PDA

View Full Version : Marine Massacre?!



francescadubois
05-30-2006, 02:10 PM
I just saw a 15 second bit on some Marines in Iraq killing dozens of Iraqi civilains in retaliation to a roadside bomb. Does anyone know about this?

Chicagoeditor
05-30-2006, 02:58 PM
Extensively covered. All over the Web. I believe the NY Times broke this story on P1 on Monday. I read the story. Pretty horrible. Happened in November but the military says it didn't start investigating until February "when it heard about it." The concern is now double: A massacre and a cover-up.

On a side note, I wish Bush would quit calling what's happening in Iraq the work of "terrorists." These folks aren't out to bomb America. They are, largely, a local force with a local agenda; and they want us out of their land.

Besides, "terrorism" is a tactic, not a group. By confusing the two, Bush can call any bad actor, anywhere in the world "a terrorist," thus connecting the dots to 9/11, even when there's no connection at all. A subtle but highly dishonest semantic ploy.

francescadubois
05-30-2006, 03:06 PM
Thanks, ChicagoEditor. The local news acted like it wasn't anything big. Do you have a link?

dlabtot
05-30-2006, 03:31 PM
link? start here: http://news.google.com/news?q=haditha

Jay Zeno
05-30-2006, 03:43 PM
A bomb detonated by a Humvee can be called the work of insurgents. A bomb detonated in a marketplace can be called the work of terrorists. In this case, they same to be much the same group.

What we are not seeing is the work of American forces that are being well-received in many, many parts of Iraq. I'm not a fan of this war, but I'm a fan of fair coverage. There's a lot of good things going on that aren't getting fairly covered.

Vaughn
05-30-2006, 03:49 PM
I am afraid that I must disagree with you on that JayZeno. I believe the reason we see more of the bad than the good is because there is alot more bad going on than good. At least that is what I have been told from friends serving in Iraq.

Without saying it in specifics, for obvious reasons, their letters indicate to me that alot of our service people are being ordered to commit war crimes. I have to do a fair amount of reading between the lines in their letters but I understand that there are numerous people who enlisted post 9/11 because they wanted to kill Muslims for the fun of it. I have been told some pretty brutal stories about these things from my one friend who has returned state side due to permanent injury sustained in country.

My friend who has returned says the vast majority of good soliders want out of the service or at least this war. He told me it is because they do not wish to continue having to do awful things that go against all that was taught to them about being an honorable solider. He also said that anyone who thinks this war is over anything other than oil has been bamboozled.

Chicagoeditor
05-30-2006, 03:50 PM
Jay, not to quibble, but you've seen of course the opinion polls asked of Iraqis about the American forces, yes? We're not well liked there.

True, Iraqis at the same time don't want to plunge into chaos and civil war. But it's a mess, and young Americans get chewed up in the meantime, not to mention a much larger number of Iraqi casualties.

So, what is going well there? The creation, late and still incomplete, of a fragile unity government? Oil production? School construction? Handing out chocolates to kids? Let me know. I'm eager for some good news.

madmaxine
05-30-2006, 04:41 PM
It is apparent from the level of investment large corporations are making in Iraq that U.S. involvement there is to stay...Invading Iraq was a relatively easy way to gain a foothold in the Middle East, as Saddam Hussein was a "bulldog" dictator & even his neighboring countries feared him. (The Saudis allowed "infidel" Americans onto their soil to protect them from his bullying when he invaded Kuwait in the early 1990's.)

Many facts of this situation are clearly evident to one who researches....Bill Maher has made a point to have some of the best authorities on U.S.- Middle Eastern conflict available on his HBO show "Real Time With Bill Maher"...one of Maher's comments about Iraq was "..it was a hornet's nest, and [the U.S.] hit it with a stick."

As for the Marine Massacre...as horrendous as that is, I was told by an Army NCO on leave from Iraq, "The soldiers are doing everything they can to come home alive." If you put yourself in their shoes, you would react the same way in the situations they face almost daily.

Chicagoeditor
05-30-2006, 04:48 PM
As for the Marine Massacre...as horrendous as that is, I was told by an Army NCO on leave from Iraq, "The soldiers are doing everything they can to come home alive." If you put yourself in their shoes, you would react the same way in the situations they face almost daily.

I must disagree. According to the NYTimes story, those shot included a guy in a wheel chair and some kids. This was a wilding conducted, apparently, over the course of hours, after a buddy was blown up by an IED.

The whole point of a trained army is to resist this kind of blood lust. No one should condone or excuse such behavor.

I feel badly for the young (terribly, stupidly young) men who are there in harms way. However, as much trouble as our official policies may be causing in the region, UNPUNISHED brutality on the part of our soldiers will do more lasting harm to America's image and goals.

madmaxine
05-30-2006, 05:44 PM
I apologize if my opinion sounded like an excuse for the murder of civilians. There is no excuse for that. However, this war in Iraq is a guerilla war, where the insurgents & civilians often look alike. Some spies working for the insurgents are locals infiltrating the Allied forces' confidence. I doubt a man in a wheelchair would be in any position to cause his death by soldier's gunfire, but he's not the first or last "civilian casualty."

I refuse to say it's OK that massacres occur. However, given the fact that the Allied forces have set off a civil war in addition to the Invasion & Occupation, Iraq is literal Hell on Earth. Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing eachother at a furious pace, with Allied forces caught in between while trying to accomplish their objectives.

(As a counterpoint, I hope Americans haven't gotten over governmental neglect turning the Gulf Coast into a Waterlogged/ Hurricane Wrecked Disaster Zone. God must not like President Bush...)

Deogol
05-30-2006, 06:43 PM
I agree with Jay - there is not much press about new schools opening, roads being built, police forces being put online, people going back to work. There is a lot of good being done over there that the media is not reporting here.

The powers that be, and the media, are going to try and paint the entire armed forces over this incident. It certainly is a war crime, should it have gone down like more and more evidence is showing. I hate to say it, but we have been at war there longer than WWII statistically we are doing pretty well.

Anyhow, as another poster pointed out - the bombing has been turned towards the iraqi's more so than the US troops. This means they know the target to gain control over are the people of Iraq - that the troops are not calling the shots now that the government is in play. They saw the people voting - they see the government organizing - they want the control - they are going after those who threaten their control - the people of Iraq.

Chicagoeditor
05-31-2006, 12:32 PM
Another incident, this one much more understandable:

dlabtot
05-31-2006, 12:59 PM
I agree with Jay - there is not much press about new schools opening, roads being built, police forces being put online, people going back to work. There is a lot of good being done over there that the media is not reporting here.

So if it isn't being reported, how do you know it's happening? Because George W. Bush told you? ::) I guess some people would rather continue to believe the lies told them rather than admit they were duped.


I hate to say it, but we have been at war there longer than WWII statistically we are doing pretty well.


Why don't you try telling that to one of the mothers of those 'statistics'?


I guess it doesnt matter either, that in WWII we actually faced a threat, rather than invading a country that posed absolutely no threat to us whatsoever, killing thousands of innocents in the process.

kikin
05-31-2006, 01:10 PM
A bomb detonated by a Humvee can be called the work of insurgents. A bomb detonated in a marketplace can be called the work of terrorists. In this case, they same to be much the same group.

What we are not seeing is the work of American forces that are being well-received in many, many parts of Iraq. I'm not a fan of this war, but I'm a fan of fair coverage. There's a lot of good things going on that aren't getting fairly covered.
A plane took off today at the local airport and landed safely at its destination.

Another plane also took off today from the same airport but collided against the side of a mountain.

Guess which one of the two stories above will make the local evening news.

All news is bad news.

No news is good news.

Vaughn
05-31-2006, 01:34 PM
I guess some people would rather continue to believe the lies told them rather than admit they were duped.


Interestingcomment to me. The reason why is because that is the exact explanation my permanently injured solider friend offered up when I asked him why he thinks there remains a 30% or so number of Americans who still support this war.

We Americans as a whole are very proud and loud people. We typically don't like to admit mistakes or poor judgement calls. It is common place that we think we are always right and better than the rest of the world. It is often that attitude that makes us disliked in many parts of the world.

Chicagoeditor
05-31-2006, 01:45 PM
"If it bleeds, it leads," as they say in TV news. If anything, the press didn't do its job early on in this misguided adventure, challenging more aggressively the information, logic and motives of the Bushies who first twisted intelligence reports and then "preemptively" invaded. It's fiction to say the press is keeping "good news" secret. I read international sources, too, and I'd say U.S. coverage has been more cheerful than the European press.

