Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis in cold blood
A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.
From the beginning, Iraqis in the town of Haditha said U.S. Marines deliberately killed 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children.
One young Iraqi girl said the Marines killed six members of her family, including her parents. The Americans came into the room where my father was praying, she said, and shot him.
We’re better than this.
Murtha: Marines may have killed Haditha civilians in cold blood
Three Marine officers from the battalion that is under investigation, including battalion commander Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, were relieved April 7 for lack of confidence in their leadership abilities stemming from their performance during a recent deployment to Iraq. Officials would not tie those firings to the Haditha investigation, however. The two other Marines who were relieved, Capts. Luke McConnell and James Kimber, were company commanders within the battalion.
Murtha said combat stress prompted the Marines alleged rampage.
It s a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they re out in combat, he said. One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children.
Time magazine spent 10 weeks interviewing local residents affected by the incident and, in January, shared these accounts with military officials in Baghdad. The accounts directly conflicted with the Corps initial stance that the civilian casualties were the result of the insurgent attack.
Anyone who has the temerity to insist that the facts of this incident come to light will be regarded as a traitor for the rest of their lives. For those of you who were not alive at the time, Lt. William Calley was regarded and regaled, by some, as a hero, and anyone who disagreed as disloyal. Be prepared for this incident to be filed in a deep, dark drawer, or be prepared for the shitstorm in response.
Winter Soldier
Go watch Winter Soldier when it comes out on DVD this Tuesday. Same shit. Different war.
Powell’s memory has apparently failed him. Calley was as guilty as they come. It was the the antiwar left that “allowed” him to plead that the war had screwed him up, and that he and his men didn’t know what they were doing. A feeble attempt to duplicate that “look what the war is doing to our young men (and women)” was tried in re: Abu Grhaib.
Others have confused movies with real life.
I can’t say anything about Frank D’s memory because I have no idea how old he is. I am sure mine is real good on this point, though. I was reading and writing about it extensively, along with a number of other students, when I was in tenth grade. (Those were, indeed, the days.)
If you doubt my recollection of the public’s view of Lt. Calley, please consult the Harris poll found here (Sorry, I do not know how to do links on this page):
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/SurveyResults.html
While I agree with Frank D that Calley was as guilty as they come, and perhaps more so, the Great Mass of Americans did not.
65% of Americans polled disagreed with the court-martial board’s verdict of guilty.
Mars and Loki are laughing.
Semper Fidelis. Ever Faithful.
It’s been said that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine – only a retired Marine.
If it were up to me, Jack Murtha would be publicly named the exception to that rule.
For this simple, incontrovertible fact: Murtha made a public condemnation of “fellow” Marines during an ongoing, incomplete investigation.
It is unconscionable that anyone, but even moreso a current or former Marine, should publicly judge another Marine without access to ALL the facts.
But it’s typical of this liberal gasbag. I’m sure he’s only doing it because he loves America – the same way Annie Wilkes loved Paul Sheldon.
“Others have confused movies with real life.”
Hey frank, I’ve been laying off you because your too fucking stupid to waste time with but were you referring to me with this line?
The only difference between someone who’d knowingly kill innocent civilians and a 9/11 hijacker is that the hijacker did his deed knowing that he was going down with his victims. It would seem that with a silver-spoon coward like Dubya acting as Commander-in-Chief, words like “courage” and “honor” no longer have meaning.
Mr. Powell makes an interesting point. I know some people who still refer to the Vietnamese as ‘gooks.’ Raise your hand if you’re not familiar with the terms ’sand nigger’ and ‘dune coon.’
Even if more polite terminology is used when referencing Iraqis, let’s face the facts: when it comes to brown-skinned foreigners, most U.S. citizens couldn’t give a rat’s fart.
“Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”
The only difference between the type of asshole who would (following the above philosophy) knowingly kill innocent civilians and a 9/11 hijacker is that the hijacker had the balls to do his deed knowing that he would take himself down with his victims.
