U.S. Marines accused of massacre in Iraq

[Goofball]

The death toll includes a bunch of young children.

I will hold fire until more facts emerge, but at this point it doesn't look too pretty for the Marines.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

U.S. marines accused of massacre in Iraq


BASSEM MROUE
Associated Press
Baghdad — After a roadside bomb killed a U.S. marine in western Iraq, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a three-year-old-girl, residents told The Associated Press on Monday.
The military says 12 marines are under investigation for possible war crimes by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service following the Nov. 19 attack in Haditha, 225 kilometres northwest of Baghdad.
The allegations against the marines were first brought forward by Time magazine, which reported this week that it obtained a videotape two months ago taken by a Haditha journalism student that shows the dead still in their nightclothes.
aPs="boxR";var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc);
The magazine report mirrored what was told independently to The AP by residents who described what happened as a massacre.
A military spokeswoman said Monday the allegations were being taken "very seriously."
Khaled Ahmed Rsayef, whose brother and six other relatives were killed, said the roadside bomb exploded at about 7:15 a.m. in the al-Subhani neighbourhood, heavily damaging a U.S. Humvee.
A U.S. military statement in November described it as an ambush on a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol that left 15 civilians, eight insurgents and a U.S. marine dead in the bombing and a subsequent firefight. The statement said the 15 civilians were killed by the blast, a claim residents denied.
They said the only shooting done after the bombing was by U.S. forces.
"American troops immediately cordoned off the area and raided two nearby houses, shooting at everyone inside," said Mr. Rsayef, who didn't witness the events but whose 15-year-old niece says she did. "It was a massacre in every sense of the word."
Mr. Rsayef and another resident, former city councilman Imad Jawad Hamza, who spoke with hospital officials and residents, said the first house to be stormed was that of Abdul-Hamid Hassan Ali, which was near the scene of the bombing.
Mr. Ali, 76, whose left leg was amputated years ago because of diabetes, died after being shot in the stomach and chest. His wife, Khamisa, 66, was shot in the back. Ali's son, Jahid, 43, was hit in the head and chest. Son Walid, 37, was burned to death after a grenade was thrown into his room, and a third son, 28-year-old Rashid, died after he was shot in the head and chest, Mr. Rsayef and Mr. Hamza said.
Also among the dead were son Mr. Walid's wife, Asma, 32, who was shot in the head, and their son Abdullah, 4, who was shot in the chest, Mr. Rsayef and Mr. Hamza said.
Mr. Walid's eight-year-old daughter, Iman, and his six-year-old son, Abdul-Rahman, were wounded and U.S. troops took them to Baghdad for treatment. The only person who escaped unharmed was Mr. Walid's five-month-old daughter, Asia. The three children now live with their maternal grandparents, Mr. Rsayef and Mr. Hamza said.
Mr. Rsayef said those killed in the second house were his brother Younis, 43, who was shot in the stomach and chest, the brother's wife Aida, 40, who was shot in the neck and chest while still in bed where she was recuperating from bladder surgery. Their eight-year-old son Mohammed bled to death after being shot in the right arm, Mr. Rsayef said.
Also killed were Mr. Younis's daughters, Nour, 14, who was shot in the head; Seba, 10, who was hit in the chest; Zeinab, 5, shot in the chest and stomach; and Aisha, 3, who was shot in the chest. Hoda Yassin, a visiting relative, was also killed, Mr. Rsayef and Mr. Hamza said.
The only survivor from Mr. Younis's family was his 15-year-old daughter Safa, who pretended she was dead. She is living with her grandparents, Mr. Rsayef said.
The troops then shot and killed four brothers who were walking in the street, Mr. Rsayef and Mr. Hamza said, identifying them as the sons of Ayed Ahmed — Marwan, Qahtan, Jamal and Chaseb.
U.S. troops also shot dead five men who were in a car near the scene, Mr. Hamza and Mr. Rsayef said. They identified the five as Khaled Ayad al-Zawi and his brother Wajdi as well as Mohammed Battal Mahmoud, Akram Hamid Flayeh and Ahmad Fanni Mosleh.
It was not clear if the nine men were involved in the attack as the military statement said.
According to the U.S. Defence Department, the marine who was killed near Haditha that day was Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, Tex. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force.
Dr. Walid al-Hadithi, chief physician at Haditha General Hospital, said that about midnight the day of the attack, two U.S. Humvees arrived at the hospital — one carrying the bodies of men and the other those of women and children.
"They (the marines) told me the women and children were shot in their homes, and they added that the men were saboteurs," Dr. al-Hadithi said. He said he was given a total of 24 bodies. "All had bullet wounds."
Time said the available evidence did not prove the marines deliberately killed civilians. The magazine, however, said its investigation showed that walls and ceilings in both houses were pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as sprays of blood. The video did not show any bullet holes on the outside of the houses — holes that might support the military report of a gunbattle.
The military, after being shown the videotape in January, concluded civilians were killed by marines, Time said, victims of "collateral damage."
A human rights group condemned the shooting of civilians in Haditha.
"Regrettably the American military goes too far in their strikes against civilians because they consider many civilian areas as targets," said Wail al-Tai of the Baghdad Center for Human Rights Studies.
Human Rights Minister Nirmeen Othman would not comment on the incident.

