Talk:Haditha massacre/Archive 1

Removing Information that is exculpatory
I love the way that someone just removed the NewsMax information on account that it is "unreliable." Something tells me that this person wouldn't show such high standards if the story had tended to incriminate as opposed to exonerate the Marines.

Not only did they remove the article information, but they removed the reference, preventing someone finding it by accident. --htom 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

nb. It's about time (and volume) for some of this discussion to be archived, but I don't know how to do it. Everything before July, maybe? --htom 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NewsMax is entirely unreliable and barely qualifies as news. Proof comes from trustworthy and impartial sources, not partisan rags. Tiger97882 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Passive Voice
I mentioned this in the main Haditha article as well. "The unreleased report of the US military investigation into the event is said to have found that 24 unarmed Iraqis, including 11 women and children, were killed by 12 members of the US Marines" Is said by whom???? 70.114.32.133 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

War crime
Any intentional killing of civilians is considered a war crime. I do not understand why we need to be obtuse by including "may constitue." The only thing we can say is they "may" be innocent. However, if they are found guilty of willfully killing civilians, by definition they are guilty of war crimes. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nescio, I am as keen not to exonerate war criminals as you are. If they did what's alleged and there are no extenuating circumstances (and no, I can't think of anything myself) then yes, a war crime has occurred. However, I think it's very important that we not display any bias in such a sensitive situation, and not pre-judge any court cases which might result. That said, I'll let your reversion stand, although I suspect others might feel the need to change it. &#0151; JEREMY 11:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and after it has been established the killings were intentional and without any mitigating circumstances they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, 1 they may have killed, and 2 that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you object to. Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as actually doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. &#0151; JEREMY 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you're missing the point. whether the story is true or not, the act is a war crime.  what is in question is whether they did it or not.  the qualifier is in the wrong place.
 * I agree. This is neither the time nor the place for the words of the weasel. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The solution might be to quote the Geneva Conventions and the ICCP, and other human rights treaties that the United States and Iraq have signed. You could then write about how a massacre would have violated these treaties if one did indeed occur (as seems to be the case) --Descendall 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Any intentional killing of civilians is considered a war crime." Not really. During WW2, allied forces bombed Japan and Germany and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians intentionally. Under the "victors justice" of the war crimes trials we conducted, this was never considered war crimes. Churchill and Truman were never indicted as were the German and Japanese leaders, even though the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were intended to kill as many civilians as possible, as were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Similarly, under generally used rules of engagement, enemy soldiers cannot use civilians as human shields and fire at opposing forces without fear of return fire under the principle that the return fire would be intentionally directed at civilians, if it was in the form of artillery or bombing which cannot distinguish who in the target area is killed. It may well be wrong, bad, shocking, and immoral, but where has it been treated in a civilian or military court as a war crime? The difference seems to be that the bombing or artillery are "death from a distance" or wholesale murder, as contrasted with close up gunshots to the head, or retail murder. Edison 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the attorney general says:
 * "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

it doesn't really matter what that quaint old treaty says. I'm sure the 24 massacred iraqis are feeling very liberated right now. Whoo hoo, mission accomplished! Funkyj 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the last time that I checked, the Attorney General of the United States was not a member of the legislative branch of the US government and has no rights or privileges endowed upon his office to enjoin or disjoin the US Government from a ratified treaty and its obligations to that treaty. His duty is to uphold and promote the rule of law by prosecuting the laws and statutes currently on the books, not rewriting them because the executive branch wants to do so. Brian1975 04:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Some observations
 * The fact that after WW II no allies were prosecuted for war crimes does not prove they did not commit any. It only proves that victor's justice was implemented. This argument clearly is a logical fallacy.
 * As to all the war crimes for which nobody has been indicted, this again does not prove they were not committed. It shows that politics is a very important part of getting indicted. Example, even if Bush is culpable for war crimes (torture, war of aggression, et cetera) it is certain he will never stand trial for political and not for legal reasons. Heck, every investigation into possible violation of US and international law has been frustrated (NSA no investigation, torture no investigation, discrepancy arguments for invading Iraq and then finding none were tru no investigation, et cetera).
 * If killing civilians is not a war crime, please explain what made My Lai a war crime.
 * How the war on terror is a new kind of war is beyond me. Terrorism is thousands of years old. All these years the world apparently was capable of countering terrorism with using police and criminal laws. Now, all of a sudden something has changed! Please, explain the difference between AQ and the IRA, PLO, ETA, FARC, et cetera.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  07:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the others, but the Royal Marines deployed to Ireland throughout the latter half of the 20th century might dispute your characterization of them as "police".
 * Terrorism, while not new in the 2000-year scheme, is new to the Western way of thinking, specifically, the way of thinking that spawned your "laws of war". The Geneva conventions were an attempt to codify warfare between nation-states of similar values, resulting in crap like this:

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power, of the following amounts....
 * Needless to say, such conventions are no longer shared on today's battlefield.....if they ever were.
 * --Mmx1 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly in WW 1 the British and Germans paid each others' officers their pay. See the Daily Mail of London for the last quarter of 1915. While researching another issue there I read a discussion of how unfair it was that Germans in British custody were getting paid more than Brits in German custody, due to the different pay scales of the two armies. No info on WW2 or subsequent practices. Edison 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember British troops bombing Ireland or going out on a shooting spree. AFAIK they were policing the area.
 * As to "such conventions are no longer shared on today's battlefield," you probably think that since the rule of law has been abolished by the US the rest of the world is in agreement.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  10:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you stating you honestly believe that Iraq was paying Kuwaiti POW's a monthly salary for their time in prisons? Can you prove any nation has ever done this? In order to state the US doesn't follow these rules and are internationally frowned upon for not, wouldnt you have to lay some foundation that anyone has followed these rules in full. --Zer0faults 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because there was no aerial bombing does not mean it was not a "war". Regular military occupation by Royal Marines and the British Army for several decades. Permanent garrisons staffed by a rotation of units from England (who considered it a combat deployment). Raids supported by mechanized and airborne assets (including attack helicopters). Regular use of IED's by the insurgency against occupying forces. Looks like a war to me. As for shooting sprees, how about Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29?
 * Name one conflict since 1918 where the Geneva conventions have been fully observed by both parties. --Mmx1 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The struggle against FARC is a classic example of counterinsurgency warfare and "policing" is a light way to put it. Yes, in the notion of colonial policing, i.e. counterinsurgency warfare as done by the British Army over the years, particularly in places like Malaya in the 1950's....not the idea of NYPD walking a beat in the South Bronx arresting the perps and reading them their Miranda rights.
 * I could also bring up the numerous instances of Israel bombing, rocketing, bulldozing and otherwise blowing up PLO strongholds via various means...but you probably consider that a war crime, too. --Mmx1 14:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what you hope to achieve by this line of argument. Even if the Geneva conventions contain such a clause and even if it is universally ignored, the most one can get from this is the argument that since the Geneva Conventions are ignored in part by everyone, they can be ignored in full by anyone, and therefore wholesale massacre of unarmed civilians is not proscribed by any treaty.  I really don't think many people would accept this line of thinking, given that it essentially gives soldiers carte blanche to do whatever they want. --Saforrest 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nescio is pushing his agenda of an international standard of "war crimes" which can be prosecuted by the ICC, particularly with regard to the U.S. and the Bush administration. The legal argument is largely based on the Geneva agreements, which I am pointing out are bunk and have never been bilaterally followed in any major conflict since 1918 (maybe the Falklands? the classic "gentleman's war" of the late 20th century...an unfortunate war between friends as some have called it), and certainly not because somebody signed the document.
 * My view (and one supported by academia), is that these agreements are mutual attempts to codify standards of behavior in war (that were already accepted) to make it less destructive to both parties, not some inherent universal law. They are conventions, nothing more, and useless if not all parties accede to these standards.
 * This is not to excuse the alleged actions, but merely to clarify the legal standing and counteract any OR calling for ICC prosecution. Presuming the allegations are true, they fall under military justice for numerous charges, most prominently murder. Nescio and others trying to blame the U.S. are trying to downplay military justice because they do not trust the American system and wish the matter to be settled in a court more to their liking, but that is the proper legal authority here and if the charges prove true, due punishment will be meted out. --Mmx1 16:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the killings of civilians by IEDs and car bombs war crimes, even if those killings are not committed by coalition forces? htom OtterSmith 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its only a war crime if the US is responcible. Nescio has already expressed his opinion that the US are terrorists for dropping the atomic bomb and for training bin Laden. --Zer0faults 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When civilians blow each other up with car boms, it's a crime. What is it called when civilians blow each other up with passenger jets? Geir Gundersen 09:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold the phone, some of us get carried away by their enthousiasm. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the law is not universally upheld, that does not mean it does not apply. Not every thief is caught, but try explaining that to a judge and you'll get laughed out of court. War crimes are defined, and as such exist and are not some quaint relic from previous era.
 * Regarding the ICC, I never mentioned it, not did I suggest the US should be prosecuted. However, it is evident that had the US signed, and the court was able to do what it should, they would be in serious trouble.
 * As to the allegation I call the US a terrorist state, this is ludicrous. It only proves that the people claiming this are unable to implement the basic rules of logic. If people assert that Saddam Hussein was involved with terrorism and that justifies the invasion I merely observe that the US, even today, is also involved with terorists (OBL the most notorious) which by the logic advanced means the US is a terrorist state. This is not what I said, this is what certain editors are saying if we were to apply their logic for justifying the "war on terror" in a consistent manner.
 * Let's try and stay on topic, is this massacre a war crime?

