Marine proudly admits murdering and torturing innocent Iraqi civilians!!!

From The Economist, January 1st-7th 2005

"There is only one traffic law in Ramadi these days: when Americans approach, Iraqis scatter. Horns blaring, brakes screaming, the midday traffic skids to the side of the road as a line of Humvee jeeps ferrying American marines rolls the wrong way up the main street. Every vehicle, that is, except one beat-up old taxi. Its elderly driver, flapping his outstretched hands, seems, amazingly, to be trying to turn the convoy back. Gun turrets swivel and lock on to him, as a hefty marine sargeant leaps into the road, levels an assault rifle at his turbanned head, and screams: 'Back this bitch up, motherfucker!'


"The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: 'Keep 50m or deadly force will be applied.' In Ramadi, the capital of central Anbar province, where 17 suicide-bombs struck American forces during the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan in the autumn, the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching with 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: 'If anyone gets too close to us we fucking waste them,' says a bullish lieutenant. 'It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.'"
Kind of a shame, killing the people you're trying to democratize, but after awhile, says the same lieutenant, "It gets to the point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody..."

W's military.


With characteristic dry English understatement, The Economist's embedded reporter (Economist pieces are unbylined) notes, "[W]hen America's well-drilled and well-fed fighters attempt subtler tasks than killing people, problems arise." Their contempt for Iraqis is undisguised and dramatically expressed: a soldier, confronted by "jeering schoolchildren," fires canisters of buckshot from his grenade-launcher at them, and marines busting down doors in Ramadi scream at trembling middle-aged women: "Bitch, where's the guns?" Small wonder, ventures the correspondent, that "most Iraqis are more scared of American troops than of insurgents."

The last grafs of the report recount a big whoopy-do operation in the smugglers' haven of Baij involving a convoy of 1000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters targeting three houses that had been linked to Zarquawi's terrorist band, according to a local informant.
There was no one in the houses except women and children. Rather than return to base empty, they pay homage to the last reel of Casablanca and round up the usual suspects.


"...they detained 70 men from districts indentified by their informant as 'bad.' In near-freezing conditions, they sat hooded and bound in their pyjamas. They shivered uncontrollably. One wetted himself in fear. Most had been detained at random; several had been held because they had a Kalashnikov rifle, which is legal. The evidence against one man was some anti-American literature, a meat cleaver, and a tin whistle. American intelligence officers moved through the ranks of detainees, raising their hoods to take mugshots: 'One, two, three, jihaaad!' A middle-tier officer commented on the mission: 'When we do this,' he said. 'We lose.'"

There's a Peter Cook-Dudley Moore routine, one of their woolgathering dialogues, where Dud asks Pete, "So would you say you've learned from your mistakes?" and Pete replies: "Oh yes, I'm certain I could repeat them exactly."
That seems to have been the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. Take the mistakes of Vietnam and repeat them exactly.

And at that you can't say they haven't succeeded.

 

So very sad. What good comes of this? What good ever comes of war?
I will never understand war but I will continue to pray, and protest peacefully (and sometimes not so peacefully) and do what I can do ease the suffering of another.
Enough already. Too many have died. And what is it all for really? Are we any safer?
My heart just breaks to bits to hear this. I do appreciate the post, yet I can't help but cry. It's so wrong.

 

Like one vietnam veteran said in "Hijacking Catastrophe", "The Guys at Mai Lai just got caught, that kind was happening every single day in vietnam", this is no different.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Shows what you know of the ethos of the NY Times. The Times, as the paper of record, is chief amongst the corporate owned press which has not only refrained from assuming the responsibility of the Fourth Estate to hold the government accountable, but has cowtowed to this administration and made repeated justifications for its actions (nothwithstanding being a ready mouthpiece for whatever slanderous spin Rove wishes to see in print).

Just can't escape the longheld myths in which the ignorant Right wraps itself, can you Inagoda? Wake up and learn that the "liberal" press does not exist in the mainstream. Both the major press and network media serve the interests of a handful of elite conglomerates (the heads of which pander to this admin like slavish lapdogs) and what passes for public scrutiny either on the page or on the airwaves, is little more than univestigated soudbites which are explained away routinely with the merest of offhand citations to nameless "government officials" or "official experts".

