Hide Comments
Haditha- Horror... or Hoax?
Posted by Cannoneer No. 4 at June 11, 2006 01:17 PM
It is certainly a tragedy no matter whose account one considers.
It is interesting however that the media and leading democrats like Kerry and Murtha automatically demonize the US soldiers in this case where insurgents were firing on them from behind the skirts of women and children. They are an important link in the insurgents' efforts to drive the US out of their country.
If the latter happens and the people of Iraq are delivered into dictatorship (either Baathist or Islamic) I wonder if people will remember the role played by the media and the Democrats to betray them so.
Posted by pdq332 at June 11, 2006 01:32 PM
The answer to that horror or hoax question won't satisfy anyone. Much of the "evidence" currently used to support the hoax argument is flawed, and over-zealous action - even with the best intentions - is not helpful.
Posted by Greyhawk at June 11, 2006 01:45 PM
pdq,
I sometimes wonder why the MSM thinks the American people don't have memories. Many of us who post here actually lived through the history they try to twist so badly. For instance, the claim that we armed Saddam when it suited us during his war with Iran. The press seems to forget that Iran was our most significant enemy in the Middle East at that time. We gave the Iraqis intelligence, but no WMD components. They got all that from the Germans and the Soviets.
I vividly remember the mood against Iran in the 80s. They had just released our hostages, and they subsequently mined the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf to eliminate tanker traffic for the world. The US Navy was escorting tankers to their ports of call, and sweeping the mines from the seas, and destroying Iranian oil platforms because of the strikes they were launching from them. We would support anyone who was against the Iranians, and rightly so. Saddam was no better or worse than any other Middle Eastern despot in 1981. But he grew in tyranny greatly during his war with Iran. Nevertheless, both are evil regimes.
But the press thinks no one has an attention span beyond 6 months to a year and they twist every story lately to get their own agenda across. I remember what it was like to oppose Iran, oppose Saddam, and to oppose all tyranny in the Middle East. But you couldn't kill them all when the Soviet Union was the primary threat to the US and the number one sponsor of the Arab regimes, as their successors sometimes are today.
It is a matter of too little resources and too little time.
I certainly won't forget everything the Dhimmicrat party has done to obstruct the removal of terrorists from the world, and all the blame they have heaped on their own military to make their political points. It is not a smart thing to claim the military is evil if you want them to vote for you or send you money. And the normal everyday Americans who once served or whose kids served don't appreciate it either.
But that is what the Dhimmicrats have chosen as a strategy to win. Divide their enemies and conquer them. Just remember, that those of us who support the troops and believe they are anti-American will be their next targets. I believe it will be just as Ben Franklin said, "we must all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately". Although I don't really think they'll be out to kill us, I do think they'll be out to hang us out to dry and take our money and our liberties.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 11, 2006 01:56 PM
The key question is whether the group of marines snapped and went on a murderous rampage intentionally executing ("methodical", "execution-style") women and children who were begging for their lives. If the claim of the defendant is even approximately true then that description is absolutely false.
Posted by Constant at June 11, 2006 03:17 PM
How dare they taint the jury pool by speaking out in there defense!
Posted by Carlos at June 11, 2006 03:36 PM
This whole friggen Iraq war is a waste. No matter what government we set up, as soon as we leave, it will collapse. We are just fighting Iraqis not "international terrorists". The Iraqis are to stupid and to stubborn to realize what we are offering them. Let them wallow in their own feudalistic slaughter. I'm sick of seeing our people being killed and possibly killing civilians out of some frustration or error. What a mess.
Posted by Salmineo at June 11, 2006 04:20 PM
Salmineo
Your intellectualy dishonest and racist comment inspires my to march towards freedom's sweet victory.
Thanks
Are you also sick of the killings Washington, DC or Detroit, Michigan?
Posted by syn at June 11, 2006 05:13 PM
While visiting Brussels on June 1, I saw an inteview with three children from the families targeted by the Marines. It was a CNN International report narrated by Jim Clancy. Interestingly, one of the girls told an Iraqi interviewer hired by CNN that she was anticipating the bombing of the Marine vehicle. She said something to the effect that she was standing by her door, waiting to leave for school, with her hands over her ears waiting for the bomb.
Jim Clancy was careful to caveat that the girl might be confused. Still, I would think this is worth investigating. It would seem to implicate the girl's family as members of the insurgency, regardless of whether the force used against them was excessive. I haven't been able to find the clip on the CNN website. Maybe it's been removed or I'm not savvy enough to find it.
Posted by Eric at June 11, 2006 06:37 PM
I've heard the story of the girl saying the blast was expected too. It's aparently true, but that's not quite the damning piece of evidence many believe it to be.
Knowledge of a pending attack does not alter the non-combatant's status. While we may have strong feelings regarding a bystander failing to warn of pending doom, they are still protected under the "laws of war".
The individual(s) who planted the device could obviously be designated hostile, but it's highly unlikely we'll ever discover the identity of whoever did so in this case. And while it's likely the residents of nearby houses might know of a bomb planted in their street, it's less likely that the Marines had any evidence of the actual "guilty party" whatsoever that day.
Posted by Greyhawk at June 11, 2006 06:55 PM
If it does indeed turn out that no crime was committed, I want Murtha's head on a pike (metaphorically speaking, of course).
Republicans should introduce a resolution of expulsion.
Posted by ScottM at June 11, 2006 07:25 PM
Greyhawk - I am not sure if you have noted it in your posts yet, but I hope you will note the controversy about the request to exhume the bodies and the denial, for religious reasons, by the families. I read (I have to find the article again) that Islam DOES permit exhuming of bodies in special circumstances if granted by an Imam or something. I think it is necessary to exhume these bodies for evidence of shrapnel wounds and then analysis of their bullet wounds. I certainly hope the families do not get away with their "religious reasons" excuse in hampering the investigation.
Posted by Michael in MI at June 11, 2006 08:20 PM
Found it:
*****
Despite the Iraqi government's insistence of cooperation between the U.S. and Iraqi investigations, the Rsayefs said they and other victims' families refused the request several months ago to exhume the bodies.
"No way we can ever agree to that," Salam Salem Rsayef said. Under Islamic teachings, exhuming bodies is prohibited, but is allowed on case-by-case basis, sometime after a fatwa, or an edict, from a senior cleric allowing it to proceed.
*****
Posted by Michael in MI at June 11, 2006 08:24 PM
It's war. People, including civilians, die in all manner of ways. If we'd had some of these whimpering pussies around when we firebombed Dresden, we'd all be speaking German today.
Murtha's head on a pike? Where in hell is Zarqawi when you need him?
Posted by HSD at June 11, 2006 08:57 PM
Haditha: Nov. 2005-June 2006
1. Insurgents detonate an IED near a town known to be infiltrated by insurgents, killing one marine and seriously wounding another. Both marines are popular in their unit.
