Marine Shot Unarmed Civilians

Yet another page in the terrorist playbook exposed.

Turning a Battle Into a War Crime
May 16, 2007:

One of the dirty little secrets about recent claims of massacres is that all too often, they really are not massacres. The latest case of this now appears to be Haditha, with testimony now emerging that shows that at least eight of the 24 “victims” were armed terrorists. If so, Haditha would have more in common with the 2002 battle of Jenin (also claimed to be a massacre) than it does with My Lai.

The efforts to falsely claim a massacre occurred in Jenin are instructive. After the 2002 battle, the Palestinian Authority claimed a massacre had occurred. The mainstream media and human rights groups quickly echoed their claims.

However, further investigations showed that not only had the body count been exaggerated, but that most of those confirmed killed were, in fact, terrorists and not civilians.

In the case of Haditha, the testimony from an intelligence officer and a liaison officer that at least eight of the dead were terrorists calls into question the claims of a massacre and cover-up. In this case, it seems that the civilians’ deaths may have been part of a firefight that resulted after an ambush.

The initial Haditha investigations uncovered some apparent discrepancies in the Marines’ stories, and a criminal investigation by NCIS was launched. This, and claims from human rights groups in the media, led to some criminal charges being filed earlier this year.

In this day and age, it doesn’t take long for a misleading story to spread out. In 2005, Newsweek reported that guards at Guantanamo Bay flushed a Koran down a toilet, triggering riots that led to a number of injuries and deaths. Earlier that year, the false claims were about torture at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, most notably in a speech by Senator Richard Durbin on the Senate floor.

In both cases, the charges were investigated. In both cases, the claims proved to have little, if any, bearing to what really happened.

As was the case with Jenin, many of the claims of torture were found to be generally unfounded, and in the few cases where lines were crossed, corrective action had been taken, in some cases immediately (one such case involved an interrogator who smeared a detainee with red ink after that detainee spat on her).

Worse, the lies were already spread around by the time the truth was determined and not reported.

If the testimony about Haditha bears out, then it will just be the latest example of media misreporting. At that point, though, the real cover-up will begin. Very little, if any, effort will be made to correct the record. Politicians like John Murtha, who repeated the most inflammatory charges, will get a pass.

The troops are able to fight the terrorists, and usually win. Fighting false accusations from terrorists that get repeated by the media, human rights groups, and politicians is much harder. The worst thing about this is that the myth of the “Haditha massacre” will be used to by various terrorist groups for recruiting, and the new recruits mean that there is a greater chance that troops will get killed. ? Harold C. Hutchison

www.strategypage.com

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Rule of thumb: great empires generally don’t run out of toilet paper.[/quote]

This is turning out to be a great month for memorable quotes.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Yet another page in the terrorist playbook exposed.

Turning a Battle Into a War Crime
May 16, 2007:

[…]

www.strategypage.com
[/quote]

You’ll have to do better than an article on a conservative propaganda website run by a wargames designer. Leaving that aside, what info did the author present? All I saw were analogies to other massacres. It didn’t have a shred of evidence to back the claims up.

I am usually not reluctant to discuss articles written by bloggers, but this guy’s piece is so weak, it crumbles under its own weight.

Study a bit the evidence before rushing into conclusions.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Yet another page in the terrorist playbook exposed.

Turning a Battle Into a War Crime
May 16, 2007:

[…]

www.strategypage.com

You’ll have to do better than an article on a conservative propaganda website run by a wargames designer. Leaving that aside, what info did the author present? All I saw were analogies to other massacres. It didn’t have a shred of evidence to back the claims up.

I am usually not reluctant to discuss articles written by bloggers, but this guy’s piece is so weak, it crumbles under its own weight.

Study a bit the evidence before rushing into conclusions.

HAHAHA. How typical.

What a loser you are lixy. Niether you, or your numerous sock puppets are given any credibility on this site. You can’t even begin to debate an issue due to your comical bigotry and sophmoric grasp of issues.

Attack the medium but ignore the message. Do you really think anyone is buying that any longer…what a fool. Tell us based on your study of propoganda from the vituos ME media what really happened, combined with your vast military knowledge that should be entertaining.

Is that your entry on Wikpedia by the way? You and the other brothers have essentially destoyed the viability of that fine site you know.
How sad your only method of scholastic research has been corrupted.

By the way didn’t you get the message. The cyber jihad has moved on to You Tube. You don’t have to post the drivel on off topic sites anymore. Your supposed to vote for “Pro-Islamic” terrorist videos now with your spare time…try and keep up with you directives son.

Run along lixy…you are getting old and exceedingly dull and dim.

[quote]hedo wrote:

Is that your entry on Wikpedia by the way? You and the other brothers have essentially destoyed the viability of that fine site you know.

[/quote]

True. The site has been ruined in most areas that have anything to do with politics.

Had a few minutes at work today and figured I would check in and see if the US is still responsible for causing all the problems of the world.