When crap like this gets a pass, words like “duty” and “honor” don’t mean squat.
And another thing.
Frank D’s “memory” of those days is made suspect by his claim that the “anti-war” left had any ability to influence what was going on in Calley’s case, or in any matter. The role of the “anti-war left” is greatly exaggerated. It was always very small and had almost no credibility or influence.
If there had been any effective or influential anti-war political forces, Nixon would not have been able to carry on the war for FOUR MORE YEARS, he would not have been able escalate the war, and he would not have been re-elected by a huge popular vote margin.
Americans, then as now, enjoy the fantasy that American military power is invincible and infallible. That is why even today, when it is so painfully obvious that invading Iraq was just as stupid and destructive of American interests as the war opponents said it would be, politicians are very, very careful not to counsel ending it. The are reacting to one of the real lessons of the Viet Nam War: even if a war is morally and politically wrong, anyone seeking office must support it or he or she will be pilloried as disloyal, weak and insane for telling the truth.
I thought Frank was referring to Rambo George and Don “The Terminator” Rumsfeld.
I only mention it because Winter Soldier is a documentary and Frank is a complete idiot:
“This film is a documentary shot at a Howard Johnson motel in Detroit over 3 days, in February, 1971, when 125 Vietnam military veterans gathered to offer personal testimony about atrocities and gratuitous violence they had witnessed or participated in during military service in Vietnam, i.e., violent acts by U.S. servicemen and U.S.-paid civilian mercenaries during the Vietnam conflict. The gathering was called the “Winter Soldier Investigation” and was the first such public testimony ever to have occurred in connection with the Vietnam war.”
http://imdb.com/title/tt0204058/
I think Murtha’s parsing his comments very carefully. His quote reads like a story of victimization all around–the innocent victims and the beleaguered soldiers who may have been pushed to an unconscionable act by the stress of war. I don’t see him saying that these Marines are evil, or sociopathic…he just says that they may have snapped.
Recent reports indicate that the military has been letting their mental health deployment standards slide as of late, producing a recent spike in the suicide rate among our troops both at home and abroad. Something like this would seem to be a natural progression.
pgg2 has a problem with Murtha making his statement while the investigation is “incomplete.” It has been more than 6 months since the incident in Haditha, and every time it generates a new story in the press, the details are more and more damning. Murtha has numerous sources within the Pentagon, and I’m sure he’s seen even more evidence than has been published in the media.
It seems to me that the Marine Corps are either dragging their feet, or are having a difficult time trying to figure out exactly who in the unit involved was responsible and should be brought up on charges – but the fact that they haven’t issued a blanket exoneration of the Marines involved by now speaks volumes.
As a former Marine myself, what likely happened in Haditha saddens me because I expect better.
That should be “antiwar left”
Raise your hand if you re not familiar with the terms sand nigger and dune coon.
My hand is up. I guess yours isn’t?
Powell may think that the antiwar had no influence. But apparently, LBJ, for one, thought differently. That’s why he didn’t run again in 1968. Mr. Powell may be confusing the antiwar left with the radical left.
I am not.
I was just out of the the Army when the Calley trial took place. I remember exactly how the situation was presented: The war was “blamed”. The situation in Vietnam was such a mess, that it was to be expected that some soldiers couldn’t make sense of it (even though the Regs he violated were well known).
Example:
QUESTION 002: Do you think Lt. Calley is being made the scapegoat for the actions of others above him or not (with regard to the My Lai incident)?
Yes 70%
No 12%
No opinion 18%
From a telephone survey of 522 adults from across the United States conducted by The Gallup Organization for Newsweek in April, 1971.
How or why these civilians were killed are very important questions that require answers, before we classify these acts as “War Crimes.”
If we are, indeed, “better than this,” then what exactly is Oliver trying to say?
I’d really like to know.
Murtha said combat stress prompted the Marines alleged rampage… It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they re out in combat, he said.
