Talk:Haditha massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Horrible Sourcing.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I was not there, but came here hoping (naively) to get reliable information. Instead I got an "Encyclopedia" citing anonymous sources (footnote 3) and quoting Sidney Blumenthal from a Salon editorial. ... HUH? I'm not up on all the fancy smanchy wiki lingo and rules but if that doesn't break a few of them, you guys should just pack it up and go home. I don't care which side you're on, this page is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.78.136 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. The heading definitely needs work, and there's still more work needed, particularly when the Wuterich case is either back in court or dismissed.

But the anonymous sources are from the initial inquiry, and that's how it was presented to the public at the time this started.

Sidney Blumenthal is part of the Reaction section. The media and political hype were a major part of the story. Their place in hyping this must never be forgotten.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very bias and the person who made this page has clearly drawn their own conclusion due to political beliefs. No one has been sent to prison for these "crimes" (and no one will). You failed to mention the Spy Plane video that shows numerous air strikes and that the marines called airstrikes on buildings that insurgence were shooting from that had civilians inside. ANY moving person in a warzone is considered a threat, and you only have a split second to deal with thatg threat. Maybe 24 civilians had to die so those marines could live. It would do you good to stop letting your politocs to get in the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.176.232 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds this comment to be very funny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)

Nope. I'm sure al Qaeda, which apparently has too many supporters, is also laughing yet again.

-- Randy2063 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Get off your soap box please. The op derides bias when their's is clear. If anything the article is too American-centric, especially for incidents that originally occurred outside of the U.S. First the liberal media promotes Iraqi accounts of these incidents without question. The other side has their turn and the Iraqi's are all branded as liars. They are never going to appear at any trial or pre-trial in the US. More space should be given to Iraqi accounts and analysis. They are as relevant as anything that comes out of the US. If nobody steps up I'll re-register and take a stab at it later in the week.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)

The Iraqi POV, as expressed by the so-called "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" and the McGirk stories were all this article had to go by when it first started. The Iraqi witnesses may not have testified in person but their statements entered into the record, and are summarized in inspecting officer's report (which is now available online).

It's not all of the Iraqis who are branded as liars. After all, SSgt Wuterich will probably be tried for negligent homicide. It's Congressman Murtha and all of his supporters who are the liars. They're the ones who had claimed this was a wild bloodthirsty hunt for revenge. If you read the IO's report (on page 22 of the PDF), you'll see that the prosecution provided no evidence to support this, and that it makes no sense in light of the chronology of events. It's only natural that there'd be a reaction after more facts came out.

I don't know what kind of Iraqi analysis could be useful here. Much of the analysis from Middle East news sources tends to be third-rate propaganda.

-- Randy2063 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And many in the middle east say the same about American news sources. I'm sure something acceptable can be found that meets Wiki standards so the article is not sourced so completely from American and British news outlets and focused on American opinion and analysis..

I've read the circumstances of how that testimony was collected and presented. Imho it doesn't serve anybodies interest, victim or accused. Non-American contributions to this article are still under represented. By your declarative statement about Murtha it looks like you are presuming that the IO's report or any American military report is somehow a final or definitive word on what happened. Many would disagree and other relevant material should be included.

That is if it can be found to meet standards. I don't think anyone would argue with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)

The IO report didn't claim to be the final word on the issue. It's really only one step in the process.

American news sources may be biased but there are many, and they're biased in many directions. They cater to a wide variety of POVs, many of which are hostile to the military. The Middle East doesn't have the comparable degree of openess to allow as much dissent from the prevailing POV. (Just ask Salman Rushdie.) That's even worse in Iraq, and worse still in Anbar. What could an Iraqi say that wouldn't put their own lives and families in danger?

I'll be interested in what you can find that doesn't sound like it's meant to appeal to the many paranoid fantasies of the legions of Rage Boys.

BTW: You can sign your posts by using four tildes ("~~~~").

-- Randy2063 00:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the IO report is not the final word on the issue then why are you recommending changes based on this reasoning "IMHO, the point on conditions at the camp was only relevant to prop up the scenario that Murtha was trying to push. Ware's report pretty much blew Murtha's lies out of the water. I think we should just remove that entire section." I'm not trying to bait or screw with you. Serious question. And ty for the tip on signing. It's been a while. 154.20.26.53 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are still several possible ways this can all unfold. It could well be that one of the scenarios favoring the defense, such as this or this one (where even the number killed by the marines may be in question) may exonerate the marines completely. (The story we've been told could be wrong beyond our imaginations.)

Or it may be that, as following Ware's recommendation and then assuming a conviction, that the marines were right to pursue the insurgents but Wuterich shot the kids out of negligence (wilful or otherwise).

Finally, it may very well be that the trial proceeds, under whatever charges, and the process uncovers that intentional murder (as compared to negligent homicide) did take place. Regardless of whatever chance that has of occurring, it still falls well short of the insane rampage that Murtha depicted. That possibility went out the window when the facts came out in first hearing.

Whatever is revealed down the road, the conditions at the camp had nothing to do with what they did.

-- Randy2063 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Patience Pendragon39 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the news source Newsmax described as conservative while Salon has no description? The word conservative should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stowbilly (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

suggest moving of information

"On November 19, 2005 Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas was killed in a 7:15AM roadside bombing that precipitated the US Marine shooting and grenade attacks. Two other marines were wounded in that attack."

This above excerpt is from the "Killings and immediate aftermath" not the "background" section despite having taken place prior to the "Killings". Please bear in mind that in this article "Killings" is being used as a replacement term for "massacre" and as such refers to the 24 civilians who were massacred, not the people who just happen to have been killed in Haditha.

As one of the excuses offered for the massacre is the death of Terrazas upsetting the marines so much they just had to go shoot something, It's obviously very important that it retains a place in the article. But that place just isn't in the section describing the massacre itself. Elmo 10:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the website I listed with information supporting it being a hoax? It listed reasonable evidence, and the sources of that evidence. If i did it incorrectly, please fix it, or tell me how to. I'm new at this, and fully expect to be dreadful right out of the gate. But to completely ignore the possibility that it might be a hoax is less than impartial. To not even acknowledge that it is being proposed is rather ostrich in the sand.````WynniFitz

I see that somebody removed it without comment. It was probably done because it wasn't considered sufficiently "encyclopedic" to be used here. I do agree with you that Haditha appears to be a hoax, and I see a valid purpose to the link you used.

First, you must remember that this is meant to be like an encyclopedia. It's not like a blog comment where you can direct people to a link. References are supposed to support what you say, but it should never be mandatory that people go there to understand what you're talking about.

Second, references to blogs are rarely considered valid. Most blogs cite references, and when you find something in a blog, you should verify those references and then cite them.

I do think this particular blog you cited is important in understanding where we were when it was written. While I wouldn't cite it now, I do think it might be worth linking to after this is all over. Some will disagree, and they don't even think NewsMax is sufficient. But it'll be important in the end, hoax or not, as we'll need to explain why not everyone supported the fascists' version of the story.

As for this being a hoax, I think this article does show that possibility. It's just being drowned out right now by the tides of anti-Americanism. This article needs work.

BTW: You need to end a post in the talk section with "++++" if you want to get the timestamp.

-- Randy2063 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did everyone support the fascists version? seemed to me that most public opinion/news sources condemned the massacre rather than buying the USMC's first story. Elmo 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the fascists' version of a story can be true. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt.

The same should have applied here. At this point, Tatum and Wuterich may still be convicted, and if so, it's still possible that their crimes were horrendous. That doesn't mean it's okay to support fascism. And that's why I say these opinions should be recorded.

-- Randy2063 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I'm a little confused here. Are you saying the victims were the facists or the USMC?

It depends on how we define "victim". Whether Tatum and Wuterich are guilty or innocent, the fascists deserve at least part of the blame for operating near civilians. It was not the Marines who fired the first shot.

LCPL Sharratt was probably a victim of the system, and of the Iraqis who wrongfully fingered him. The other two are either likewise victims or perpetrators. The children were almost certainly victims, as were any innocent Iraqis.

-- Randy2063 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that some people may not understand who I mean by "fascist". By that I mean the enemy.

-- Randy2063 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

who's your enemy? the iraqi civilians?? Elmo 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"who's your enemy? the iraqi civilians?? " How about the enemies are the people who attacked the marines, then lied to say the marines massacred people without provocation? The truth is now coming out, and that truth is that insurgents attacked the marines. When the marines returned fire, they killed many insurgents, and insurgent supporters behind whom the insurgents were hiding. Insurgent supporters then made up a story, and anti-Americans accepted that story as the truth. Those marines would not have fired if they had not been attacked. When the attacks stop, then marines and other US forces will leave Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.5.58 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any insurgents were ever hiding behind any civilians. Just the opposite. According to the defendants own accounts, including the big drawings they displayed, the insurgents were well out of the way when the civilians were shot. Is there any evidence that id's any of the Iraqi dead in the houses as insurgent supporters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)

Actually, there is testimony that the eight of the dead were insurgents. As for "insurgent supporters," this was a Sunni neighborhood in Anbar province. It's very unlikely that they'd all be otherwise.

Even if we were to stipulate that all the dead were innocent civilians, it's still fairly clear that insurgents had been in those houses. They may not have been "hiding behind" civilians, but they were operating around them, and they're the ones who picked that location to start the fight.

-- Randy2063 03:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"it's still fairly clear that insurgents had been in those houses. " In which houses? I can find no evidence to suggest insurgents were ever in houses 1 or 2 except for Wuterich's guess that some gunshots must have come from house 1 despite the fact that he didn't actually see any fire coming from that house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of what we really have is testimony. One of the few exceptions may be that the photos appeared to examiners as consistent with a fight and not an execution.