Yep. Pretty much.

Ok, well that’s what I thought.

Back to work now - maybe later I will check the news online and see yet another (yawn) car bombing in a market killing a hundred or so people (yawn)in the holy city of ______.

I swear - I almost care enough about the latest Sunni vs Shia atrocity to stop doodling cartoon pictures of Muhammed.

Almost.

Of course, it’s probably just because I simply can’t relate to a culture where children’s tv shows include a little girl singing about her mother who just blew herself up at an Israeli checkpoint. The little girl then finds sticks of dynamite in her mother’s dresser drawer and the implication is clearly made that she will/might follow in her footsteps.

Maybe its the billboards in Iran that show a pregnant woman wearing a bomb vest and a banner that says “I love motherhood but I love martyrdom more”.

Maybe those facts are just clouding my mind and not allowing me to see the “REAL” truth that the US is the real cause of all of their problems.

Somebody call me when there are 5,000 muslims in the street protesting the retarded violence they visit on each other instead of protesting a fucking cartoon in a paper most of them couldn’t fucking read anyway. THAT I want to see.

Somebody call me when an entire neighborhood of Iraqi’s decides they have had enough of car bombings and death squads every night and they finally kill a few insurgents/terrorists/freedom bombers etc etc -themselves to put an end to it.

Somebody call me when there are muslim clerics on tv talking about acceptance of other religions like Christianity and Judaism and Buddhism.

Until then…

Hugs and Kisses,
The Great Satan

This sums up almost the entire thread nicely.
For more detailed dismantling of lixy and petedacook and a few others - see also Tbolt and Zap’s posts.

The only thing I would differ on in this particular post is the word “indirectly”. I think that such responses from the Muslim world “directly” condone the terrorists actions.

[quote]david dunne wrote:
This sums up almost the entire thread nicely.
For more detailed dismantling of lixy and petedacook and a few others - see also Tbolt and Zap’s posts.

The only thing I would differ on in this particular post is the word “indirectly”. I think that such responses from the Muslim world “directly” condone the terrorists actions.
[/quote]

What should a muslim do then, when he is against both US foreign policy and islamic terrorism? If he thinks, that US policies are making the terrorists stronger. Should he keep his mouth shut?

[quote]hedo wrote:
[…]ad-hominem rant[…]

Attack the medium but ignore the message.

[…]ad-hominem rant[…]
[/quote]

The perfect definition of hypocrisy. Congrats!

Oh, and I see you added sock-puppetering to the long list of accusations you throw at me.

[quote]karva wrote:
david dunne wrote:
This sums up almost the entire thread nicely.
For more detailed dismantling of lixy and petedacook and a few others - see also Tbolt and Zap’s posts.

The only thing I would differ on in this particular post is the word “indirectly”. I think that such responses from the Muslim world “directly” condone the terrorists actions.

What should a muslim do then, when he is against both US foreign policy and islamic terrorism? If he thinks, that US policies are making the terrorists stronger. Should he keep his mouth shut?[/quote]

Can you not be vocal against both?
I do not agree with all US policy and I do not agree with islamic terrorism either. I have no problem with being vocal against each.

Are you saying it has to be one or the other? So, if you disagree with US foreign policy then the option/answer is islamic terrorism?

Too many in the islamic world choose silence regarding islamic terror.That is supporting it in my book.

Killing innocents is never going to convert the Western world to Islam or scare the West into behaving differently on the world’s stage. Killing innocents is never going to sway the world’s opinion to their side.

However, it may just cause the West to drop the fucking nuclear hammer on the islamic world in a huge way someday.

I am not calling for that ok? But you must realize-when the West sees little muslim kids wearing fake bomb vests in parades…it makes the entire muslim world look alot less human. To me, it helps create a feeling of “Oh well what can you do? They are fanatical and intolerant of everyone…so fuck them.”
Can you see how that thinking would occur?

[quote]david dunne wrote:
Can you not be vocal against both?
I do not agree with all US policy and I do not agree with islamic terrorism either. I have no problem with being vocal against each.

Are you saying it has to be one or the other? So, if you disagree with US foreign policy then the option/answer is islamic terrorism?

Too many in the islamic world choose silence regarding islamic terror.That is supporting it in my book.

Killing innocents is never going to convert the Western world to Islam or scare the West into behaving differently on the world’s stage. Killing innocents is never going to sway the world’s opinion to their side.

However, it may just cause the West to drop the fucking nuclear hammer on the islamic world in a huge way someday.

I am not calling for that ok? But you must realize-when the West sees little muslim kids wearing fake bomb vests in parades…it makes the entire muslim world look alot less human. To me, it helps create a feeling of “Oh well what can you do? They are fanatical and intolerant of everyone…so fuck them.”
Can you see how that thinking would occur?
[/quote]

I can see it, I have to remind myself not to make too wide generalizations based on news pulp. I dont even think, that it would be good, if US was to leave Iraq immediately. And I’m quite sure, that you wont do it in the near future.

