Another war crime in Iraq

[Thanas]

^Ok then, what is your explanation?

[Kamakazie Sith]

^Ok then, what is your explanation?

I posted it, sir.

[Thanas]

So your theory is that the insurgents shot their own people. Not buying it. You do not kill children if you want to get the popular support of the people.

And why the airstrike then? Your explanation makes little sense as to why it happened.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So your theory is that the insurgents shot their own people. Not buying it. You do not kill children if you want to get the popular support of the people.

And why the airstrike then? Your explanation makes little sense as to why it happened.

The insurgents aren't one unified group of people opposing the imperialist Satan, Thanas. The sectarian violence in that region is well documented and you should know that. So, you acting like that is so inconceivable is every bit as stupid as someone acting like US soldiers would never do such a thing. You kill children when you want to send a very strong message...which is again something the insurgents do.

The airstrike? That's easy man. You're not even trying to consider this theory. US forces will air strike buildings that pose significant resistance.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The bottom line to my posts is this. This is yet another thread where people that are prejudice against the United States draw conclusions with little to no evidence and support their conclusions with "well, it happened before!" Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

[open_sketchbook]

So, your theory is they shot their own children, then themselves, with their hands tied behind their back, to send a message?

And this is more realistic than the idea of soldiers, heads filled with the revenge fantasies and crusader imagery your country has been manufacturing since 9/11 and under the constant threat of unseen death from roadside bombs, decide it's not really murder if they're hajjis, knowing that the routine bombings carried out, for some reason, against these structures will cover up the evidence?

[evilsoup]

I don't think that's his argument. I think he's saying that some insurgents handcuffed and shot these people, THEN shot at the US soldiers, who called in an airstrike; then the insurgents would have fled (which is actually a reasonable interpretation).

Now, KamikaziSith; I don't think anyone was saying that this would be enough to convict the soldiers involved. But would you agree that this evidence should have been enough to spark an investigation?

[Alyeska]

So, your theory is they shot their own children, then themselves, with their hands tied behind their back, to send a message?

Insurgents might have shot children. That doesn't make them children of the insurgents.

And this is more realistic than the idea of soldiers, heads filled with the revenge fantasies and crusader imagery your country has been manufacturing since 9/11 and under the constant threat of unseen death from roadside bombs, decide it's not really murder if they're hajjis, knowing that the routine bombings carried out, for some reason, against these structures will cover up the evidence?

Then explain why soldiers would handcuff a baby.

There are known facts. Right now multiple theories fit these facts. This is why an investigation is necessary. To convict OR exonerate.

[Lonestar]

I guess I'm the only one on the board that is aware that "MNF" is in-house USG code for "not US Troops".

[Edi]

We can assume this is true because both sides agree on it. We can pretty much guarantee that some family members, not all, were killed in the gunfight so why would US forces tie up dead people and then order an airstrike without removing the binds? Are these forces completely retarded?

They were not rational. Very simple. They got worked up in a firefight, took prisoners including non-combatant children, shot them in anger and left. Later (possibly even very shortly after), they realized what they did, that they would easily get caught, and tried to cover up the evidence.

I'd say. They'd have to be extremely irrational for an entire unit to agree on murdering little children. Still doesn't make sense why they would leave behind the most critical piece of evidence of foul play which are the binds. Probably part of them being irrational, right.

They were so blinded by anger that the entire unit decided to murder children then got scared they'd be caught because they shot handcuffed prisoners and children but instead of simply removing the binds and chalking it up to collateral damage...they leave them on and decide an airstrike is enough and then leave.

Your scenario isn't impossible but neither is mine. So, which scenario do we choose and why? And please tell me that a prosecutor wouldn't be laughed out of a court room in any first world country with the evidence that has been presented in this thread. The only facts we really have is that there was a battle at this house which resulted in an airstrike and then the people were found inside the house with binds on.

We do not know who put the binds on. We do not know when the binds were put on. Hell, they could have been put on by the locals because that building probably wasn't treated like a crime scene.

It doesn't need an entire unit. All it takes is one soldier losing his cool and shooting the prisoners. The rest of them might have been horrified at it, but given the ample past examples of simply keeping silent and covering up for their squadmates would easily account for the situation. Easier to call in the airstrike to destroy as much of the evidence as possible. As for why not clean up the evidence more thoroughly? Panicky reaction to a fuckup and a consequent lack of planning for the coverup is an easy enough and probable enough explanation.

When you look at the incident where an American soldier planned and executed the rape and murder of a teenage Iraqi girl and then tried to cover it up and have the other soldiers in the platoon help him, that's not only plausible, probable. In that latter case it didn't work and that particular asshole got convicted for the murder, though I have no idea if he's out of prison yet.

[K. A. Pital]

Green is still behind bars, he lost his appeal and probably will remain there. Though it would be best if he lost his life for what he did, he won't come out of the prison any time soon.

And yeah, after that case nothing seems "far-fetched", really. His buddies were covering up his and their own asses after the deed. When you do something horrible, covering it up is a natural desire unless the Army directly condones such behaviour (like e.g. "special rules in the East" created by the Nazis). The US Army has nothing of the sort, and so concealing the act is natural whereas boasting it or otherwise spreading information about it is, in fact, not reasonable.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It doesn't need an entire unit. All it takes is one soldier losing his cool and shooting the prisoners. The rest of them might have been horrified at it, but given the ample past examples of simply keeping silent and covering up for their squadmates would easily account for the situation. Easier to call in the airstrike to destroy as much of the evidence as possible. As for why not clean up the evidence more thoroughly? Panicky reaction to a fuckup and a consequent lack of planning for the coverup is an easy enough and probable enough explanation.

So, basically what you're saying is that for the murders to be covered up it requires the entire unit? Glad we agree.

When you look at the incident where an American soldier planned and executed the rape and murder of a teenage Iraqi girl and then tried to cover it up and have the other soldiers in the platoon help him, that's not only plausible, probable. In that latter case it didn't work and that particular asshole got convicted for the murder, though I have no idea if he's out of prison yet.

Yet another "it happened in the past" argument.

Read this very carefully. I'm not saying that American soldiers could not have done this. What I am saying is you have little to no evidence, and if Lonestar and Block are right then it wasn't American soldiers at all.

Again, I need to point out that all they had to do is unbind them and claim that the adults died in the battle and the children were killed in the crossfire and then they could destroy the house. However, leaving the binds behind defeats the entire coverup attempt. Though it is possible that they forgot about those binds in their haste to get the fuck out.

[Edi]

I agree with you on the point that the evidence so far is not conclusive enough and that an investigation would be required. I was replying to your earlier post because to me it seemed like an argument that American involvement was extremely unlikely because it would have required active participation from everyone in the unit in the decision to kill the prisoners.

A coverup would require the entire unit, yes, the killing no. That was the only argument I was responding to. The "it has happened in the past" arguments are going to keep cropping up every time simply because of the number of cases that have appeared in the past and where things have gone very far before anything happened. And many times not even then.

To put it simply, the reputation of the US armed forces in this kind of cases is so far from where its claimed ideals are that it does not get nearly as much benefit of the doubt as it used to at one point in time. You and other Americans are going to have to live with the reality that nobody accepts denials of wrongdoing by the US government and military at face value anymore. Look to your political leaders and the people running the military for the reasons why. Getting rid of all the tarnish that has been accumulated is not going to be easy or quick. It will take years of work, if not decades.

That said, I would prefer it be properly, thoroughly and transparently investigated. I don't have a personal stake in this issue one way or another.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or they were simply murdered. Lets be honest, it is not as if there have not been units in Iraq and Afghanistan who have snapped. Not as if there have not been gangs of people committing war crimes and the entire unit knew about it but did nothing. Nope. Nope. There have been no documented incidents of that ever.

Interesting. So, because others have done it that makes this group guilty. I think if I used that logic in my law enforcement career it would be a very short one.

I would suggest burning those strawmen with an accelerant. More efficient that way.

What I am saying is that the US and US soldiers do not get the benefit if the doubt anymore. Too many war crimes have been committed with our government actively obfuscating the truth for years. Too many soldiers have committed crimes against humanity with their units covering it up. War crimes are endemic there now, because the social and psychological conditions are perfect for them. It does not make them guilty, but a cable like this to the State Department is pretty damning and it should have sparked an investigation. But, like institutionalized rape in the military and in contractors, it did not.

[Lord Zentei]

People accused of crimes of any sort are always supposed gain the benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as assumption of guilt until innocence is proven.