No its not a war crime cause they aren't even guilty yet, they arent even being put on trial yet. So its obvious it can't be a crime. -- zero faults  talk  19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody claims these soldiers committed war crimes. The only assertion is that killing innocent civilians is a war crime. [[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a war crime because the nature of the killings is in dispute. The circumstances of their deaths and their non-combatant status have not been fully resolved given the publicly available information. There is speculation and palm-reading of the ongoing investigation, but they are tight-lipped about the details and the only pictures available to us are from long after the fact. --Mmx1 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect to the above claim "their non-combatant status have not been fully resolved", I believe that it is reasonable to assume that 3 year old children can not be considered "combatants". Anarchist42 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True...True...a 10 year old child...well that's another story:
 * A child thought to be just ten years old, wearing an explosives belt, has died in a roadside explosion at the al-Quds intersection, near the oil rich city of Kirkuk. The 'suicide' attack occurred as a car carrying a senior Iraqi police official, Colonel Khatab, passed by.  --Jeravicious 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A three year old child could be picked up and used as a living shield by a combatant, be struck by a bullet going through the combatant, or struck by a ricochet. They could also be used to carry bombs or grenades. None of this would make them (to coin a phrase) an "informed combatant", but it could explain their being shot. htom OtterSmith 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the above editor, you should be well aware that the emerging evidence of this case suggeats that some of those children and toddlers were executed by multiple close-range bullets to the head. There is no good excuse for such action, even in war, and we all know it. Anyone who doubts the actions or motives of either the American soldiers or the Iraqi citizens should attempt to stick to the facts and refrain from pulling made-up excuses out of thin air. Anarchist42 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand...I'm not trying to justify the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq by anyone. I am rightly pointing out the fact that in Iraq, woman and children have, on occasion, been considered "enemy" because of their actions..ie suicide bombers.  To discount or disregard that fact would not give you the full picture of the situation in Iraq.  To blindly say that all women and children are "civilians" is wrong. --Jeravicious 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that a 2-year old child can ever be considered an "enemy", please do so or retract/modify your assertion. - Anarchist42 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me WHERE I asserted that a 2 year old child could be considered an "enemy". I know I posted a TRUE story of a 10 year old suicide bomber...but I can't find anywhere that I used the words "2 year old child". --Jeravicious 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In an effort to come up with an answer I had a look at the war crime article. It leaves me with some questions: If a soldier in an occupying force had committed armed robbery of a civilian from the occupied country, would that be a war crime? Or just a criminal offense? It is true that some times a human shield will get killed through military necessity. But it is the responsibility of any combatant to figure out wheter to retreat to save civilian lives or to attack because of necessity, they could even defend them selves while retreating and happen to kill a human shield.


 * On the face of it this looks like some soldiers went berserk after experiencing the death of a comrade from a bomb that was illegaly detonated. Unarmed civilian iraqis could be implicated in this activity, and the soldiers entering a house would not have known what to expect when entering. So why didn't they surround the house, instead of entering? Were the people unarmed? If so, did the killing take place after this was established? If they were not killed of military necessity they would have rights either to a fair civilian trial if they were civilians (even if the did detonate a bomb) or as prisoners of war if they were combatants. And until the distinction was made they should have been treated at least by the standards of POW status. There are many things unknown about this case.


 * Shooting women and children in the back of the head at close range certainly does not look very heroic. The aftermath looks like attempted coverup. If nothing wrong was done, why cover up?