And that’s exactly what they said about Calley.
pgg2 – point of fact, if you bothered to do even the slightest bit of research before opining – the NIS and Marines have both acknowledged that the incident occured as originally alleged by the victims families and the human rights groups.
Get a grip.
I only mention it because Winter Soldier is a documentary and Frank is a complete idiot
No, frameone, you only mentioned it because you wanted to make a devastatingly “cool” comment like, “same shit, different war.” Over 2 million men went to Viet Nam, and they hunted up 125 witnesses and participants to “atrocities”.
Sounds like a Michael Moore spectacular to me… not a documentary! Let me tell you something, Mister “It must be true, they called it a documentary”. My Battallion was a “rear echelon” outfit, meaning that our area was fairly well secured, and we fairly safe engaging in logistics (note I said “fairly”).
That being the case, any number of troops, and companies were rotated down south, “in – country”, into our area, including guys who were guilty of rape, assault, arson and murder against Vietnamese military personnel and civilians. There were way more than 125 of them, trust me. The way the average GI treated the LN’s (local nationals) was not pretty.
Killing a dozen Iraqis is multiple murder, if charged and proven, but it’s not a “war crime”. Not even close.
So let’s wait a week or two, get some facts together, and see what happens.
It was the the antiwar left that allowed him to plead that the war had screwed him up, and that he and his men didn t know what they were doing. >>
Winger Rule One: Attack the left (Seymour Hersh) for exposing the My Lai massacre.
Rule Two (see frank’s nugget above): Blame the left for the guilty guy’s legal defense.
Rule Three: Blame the left for the guilty verdict in Calley’s trial.
So how many dead people are needed for this to qualify as a war crime?
“Sounds like a Michael Moore spectacular to me& not a documentary!”
And you write this before going on to confirm everything that the veterans testify to in the film. Total. Fucking. Idiot.
frameone: I didn’t say that what was talked about didn’t happen, you chromosome deficient peabrain.
I said that the movie made a super crappy case for the argument. But making super crappy arguments is all you’re good for.
Super. Crappy. Argument.
Total. Fucking. Pseudointellectual. Bully.
buma. Could anyone be stupider than you? (Except maybe frameone)
What, exactly, did I blame the left for?
Check it again.
The leftist press, like that tool, Murtha, made the exact argument that Jack, “Sgt. Fury”, Murtha, is making.
Seymour Hersh did almost no investigating, because he got his story from one of the few brave souls who proved that the men were not “Dazed and confused” by the evil American Army, because he didn’t round up civilians and shoot them at practically point blank range. (Some men went to Calley and refused to follow orders). That man had contacted a number of Congresshumans, with no effect. (The Army tried to close the barn door after the horses were gone, by reading, at every company formation, “Patton” style, a memo from “up above”, to the effect that we were not required to obey any orders we felt was morally wrong. [Yes, I said, "We", because I was in Co E, USAD - LB ARVN, when the memo was read to us])
Finally, buma, you horse’s ass, I already said that Calley was as guilty as they come. Or didn’t I?
Oh, and Mister “Race Card Carrying” Powell, it has nothing to with “brown people”, but you could raise the level of this conversation above “white people hate brown people”, by waiting until the Marine Corps looks at the facts. I find it interesting how many people become non – white, as the issues multiply (murder in Iraq, “torture” in Abu Ghraib, immigration from Mexico)
Nimrod, you can continue to be a jerk. Why break a streak?
Nimrod,
It doesn’t take that many dead people to qualify as a war crime but, in the eyes of most Americans and nearly all Republicans, brown people don’t count as “people” for war crime purposes.
How can US troops be guilty or even accused of war crimes when the USA has not signed up to the world court?
It wasn’t a snarky, rhetorical question, whether you like it or not, but there you go, you frame the debate how you like.
“In other words, a war crime is not simply a crime committed in a war zone.”