2. Marines go into the town and kill about 20 civilians, then file a report attributing their deaths to sharpnel wounds and a non-existent firefight. Those details are quoted in a press release issued by the Marine Corps the next day.
3. A marine sent to take pictures and clean up bodies records images of dead civilians. Their wounds are sharply at variance with the battle report and the press release.
4. An Iraqi takes videos of the scene, producing images sharply at variance with the battle report and the press release.
5. Rather launch an investigation to reconcile the conflicts, the Marine Corps sits on the evidence and does nothing.
6. Two months later, Time magazine learns of the killings by looking at the Iraqi videotape and interviewing people in the town. It approaches the Marine Corps, which labels the Iraqi reports propaganda.
7. Time persists with its questions, so the USMC requests that the Army do a battlefield investigation, but not a criminal investigation. The difference is critical, because the Army investigation does not gather forensic evidence.
8. Rep. James Murtha, a conservative Democrat and decorated Marine Corps combat veteran, expresses his outrage at what happened. The right-wing attack machine swings into action, charging that Murtha faked his military record is a spokesman for cowardice.
9. Time publishes its story in March, and at that point, nearly four months after the killings, the Marine Corps requests a criminal investigation. By this time, basic forensic evidence has vanished, and the killers have had time to coordinate their stories.
10. The criminal investigation points toward a massacre of civilians. The Marine Corps briefs members of Congress to that effect. Word of those briefings leaks to the media, which follows up with more coverage.
11. The right-wing "milblogosphere" swings into action. It denounced Murtha as a coward; denounces the news media as biased and anti-American. Greyhaw's Mudville Gazette suggests that the civilians provoked their own deaths. But the main theme is that no one can know any of what happened until the criminal investigation, trials and appeals are completed, a process that will take years.
12. One marine who was there, but appearently has neither been arrested nor charged, has his lawyer release his self-serving account of what happened. Milbloggers rush to embrace it. Simultaneously, the "milblogs" highlight anomalies in the various accounts -- many of which exist because the USMC waited so long to investigate -- to cast doubt on known events.
The Likely Outcome
1. No marines will be convicted for the killings. There won't be enough physical evidence, mainly because the USMC waited too long to commence a criminal investigation but also because the killers and the other members of the unit will fall in line behind a single account that exorates everyone.
2. Some marines will be convicted for failure to file adequate reports, but no punishments will be imposed other than administrative sanctions that will end the careers of a few officers.
3. The so-called "milblogosphere" will cite a lack of criminal convictions as evidence that there was no massacre, and will depict the administrative sactions as political gestures to Congress and the public. It will blame the news media and Rep. Murtha for the entire affair.
4. The general public, never very interested in the matter to begin with, will throw up its hands and say, "Who knows?"
5. The Marine Corps will pretend that it did its duty.
6. The Iraq War will continue to spiral downward and the U.S. with find a way to withdraw to the big embassy in the Green Zone and to its fortified bases near the oil fields and the Iranian border.
Posted by WW at June 11, 2006 11:19 PM
Greyhawk, I found a link yesterday which led me to a site set up by one of the accused Marine's wives. Amongst other items, she mentioned that her husband was at Camp Pendelton and every time she saw him, he was in shackles. This makes me so angry. She also talked about the attorney that they have hired to represent him-they are raising funds. Please can you explain this to me? Do Military people have to hire their own attorneys when they are accused of something by the Military? She is also a Marine, btw.
I am afraid these guys are going to be sacrificed by the Military to satisfy the media and the America hating Left.
My husband wrote to both our Congressmen (Republicans) yesterday and asked them to look into it personally. We will not be satisfied with the usual photo-op committee. Is there anything else that a civilian can do?
Posted by diana at June 11, 2006 11:27 PM
What is left out of this is the tribal social system and how it is organized to settle intertribal disputes.
In fact the American command paid the Blood Money required by tribal law within weeks of the incident.
This I think is pretty good proof that what is currently claimed (executions) did not in fact happen. The current claims may only be an extortionate attempt to extract more blood money from Uncle Sugar.
Posted by M. Simon at June 11, 2006 11:27 PM
In fact the American command paid the Blood Money required by tribal law within weeks of the incident.
This I think is pretty good proof that what is currently claimed (executions) did not in fact happen.
If anything, it's proof that something DID happen. Why pay "blood money" if you killed an enemy? After all, when the USMC paid the "blood money" in Haditha, it did so only to the families of the dead civilians and not those it judged to be "hostile." That fact alone would tend to argue that the USMC knew there had been a massacre.
Posted by WW at June 11, 2006 11:32 PM
BTW WW,
The Marine who claims to have taken the pictures did it with his own personal camera (not likely Marine procedure) and then claimed he "lost" the pictures.
He is currently being held for trial on stolen vehicle charges (among others). Note that he said nothing about the pictures until he was up on charges.
You can read more about that (with links) at the Blood Money link above.
Posted by M. Simon at June 11, 2006 11:38 PM
ww,
You obviously know NOTHING about the blood money system. It is not an admission of guilt in the American sense.
You should read the article I provided and the go to the link of the original story I quoted from.
Posted by M. Simon at June 11, 2006 11:41 PM
The Marines could have only been compensating for unintended civilian deaths in a chaotic battle, not necessarily admitting there was a premeditated massacre.
Posted by mrj at June 11, 2006 11:56 PM
mrj,
Exactly right.
Posted by M. Simon at June 12, 2006 12:04 AM
WW Indicates that a conviction in the Haditha case is evidence the military is likely hiding more massacres.
WW claims that an aquittal in the Haditha case is proof that the military WILL cover up crimes, and is therefore likely hiding more massacres.
WW Claims that discrepancies in the military report of the event and subsequent civillian reports are proof the Military is conducting a coverup.
WW Insists that discrepancies among civillian reports, and between subsequent reports from the accused Marines are meaningless beyond being proof of a coverup.
When asked if these assorted discrepancies are not suggestive enough to withhold judgement untill a further investigstion is concluded, WW claims there is a "right wing spin machine" distorting the evidence.
When Confronted with his circular reasoning, WW is reduced to calling names, or insisting there is a "right wing spin machine" twisting his "facts". WW will not address any criticisms further.
When asked why Murtha's Vietnam service immunizes him from criticism when he makes outrageous and unsubstantiated statements, WW wails that the milblogs are smearing Murtha's Service record.
But he claims he hasn't prejudged anyone!
WW will repeat his empty political assertions again and again regardless of the facts.
WW one great achievement: Somehow managing to be completely outrageous and perfectly predictable at the same time, and not passing out from the cognative dissonanace.
Posted by Deamon at June 12, 2006 12:20 AM
I'm prejudging no individuals. The so-called "milblogosphere," which in reality is purely a right-wing propaganda spin operation, is in full denial mode with respect to the facts of Haditha, the ongoing U.S. defeat in Iraq, and many other issues as well.
http://w3t.org/u/rh2
Excerpts:
It is long past time to test whether the military's self-image of the heroic commander is myth or reality.