The marines judged at the time that the fire could only have been coming from house 1. Once there, they heard guns being racked, someone inside did have a gun, and someone had been reported to be escaping. Could marines have been wrong about the direction of fire? Maybe, but they're not "guilty-until-proved-innocent." Again, this is in an area where every able-bodied man is expected by their peers to be part of the insurgency.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wuterich says in his opinion the fire could only have been coming from house 1. The Marines say they heard a gun being racked in the next room. Nobody was 'reported to have been escaping' afaik. Wuterich says that was his guess. There was no 'fight' in or at house 1 or 2 again according to Wuterich; just Marines assaulting and facing no resistance apart from the shots heard prior to the order to assault. ?? And it is not our job to judge guilty or innocent. Simply repeating just and misrepresenting others (by more than one party here) select aspects of the Marines story about houses 1 and 2 is not the way to go here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're only talking about houses 1 and 2, then yes, I don't recall weapons being found. But it still doesn't mean very much.

Wuterich did say in his CBS interview "that was the only logical place that the fire could come through seeing the environment there." The fact that he didn't see muzzle flashes doesn't in any way mean there was no gunfire from there -- especially from some distance away. Your edits implied this wasn't serious. It wasn't just Wuterich anyway. Lt. Kallop had said it was both he and Wuterich who concluded the fire was coming from there. They had fired at the house at that time, even before approaching.

In this interview, Wuterich also says "he assumed the gunman fled next door." In the actual hearings and/or depositions, all four marines remember one of them shout they had "a runner". They don't remember who said it, but they all remember that it was said.

I reverted your edit after seeing phrases like "an imagined enemy" and "saw to be an unarmed man". That's clearly a POV phrase, and a cynical one at that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then let's keep it exact and corect. The unsigned comment I responded to above ('How about the enemies are the people who attacked the marines,,,') is wrong on too many counts. Operating around them sounds accurate. The insurgent supporters bit is fluff. Something I have not been able to pin down to my satisfaction, were any weapons, explosives or explosive related material found on any of the dead and if so on who? I've heard many conflicting stories. I'd like a quality link on that point if anyone has one please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Most residents of Haditha did support the insurgents. Anbar province may be on its way to being pacified now, but it was considered hopeless until just recently. As Juan Cole once said about Fallujah: "The US military seems strangely unaware of the realities of insurgencies. It seems to think there are a limited number of 'bad guys,' who can all be killed or captured. The possibility that virtually all able-bodied men in Fallujah supported the insurgency, and that many are weekend warriors, does not seem to occur to them."

The only weapons I'm aware of that they collected were the AK-47s described in Sharratt's testimony. (While that source may not be up to WP's standards, it seems to be a good comprehensive resource for the defense.) For that matter, the Jordanian passports weren't mentioned in this WP article either.

-- Randy2063 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jordanian passports were found "in a home near the shooting scenes." If the passports and cash had anything to do with the actions that day (and they could have been insurgent material or a criminal enterprise or someone running a business, we don't know) the material was still not in any of the houses in question. The idea that it was relevant to the actions but the insurgents brought it to the area and then left it behind is odd. It's either irrelevant or suggests the Marines targeted the wrong houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. In a way, what was found in other homes is less relevant when insurgents were everywhere anyway. That still doesn't mean the story would have worked out very differently had they initially gone to the house with the passports.

If Monday Morning Quarterbacking could demonstrate that they weren't qualified to figure out what direction fire was coming from then I think it would come out in the trial.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously insurgents were not 'everywhere.' And it did come out in the trial. They specifically went over Wuterich (this was the first time he had ever been in combat) and a few others lack of combat experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as saying they weren't qualified to judge where the fire was coming from. It was not Wuterich alone who thought it was coming from that direction.

If you're aware of testimony suggesting they were wrong then please point it out.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same thing. It is exactly the same thing and it was the prosecutions point in bringing it up. There's nothing to suggest they were right except for the claim of some of the marines to have heard an AK being racked in the next room. That's it. Everything else is their guess work and imagination. Wuterich himself has said now "We went through that house much the same, prepping the room with grenades, going in there, and eliminating the threat and engaging the targets…There probably wasn’t [a threat], now that I look back on it. But there, in that time, yes, I believed there was a threat." Meaning simply they guessed wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That could be interpreted several different ways.

When did the prosecution bring it up? The trial hasn't started yet, and I didn't see it in Wuterich's Art.32 investigating officer's report, nor in Gen. Bargewell's report.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lt Col Sullivan said on the USMC site, commenting to a list of what they were going to cover, we are going to look at their experience. This article including at least 2 others on Haditha are now gone. I do not know if that is normal practice for their site. 2 articles on Haditha are also now gone from mil net. Maybe because now there is a trial.

The prosecution can't make much of attacking their lack of combat experience because it invites suggestions then that their training was not adequate. For his own sake Wuterich should shut up and his web site should stop promoting that interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that I had said, "as were any innocent Iraqis," you should be able to figure out the difference.

-- Randy2063 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to upset you, I was just trying to err on the side of caution as your definition of 'innocent' might be different to mine, as your use of 'facists', 'massacre' and 'victim' etc. have already proven to be. Elmo 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think our differences are are less in definitions and more in who we choose to give the benefit of the doubt.

-- Randy2063 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily and Hammurabi Human Rights Group

A recent revert remark said WorldNetDaily was a blog, which it's not. It's definitely conservative, but it's widely read and has a paid staff.

This is more than a bit funny because the original source for McGirk's story was a couple of fascists pretending to be a human rights group. Had he not first tried to pass them off as affiliated with HRW, it might not have made it past the editor's desk. -- Randy2063 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is emphatically not a reliable source. It's the web version of a trashy supermarket tabloid, and should be avoided for sourcing. -- ChrisO 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like a matter of class consciousness than reliability. Other than WND's blue-collar taint not appealing to the hoidy-toidy crowd, what's the difference from Sidney Blumenthal of Salon and Al Jazeera?

And in what way was the "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" a reliable source?

-- Randy2063 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" before, so I can't comment on that, but WND has come up in discussions before on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and elsewhere; the prevailing view is that it's hopelessly partisan and shouldn't be relied upon as a single source for an assertion. From my own personal experience, it seems to have real problems with fact-checking (the notorious "[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 Soy turns you gay]" story is a case in point). -- ChrisO 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Being partisan doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you partisan--not the same thing. The New York Times is also hopelessly partisan but I doubt you'd think this would make it unreliable. I encourage you to rise above any double standards.Alcuin of York (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That page on weird soy theories is not a good example. WND identifies it as "commentary" whereas the one you reverted appears to be a news page.

More importantly, it's based on actual interviews with people involved in the case. The only opinions would be that of those identified individuals, and I don't see any anonymous sources (unlike other magazines). I think that makes it relevant even if the site is slanted.

The "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" are those two Iraqi thugs who gave Time magazine's McGirk the pictures that started all this while pretending to be affiliated with HRW.

-- Randy2063 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

funny i thought it was the killing of 24 non-combatants that started all this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.196.78 (talk)

Yeah, that "non-combatants" line had a lot of people fooled. -- Randy2063 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So the 4 year old kid was really a member of alqaeda? Pokeraddict 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one who wasn't, and you can add a lot more, but the total won't reach 24.

-- Randy2063 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The insurgents have a history of bringing in dead children and wailing mourners to hold and weep over them; both make great photo ops. Or, just as likely, photoshop ops. Time Magazine has published numerous such photos.Alcuin of York (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Dinsmore there is no 'concrete evidence' id'ing any of the 24 as insurgents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its hilarious that anyone actually believes the reports of small arms fire coming from said houses. Get REAL.... Quit being ignorant... Put your self in the shoes of a Alqaeda or anyone in iraq...... you do not fire pot shots at the us military... You know there armed with .50 cal turrets m16s and grenades and you know the procedure of the us military....kill anything that may be a threat.....You ignorant so called adults.....Imagine this in your city in your house....Grow up.....help end this war.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.125.160 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can think it "hilarious" all day long, that doesn't make you right. The fact that you offer nothing but ridicule and name-calling to support your statement tells everyone you can't think clearly; not signing your post tells us that you are ashamed to be associated with it.Alcuin of York (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this sort of vitriol and ignorance is rather high. Of course people shoot pot shots at American soldiers; Alqaeda even makes videos of it and puts it online for their supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.83.3 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the troops killed in Iraq this month, the cause of a number of them had been identified as "hostile fire," and four of those were "small arms fire." That's just this month.

It's one thing to claim to believe everything that hostile parties say about the deaths of innocents. It's quite another for someone to say they believe that these Marines had never even been shot at. Call it a sign of the times.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Abdul Rahman al-Mashandani and Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi ar not the sole employees of the Hammourabi human rights group.(It's more often spelt the English way, "Hammurabi", and info about them was posted in Arabic online. Lots of disinformation on the group has been recycled on the web.) Hadithi, based in his native Haditha in Anbar province, was one of six board members,and the group had 10 other administrative staff in 14 local offices. Although not young, the hairy neighbor was a journalism student, training to find a new career in a war-blighted economy.

Mashhadani, an economics professor in Baghdad, is a Sunni Arab from Balad, north of the capital, and his group has focused its activities on restive Sunni areas north and west of the city, including Anbar province in the west.It has Shi'ites and others among some 500 people who work on a voluntary basis for the group, however, Mashhadani said. It is expanding into Shi'ite southern Iraq, he added. The cited info comes from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/GEO237696.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alertnik (talk • contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The group was founded in 2006 to stage a performance for Time Magazine's Tim McGirk; the only members then were its two founders. That it has expanded since then does not legitimize what its founders did in 2006. By the way, you have one of the names wrong; it is not economics professor Abdul Rahman al-Mashandani but insurgent propagandist Ali Omar Abrahem al-Mashhadani (identified as an insurgent even before Haditha).Alcuin of York (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Why is there a reactions section? We are quoting the opinion sections of newspapers? That is against Wikipedia procedures. Barney Gumble 22:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose some people prefer to showcase their sensibilities.

Do you have a cite on those procedures?

-- Randy2063 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Incentive for lying, and an update

Hey guys, there seems to be a possibility that the witness’s where lying so that they could get a pay out from the US Government. Apparently, it's well known that victims, or their families, will get a $2,500 payout [1][2][3][4][5].

Also, it seems that the evidence is getting weaker [6][7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.39.24 (talk)

True, but I think that's already been factored into the article, although the incentive for lying part should be more clear, and those payout numbers may not be in there yet.