True investigative journalism ceased to exist in the US decades ago. Those few of any worth (i.e. Pilger and Fisk) pursue their exposes from outside the country.

 

Lick, nicely worded. But don't forget Greg Palast!

Notice how inagoda ran straight for the "liberal media" rhetoric without even attempting to discuss the contents of the message. Sad putrid little worms, aren't they.

 

On a side note though, whenever ive seen anything posted off FOXnews your side has done the same..

But seriously, if you think about what would be going through the head of any of the marines, when nearly anyone you see could be a walking bomb..
Its no excuse for killing people but its war after all.. If the same was happening in my country id stay the fuck away from any soldiers i could see.

 

Yes Revo, Palast of course as well. I was merely giving a quick example of the precious few in the international journalistic field which could be legitimately called "investigative" journalists. The vast bulk are little more than paid hacks regurgitating that which is delivered to them to print by "official" sources.

 

I agree that war is dangerous for civilians, but your point also underscores what is wrong at the very heart of this administration's philosophy in the Middle East in general and in Iraq in particular. I would also suggest that since we are attempting to "liberate Iraq," it would behoove us to behave in a way so that we may be seen in a better light by the Iraqi civilians. I believe that the British have had far better success in Basra in the south largely because of a difference in philosophy in dealing with civilian populations because of their experience in Northern Ireland.

This is not to lay the blame on the soldiers for how they react in a dangerous situation (military philosophy comes from the upper echelon officers in the Pentagon), but dismantling any semblance of Iraqi security forces and then not providing sufficient troops to provide security has created an untenable situation. In addition, the U.S. plan for Iraq did not include providing security after the military victory, so we are left with chaos in many areas.

 

agreed

 

wow, someone reasonable. I knew there was something I loved about New Zealand!!
:-D And you have 420 posts ~

 

Put yourself in their position....what would you do? Nobody wants innocent people being slain. Do you think these Marines really enjoy killing women and children? What do you think they are? They are no different from you or me, in fact I am a Marine Sergeant on IRR (until april when my contract runs out), not that it makes any difference. Just imagine for one moment, being in a situation like that. You dont know who is the enemy, or who is not, (and you probably think most of them want to kill you regardless). You have been sent over there, simply because you needed some money for college...You cannot leave. You have been lied to about how long you will be away from your family, wife, children, etc.... You are being shot at every day, and your friends, brothers.. are being killed every day, all around you..

I say again, just imagine, for one moment.

 

"Do you think these Marines really enjoy killing women and children?"

um, well, yes. I do think they enjoy it. have you seen Fahrenheit 9-11? "the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire...let the fucker burn...burn motherfucker" if you saw that scene, you'd know why I answered "yes" to that question. Some of the soldiers actually do seem to enjoy it! Believe me, I'm not downplaying what you said...and most soldiers I'm sure are decent people who actually believe the lies fed to them. But some american soldiers are just plain and simply, rednecks who wanna go out and kill "those damn sand-niggers". That's just the sad and pathetic truth.

 

I hear that ! If I was an Iraqi I would want all the suffering to end, so I would stop attacking the occupying forces, let them train the locals and as soon as they leave, I would look at the country and decide if I'm happy or not with how it turned out . Sadly this is not going to happen because firstly the Americans will never leave, strategically it's the place they have to be. Secondly the insurgents or freedom fighters as some people call them, want their freedom back . freedom to dominate their fellow country men, freedom to control every aspect of the countries lives, freedom to kill innocent civilians ( intentionally ) when ever they feel like it,. freedom to make their free nation so scared it will never think of trying to exercise freedom ever again...... So although I don't agree with the reasons for this war, pulling out is just NOT an option !! Yet .......... We didn't start it, but we did botch it up, now we can't leave it until we fixed what we broke.... that does not mean walking out and leaving them to try and pick up the pieces ...