Listen carefully to Bush administration spokepeople lately, and you'll start to hear the arc of the story: "We've done a great job freeing these people from dictatorship. But they aren't taking responsibility for their own country, and we can't do it for them. Therefore, we need to leave." Subtext: The security problem is their fault. When the country/region falls into chaos on our departure, don't blame us. We did nothing wrong; our plan was perfect.

Arghghghgh!

I am not a political person, per se, but I was against this moronic war from the start. The youngsters who are getting killed and maimed ought to be back home, getting drunk in a SC and buying lap dances.

dlabtot
05-31-2006, 02:17 PM
"If it bleeds, it leads," as they say in TV news. If anything, the press didn't do its job early on in this misguided adventure, challenging more aggressively the information, logic and motives of the Bushies who first twisted intelligence reports and then "preemptively" invaded. It's fiction to say the press is keeping "good news" secret. I read international sources, too, and I'd say U.S. coverage has been more cheerful than the European press.

Listen carefully to Bush administration spokepeople lately, and you'll start to hear the arc of the story: "We've done a great job freeing these people from dictatorship. But they aren't taking responsibility for their own country, and we can't do it for them. Therefore, we need to leave."

I'd be willing to bet the Bush adminstration will not ever be saying 'we need to leave' Iraq.

Djoser
05-31-2006, 09:31 PM
I can't see Bush fessing up to fucking up, anytime in the near (or even far) future.

As far as atrocities in wartime, I have read almost every book I could get my hands on about military history, and many of them dealt with this. The story of the brutality displayed in Normandy by both sides when the elite SS divisions came into conflict with allied troops, the Canadians in particular, is pretty horrifying.

But it was all brought home to me when my best friend was gunned down brutally by a couple of illegal immigrants whose sense of machismo was offended--and he had nothing to do with that, either.

The next night some friends of theirs came in the club and were laughing about it. At a small dive next door later that night, I was literally looking for a heavy object to crush the skull of one of them in particular, and nearly did so with a barstool.

If you have someone you reagrd as a brother get killed right in front of you (fortunately I wasn't there at the time, though I was supposed to be), the human reaction--right or wrong--is to kill someone in retaliation. If the guy who did it isn't there and the bloodlust is upon you, discrimination can easily be dispensed with.

Killing someone in a wheelchair would seem to be pushing it, though, and though I understand the bloodlust reaction, this sort of thing cannot be condoned, excused, or go unpunished.

Or we are no better than the people we supposedly 'liberated' the iraqis from...

Vaughn
05-31-2006, 11:31 PM
Not just someone in a wheelchair but also a small boy who was hiding under a bed was killed. Other children too.

I think what alot of people are missing or not aware of is that sometimes these acts are being ordered to be carried out by the chain of command. It is not always just bloodlust over a fallen comrade. At least that is what I have been told by a close friend who spent 3 years in country.

Deogol
05-31-2006, 11:32 PM
Well, the thing is - is that quite often the people who live around an IED know that it is there.

And yet they do nothing - no warning, no disarming, no nothing. It's not like you can't just phone it in and let them disarm it or something. Who the fuck is gonna know?

They just wait for someone to roll over it and get killed.

So, if you know there is a bomb someplace and you don't say anything - isn't one somewhat complacent with the terrorists and the enemy? Can't anyone see how pissed off one can get after repeatedly being attacked hoping to help the very people who stand around and watch you get your body distributed to the four parts of the earth via a bomb?

I can totally understand it. I am not saying it is right - and perhaps they need a better way to allow the public to warn the authorities a bomb is present at 123 sand road.

They should also inform the public, if you don't want to be part of a firefight - then when the shooting starts get the fuck out of there in any direction possible.

Take the kid under the bed - you are a soldier and you know there are people hiding out looking to literally kill you. Every decision you make is YOUR LIFE OR DEATH. You are searching, you hear a sound under the bed - what do you do?

Add to that, the insurgents/terrorists have repeatedly shown no problems with hiding behind women and children while firing their guns.

We need to remember, these guys are not punk LA gang members with their 9 mills. They are battle hardened well experienced killers usually hopped up on dope believing they are doing God's work carrying around AK47's that can literally shoot through a car and then through a house to boot. There are few mistakes one makes with these types and end up living through it.