My definition of war crime is exactly that – although I’d also add “which is connected to said conflict” to the end there. We could analyse each other’s motivations behind these definitions, or we could just accept our personal dictionaries aren’t identical. I choose the latter.
bryan Says:
May 19th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
How can US troops be guilty or even accused of war crimes when the USA has not signed up to the world court?>>
Are you pleading ignorance of the law? If the guy who stole my car didn’t personally agree to abide by state and federal statute, is he not guilty of car theft?
“What, exactly, did I blame the left for?
Check it again.” — frank
OK, Mr Civility:
Frank_D Says:
May 17th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Calley was as guilty as they come. It was the the antiwar left that allowed him to plead that the war had screwed him up, and that he and his men didn t know what they were doing.
OK, Nimrod, perhaps you could explain what you mean by “incredibly casual, almost abstract consideration of My Lai”, and I’ll pretend that “So how many dead people are needed for this to qualify as a war crime?” wasn’t a snarky, rhetorical question…
“How many people does it take?” is not the question. The question is, “How many times has it occurred?” Another question is, “Is the crime presented as, or disguised as policy?” Another question is, “Does a failure to carry out the actions result in a negative sanction?”
In other words, a “war crime” is not simply a crime committed in a war zone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm
Are we back on the same page?
Grow up or shut up, Frank. I asked you a question because I simply don’t understand your semantics. Killing 15 innocent people is certainly a crime, and the US and UK’s activities in Iraq are certainly a war, so how is it not a war crime?
But hey, why not insult me instead of explaining your syntax, it’s quicker and more vicaruously satisfying. I was going to call you out for your incredibly casual, almost abstract consideration of My Lai, but I decided to respect your position. No need to do that anymore, thanks.
So if a soldier breaks into a store in Iraq, and steals a hookah, that’s a “War Crime”?
Fine by me. Did you check the link?
I find it much more comforting to try and align my opinions with the rest of the world’s, when I can.
“I said that the movie made a super crappy case for the argument.”
So you’ve seen the movie Frank? Tell me, how does it make “a super crappy case” for what you admit is true? Be specific.
I’ll tell you how — you said it. They gathered together 125 guys. You tell me… When were they there? Where were they? Did they each see — or do — different things?
I’m sure you’ll tell me that since I didn’t see the movie that the answers to those questions melt away into irrelevance, until I run out and order the film, or buy it off the Internet, only to discover that they served in only a few years’ time frame, in a limited number of units, and witnessed or participated in a limited number of incidents, which I already know.
You know what my biggest clues are? Who was up near the top of the heap in the “Winter Soldier” gang? John Kerry, and the anti – American Madame DuBarry, Jane Fonda (or should I say “Hanoi Jane”).
The other clue? Who sponsored the film? Was it Americans Organized to get justice for the slain and mistreated Vietnamese?
Nooooo….
It was Vietnam Veterans Against The War, and guess what? They were against the war!
I studied that war practically day and night for 6 months before I went over there, with a mind toward refusing to go, if I thought it was appropriate. After lots of reading, and thinking, and talking to guys who just came back, I decided to go.
When I got there, I got a Vietnamese – English, English – Vietnamese Dictionary (I still have it — it was published in Hanoi in 1950), and I learned as much as I could from the Vietnamese people I worked with. The kind of guys who were in the VVAW didn’t give two shits about the Vietnamese. They raised the spectre of “atrocities” to end the war, and thus, with full knowledge, assure a North Vietnamese (Communist) victory.
Now, Murtha, knowing full well Iraq will fall to pieces, and not giving a damn, would have US troops who are dedicated and motivated, pull out.
I know I’m going to get the standard “Frank’s a fucking idiot” answer from you, frameone, you dopey bastard, but who cares?
You’d rather superficially win an argument than be morally right, anyway.
“Killing a dozen Iraqis is multiple murder, if charged and proven, but it s not a war crime . Not even close.”