First, we must confront our own sadly diminished standards of moral courage, exemplified by the half dozen retired generals who, their pensions secure, recently called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. While on active duty, they said nothing publicly, much less tendered their resignations, over the strategic and operational shortcomings of our Iraq folly.
More to the point in reflecting our diminished standards of moral courage is the military's long-standing practice of scapegoating--especially lower ranking enlisted personnel and junior officers--in response to all manner of transgressions and catastrophes. Consider My Lai and Abu Ghraib.
The American public is itself morally suspect if we continue such scapegoating in the Haditha case. What we must demand, and have a right to expect, is that senior general officers stand up to be counted. Here is their script: "I take full responsibility for this execrable act of indiscipline, illegality and immorality; for failing to ensure that the troops under my command were adequately prepared; for creating a climate that inadvertently encouraged such behavior. Accordingly, I hereby relinquish my command and stand ready to face the consequences for my subordinates' actions."
Nothing less should suffice if the military is to be worthy of the public trust reposed in it.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:17 AM
Diana, a service member can hire a civilian attorney if they choose to, in most cases they'll go with a military lawyer from the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) office. Just like a civilian opting for their own attorney instead of a public defender.
Posted by SFC D at June 12, 2006 01:21 AM
WW Indicates that a conviction in the Haditha case is evidence the military is likely hiding more massacres.
WW claims that an aquittal in the Haditha case is proof that the military WILL cover up crimes, and is therefore likely hiding more massacres.
I never made either of those claims. So, Deana, are you drunk again or do you lie when you're sober, too? The other items on your list aren't outright lies but are gross distortions of what I have written here.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:32 AM
Correction: Deamon. That's the drunk and/or liar here.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:34 AM
Quote: WW
I'm prejudging no individuals.
Yet two posts earlier you suggest the recent statements by the accused Marines' are self serving lies. But you have not prejudged anyone, I'm sure.
And in the absence of a complelling arguement you make more unsubstantiated assertions.
Your insurmountable prejudice is plain for all to see.
Instead of even considering that any/or all of the involved reports (Millitary and Civillian) could have errors, that there could be any simple human error, you leapt to the politically self serving conculsion that a calculated crime had occured, and then tried to use this civilian blood to advance YOUR opinion that the whole military is corrupt and bloodthirsty.
These deaths were just a means to an end for you. Your alligator tears fool no one as they can hardly been seen over your political posturing.
Posted by Deamon at June 12, 2006 01:44 AM
Deamon, exercise your mind not your drinking elbow. I wrote that the statement from the marine's lawyer was a "self-serving account." I did not call it a lie; that's your word, not mine.
So tell me: Are you drunk, or do you lie when you are sober, too?
You see, I have made no judgments about individual marines. That comes later.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:58 AM
Why criticise an account as self-serving if you believe its honest? Won't the truth set us free? Self-serving is not used as a compliment.
And still you respond to criticism with personal abuse.
Posted by Deamon at June 12, 2006 02:26 AM
WW... just for thought.... what will be your stand.. your opinion..... just sayin' if it happens that these Marines are judged innocent.
A military court is convened. All the evidence is presented, in honor of our rule of law. A jury (of peers as we have known it throughout our history as a country) rules, these Marines guilty...... of nothing. They did their duty. They fought our enemies. They obeyed and delivered their ROE.
What say you then? Will we hear from you.... that justice has been delivered? Are you willing to stand on the rule of law? Or, will you have some excuse of a cover-up or some story, as to why these kids were judged as innocents? Can you accept, the ruling that states, "Not guilty."
Just askin... wondering if you are willing to accept, innocence on the part of these Marines?
Posted by TexAnn at June 12, 2006 03:10 AM
Let’s examine this, shall we?:
1. Insurgents detonate an IED near a town known to be infiltrated by insurgents, killing one marine and seriously wounding another. Both marines are popular in their unit.
2. Marines go into the town and kill about 20 civilians (WWs prejudgement – exact number not known outside the investigation, but close enough to 20 to let this slide), then file a report attributing their deaths to sharpnel wounds and a non-existent (WWs prejudgement – facts not known outside the investigation) firefight. Those details are quoted in a press release issued by the Marine Corps the next day.
3. A marine sent to take pictures and clean up bodies records images of dead civilians. Their wounds are sharply at variance with the battle report and the press release (WWs prejudgement – facts not known outside the investigation).
4. An Iraqi takes videos of the scene, producing images sharply at variance with the battle report and the press release.
5. Rather launch an investigation to reconcile the conflicts, the Marine Corps sits on the evidence and does nothing (WWs prejudgement – facts not known outside the investigation).
6. Two months later, Time magazine learns of the killings by looking at the Iraqi videotape and interviewing people in the town. It approaches the Marine Corps, which labels the Iraqi reports propaganda.
7. Time persists with its questions, so the USMC requests that the Army do a battlefield investigation, but not a criminal investigation (Where this has been written, I cannot find. Believe it quotes facts not in evidence, but will give Willy the benefit of the doubt) . The difference is critical, because the Army investigation does not gather forensic evidence (WWs prejudgement – facts not known outside the investigation).
8. Rep. James Murtha, a conservative Democrat and decorated Marine Corps combat veteran, expresses his outrage at what happened. The right-wing attack machine swings into action, charging that Murtha faked his military record is a spokesman for cowardice (WWs opinion – No such right wing attack machine has been quoted by WW except one news article. Mudville Gazette actually cautions readers not to make claims about Murtha’s record and views such complaints as unproductive and irrelevant to Murtha’s claims. WW ignores these recommendations and continues to postulate a vast right wing conspiracy, directed by the White House).
9. Time publishes its story in March, and at that point, nearly four months after the killings, the Marine Corps requests a criminal investigation. By this time, basic forensic evidence has vanished, and the killers have had time to coordinate their stories (WWs prejudgement – facts not known outside the investigation, but since it is possible, we’ll let this one slide as merely a slur without factual basis. Additionally, factual forensic basis can still be supplied by exhuming the bodies, which the families do not wish to do and which the aforementioned nefarious Marine Corps will not force upon them).
10. The criminal investigation points toward a massacre of civilians (WWs prejudgement – facts not known outside the investigation, but logical for him to assume given his predisposition to believe any press report which accuses the Marine Corps of nefarious criminal activities). The Marine Corps briefs members of Congress to that effect. Word of those briefings leaks to the media, which follows up with more coverage (Well at least we think this much is true. The Congress surely leaked the story to the press, whether it was already leaked or not).
