War Crimes in Iraq: Photographic Evidence

They are coming to take you away, haha, oh ho, hehe. They are coming to take you away. To the funny farm where life is gay, and people laugh and sing all day.

I guess, I'm going to have to start issuing Nurf guns to my soldiers now and teach them how to scream “You’re under citizen’s arrest” to please some people. (While my enemy gets to use RPGs, AK-47s, car bombs, beheadings relief workers, suicide bombers, high jacked planes full of civilians, etc….)

1. The soldier in question, repeatedly said that the wounded insurgent was faking death. By the way, faking death is also a violation of the rules of war.

2. The day before the same unit had a soldier killed by an insurgent that was booby trapped. That also violates that rules of war. I think the soldiers would have been risking their own lives, not reacting to a sudden movement.

3. There is NO sign that this person was an unarmed civilian. In fact all signs show that the man was in a location that earlier had been a very heavy fire fight between insurgents and troops.

4. Lets please remember that we were not there, the video tape is not complete and not all the facts are in yet. Let’s let the investigation be completed before we make our judgments.

That's My Two Cents

War Crimes in Iraq: Photographic Evidence By: Bahu Virupaksha Posted: Thursday, November 18, 2004 on Discussion on History and Politics Message Board: Politics For a change an "embedded journalist" hascaught a most horrendous act of violence against an unarmed civillian on camera.In almost all our blogs we have had one refrain: the war is inflicting unacceptable levels of mortality on the civillian population,Now here is the proof. Some have started comparing this photograph to the famous picture of a partisan excecuted on the streets of Saigon in 1967. This comparison will not hold water, because the excecution was performed in broad daylight by a police chief. In the case of the killing of the unarmed civillian killed in cold blood, the man was on the groung wrthing in pain and as a signatory to the Geneva convention the USA has an obligation to protect the lives and dignity of the civillians and combatants in the war zone. This has clearly nothappened. The fact in that this is not an isolated example that can be swept under the carpet. The USA is using terror tactics to cow down the civillian population and is using dispropotionate force in dealing with the insurgency. The response of Pentagon has been to say the least, disgraceful. It has ordered the marine to stay in the barracks and a military investigation has been ordered. The marine is not personally responsible for the behaviour, because the war is being waged with callous disregard to the lives of Iraqis. The Arab world will issue its proforma statements of condemnation publically and privately they will line up before the State Department to request the US administration not to take note of their "moral Outrage". If Iraq is noq being ground to the dust and the fate of Palestenians so deplorable, the people to be blamed are the Arab leaders themselves who in their wanton corruption completely ignored institution building and education. The world will not reacr differently. A few leaders will express their shock and indignation and then all will be forgotten. It is time to say that the war is taking a toll of human lives which is just impossible for any one to ignore for long. Since George Bush has just been re elected the outrage will be balanced with pragmaticism. Afterall who likes to annoy a "winner". How many people will have to die to awake the conscience of the World/

How many American soldiers have to die before people like you cease to jabber nonsense?

Tuff titties.

The Marine in question took a bullet in the face the day before & was back on duty.

He was completely justified in his actions given the tactics being used by the terrorists. He should be commended for possibly saving the lives of his fellow soldiers and the newsman who shot the video.

This Bahu has no problem with the terrorists murdering Margaret Hassan, no problem with them beheading innocents on video, no problem with them booby-trapping their own dead to kill Americans who come to attend to their bodies. No shame there. No demands for Al Qaeda to investigate their own.

Get over it. War sucks and people die.

It's time to get the job done and the Marines, Soldiers and Airmen are doing just that.

Cheers,
Daiwa

while it's true the incident wouldnt have occured if the us hadnt invaded iraq, in light of the cowardly way in which hussein's republican guard/sunni insurgents have conducted themselves--by which i mean donning civilian clothing and using iraqi women and children as shields, targetting suicide bombings at locations where iraqi non-combatants, especially children, are most likely to be victims, exploiting & defiling mosques by using them as bunkers and sniper positions and boobytrapping the bodies of their own wounded or dead--the marines have nothing for which they need apologize.