[Alyrium Denryle]

People accused of crimes of any sort are always supposed gain the benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as assumption of guilt until innocence is proven.

That is a matter of legal burden of proof. It is different from grasping around to find an alternative explanation for an event. If there is a war crime in US occupied territory, your first suspect should be the US, because that is what the record indicates. Kind of like how whenever a child dies or is molested, the first people you look at are the relatives.

[Shroom Man 777]

Would people be saying that if it wasn't their star-spangled nation being called into question?

[evilsoup]

People accused of crimes of any sort are always supposed gain the benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as assumption of guilt until innocence is proven.

...and if stardestroyer.net was a court of law, you'd have a point.

[Lord Zentei]

People accused of crimes of any sort are always supposed gain the benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as assumption of guilt until innocence is proven.

That is a matter of legal burden of proof. It is different from grasping around to find an alternative explanation for an event. If there is a war crime in US occupied territory, your first suspect should be the US, because that is what the record indicates. Kind of like how whenever a child dies or is molested, the first people you look at are the relatives.

There's a rather big difference between saying that the US is the first suspect and saying that the US doesn't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.


As for the metoo brigade:

Would people be saying that if it wasn't their star-spangled nation being called into question?

Yes. And, BTW: you're making an assumption.

...and if stardestroyer.net was a court of law, you'd have a point.

Irrelevant.

[Simon_Jester]

People accused of crimes of any sort are always supposed gain the benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as assumption of guilt until innocence is proven.

That is a matter of legal burden of proof. It is different from grasping around to find an alternative explanation for an event. If there is a war crime in US occupied territory, your first suspect should be the US, because that is what the record indicates. Kind of like how whenever a child dies or is molested, the first people you look at are the relatives.

Do you have statistics on the relative numbers of war crimes committed by US forces and by the insurgents?

[Alyeska]

That is a matter of legal burden of proof. It is different from grasping around to find an alternative explanation for an event. If there is a war crime in US occupied territory, your first suspect should be the US, because that is what the record indicates. Kind of like how whenever a child dies or is molested, the first people you look at are the relatives.

The "record" says nothing of value. We have known facts of which multiple theories can fit. There is no proof who killed those people. You are making an assumption based on a report. The report itself made assumptions without providing evidence to back it up.

There was a gun battle between two forces. You assume one party is guilty without any consideration the other party (also with guns) might have done the deed.

[Shroom Man 777]

Would people be saying that if it wasn't their star-spangled nation being called into question?

Yes. And, BTW: you're making an assumption.

Well, in that case I am relieved that you'd likewise stick it up for Iraqi and Afghan freedom fighter soldiers, Iranian soldier, Russian troops, Chinese occupation forces in America, and other non-GI Joes.

And, BTW: Tough shit when people think the US is guilty, after all the shit they've done. I guess it's inconceivable that Americans could illegally kill people who did nothing for no good reason after they've invaded the country they're in for no good reason either. Well, its inevitable that some people will lean towards innocent or guilty in things like this, who knows what really happened. But hey, even if in this case the GIs are as righteous as freedom beef, doesn't change the fact that your troops have a laundry list of war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

Best thing is, if this actually turns out to be an actual war crime as you guys so adamantly protest and rail against, it won't really even matter because your country has already done so much that this - if this is true - is just a drop in a bucket.

How does it feel, when you can vehemently argue about this one case, whether it is or isn't a war crime, but whether it is or isn't... your nation and your soldiers have already committed so many other reprehensible acts that the innocence or guilt of the troops in this single incident doesn't matter at all?

Its like, who gives a shit if those American troopers really did kill those Vietnamese civilians in that one incident, when other American soldiers have already been found guilty of killfucking and freedomizing whole villages in all sorts of other incidents. Who gives a shit? Two gallons or three gallons, you can't really cup your hands for all that blood anyway.

God's most beautiful creations.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would suggest burning those strawmen with an accelerant. More efficient that way.

What I am saying is that the US and US soldiers do not get the benefit if the doubt anymore. Too many war crimes have been committed with our government actively obfuscating the truth for years. Too many soldiers have committed crimes against humanity with their units covering it up. War crimes are endemic there now, because the social and psychological conditions are perfect for them. It does not make them guilty, but a cable like this to the State Department is pretty damning and it should have sparked an investigation. But, like institutionalized rape in the military and in contractors, it did not.