11. The right-wing "milblogosphere" swings into action. It denounced Murtha as a coward; denounces the news media as biased and anti-American. Greyhaw's Mudville Gazette suggests that the civilians provoked their own deaths. (WWs opinion – No such right wing attack machine has been quoted by WW except one news article. Mudville Gazette actually cautions readers not to make claims about Murtha’s record and views such complaints as unproductive and irrelevant to Murtha’s claims. WW ignores these recommendations. Articles in MG apparently do not suggest the civilians brought it on themselves, but does indicate the civilians may have known about the IED beforehand) But the main theme is that no one can know any of what happened until the criminal investigation, trials and appeals are completed, a process that will take years (WWs opinion – No such position has been forwarded. The actual position is that conviction should await the completion of the full investigation, actual trial by courts martial, and then judgement. No need to wait for appeals is necessary. The trials of Abu Ghraib defendants were completed in less than 2 years from the occurrence of the criminal acts. The trial of Saddam has been proceeding for approximately as long with no end in sight. Slobodan Milosevic was tried for over 5 years before his death occurred before the completion of his trial).
12. One marine who was there, but appearently has neither been arrested nor charged (WWs prejudgement – facts not known outside the investigation, whether the SGT has been arrested or not is not known. He has spoken only through his lawyer, and that could be because he is under pretrial restraint – behind bars for you Willy), has his lawyer release his self-serving (Duh, he’s a lawyer for the defense. I suppose legal malpractice would apply to any lawyer who did not strenuously defend his client. However, this does not mean the SGTs story is inaccurate or wrong, or correct. Again, facts not known before the investigation and trial are completed) account of what happened. Milbloggers rush to embrace it (WWs opinion – No such position has been forwarded. Caution about prejudgment has been recommended ALL ACROSS the “Milblogosphere”). Simultaneously, the "milblogs" highlight anomalies in the various accounts -- many of which exist because the USMC waited so long to investigate (WWs opinion – No such position has been forwarded by Milblogs. However, Willy’s position implies that the Marine Corps will deliberately cover up any malfeasance because that is what it does for its own members.) -- to cast doubt on known (again a subjective use of fact – not all these assertions are known or even published in the news) events.
The Likely Outcome
1. No marines will be convicted for the killings. There won't be enough physical evidence, mainly because the USMC waited too long to commence a criminal investigation but also because the killers and the other members of the unit will fall in line behind a single account that exorates everyone. (WWs prejudgement – that is what “likely outcome” means)
2. Some marines will be convicted for failure to file adequate reports, but no punishments will be imposed other than administrative sanctions that will end the careers of a few officers. (WWs prejudgement – that is what “likely outcome” means)
3. The so-called "milblogosphere" will cite a lack of criminal convictions as evidence that there was no massacre, and will depict the administrative sactions as political gestures to Congress and the public. It will blame the news media and Rep. Murtha for the entire affair. (WWs prejudgement – that is what “likely outcome” means)
4. The general public, never very interested in the matter to begin with, will throw up its hands and say, "Who knows?" (WWs prejudgement – The American People are too stupid to care what their military does in their name, especially when it is criminal or illegal)
5. The Marine Corps will pretend that it did its duty. (WWs prejudgement – that is what “likely outcome” means)
6. The Iraq War will continue to spiral downward and the U.S. with find a way to withdraw to the big embassy in the Green Zone and to its fortified bases near the oil fields and the Iranian border. (WWs prejudgement – that is what “likely outcome” means, but what possible purpose could withdrawal into the Green Zone and fortified bases near oil fields and Iranian border have, if the oil fields cannot be protected currently, as he suggests, and the American Army is just too stupid to defeat the Iranian portion of the insurgency? Since we couldn’t possibly take advantage of our presence other than to take the daily mortaring and simply die like the pogues we are, why stay --- I forgot. It’s because of the oil, I suppose, which we hope to magically warp out of the ground using alien technology).
Posted by WW at June 11, 2006 11:19 PM
“In fact the American command paid the Blood Money required by tribal law within weeks of the incident.”
“This I think is pretty good proof that what is currently claimed (executions) did not in fact happen.” --Deamon
If anything, it's proof that something DID happen. Why pay "blood money" if you killed an enemy? After all, when the USMC paid the "blood money" in Haditha, it did so only to the families of the dead civilians and not those it judged to be "hostile." That fact alone would tend to argue that the USMC knew there had been a massacre. (WW ignores the commonly held tradition in the Arab world of paying blood money to the aggrieved when mistakes lead to the deaths of their family members. The fact that 15 accounts of blood money were paid to relatives indicates the Marine Corps believes it mistakenly killed 15 civilians. It has done so for every mistaken death since the war began in 2003. Therefore it is difficult to see any difference between these accidental deaths and other accidental deaths in Iraq based solely upon the supposition that blood money is paid. Other supporting facts would have to be considered to acknowledge this as a massacre).
Posted by WW at June 11, 2006 11:32 PM
“I'm prejudging no individuals.” (WWs prejudgement – he is only judging the entire Marine Corps because that is who screwed up the report. And make no mistake, he’ll get around to blaming individuals just as soon as he can find a tenuous link to Bush, Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld. Perhaps one of the soldiers had a photo of the President, or sent money to the Republican party in the last election. Or maybe their grandfather was a Republican. Nefarious people those Rethuglican neo-cons. As quoted in an immensely popular game called Marathon by Bungie Corporation, another nefarious Rethuglican underground corporate conglomerate, “They’re Everywhere!”)
The so-called "milblogosphere," which in reality is purely a right-wing propaganda spin operation, is in full denial mode with respect to the facts of Haditha, the ongoing U.S. defeat in Iraq, and many other issues as well. (WWs opinion – No such right wing attack machine has been quoted by WW except one news article.)
http://w3t.org/u/rh2
(WWs opinion – This website takes perfectly rational news stories and rewrites them to provide the proper spin for WW to ensure he has a link to back up his fallacious arguments. This is commonly known as propaganda and has been used with great effect through the 20th century by such sterling examples of statesmanship as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Chinese Communism, North VietNam, North Korea, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Indonesia, Eastern European countries of the Warsaw Pact, Saddam’s Iraq, the Ayatollah’s Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Cuba under Castro, Venezuela under Chavez, Cambodia under Pol Pot, among many others. It has a basis in fact, but changes the order, names, and reasoning behind the story and makes up facts not known in official histories or investigations, and lacks complete documentary evidence of the charges made. And it is his own website.)