War Crimes in Iraq: Photographic Evidence By: Bahu Virupaksha Posted: Thursday, November 18, 2004 on Discussion on History and Politics Message Board: Politics For a change an "embedded journalist" hascaught a most horrendous act of violence against an unarmed civillian on camera.In almost all our blogs we have had one refrain: the war is inflicting unacceptable levels of mortality on the civillian population,Now here is the proof. Some have started comparing this photograph to the famous picture of a partisan excecuted on the streets of Saigon in 1967. This comparison will not hold water, because the excecution was performed in broad daylight by a police chief. In the case of the killing of the unarmed civillian killed in cold blood, the man was on the groung wrthing in pain and as a signatory to the Geneva convention the USA has an obligation to protect the lives and dignity of the civillians and combatants in the war zone. This has clearly nothappened. The fact in that this is not an isolated example that can be swept under the carpet. The USA is using terror tactics to cow down the civillian population and is using dispropotionate force in dealing with the insurgency. The response of Pentagon has been to say the least, disgraceful. It has ordered the marine to stay in the barracks and a military investigation has been ordered. The marine is not personally responsible for the behaviour, because the war is being waged with callous disregard to the lives of Iraqis. The Arab world will issue its proforma statements of condemnation publically and privately they will line up before the State Department to request the US administration not to take note of their "moral Outrage". If Iraq is noq being ground to the dust and the fate of Palestenians so deplorable, the people to be blamed are the Arab leaders themselves who in their wanton corruption completely ignored institution building and education. The world will not reacr differently. A few leaders will express their shock and indignation and then all will be forgotten. It is time to say that the war is taking a toll of human lives which is just impossible for any one to ignore for long. Since George Bush has just been re elected the outrage will be balanced with pragmaticism. Afterall who likes to annoy a "winner". How many people will have to die to awake the conscience of the World/

I think you will find yourself in a VERY small minority on this one.

This Bahu has no problem with the terrorists murdering Margaret Hassan, no problem with them beheading innocents on video, no problem with them booby-trapping their own dead to kill Americans who come to attend to their bodies.

Bit over the top here. Absolutely no issue with Bahu condemning what he sees as wrong actions on both sides. Why demonise everyone who disagrees with you? I'm fairly sure Bahu also abhors terrorist violence.

Paul.

Bahu, do everyone a favor. Learn what "innocent," "unarmed civilian," and "killing in cold blood" mean.

Oh my God another bleeding heart ass----, trying to bring down america, if you dont like they way things are done here please move to iraq, where you can be venerated just before these moron muslim fanatics cut your head off on tv,

Reply #7 By: Solitair - 11/18/2004 5:11:41 PM This Bahu has no problem with the terrorists murdering Margaret Hassan, no problem with them beheading innocents on video, no problem with them booby-trapping their own dead to kill Americans who come to attend to their bodies. Bit over the top here. Absolutely no issue with Bahu condemning what he sees as wrong actions on both sides. Why demonise everyone who disagrees with you? I'm fairly sure Bahu also abhors terrorist violence. Paul.

I don't think so. While Bahu may have a problem with terrorist violence, he also clearly has a problem with our military defending itself from the same.

Maybe before Bahu runs his mouth, he should read this.

