US Marine on BBC talks about killing Iraqi civilians

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-06-16 09:16am

He believes they were "committing genocide."

Link to MP3

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-16 09:25am

The ... Iraqi ... civilians ... were?

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-06-16 09:28am

Vympel wrote:The ... Iraqi ... civilians ... were?

No, the US military.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-16 09:44am

Ah. Well, it ain't genocide, even if he thinks it is. Stand up guy, though.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-17 02:03am

Did anybody else think the interview was too short? I was really getting into what the guy was saying. Then *poof!* interview ends. Although I wouldn't call it 'genocide'.

Interesting what he said about US military training modelling the Israeli military closely. I take it that this has been going on for a long time?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-06-17 02:38am

I would not call the actions by US military as genocide. However the US military showed a blatant disregard for civilian lives that resulted in many unfortunate deaths.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-17 10:00am

evilcat4000 wrote:I would not call the actions by US military as genocide. However the US military showed a blatant disregard for civilian lives that resulted in many unfortunate deaths.

I don't know about blatant disregard, it's hard to wage a clean war in the middle of civilians. I'm sure the soldiers on the ground did their best not to but I'm not sure how prepared they were for the situation they actually faced.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-17 01:28pm

Oddly enough, on NPR this morning they interviewed a reporter who was embedded in the unit that actually captured Baghdad. He talked about civilian casualties--the soldiers tried to avoid them and felt terrible when they killed a civilian by accident, but with the city's defenders wearing civilian clothes, anyone who didn't get out of their way they killed.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-06-17 01:37pm

Its genocide if the soldiers were shooting at anything moving,but if they shot only those who were armed then its just war.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-17 01:47pm

That soldier had better not run for office 30 years from now; he'll be branded a traitor for saying those things.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-06-18 02:15am

Stormbringer wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:I would not call the actions by US military as genocide. However the US military showed a blatant disregard for civilian lives that resulted in many unfortunate deaths.
I don't know about blatant disregard, it's hard to wage a clean war in the middle of civilians. I'm sure the soldiers on the ground did their best not to but I'm not sure how prepared they were for the situation they actually faced.

The Americans attacked wedding ceremonies recently with AC-130 gunships. That shows serious disregard for civilian lives.

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2004-06-18 06:26am

evilcat4000 wrote:The Americans attacked wedding ceremonies recently with AC-130 gunships. That shows serious disregard for civilian lives.

If the wedding cerimonies involve firing AK's into the air on full auto, then some incidents like this can happen.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-18 08:27am

Bill Door wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:The Americans attacked wedding ceremonies recently with AC-130 gunships. That shows serious disregard for civilian lives.
If the wedding cerimonies involve firing AK's into the air on full auto, then some incidents like this can happen.

Or maybe the Americans should look at the culture of the nation they have invaded and also get their recon sorted out?. In this day and age information travels fast and this sort of thing has an adverse effect on what the US are trying to accomplish {to say nothing of torture in various places around the world, not just in Iraq}, shooting up weddings can only encourage those who already hate the US with more than a passion.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-18 10:12am

I also remember a different story on NPR in which an embedded reporter was talking about how the only time the US soldiers seemed demoralized in the battle for Fallujah was when a civilian died, and how the Marines took more casualties than was necessary in an effort to prevent civilian deaths.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-06-18 12:06pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Bill Door wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:The Americans attacked wedding ceremonies recently with AC-130 gunships. That shows serious disregard for civilian lives.
If the wedding cerimonies involve firing AK's into the air on full auto, then some incidents like this can happen.
Or maybe the Americans should look at the culture of the nation they have invaded and also get their recon sorted out?. In this day and age information travels fast and this sort of thing has an adverse effect on what the US are trying to accomplish {to say nothing of torture in various places around the world, not just in Iraq}, shooting up weddings can only encourage those who already hate the US with more than a passion.

If there's a fair amount of atuomatic gunfire being blasted upwards in full auto, in an occupied country, how can you blame the troops for taking actions to protect themselves? Not that it wasn't a poor choice in hindsight, but if you were there, what would you have done?

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-06-18 12:07pm

I'm an idiot. That should read: "If there's a fair amount of automatic gunfire being blasted upwards..."

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-18 12:27pm

Badme wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Bill Door wrote:If the wedding cerimonies involve firing AK's into the air on full auto, then some incidents like this can happen.
Or maybe the Americans should look at the culture of the nation they have invaded and also get their recon sorted out?. In this day and age information travels fast and this sort of thing has an adverse effect on what the US are trying to accomplish {to say nothing of torture in various places around the world, not just in Iraq}, shooting up weddings can only encourage those who already hate the US with more than a passion.
If there's a fair amount of atuomatic gunfire being blasted upwards in full auto, in an occupied country, how can you blame the troops for taking actions to protect themselves? Not that it wasn't a poor choice in hindsight, but if you were there, what would you have done?

The question that should be asked is why there were not troops on the ground to check things out? As to what I would do? Were I there I imagine that I would react as my training and orders dictate.

Admittadly hindsight is wonderfull.