 * It is not my job to judge these fine examples of brave American heroes, but I would like to see them tried (fairly) for war crimes. But I seriously doubt they will. Geir Gundersen 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This entire discussion is assinine -- everyone is ignoring the fact that it is a war crime to kill anyone that is unarmed, whether it be civilian, active military, insurgent or otherwise. The issue at hand is that none of these people were armed, there is documented evidence that only US military rounds were fired, and that children were killed.  Without any subjective judgement whatsoever, this killing wasn't part of any military engagement.  By definition then, this is murder committed by military personnel, which is a war crime.  Furthermore, if the soldiers were so sure these people were involved with the IED attack, why were they not granted the enshrined democratic right of due process?  Instead of reporting the incidents and implications, we clean the article up like we were working for the US military's PR firm.  Using a 4-man military fire team, under the command of US military officers, to commit the cold-blooded murder of 24 unarmed people, over a 3 to 5 hour period, is a definitive war crime.  Because these people (insurgents, rebels, civilians, whatever you choose to call them) were unarmed and intentionally murdered, it is a war crime and an atrocity. Luciathedog 17:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is so full of shit I don't know where to begin. It is neither a war crime to kill unarmed combatants (e.g. command posts or radiomen) nor civilians if their deaths were unintentional. The reports do not suggest that this was the case here, but THEY ARE ONLY SUGGESTIONS. The only evidence we have at hand are videos taken at least hours after the fact and the circumstances are UNKNOWN to those of us in the public.
 * Without any subjective judgement whatsoever, this killing wasn't part of any military engagement. You have no basis for making that statement and your next statements indicate both your ignorance of military procedures and this incident.
 * Using a 4-man military fire team, under the command of US military officers, to commit the cold-blooded murder of 24 unarmed people, over a 3 to 5 hour period, is a definitive war crime. Because these people (insurgents, rebels, civilians, whatever you choose to call them) were unarmed and intentionally murdered, it is a war crime and an atrocity.
 * All indications say this was committed by a squad, typically consisting of 8-13 men, lead by a sergeant. Unless the situation was unusual, officer(s) were most likely not in direct tactical command, i.e. with the unit. Besides, isn't it fishy that it took them 3-5 hours to kill 24 supposedly unarmed people? It's not like shooting unarmed people is particularly difficult. I'm speculating that there was hostile fire involved. That's speculation, but it's no less valid (and no more useful for this article) than your speculation that it was a war crime. Until further evidence is released, we have nothing to go on.
 * On a second note, does anyone have a link to Taher's film/photos? --Mmx1 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just untrue (that it is a war crime to kill anyone who is unarmed). How do you know that they were unarmed? htom OtterSmith 01:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While certainly the user who started this section has a strong, overaggresive POV that is actually counterproductive to his goals. I'd say that the basic logic is correct in that, if this is true (which is most likely the case), then the killing of unarmed civilians is a war crime and I would venture to say that if this situation were the inverse, there would likely be no argument about it at all.--Jersey Devil 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The sophistries above seeking to justify shooting unarmed, captive children in the head make me very ill. Six year olds were used to count soldiers? So it is ok to capture and execute them? Does anyone really believe such obscene crap? Similar lies were used to justify the holocaust or lynchings by the KuKluxKlan. Edison 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What does an Iraqi civilian look like?
Is this a picture of an Iraqi civilian?


 * http://vietnamnet.vn/dataimages/200511/original/images817921_jordan_woman_bomber.jpg

Is this a story describing an Iraqi civilian?

"A child thought to be just ten years old, wearing an explosives belt, has died in a roadside explosion at the al-Quds intersection, near the oil rich city of Kirkuk. The 'suicide' attack occurred as a car carrying a senior Iraqi police official, Colonel Khatab, passed by. "