Keep in mind that the first one was probably their weakest case. The other two face different charges.

We're already beyond the point where the "My Lai" comparison appears ridiculous and naive, but that doesn't mean what happened was not seriously bad.

-- Randy2063 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that none of the sources posted by the anon actually make the accusation the the victims may have lied for the compensation money, it appears to be original research on his part. Bleh999 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an accusation I've seen before.

LtCol. Ware's Article 32 report for LCpl. Sharrat mentions this possibility. The best summary I've seen (with a PDF link to the report itself) is here. That link also gives another example of this phenomenon. They're not so different from American lawyers in some ways. If John Edwards can do this to American doctors, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Iraqi lawyers would do it to U.S. Marines.

-- Randy2063 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I see that you've cited an article from The Nation by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian (sister of the deported extremist Sami Al-Arian). I'm sympathetic to the view that it's important to cite reactions from such defenders of fascism (and that is what they are, in spite of the title of one of Hedges's books pretending to be on the other side), but given that NewsMax and WorldNetDaily receive some complaints here, I'll use this as a sign that the range of permissible views is widening.

In any case, I do think that such a source should be explained better in the article. Readers should not be given the impression that theirs is a mainstream POV.

-- Randy2063 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the Nation was meant to be neutral, there are worse things in that article, but I thought that one was relevant it's a referring to an interview and direct quotes from US military members, and I found the article to be a fascinating read, I don't think that can be compared to a POV editorial, using the term defenders of fascism to refer to your opponents seems like empty political soapboxing at best. Did the survivors of My Lai (if there were any) get any compensation, I notice you made the comparison between that and Haditha, perhaps you could shed some light on this, because if they did I'm sure the same accusation could be leveled against them. Lt Calley was ordered released by Richard Nixon, but I'm not sure if that means he was really innocent of murder, the opinion of some military lawyers doesn't absolve the guilt IMHO, most of the participants in that act didn't even receive any punishment, so according to your opinion they are really innocent and the My Lai Massacre article is actually slandering them by falsely accusing them of participating in a massacre (and should be renamed), since no one was really convicted of murder. Bleh999 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hedges and Al-Arian are cherry picking based on their POV (to say nothing of that of The Nation). Someone might try to dress up Hedges as a "reporter" but not Al-Arian. It's possible to find soldiers from any war who opposed it. Quoting members of the British Free Corps may be interesting but it wouldn't necessarily mean very much. I don't think WND or NewsMax found much support here even when using direct quotes by Marines or their lawyers.

I think you've misread my point about My Lai. I only said that the comparison doesn't apply. As I understand it, My Lai was an unambiguous atrocity on a large scale in broad daylight by soldiers who could see what they were doing. Even if everything the Iraqis say is true about Haditha, this is far smaller. The charge against two Marines would be murder from what has come out at this point, but that's giving the Iraqis some benefit of the doubt not given to the accused.

My Lai was very different from that. You could try to draw them closer, but then you'd need to make My Lai into something smaller. Calley's defenders might have done that. I don't think you would.

-- Randy2063 18:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

British Free Corps only existed on a paper with maybe a dozen members, I fail to see the relevance to this especially since they never saw any combat, but I don't think it's fair to suggest its traitorous to oppose a war you fought in, after all those who served earned the right to criticize the war. The basic premise between My Lai and Haditha is the same, if some soldiers go and kill unarmed men women and children, and are never convicted of murder would you describe the events as a massacre? Those who suggest Haditha was justifiable must also believe the My Lai 'Massacre' was a justifiable killing, after all most Vietnamese indeed supported attacks on US soldiers in that village and according to the involved soldiers they supported vietcong insurgents (most of the men of military age were away). The similarities are great between the two incidents, really only the scale of the killing is different, in fact the only reason My Lai ever came to prominent attention is the fact that much of the slaughter was caught on camera by Ronald L. Haeberle, it was kind of hard to argue with photographs of blown out brains of women and children. I'm pretty sure that not many countries like to prosecute their military members even if they commit atrocities, but we shouldn't solely rely on whether they are convicted or not to judge whether the incident was wrong or right. Bleh999 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As an individual, no, I don't think anyone should rely solely on the decisions of a court to decide if something is 'right or wrong.' As Wiki editors we should stick to the facts; report the basic facts, relevant judgements by the courts, the opinions of involved parties maybe and popular opinion (noted as such) in effected areas if such opinions are especially noteworthy. 142.179.94.211 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Haditha differs from My Lai in that each house was expected to have armed insurgents inside it. It wasn't one leader ordering the rest to kill everyone. If one or two did decide to kill civilians it was on their own. That's what the Marines are being charged with.

I never said it's traitorous to oppose a war. There are many respectable avenues one could take to do so. It's just that consorting with Laila Al-Arian isn't one of them.

My only reference to the British Free Corps was that they also opposed a war, and that they were members of the military. That there weren't many, or that they didn't fight against the Allies isn't material in this respect. It was only one example anyway. There were probably many British soldiers who opposed WWII in its early stages, as it was still controversial at that time. If we broaden this to veterans opposing U.S. entry into WWII, there was Smedley Butler. Broadening further, there's the veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, as odd as that was, although they'd change their minds when the winds changed.

-- Randy2063 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems the marines might also have an incentive for lying. Pokeraddict 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but they had little incentive to kill innocent civilians in the first place. The residents did have incentive to allow insurgents to use their homes, and when that went wrong, they had plenty of incentive to lie about it.

Unfortunately, worms like McGirk then had incentive to act as though they believe the lies.

-- Randy2063 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they didn't have a motive to kill civilians "in cold blood", the opposite is true. I'm not sure what the official story is at this point but it seems the civilians were killed while the marines were clearing the building in a hostile environment, with similar results as calling in an airstrike. Of course that might be the wrong interpretation. Perhaps the surviving residents had an incentive to lie, perhaps they had an incentive to tell the truth. Maybe they were supporting the terrorists, maybe they were threatened, maybe they weren't involved at all. It would seem, based on the subsequent events, that they also would have had an incentive not to cooperate with the insurgents. Pokeraddict 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The insurgents knew where they lived. Their brutality provides ample reason to lie.

-- Randy2063 21:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

POV "Mainstream" and Time Magazine

There are several holes in the Time story. The "journalism" student happened to live 100 yards from the incident and recorded the matter with videocamera. He claimed to be a part of Human Rights Watch but that turned out to be a lie that Tim McGirk himself later corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was already in the article. IAC, much of this article will need to be reformatted. Information from the new Nat Helms article also needs to be considered.

-- Randy2063 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

News 9 Aug 2007 -- LCpl Sharratt and Capt. Stone charges withdrawn

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809174227.xs57kf1r&show_article=1

"... Murder charges against a US Marine accused of killing three Iraqi civilians during an alleged massacre in Haditha two years ago have been dropped, the military said on Thursday.

A statement released by the Marines at their Camp Pendleton base in southern California revealed that three charges of unpremeditated murder against Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt had been withdrawn.

The decision was announced in a written ruling from the commander Lieutenant General James Mattis and followed a recommendation from an investigator last month that the charges should be dropped.

"An independent Article 32 investigating officer has considered all the facts and determined that the evidence does not support a referral to court-martial for Lance Corporal Sharratt," Mattis wrote.

"Based on my review of all the evidence in this case and considering the recommendation of the Article 32 officer, I have dismissed the charges." ..."

This will, I assume, eventually move on the AP. htom 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reuters -- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0921973920070809?feedType=RSS

"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A U.S. Marine general dropped all charges on Thursday against two Marines in the shooting deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, scene of what Iraqi witnesses said was a massacre by American troops.

The dismissal of charges means neither Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt nor Capt. Randy Stone will face a court-martial in connection with the events at Haditha, which have brought international condemnation of U.S. troops.

Five Marines still face charges in the November 19, 2005, shooting of two dozen unarmed men, women and children in Haditha, which prosecutors say came in retaliation for the death of a beloved comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, who was cut in half by a roadside bomb.

Sharratt, 22, had been charged with three counts of premeditated murder and Stone, 35, with dereliction of duty for failing to properly report the civilian deaths.

..." htom 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent testimony

[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.76.87 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

I didn't edit the caption, as I was unsure of the direction to take. The caption of the image makes a definitive statement that this is a picture of the location. If you look at the image page itself it says:

It purportedly shows the scene in one of the hous

Should this information either A) Be sourced or B) Reflected in the caption? Pgrote 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing

I'm doing some reorganizing to make it a little more sequential.

• the Charges dropped section should be after the Pre-trial hearings section
• also, I'm combining all of the dropped charges into the Charges dropped section
• the Evidence for the killing section belongs partly in the Events section and partly in the Investigations section

Sbowers3 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of uncited material

If these "facts" haven't been verified in 5 months, they're not facts.

Some reports also show that the video used to accuse Marines may have been highly edited. One intelligence officer in the military has revealed a partial video of the Haditha incident filmed from a drone aircraft, as well as other exculpatory evidence in defense of the Haditha Marines. The intelligence officer accuses the NCIS of exaggerating and covering up evidence, such as a polygraph test one marine passed.

JakeZ 08:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first read your comment above, I mistakenly thought that the main paragraph was part of your comment. Now I realize that it is a copy of the text that you edited out of the article. I hope you don't object that I added <blockquote></blockquote> around the paragraph to try to clarify the point for other readers. Sbowers3 11:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the edit itself, there are two possibilities: 1) nobody bothered to find citations for actual facts; or 2) they aren't facts at all. Which do you believe is the case? I don't have enough information to have an opinion on that point so I'd just like to hear your opinion. Sbowers3 11:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen some suggestions that the UAV Video was edited by NCIS to the disadvantage of the soldiers, but mostly at conservative websites (and conservative newspaper Newsmax News Max article). Adding the accusation at this time may not be justified, but I think the article should mention that the UAV video exists and from CNN reports suggests that the Marines were involved in an all day fire fight, which might support the Marines case. CNN Story of UAV Hardnfast 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If the UAV video is mentioned it should also be noted that the video does not show the actual incidents. The drone making the recording arrived 30 minutes after the killings in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if the CNN article is correct, the video provides proof that there was fighting going on in the area, which the defense is sure to use to bolster its case. Conversely the prosecution will point out that it doesn't show anything about the incident itself. Hardnfast 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NewsMax is retracting that claim. I must have missed it when it first appeared, and I'm glad I did, as it never made much sense.