 

Holy crap! That makes the most sense of any post I have read regarding the situation in Iraq. You make some excellent points. I must say that i have not been this impressed with anything I have seen on these forums. I am really shocked. Thank you soliloquy. You just made my night.

 

Well there is the classic proof, if any were truly needed, to demonstrate just how truly indoctrinated our military personnel are into the hegemonic aparatus they willingly kill and die for. Believing without question that any conflict they are sent into must by definition be a show of patriotism for the protection of the "the nation" and not merely the poorly paid mercenary work of a well equipped corporate thug squad.

Soliloquy, your views so succinctly echo the bravado ridden misinformation and sloganeering of the OSP propaganda artists, one might contend that you are superbly suited for a position there, if you are not already thusly employed.

The truth, however, is that those "insurgents" are no less the patriots fighting an illegal military occupation in pursuit of conquest, not "liberation", than any American would (and ironically may one day in fact be) against foreign occupying forces bent on propping up leaders dictated for us by a foreign power or powers.

Support such troops, as the rhetoric goes? Not a chance. Troops that do not surrender all concept of their own humanity in order to dehumanise others and who recognise the difference between war of unprovoked aggression (for which the Nuremburg principles should serve as a stern reminder) and war in defense of one's own soil are troops to be supported. Those who eagerly defend the lies and serve clearly elitist corporate intents against other sovereign states are little more than willing psycopaths who should share the same repercussions as those who lamely claimed "I was only following orders" from the dockets of Nuremburg before receiving their collective sentences for crimes against humanity.

 

Living in a bubble? Sorry to inform that we, in fact, did! Iraq did not attack the US nor could it have done so even if it wanted to.

Washington has been attacking Iraq since the first gulf war, and throughout the 90's under every pretense and plausibly deniable mechanism in could muster (including using the UN, which it is equally derisive of, to provide the necessary rhetorical fall guy).

 

Are you suggesting every soldier that puts on a uniform has to make the decisions regarding engagements independently ??? As in " yes sir I will storm that bunker because I don't like the look of those guys, but I wont storm the other one because they look like decent chaps !! " or !! " before we engage the enemy I'd better go around my 5000 men and show them the plans and make sure they all agree ! "
I suggest that not everyone shares your idea of humanity, leaving people to suffer at the hands of tyrants is not mine , Killing anyone for any reason is against almost all our principles, (which I think we can all agree on ) but, I for one am glad that we didn't let Sadam get to a position where he could buy a weapon for the purpose of holding the west off while he takes over the middle east.... If only some one or some country had done the same thing with Adolph, we would have forgone a vast sacrifice of life ! Yes people would be arguing about Adolph's right to do what he want in his own country, and the poor innocent storm troopers killed whilst only doing their job ! quite frankly I would rather have people defending him on chat sites, than have to live with the consequence of letting him carry on....

 

I might be insulted if that wasnt the funniest thing i have ever read. You think we military "mercenaries" are just out for blood and want to just kill people because we get some kind of sick pleasure out of it? Am I just reading this wrong or what? Tell you what. Why dont we just disband the armed forces alltogether and see what happens. Do you REALLY think that all the enemies of the US would be so grateful that they would just leave us alone? Smells like bullshit to me. Bullshit behind a dictionary full of big words in an attempt to sound intelligent is still bullshit.

 

whoops

 

Oh for crying out loud Soliloquy, Saddam was not on some mission to conquer the middle east. For that you need look to the longrunning Israel/Washington collusion. The Likudniks have reserved that agenda unto themselves and their willing US MIC cohorts.

You've clearly swallowed the OSP's contrived justifications to the letter. I suggest you go scrutinise the true reasons for Saddam's removal (not some lame throwback excuses to atrocities committed 20 years ago for which Washington was a willing accomplice). The last refuge when all other justifications were systematically exposed for the lies they were.

You may think you are defending the land of truth and justice, but you are sadly mistaken. The PNAC agenda our military now fights to advance is nothing more than 19th century imperialistic ambition wrapped in magnanimous rhetoric.