Could someone describe an Iraqi civilian and differentiate that person from an Insurgent.... Jeravicious 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a picture of an Iraqi civilian, it's a picture of a Jordanian suicide bomber. --Descendall 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Descendall, that is a picture of an Iraqi woman who travelled to Jordan, along with other Iraqis, in order to commit a suicide bombing...but she failed. Perhaps you missed that story. Jeravicious 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * AMMAN, Jordan - The Iraqi wife of a suicide bomber made a chilling confession on Jordanian state TV Sunday, saying she also tried to blow herself up during a hotel wedding reception last week but the explosives concealed under her denim dress failed to detonate. 
 * Oh. If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question? --Descendall 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Attempting to justify or diminish war crimes on the basis of incompetence or necessity is seriously offensive. Please don't use wikipedia as a soapbox for your extremist views. &#0151; JEREMY 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, so the wikipedians who are zealously tagging the subjects of this investigation with a premature and unfounded "war crimes" category are, what, noble servants of the ICC? Everyone's got an agenda. --Mmx1 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice attempt at avoiding my question...I'll try another way. The article starts with the sentence "The Haditha massacre is a massacre of civilians reportedly committed by United States Marines on ".  I think it is entirely relevant to ask how a Marine in Iraq should differentiate between a civilian and the "enemy".  Is a civilian a woman or child who doesn't try to blow the Marine up?  (btw, I like how you label me as extremist...I show you a picture of an Iraqi woman suicide bomber and post a story of a 10 year old Iraqi bomber...and I'm the extremist...forgive me.)  Jeravicious 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."  -- George Washington
 * If George Washington turned up in a house in Iraq sitting by a pile of "sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence", would he be regarded as a civilian? --Dijxtra 10:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he would be regarded as a disinterred corpse. Your sophistries fail to convince. Edison 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, there is no doubt this massacre constitutes a war crime. I don't see why we shouldn't call it that. As to the difficulty in recognizing civilians, tough luck. The US started this war, it is their duty to ensure the safety of civilians under the rules of war. Or, are you suggesting to shoot everybody that isn't wearing a US uniform (which is exactly what US soldiers have been doing, hence the antipathy against them)?[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  10:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty bold statement to make seeing as how you are nice in comfortable in front of your computer. I would ask you to strike that last comment.--Looper5920 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt occupying a country is hard work. However, you must be aware of British, Dutch, Australian, et cetera, troops complaining about the "shoot first, think later" mentality? Every incident (remember shooting the wounded Iraq soldier) results in similar comments. It doesn't prove anything, but one does wonder why people are sying it.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  11:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, those forces are in parts of Iraq where there is little to no resistance. Their wonderful peacekeeping skills are not why there is little violence in southern Iraq...it is the population.  As far as those county's troops "complaining" about "shoot first, think later" I only recall only one British general speaking up and I had seruious issues with his arguments/arrogance.  Like you said it does not prove anything and as far as wondering... people can wonder all they want, that still does not give you the right to say that all US soldiers/Marines  are shooting everyone not in US uniform.  Again I ask you to retract the statement. --Looper5920 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all, but then again: ![[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see Nescio's point, since there is 100,000 troops roughly, and 30 have been involved in incidents, it means all of them are guilty ... noone else seeing this math? Isn't this the same kind of logic that allows racism to ferment in so many nations? Just look at a group of people, state X ammount do Y, and blanket the whole group with the stereotype. --Zer0faults 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Trying to ridicule me is not very civil. Second, to claim that only 30 people in five years were involved in "incidents" grossly misrepresents the facts. But this is not uncommon for supporters of this war.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  18:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And since forces have been rotating in-theater, there's more than 100,000 troops who've served in theater. The point still stands. Are you going to paint all 300,000 or so with the actions of less than a hundred? (Or two, or 1000, if you care) --Mmx1 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if a thousand are said to be involved, which I am sure aren't. That would still only make up .3% of the total ammount of US soldiers, a far cry from stating a majority point. -- zero faults  talk  19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The same unreasonable "math" logic is applied by some when describing the Insurgency. And yet, a closer look at the numbers reveals the real truth.  The Insurgency is estimated to number between 2,500 to 200,000 people.  The total Iraqi population is 25 million.  Assuming that the highest estimate is used and assuming that all of the Insurgents are Iraqi (which we know is not true) the 200,000 would only be .8% of the total Iraqi population....less than 1%.  Then consider the # of American deaths in Iraq.  2400+ in over 3 years...and yet put that in the context of approx. 16,000 Americans who are killed (murdered) by Americans here in America every year...meaning, the number of Americans killed in 1 year here in America is 7x the number of Americans which have been killed in 3 years in Iraq...perspective... Jeravicious 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet another incident. Luckily only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of US soldiers miss certain ethics. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're so witty, urbane and European.... Thank you for gracing these pages with your humorous sarcasm. Please continue to enlighten us all--Looper5920 11:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

About the State of Forces Agreement (SOFA): Have you a link? I don't see it on the US State Dep't website http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/54265.htm (...which doesn't mean it doesn't exist...). While, indeed, a SOFA is very common, I query whether the existing Iraqi gov't has got it together enough to accede to one. Even without a SOFA, the chances of this Iraq gov't prosecuting Americans for anything at all is pratically nil. 216.254.10.236 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn


 * The reason there is no SOFA link on the DoS website is because the USG refuses to sign a SOFA agreement with the Iraqi Government. Brian1975 05:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous point of discussion. This is pure conjecture that is unsupported by any reports, facts, etc. What does an Iraqi civilian look like? Are you suggesting that the soldiers had trouble determining whom they could engage? Obviously the victims have to be confirmed and cited, but were the 65 and 70+ year old men who died carrying weapons? What about the 2-year-old and the 3-year-old children? I'm sure that they were a huge tactical threat to the military commanders of the operation. Luciathedog 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As a veteran of the war in Iraq I feel obligated to inform you all that the insurgents chose the time and place of battle about 95% of the time. The enemy usually has the initiative because they are not uniformed and they use the local population as cover and concealment. I say this not as a value judgement, but that is what they do. That's would I would do if I wanted to fight a modern, mechanized army with vietnam era small arms. They intentionaly set off IEDs and intiate ambushes in places that guarentee that innocents will be killed in the crossfire so that they can parade the images on Al-Jazera and CNN in their information campaign. It's easier and more effective for the insurgents to get a kid killed than to kill an American. American troops don't wake up in the morning and say, "Hey lets kill some civilians today." But the cold, hard truth is that once the shooting starts, anything that isn't wearing a kevlar helmet is the enemy. US troops are trained to fight and destroy other armies, not to find and kill religous fanatics who use women and children as cover and concealment. And I think that it's awfully convenient that the people who allege this masacre happened refuse to let anyone examine the most conclusive physical evidence: the bodies. I'd bet my GI Bill that if those bodies were exumed and examined by an impartial 3rd party, you would find wounds consistant with those produced by AK-47's and Tariq pistols.

