verbally condemns immoral people such as bad court justices or animal abusers by "putting a bullet in their heads" or "sending them off to prison for a lifelong date with Bubba" but if a soldier, in wartime, shoots a hostile and potential threat, it's wrong, horrendous and ALSO punishable with life in prison.
Im not saying what he did was fine because we don't know...but I felt the irony and hypocrisy needed to be pointed out - madmanz123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17The point I would make is that us being in Iraq has not a damn thing to do with "protecting our freedom". Jesus It's like someone sent everyone with an IQ below 90 on the internet to this thread.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What article are you reading?
the one I read said:
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. Marine charged with murdering 18 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq, said in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" he regretted the deaths but would make the same decisions today.
Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich admitted shooting five unarmed Iraqi men in the back in the interview and said his actions were justified because he believed the men had hostile intent toward the Marines.
"There is nothing that I can possibly say to make up or make well the deaths of those women and children, and I am absolutely sorry it happened that day," Wuterich said.
"What I did that day, the decision that I made, I would make those decisions again today. Those are decisions that I made in a combat situation and I believe I had to make those decisions."
CBS summarized the interview in a news release.
Four Marines have been charged with unpremeditated murder in the killings of two dozen men, women and children on November 19, 2005, in Haditha.
Four Marine officers have been charged with other counts including dereliction of duty.
Iraqi witnesses say enraged Marines shot the civilians to retaliate for the death of a colleague, who was killed by a roadside bomb hours earlier.
The interview is scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday." - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Do you recall when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the early 90s? We went to war then to defend Kuwait/our interests in Kuwait. That war ended without a peace treaty but instead a cease fire."
You conveniently forgot to mention that the US encouraged the Shi'ites to rebel against Saddam. Saudi Arabia didn't want to see Sunni-dominated Iraq collapse and an Iranian-backed Shi'ite to emerge from the ashes, so the US left them to be slaughtered by Saddam.
So yes, the US was protecting its economic and strategic interests - and allowed Saddam to kill the Shi'ites for rebelling at the US' request. - CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Help stamp out opposing views!
This thread has been sanitized for your protection! - Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11>So why are we at war? I still don't know.
O.peration
I.raqi
L.iberation
I believe that says it all. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11If we made the same decisions, then we should be held accountable for those actions. If we will not follow the agreed upon rules of engagement, then we are no better than the so called terrorists. The argument that "he did it first" doesn't hold water when you are a child, and it sure as hell should not hold water when you are an adult.
What I see is that the terrorists are winning because people do not recognize the same actions used in the name of the Christian religion. People do not recognize that restrictions on civil liberties in the US are exactly what the terrorists want. You are not thumbing your nose at the terrorists when you ok domestic wiretapping without a warrant. You are agreeing with the terrorists who are afraid of the freedoms that people int he US and West enjoy. - ckedge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@ biblicone - You said:
> "but until youve been in that situation - you have no idea. You are not going to go around and check people to see if they are civilian or enemy when you are being shot at."
But they WERE going around and checking house to house, LONG after the shooting had stopped. Whereupon they murdered 15 people including women and children, inside a couple houses, when there was no incoming fire.
I'm sorry, you're saying "we have no idea" and "considering the circumstances" it's okay?
Mistaking someone in the distance for a gunman is one thing. Systematically murdering a couple houses full of civilians when not engaged with the enemy is TOTALLY another thing - and there are NO EXCUSES.
This guy is flat out saying that he's a clairvoyant and was able to tell from the look in the male civilian's eyes that they didn't like him and they might someday try to harm him, so they unilalterally decided to execute them ahead of time. Yah that sounds like a good plan to make Iraq safe. - Azio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15"You are out of control... you have no idea what war is like nor do you know what or how the situation played out"
The 'situation played out' as follows:
A roadside IED detonated, destroying a hummer and killing one Marine. Some time later, the Marines from his squad entered a nearby house and killed everyone inside execution style, including a 60-year-old woman and a 77-year-old blind man. They then moved on to the next house, and killed everyone inside save for a nine-year-old girl, who was smart enough to play dead. The Marines then ran outside, pulled five men out of a taxi, and executed them. Then they ran up the street, burst into a third house, and, you guessed it, killed everyone inside.