[rory_20_uk]

Having Marines being police is like having the Paras arrest an Irish suspect in in Gibraltar: it's going to end in tears.

I thought that Marines are trained for total war: fast paced assaults where destruction of a known enemy is the key. Fighting an invisible for must have finally caused those marines to crack.

Personally I can't find the Marines 100% guilty as they have been placed in a completely unsuitable situation for far too long. The senior chain of command should apologise and act to ensure that similar mixes of saltpetre don't occur with the local charcoal and sulphur.

[spmetla]

Although the Marines probably felt justified in it and might have been caught up in the "heat of battle" intentional civilian deaths are inexcusable and i hope those involved get punished if later facts and evidence that might appear do confirm it as a warcrime

[Banquo's Ghost]

Roy's right here. While it's lamentable that this had to happen, the marines are not at fault. The dumbasses in the government who decided we should be using them as a police force are the ones at fault.

Agreed. Troops like Marines are specialists, and trained to be highly aggressive. Peacekeeping is not what they should be used for.

[Papewaio]

Marines are not only trained to be aggresive they are highly disciplined. Plenty of soldiers in recent and past history have been assigned to roles outside their sphere of training. I do not know that as a defense used in a court (outside of incompetence for a task at hand like not being trained in the system resulting in damage), for a moral decision ones specialty is not generally taken into account.

However we have already see battlefield duress as a reason for a cup of tea and a lie down even if it was for killing prisoners...

I assume the SAS are at a whole other level of aggression and control then normal troops... yet they are the first pick for peacekeeper missions for the UN by the nations that field them.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that the SAS are covert, so as such shooting whoever is in their way is not going to achieve their mission. Few are as highly focused to "search and kill" as the marines are. After all, they made their name assaulting heavily defended beaches, and still pride themselves on their aggression. There can be few troops who are a worse choice for the peacekeeping mission. National Guard are possibly a better choice.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Papewaio
I assume the SAS are at a whole other level of aggression and control then normal troops... yet they are the first pick for peacekeeper missions for the UN by the nations that field them.

The SAS is a completely different style of troops then Marines. For starters SAS commando's are unconventional forces, Marines are conventional. The marine have fighting drilled into them since bootcamp. They are broken down and retaught how to respond to any situation. Their taught to respond and kill any aggressors, to obey orders without thought of personal safety. They are not meant to be peace keepers, their meant to kill the enemy regardless of what it takes. SAS commando's are taught much differently then marines, they are special forces. To compare SAS to any U.S. forces you would have to look at the Rangers, Delta, or some other group in the special forces. Rangers, many other U.S. Special Forces are used very effectively in peace keeping missions. You can't compare conventional forces to Special forces, their trained to do completely different things.

Assigning marines to peacekeeping duties is idiotic, the higher ups need to be blamed for this. Sure you can fault the marines, but they are taught to respond, the constant stress finally caught up to them.

[mystic brew]

surely, whether or not they were the 'right' troops for peacekeeping, this sort of action (if proven) is still a gross violation of the ROE?