-- Randy2063 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Huge Factual Errors

The "present living conditions" at Haditha are completely wrong. I'm currently at Haditha where there are showers. The showers are KBR trailers and they've been there for well over a year, possibly two.

Haditha Dam also has an internet cafe, a coffee house and probably one of the better MWR I've seen on a base here in Iraq. The article is riddled with not only inaccuracies, but relies to heavily on the "opinions" of papers like the BBC and Time that are not known for "advocate journalism".

Matt Sanchez 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On June 20, 2006, the BBC ran an article alleging that conditions in the Kilo company headquarters were "feral." The four hundred men were based at a dam three miles from Haditha. The camp was described as a "decaying rabbit-warren." As a result, unofficial shacks had been set up outside the building to house Marines. Oliver Poole, a reporter who visited the camp, called the conditions filthy and disgusting. He said: The fact that the officers had let conditions deteriorate to the level in which where people living [sic] in such basic environment, that says something," he said. "Where were the officers keeping the standards that the US military keeps in the field?" [62]

Conditions in Haditha itself were known to have been deteriorating under militant rule, and attacks on U.S. troops as well as executions of suspected informants were common.[63]

Even today, conditions on the Marine Forward Operating Base still have not improved. The base located near Haditha Dam is regarded by Marines as one of the worst places to be stationed due to living conditions. There is no running water, so Marines who need a shower are required to use a water bottle as a "field shower."[citation needed]

Matt Sanchez 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the point on conditions at the camp was only relevant to prop up the scenario that Murtha was trying to push. Ware's report pretty much blew Murtha's lies out of the water. I think we should just remove that entire section.

-- Randy2063 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section for several reasons.
First, as Matt said, the "even today" part is no longer correct. There were no references for that, and that paragraph should have been removed anyway.
Second, as I had said, the conditions at the camp are irrelevant now. I often favor leaving in some anti-American agit-prop for the sake of not letting anyone forget who said it, but I don't think that purpose is served here either.
Third, I just checked out the reference used for this section. It's an article by John Simpson, who also happens to have selectively interpreted (and that's putting it kindly) the Denbeaux study which was sleazy enough to begin with. (If you've ever been fooled into thinking that 80% of GTMO detainees were captured by bounty hunters for a $5,000 reward, it may be because whoever told you that fell for Simpson's article on the subject.)
I remained tempted to leave it as it was, but this article is too big and confusing to begin with. Then the use of John Simpson as a sole reference for that section's main point sealed it.
There was one paragraph on conditions in Haditha itself. I've kept it and moved it to another section.
-- Randy2063 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Simpson's article, at least the one cited in the Denbeaux study page, makes no mention of $5000. Where does that come from? I've seen it in a few places. Matt Sanchez is no source. Comments from a user visiting the site a year and a half later are not a proper source. The line about current conditions should have simply been deleted for alck of citation. Simpson's articles coming from a CBE BAFTA and Emmy winning journo who is the World Affairs Editor for BBC News or other ones commenting on the specific issue, conditions the soldiers lived under, their morale and mindset, are a proper source for use in the Wikipedia. If it's to be refuted it should be by a legitimate source. As it stands the section on conditions was noteworthy, unusual and relevant except for the uncited material. Ware's report is not a definitive statement and should not serve as the sole shaper of this article. Oliver Poole's original article can be found here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/01/wbush101.xml . The real dig against using Simpson is he is really only citing Poole. We should just stick to Poole, the original source.142.179.94.211 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that Poole's article might be contradicted by a CNN reporter who was embedded with the 3/1. If anyone could find info on that I would appreciate it. I'll make no edits till I do some more research. 142.179.94.211 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that Simpson doesn't mention the $5000. The Denbeaux article must have mixed up that source with another one. Simpson only says "big financial bounties" and he's clever enough to say "it looks as though" when summarizing the Denbeauxs' lawyerly contribution to the neverending stream of propaganda.

The Denbeauxs never say in their report that it was always $5000. They give one example of a bounty, and it was Bin Laden's driver for whom the bounty hunters were indeed paid that much. Nor do they say all of the 440 relevant detainees were turned over for bounties. They just phrase it in a way that allowed the sympathetic columnists to believe it was true. There is no source that says anything close to 440.

Matt Sanchez isn't just another editor here. He's a military writer, and he's been to Iraq. IAC, his statements here aren't being used as a source to put something in. They're being used to reevaluate what was included and should be taken out.

You're right that Poole is more authoritative but I don't think his source is worth much either. It's just one military contractor who may have rubbed some marines the wrong way. Besides that, marines have a great deal of training in primitive conditions. To suggest that they can't handle life away from hot showers doesn't pass the laugh test.

This may be the CNN article you're looking for.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to mention this. The comments about some of the Iraqi dead being insurgents should not be included and I've removed them. One cites Hyatt's testimony. Hyatt was repeating what the Marines involved had reported to him and that information contained gross inaccuracies like that some were suicide bombers. The cited source qualifies Hyatt's claim as being 'unverified.' The next source cited a defence attorney who claims to be referencing unreleased secret documents. Neither is a worthwhile source. I have not been able to find a better source for these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dinsmore and other Marines initially said eight of the 24 Iraqis killed were insurgents, a claim that was repeated up and down the chain of command and in a press release the day after the attack. But under cross examination from Sullivan, Dinsmore conceded he had no solid evidence to support the claim and said it was possible that all 24 of the Iraqi dead were innocent civilians. " http://www.talkshowamerica.com/2007/06/haditah-marine-case-politically.html I can find no basis for the assertion that the 8 were insurgents other than the seriously flawed initial reports from Marines on the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left in Dinsmore's claim that the drone footage proves insurgents were in the houses in question but added the caveat that the drone did not arrive until after the killings. I've seen drone stills on web sites favorable to the charged Marines and they show people who appear to be insurgents in the general area (mainly fleeing to a palm grove) but not at or near the houses in question. More of Dinsmore's exact testimony would help. Anyone know where to find transcripts?

Removal of the combat infobox

I have removed the combat infobox a few times by now, but there is always someone putting it back without explaining why.

I can explain why I feel that it's inappropriate.

Primarily because putting it there is to take some of the US soldiers version of the event for a fact (those who claim that some of the civilians were armed and were shooting at them) even though it conflicts with other versions.

Secondly, even if we found out that some kind of combat between some of the civilians and the US soldiers had taken place (which seems to be quite unlikely, as there is no support for the claim that some of the Iraqis were even armed[9]), describing this event primarily as a military conflict is just extremely inappropriate.

So, now I'm removing the combat infobox again, and I hope it stays that way. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reinstalling it, again, because the event began as combat. It's not just American soldiers saying this, it's the dead body of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. It is more complicated than some forms of combat, but combat it is. htom (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That argument doesn't make any sense. This article is not about the death of the US soldier, but of the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians. This is pointed out in the introduction of the article:

"The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha incident or the Haditha massacre) refers to the incident where 24 Iraqis were killed on November 19, 2005 in Haditha, a city in the western Iraq province of Al Anbar."

Even if the death of the US soldier would be included in what's referred to as the Haditha killings, a combat infobox would not be suitable, because an attack with a IED devices doesn't constitute much combat.

Combat infobox removed again. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merat,

The article is about the entire incident, which began and ended in combat. The fact that it's being employed by propagandists only makes it more about combat. I'm reverting.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put up a RfC here later and we'll get this dispute sorted out in a nice way. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a combat infobox be included?

Should a combat infobox be included in the Haditha killings article or not?

See discussion above.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.183.224.40 (talk) --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Combat was involved. The testimony shows this, and those were the findings in the hearings.

Although the case is still to be decided in trial, one thing already decided is that some of those killed were accidents of war. Read the transcripts and you'll see that requires combat.

Furthermore, if you've been paying attention elsewhere on Wikipedia, every detainee in GTMO is being thought of as "innocent until proved guilty" in these articles -- even when they don't deserve it. If such care can be given to the fascists locked up in GTMO, we can do it for Marines.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the US soldiers are innocent because they say so under oath? --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I mean that the findings of military hearings are the results of a legitimate process, and that they have some value even if you don't personally agree with them. The opponents don't have anything like that. They believe the Marines are guilty only because they hate the Marines.

Even if those Marines who have yet to be tried are ultimately convicted, what has already been resolved earlier in the process is enough to say that some combat has occurred.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like it if any of you showed me some neutral sources stating that there was combat. This[10] BBC article is not a week old, and it seems to imply the opposite - that all of the killed civilians were unarmed. We also have the testimony from one of the marines. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: The BBC story calls it "alleged". They're not reporting new facts about the incident itself. For that, all we have are the two competing storylines, and you have nothing authoritative. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the text more carefully you'll see. The article states that the US soldiers did in fact kill 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, and that Wuterich is alleged to have been leading the massacre. Quoted from the text: "The alleged leader of US troops who killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005 in Haditha will not face murder charges". Although, this could possibly be a mistake by the journalist.

Anyway, I still want you to provide neutral sources stating that it is an established fact that combat occurred. The burden of proof is on you on this issue, so if you cannot do that then there's no doubt that the combat infobox should be removed. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong there. Few skirmishes of this size have had as much evidence as this one has. That said, Video from that day shows "intense fighting" in that area. And as I said before, forensic evidence showed that it happened differently than was told by the Iraqis.

User:Merat, if you're going to push your POV, why don't you just "unquit" and sign in again?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I read both of the articles and none of them support your claims (neither that it is an established fact that combat did occur, nor that there is actual proof that combat did occur). The CNN article only says that there were fighting in the area on that day (which we already knew), not specifically in this event. The second article has no relevance to this discussion.