Frank you linked to a BBC article that does not back up your understanding of what is and isn’t a war crime. Not even close. From the article that you linked to:
“Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: “Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including… wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, …taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”
This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes …
The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:
* Murder
* Extermination
* Enslavement
* Deportation
* Imprisonment
* Torture
* Rape
* Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.”
Would you care to point out that part of the article that you linked to which backs up you initial claim or your follow up:
How many people does it take? is not the question. The question is, How many times has it occurred? Another question is, Is the crime presented as, or disguised as policy? Another question is, Does a failure to carry out the actions result in a negative sanction?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm
“I m sure you ll tell me that since I didn t see the movie that the answers to those questions melt away into irrelevance …”
And not only that, you can’t seem to keep your objections straight. Above, in a single post you suggest both that the doc isn’t valid because they only interviewed 125 veterans — “Over 2 million men went to Viet Nam, and they hunted up 125 witnesses and participants to atrocities — but also that what those 125 testify to is true because you yourself were witness to it, asserting that:
“any number of troops, and companies were rotated down south, in – country , into our area, including guys who were guilty of rape, assault, arson and murder against Vietnamese military personnel and civilians. There were way more than 125 of them, trust me. The way the average GI treated the LN s (local nationals) was not pretty.”
Of course when 125 veterans are willing to go on camera and testify in public to what YOU YOURSELF KNOW TO BE TRUE they must have an anti-American agenda. But whn you yourself accusse American soldiers of rape, assault, arson and murder in a blgo comment your agenda, is what exaclty?
So to recap:
1) You haven’t seen the documentary.
2) But you don’t deny that what the veterans testify to in the film actually happened.
3) You know for a fact yourself that “way more than 125″ US soldiers committed “rape, assault, arson and murder” in Vietnam.
4) You reject the documentary regardless as anti-American because it makes a “super crappy argument” for the truth even though see #1.
Sure, Frank. Makes sense. Nice to know that in your “morally right” world telling the truth is anti-American except, of course, when you tell the same truth.
It’s also nice to know that some things never change: You are still a total and complete idiot.
You have already become a pain in the ass again, Paul. If anyone hasn’t changed, it’s you. I’m not explaining myself to you, and I’m not back pedalling, either.
If you don’t know what I mean, you can ask like any other person on Earth.
Waiting around for hours to build up one of these “Malcolm spectaculars” is just stupid, and anally obsessive.
Go back to LA, weakly, you perverse moron.
Assume what you want, you pimple on the ass of humanity.
Classic.
BTW, dipstick, I guess in your haste to cut and paste, you overlooked this:
crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population
Not individuals, Perry Mason. That’s the simple breeze that blows down your whole complicated house of cards
I owe you an apology, frameone. I was yanking your chain. I know that the American military treated the Vietnamese horribly, and as one soldier, I did what little I could to stem the tide. Stopping it was impossible. Too many guys unconsciously acted out a feeling of, “If it weren’t for you, I wouldn’t be here.”
But there was a draft, and a lot of people undoubtedly felt that their lives were interrupted for a war they weren’t thrilled about. The Vietnamese weren’t always helpful in this regard, because like you and I, we want to go about our daily lives as best we can.
Thus, the Vietnamese, not given to ostentatious displays of emotion in any event, were not inclined to appear very grateful.
In Iraq, on the other hand, the soldiers are volunteers, they are highly motivated, and the Iraqis are effusive in their displays of affection and appreciation for the American ouster of Saddam Hussein.
So it’s not “Same shit, different war.”
I’m sorry I was such an instigator to make a small point.
“Not individuals, Perry Mason”
There are posts awaiting moderation above but Ijust point out the ultimate in Frank’s idiocy.
Nimrod asked: “So how many dead people are needed for this to qualify as a war crime?”
Frank responded: How many people does it take? is not the question.”
Later Frank responded to me: “I guess in your haste to cut and paste, you overlooked this: crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Not individuals, Perry Mason.”
