Looks to me that somebody has failed to tell our US news outlets "No, that's not right" as well.
Who doesn't already know that killing children isn't "right?"
While our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty," looks like the press has convicted, drawn, quartered and hanged the US Marines.
Incorrect. What you are describing is the verdict. A verdict is the last stop on a journey that starts with identifying that a crime has taken place. When you find a bunch of dead kids who were killed by Marine weapons, in an event where the action reports are in conflict with the physical and photographic evidence, then you know that a murder has taken place, and that someone is lying.
Analogous situation was the police finding the bodies of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. It was obvious that a murder had taken place. The VERDICT, however, was "not guilty." Would you argue that the not guilty verdict meant that the two dead people had not been murdered?
And, remember, according to the press, the insurgents in Iraq are always innocent, even when proven guilty.
I really need to see some of the articles you are referring to. Could you post links to a few of them? I wasn't even aware that any insurgents had been brought to trial, much less "proven guilty," so your resources must be better than mine.
Shoot, I wasn't even aware that there was a court system in place in Iraq. Shows what I know.
Here's the link to the WashingtonTimes http://www.washtimes.com/world/2...03359-
3426r.htm
For other references, put your cursor on the purple script above, and you'll click to the article I'm referring to.
And Repak, when I said that the press had already come to its verdict, I was being sardonic. But, if you read the sentences in the major outlets, they're already referring to the Marines as guilty. Which is my point. The Iraqi's do in fact have a justice system in place, and I believe they are also investigating.
"I wasn't even aware that there was a court system in place in Iraq. Shows what I know."
Where are Saddam and his buddies on trial?
As for your idea that just because there are dead bodies means it is murder, NO! Bullets could have been fired on attackers and gone through windows or walls. Also it has been a big practice in the mid-east (Saddam LOVED doing it), you take dead bodies or even murder people yourself and then move them to a location and then point the finger at the US. I am not saying that happened, but personally I would be more inclined to follow the logic that insurgents did that and went from there than Marines did it.
Murtha got stung by the "press-bug" and will not stop. He has already accused the CJCS of the cover-up. So if they are proved to be innocent he will say the investigation was altered.
He WANTS this to be true. That is the sick part, he wants them to be found guilty of this because it works out so well politically for him and will make him feel good.
If you want to be on that side, be my guest. But this is not the garbage we need on Memorial Day weekend. For all the CRAP of him caring for the troops and "I've done more for the military than anyone else." My my, a bit full of one's self Mr. Murtha. Yet last Sunday he was not present at a tribute to the families of injured or killed family members on the National Mall. CJCS was there with a few thousand people. Maybe the problem is he doesn't really care, and he knew he would not be welcome by the family members.
I couldn't have said that better, MdCon. And welcome back!
this story getting loose before the charges are officially handed down is a bad sign, but not for the reasons you cite
the Bush league wants the word out now, a couple of weeks before the official charges are handed down so the public's reaction to the charges will be a kind of "old news" reaction
much better than waiting so that the first the public hears of this shameful event is when a pile of murder charges are handed down against US marines
leaking to make bad new old news is a common tactic in DC
KoWt -- so, Karl Rove called you up last night, and let you know the low down on that, eh?
Dear Frau, nobody called or authorized US and its coalition of the willing (UK, Tonga, Angola, Eritrea, Afghanistan etc.) to go to Iraq. But hey, they did. After the mission was accomplished, according to your president, the troops had to stay a few more years with no end in sight.
I was in the Russian Army during the Afghanistan war and I have to say that soldiers, left by politicians to defend themselves in a foreign country, rarely warm up to local folks. No matter what the media call them (depending on what side you choose, they can be insurgents, rebels, guerilla, terrorist, freedom fighters etc.), locals are firing on you and you start to get stressed. I would not be surprised if your guys did it. Wait for the investigation to end and then maybe you will change your mind or maybe you won't.
And it's very sad that a young guy like Miguel Terrazas died far away from home in a stupid war that nobody needs (besides politicians, gun manufacturers and media on both sides of the conflict). It is also sad that a bunch of small girls were killed just because US and Al Qaeda choose Iraq as yet another battlefield.
Do svidania.
Russian Dude -- I'm delighted that you dropped by!
I actually read a book by an Afgani woman who was a girl during the Russian occupation of Afganistan, and reached adulthood under the Taliban.
She describes meeting a Russian soldier, who was decent to her, and actually compared the Russian occupation favorably to the Taliban rule. Can't think of the name of the book right now, but if you'll e-mail me, I'll look it up and send it to you. Her grandmother stopped her from socializing with the Russian troops, which she seemed to feel was too bad.
Anyway ... even according to international "law," there were as many legal grounds as not to go into Iraq. Decisions had to be made, and Bush made them.
You're right about the politicians; this also happened to US troops in Nam. It could also happen in Iraq, and I really hope it doesn't.
There's actually a plan for Iraq, and it's been public for years. Rumsfield and Bush have both outlined it in public speeches, but US Democrats and the US media seem to blow it off. The plan is to get the Iraqi army on its feet, get a stable government, and then cut back troops.
There is no timetable, since Bush doesn't want to tell Zawahiri when to go on vacation and how long. (a timetable would be very, very stupid at this point.)
Do svidania? Hey, y'all come back now!
Commenting by HaloScan