Concering the account, I felt uncomfortable with it, so I decided to disable it and go by my IP only instead. Does it bother you? --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The two articles indicate combat. You're asking us to believe there was combat in that area except for this magic perimeter where there was no combat.

Besides that, the ongoing legal process has so far accepted that there was some combat. You've got nothing but the propaganda released in the beginning.

And yes, I do think you should resume the use of your account, particularly since you've been editing this very article before under your old ID.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An indication of combat is not a fact, period.

I can not and I do not want to resume the use of my account, because having an account makes it more difficult to quit this madness. I've changed the password to something completely random that I don't remember. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The legal process has acknowledged that there was combat. Get used to it.

You can get them to send you your password. If not logging in is an attempt to convince yourself to stop coming here then it's obviously not working.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Include There was combat. That the cost appears to have fallen on the bodies of innocents as well as the reputations of those responding to an attack doesn't make it not combat. htom (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion above, the Haditha killings does not refer to the death of the US Marine but to the death of the 24 Iraqi civilians. And a single explosion is not considered much combat anyway. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This presumes than none of the 24 were illegal combatants, and that the Marine wasn't killed. Perhaps the article should be changed to "25 deaths in Haditha" (I thought it said that at one time.) htom (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't really follow your reasoning. Including a combat infobox is to present it as a fact that there was combat (a claim which has very little support of evidence). Not including an infobox does neither present it as a fact that there was combat, nor that there was no combat. Which of course is the most neutral way to present this event. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• No Not Include' Boxes are only good for black and white issues. The article itself can deal perfectly well with grey/gray issues - summary boxes cannot. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not include I've given my reasons in the topic above. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Include The insurgents were shooting, and that was a major factor in the incident. The parts played by two of the marines may not be "black and white" but the rest is. This wasn't just one bombing, with every other Iraqi being innocent, despite what the insurgents and their supporters may say. Analysis of the bloody pictures themselves actually revealed misrepresentations in the Iraqis' stories. That's the very reason why a couple of the marines were exonerated in their hearings. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• No Combat Infobox: This whole discussion stinks of OR, there's people talking about whether somebody is guilty or not! We are meant to document the facts, not interpret them! Combat boxes do little to improve an article's quality (people here are focusing over what it's name and presence implies) or legitimacy of said event, so the fact it's causing this level of debate means we should omit it all together. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article, Haditha massacre

While I'm at it, I'd also like to propose changing the name of this article to Haditha massacre. Some have felt that we should wait for convictions before doing this, but I think that it is unnecessary. Whatever the outcome of the trial, it will still be impossible to describe the killings of elders, women and children, shot with accuracy from short distance, as anything else than a massacre. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more NPOV to say "killing". That you feel it was a massacre is, well, POV. htom (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but Wikipedia has a large number of articles of events named as massacres. I can give you a few examples[11][12][13][14][15] just to point out that the word "massacre" is clearly not being avoided in other articles. Rather the opposite actually, it seems like it is used whenever it is applicable. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The trials may still be going on but the hearings have already determined that this won't be called a massacre.

The most serious charges now are for negligent homicide.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering how US war criminals have been treated in the past[16], I'd not be suprised if there were no convictions in this case at all. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. It was not speculation that there won't be a murder charge. The charges have already been made, and they don't include murder. Despite what some people may wish to believe, this was completely different than what happened at My Lai.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. The idea to use internal US military investigation as a yardstick for truth is... bizarre. Your point to base Wikipedia title or content on such investigation is thusly plain ol' POV. --193.254.155.48 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's you who misunderstands. The U.S. military investigation is the only one based on the rule of law. It's the only one where the participants would face credible penalties for perjury or falsification of evidence. It's also the only one where both views are getting scrutiny.

The critics and/or defenders of fascism don't have any of that. They can make up anything they like with no fear of consequences.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow Randy2063, you like your soapbox. But I guess that's what the discussion boards are for, sort of. ;) The facts are that the defence, the prosecutors and investigating officers have all commented on the shortcomings of the US militaries investigation and judicial process in regards to this incident. The people who want the soldiers to not be convicted of anything have dumped on the US military investigation and trials when they thought it might not work out in their favour. When they suspect the results will be more favorable to their side suddenly the US military investigation is great and should be viewed as the final word. The facts spell out the US military investigations shortcoming and there is no reason to accept it as absolute judgement. Quite the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk)

There probably won't be a final word on this for decades. It's just that this is the best we have right now.

There were certainly some American crimes in WWII, but that doesn't mean we could have regarded Nazi propaganda as a reliable source for any of that.

If you look around, you'll see that some of the worst GTMO detainees are treated gingerly on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BLP. We should expect no less for those who are fighting fascism.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be judging the title based on anything other than how the incident is popularly referred to unless I'm missing a Wiki rule or guideline? From the Boston Tea Party to the aforementioned My Lai Massacre the title for an article is more to serve as an easy reference for the user then a kind of judgement by the editors. If the event ends up being commonly referred to as the Haditha Massacre then we go with massacre. If not, we go with whatever the popular reference is. As it stands now with the event still being defined and playing out in the courts, killings is fine with the alternate titles in the intro. I've seen killings, massacre, incident and more in the press. As a useful reference, killings is good. Massacre is a close second imho. If there's convictions even for involuntary manslaughter then massacre would likely become a better choice, again depending on popular useage. 142.179.94.211 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The soldier said the building was cleared by "fragging". The picture of the interior of the house - if it is a real photo - doesn't even closely resemble a room that had just been fragged. Such a bad lie desires at least a reprimand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just come from the boston massacre section and have read how using the term 'massacre' is not POV, yet here other US editors suggest however that using the word 'massacre' here is POV. You cannot have it both ways, please decide.Twobells (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting comparison but it shows why it should not be called a massacre here at this time. Both are similar in that both incidents were used for propaganda in order to rally one side for war (colonists then, and insurgents now).

That's also why it should not be used here now. It's been over 200 years since the Boston massacre. The colonists won, and they've controlled the terms used to describe events.

The Haditha incident hasn't even finished going through the legal process yet. It is still being used to rally jihadists to war. But what we call this hasn't yet been cemented in history.

In this case, even if the trials determine it wasn't a massacre, it might still be called one if the propagandists win.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Randy, it is not for a partial court to decide wether this massacre is to be refered as such. 1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. 2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war. 3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports. –verb (used with object) 4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons. 5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports. Google test proves Haditha Massacre to be a more widely used term.79.216.249.12 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Court proceedings are all we have to go by when determining the facts. These are military trials, which means the accused have fewer rights than in civilian trials, so there should be plenty of facts available.

If the definition of massacre says "unnecessary, indiscriminate killing" then shouldn't we need to know if the killings were indiscriminate? Regardless, as it is now, manslaughter charges don't seem to rate that kind of a word.

To use Google rankings alone would mean that we go by the whims of the masses, whether they are informed or not, and whether or not they may be sympathetic to the insurgents.

Let's not forget that some are demanding that the detainees in Guantanamo receive "innocent-until-proved-guilty" trials. If you look around Wikipedia, you'll see that none of the detainees are called "terrorists" in these articles unless and until there's a high level of support for that statement in accordance with WP:BLP. It seems to me that many of those who might claim to support that concept for the detainees do not seem to support it for these marines.

If you look around, particularly at the article histories and talk pages for the Abu Ghraib-related articles, you'll see a lot of expressions of rage (real or feigned) about these subjects. It's an interesting phenomenon when you consider that we don't see it happening in articles like the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident I've commented to this effect before, but given the new line of discussion... the military's internal investigation has certain very real reliability issues. It certainly isn't "all we have to go by when determining the facts." That would be a disastrous precedent for evaluating war time atrocities because of the obvious disinterest in investigating on the part of many (if not most) bureaucracies in verifying facts that make them look bad.

In Wikipedia terms, it's unnecessarily dismissive to claim that only the court martial system is a WP:RS. WP:BLP applies restrictively to what we say about the perpetrators and their individual actions. What happened to those killed remains largely outside dispute, just as WP:BLP concerns about 9/11 perpetrators carry no weight in describing what happened to the Twin Towers.--Carwil (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We have independent evidence about what happened to the WTC, and government investigations that determined who the perpetrators were.

An "obvious disinterest in investigating" may exist in bureaucracies, but that doesn't apply here, as an increased measure of interest was forced upon them.

Furthermore, the military investigation is subject to military orders that obligate the investigators to perform their tasks with the possibility of perjury charges if they testify falsely. And if you doubt that, review the charges. The four officers were charged for failing to investigate fully. This wasn't some minor incident. The military put more than adequate resources into this investigation. If anything, the ruling of command influence indicates they tried too hard.

Yes, you're correct in saying "what happened to those killed remains largely outside dispute" but as I said above, the question of intent remains. Civilians have been killed by accident or "fog of war" misinterpretation in every major war. We don't call them all massacres for it. To do so would diminish real massacres like My Lai (assuming that My Lai doesn't need a reexamination).

Trials are not the only RS, but we don't have much else. The Iraqis who were present are not reliable witnesses. The early reports are based almost entirely on the claims they'd made, and it was fed by the insurgency and a so-called "anti-war" movement eager to pretend that it cares.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The early reports from the Americans were wrong. Singling out just the Iraqis as being unreliable is laughably biased and bigoted. It's simple; when it looked like the court martials would go against the Marines, their defenders claimed the verdicts should not be the final word on the issue. When it looks like the decisions have been and will be more in favor of the Marines then the defenders want the verdicts counted as the final word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.231 (talk)

I don't see where anyone sympathetic to those marines had said the verdict wouldn't be the final word. It probably wouldn't be completely, but it's pretty close.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To return to the actual heading of this section, it's notable that Google shows 42,400 hits for "Haditha killings" and 71,300 for "Haditha massacre". There is a 2,610 overlap where both terms appear on the same page, meaning that around 39,790 use "Haditha killings" and 68,690 use only "Haditha massacre". Considering that the Wikipedia practice is to refer to an event by the term which it is most popularly known by, "massacre" has quite an edge on "kilings". Nick Cooper (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe NPOV and BLP take precedence. You can't call Wuterich a war criminal just because every anti-American/pro-Baathist critic would like to say he is one.