This of course raises the question, if 15 people do not constitute a “civilian population,” how many people do? So after denying that numbers had anything to do with his understanding of war crimes, Frank suddenly turns around and decides in the same thread that they do.
What ever argument is convenient Frank, eh? I guess that the difference betweem wanting to superficially win an argument and being morally right. Total idiot.
Idiot:
war crimes
War crimes are againt the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They include the rights listed in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Convention I, Article 3) and the basics of human rights law freedom from torture, mutilation and rape, slavery, and willful killing. Customary law also forbids genocide, crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes.
willful killing
See indiscriminate attacks.
indiscriminate attacks
Indiscriminate attacks are those which are not directed at a specific military objective or those which use a method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)
This includes area bombardment, where a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5a)
This also includes attacks where the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive to the military advantage anticipated. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5b)
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)
Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)
If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)
http://www.genevaconventions.org
Idiot:
Chapter II. Civilians and civilian population
Art. 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Art. 51. – Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Typically, Frank, you exemplify the root of the problem:
“Thus, the Vietnamese, not given to ostentatious displays of emotion in any event, were not inclined to appear very grateful.”
So if only the Vietnamese were capable of appearing more human US soldiers wouldn’t have felt so inclined to rape, murder and torture them. What a wonderful sentiment. Thank goodness the Iraqis appear to be actual human beings with their “effusive displays of affection and appreciation.” I guess we should just hope that they keep that up, otherwise, well, they go right back to being inhuman abstractions and then, watch out.
Whatever Frank. “Effusive” displays of affection didn’t keep these particular 15 Iraqis alive and it didn’t stem the abusive treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan.
And by way of summary (see posts above awaiting moderation), war crimes include “willful killing” which include reprisal killings:
“6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.”
From the article cited above:
“One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.”
If this was, indeed, a reprisal killing, it’s a war crime.
I was just explaining — partly — what it was about. Typically, you, as a liberal, think people should be condemned for how they ought to be.
What you fail (or choose not) to realize is that it can be demoralizing to travel 10,000 – 13,000 miles from home to fight in a war, when nobody cares, either at home or in the war zone.
You can twist and misinterpret my words, if you choose, in that inimitable style, we have all come to know, and find obnoxious.
I really don’t care.
Perhaps when you have lived some of the life you go on and on about, you will encounter real people with real problems, and get to know what real life is about.
Until then, I suppose you will continue to be the arrogant, self – absorbed prick you are now.
Good luck.
And it goes without saying that when Frank D explains “what it was about” it’s to be commended. But when someone like say, Rep. John Murtha, explains “what it was about” it’s anti-American propaganda. Said Murtha: It s a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they re out in combat, he said.
“I was just explaining partly what it was about. Typically, you, as a liberal, think people should be condemned for how they ought to be.”
And you say this after having condemned the Vietnamese to rape, murder and torture because they didn’t smile enough:
“… a lot of people undoubtedly felt that their lives were interrupted for a war they weren t thrilled about. The Vietnamese weren t always helpful in this regard, because like you and I, we want to go about our daily lives as best we can. Thus, the Vietnamese, not given to ostentatious displays of emotion in any event, were not inclined to appear very grateful.”
My final response to you, Paulie, is awaiting Oliver’s blessing.
Buma,
sorry for not replying sooner. If someone steals in a particular state he is subject to the laws of that state. War Crimes fall under world court duristiction, and consequently, having not signed up to it, the USA could argue they have no case to answer. It’s not right, but it can be done. The actual planning of a war was a crime at Nuremburg, so perhaps it’s best they don’t sign.
Of course, frameone, in his never ending battle for the frameoneian way, has manufactured an imaginary enemy which he will now set to vanquish.
First, he will tell me what I mean. Then he will “prove” that I’m wrong.
Let’s watch the fun, ladies and gentlemen.
1) “you exemplify the root of the problem.” This should mean that I am an example of the problem. This, despite the fact that I said, “as one soldier, I did what little I could to stem the tide. Stopping it was impossible.”