Excerpts:
It is long past time to test whether the military's self-image of the heroic commander is myth or reality. (WWs spin – Let’s find out why the military worships heroes and see if we can tear them down)
First, we must confront our own sadly diminished standards of moral courage, exemplified by the half dozen retired generals who, their pensions secure, recently called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. While on active duty, they said nothing publicly, much less tendered their resignations, over the strategic and operational shortcomings of our Iraq folly. (WWs spin – Even though you support my position now, you didn’t when I wanted you to, so you are cowards)
More to the point in reflecting our diminished standards of moral courage is the military's long-standing practice of scapegoating--especially lower ranking enlisted personnel and junior officers--in response to all manner of transgressions and catastrophes. Consider My Lai and Abu Ghraib. (WWs spin – Let’s make sure we convict the troops who go off on their own and do bad things, but let’s also convict every officer above them in the chain of command. That way we will always be able to blame the Secretary of Defense and the President, no matter what administration it is, or who actually devised and executed the crimes)
The American public is itself morally suspect if we continue such scapegoating in the Haditha case (WWs spin – The American People are such sheep). What we must demand, and have a right to expect, is that senior general officers stand up to be counted. Here is their script: "I take full responsibility for this execrable act of indiscipline, illegality and immorality; for failing to ensure that the troops under my command were adequately prepared; for creating a climate that inadvertently encouraged such behavior. Accordingly, I hereby relinquish my command and stand ready to face the consequences for my subordinates' actions." (WWs spin – American Generals are infallible, but they need to be held accountable for every screw up possible under their command. Of course they can’t know what every soldier in every unit is doing, but we want them drawn and quartered every time there is a mistake. That way, there will be no one in command with any experience and we can eliminate the military as an effective force for anything in this world. Now back to welfare for the masses and free health care for all. By the way, this was tried in 1926 and 1935 in the Soviet Union. A majority of the competent officers were executed because they were a threat to Stalin. So the Nazis kicked their ass for 6 months until the Russian winter finally defeated the German Army before Moscow. That and American Lend Lease material and thousands and thousands of dead Soviets threw back the German Army in 1942).
Nothing less should suffice if the military is to be worthy of the public trust reposed in it. (WWs spin – The American People are such sheep, and the American military is so evil).
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:17 AM
“WW Indicates that a conviction in the Haditha case is evidence the military is likely hiding more massacres.”
“WW claims that an aquittal in the Haditha case is proof that the military WILL cover up crimes, and is therefore likely hiding more massacres.”
I never made either of those claims. (see items number 1, 2, 3, and 5 under Likely Outcomes for said claims) So, Deana, are you drunk again or do you lie when you're sober, too? The other items on your list aren't outright lies but are gross distortions of what I have written here. (WWs spin – The Milblogs are such sheep, so ignorant of military events, and I am so omniscient. Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a drunk and a liar).
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:32 AM
Correction: Deamon. That's the drunk and/or liar here. (WWs spin -- Oops, I lied….. I mean, made a mistake.)
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:34 AM
Deamon, exercise your mind not your drinking elbow. I wrote that the statement from the marine's lawyer was a "self-serving account." I did not call it a lie; that's your word, not mine. (WWs spin – It is OK for me to cast a defense lawyer’s account of the story as a “self serving account”, but woe betide anyone who would cast the same aspersions on the account of insurgent-sympathetic Iraqis, or those who fail to be able to provide stories of what happened in Haditha consistent with what I want them to say).
So tell me: Are you drunk, or do you lie when you are sober, too? (WWs spin – Anyone who disagrees with me is a liar, a drunk and the American People are such sheep).
You see, I have made no judgments about individual marines. That comes later. (WWs spin – I told you I’d get to blaming the individual Marines. I'm just doing it on my timetable, not the insurgents… I mean the Milblogs).
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 01:58 AM
Yes, we all are fascinated by your dazzling intellect Willy. Your tongue is quick and clever. Be careful you do not trip over it.
Sorry to use so much space, oh mighty GreyHawk, but this literally screamed for a rebuttal.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 12, 2006 03:28 AM
Nice roundup subsunk, although you made two errors. You ascribed a quote about the payment of bloodmoney to me when it was M. Simon who pointed that out (Hat tip to him) . Also, I haven't read all of WWs links but I think those sites are just reposts of stories posted elsewhere. WW is using a utility website to shorten the hyperlink not to add propaganda absent in the original story.
Hes done enough work making a fool of himself without adding anything else to his rap sheet.
Posted by Deamon at June 12, 2006 03:52 AM
Most excellent subsunk. I think you got a couple of fish in him and broke his keel. Unfortunately his base fascilities are excellent. He will be repaired and underway again in no time. Hardly the worse for wear.
BTW I have been running into a ww a lot lately. He usually lets his beliefs outrun his facts.
I blame it on John "baby killer" Kerry the admited war criminal. The gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by M. Simon at June 12, 2006 03:56 AM
Deamon/M. Simon,
My apologies guys. I got ahead of myself. I DO make mistakes every so often. Of course, to some people, they are lies. ;) But you know what I mean.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 12, 2006 04:02 AM
Subsunk,
No apologies necessary. I caught your "mistake" and didn't feel it was worth even a small correction.
=============
The understanding of blood money system cleared up a lot about tribal customs for me. Like dowery for instance.
The western modern ideal of marriage for love couldn't come into being until we lost our tribal ways.
Posted by M. Simon at June 12, 2006 04:15 AM
Yea, just a minor misread, Sub. Nothing to worry about. Nice work.
Posted by Deamon at June 12, 2006 04:25 AM
Why criticise an account as self-serving if you believe its honest? Won't the truth set us free? Self-serving is not used as a compliment.
From Webster's Dictionary
self-serving
serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others
I think that's the way I used it. I would note that someone could disregard the truth but still wind up being true. Sort of like a stopped clock being right twice a day. In the case of the marine who spoke through his lawyer, "we'll see."
what will be your stand.. your opinion..... just sayin' if it happens that these Marines are judged innocent.
Hey idiot, no one is ever found "innocent." They are found "not guilty." There is a huge difference.
A jury (of peers as we have known it throughout our history as a country) rules, these Marines guilty...... of nothing. They did their duty. They fought our enemies. They obeyed and delivered their ROE.
Hey, idiot, that's not what a "not guilty" verdict means. It means that the prosecution didn't prove its case. As I've said right from the outset, I think the USMC delayed the criminal investigation for the purpose of making it impossible to prove a case.
I expect that, if any individuals are found guilty, their convictions will be overturned on appeal.
Just askin... wondering if you are willing to accept, innocence on the part of these Marines?
Once again, idiot, no one is ever found "innocent" in court. I see you're from Texas. Is everyone in Texas as stupid as you are? Wait -- don't answer that.
---------------
subby, I'm glad to see that you put down the bottle long enough to compose semi-coherent rebuttals, ridiculous as they were. But still, congrats. I thank you, and your liver thanks you.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 04:54 AM
I see that my comprehensive reply was blocked. Maybe the White House had told Greyhawk to return to censor mode?
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 05:07 AM
"I see that my comprehensive reply was blocked. Maybe the White House had told Greyhawk to return to censor mode?"
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 05:07 AM
But of course, Willy. We all know your postings here are the most important thing on the White House agenda, don't we? In fact, I'll bet your picture is thrown up at the morning briefings every day by Karl Rove. After all, you are the only one who can counter his evil propaganda, aren't you?