I mean, you can use the same line of reasoning to say the massacres at My Lai weren't the troops fault.

We have to emphasise personal responsibility.

[Zalmoxis]

I want more facts, you can't be sure yet. If it turn out the Marines did kill those people, they should be given no less than death.

[Goofball]

surely, whether or not they were the 'right' troops for peacekeeping, this sort of action (if proven) is still a gross violation of the ROE?

Hmmm, let's see:

"After a roadside bomb killed a U.S. marine in western Iraq, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a three-year-old-girl, residents told The Associated Press on Monday."

Yes, I believe you are correct, mystic brew. I doubt very much that the U.S. ROE include anywhere a provision that says it's okay to double-tap a three year old girl in her center of mass, even if you do suspect she may be the daughter of an insurgent.

If the marines in question did what they are accused of, then they are nothing more than criminals. Murderers. No better than a gang-banger who kills a kid in a driveby in the inner city.

Quite frankly the whole thing makes me want to puke, and I am desperately hoping that evidence will turn up that somehow disproves the accusations.

I mean, you can use the same line of reasoning to say the massacres at My Lai weren't the troops fault.

We have to emphasise personal responsibility.

Another instance of hammer meeting nail. Good post all around mb. I find it ironic that in this case, some of us are falling all over ourselves trying to blame circumstance and partially excuse these marines, but when it comes to a story of a kid growing up in poverty and hopelessness in east LA then turning to crime, our attitude is "I don't care why he did it, he made his choice and should face the consequences."

Funny, that...

[Marcellus]

We have to emphasise personal responsibility.

Indeed, these actions, although not surprising considering the circumstances the marines were operating in, are inexcusable.

[mystic brew]

also, it traduces all the other troops who have lost comrades in incidents who didn't then go beserk.

[Kanamori]

Something in me wants to think that this could quite possibly be the work of those trying to build anger, simply dressed as US soldiers. Quite horrible if it's true. I don't see how anybody could barge into a house and shoot a family, perhaps a single child if they quickly went around a doorway and shot at movement.

[mystic brew]

But even if they shot at movement, that would be a violation of ROE... only return fire if fired on, carefully identify targets...

I'm not certain, but i'm fairly sure those are the terms of the ROE in built up areas...

[Kanamori]

Sorry, I lack clarity again. That is the only way I could see Marines, somehow within anything that isn't downright evil, shooting children. As in a senario where they thought they were being fired on by that building, busted in the door, and went in.

[Kagemusha]

This is a clear case of War crime.Im glad these men are now put in a military court to judge and sentence them.This kind of news make me sick,but war is sick business and there are always people that will commit war crimes.My condolences to the relatives of those killed families.

[BigTex]

This is a clear case of War crime.Im glad these men are now put in a military court to judge and sentence them.This kind of news make me sick,but war is sick business and there are always people that will commit war crimes.My condolences to the relatives of those killed families.

There's too many holes in the story to fit together that the marines killed the civillians in cold blood. My bets are there was a fire fight and the houses were between the two, or the insurrgents used the houses and the people as shields. They even said both houses were filled with bullet holes, in the roofs, in the walls, that just doesnt fit together as the marines executing them. I'm not going to blame any of those marines till there's some more evidence, not just a video of dead bodies. It was a bad area to engage an enemy, but they didnt get a choice, they were engaged. Blame should be applied to the criminals who set the bomb up not with the marines. Granted their a little bit more elusive, but blaming the easy target isnt right either.

[Kagemusha]

I hope so.But il guess the Military court will decide that. The main issue is that it will be investigated what killed those people. And why they died.I can understand that the fighting in urban enviroment can be very frustrating but killing innocent children is unacceptable.
I would also like to hear about the Fallujah incident when Civilians were turned back to combat zone by US military personel.Its been a quite a while now and there hasnt been anything new about it in the media.
Im glad that the current affair has come out and is investigated by the US military.But if people commit warcrimes,their training is no excuse.A war crime is war crime. But ofcourse now these men are only suspected of it.They are innocent untill proven guilty.