2) He says, “you say this after having condemned the Vietnamese to rape, murder and torture because they didn t smile enough” Of course, I said, or even implied, no such thing. He made that up.
{Here’s where it gets good, folks. Ready?}
3}He says, “it goes without saying that when Frank D explains ‘what it was about’ it s to be commended. But when someone like say, Rep. John Murtha, explains ‘what it was about’ it s anti-American propaganda.
Now, this will take a little while to unravel — it is, after all, a “frameone special” — but, here goes:
a) I didn’t say, “this is what it’s about”. I said, “I was just explaining partly what it was about.” I said that because, any sentient being should know that the explanation is much more complicated than to be arrived at in a few paragraphs. Also, I’m not sure what is to be commended. Look at both possibilities: i) My explanation is to be commended. I doubt that he meant he was commending my explanation, since he wouldn’t commend anything I did, if I discovered a cure for cancer. Perhaps he meant that I thought my explanation was to be commended. Well, that’s not true, because I made it quite clear that my explanation was a partial one, and I also made it clear, his nonsensical accusations notwithstanding, that I did not approve of, or even condone such actions. I, in fact, fought to end them.
So, then we have possibility ii) Which is that the actions of the soldiers were to be commended. Well, of course, I already said that wasn’t so — more than once, in fact, but frameone doesn’t believe in context. Like a two – bit hillbilly lawyer, he thinks he can pull a clause or phrase out of thin air, and make a case with it.
b) (Yet another windmill awaits the lance of Don “Frameone” Quixote) “But when someone like say, Rep. John Murtha, explains ‘what it was about’ it s anti-American propaganda.” Now, of course, I didn’t mention Rep. John “Sgt. Fury” Murtha, so at no time could I have said that his remarks were anti – American propaganda. Having said that, I know that frameone the First, will dust off his spectacles, and go looking for all the remarks I’ve ever made about Murtha (which, I already know, have all been negative), and find the one that suits his fancy, and say this “proves” that I said Murths made “anti – American” remarks. What I did say about Murtha, I will repeat right here:
.
As you can see, my statement implies that Murtha is wrong about the troops being “under pressure”, and states clearly that he doesn’t care about what happens to the Iraqis. This may be vaguely construed as anti – American, but that’s only if one views the future of Iraq and the future of the US as being inextricably linked. While I would like that to be the case, I am certain that frameone would find this proposition loathsome.
Thus, this statement can not be viewed as anti – American.
So, what will he do?
For frameone, there are, as always, three possibilities
1) Try to persuade me, and, by extension, you, that I meant something else;
2) Go elsewhere, outside the thread, for evidence that he is right and I am wrong; or
3) Deal me a dismissive, finishing coup de grace: “Total fucking idiot”. “Classic.” “Priceless.”
Finally, please note that the barbarous Paul Malcolm lacks the grace to accept an apology, since he was raised by wolves.
Of course, frameone, in his never ending battle for the frameoneian way, has manufactured an imaginary enemy which he will now set to vanquish.
First, he will tell me what I mean. Then he will prove that I m wrong.
Let s watch the fun, ladies and gentlemen.
1) you exemplify the root of the problem. This should mean that I am an example of the problem. This, despite the fact that I said, as one soldier, I did what little I could to stem the tide. Stopping it was impossible.
2) He says, you say this after having condemned the Vietnamese to rape, murder and torture because they didn t smile enough Of course, I said, or even implied, no such thing. He made that up.
{Here s where it gets good, folks. Ready?}
“My final response to you …”
Sure it is.
He chooses #3, ladies and gentlemen! There you have it!
Oh, I forgot — goodbye, Paul.
“My final response to you …”
Truly a man of his word.
Frank, if I organize a collection with the regulars on Oliver’s blog, would you consider going back on your meds?
Were you gazing lovingly into your bathroom mirror when you wrote these words? “Until then, I suppose you will continue to be the arrogant, self – absorbed prick you are now.”