Semper Fi The story of Fallujah isn't on that NBC videotape. Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque. Have we lost all sense of moral proportion? The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat. Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war. Here is how that enemy fights, according to an account in the Times of London: "In the south of Fallujah yesterday, U.S. Marines found the armless, legless body of a blonde woman, her throat slashed and her entrails cut out. Benjamin Finnell, a hospital apprentice with the U.S. Navy Corps, said that she had been dead for a while, but at that location for only a day or two. The woman was wearing a blue dress; her face had been disfigured. It was unclear if the remains were the body of the Irish-born aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, or of Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole abducted two weeks ago. Both were married to Iraqis and held Iraqi citizenship; both were kidnapped in Baghdad last month." When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque? Beyond the one incident, think of what the Marine and Army units just accomplished in Fallujah. In a single week, they killed as many as 1,200 of the enemy and captured 1,000 more. They did this despite forfeiting the element of surprise, so civilians could escape, and while taking precautions to protect Iraqis that no doubt made their own mission more difficult and hazardous. And they did all of this not for personal advantage, and certainly not to get rich, but only out of a sense of duty to their comrades, their mission and their country. In a more grateful age, this would be hailed as one of the great battles in Marine history--with Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Hue City and the Chosin Reservoir. We'd know the names of these military units, and of many of the soldiers too. Instead, the name we know belongs to the NBC correspondent, Kevin Sites. We suppose he was only doing his job, too. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to indulge in the moral abdication that would equate deliberate televised beheadings of civilians with a Marine shooting a terrorist, who may or may not have been armed, amid the ferocity of battle

It is also a war crime for troops to hide within their mosques and attack those on the outside, isn't it?

I know, that if I were a Marine and I had just had my face almost blown off I'd be none too merciful to these insurgents. On top of that, all it would've taken for his ENTIRE UNIT to be destroyed was one grenade from that "dead" "unarmed" "civilian." He only shot this terrorist to save the lives of his fellow squadsmen; or is that a war crime?

Next time, maybe he should walk up to the insurgent, gently nudge him, give him a flower and some chocolates, and give him plenty of time to pull out his AK-47 and blast the Marine to pieces.

I'm fairly sure Bahu also abhors terrorist violence.

I'm sure Al-Jazeera does, too. Just not enough to mention or condemn it, like Bahu.

There's absolutely nothing "over the top" about my comment. This sorry-ass article is what's "over the top."

Cheers,
Daiwa

For the record, I'm not demonizing Bahu the person, but I make no apology for criticising the premise of the article, which is built purely on preconceived prejudice and which shows wanton disregard for truth (by not bothering to ascertain it).

To his (or her) credit, at least commenting wasn't disabled - some others seem to have raised the drawbridge.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I did expect a response, but I'm afraid many have got me wrong. I do not accept violence in any kind and I have little sympathy for those who kill innocent people. Yes killing Margret was a gave crime and I condemn it. Ifeel that some like Draimler feel that it is justified to kill in cold blood. I do not think so. Civilized warfare imposes certain conditions on the occupying forces. Just because the terrorists choose to behave in a certain way does not justify a savage wanton response. My sympathy goes out to the young American soldiers who are facing death and also to the famalies of those killied. I am in no way suggesting a parity between tbe two. American forces have to maintain a conduct that the world does not expect from terrorists. That is ther point.

The war in Iraq is getting natier by the day and soon the day will come, like it did 35 years ago, when mainstream America will start asking the question that is posed in my blog. I repeat: I do not condone violence of anykind, but the armies of a democratic nation must follow accpted rule of conduct.

Civilized warfare

Please tell me what your idea of civilized warfare is.

History has shown repeatedly great empires and civilizations that have been laid low or snuffed out by other tribes/nations/Empires that did not follow what they thought was civilized warfare. By the time they had figured out that the enemy will not fight to their civilized ideas, it was too late to save themselves.

The idea of simplely arresting them using tazzers does not work. When a guy comes after you with a AK-47 (United airline flight) you can not just let him repeatedly shoot you (crash into your buildings). This is not some bully on the playground, there is no teacher to hide behind and these people will not stop until you are either converted or what they prefer DEAD.

I am a soldier and the idea of causing any bodily pain to another person makes my skin crawl. If a person goes down from a hail of my squad's bullets, I just do not wish it was my bullets.