[Tribesman]

Oh dear , it never rains but it pours .
Just as this story resurfaces after a 3 month absence another appears , this time it is the Iraqi police saying US forces "executed" 11 civilians last week in Balad .

edit to add ..... Just noticed this in the initial post ....I will hold fire until more facts emerge
Now that is funny .

[Goofball]

There's too many holes in the story to fit together that the marines killed the civillians in cold blood. My bets are there was a fire fight and the houses were between the two, or the insurrgents used the houses and the people as shields. They even said both houses were filled with bullet holes, in the roofs, in the walls, that just doesnt fit together as the marines executing them.

Bold added by me, to note a very important distinction, see below:

Time said the available evidence did not prove the marines deliberately killed civilians. The magazine, however, said its investigation showed that walls and ceilings in both houses were pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as sprays of blood. The video did not show any bullet holes on the outside of the houses — holes that might support the military report of a gunbattle.

The bullet holes were not on the "roofs." This would imply marines were outside shooting in at targets they couldn't see. The bullet holes were in the "ceilings," which implies that the marines were inside shooting at targets that they could see.

The initial evidence as reported in the article sadly points to the marines having gone from room to room executing everybody they came across.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by The Article
Time said the available evidence did not prove the marines deliberately killed civilians. The magazine, however, said its investigation showed that walls and ceilings in both houses were pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as sprays of blood. The video did not show any bullet holes on the outside of the houses — holes that might support the military report of a gunbattle.

Bold and Comic Sans MS added by me. There's shrapnel from the bomb inside the building, obviously then there are not just marks on the ceiling but holes in the roof. It's more then likely the reporter would assume you would know that there would be holes in the roof not just in the ceiling. Or the reporters definition of ceiling is different then yours. A 5.56mm round isnt suddenly going to stop at the ceiling of a house anyways, obviously there's going to be holes in it. The article also doesn't mention any otopsy findings, either they conflict with his story, he doesnt have them, or they werent done. Personally I would assume that if shrapnel from the bomb got in the houses that some of the civillian deaths were from the bomb and not from the insuing fire fight.

[Tribesman]

The article also doesn't mention any otopsy findings, either they conflict with his story, he doesnt have them, or they werent done. Personally I would assume that if shrapnel from the bomb got in the houses that some of the civillian deaths were from the bomb and not from the insuing fire fight.
None so blind eh ?????
The conflicting story is that the military initially claimed these people were killed in the bombing , then two months later they said they were not killed in the bombing they were killed in a firefight with insurgents , now three months after that they are saying ummmmm...firefight ...well maybe not??????
So who has the conflicting story Tex , the journalists who are reporting what
the military say , or the military themselves ?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm not sure that Marines are the hair-trigger Rambos that some make them out to be. They ARE trained to follow orders, too.

I also read a book by some journalist sometime between the Gulf War and 9-11 about the Marines. In it, the author noted that the Marines were proud of (successful) peace keeping operations in Africa, including Somalia. They cited their success to their well-armed and dangerous appearence and manner, saying that the natives were too scared to cause trouble!

[KrooK]

Of course it was war crime.
Notice that into article they wrote that some persons has been shot into head and stomach. But they forgot to wrote into which side of head - im sure into back side. Furthemore most murdered persons has been shot twice - into stomach and head. I think they threw grenades, entered house and then noticed that some pps died, but most alive. So they showed them who rules - first shot into stomachs (cause it pains), waited some minutes spectating and then finished job.

[Divinus Arma]

I'm happy to see so many here are not jumping to rash judgment.

I will wait for more information.


We Marines are not rabid dogs waiting to be unleashed, but human beings who have been given protocol and the discipline to follow that protocol.

The Marine Corps has recently begun embracing the concept of "distributed operations". It requires Marines under the leadership of NCOs to take on greater responsibility in small unit capabilities. This operation would be an example of that concept in action, but at a very rudimentary level.

The Marine Corps is perfectly capable of engaging in peace keeping duties and police work, so long as the unit-level training is sufficient to support these operations. These Marines may have been ordered to act outside of their capacity, but that does not alleviate them from personal responsibility.