Vaughn
05-31-2006, 11:56 PM
Deogol,

Many of the civilians in Iraq don't have running water much less phones. Also if they knew an IED was near their home do you think they would still be living in it?
You seem to be blaming the victims in the case rather than the attackers which is disturbing.

As for the small child hiding under the bed, the only person to survive that attack was his sister. She looks to be under 12 and she says that the solders beat him with their rifles then shot him to death. They knew he was just a little kid without a weapon. They killed him anyway, apparently for kicks. The sister only survived because she played dead after being shot. There is video of this girl telling what happened. There is also a solider who was forced to remove the bodies who tells of what he found in those homes. Maybe you have not seen this stuff on TV yet? I think once you hear more about this you will see things a bit different. At least I hope so anyway.

I also understand that they killed at least one child 3 years old or younger. What threat is a toddler alone in their bed to these solider's? It appears that they stormed these homes and went on a killing spree in the middle of the night completely unprovoked by those who lived there. The reports thus far do not indicate the soliders were searching for terrorists. They seem to have gone to these homes for one reason and one reason only. That reason appears to be to kill innocent people.

Deogol
06-01-2006, 12:16 AM
I know this specific case. In my posting I said it was not right and in previous postings I said it was not right. Not all the evidence is in, but it certainly is not looking good for the marines involved.

What I was saying was 1) I can understand why someone would get pissed off enough to go on a killing spree 2) How an innocent can end up dead in a legal exchange of fire.

People who live around booby traps know they are there. If they want to kill Iraqi's they roll up on em in a car. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know a stranger fiddling around with a box in the road or digging a hole on the shoulder is up to no good. Like the vietnamese did, ya just tell the kids to stay outta that rice garden or in this case, stay away from that part of the road.

Some 39% might not have running water (usually living in rural areas) but they certainly have phones. Cell phones are all over the place there. Especially in the city. It is not as remote and technically ass backwards as some people may portray it as.

Vaughn
06-01-2006, 12:22 AM
I understand that you do not approve. My apology for not being more clear about that part. But you do seem to be blaming the victims. Ofcourse as you mentioned not all the evidence is in yet so we will probably know more about this as time goes on.

As for things not being as remote I'm afraid I must disagree with your comment. Based on what I have been told it is very remote in most areas outside the large cities. Now that may not have been the case prior to US invasion but according to my military friends serving now or recently that is not the case these days.

Djoser
06-01-2006, 02:16 AM
What no one wants to admit, ever, is that there are invariably a few sick fucks in uniform in even the most virtuous nation's army.

It's inevitable that a few truly brutal people will get through the screening and weeding out when you have several hundred thousand being inducted and trained en masse.

Then you have a few psychotics running around in hostile territory, armed to the teeth, watching their buddies get killed. The result is inevitable--innocent people get killed.

This used to happen quite frequently at the conclusion of hard-fought sieges. Once the bloodlust begins, it is very difficult to stop, as well.

I suspect this was the situation, rather than orders from above--though we do have the long-buried tale of Lt. Calley at My Lai in Vietnam to consider, in which he claimed he was ordered to wipe out an entire village, man, woman, and child.

dlabtot
06-01-2006, 03:14 AM
What I was saying was 1) I can understand why someone would get pissed off enough to go on a killing spree


You empathize with people who intentionally kill innocent women and children because they are 'pissed off enough'... that's sick.

Deogol
06-01-2006, 06:18 AM
You empathize with people who intentionally kill innocent women and children because they are 'pissed off enough'... that's sick.


No... sick would be saying it is OK.

Try to add a little more to the conversation there bud.

space_Cadet_28
06-01-2006, 01:11 PM
what i found notable was that iraqis dont seem to care about this scandal. they take it as a given.

dlabtot
06-01-2006, 01:15 PM
Try to add a little more to the conversation there bud.

I added my opinion, and I'm not surprised that you don't like hearing it.

Too bad.

Casual Observer
06-01-2006, 02:00 PM
Without saying it in specifics, for obvious reasons, their letters indicate to me that alot of our service people are being ordered to commit war crimes.

Given all the embedded press and the sensitivity of the newly formed government in Iraq, this is at best a dubious assertion.


My friend who has returned says the vast majority of good soliders want out of the service or at least this war. He told me it is because they do not wish to continue having to do awful things that go against all that was taught to them about being an honorable solider. He also said that anyone who thinks this war is over anything other than oil has been bamboozled.

Your friend's personal agenda aside, reenlistment in theater in combat units is staggeringly high. As of last August, according to the NY Post:


* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs.

It's a separation of regular forces from Reserve and Guard forces that makes up the debate about enlistment and retention.

The difference between the Marines involved in this incident and the savages strapping bombs to people for detonation in marketplaces is that at least the Marines will be tried and sentenced by the military through the UCMJ. Zarqawi isn't interested in any of that--civil war is his goal, as evidenced by the continued reduction in attacks on hard targets (US troops) and the radical increase in killings of soft targets (Iraqi civilians, particularly Shiites).

Vaughn
06-01-2006, 04:01 PM
Your friend's personal agenda aside

Ummm, you don't know me or my friends so that statement is an awful big stretch at best and an incorrect assumption at worst. My friends do not appear to me to have a personal agenda other than to express to me their experiences while in country. FYI, my one friend who has returned home due to permnant injury has told me to my face that he has witnessed acts that are deemed war crimes which have in fact been ordered by chain of command and he has reported these violations. Not that the current governing powers did anything or cared one wit , according to what he has told me. I suggested that he should go to the press but he is fears backlash from the Bush government. He will need medical care of his injury for the rest of his life and so he can't really afford to rock the boat anymore than he has by reporting the code violations. If you want to call not wanting to lose medical care that will keep him alive an agenda well that I won't argue against.

Now certainly there are plenty of good well meaning military and government people out there. However, there are also plenty bad people too. It's just that war seems to bring out the worst in the bad ones and this attack is a perfect example.

smartcookie
06-01-2006, 04:22 PM
It doesn't mitigate the terrible loss of human life, but these sort of incidents always happen during a war. My Lai, for example. War is awful, and can never be waged perfectly.

I really don't buy the notion, however, that we're not seeing shiny happy Iraqis wearing I Heart America tshirts because of journalistic bias. If anything, depicting the war over there as a resounding success would be a huge boost to America's morale and perhaps even its economics. The Iraqis don't want us there; you can't graft on a democracy to a culture that's irreconcilable to secularism.

dlabtot
06-01-2006, 04:32 PM
FYI, my one friend who has returned home due to permnant injury has told me to my face that he has witnessed acts that are deemed war crimes which have in fact been ordered by chain of command and he has reported these violations. Not that the current governing powers did anything or cared one wit , according to what he has told me. I suggested that he should go to the press but he is fears backlash from the Bush government. He will need medical care of his injury for the rest of his life and so he can't really afford to rock the boat anymore than he has by reporting the code violations. If you want to call not wanting to lose medical care that will keep him alive an agenda well that I won't argue against.


That's the crux of it; whenever these things come out, the higher-ups blame it on 'a few bad apples', who act as fall guys, and yes, they should be punished because even if they are given orders to commit crimes, those aren't lawful orders so they are not obliged to obey them...but the real war criminals are the leaders who are responsible for these policies.

Another alleged massacre is being reported by the BBC. It starts at about 2:20 in the video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/tvseq/news_ost/nb/wm/video/news10_nb.asx

Deogol
06-01-2006, 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deogol
Try to add a little more to the conversation there bud.



I added my opinion, and I'm not surprised that you don't like hearing it.

Too bad.

Well of course, you called me a sicko over something I have repeatedly said isn't right.

I think I was pretty polite about it - but hey - if you are socially dysfunctional - what can be said?

Deogol
06-01-2006, 04:51 PM
Something to think about.

At a time, the Palestinians (you know - the kind that voted the terrorist group Hamas into power) declared the Israeli's massacred people in Jenin.

Who surprisingly clears Israeli troops of false claims? The UN.


U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A U.N. report released Thursday found no evidence to support Palestinian claims that Israeli forces massacred up to 500 people in the Jenin refugee camp, but it criticized both sides for putting civilian lives at risk.

dlabtot
06-01-2006, 04:56 PM
What I was saying was 1) I can understand why someone would get pissed off enough to go on a killing spree

OK, you can understand that. And that's sick. Normal people generally would be moved to empathize with the innocent victims rather than the killers.