I just found out two weeks ago that one of my wife's friend’s 5 years old relative named Olga, died in the elementary school attack in Russia. I will not just sit idly by and let my children get massacred at their school's summer festival, just because someone else don't like my culture or religion (or lack of religion).

That's My Two Cents

No one least of all this individual can find the attack on the elementary school at Baslan anything less than a crime. Yet(do not mistake what I write as an apology for terrorism) the children perished in a botched attempt at recuse. This does not mitigate the gravity of the crime.

We are living in a complex world in which simple minded nationalism will not serve any purpose. USA is not a nation, she is an EMPIRE and hence we are all interested in what goes on.

Terrorism can only be readicated when the injustices, real or imagined, are substantially reduced.

"civilised warfare".....is that when you play chess? Or maybe when you pull ot the trusty old...Risk board? War is war....ppl DIE....especially when they fake that they are dead....he just chose the wrong marine to fake to, i guess....good for the marine. I stand by him 100%....too bad a few more weren't faking dead either

"How many people will have to die to awake the conscience of the World"

So you are shocked that a few bad apples in the US military isn't causing the uproar you want? Don't look at how they deal with the US's few excesses, look at how the world deals with wholesale slaughter on the scale of hundreds of thousands or millions.

• Apparently 1,000,000 wasn't enough in Rwanda.
• So far about 60,000 isn't enough yet in Sudan.
• 400,000 wasn't enough to prevent Hussein from killing his own people.
• Stalin caused the deaths of tens of millions of Russians.
• Mao Tse-tung killed even more Chinese than that, and is considered the most prolific mass murderer in history.
• How many people died in Idi Amin's slaughter? 500,000 or so. Mass murder, mind you, that he was never, ever brought to justice for. After living a while in Iraq, he moved to Saudi Arabia and lived happily on a $1400 a month stipend with cooks, maids, housing, all provided by the Saudi royal family.

You want to make a list of what the world should have been outraged about but never got around to it? Don't even start about the "outrage" or the Arab world; cultures that rely on oppression, wholesale slaughter, torture, and hate for their everyday existance and entertainment.

Nah, you just want to bitch and whine some more abou the US in Iraq.

I think that people letting their patriotism cloud their ability to read Bahu's article properly.

Yes his opening line makes assumptions on what happened (just as many other peoples blogs have assumed all was rosey) but that is not what the focus of his article is about. it's about the bigger picture and the questions of whether the US war itself is to blame for this incident as oppossed to the soldier. If you throw enough soldiers into a tough situation some of them will make mistakes or bad decisions because of stress. Likewise though, we label these terrorists as such, but 2 years ago most of them were probably innoncent Iraqi civilians going about their daily business under a dictatorship regime. Yes they are now abhorant terrorists, but who made them so? If there any responsibility on those who invaded their country? While we can condemn the terrorism we cannot just ignore the questions that Bahu raises.

Issues such as the situation the marine actually found himself in, and issues such as the damage such incidents do to the US image, cannot just be ignored in a fit of US patriotism. How many new terrorists will be spawned when they perceive that the US itself doesn't care about Iraqi human rights? Is this a self fulfilling circle?

Paul.

Paul and Bahu

it's about the bigger picture and the questions of whether the US war itself is to blame for this incident as oppossed to the soldier

I have stated my point:

This is not some bully on the playground, there is no teacher to hide behind and these people will not stop until you are either converted or what they prefer DEAD.

I will not just sit idly by and let my children get massacred at their school's summer festival, just because someone else don't like my culture or religion (or lack of religion).

This is a culture war that has started. It started years ago, but it started small and has slowly built up. The First Bush and Clinton Administration decided to ignore it. This in the end resulted in death of 3,000 of our citizens.

If you cave into their demands like the Philippine kidnappings in the 1990s and the early 1970s Middle East highjackings/kidnappings, they will only escalate. Both situations have ended because we stopped paying the ransom or ignoring the events.