My Marine Corps requires the strictest adherance to ethical conduct in warfare. The hallmark of the United States Marine Corps is its reputation for character in the ranks. Should my Marines be found guilty, they should each be executed.

[Kraxis]

We Marines are not rabid dogs waiting to be unleashed, but human beings who have been given protocol and the discipline to follow that protocol.

Of course not... If you were, then we would have seen hundreds of similar cases. We have not. But that doesn't mean that this is impossible.

[Goofball]

Time said the available evidence did not prove the marines deliberately killed civilians. The magazine, however, said its investigation showed that walls and ceilings in both houses were pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as sprays of blood. The video did not show any bullet holes on the outside of the houses — holes that might support the military report of a gunbattle.

Bold and Comic Sans MS added by me. There's shrapnel from the bomb inside the building, obviously then there are not just marks on the ceiling but holes in the roof. Or the reporters definition of ceiling is different then yours.

Do you really think so, Sherlock? Because if it is so "obvious" that there would be holes in the roof, why does the article specifically say "the video did not show any bullet holes on the outside of the houses?"

Are they the magical kind of holes that you can only see from one side, much like the entrance to Platform 9 3/4?

A 5.56mm round isnt suddenly going to stop at the ceiling of a house anyways, obviously there's going to be holes in it.

Maybe not a north American ceiling that's made of drywall with a few interspaced studs, but how about an Iraqi ceiling made of brick? And what about the possibility that the firing was taking place on the ground floor of a two story home, so the rounds only penetrated one floor, but didn't make it out of the next one?

At any rate, you might be surprised what would stop a 5.56 round.

The article also doesn't mention any otopsy findings, either they conflict with his story, he doesnt have them, or they werent done. Personally I would assume that if shrapnel from the bomb got in the houses that some of the civillian deaths were from the bomb and not from the insuing fire fight.

Even if that's the case, the article is pretty detailed in it's description of the bullet holes in the bodies, which sound like aimed, precise shots. So your assumption would only mean that some of the people may have already been dead, but the marines decided they had better put a round through their chests or heads to make certain that they were wasted. Which really is frowned upon when it comes to three year olds.

But you are right about one thing. I would like to see an autopsy report and some actual testimony transcripts to have something more to go on than a description of a video by a news media source.

[Papewaio]

Damn Goofball beat me to it... no sharpnel damage to the outside... so unless all the sharpnel quantum tunneled through the walls it would be a safe assumption that sharpnel damage inside was from explosives detonated inside the house.

[master of the puppets]

hmm *looks over artical" head and chest, head and chest, stomech, head, head, very precise shooting considering the alleged rounds in the walls. i am skeptical of this report a little, it states that 6 known insurgents were killed in the known firefight, where were these bodies found, how did the ...i asume only witness to come forward, see the event, were the people sunni or shi'ah, any evidence that they may have been killed prior to the battle or by insurgents in disguise, who have been known to massacre civilians.

there are to many questions and not enough answers.

But if its true, that marines did the massacre, they should be executed for there barbaric behavior.

i'm sorry but it is really hard to imagine any of my friends or fellow americans, much lest twelve rushing in and shooting people in there beds or a three year old in any circumstance...i know its kind of shallow to not realise that things like this do happen, but i just can't imagine anyone i know in the military doing this.

[Major Robert Dump]

If we are talking about the same video I have seen on the net, this was an incident of people being killed inside the homes by other people with guns. Bombs dont magically pass walls and leave the entire building unscathed except for a few holes in sheetrock inside and a pile of dead bodies. It also wans't friedly fire from the outside going in, again, these were dead people in rooms with a few bullet holes in the wall here and there, a house of occupants killed by friendly fire would have to be saturated with holes unless the entire building was made of windows, which it wasn't

I'm making no judgement as to who did it, but the people inside on the video I saw were killed at close range with firearms. The video, however, is just that: groups of dead people inside an otherwise normal home with splatters of blood and bullet holes in the wall. Could have been killed under many different circumstances, bodies could have been moved, etc etc, so I'm making no judgement other than it WAS NOT a bomb and if the crime was committed at that location (ie, the bodies not moved there) then it was definitely either intentional or extreme recklessness.