Categories
I recently added Category:Spree shootings, which was removed as "incorrect - does not fit". What I am trying to categorise is the way that this incident, and the My Lai massacre are different from the other war crimes. What they have in common is that they were committed by soldiers using guns on unarmed civilians. Is there not a way to categorise this? Carcharoth 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is properly categorized under war crimes. The category Spree shootings refers to civilian massacres.  If you wanted to apply the category Spree shootings to military events then you need to be prepared to add every battle since the invention of the rifle to the list.  Please keep the military incidents separate.--Looper5920 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is properly categorised under war crimes. But "war crimes" is a very broad umbrella - I am trying to narrow the focus into suitable subcategories. About your definition of spree shootings, I am not so sure that spree shootings are exclusively civilian-civilian shootings, but I agree that at the moment that is how that category functions. Many of them are also lone gunmen or pairs of gunmen.
 * About my supposed intention to "apply the category Spree shootings to military events" - I have no intention of applying the category spree shootings indiscriminately to military events, and fail to see how you have formed that impression. I will repeat what I said initially: "...this incident, and the My Lai massacre are different from the other war crimes. What they have in common is that they were committed by soldiers using guns on unarmed civilians. Is there not a way to categorise this?" This makes clear that I am trying to distinguish different war crimes. I am trying to find a way to subdivide war crimes, not relabel them as something different. I hope this makes things a bit clearer, and avoids any further misunderstandings. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from but the general rule is that there should be 60 articles in a certain set before you subdivide into a new category. I think at this point it may be premature.  If you are willing to do the reasearch and really tackle the topic you may be able to get 60 but I think it will be tough.  I would say leave it as is for now and wait for the topic to mature.--Looper5920 11:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You say "the general rule is that there should be 60 articles in a certain set before you subdivide into a new category" - I've never encountered this before. I have seen many, many categories where such a restrictive, even prescriptive rule makes no sense what so ever. Can you point me to some guideline stating this "60 article" rule? Thanks. Carcharoth 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is for stub cats, not regular cats.  young  american  (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems entirely possible that there could be a soldier or Marine or insurgent or terrorist who became a spree killer, either in some particular action or alongside it, where the spree killing might be unobserved. htom OtterSmith 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some confusion and overlap between Category:Mass murderers and Category:Spree killers. But it is fairly easy to distinguish between different sorts of killings by weapons, motive and other criteria. Have a look at Category talk:School massacres for some examples of massacres that aren't spree shootings. Carcharoth 09:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They are distinguishable but it is not simple. When you have a collection of deaths there are a number of things that need to be examined. The number of killers, the locations, relationships between the killer(s) and victims, motives, .... I suspect that spree killers are a subset of serial killers (differentiated by the amount of time involved in the total killing, minutes or hours in the former, months or years in the latter), who are in their turn a subset of mass murderers.

Name of article
I think that the M in massacre should be capitalised. It is in My Lai Massacre. --Descendall 13:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See List of massacres to see how consistent the naming policy has been. Carcharoth 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is not even a completed investigation and we already have an article dubbing this a 'massacre'? — Aiden 16:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you renamed it. I don't care either way at the moment, but your reasoning as I understand it is faulty, if not dangerous: If there was a massacre it should be named that way whatever the result of the official investigation is.
 * (Of course since you renamed it you should also bring the old name back in case there were indeed dozens of murders.)


 * Nothing has been proven yet. So it should be known as an 'incident' until then. — Aiden 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How does proof transform an 'incident' to a 'massacre'? And who will decide?


 * An 'incident' merely implies that the event took place, which is certainly not disputed by this point. However, the roles of the soldiers and victims in the indicident is still under investigation. Although it appears likely, based on initial statements and media reports, that it will eventually be deemed exessive and unprovoked, that hasn't happened yet, so labeling a 'massacre' implies that the dead were, in fact, innocent and that they were killed without provocation or justification. No matter how 'obvious' that seems, until the investigation is complete, you can't speculate. After all, Dewey didn't really beat Truman. --208.41.98.142 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the current naming block is readable. Please find a name that fits and call it that, either incident or massacre. Please don't call it "Incident which may have been a massacre but may also be something different we just can't decide".

Whatever you do, please capitalize Incident or Massacre.

The Haditha incident? I would contend that the title alone is a manipulation of the popularly used and understood term Haditha massacre, which came about in the media and popular usage by comparisons to the My Lai Massacre. It's not our job to reinvent what we wished society had said, it's to represent it with NPOV. By renaming the article as the Haditha incident, we have violated our own NPOV policy by diminishing the impact of the situation to the English-reading public. Our NPOV policy is being exploited to work in the favor of the Western World -- funny how that happens. Luciathedog 18:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree, naming it a massacre when its not even sure what happened is one sided and obviously POV. -- zero faults  talk  18:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of my statement was to say that it was named popularly, previous to this article and discussion. Regardless of whether or not you have the information (that is easily accessible and well-corroborated) that fulfilled the semantic requirements for it to be considered a massacre, the situation has been re-named by a small group of Wikipedians. This re-naming is based on criticism of the original name, and does not reflect the popularly constructed term.