Subsunk
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 12, 2006 05:21 AM
Beats the hell outta me. For all I know subby, you're actually Dick Cheney on a duck hunt, drunk out of his skull and shooting everyone he knows.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 05:27 AM
That would be me, Willy. Dick Cheney, without the dick, of course. You already pointed out how dickless I am.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 12, 2006 05:35 AM
Hours after reading this story, the thing I can't get over is that it's standard operating procedure for Marines to shoot people simply for running away. In this case, they shot a car full of university students because the students fled in terror.
" Marines noticed a white, unmarked car full of "military-aged men" lingering near the bomb site. When Marines ordered the men to stop, they ran; Puckett said it was standard procedure at the time for the Marines to shoot suspicious people fleeing a bombing, and the Marines opened fire, killing four or five men."
The details of this policy are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061001129_pf.html
So being "suspicious" means "lingering" near a bombing. And yet what gets you killed is "fleeing." What the hell are you supposed to do? If you leave, you might be "fleeing" and yet if you stay, you become "suspicious."
And at the same time, it's standard operating procedure to "sweep" for terrorists by kiling everyone, including women and children, in their path. Which causes people to flee in terror, etc., etc. .. .
Frankly, if someone did a "sweep" for terrorists and killed my family in the process, I would immediatly set out to fight them at all costs. And if someone killed my brother or sister for running away, I'd probably be first in line to volunteer to try and shoot them from afar.
In other words, there must be quite a few insurgents in Iraq with perfectly understandible motives. They aren't insane muslim extremists -- they're simply really angry individuals whose families/friends have been killed by the above-mentioned insane policies telling soldiers to shoot kids and people who run away in the name of "catching terrorists."
Posted by phil at June 12, 2006 05:57 AM
So being "suspicious" means "lingering" near a bombing. And yet what gets you killed is "fleeing." What the hell are you supposed to do?
You are supposed to prepare to die, because in the eyes of the U.S. any Iraqi over the age of 4 (and maybe even the so-called "infants") are terrorists who have provoked their own deaths. That is the message from every level of the military, from the U.S. government and from their propaganda amen chorus of Fox News and the so-called "milblogosphere."
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 06:32 AM
By the way, the very length of Greyhawk's multipart magnum opus is, by itself, part of the Milblog Dodge as it concerns the Haditha Masdsacre. The events are relatively simple, but by putting each element, even the irrelevant and tangential, under a electron microscope, Greyhawk and his fellow propagandists hope to obfuscate the basic reality, which is that a group of marines executed civilians there.
The more this can be obscured, the greater the chance that the Marine Corps can wriggle off the hook for the events themselves and the subsequent coverup. The ultimate objective is to evade accountability, not only for Haditha but especially for the conduct of the war in general.
Accountability is a great slogan within the Marine Corps. The reality? We'll see, but the early results don't look promising. All signs point to a tribal circling of wagons.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 06:47 AM
Simply repackaging the old straw that Marines are targeting civillians WW. Don't let the facts get in the way of your "Truth", and just ignore the parts of the Marines recount that don't fit your propoganda. I suppose it is better than watching you to calling these Marines liars, though.
Posted by Deamon at June 12, 2006 06:50 AM
ww,
Do I know you?
Posted by Dick Cheney at June 12, 2006 08:36 AM
So WW, how does it feel to be wrong, to know you're wrong, and then continue on the same tack regardless?
You accused a poster here earlier of being an 'armchair general' when in fact they were serving in Iraq. To your credit, you admitted your error. So why continue to step on toes when you so obviously haven't any clue about what you criticize?
You comment on ROE, Iraq, the military in general, but seems to lack any real knowledge of those things beyond your imagination.
What is really digusting, is your willingness to lump together all those in the military, and all of those who post here. Why spit on the many posters who have been respectful to you in their responses.
Who are you to call them names, make generalizations about them, or imply that they lack the ability to think for themselves?
So ask yourself, are you ready to be wrong again? Because you have been (by your admission) once already. Pretty consistently wrong from my perspective.
Aside from all that, you ought to have some shred of thanks for those who protect you and your (misused) rights. In other words, try not to be such an ass.
Or do you lack the intelligence to get your point across without name-calling and tantrums?
Posted by LJD at June 12, 2006 03:44 PM
What is really digusting, is your willingness to lump together all those in the military, and all of those who post here. Why spit on the many posters who have been respectful to you in their responses.
I don't "lump together all those in the military." Defensive idiots here accuse me of that, but they're wrong. Read my postings and you'd see that. As for those who post intelligently and respectfully, I reply in kind.
Those who insult me can expect to get it right back between the eyes. Then, like the whining cowards they are, they cry about my being a name caller. Gimme a f'in break. I can stand the heat. Can you?
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 04:32 PM
Aside from all that, you ought to have some shred of thanks for those who protect you and your (misused) rights.
I do appreciate the willingness of people to expose themselves to hostile situations on behalf of the public. But there isn't a single shred of "protection" involved with the Iraq War. That one is a case where the good faith of the military has been horribly abused by your Liar-in-Chief on behalf of a vengeful and imperial venture.
It is shameful for the so-called milblogosphere, which in fact is nothing but a shill for the the Bush administration's propaganda and far-right-wing politics in general, to equate opposition to the Iraq War with disloyalty to the country and disdain for the military.
You are not only wrong, but you are flatly lying when you say it or imply it. Stop lying. Stop hating your own country and every single thing it ever stood for.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 04:37 PM
One more thing: The people who hate the military are those of the so-called milblogosphere who will countenance the wasting of thousands of military lives, and tens of thousands (if not more) Iraqi civilian lives, for nothing, and who actively cheer the abandonment of time-honored American values in the process.
Hate the military? Hate your country? Look in the mirror, "milbloggers."
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 04:40 PM
WW:
I recommend "Endust for Electronics" anti-static wipes. They're great for cleaning spittle off of your monitor screen.
Posted by fatman at June 12, 2006 04:48 PM
I recommend "Endust for Electronics" anti-static wipes. They're great for cleaning spittle off of your monitor screen.
So you have felt that need? I haven't, but thanks for passing along your remedy. I'm sure others here will find it useful.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 06:03 PM
I guess millions of free Iraqi's = "nothing". Glad you care so much about mankind!
Posted by SpectreCode at June 12, 2006 06:39 PM
What "millions of free Iraqis?" The U.S. invasion has been so incompetent that "millions of Iraqis" can't even go out of their homes. Every material indicator of life has declined since the U.S. destroyed their country and occupied what was left, and now we've made it clear that we regard the place as a free-fire zone.
Yeah, some "favor" we did for them. And how does this relate to American security again? Saddam was a bad guy indeed, but he's been replaced by militias that are just as bad and by American forces that indiscriminately kill civilians, try to hide it and then (like Greyhawk) claim they provoked their own murders.
And if they should happen to be snatched off the street at random, the U.S. government has authorized, and indeed ordered, its military to torture them. Which the propaganda-spewing "milblogosphere" finds perfectly acceptable because they've ceded the values-creation business to terrorists.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 06:48 PM
I must have mis-read your comment about not paying for a military, and not paying for the VA.