I understood, that in your opinion lixy “directly” condones terrorism. I just wanted to point out, that that is a false statement, at least in the light of what he has written so far. Even though he often uses the word “but” as a bridge.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
[…]ad-hominem rant[…]

Attack the medium but ignore the message.

[…]ad-hominem rant[…]

The perfect definition of hypocrisy. Congrats!

Oh, and I see you added sock-puppetering to the long list of accusations you throw at me.[/quote]

Call them as I see them. Your pathetic attempts at deflection is apparent. Sad and silly at the same time. You set out to be Goebbels and you turned out to be Baghdad Bob.

Your not worth an attack. I usally ignore your posts because they are hate filled bigoted rants.

Do you get away with this silliness on other sites?

[quote]hedo wrote:
Your not worth an attack.[/quote]

Your: 2nd possessive pronoun
You’re: Contrac…

Ah, forget it. You’ll don’t seem to ever learn anyway.

Ok. Show me what added value your “article” brought to the discussion. Did it contain any new or insightful info? No. Was it amateur work from an would-be apologist of the massacre? Very likely.

That kind of rant is only worth running if it’s from a notable person, a real journalist or somebody with good credentials like a scholar. Hutchinson is a blogger and nothing more. The fact that strategypage ran his piece is proof that it’s nothing more than a propaganda site.

That said, if you think he made any argument worth noting at all, let me know. I’ll be happy to discuss it.

[quote]karva wrote:
I understood, that in your opinion lixy “directly” condones terrorism. I just wanted to point out, that that is a false statement, at least in the light of what he has written so far. [/quote]

You don’t get it.

“If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”

What part of that don’t you understand?

[quote]lixy wrote:
karva wrote:
I understood, that in your opinion lixy “directly” condones terrorism. I just wanted to point out, that that is a false statement, at least in the light of what he has written so far.

You don’t get it.

“If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”

What part of that don’t you understand?[/quote]

Nobody said any of that except you genius.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Your not worth an attack.

Your: 2nd possessive pronoun
You’re: Contrac…

Ah, forget it. You’ll don’t seem to ever learn anyway.

I usally ignore your posts because they are hate filled bigoted rants.

Ok. Show me what added value your “article” brought to the discussion. Did it contain any new or insightful info? No. Was it amateur work from an would-be apologist of the massacre? Very likely.

That kind of rant is only worth running if it’s from a notable person, a real journalist or somebody with good credentials like a scholar. Hutchinson is a blogger and nothing more. The fact that strategypage ran his piece is proof that it’s nothing more than a propaganda site.

That said, if you think he made any argument worth noting at all, let me know. I’ll be happy to discuss it.[/quote]

You have yet to discuss anything on this site. You spew talking points and can’t defend them. It’s hilarious. Dunnigan, the operator of Strategypage has forgotten more about warfare then a college kid like you from the ME will ever know. Your cowardly deflection speaks more to your lack of character then you realize.

Your idiotic attempted correction of grammar, on an informal website, speaks more to your lack of skills in forming an opinion and discussing issues then your questionable grasp of grammar. I’ve pointed out more then enough of your spelling mistakes to one up you but I find it tiresome and boring…like you.

Your deflection is still apparent. Still comical but no less apparent. Must we endure another Wikpedia reference of questionable validity? Too funny Baghdad Bob.

[quote]hedo wrote:
You have yet to discuss anything on this site. You spew talking points and can’t defend them. It’s hilarious. Dunnigan, the operator of Strategypage has forgotten more about warfare then a college kid like you from the ME will ever know. Your cowardly deflection speaks more to your lack of character then you realize.
[/quote]

Morocco isn’t the ME.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
You have yet to discuss anything on this site. You spew talking points and can’t defend them. It’s hilarious. Dunnigan, the operator of Strategypage has forgotten more about warfare then a college kid like you from the ME will ever know. Your cowardly deflection speaks more to your lack of character then you realize.

Morocco isn’t the ME.
[/quote]

I doubt Lixy would actually tell T-Nation where he is from.

[quote]david dunne wrote:
lixy wrote:
You don’t get it.

“If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”

What part of that don’t you understand?

Nobody said any of that except you genius.
[/quote]

The president of the USA did. I’m guessing you’re one of his compatriots.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Your idiotic attempted correction of grammar, on an informal website, speaks more to your lack of skills in forming an opinion and discussing issues then your questionable grasp of grammar. [/quote]

Hedo, you are too easy.

Listen here. I must have pointed out the Your/You’re distinction about a dozen times around here. I particularly like picking on you because all you ever did on this forum, was call me names and question my motives for daring to voice an opinion different from yours.

I never claimed to master English. I believe that my vocabulary is limited, and that I have a lot to learn in that area. But in my defense, no non-native speaker can ever correct my French or Arabic. And for the record, I also speak Spanish and Swedish but wouldn’t dare to make the same claim about those.