It is no coincidence that this re-naming has sanitized and de-emphasized the actual occurence of the event. One could question whether or not the "incident" happened at all, which is "obviously" a clear-cut case of intentional logical fallacy. Furthermore, the term "Haditha incident" is so non-specific that it calls into question whether or not people were killed. In effect, the re-naming of this article affects the perception of the event to the significant benefit of the US military. What's neutral about that?

This abuse of language happens routinely in Wikipedia and all other mainstream media, and parades itself under the guise of neutrality or political correctness. To be neutral is to not have any effect on the event taking place -- this re-naming has a major effect, but it works latently so fewer people recognize its impact. I do not believe that this discussion to date has shown any significant amount of depth or self-awareness. In fact, this entire article is obfuscating knowledge that is widely reported, corroborated and accepted. Luciathedog 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Its accepted that something happened, not that it was a massacre cause we do not know the facts of the events. Killings is fine, its POV, but factually people did die, so I will not complain about it either, however massacre is wrong until its determined what happened. -- zero faults  talk  22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

reopened?
The article says:
 * In March 2006, the U.S. military reopened an investigation

that implies that the investigation was closed/finished. Can someone cite a source for this claim? Are there any official documents that say "case closed"? Funkyj 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My very limited understanding is that there are or were at least four investigations: 1) an after-action documentation by a different USMC unit; 2) an investigation that started in January or February; 3) an NCIS investigation that started after that; and 4) an Army investigation that started after either 2) or 3). I have not heard that any of them were "closed", although the first might be, if all they did was take photos and leave. htom OtterSmith 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is possible that the NCIS investigation I labeled 3) above is actually a continuation of that which I labeled 2), which in its turn was a continuation of 1), making a total of two investigations.


 * The 'reopening' was an examination of the coverup. The initial investigation wasn't really an investigation, it was a submitted report that was approved and closed.  The initial report stated that only 15 people were killed as bystanders of the IED attack.  Photo and video evidence, a complaint from Iraqis, and a bunch of soldiers doing their jobs re-opened the file and determined the facts.  Luciathedog 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ICC
The article sounded as if ICC Police would be inbound promptly if only they had authority. This is not the case, if the US Mili persecutes the killers (or even investigates and acquits them), the ICC never enters the picture. Please elaborate a bit before reinserting information about the ICC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.244.253 (talk • contribs)


 * I think a source is at least in order from a legal authority that should settle the debate fairly. Nescio just post your source so you two dont have to revert eachother. --Zer0faults 11:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, do not implicate me in this debate since the edit history clearly shows had the discussion with another user. Thank you.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]]  Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful then it seems the issue is concluded. My apologies for implicating you in this issue. -- zero faults  talk  19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From International Criminal Court: "The ICC is designed to complement existing national judicial systems; however, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes" So since the US authorities are unlikely to ask the ICC for help and since they seem to be willing (and are certainly able) to investigate or prosecute (or even persecute), they will not be involved.
 * The role of the ICC can of course be explained, but not as if they are involved or even try to be involved anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.244.253 (talk • contribs)
 * As neither the US nor Iraq are parties to the ICC and this is not a genocide it is irrelevant altogether, isn't it? Añoranza 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

FJC

 * The official investigation is not yet complete, another marine injured in the original attack says "civilians" may have helped insurgents with the original attack, and the dead marine's father says other marines describe civilians being used as human shields by insurgents who attacked as a followup to the bomb. None of this is mentioned in this story.  That makes it pretty biased.

Interview with injured marine

Terrazas' father defends marines


 * Not to mention the article is titled Haditha massacre when nobody here knows exactly what happened. — Aiden 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The injured marine is part of a group of people who have an interest in covering this up. The dead marine's father had NO WAY of getting information from his son about the incident.  Only a few compelling facts remain, one of which is that there is video and photo evidence that unarmed people, including the elderly and children, were murdered by a group of US Marines under officer's command.  This wasn't a group of rogue soldiers...start reading a variety of sources for this event and you'll see that the term "massacre" is an accurate and appropriate title.


 * The injured Marine is one of those who might be charged, if the investigation determines that there were wrongful killings, or a coverup. If he is innocent and and those things did not happen, he has a decided interest in revealing that. To paint his description as a "coverup" before we know what really happened says more about your biases than his. The photos, taken after the event, do not show that they are unarmed; they show corpses without arms. That they were unarmed when killed is an assumption. The number of people making an allegation has nothing to do with the accuracy. htom OtterSmith 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Speculative Reported Statements
NPOV is not "make everything as vague as possible". From the NBC article: "Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style." There is nothing speculative about it. Also, it is legal for Wikipedia to have content not approved by US military officials. So the fact that no official report is published yet does not mean that we have to doubt a quote in a major news service.