Everything that happnes is political and it is perception of events that count. The US has failed to shape perception in its favour and has suffered as a direct result.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-06-18 12:34pm

Stuart Mackey wrote: The question that should be asked is why there were not troops on the ground to check things out? As to what I would do? Were I there I imagine that I would react as my training and orders dictate.

Admittadly hindsight is wonderfull.

Everything that happnes is political and it is perception of events that count. The US has failed to shape perception in its favour and has suffered as a direct result.

Your training and reaction would be dictated by the country that you are from. The Americans shoot first and investigate later, always have. Commonwealth and most NATO countries ROE's require them to identify their target before opening fire.

*Can a mod delete my above post,thanks*

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-18 10:54pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Your training and reaction would be dictated by the country that you are from. The Americans shoot first and investigate later, always have. Commonwealth and most NATO countries ROE's require them to identify their target before opening fire.

Like I said

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2004-06-19 08:33am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Badme wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Or maybe the Americans should look at the culture of the nation they have invaded and also get their recon sorted out?. In this day and age information travels fast and this sort of thing has an adverse effect on what the US are trying to accomplish {to say nothing of torture in various places around the world, not just in Iraq}, shooting up weddings can only encourage those who already hate the US with more than a passion.
If there's a fair amount of atuomatic gunfire being blasted upwards in full auto, in an occupied country, how can you blame the troops for taking actions to protect themselves? Not that it wasn't a poor choice in hindsight, but if you were there, what would you have done?
The question that should be asked is why there were not troops on the ground to check things out? As to what I would do? Were I there I imagine that I would react as my training and orders dictate.

Check out what? A large group of people who are carring and firing several fully automatic weapons?

Besides, send in the ground troops, what would they see? A bunch of people in civilian clothes with AKs? How does that change it?

Common sense indicates to me that firing automatic weapons in an occupied contry is not the best of ideas.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-06-19 09:21am

Bill Door wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Badme wrote: If there's a fair amount of atuomatic gunfire being blasted upwards in full auto, in an occupied country, how can you blame the troops for taking actions to protect themselves? Not that it wasn't a poor choice in hindsight, but if you were there, what would you have done?
The question that should be asked is why there were not troops on the ground to check things out? As to what I would do? Were I there I imagine that I would react as my training and orders dictate.
Check out what? A large group of people who are carring and firing several fully automatic weapons?

Besides, send in the ground troops, what would they see? A bunch of people in civilian clothes with AKs? How does that change it?

Common sense indicates to me that firing automatic weapons in an occupied contry is not the best of ideas.

Ever hear of recon? Bride and groom, two sets of family, bunch of little kids and a wedding singer, all in one place probably means a wedding..might not be distigishable from up in the air, but a guy on the ground with binoculars might have the wit to work it out.
Btw, common sence should tell you that if you occupy a nation that respecting the locals customs might be a good idea unless you want them to start fighting you.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-06-19 12:03pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Bill Door wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:The question that should be asked is why there were not troops on the ground to check things out? As to what I would do? Were I there I imagine that I would react as my training and orders dictate.
Check out what? A large group of people who are carring and firing several fully automatic weapons?

Besides, send in the ground troops, what would they see? A bunch of people in civilian clothes with AKs? How does that change it?

Common sense indicates to me that firing automatic weapons in an occupied contry is not the best of ideas.
Ever hear of recon? Bride and groom, two sets of family, bunch of little kids and a wedding singer, all in one place probably means a wedding..might not be distigishable from up in the air, but a guy on the ground with binoculars might have the wit to work it out.
Btw, common sence should tell you that if you occupy a nation that respecting the locals customs might be a good idea unless you want them to start fighting you.

By the way yourself, common sense should tell you (and them) that firing automatic weapons when there are foreign troops in the area on a war footing is not the best of plans.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-19 12:16pm

Rogue 9 wrote: By the way yourself, common sense should tell you (and them) that firing automatic weapons when there are foreign troops in the area on a war footing is not the best of plans.

They're the ones that live there. The foreign troops can go get fucked. It's not a "plan", it's a custom. Not the most rational or safe one though, but flouting customs is not the best way to endear yourself to any population.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-19 01:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:That soldier had better not run for office 30 years from now; he'll be branded a traitor for saying those things.

Only if he runs on the Democratic ticket.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-06-19 01:30pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Badme wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Or maybe the Americans should look at the culture of the nation they have invaded and also get their recon sorted out?. In this day and age information travels fast and this sort of thing has an adverse effect on what the US are trying to accomplish {to say nothing of torture in various places around the world, not just in Iraq}, shooting up weddings can only encourage those who already hate the US with more than a passion.
If there's a fair amount of atuomatic gunfire being blasted upwards in full auto, in an occupied country, how can you blame the troops for taking actions to protect themselves? Not that it wasn't a poor choice in hindsight, but if you were there, what would you have done?
The question that should be asked is why there were not troops on the ground to check things out? As to what I would do? Were I there I imagine that I would react as my training and orders dictate.

I think that's answer is pretty obvious, don't you? Ground troops can't be everywhere aircraft are.

Ya know it's pretty hard to tell the difference between a wedding and a hostile ground force when you are flying at high speeds and both tend to fire upwards where aircraft are known to operate in a country where the enemy dresses as civilians