I get the feeling this is a damned if they do damned if they don't. However, you're absolutely right. There should have been an investigation and I agree with Edi that it should be transparent.

That is a matter of legal burden of proof. It is different from grasping around to find an alternative explanation for an event. If there is a war crime in US occupied territory, your first suspect should be the US, because that is what the record indicates. Kind of like how whenever a child dies or is molested, the first people you look at are the relatives.

If you didn't have brutal sectarian violence in Iraq then you'd have a point. I'd also like to see those statistics as well just so we're all clear on what the record indicates.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, in that case I am relieved that you'd likewise stick it up for Iraqi and Afghan freedom fighter soldiers, Iranian soldier, Russian troops, Chinese occupation forces in America, and other non-GI Joes.

I'd hope I would.

And, BTW: Tough shit when people think the US is guilty, after all the shit they've done. I guess it's inconceivable that Americans could illegally kill people who did nothing for no good reason after they've invaded the country they're in for no good reason either. Well, its inevitable that some people will lean towards innocent or guilty in things like this, who knows what really happened. But hey, even if in this case the GIs are as righteous as freedom beef, doesn't change the fact that your troops have a laundry list of war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

You like that word, inconceivable, don't you? You remind me of the Sicilian from Princess Bride! Though I think you're more clever than he thinks he was. By the way whose argument in this thread has implied that it is inconceivable that American forces could have done this?

Best thing is, if this actually turns out to be an actual war crime as you guys so adamantly protest and rail against, it won't really even matter because your country has already done so much that this - if this is true - is just a drop in a bucket.

It'd matter to me.

How does it feel, when you can vehemently argue about this one case, whether it is or isn't a war crime, but whether it is or isn't... your nation and your soldiers have already committed so many other reprehensible acts that the innocence or guilt of the troops in this single incident doesn't matter at all?

Its like, who gives a shit if those American troopers really did kill those Vietnamese civilians in that one incident, when other American soldiers have already been found guilty of killfucking and freedomizing whole villages in all sorts of other incidents. Who gives a shit? Two gallons or three gallons, you can't really cup your hands for all that blood anyway.

An interesting fact about that is an American helicopter crew was ready to fire on US soldiers to help the trapped and wounded. The same crew went on to testify against those soldiers. Though the pilot was denounced by congress at the time. I bring this up because people are not black and white. It's amazing how often you and others forget that when the variables have changed.

[Lord Zentei]

Well, in that case I am relieved that you'd likewise stick it up for Iraqi and Afghan freedom fighter soldiers, Iranian soldier, Russian troops, Chinese occupation forces in America, and other non-GI Joes.

If that was meant to be sarcasm, then feel free to fuck yourself. Otherwise: indeed. Naturally all allegations should be met with investigation whenever this is possible, and you don't assume guilt of specific individuals until their guilt is proven. By the same token, if you have terror suspects at Guantanamo, you also give them a trial rather than just keeping them under lock and key indefinitely, while assuming that they did something bad. Naturally, it's entirely plausible that they did do it - in which case, you throw the book at them.

And, BTW: Tough shit when people think the US is guilty, after all the shit they've done. I guess it's inconceivable that Americans could illegally kill people who did nothing for no good reason after they've invaded the country they're in for no good reason either. Well, its inevitable that some people will lean towards innocent or guilty in things like this, who knows what really happened. But hey, even if in this case the GIs are as righteous as freedom beef, doesn't change the fact that your troops have a laundry list of war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

Ah, so it was sarcasm then. So, see above. I've never claimed that it's "inconceivable" that Americans did bad things; if I though that, then I wouldn't use terms like "innocent until proven guilty", I would instead say "obviously innocent".

Best thing is, if this actually turns out to be an actual war crime as you guys so adamantly protest and rail against, it won't really even matter because your country has already done so much that this - if this is true - is just a drop in a bucket.

How does it feel, when you can vehemently argue about this one case, whether it is or isn't a war crime, but whether it is or isn't... your nation and your soldiers have already committed so many other reprehensible acts that the innocence or guilt of the troops in this single incident doesn't matter at all? <snip blah blah blah>

Again you make the same assumption as before. I'll spell it out for you: I am not an American. But regardless of past crimes America has committed, you still don't get to assume that such and such a specific group of soldiers is guilty of such and such a specific crime until you conduct an investigation.