There would be a better case for changing the name if this was, in fact, as massacre.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about Wuterich, so I didn't "call" him anything. The fact is that this event is more popularly known as the "Haditha Massacre" than it is by the title of the page. I would also suggest that you are betraying your own POV by throwing around loaded terms/implications like "anti-American/pro-Baathist". Nick Cooper (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't call it a massacre without calling Wuterich a willing party to a massacre. It cannot work any other way.

I don't think anyone has done a good job at hiding their POV on this. Why else would changing the name be so viscerally important? Do you really think it's an NPOV desire to ensure that an article is organized in the best possible way?

When I do the Google search on "Haditha massacre" I get results in this order: This article; Truthout, the World Socialist website; Democracy Now! (an org that stridently opposes torture unless it's performed by their friends); a Washington Post article from 2006; and a BBC recent article that doesn't call it a massacre. It is only a massacre if we give credence to a POV.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's odd, because when I Google "Haditha massacre" this pages comes first, followed by:

• www.truthout.org/docs_2006/053006J.shtml
• news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm
• www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069.html
• www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/murt-o11.shtml
• www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649,00.html
• www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1538816/Chilling-new-evidence-of-Haditha-massacre.html
• www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/05/31/death_in_haditha/
• www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski153.html
• www.democracynow.org/2006/5/30/haditha_massacre_was_it_an_isolated

I can't comment on the political affiliations of the likes of Democracy Now and the Boston Globe, but the Daily Telegraph isn't even remotely a bastion of left-wing thinking.... Nick Cooper (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your order is different than mine but they're mostly the same articles. It still doesn't make your case.

Here are a few of the flaws:

The WPost link goes to In Haditha, Memories of a Massacre, and the only place it calls it a massacre is in the article title. There are three problems with that. One, it doesn't actually call it the "Haditha massacre." Two, it may have been given that title by an editor who may or may not be familiar with the facts. And three, it's from 2006, before we really knew much from the other side of the story.

The Time link is from McGirk's story Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha?. He doesn't call it the "Haditha massacre" either. The title of the story uses the word "massacre" but it's only as one of two possibilities. Besides that, it's also from 2006.

This is the main problem with a lot of these hits. The Telegraph article is from January 2007.

The Boston Globe link is an editorial from 2006, and it says, "possibility of a massacre in Haditha." So it allows for the fact that this was just the early stages of the investigation. It does not actually use the term "Haditha massacre".

LewRockwell.com is on the right-wing moving toward the extreme. It's somewhat to the right of Pat Buchanan, and closing in on David Duke territory. I'd throw its value in with WSWS and Democracy Now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to construct a case that the subsequent disclosure that constitute "the other side of the story" retrospectively negate the attribution of the term "massacre." Objectively it would seem that the latter needs rest on only a small number of fundamental aspects to the incident, none of which can be negated for all the subsequent claims and legal sleight of hand. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually see several important concerns:

1. "Massacre" is unencyclopedic. The use of "Haditha massacre" to describe this event was transient. To the extent that it was and is used, it was mostly limited to one flagrantly partisan corner at one period of time. The question is not how it would have been titled when only one side was willing to speak without hearing the other side. Rather, we might need to know how it is broadly known today, and in the future. My concern wrt that is the opposite of "retroactively".
2. Accuracy. We don't know that it was technically a massacre.
3. BLP demands a tougher standard. WP articles don't do this with the detainees in GTMO, or with their sleazy lawyers. We shouldn't do it with marines -- one or two of whom have yet to face trial.
4. NPOV. I realize that it may sometimes help my own POV when articles are slanted beyond parody, but we're probably not at that tipping point now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In order:

1 - "Transient"? The Daily Telegraph just eight weeks ago:

"Marine cleared over Iraq massacre

A US marine has been acquitted of charges that he ordered a cover up of the Haditha massacre, an incident in which 24 Iraqis were killed in cold blood in 2005." [emphasis added]

Considering that that was a report on the recent round of aquittals, etc., the "massacre" tag doesn't seem like being discarded any time soon.

2 - So which parts of the Wiktionary definition do you think it doesn't fit?

3 - This seems to be a get-out on account of the fact that the individual Marines known to have been involved have been identified, which makes an interesting contrast, say, to Terry Lloyd, where it was possible for the UK coroner to determine his death as an unlawful killing by US forces, but not being able to differentiate exactly which ones were responsible.

4 - "Slanted" is, of course, subjective.

Nick Cooper (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My first impression on seeing your Telegraph article was that one recent use doesn't disprove my point, but after reading it I'll say even that's not necessary. The word "massacre" is used only in the title and the header, and we don't know that the bylined-reporter wrote those words. I rather doubt it, seeing as though he only calls it "killings" in the body of his article. This is something I've noted before.

That dictionary definition says "intentional" and "large number of people". Frank Wuterich is only charged with manslaughter. It may indeed have been wilful neglect but it hasn't been ruled to be a wilful massacre. 24 is a lot of people, but more than half of those are just the hazards of war, and a few may have been appropriate kills. This is a war. Some very bad people do need to be killed, and it's not always neat and tidy when the presence of civilians has been tolerated and even encouraged by the war's critics.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you acknowledge this is a recent use of both the term "Haditha massacre" and "massacre" to describe the incident, but by some pure and convoluted supposition you think it "doesn't count"? Really it just seems like you're dismissing it on no other grounds than that you personally don't agree with it.

The same seems to apply to your semantics over what constitutes a "massacre". If even you accept that "more than half" were not "appropriate kills" (dressing them as "the hazards of war" seems a rather offensive obfuscation), then that's at least 13, which exceeds the fatalities in a number of named massacres (e.g. Boston Massacre, Pottawatomie Massacre, Munich Massacre, Kingsmill massacre, Greysteel massacre, etc.). Little evidence seems to have emerged to provide justification for indiviudal deaths, the taxi driver and his passengers, for example - wrong place, wrong time, but nothing to indicate why they all "had" to be shot on the spot (e.g. if they had been responsible for the IED, capture and interrogation would be a more worthwhile course of action), nor why it would appear that the houses were subsequently assaulted with no consideration whatsoever that civilian will have almost certainly have been present either in them or the immediate area. If a large number of civilians die under such circumstances, an objective reading would be that it is a constructive massacre by any standard of morality, and the inability or unwillingness to adequately prosecute the individuals responsible cannot change that interpretation. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm completely dismissing that one because it was in the caption, and not in the body of the article. Wikipedia doesn't seek to profit from wild-eyed headlines that sell newspapers. Even if you do want to count it, the exclusive use of "killings" in the article itself suggests that the reporter intended to reserve judgment, perhaps out of his own sense of BLP considerations, and that negates this use. As I said, I doubt that the reporter intended it this way.

There's no doubt that the phrase "Boston Massacre" was hyped up for anti-British propaganda. I don't think we could legitimately use that title if not for the passing of 248 years. A few of the others may have been hyped up as well. But unlike the others, no one can say those other incidents were clouded by the fog of war. Those terrorists had intended to kill civilians. Haditha was a war zone. Non-uniformed insurgents were everywhere, and they needed to be fought.

Haven't you ever heard of friendly fire? Accidents happen even among friends when people are being careful. Likewise, neglect happens, too. That could be criminal but "massacre" requires a deliberate intent to massacre people. That's not what happened here.

If it's true that "little evidence seems to have emerged to provide justification" then that will come out in the trial. But some beg to differ with your opinion. A former CO of his unit makes the case that Wuterich's actions were justifiable under those circumstances. You can cast his opinion aside if you like, but that would be a personal decision based upon your own POV.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't seek to profit from wild-eyed headlines that sell newspapers." Simply not serious. There are literally hundreds of reliable sources that describe this as a massacre, ranging from Fox News to Green Left Weekly. Enough already. — eon, 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in 2006, before the investigation could run its course and the defense could make its case.

Enough already, indeed. Allow the legal system to declare this a massacre before we submit to fascist propaganda. This article has a section devoted to reactions from all corners. Let's remember the various POVs there.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To describe warchronicle.com page as partisan would seem a massive understatement. Few people would accept its apologisms for the shooting of the taxi driver and his passengers, which seem to suggest that the rational behaviour of people in a stressful situation - i.e. first instincts for most people would be to run away and hide - constitutes justifcation for summary execution. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That officer was writing in the context of the laws of war and the rules of engagement in effect at that time --- not how virtual spectators might see it in restrospect, far from the battlefield. Haditha wasn't Mayberry or Hoboken, New Jersey. Perhaps you might remember back a few short years ago when critics of U.S. policy were claiming to care about the Geneva Conventions. It holds that the enemy has some responsiblity for events when it chose where to fight. However the court-martial rules, they'll be looking at the rules of war.

But we are far from the battlefield now. There's no need to give these marines a summary judgment.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that a major issue is the extent to which "the enemy" were even present, and how proportionate the Marine responce was, which was inherently a lesson the British learnt the hard way on Bloody Sunday as to how counterproductive it can be. If their actions were entirely within the RoE, then it is the RoE that are faulty. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday was a day at the beach compared to the Sunni triangle in 2005. The lesson the British should have learned is that wars can only be lengthened by giving in to leftist propaganda. That's why the "Reaction" section is so important to this article.

Yes, proportionality is a major issue, and it'll be part of the trials. I don't think there's any doubt that the enemy was present. Even if we ignore that it apparently seemed obvious to the marines that they were receiving fire, the jury will know that the snipers often follow up on IEDs.

The extent to which an action may be counterproductive could work two ways. It may be counterproductive for marines to defend themselves too vigorously. It could also be counterproductive for the so-called "human rights" movement to encourage insurgents to mingle with civilians. That is, of course, assuming that human rights was their main concern. Now that you mention Bloody Sunday, it's funny how the IRA, and the critics of U.S. side in this war, as well as outright supporters of the Iraqi insurgents, all happen to be from the same side of the fence.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's another way to look at it:

When I search the Google News site, I currently get four listings for "Haditha massacre" and four listings for "Haditha killings" (both with quotes included).

