Marines free Iraqi child prisoners

Meh

From AFP (Agence France Press) via Yahoo! news:

Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs
More than 100 children held in a prison celebrated their freedom as US marines rolled into northeast Baghdad amid chaotic scenes which saw civilians loot weapons from an army compound, a US officer said.

Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment.

"Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said.

"There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back."

"The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years."

The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.

The existence of these prisons is also verified by former UN weapons inspector and famous anti-war activist Scott Ritter in an interview with Time:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html
You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

Seems that there at least a few Iraqis who are genuinely glad to see coalition soldiers. Can anyone still argue that the US and Saddam are morally equivalent, after reading this?

Gordon

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks quote

"But hey look - here's a foetus - look it's a foetus"

In fact I heard some lady of the US whitehouse or pentagon giving a speech about stuff that was happening and she said "Our medical aids have been amazing [not true quote] in this war, they noted that every person should be treated equally - be they Iraqi or US". And I thought to myself - 'well d'uh they are medics they adhere to the Hippocratic oath ffs'. Like, that's a no brainer - don't give me that bull about US treating the Iraqis because they are "good samaritans"

Sorry, off topic /me hides

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Can anyone still argue that the US and Saddam are morally equivalent, after reading this?

I'm not sure if anyone (other than Éomer) has argued that they were equal. They argued that the USA is hypocritical and doubled faced on many of the issues is condemns Iraq for. How about I raise the issue of the USA executing people for offences committed as minors?

Meh

Originally posted by Victor
I'm not sure if anyone (other than Éomer) has argued that they were equal.

Just one example out of many.

In what regard is the US better than Saddam . . .

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that Éomer believes the US is worse than Saddam

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Just one example out of many.

Which raises the question, the USA is better at what? Killing people or PR?

dahamsta

Originally posted by Meh
Just one example out of many.

Pigeonholing and stereotyping, like all the other pro-war fanatics.

adam

*

Sparks

Marine shoots two ten-year-olds

TomF

"Pigeonholing and stereotyping, like all the other pro-war fanatics."

Easy now, that's the kind of reply that will get you banned from these boards. Perhaps a slow count to 10 will produce cooler keys.

mike65

Easy now, that's the kind of reply that will get you banned from these boards.

Tom the chances of the dahamsta getting banned from boards or any part thereof is about the same as the two of us sharing the wining lotto numbers on Saturday...

Mike.

BattleBoar

I STRONGLY encourage everyone reading this post to actually READ the article for which Sparks posted a link and make your own judgement not based on his headline.

Hint: The headline Sparks put on the link is not really the title of the article.

Sparks

Battleboar,
There's one confirmed ten-year-old dead, and a second who's not confirmed as dead but expected to be. Why? Because one stooped to pick up an RPG from the ground. Did the marine wait to see if the kid could even lift it, let alone arm and fire it at him? No. He shot the kid with a machine gun.

You want to tell me he had no other choice?

I STRONGLY recommend everyone read the article too.

dahamsta

Irony Tom, irony. Hence WWM's trademark sarcasm device.

adam

shotamoose

These posts are getting ridiculous ....

NEWS: NICE THING HAPPENS IN IRAQ. "See, I told you the war was a good idea, eat your words peaceniks!"

NEWS: BAD THING HAPPENS IN IRAQ. "Well, war is hell, accidents happen, at least those that are left will probably eventually be free".

It's very tempting to justify the war after the fact by cherry-picking facts, just as it's tempting to condemn it by the same means. IMHO it's important to remember that the US/UK tried their very best to justify it beforehand and failed miserably.

If the Marines had left those children to die in prison it wouldn't by itself have made this war a bad idea, just like freeing them doesn't make it good.

I bet those children are very glad to be freed, and I'm glad they're freed (from prison, at least). I bet the 500,000 children who died needlessly as a result of sanctions would have liked just to stay alive.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
Battleboar,
There's one confirmed ten-year-old dead, and a second who's not confirmed as dead but expected to be. Why? Because one stooped to pick up an RPG from the ground. Did the marine wait to see if the kid could even lift it, let alone arm and fire it at him? No. He shot the kid with a machine gun.

You want to tell me he had no other choice?

I STRONGLY recommend everyone read the article too.

Since you appear to be an authority on the incident, I assume you were there, in Iraq, getting shot at, no? And to answer your questions, you have no idea whether the kid had his hands on the RPG at Marines or not, whether he was going to aim the RPG at the Marines or not, and neither do I. In fact, he almost certainly couldn't clearly see it either. These things usually happen at great distance and chances are the Marine was seeing all this from a distance of at least 100m away. We just don't know because the article is not descriptive enough. However, we do know that they weren't sure whether the other kid got away or not. This leads me to believe the Marines vision was very obscured, most likely by smoke. We just don't know.

I felt the article was misleading because you had none of the context at all, only, "Marines shoot two children." By the way, how do you figure the second one is "expected to be dead?" Based on the article, there is significant doubt as to whether the kid was even hit, much less near death.

Anyway, there are 3 posibilities I feel are likely:
1. The kids were sent out there to get the RPG and fire it at the Marines, either coerced or not
2. The kids were sent out there to retrieve the RPG for a militia or Iraqi soldier, again, either coerced or not
3. The kids were inquisitive and walked up to attempt to retrieve a war souvenier

The bottom line is we have no idea which of the three it was. The Marines have a duty to protect themselves and their fellow marines first. I don't blame the guy at all. I blame the politicians who sent these guys over there while filling people up with expectations that they could fight an antiseptic war.

The point is, obviously the Marine didn't want to kill the kid. He'd obviously rather the kid hadn't gone over to pick up the weapon. But this is war sparks, and $hit happens. Yes, war sucks. Its the worst thing men can do to each other. War especially sucks when one side uses human sheilds and children and women as scouts, and makes fake surrenders, etc.. But, the soldier is a tool of the politician. The politician makes the war, not the soldier. You cannot blame the individual soldier for protecting himself and his fellow Marines in the middle of a firefight. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people that sent them there.

Sparks

Since you appear to be an authority on the incident, I assume you were there, in Iraq, getting shot at, no?

No, I just read the interview with the kid that pulled the trigger.

And to answer your questions, you have no idea whether the kid had his hands on the RPG at Marines or not, whether he was going to aim the RPG at the Marines or not, and neither do I.

Actually, I do. See, I read the article. Which was an interview with the kid that pulled the trigger. Who is the world's only expert on what happened. And he said that the kid reached for the RPG. Not picked it up, armed it, aimed it and was about to fire. BTW, this isn't a computer game - firing an RPG isn't an unskilled task. Brain surgery it isn't but I doubt you could do it properly without training. And they're not light either - whether a kid of that age, living in a place where his diet and general health is going to be poor, could even lift the damn thing is questionable.

These things usually happen at great distance and chances are the Marine was seeing all this from a distance of at least 100m away.

That's a good enough reason to fire on a ten-year-old then, is it?
BTW, go read the article and point out the warning shots that the Marine fired. Point out where he mentions how he yelled at the kid to leave the RPG alone. Go on.

I felt the article was misleading because you had none of the context at all, only, "Marines shoot two children."

It was rather expected that you would read the article, so I paraphrased it. Can you state my summary was incorrect? Did the marine not shoot two children?

The bottom line is we have no idea which of the three it was.

Well, (1) is about as likely as Saddam showing up on the front lines, AK47 in hand. (2) is possible, but not sufficent reason to fire on the kids. (3) is the most likely given the nature of ten-year-old boys.

The Marines have a duty to protect themselves and their fellow marines first.

I've no problem with that. I have a severe problem with them firing on the kid without trying anything else at all. I have a problem with them firing on the kid instead of taking cover. I have a problem with the marines being sent in at all.

I blame the politicians who sent these guys over there while filling people up with expectations that they could fight an antiseptic war.

Me too. But in this case, there's enough blame to go around.

But this is war sparks, and $hit happens.

You know, I've not got many heros. A few role models, but noone I could actually call a hero. Ghandi would be one of the very, very few that have that status to me. So do me a great big favour and don't ever say that sentence to me when you're within arm's reach of me, because I don't like committing acts of violence.
"Gee parents, sorry I shot your kids, but hey! **** happens!"

You cannot blame the individual soldier for protecting himself and his fellow Marines in the middle of a firefight.

For the last time, this wasn't a firefight. They were NOT under fire. READ THE BLASTED ARTICLE!

TomF

"Irony Tom, irony. Hence WWM's trademark sarcasm device."

I was told, justly, on this board that to get out of a hole, it is best to stop digging first.

We also need to understand that irony isn't any better than coppery or zincy. (Yes, I know it isn't original with me.)

*
Does that little star make it all better?

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Meh
Just one example out of many.Anyway, I'm pretty sure that Éomer believes the US is worse than Saddam

Anyone who wants to measure the moral equivalence of Saddam Hussein and George Bush should listen to the reporters who are reporting the real stories from Baghdad. . . .