This was not some accidental, in-the-heat-of-battle *****. This was a pre-meditated massacre, plain and simple. - Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@footballdude191
Soldiers are not required to follow every order. Period!
As anyone who has ever served can tell you, there is a process in place for soldiers to refuse illegal or immoral orders, that they in good conscious can't follow.
Despite the obvious comparison I'm not going to invoke Goodwin's rule. - 3dom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@footballdude191
Yes it is, but without the period. It is required for troops to disobey orders they believe to be illegal. But I don't blame anyone for not doing that as the resulting court martial would be pretty hard to bear on most, not to mention they barely have seconds to make those kinds of decisions. - mtam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12And yes raping that Iraqi girl and burning/killing her with her family was justified also, this criminal killed kids and women and unarmed men...and you try to justify what he did??!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Let those that know and understand judge, I am just bewildered.
- ddxChrist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I honestly have no idea what's going on anymore. Why are we in Iraq? What are our troops experiencing? Why is this happening?
On campus, a lot of people are opposed to the war. But when it comes down to it, it's not like any of us are going to be able to do anything. We're poor college students studying our asses off. Sure, we can vote, but obviously that isn't really going to do anything when just about all politicians in the lead don't seem to indicate that they have any idea on how to resolve this mess.
As a person in general, never mind a Buddhist, I find this unnecessary violence disheartening. - fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23@sporksnatcher
It is a soldier's job to obey orders. Period. - insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -19/+26Yeh those children were probably about to kill the entire platoon of marines with their pebbles off the ground and stuff. Good call to shoot them before they armed themsevles.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11And BTW I do know what a neo-conservative is, do you? You know, the type who call themselves 'conservative', but want to take over the world, force their religion on others, spend money they don't have, and call themselves 'christian' yet do everything the opposite of what Jesus taught. I take it your definition will be whatever Hanity, Rush, and O'Reily tell you it is.
- dftpnkezln, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9'you wouldnt know what its like during a war'
'he was just following orders'
Are you defending an American marine or a member of the Einsatzgruppen? - idandfei, on 10/12/2007, -95/+102I think that it is irresponsible to send troops into harms way without modifying the rules of engagement to reflect the situation on the ground. There is a reason that there didn't used to be rules in war. When we're the only one abiding by the laws of war, we have to change the rules. Rules like "don't shoot until you are shot at" don't work when fighting against an enemy indistinguishable from civilians. I hate this war as it is, but I have nothing but respect for the troops. They didn't make the choice to go to Iraq, and we really can't judge this guy. Until you are on the ground over there and see what it's like, you don't know how you would deal with seeing death everyday. It's simple for us to say that we'd never do it, but we come from a great country like America where murder is a fairly rare occurrence compared to Iraq. We don't often see kids wielding guns in the street, and we don't see men strap bombs to their body and use women and children as human shields. I know that someone is going to reply saying something along the lines of "I see that stuff everyday," but that is either *****, or a rare case. I understand that there are bad places in the US as well, but trust me when I say, the Baghdad situation is worse. We see in the news the kind of health care they're getting here at home, now guess what it's like over there. I hear that the surgeons are really good, but what about psychologists and psychiatrists? These men and women see things everyday that probably screw with their heads pretty bad. I for one understand this young Maurine's statements. I have a feeling that many of us would make the same mistake/decision. Maybe, just maybe, they did intend to harm him and his comrades.
- bgcharlie44, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Some of you say we don't know the circumstances of the shootings. This is true, but there were unarmed people shot in the back. That's enough evidence to condemn this act, IMO. If you don't think so, then write your congressmen and request that the laws prohibiting those same actions be overturned in this country. Then don't blame me when you get shot for giving the finger to a cop.
He felt that they had bad intentions? Were bad intentions possibly mistaken for contempt? Because I'd have contempt if soldiers came at me and my family with guns pointed. - ddxChrist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@newdna
In a perfect world, the representative would read such a thing and consider it carefully. Unfortunately, when is that ever the case? When one writes, the response is generally some rehashed letter that had already been decided a long time ago. Most politicians don't seem to be open minded. I'm sure there are some that will listen, but that is far from the norm.
It would seem that debates and arguments have degenerated to the point where neither side thinks critically, no compromises are met, and both take away only anger as opposed to a better understanding of the other's perspective. Sometimes it's nonsense. Sometimes it's useful. Regardless, it's better than plugging one's own ears and screaming nonsensically - which is essentially what modern politics is. - agildehaus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Articles I've read have said that the Marine lied about the deaths, claimed they were all killed in the IED explosion. The military discovered this was false, an investigation was launched, and charges were filed in December.
So to all of you defending this man: Why would he lie? - Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Wouldn't want to hear any views that challenge your ideology, would you neuroticus? Hell, it might have some horrible effect like (gasp!) changing your opinion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12All of the fascist neocons here who think it's OK what these 'soldiers' did sure won't be singing the same tune when China invades the U.S. and is killing unarmed, innocent Americans to let off some steam.
You all or no better than who you're fighting against! - bgcharlie44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Dickbutterworth and bigbaray
You guys are ignorant to the reality if you believe the reason we went into Iraq was in retaliation for violating the cease-fire.
I mean, its the main front to the war on terror, isn't it? - jwchen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11did anybody notice the end of the article.
"Iraqi witnesses say enraged Marines shot the civilians to retaliate for the death of a colleague, who was killed by a roadside bomb hours earlier."
It doesn't sound like a split second decision of life or death on whether or not a certain group of people had bad intentions towards the soldier(s), or that they were chasing them immediately afterwards and had to make a split second decision. Judging by the key words, retaliation, and shot in the back, I honestly feel there were better ways to handle the circumstances. someone else said tie them up, send them to be interrogated. honestly there were a lot better choices than to shoot 5 unarmed men in the back. - Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11And the winning of hearts and minds continues...
- RyGuyX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12@newdna
What propaganda? What the insurgents do? Who are you to say it doesn't happen?
Anyway All he's saying is "what the soldier did is wrong and he should be punished, but not demonized" - and I agree. There was probably a better way to handle the situation and he should be subject to military laws and face trial. But to demonize him is uneccessary: He did not torture them, he did not rape them, he did not burn them or skin them alive... war is hell and people sometimes have to do things that are questionable. He made a decision, under pressure, he thought was best. Was it wrong? Probably. But it was not with malicious intent... at least how he tells it, it could have been revenge - in which case... I wouldn't defend him a bit. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Time to dig in our heals and argue! Sure we're not going to convice anyone to change their minds, but we can win via a combination of burying/digging and simply not giving up!
Who's with me!?!? - returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11With that line of reasoning every morally reprehensible action can be justified. This guy is a sick ***** that is a byproduct of a corrupt war and country. Regardless, murdering civilians should be punishable by death to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
- psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I agree with wageslave
I'm sorry to say this, but you people don't realize that half the people that join the military do it for the wrong reason. ***** this, support our troops no matter what *****. Some of these guys are murderous *****, and most of them don't represent the average american. If these guys commit acts of savagery like this one did, they should be ***** court marshaled and trialed for murder. 18 TROOPS!!! How many did he have to kill before he realized that they were civilians. That not a single one was armed.... God dammit.. - bgcharlie44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The Germans launched V1 and V2 rockets into London, in retaliation the Allied powers firebombed Dresden. A *lot* of 'innocent' people died. Was this wrong?"
Yes. I believe Curtis LeMay himself said that if we had lost the war, he would've been tried as a war criminal for the firebombings of Japanese cities. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10No. You don't.
You confirm that they are enemy combatants before you fire upon them.
Your version of 'war' is actually an illustration of terrorism - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12If the person you kill is an innocent, then you belong in prison not watching a movie.
If you cannot understand why this is a big deal, then maybe you should go back to the children's table and let the grownups discuss this issue. Being the biggest bully in the world doesn't make a country the greatest country in the world.
Let me ask you this. If the Soviets had invaded the US, then would you have resisted? Would you have taken up arms and did whatever you could to drive the invaders out of the US? I bet you would. Now, think about it for the Iraqis. Just like we think we are "helping" Iraq, the Soviets likely would think they were "helping" the US by invading and destroying the corrupt Capitalist system. Would you be outraged if Soviet soldiers rounded up and killed US citizens because of intent that he read in their faces? I bet you wouldn't be understanding about the poor Soviet soldier.
Next time think before you write. And, have some compassion for the people we are supposed to be helping. -
Show 51 - 100 of 273 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is