US Soldiers massacred family, shot dead 3-year-old girl - New England Patriots Forums

mikey · 03-20-2006, 04:49 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Military Investigating Deadly Raid in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shortly after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine in a western Iraqi town, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old-girl, residents say.

.

scout · 03-20-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Military Investigating Deadly Raid in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shortly after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine in a western Iraqi town, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old-girl, residents say.

.

I'm old enough to remember Vietnam. So many comparisons.

wistahpatsfan · 03-20-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Sorry, but even I have a hard time believing this one. I dont think it is true, but if it is, it is just one more reason we have no business there.

Without live video tapes, no one can believe this. If you do, you're beyond cynical.

***Harry Boy*** · 03-21-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Military Investigating Deadly Raid in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shortly after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine in a western Iraqi town, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old-girl, residents say.

.

The Sore Losing Bush Haters love these story's they're even better than the "dog leash".

Turd Furguson · 03-22-2006, 05:56 AM

So glad that Mikey is willing to give the troops that he so earnestly supports the benefit of the doubt.

Turk · 03-22-2006, 09:05 AM

We will have to wait for the tape before jumping to any kind of a decision but I do have to point out to the contradictions below:

"...A U.S. military statement shortly after the November attack described what happened as an ambush on a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol, with a roadside bombing and subsequent firefight killing 15 civilians, eight insurgents and a U.S. Marine. The statement said the 15 civilians were killed by the blast, a claim the residents strongly denied.

Residents said there only was a roadside bombing, and all the shooting was done by American troops.

Time, in a story in this week's edition, reported that a U.S. colonel went to Haditha for a weeklong probe to interview Marines, survivors and doctors at the morgue. The magazine cited unidentified military officials close to the investigation.

The probe, Time reported, concluded that the civilians were killed by Marines and not a roadside bomb, and that no insurgents appeared to be in the first two houses raided by the Marines.

The probe found, however, that the deaths were the result of "collateral damage," investigators said..."

How can the killings in the first two houses be classified as collateral damage if there were no insurgents there?
If the probe did prove that the initial reports were false, doesn't that at least smell funny?

mikey · 03-22-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turk

We will have to wait for the tape before jumping to any kind of a decision but I do have to point out to the contradictions below:

"...A U.S. military statement shortly after the November attack described what happened as an ambush on a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol, with a roadside bombing and subsequent firefight killing 15 civilians, eight insurgents and a U.S. Marine. The statement said the 15 civilians were killed by the blast, a claim the residents strongly denied.

Residents said there only was a roadside bombing, and all the shooting was done by American troops.

Time, in a story in this week's edition, reported that a U.S. colonel went to Haditha for a weeklong probe to interview Marines, survivors and doctors at the morgue. The magazine cited unidentified military officials close to the investigation.

The probe, Time reported, concluded that the civilians were killed by Marines and not a roadside bomb, and that no insurgents appeared to be in the first two houses raided by the Marines.

The probe found, however, that the deaths were the result of "collateral damage," investigators said..."

How can the killings in the first two houses be classified as collateral damage if there were no insurgents there?
If the probe did prove that the initial reports were false, doesn't that at least smell funny?

I am not sure if a US military probe will come up with anything.

I think the US military under George Bush has zero credibility.

Don't take my word for it, go and ask Pat Tillman's parents.

It is also important to remember that the Vietnam's My Lai massacre's investigation by US military was also a cover-up by the government.

.

***DarrylS*** · 03-22-2006, 09:50 AM

I am flat against of whatever we call going on in Iraq, but in the fog of it, this type of stuff can and will happen. The unfortunate part of any war is the slaughter of innocents, the difference is that most of the time it is not reported or found out about. I have over time run into a lot of men, who have experience this horror, some from WWII who cannot to this day talk about it.

scout · 03-22-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turd Furguson

So glad that Mikey is willing to give the troops that he so earnestly supports the benefit of the doubt.

The benefit of the doubt? Why, and what has that to do with supporting the troops? How long ago did Pat Tillman die? Throughout history our government and armed services has lied to us, that is a fact. You have to earn the benefit of doubt, and you don't get that by constantly telling lies.

Turd Furguson · 03-22-2006, 01:14 PM

US MILITARY BAD!!!

- the left