Anyone listen to Robert Fisk on The Last Word last night ! . . . He gave a disturbing description of the effects of the cluster bombs that the US are dropping in civilian areas in and around Baghdad . . . the children who have been maimed . . . the dead baby with just a torso, one arm and part of its head blown away. He also described how he witnessed first hand the tank attack on the palestinian hotel that killed two journalists and how there had been no sniper fire from the hotel prior to the attack (a story that I saw was backed up later on by Sky News reporter David Chater).

I do accept that SH is / was a brutal / odious dictator . . . .

. . . but this war is wrong . . . . it is about the americans trying to control the world as they have done since the second world war . . . it has little to do with the children being released from Iraqi jails and it is being prosecuted by an evil little man who cares diddly squat about the freedom of the Iraqi people.

bonkey

TomF - I appreciate what you're doing, but please leave the moderating to the moderators.

dahamsta - in fairness Adam, you had the * in the first post, but not everyone knows what that is for - maybe be a bit clearer about the sarcasm in future.

jc

Xterminator

Originally posted by Sparks
For the last time, this wasn't a firefight. They were NOT under fire. READ THE BLASTED ARTICLE!

Sparks ... you are taking the event out of context.

First up, the history. Gurilla wars have a history of using child warriors (EG Afgan forces) as part of the battle. Its well documented, so i wont post any links.

Thus the marines will have been briefed to the effect watch out, even the 'innocents' can be dangerous.

Next the current context. Suicide attacks, soldiers dressed as civilians, using the populace as shields. Warnings by the Iraqi leadership of thousands of 'martyrs' etc. Use of civilians as recon too.

Now in this context you have the events that took place.

The marine could not take the chance, that the kid would (a) retrieve the weapon which could then be used later, or (b) fires it.

I would also point out that After your opponent picks up aims and fires a dangerous weapon, it is too late to say, 'Gee he was strong for his age!'

I have to say if i was one of the kids parents, id be angry. If i was in the marine's place, i probably have fired.

But i was neither. i am instead a neutral observer. Perhaps if you were a neutral observer you might be able to see4 both side too, eh Sparks?.

X

Well considering that an rpg launcher is considered an awkward weapon, i doubt a ten year old could aim one, and actually hit anything. The IRA have used them for decades, and i've read military articles over the last decade all of which that say that an rpg launcher is next to useless in untrained hands. Only blind luck would allow a ten year old to launch a rocket, and actually hit the target.

I'm not tergeting the US troops on this one. I do believe that the US troops are being very aggressive, but then again most of the troops in the field atm are green, and liable to make mistakes. Still that doesn't excuse them all that much.

dahamsta

Originally posted by bonkey
dahamsta - in fairness Adam, you had the * in the first post, but not everyone knows what that is for - maybe be a bit clearer about the sarcasm in future.

I hate dragging these things out, but I feel genuinely wronged on this occasion. Granted, the star was a bit of an in-joke, and the post would probably have been better off without it, but that's a side issue. My comment was so blatantly hypocritical and self-contradictory it should have been obvious that it was intended as stark irony. I don't think moderator intervention was required here, but if anyone deserves a nudge, it should be Tom for his naiveté in the face of black humour. I genuinely don't mean that offensively Tom.

adam

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
For the last time, this wasn't a firefight. They were NOT under fire. READ THE BLASTED ARTICLE!

Sparks, its an article, NOT a comprehensive after-action report. Obviously I did read it cheeky.

You just seem to want to assume the worst, while I am going to assume the best. You were not there, there is one article, from one perspective, and clearly not enough information to condemn ANYONE. Enough said.

Constantly I have heard people ask for proof regarding the WMD. Obviously, the US never produced anything worth its salt! Well, the exact same goes here. You can't convict a Marine based on an article. You have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And how do you know they weren't under fire?? Sparks, no one is arguing that this wasn't a tragic event, but your blame of the Marine is totally misplaced based on the evidence you gave.

Sparks

BB,
Yes, it's an article that only puts forward one point of view - namely the point of view of the marine. So if that's the best spin that can be put on it...

Also, if he had been under fire, I don't think he'd have omitted it. But I'll tell you what - if you can produce the after-action report, I'll stop quoting the article.

