Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Did US Marines commit a massacre?

  1. May 26, 2006 #1
    This is beyond incredible, I'll refrain from adding any commentary.

  2. jcsd
  3. May 26, 2006 #2
    If they did I hope they get the death penelaty.
  4. May 26, 2006 #3
    scott - Both articles above state that they will likely be charged with capital murder.

    More details from Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania):

  5. May 26, 2006 #4

    We saw already the pictures of those poor women and kids a few months ago! I am surprised that you do not know until now that the American did many massacres in Iraq!

    Aljazeera TV reported that one of American soldiers was killed in explosive device … so the other soldiers attacked the houses and murdered 23 kids and women in cold blood. The pictures of the victims spread everywhere, and they were documented by the international human right organizations.

    As usual, the American army claimed that those kids and women were killed with the soldiers as a result of the explosive device, while we can easily distinguish from the pictures that they were shot by guns.

    This massacre became exceptional because it was well-documented, while many other massacres are denied and ignored by the American leaders.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11407 [Broken]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. May 26, 2006 #5
    Uh, I think you answered your own musing here. The reason that other claims of massacres are ignored is because they aren't well-documented. Face it, many Iraqis would love nothing better than to see us leave, and would say or do anything to hasten that. I'm not saying that massacres don't happen, and I'm not condoning the actions of the Marines or the president. (I've always been against the war.) However, just because someone claims that a massacre occurred, it doesn't mean that you should believe it. Someone's word isn't good enough.

    On a side note, let's see if the usual war apologists reply.
    Last edited: May 26, 2006
  7. May 27, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Who in the hell would engage in apologetics regarding the unprovoked killing of unarmed civilians? It's one thing to defend the war, but no one here is going to defend war crimes.
  8. May 27, 2006 #7


    User Avatar

    I'm surprised people are surprised by this unless it's because in this instance the offenders might actually be charged with something although I doubt it. There have been other well documented massacres in the past and nobody has ever been charged.




    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002236470 [Broken]

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/23/1637201&mode=thread&tid=25 [Broken]

    These represent just a few of many well documented massacres for which nobody has ever been charged.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. May 27, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just watched "The Afghan Massacre" documentry from the Democracy Now link. Why did I never hear/read any of this from the mainstream media ? It's a shocking story, and tragic that it's been cleanly swept under the rug.
  10. May 29, 2006 #9

    A new massacre in Afghanistan...

    The American soldiers murdered today 30 Afghani civilians after a car accident …
  11. May 29, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's not acceptable. At the very least, include the link to the source article.
  12. May 29, 2006 #11
  13. May 29, 2006 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the BBC article linked above.

    This is from the incident during the traffic accident. From other news reports, it seems there were at least 3 or 4 civilians shot dead by US soldiers during this event. Most of the people were described as hurling stones at the military transport immediately following the accident..

    BBC says 20 is a high estimate. And this is from subsequent, widespread rioting and destruction of property. This was not unprovoked shooting by American soldiers. And who knows how many of those 20-or-less people were killed merely by the stampede and other rioters. And from other news articles I've read, the only killings during the riots that were clearly identified, were attributed to Afghani forces, not American soldiers.

    eg : From Middle East Times

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  14. May 29, 2006 #13
    I know someone who would, whilst he does not condone these acts(the ones in the OP) he says that the action taken was a simple sweep of an area potentially harbouring "terrorists" and that this sort of thing can happen in that situation(the old colateral damage BS) Mind you he is in the military himself and a staunch Republican, still thinks George Bush is doing a good job and will not here a word said against his country, ever, there's no arguing with some people though, he wont condemn it but makes excuses instead.

    I agree it is a traversty that jar heads with little common sense and a gung ho mentality are allowed to operate in Iraq, these are innocent human beings your gunning down, sheez! The marines reputation has been severely sullied by this, I wonder what there own units views of this atrocity is back in the US?

    I have been reading reports that the US troops really have no empathy with the people there fighting for and against, no real idea of their culture or there mentalities, I wonder if this could attribute to the above situations, I know of an SAS soldier who left the military because the US troops were doing anything but working to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and had little respect for the Iraqi people, I'm beginning to take this even more seriously than I did before.
    Last edited: May 29, 2006
  15. May 29, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Such events are not "incredible" happenings; they are the predictable results of the systematic brain-wash the Bush administration has foisted upon their military personell through the last years.

    May I say My Lai?

    For those war-mongers who don't understand the mechanisms behind this, it suffices to point to the selection mechanism of the operatives (marines):

    1. Persons who show some moral qualms about what they've heard, are not chosen for missions.

    2. Persons of the bully-mentality who profess their patriotism are chosen for such missions.

    You get the Marines you actually pick out.
    Last edited: May 29, 2006
  16. May 29, 2006 #15
    From what I've heard from the members above, I don't think we are answering in the appropriate manner. To quote:

    Based on this, I don't find it unbelieveable at all that this event happened. Tensions are running high with the Americans knowing their lives are on the lines. That is not to say it is right to kill civilians, if the allegations are true There is no solid evidence to suggest the american troops done this, and yet a lot of the people replying already have their blood pressure rising.

    No you may not, as long as there is no solid evidence to suggest the methodical, intentional killings of the iraqi civilians.
  17. May 29, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why not, the comparison with MY Lai is already all over the internet. There is much evedence that it happened. The only things left for the military is to do is to find someone to blame. And then find another someone to blame for the coverup.

    The two situations are differen't however.

    The incident in Haditha was not a planned out methodical, intentional killing of civialians. It was a heat of the moment rage. My Lai was the pre planned actions of soldiers who were ordered to destroy a village supposedly empty of everyone except Viet Cong.
  18. May 29, 2006 #17


    User Avatar

    Just to clarify, are you even attempting to suggest that 'tensions running high' justifiies the murder of civilians??

    There is plenty of solid evidence. Pehaps you are unaware of it.

    Fact: The marines involved initially claimed the civilians were killed by the IED which killed one of their members.

    Fact: This was a lie as evidenced by the bulletholes in the bodies.

    Fact: The marines then claimed the dead civilians were killed in an exchange of fire with insurgents firing from houses.

    Fact: This too was a lie. Forensics showed no bullet holes on the outside of the houses as one would expect in a fire fight.

    Fact: Most of the dead were women and children some as young as 1 year old.

    Fact: An Iraqi journalism student took video tape of the dead in their houses and at the hospital which was aired in europe. But for this the marines would have gotten away with it with the help of their superiors who are also now under investigation for trying to cover up the massacre.

  19. May 29, 2006 #18
    No, I am suggesting that the Marines could have overreacted due to the tensions running high on them, and killed without murderous intent to civilians.

    As for the facts, Fair enough, I didn't know about them.
  20. May 29, 2006 #19
    The soldiers who murdered the civilians in My Lai were basically told that everyone in the village was a Viet Cong. They didn't have a murderous intent, but this didn't stop them from killing the women and children of the village. They were probably even more on edge than the Marines in Iraq were. Nonetheless, second degree murder is still murder, so the comparison can and should be made.
  21. May 29, 2006 #20
    Are you sure it's 2nd degree murder? The OP articles state clearly that capital punishment will be an option - is that just because military law is different?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook