Haditha & Isahaqi
By now presumably everyone has seen/read the stories of Marine massacres at Haditha and Isahaqi.
Haditha incident occurred last November. According to the Time article military officials in Baghdad were presented Iraqi accounts of the Marines' actions by Time. The magazine's reporter, Aparism Ghosh, initially took the video (filmed by a young local journalism student the day after the attack) to the Marines who were "hostile." Then to military officials in Baghdad. The video details not the atrocity but the village and villagers talking about the incident. That the 15 Haditha victims were killed by an IED has been admitted as a lie. Whether or not the Marines went on a killing rampage that day is still under investigation.
Information Clearing House has the above footage from British news. The report shows video footage of wrapped bodies, and mentions the fact that Haditha has been a "hotbed" of terrorist/insurgent activity at least since last August.
There is footage of two vets stateside at a peace rally who comment on shooting anyone anytime, "killing anybody you want." The two are not connected to the Haditha incident and not proof that Marines massacred 15 civilians, but inserted into the "news" footage. Is that objective reporting of the incident? A 9 y/o boy, not shown but supposed witness to the event, says they (Marines) shot his grandfather and then his granny. There is no explanation of how the boy escaped the "massacre."
(Last July 4 issue of Time (via ICH), Aparism Ghosh had an article on arranging a meet with a would-be suicide bomber. "One day soon, this somber young man plans to offer up a final prayer and then blow himself up along with as many U.S. or Iraqi soldiers as he can reach." Fueled by the fact that US troops have "stayed and stayed.")
In Isahaqi, the photos from Chris Floyd site, sad though they are, are proof of the horror of war – not a massacre. That the Floyd website lobs emotional knee-jerk language is sufficient to destroy credibility with me. Language to shock and awe, trigger a gut experience rather than thought. Granted there are some animals in uniform, but what sort of mind can so easily and quickly believe that US Marines would tie and bind babies and shoot them in the head?
I do not understand the rush to judgement when it comes to our own troops, and on flimsy evidence thus far. It almost feels like the American public is being set up for something. One of the many things keeping me awake tonight.
7 comments:
Kate,
Whether or not the Marines went on a killing rampage in those two villages in particular is still yet to be determined, I agree. However, it seems to me that the military's first response is ALWAYS to deny; only admitting later when the evidence becomes impossible to refute. There certainly have been plenty of atrocities committed by US forces (past & present) on the defenseless; so should we give the Pentagon the benefit of the doubt? Americans don't have any special immunity to war's corruption, as far as I know. And anyway, isn't the whole conquest of Iraq a drawn-out "killing rampage," by the USMC and the Army and AF? I think that it is.
I know you have sons in the military and of course you know them in a way that no one else does. There is no disrespect intended here; it's impersonal to me (no one close to me in the military). With that caveat, I'll ask, in what sense I am to feel that the US military is "our own troops?" If I have my own troops, I would like to order them some of them home right now from overseas; there are some places in Bethesda, NW Wash. DC, and the NYC financial district I would like them to storm.
A Reader and an
Unsettled Friend
Having posted a comment that on further reflection looks somewhat strident, let me add that I hope and wish for the safety and well-being of your sons in uniform.
R/UF
Thank you for a thoughtful intelligent response. I didn't feel you were strident.
As all my sons state on Iraq - "another war for the rich." I would say if this is "our democracy" and "our country" and "our government" then they are "our troops." But many might say it is no longer our democracy, our country, our government. But I ask if this is the case – then what is ours?
I know these incidents could be the "massacre" some in the media are claiming. But from my own past experience in a war zone I simply call for folks to wait until all the evidence is in, all sides heard, before passing judgment, before sensationalizing baby killing and convicting in the media. We would all want such if accused.
The government treats our/the troops as disposable, to be used and thrown away, and it bothers me to see some "progressives" do the same, while carrying slogans such as Honor Our Dead, Demand the Truth.
This may sound odd, but I ask myself – how much support will Cindy, and the anti-war movement draw if the public views the troops as mindless murdering animals, how deleterious will these incidents be (true or not) on the public's concern for rising casualties if the troops are barbarians, not ours. Who benefits the most? Not us, not the troops, not the Iraqi.
Again, thanks for the input, and well-being for my sons.
Kate I fear this is a case of do anything to get the heat of of the idiot and bring his poll numbers up.
barryg,
I think you made a correct and astute observation about our political circus. Thanks.
From Chris Floyd: Kate, your post was forwarded to me by a friend. If you actually read the post that I personally wrote about the incident at Isahaqi, you would not have found any language that automatically assumes that the Marines bound and shot the victims. I reported what the Iraqi officials were saying about the case. I specifically said in my closing paragraphs that whether the incident occurred as the Iraqi officials reported, or was "merely" the result of "collateral damage" by soldiers on an ordinary mission, the incident was part and parcel of a war crime perpetrated by George W. Bush, who, as I said quite clearly, bears the responsibility for every atrocity committed in this action which he set in train. I specifically and deliberately racheted down the "emotive" language concerning the facts of the incident, saving it instead for the condemnation of the ultimate author of those children's deaths. The post that I wrote made no automatic assumptions of "guilt" in the case -- beyond, as I said, the guilt attaching to the man who launched this "war of choice." I'm sorry if you found that the language of the piece lacked "credibility." If you were familiar with my site, and my work at the Moscow Times, you would know that I have written many pieces concerning the Bush Faction's ill treatment of our own soldiers -- beginning with the decision to plunge them into this criminal action in the first place, and continuing with the lack of protection for them in Iraq and the disregard for them once they have been used up by the war machine and deposited back home.
But yes, I am angry that those children are dead; I am angry to see the seven-month-old boy with a gash across his lifeless forehead; I do get a bit "emotive" about such things being done in my name, in the name of my own children, in the name of my country, and, as I made very clear in the post, whether the victims were "massacred" (a word I have never used for the incident) or killed in the "normal" course of events by good soldiers thrust into a hellish situation, it does not attentuate the atrocity of these needless deaths one bit. They did not need to die in this way; they would not have died in this way if George W. Bush had not decided to launch his war -- and if the entire American Establishment had not countenanced the launching of this war.
It's never my desire to offend anyone, to put them off, to drive them away with intemperate speech, or what have you, but I'm afraid I have no apology to make for being "emotional" and angry about these deaths, and the thousands upon thousands like them, and the thousands upon thousands of American families as well who will have to live for decades -- generations -- with the costs of this unnecessary and illegal abomination.
Chris,
Thanks for the response.
Bush is a despicable man, but any soldier involved in wanton murder of civilians is ultimately responsible. "Following orders," even Bush orders doesn't cut it.
I do not accuse you specifically of using the word "massacre" but of using emotional language with the accompanying fotos. Innuendo goes a long way.
You do say "We know 2 Iraqi officials told Reuters that 11 occupants, including 5 children, had been bound and shot in the head." I'm not quite ready to accuse US Marines of atrocity and war crimes on the word of 2 Iraqi officials, whose integrity is questionable simply b/c it could be said they turned on their fellow countrymen to work for a puppet regime installed by BushCo.
The fotos of the child victims do not appear to have head shots, unless the US Marines are carrying small caliber handguns, say a .22.
I'll reserve judgment until further proof before hinting, insinuating, implying, or stating that US Marines are or may be baby-killers.
Post a Comment