Meanwhile, <edited by Sparks to say "please find a less insensitive manner to express your belief that tragedies happen in wartime">. There's one dead ten-year-old, killed by a marine, deliberately. That is FACT. It is WHAT HAPPENED.

bonkey

Sparks - calm down. Dont ever tell anyone to s**u on this forum again.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by BattleBoar
But this is war sparks, and $hit happens. Yes, war sucks.

That doesn't make it any less bad, what ever happened to the concept of a warning shot? (whatever about a soldier not getting one, I think a 10 year old might be entitled to one).

Sparks

bonkey,
<edited by Sparks to say: "We'll discuss this off the forum, but I don't believe I broke the rule">

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
bonkey,
:mad:
I hereby reserve my right to tell anyone that says "**** happens" is a valid defence to shooting a ten-year-old deliberately to STFU or any other combination of words that express my deep desire to see them rethink what they are saying.

Frankly that you'd object to that, tell me to calm down, and warn me against doing it again, is downright dispicable. Why wasn't a similar warning issued to BB?

Sparks, you are incorrigible. I never said that it was an excuse for what happened! I said that these things DO happen. Your blaming the marine for what happened based on this article is totally unfair and ridiculous.

Victor, I never said it makes it any less bad. I said this is war and these things do happen. You don't know whether there was warning shots or not. This was one article. You don't know whether there were shots going everywhere or not. We don't know the visibility, range, position of units, etc. There is absolutely NOT enough information to prosecute this Marine in this forum.

And Sparks, I think you know very well what the difference is between you and I and why telling me to STFU while making perfectly valid points is something you were warned for. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, which is obviously that the Marine murdered the kid in cold blood. I don't believe that at all and I am going to defend him because the facts to make that judgement simply are not there. I NEVER said what happend was of no consequence. I NEVER said that what happened was not tragic.

Sparks, no one is arguing that this wasn't a tragic event, but your blame of the Marine is totally misplaced based on the evidence you gave.

For you to attempt to construe my remarks as such shows the poor quality of your arguments, IMHO.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks

Frankly that you'd object to that, tell me to calm down, and warn me against doing it again, is downright dispicable. Why wasn't a similar warning issued to BB?

Because he stuck to the rules and didnt attack/insult another poster. You may object to content, but you may not attack the poster.

You can reserve any right you feel like, and complain about how despicable it all is as much as you want, but you will abide by our rules or face the consequences.

If it comes to me enforcing the rules, vs you "reserving rights", I'll give you one guess who's gonna come out the loser.

jc

Victor

What if these boys were doing what boys do and were just curious about the weapon? It's an awfully harsh lesson to teach.

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Victor, I never said it makes it any less bad.

My point is you came across slightly ambivalant about it.

Originally posted by BattleBoar
You don't know whether there was warning shots or not. This was one article. You don't know whether there were shots going everywhere or not. We don't know the visibility, range, position of units, etc. There is absolutely NOT enough information to prosecute this Marine in this forum.

Yes, I can only judge by what information I have, but that information includes that the marine knew that the boys were trying to get a grenade so he can't have been that far away. It doesn't mention any attempt to stop the boys other than shooting them. Finally, if the boys were enough of a risk to shoot at and presumably the only available target, then there would appear not to have been a huge risk from other units.

So while there isn't enough information to prosecute, there is enough to raise questions.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Victor
My point is you came across slightly ambivalant about it.

Yes, I can only judge by what information I have, but that information includes that the marine knew that the boys were trying to get a grenade so he can't have been that far away. It doesn't mention any attempt to stop the boys other than shooting them. Finally, if the boys were enough of a risk to shoot at and presumably the only available target, then there would appear not to have been a huge risk from other units.

So while there isn't enough information to prosecute, there is enough to raise questions.

Very fair...I totally accept that

Please do raise questions. The article raises questions with me too, you might be surprised to find out. Questions I can deal with. What I don't like is when people will take something like this and declare the Marine guilty of murder based on it.

I said the same thing when the US produced seemingly anecdotal and/or circumstantial evidence to point to the existance of WMD in Iraq. The evidence simply was not conclusive. It merely raised questions.

Victor

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Very fair...I totally accept that

Not arguing, but I don't understand the ";)"

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I said the same thing when the US produced seemingly anecdotal and/or circumstantial evidence to point to the existance of WMD in Iraq. The evidence simply was not conclusive.

However there is and was an awful lot of evidence that said if Iraq had WMD, it was very little (comparatively) in a degraded state and many of the American accusations were based more on conjecture and hyperbole than genuine suspicion or knowledge.

Originally posted by BattleBoar
It merely raised questions.

Are mere questions enough to start a war?