I must be projecting your comments onto members of the military, who are serving and post comments here.
I must be completely hallucinating when the vast majority of posts I see referenceing the Bush administration here are YOURS.
The bottom line is, very many of the folks here have served, are serving, and will serve in the future. When you make broad comments, you include them in your rant. We deserve more respect. We have earned it.
As far as I can tell, you try to get attention by being the first and last poster on every subject, by refuting every comment with inflammatory and unsubstantiated talking points, and by making generalizations about 'neocons' etc.
You might want to make sure who you're talking to. As I already pointed out, you were wrong (at least) once already.
Posted by LJD at June 12, 2006 07:18 PM
"What is really digusting, is your willingness to lump together all those in the military, and all of those who post here. Why spit on the many posters who have been respectful to you in their responses."
WW: I don't "lump together all those in the military." (See Items 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of Willy's synopsis above) Defensive idiots here accuse me of that, but they're wrong. Read my postings and you'd see that. (This thread is an excellent place to start) As for those who post intelligently and respectfully, I reply in kind. (Obviously, none of us is intelligent or respectful enough to warrant such treatment. Witness Willy's responses to GreyHawk's mild and factual items -- no namecalling from the USAF side, but a hurricane of liars, drunks, "so called", and so forth volleys in return)
Those who insult me can expect to get it right back between the eyes. (I agree. I am a valid target.) Then, like the whining cowards they are, they cry about my being a name caller. (Nope. Those are the observations of folks who think you are too strident and overbearing on this site Willy. I on the other hand, think you are a total and consummate ass****.) Gimme a f'in break. I can stand the heat. Can you? (Wearing my Nomex DragonSlayer Firefighting Ensemble, and I'm much happier and handsomer than I've ever been before. Flame away Willy.)
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 04:32 PM
"Aside from all that, you ought to have some shred of thanks for those who protect you and your (misused) rights."
WW: I do appreciate the willingness of people to expose themselves to hostile situations on behalf of the public. (Do tell? How has this appreciation manifested itself, Willy? Can you point to one word here which shows respect or appreciation of the military?) But there isn't a single shred of "protection" involved with the Iraq War. (Opinions are like ass*****. Everybody's got one. And they all stink). That one is a case where the good faith of the military has been horribly abused by your Liar-in-Chief on behalf of a vengeful and imperial venture. (We'll be the judge of whether we've been abused, little girl. Now run along and play -- in traffic).
It is shameful for the so-called milblogosphere, which in fact is nothing but a shill for the the Bush administration's propaganda and far-right-wing politics in general, to equate opposition to the Iraq War with disloyalty to the country and disdain for the military. (Nope, we equate rushing to judgment of our Marines before completion of the investigations and a full hearing of the facts, press reporting which indicates an insurgency larger and bloodier than the VietNam War, where no such case exists, and where we fail to see real Honor and Appreciation bestowed on young Heroes who do a very, very hard job every day by a press corps and a political process that insists on using them and their heroics as a kind of victimhood and martyrdom on the altar of Retreat and Defeat. You just can't understand the difference because you don't want to. And that is what we think is unpatriotic. That you don't want to understand the difference).
You are not only wrong, but you are flatly lying when you say it or imply it. Stop lying. Stop hating your own country and every single thing it ever stood for.
(I do not think that word "lying" means what you think it means. "Inconceivable" that you should not recognize it.)
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 04:37 PM
WW: One more thing: The people who hate the military are those of the so-called milblogosphere who will countenance the wasting of thousands of military lives, and tens of thousands (if not more) Iraqi civilian lives, for nothing, and who actively cheer the abandonment of time-honored American values in the process.
(I will admit, pre-emptive warfare is not a core American value. However, neither is dying because we are too lazy to do anything about it. The Republic was founded by hot headed Men who had enough of tyranny and oppression, and decided to take matters into our own hands. And THAT is what this war is all about. We have been betrayed by our allies, by those we propped up in power, and by those who should have been paying attention to their nefarious and illicit conduct. Those allies and government servants who should have stood up to them before it got to this point. But our leaders did not. Our Allies appeased. Our government slept while Evil Forces gathered, and did not realize the full scope of their evil intent. So we are FORCED now to respond. The Muslim world must know that killing innocents in the name of Jihad will no longer be tolerated. You are either part of the solution, Willy, or you are part of the problem. We've tried it your way. Now You will do it OUR way. So whine and cry all you want. The world is going to change, and you with it. Or we shall all die in a thermonuclear blast because we are infidels. The choice is ours. But it is no longer yours.)
Hate the military? Hate your country? Look in the mirror, "milbloggers." (I see Men and Women who served, and are serving, their country without insisting on being rich, taking it easy, or getting their own way. I do not and will not ever believe the same about Willy.)
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 04:40 PM
Snicker. What a moron.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 12, 2006 07:20 PM
I must have mis-read your comment about not paying for a military, and not paying for the VA.
Either that, or more likely, in the so-called "milblogger" style, deliberately misrepresented it.
I must be projecting your comments onto members of the military, who are serving and post comments here.
That is exactly what you are doing, and you're doing it serve your political agenda.
When you make broad comments, you include them in your rant. We deserve more respect. We have earned it.
You will get the respect you deserve. No less, but no more.
You might want to make sure who you're talking to. As I already pointed out, you were wrong (at least) once already.
That's right, and unlike the arrogant liars of the so-called milblogosphere, I acknowledged the error. You people are too cowardly and dishonest to ever acknowledge an error, no matter how small.
(See Items 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of Willy's synopsis above)
A good example of your deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. In none of those items did I "lump together all those who are in the military." When you say I did, you are doing the oh-so-typical "milblogger" thing and lying.
no namecalling from the USAF side, but a hurricane of liars, drunks, "so called", and so forth volleys in return
I get it, I give it. When you people throw punches, better be prepared to get 'em back. Don't be such a crybaby.
I on the other hand, think you are a total and consummate ass****
But you are scandalized when I call you a phony, a liar, an idiot and a drunk? Why? If you dish it out, then get ready to take it. Or as a better man than either of us once said: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Nope, we equate rushing to judgment of our Marines before completion of the investigations and a full hearing of the facts
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. This constant demand for "all the facts" pending the conclusion of all investigations and trials is a transparent and ludicrous attempt to sweep a massacre under the rug. You do this because you're nothing but a retired nutscratching propaganda shill.
where we fail to see real Honor and Appreciation bestowed on young Heroes who do a very, very hard job every day
Honor is not something anyone can bestow. Appreciation is a tougher one. I appreciate their willingness to go into harm's way, but I absolutely condemn that mission. They have been horribly misused.
And you, as a pawn within the so-called milblogosphere, have made it crystal clear that you couldn't possibly care less about them or their lives. If you did, you'd be agitating to get them the hell back home where they have always belonged.