Djoser
06-01-2006, 06:15 PM
Gentlemen, please...

I think you are misunderstanding each other.

I, too can understand why someone would want to go on a killing spree--as I said, I felt a similar impulse myself, even if the guy wasn't what you'd call innocent by a long shot.

But he wasn't the guy who shot my friend, and I would have gone to jail for crushing his skull like an eggshell--and never seen my mom alive again, which is why I put down the fucking barstool.

I can even understand why someone would go on a killing spree that included small children hiding under beds, and guys in wheelchairs--but that doesn't mean I would ever condone or forgive it.

There are some sick fucks out there.

A few of them get to wear uniforms and carry powerful assault weapons. A very few of them could conceivably acheive higher rank, and be in a position to order unnecessary killings. I'm not saying it happened in this case--I don't have the facts--but certainly it's happened before, and not just in the SS elite divisions.

I don't think deogol is condoning it at all when he says he understands how or why it could happen.

I'm not taking his side against you at all, Dlabtot--I understand where you are coming from as well. Anyone shooting kids and guys in wheelchairs deserves to be punished, immediately and without restraint, unless it can be proven the kids had bombs in their toychest.

space_Cadet_28
06-01-2006, 09:07 PM
"improper" behavior by US troops probably not isolated events.
1. don’t know details but group of maybe 10 marines committed original act.
2. different group cleaned up bodies and lied about the circumstances found
3. number of other credible allegations: bbc tape, ..

the people living in area probably new IED was buried there. Takes time to bury, and people talk.
No the people could not have done anything about it. The people who call anonymous tips to phone lines are found dead. Government infested with “insurgents/terrorists.”

Fighting a faceless enemy that plants bombs, without being able to fight back is no doubt extremely frustrating, but it is utterly wrong to kill random people in their homes for it.

In the old days if a city’s civilians resisted an occupation the town would be leveled. Reminded of a US general’s quote occupying the south after the civil war.
“Hereafter every time the telegraph wire was cut we would burn a house and every time a train was fired upon we would hang a man, and we would continue to do this until every house was burned and every man hanged between Decatur and Bridgeport.”
Believe it or not, war has become more civilized.


al -zarqiwi, yes, has far, far worse morals about killing people indiscriminately
claims in jenin, yes were vastly overstated.

Some people taking a little extreme views, imo.

Vaughn
06-03-2006, 07:07 PM
Another alleged massacre is being reported by the BBC. It starts at about 2:20 in the video:

Yup, I have been following that and the other one too. That makes three now and mark my words there will be more reported before all is said and done. I understand that these things are often part of war but I also think that when a war is based on false pretenses that these incidents are much more commonplace.

What I have been hearing from my enlisted friends is that alot of this stuff is being done by people who joined up for the wrong reasons such as revenge and or racism. After listening and reading their comments that (with a few exceptions) the vast majority military personal who were enlisted prior to 9/11 want out of the middle east or think we should never have gone back there in the first place.

According to my friends many of long term military people seem to believe that we are causing more harm than good in terms of US national security and to the citizens of Iraq. Considering all my current and previous enlisted friends are either in the middle east now or have been during the past 4 years I tend to believe and trust what they have to say on the subject has more than a little validity (sp?)

Deogol
06-03-2006, 09:53 PM
There is only one massacre that is under question.

One of the two false ones was ruled crossfire between the troops and the insurgents.

The other one were photographs taken by Reuters of civilians killed BY THE TERRORISTS and re-hashed into civilians killed by US troops. This story has since been withdrawn by the media once they realized it was their own pictures taken under circumstances they know of.

So don't get your hopes up the US military is full of people wandering around taking pot shots at people. Fucking disgusting.

Vaughn
06-03-2006, 10:11 PM
Was that "fucking disgusting" comment directed at me? If so, chill man. There is no need to get rude. I am just repeating what I have been told by actual service men and woman who have or are now serving in Iraq.

I personally know LOTS of wonderful people who serve due to the fact that I grew up in a base town. I have no beef with the military as a whole. My beef is with those who do not serve in an honorable fashion. That goes double for government officials who serve the country without honor.

Deogol
06-03-2006, 10:31 PM
^^^ Glad to hear it. :)