But if you look, three of the current "Haditha massacre" results are top-tier blog posts (two conservative and one possibly liberal or moderate) criticallly using scare quotes around the phrase. A fourth is a radical left-wing blog.

Looking at the current "Haditha killings" results, all four are serious news articles.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That Google hit on the BBC article reminded me, the Google algorithm doesn't necessary require that the key words are used in the article. So, the number of Google hits should be used with caution.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Although forcing the exact phrase "Haditha massacre" produces a fair few BBC pages which either use it or otherwise refer to the event as a "massacre", e.g. [17], [18], [19], etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Those links allow that there may be more to the story than what they knew back then.

That second link is the only place where it uses the phrase "Haditha massacre." It's also from 2006.

Using quotes around the term doesn't necessarily mean all the hits will be that way. That's just the nature of Google's algorthm. It's the reason Googlebombing worked.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frontline

The USA public television network PBS aired an episode of "Frontline" on 19 Feb 2008 about this, entitled "Rules of Engagement". The episode can be viewed online, and there is additional infomation, at the episode webpage. There is commentary on the episode and the happenings here; good for learning about and understanding the military view of the events, although probably not usable as a citation. htom (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah they did. They being the world's premiere documentary unit with access no other source here had. And this Wikipedia page has that Frontline analysis properly listed as an "external link" rather than in the sources list. As not a single fact from it appears in this article.

"And then my own squad got into a firefight, which about 9 out of 12 people got injured that day from grenades or from being shot at, I mean, and saying that there was no firefight, it's just-I mean, it's-I mean, it's a straight slap in the face."

This inaccurate assessment which introduces undeniable and irreconcilable bias is repeated here, with inclusion of statements that there was no firefight, no suggestion to the contrary, no mention of the injuries to US troops and no explanation for why if there was no firefight it took several hours to clear these houses of civilians.

And if you want a measure of how piss-poor this is, understand that there is no fact in war more easily verified than whether a US soldier was injured in a particular incident or not. We do it for politicians 40 years after the fact. And not a single media source listed here has done so other than Frontline. Take a minute to realise what that makes this article. It's WP:BS. Attriti0n (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Who were the American soldiers injured in a firefight after the explosion of the IED? The US military communiques of that day make no mention of them but we already know those contained some lies or mistakes. Specifically who amongst the Americans was wounded after the bombing and during the action in question? Do you have any definite links on this subject besides the comments in the Frontline piece? I can find no mention of it anywhere else. Sorry, I haven't seen it and my computer will not run it. Ty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The events in question took place over an extended period; the shootings of the men in the white car and the first 2 houses happened pretty much immdediately after the IED exploded. The slaying of the brothers happened later. The comment cited above refers to people injured 'that day.' There is no indication Americans were wounded after the IED and prior to or during the killings in the first two houses. The Frontline piece is really good. Just imho but it sounds like the military may be on the right track now; Wuterich has hinted he saw the dead women and children in the first house. The charges are focused on the killings in the second house. Be interesting to see how it plays out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article suffers from having been started back when most of the sources were tied to fascist propaganda. As with most of the politically-charged anti-U.S. articles here, this one needs a major overhaul.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats an interesting perspective. I presume U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell is enamored with fascism, and thus his report, indicating a callous disregard for civilian life bordering on the criminal, is similarly fascist agit-prop. In fact, the military is so stuffed with fascists that they've all agreed that no-one died from an IED, as intially reported, that the people were shot intentionally. Whether these actions were criminal is up to the military tribunals to decide; there is no argument, however, that they HAPPENED. SiberioS (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the marines were angels -- only that the story has been slanted in the beginning. At this point it appears that Wuterich and his men may have been crude and even reckless, but it's doubtful that it happened anything like the way we were first told.

Regardless how the rest of the story works out, the insurgents did influence how it was told to the media, and people did run with it too eagerly without caring in the slightest about the consequences.

Obviously, Gen. Bargewell did exactly what needed to be done.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Crude and reckless is another man's intent. Either way, as far as I can see in this article, its fairly balanced. It does after all, highlight the fact that most of the men have had charges dropped etc. It does not advocate, one way or the other, how that judgment should be seen (other than including the opinions of other third party's). Including facts that people my independently consider "bad" (or in "good" if that is the case) does not make the article based on "Fascist propoganda". Which by the way, fascist isn't a catchall word; it refers to a very specific type of government and political position, none of which could be ascribed I presume, to Islamic fundamentalists (who represent rather, a theocratic feudalism). SiberioS (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, crude and reckless is very bad -- and actionable -- but it's completely different than how it was first reported. This isn't My Lai.

I'll concede that the article isn't so bad now, particularly compared with the way it started.

The word "fascist" has been used broadly beyond its original meaning since the 1930s. Tom Wolfe said it was because communists didn't like using the phrase "national socialism" to refer to Nazis. It's a little late to try to rein it in now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty solid right now too. However, just imho, after reading what I think is absolutely everything out there on this subject, from news stories (many of which are pretty poor) to editorials to reproductions of original documents, I think the truth is pretty close to Murtha's original allegations. It's obviously closer to that than the story initially reported by the marines in their first press release. But that's my opinion and of course I could be wrong. As for what is known and verified, the article is ok. One thing i can't find any trace of is the Iraqi government investigation. Be interesting to see results of that. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we know by now that Murtha's characterization of the marines cracking under the pressure was wrong (to put it kindly). It's also a pretty safe bet that the local "human rights" group was anything but that. This cuts deep into the original McGirk story.

The first press release was a sloppy mistake. The Bargewell report faulted it for making assumptions, and notes it was a point where the issue should have been flagged for investigation. But it didn't find anything malicious in the initial reporting errors made the first day. IIRC, the only evidence of actual cover-up it found was from Dela Cruz's statements, which was later determined unreliable.

If there was an Iraqi government investigation, I can't see that it would be for any other reason than to advantage the faction that writes it. Keep in mind that, while Haditha was a major incident for us, those deaths were a minor bump on the road for Iraq -- other than as yet another opportunity for propaganda. The insurgents do far worse every day.

By the time the war is fully over, the computers of that day will be able to go through all the reports and rank all the atrocities. Neither Haditha nor Abu Ghraib will make the top thousand. The Iraqi government has its hands full as it is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if someone carried out that statistical exercise, and it came out as you suggest, it would still be an atrocity. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Atrocity or not is beside the point. I said that in the context of why we haven't found an investigation report from the Iraqi national government.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The only real evidence that disputes Murtha's claim is the judgement regarding the events in house 4 and the competing narratives offered in regards to the killings at the taxi and in houses 1 and 2. The physical evidence seems hopelessly tainted. The entry is correct at the start when it says it's an issue of who is to be believed. Amongst the people who were there the Iraqi's support Murtha's claims. Some of the Marines do as well. Wuterich comments support some parts of Murtha's statements like according to Wuterich now there was probably no threat in the houses. In regards to the killings at the taxi and houses 1 and 2 there is evidence to support Murtha's claims. In regards to the allegations of a cover up there is also evidence to support that contention. The fact remains that when you compare the version initially reported by the marines and Murtha's version, Murtha's is the more correct. Wholesale dismissal of Murtha's comments by the right wing is very fashionable right now but as usual the issue is more complicated than any flip analysis suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Sorry to interrupt the discussion with what may seem to be trivial, but I have to assess the language of the article. I cannot interpret this sentence: "The first investigation, under U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell 2006, The Times published the result of its investigations and interviews with eye witnesses." I would correct it myself, but I do not know if the sentence refers to one or two investigations. PKKloeppel (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The Bargewell report was actually the second investigation. It was dated June 15, 2006. I don't see anything in this article on Col. Gregory A. Watt's investigation dated March 3, 2006.

The PDFs are both posted here. It may take some digging to find news articles about it. I'll put it on my do-list.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

About halfway down the Investigations section you have a blockquote from Gen. Bargewell's report. The next sentence says something about his trial being slated for some date in 2008. I'm pretty sure you don't mean Gen. Bargewell's trial. This sentence appears to have been left hanging when the above edit was made.

United for Peace and Justice

are not exactly a reliable and unbiased source, yet they are used here, along with the type of weasel wording, emotionally charged language used on that site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2008‎ (UTC)

Definition of "Student" student (طالبان) in Islam

There are obviously differing opinions and conflicting points of view regarding the terrible killings of non-combatant innocent people in this incident. While attempting to restore a NPOV to this article, it is good to recall that "students" were the individuals who raided the U.S. Embassy in Iran some years ago and took people hostage, and that it was the "students" who took control of Afganistan after the USSR withdrew. The definition of student is significant in this regard because it is a mistranslation which serves to cloak militant jihadists in the robes of scholars. It is also prudent to consider the sources and agenda of propagandistic misinformation regarding exactly who was killed and by whom. The culpable individuals in combat incidents where innocents are used as human shields become clouded by the fog of battle. Let's work together here to achieve a NPOV. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any confusion about 'exactly who was killed and by whom.' Most everyone involved including Wuterich has conceded that the Marines killed these people. And if you have specific information concerning the persons in the white taxi who were id'd as students then share and cite it otherwise your aim for NPOV while including generalized smears sounds fishy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.231 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Insurgents or civilians?

I've just removed a quote from the Intel Officer Dinsmore where he says the UAV footage proved there were insurgents in 'those houses.' This was sourced from a news article. Other news articles suggest the UAV drone did not arrive till 30 minutes after the explosion and after the killings in question. Dinsmore has also been quoted elsewhere as saying there is no concrete evidence to prove any of the dead are insurgents. I'm looking for clarification or more information on this subject. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.231 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't remove that. That wasn't just some random guy making a claim to a reporter. Dinsmore is an intelligence officer familiar with the timeline of that UAV, and this was his testimony in court that he knows is subject to perjury charges if he had lied about it. Whatever else you might think, it's safe to say Dinsmore knew what he was talking about.