People wonder why we didn't stop 9/11. But these are the same people who ignored the earlier events that lead up to 9/11.

You two may want to ignore the African Embassy bombing, 9/11 and the Russian attack if you want by blaming the US. We were not the one who packed the explosives. But remember in the Koran it says “if your enemy wish to talk that is because they are weak and that is were you may destroy him”. So your peace and giving them flowers in your mind will solve everything, to them that just shows them where to attack.

Yes they are now abhorant terrorists, but who made them so?

Every bodies a victim now (can anybody take responsibility for themselves?). I think the person pointing the AK-47 at me made himself a terrorist.

If there any responsibility on those who invaded their country?

Maybe it is the responsibility of Sadam to have lived up to his First Gulf War peaces treaty or his people to remove him from power first.

How many new terrorists will be spawned when they perceive that the US itself doesn't care about Iraqi human rights?

Interesting for you to say this about a country that was regularly placed on the top to the human rights watch list. I don't see where this incident is a human right violation yet. As I said before, let see if it was one, before you scream at the top of your lungs that it was.

Is this a self fulfilling circle?

As I noted above, it will be if we show weakness.

USA is not a nation, she is an EMPIRE

Empire: 1. an aggregate of nations, tribes, clans, or peoples ruled over by one supreme sovereign: usually a territory of greater extent then a kingdom. 2. a government under an emperor. 3. imperial power; sovereignty. 4. supreme control: absolute sway.

While you may think that the US is an EMPIRE, we are not. While we may have alliances, defense treaties, trade treaties, and protectorates, we are not an Empire. You may want to continue using the word in order to belittle the country, but please use the proper name of protectorate. Or please make your case at to why we are an Empire instead to using the wrong word because it makes the nation look evil.

Terrorism can only be readicated when the injustices, real or imagined, are substantially reduced.

OK, then show me an example of when this tacit has worked. The examples that I have given above showing forceful dealing and wiping out the problem at the source has repeatedly worked. I can even provide more examples if you want.

That's My Two Cents

I feel confident there is not a person commenting here who condones the wanton murder of innocent people. So we got that going for us.

THE FOLLOWING IS A RANT FOR WHICH I MAKE NO APOLOGIES.

However, I, for one, DO NOT condone articles like this which are uninformed emotional condemnations ("War Crimes in Iraq...") of the volunteer soldiers we have sent in harm's way, especially when they are unaccompanied by any moral outrage over the subhuman behavior of terrorists who are regularly conducting grisly public executions of innocents. There is NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE WHATSOEVER between this incident and what the terrorists are doing, so the "higher standard" crap is just that, crap. Anyone who tries to assert otherwise is just wrong, which is the nicest thing I can think of to say about them. Bahu can protest all he wants about what a pacifist he is, he's reserved his outrage for our soldiers exercising their split-second judgment in a war where any body under a blanket, dead or alive, could be the weapon du jour of his enemy.

I repeat:

This was not a war crime; it was war.

That Marine was fully justified in using lethal force to protect himself, his fellow soldiers and accompanying civilians (the reporter) from potential harm.

The military investigation should determine the Marine conducted himself not just appropriately, but bravely, in the circumstances.

NO lawyers. NO court-martial.

Next terrorist, please.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Where are the pictures at?
Please "embed" some pictures into here so we can see them!!

- Grim

I think that some of the bloggers have got the picture horribly wrong. ivilized Warfare is a term that is used to gloss warfare between armed combatants: indiscriminata cluster bombing of houses, hospitals and civic infracture is not civilized and if the citizens of America are aware of what their military is doing in Iraq, many of those who critisizzed me will be more vehement than me in putting the record straight. When 5 to 10 people gather together to pray or talk helicopter gunships are sent to mow them down. You decide what to call this.

Empire is a concept that can be used to designate a political system that has interests "economic or strategic" well beyond its borders. There is nothing Evil about the word, just straight fact.