But you won't do it because you're nothing but a propaganda tool of the Liar-in-Chief, who in your eyes is a god who can do no wrong.
The Republic was founded by hot headed Men who had enough of tyranny and oppression, and decided to take matters into our own hands. And THAT is what this war is all about.
What a bunch of crap. The sole American interest in Iraq is oil. Freedom? Yeah, right. We murder and torture civilians at will, and you prattle on about the Liar-in-Chief's commitment to freedom?
Don't make me laugh. Is it any wonder that 60% of the public thinks the Iraq War was a mistake from the get-go? The public sees right through this charade.
So we are FORCED now to respond. The Muslim world must know that killing innocents in the name of Jihad will no longer be tolerated.
Right. So the Saudis bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and your Liar-in-Chief attacks who? The Iraqis. The Muslims want jihad, and your Liar-in-Chief attacks what? The only secular government in the region.
What a joke. You're just a knee-jerk tool who spouts mindless propaganda. You put your brain in the "off" position a long time ago. Probably right around the same time you hit the bottle.
Oops, have I been to harsh on you?
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 08:22 PM
Quote WW:
What a bunch of crap. The sole American interest in Iraq is oil. Freedom? Yeah, right. We murder and torture civilians at will, and you prattle on about the Liar-in-Chief's commitment to freedom?
Ahh WW you make this too easy. You deny calling the entire military criminal then you call the entire military criminals.
Also, despite your petulant "They called me names first!" I defy you to find one instance of my making a personal attack against you before you resorted to calling me a drunk. Its only 3-4 days of comments, should be easy if it were true.
Posted by Deamon at June 12, 2006 09:10 PM
Well Willy,
If you can't see the reason this war was necessary, then I guess you'll never understand why young people who are much smarter and braver than you choose to join up to fight it. Most Americans are not fooled by your propaganda. They understand that something must be done and Iraq is as good a place as any to do it. Strategically, Iraq is a stroke of genius, but not because George Bush is a genius.
I don't think we planned it all that way, I just think it fell into our laps because Saddam, old fool that he is, brought it on himself by defying the world for over 11 years. We had just gone farther down the road with him than anybody else. So he gets the bullseye first. Iran is up next, I think. And Saudi Arabia will eventually follow unless they get their act together and change their hatred of infidels.
This is a long war, just like the Cold War, only more low intensity conflict taking place all the time. Fifty years from now, we'll think of it the same way we feel about the Cold War. Necessary, expensive, and successful.
Since you don't feel safer because of the war, I can only assume you felt safer when the World Trade Center was attacked (twice), the Cole was bombed, our airliners were hijacked in the name of jihad, and our diplomats and businessmen, not to mention university professors, were held hostage for ransom for politicial purposes by Men who believe they were carrying out the Will of Allah. I guess you feel safe with Iran and Hebollah possessing nuclear weapons, and could care less if 6 million Israelis get exterminated in a 5000 degree Fahrenheit fireball in a fraction of a second. I guess you don't care that New York City or Miami or Los Angeles could suffer the same fate for no reason other than they are full of infidels. I guess that makes you naive at best, and stupid at worst.
It matters not what you think. All that matters is that something is being done about a problem which has been ignored since the 70s, whether you agree with it or not. I hope you will continue to resist this change. (But that is because I am a vindictive sort who would love to see you crushed underfoot of forces you cannot understand or comprehend). But Change is coming, and the rest of us are attempting to help it along and prepare for its consequences.
You do what the weasels of the world have always done. Sneak into your hole to wait out the conflict while better Men than you do the fighting, dying, and hard work necessary to finish a job which must be done.
Just realize that we will remember you for what you did, and for whom you supported. And we are not obligated to bring you along with us when the changes overtake you.
Enjoy your life in a Dhimmi world. That is the fate that awaits you because you will not face it, head on, like a Man.
"What a joke. You're just a knee-jerk tool who spouts mindless propaganda. You put your brain in the "off" position a long time ago. Probably right around the same time you hit the bottle."
"Oops, have I been to harsh on you?"
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 08:22 PM
Not at all, Willy. Because I have no brain, as you say, and I am drunk, so I can't feel a thing from your tornado of deceit, your tsunami of bile, or your hurricane of spit. Your blows are like the wings of a butterfly. I am only vaguely aware of them as they beat me till they are ragged. And I am still here, with strong faith in the goodness of my military and my country, doing the right thing despite your feeble attempts to change the story.
It must really suck to be you.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 12, 2006 09:46 PM
I have a simple question. Why is it that the anti-military anti-Americans are masters of turgid prose? I see this all over. As if a simple argument simply expressed is never enough. As if quantity could make up for quality.
Posted by Dick Cheney at June 12, 2006 09:52 PM
If you can't see the reason this war was necessary, then I guess you'll never understand why young people who are much smarter and braver than you choose to join up to fight it.
Actually, I do understand. Did you see the 20+-minute interview with the kid who was wounded by the same IED that killed the one marine at Haditha? They asked him why he joined the Marine Corps and he said it was because he didn't have anything else to do.
That is the typical reason people join the military; it's not for patriotism and it's not for blood lust. It's for the pay and benefits, which while not very good are better than McDonald's, and just to get outta Dodge.
This is a long war, just like the Cold War, only more low intensity conflict taking place all the time. Fifty years from now, we'll think of it the same way we feel about the Cold War. Necessary, expensive, and successful.
Hmm, okay. Let's see, at $200 billion a year and 800 dead + 3,000 U.S. disabled a year, that'll be $100 trillion and 40,000 dead + 150,000 disabled.
Since you don't feel safer because of the war, I can only assume you felt safer when the World Trade Center was attacked (twice), the Cole was bombed, our airliners were hijacked in the name of jihad, and our diplomats and businessmen, not to mention university professors, were held hostage for ransom for politicial purposes by Men who believe they were carrying out the Will of Allah. I guess you feel safe with Iran and Hebollah possessing nuclear weapons, and could care less if 6 million Israelis get exterminated in a 5000 degree Fahrenheit fireball in a fraction of a second.
Problem is, Iraq didn't do any of that stuff. As for Israel, last time I looked they had nukes of their own. They're not the 51st State. Remember what George Washington said about entangling alliances? Guess not. You're a drunken wingnut who is unfamiliar with any history earlier than Jan. 20, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated.
As if a simple argument simply expressed is never enough. As if quantity could make up for quality.
Hmm, you mean like Greyhawk's unfinished symphony on the simple massacre of civilians at Haditha? How's this for simplicity: It was a war crime. The Marine Corps tried to cover it up, and has fixed the game so no one's going to be punished.
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 10:07 PM
"Hmm, you mean like Greyhawk's unfinished symphony on the simple massacre of civilians at Haditha? How's this for simplicity: It was a war crime. The Marine Corps tried to cover it up, and has fixed the game so no one's going to be punished."
Posted by WW at June 12, 2006 10:07 PM
But Willy never lumps all military persons together, now does he?