His two statements can easily be reconciled. He's not saying the dead are insurgents. He's saying there were insurgents in those homes.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can. The comments from Dinsmore offer no context. There is no evidence anyone is aware of that insurgents were in the houses in question let alone UAV footage. We know the UAV arrived after the events in question. We have a statement from Wuterich that there was likely no threat meaning no insurgents in houses 1 and 2. We know that none of the dead in any of the houses, by Dinsmore's own statements, were insurgents. There is no record of any others being present who were insurgents. It is hilarious that the article quotes Dinsmore as saying that based on the UAV footage 'there were insurgents in those homes' when we know there is no UAV footage of the incidents in question and the article claims 8 of the dead were insurgents when Dinsmore himself, the articles own selectively cited source, says there 'is no concrete evidence' to support that. There is no UAV footage that shows the events in question. Dinsmore is either talking about different houses or a different time frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.231 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there even 1 more source than the single San Diego Union-Tribune article from May 13, 2007 for this assertion? Has this bombshell ever been repeated without someone just citing the San Diego article? We've seen UAV footage from that day in pieces like the Frontline show. There is no UAV footage proving what people are taking Dinsmore's alleged assertion to mean.

If this is what the UAV footage shows, then where is the footage? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm neither an intel video expert, nor have I been given all the materials. I just note that Dinsmore hasn't been charged with perjury, and I haven't seen his statement called into question by expert witnesses for the prosecution. Perhaps it may happen when the case finally goes to trial. If so, we'll add this to the article at that time.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

lol Haven't seen his statement called into question? How the hell do we know? Are you reading transcripts? We don't even really know exactly what he meant or if he made the statement at all. We've got one news story on it that is, to put it mildly, selective in it's presentation of information. We've got other news stories that suggest the UAV wasn't there. We've seen lots of UAV footage but none to support this claim. Who has repeated or elaborated on it? I don't mean to rip on you too much. Our information about what is said or not said at these hearings is thin. I do know that if such bombshell evidence existed and meant what you think it means it would be all over the place by now. If there are other sources I'd be happy to look at them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.231 (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're mostly right. I've been doing more digging, and the question is one of context.

The source is talking about the testimony on behalf of Capt. Stone, who wasn't at the scene, and wasn't charged with the shootings. Dinsmore's testimony was that there was indeed a lot of action that day.

That supports Stone's defense, but it doesn't have any direct bearing on Wuterich's case --- other than the offbeat comments here about whether or not there could have been gunfire.

It still needs to be reinserted, but it needs to go into the paragraph on Stone.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

This came out the other day from the Mark Walker at the North County Times:

Residents here don't consider the 2005 civilian killings a "massacre." Instead, they call the slayings the "Haditha accident."

The Haditha massacre, they say, was when al-Qaida insurgents lined up police officials and local men in a soccer stadium four years ago and beheaded them as part of an intimidation campaign.

It might be worth using if we ever do an section on the aftermath. Other parts of the article could be useful for the article on Haditha itself.

Walker has been following the story closely over this last couple of years

BTW: I see that the Google News results still show that the reliable news sources choose "Haditha killings" while only the partisan sources use "Haditha massacre".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I came across this via WarChronicle.com. They seem to have almost everything about the event.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is very favorable to the marines. This statement is deceptive, "The slayings led to an international outcry and criminal charges against eight Marines, six of whom have since been exonerated." At least 3 (tho it it is hard to judge who he is exactly talking about) were technically "exonerated" (that being the legal term) as part of their deals in exchange for testimony. Walker has consistently been very friendly to the Marines. His articles have routinely lacked perspectives that are critical of the marines and he has given prominence to defence speculation ("secret documents"). In this article he is reporting as a journalist traveling with city officials and marine officers. Mayor Abd al-Hakim Muhammad Rashid makes clear his economic interests while he praises the marines. And note this is not the old mayor who bravely lead a demonstration up to the marines to protest the killings. That guy said, "(translated) Three families and a number of college students were executed at the hands of the US soldiers after the roadside bomb exploded. The people of Haditha have declared this a day of human catastrophe, and contend that war crimes have been committed by US soldiers. It was a black day in Haditha's history." That guy is gone. This is not investigative journalism, it is a puff piece. Warchronicle's whole purpose is as they state to 'defend our Marines.' They are deceptive when they trumpet "Haditha was accident, not massacre, say residents of that city." No, the new mayor and friend of the marines says that. We really have no idea what the residents of Haditha think. Randy2063 and others were telling us that a few years ago 'mostly' all of Haditha or 'all able bodied males' supported the insurgents. There were public demonstrations aganst the killings. It beggars belief that the majority or even many people in Haditha now agree with the new mayor on this but we really don't know.

I frankly find it funny that given what we now know to be true, that the Marines did kill these people, that only one of them had a weapon, that none of them attacked the marines, that likely no insurgents were operating amongst them at the time of the killings, given all that the article as it stands almost makes it sound like the marines didn't do these things. There is more focus on the limited and dysfunctional US military justice process (and all sides have commented on that) and on charges being dropped for whatever reasons than on the actual known facts of the incidents in question. "24.85.254.169 (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)"

There's an old saying (at least among those in the military): "If you're guilty of the crime, you want to be tried in the criminal courts; if you're innocent of the crime, you want a court martial." I've never heard anyone advocate that good trials are conducted in the media. htom (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's glib but essentially meaningless. I've heard prosecutors, judges and defence all criticize this process. Like someone said above, the defence criticized the process when it was thought to be going against them. When it looked to go the other way the defence is trumpeting the results. Regardless, the article should obviously not be a simple recounting of the US military justice process. I'd add more but what else have we got? The media in Iraq as noted by the NYTimes and others is currently not free and does not want to handle stories like this. I have not seen any recent independent, investigative work done on this subject. We have the original statements of different people involved. I guess those are reflected in the article more or less. "24.85.254.169 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)"

I would take your point that the new mayor might now have interests that coincide with those of the U.S. but your entire argument falls flat on its face when you try to attribute bravery to the previous anti-American one for organizing an overtly peaceful protest. Protesting U.S. policy has not been an act of bravery since the days of President Wilson. In fact, recently it has been an act of gutlessness and hollow vanity.

When I said "all able bodied males" I was quoting a prominent critic of the war. That was a reasonable statement at the time that still rings true of that period. Your depiction of this history neglects to mention the change in Sunni attitudes after the Anbar Awakening. Iraqis will admit to this themselves. They did indeed change sides. The description of the soccer stadium executions is no different than other accounts of the time. Or does anyone think he led a protest against them too?

I don't know how you can judge Walker as being consistently "very friendly to the Marines." If the verdicts have been favorable, as they have so far, then the news should reflect the same. The news isn't that the killings were a good thing, only that it isn't a crime when mistakes happen in wartime.

Innocent people sometimes get killed in war. Friendly fire is the clearest example of that. If the critics of the war truly didn't like this, then at some point along the way they would have asked their Sunni and Shiite friends to stop fighting and torturing each other.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"The news isn't that the killings were a good thing, only that it isn't a crime when mistakes happen in wartime." What?? For one soldier at least that is still being sorted out. That sounds like spin. And regardless of what happens to Wuterich the 'news' is much more complicated than that as anyone who has been following this story should be able to acknowledge. Leading a protest against the occupying forces about and who recently killed a bunch of unarmed civilians is not brave? Ok, if you say so. Take out the word 'brave' and my point still stands. Some 'changed sides?' Fine. Doesn't change the fact that we still have no idea what the residents currently think of these incidents. We know what they thought of them years ago. More importantly we know what the Iraqi civilian and military personnel on the scene thought of the incidents. And you don't know how someone can judge Walker as being consistently very friendly to the Marines? You can make that judgement for the reasons I stated. All sides have criticized the military justice process in this situation. The verdicts are not the final word on this subject and the article should not be a simple recounting of that process. It's not but it's close. Looking over this I see that you have made some quality contributions. The advocacy you are displaying in this section of the discussion is not so great. For my part I will try to avoid such judgemental sounding terms as 'brave.' "24.85.254.169 (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)"

Sure, Wuterich hasn't been acquitted or convicted yet, but I was making a general point.

No, leading a protest against American forces is not brave. The marines train at Mojave Viper in a simulated Iraqi town that includes nutcase protesters. I'm not aware of any peaceful protest marches in Iraq that were followed up with violence started by U.S. forces.

How can you say, "we still have no idea what the residents currently think" while at the same time saying "we know what they thought of them years ago."? We only know what they said then, and what they're saying now. I'll concede that they probably are still wrapped up in paranoia and propaganda, but that was much more the case back then. They certainly are more free to speak now then they were then. They're not lining people up at soccer stadiums like they were before.

It can't have escaped your attention that the dead in Haditha number far more than just 24. Sunnis and Shiites had been killing each other in great numbers with regularity for the last few years. It's entirely reasonable for the mayor to say that Al Qaeda control was worse. The arithmetic surely makes sense.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I found that a previous mayor of Haditha was killed by insurgents in 2003 along with one of his sons. I guess they learn fast which side is safe to protest against.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

More spin. the article doesn't say who killed the mayor. It doesn't mention insurgents let alone which insurgents. According to the CIA and others Al Qaeda was responsible for less than 20 or possibly even less than 5% of the violence in Iraq. You have no idea who killed the mayor then or for what reason. Rival clan, criminal gang, internecine dispute, you don't know.

Leading a protest against a force that killed a bunch of unarmed civilians is brave imho. Your spin aside the fact that Haditha happened makes it brave. However that is a matter of opinion as I've already conceded but good job hammering away at the point. We know what the residents thought back then because there is a lot of evidence some of which you yourself have cited here. We don't know what they think now unless there is more evidence than the mayors photo op with American officers but there are some indicators. "I'll concede that they probably are still wrapped up in paranoia and propaganda, but that was much more the case back then." We agree 100%! The rest of your comment is spin and guess work. You have no idea what the mayors agenda or real affiliations are. Just because he's mayor and talks nice to the Americans doesn't mean much. He's saying pretty much exactly what you'd expect him to say in that situation. Your constant reminders that terrorists kill people too do nothing to justify the actions of the Marines in this case and are largely irrelevant to this specific incident but it's obvious to anyone you like to try and cloud the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.254.169 (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)