 * For one, it is a violation of WP:NOR to take an article which describes 'exection-style killings' and extrapolate that to compare to the My Lai massacre when such a comparison is not even present in the article. Secondly, the article is not an official view of MSNBC, but is an article about speculative statements a congressman made without any knowledge of the internal investigation. To pass that off as fact would be the real violation of WP:NPOV. Finally, pending the release of any official investigation, not only does the entire incident represent allegations, the reporting, especially that comparing a previous "massacre" with that of an unconfirmed one, is speculative at best. The true violation of NPOV would be to draw comparisons when we have no true knowledge of what occured until official investigations, both by the US and Iraqis, are concluded. — Aiden 02:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I haven't checked whether the article contained the words "My Lai". My bad, sorry.
 * However, the parallels of the alleged incident to My Lai are evident, there is nothing speculative about it. Maybe this article reads in a few months: "US forces were accused and subsequently exonerated from a My Lai-style killing in Iraq yadda yadda." There is nothing speculative about it, the question is only whether the crime did happen, not (once again) whether they are parallels between the alleged crime and My Lai.
 * Second, news reports are valid sources for Wikipedia, so we can use facts described in them in our articles. If the the source is named and linked (as is the case here) the reader can make up his own mind.
 * Third, it was not some NBC guy who came up with the term "exection-style", but US military officials. News reports are only that, reports. If they report statements from a certain person we don't have to build a chain of 'allegedly reportedly speculatively' to cover our asses, especially since, again, the source is available.
 * Fourth, accd. to the article, the term "exection-style" is based on photographies of the bodies. Not much speculation here.
 * Last, official investigation can of course not be the final arbiter on what really happen. A quick glance at My Lai shows that official investigations happening after the massacre in 1968 tried to cover it up at least once, if not twice. To use official investigations as the yard stick of truth is a bizarre thought.
 * Thank goodness someone is bringing the basics of reason to this debate! I couldn't agree more, and I'm not sure how someone can refute what you've posted.  It appears that no one will be satisfied until they see the actual photos of a 2-year-old child with a bullet hole in his back.  Worry not, they will be posted here in due time.


 * Here is an interesting tidbit, the doctor who reported that all of the victims were shot was actually once a claimed ubductee of US forces. The person who turned the video over to Reuters, not the student cause he didnt turn it over, may be related to a person who was arrested for having terrorist documents and dealings. Oddly enough even Time magazine has said one of the bodies was missing a leg and arm and was charred symbolizing more then just gun fire occured. The families will not turn over the bodies to be examined or allow them to be exhumed, so we only have this doctor with an agendas opinion. This is why there are investigations, cause things sometimes dont add up. Innocent till proven guilty. Also this is also a town where 14 marines were killed with an IED before and 6 more murdered when ambushed by insurgents ... -- zero faults  talk  22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Video is video, regardless of who made it or released it. Your red herring is quite irrelevant. - Anarchist42 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Except the video doesn't show anything as its happening, it starts with people already being moved into a truck, that means all the crime scenes have been tainted. I am simply stating why there is innocent till proven guilty in the US, not making a case for or against. Especially in situations where a coronoer cant examine the bodies and all the crime scenes have been disturbed and your chief medical examiner has an axe to grind. -- zero faults  talk  12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell is Haditha?
Can someone put up a map showing where this town is in Iraq? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 01:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that hard to find... there is map showing the location of Haditha. It happens to be in the Haditha article itself. JohnM4402 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is now on this article's page. --hydnjo talk 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell is Haditha? LOL, classic. Haizum 07:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added the province to the introduction to make it that little bit easier for people who haven't read Haditha to understand it's geographical location. Also the article linked to on Al Anbar provides information on the province's political/military situation, which is useful in trying to understand the situation the u.s. marines were in, not that i'm trying to justify their actions in the massacre, it's just useful background information is always a good thing and a link to this article works well with info-flow. 81.132.51.161 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo

List of alleged civilian victims
I do not have a source to put this in the article, but here is a list of alleged victims from another wikipedia article. I am posting this here in hopes that it helps others research this alleged incident.

House 1: Asmaa Salman Raseef, 32, Abdullah Waleed Abdul Hameed, child, Abdul Hameed Hasan Ali, late 70s, Waleed Abdul Hameed Hassan, 35, Rasheed Abdul Hameed Hassan, 30, Khameesa Toama Ali, 65.

House 2: Younis Salim Raseef, 41, Aida Yaseen Ahmed, 35, Muhammad Younis Salim, child, Noor Younis Salim, 14, Sabaa Younis Salim, 9, Aisha Younis Salim, 2, Zainab Younis Salim, 3, Huda Yaseen Ahmed, 28.

House 3: Jamal Ayed Ahmed, 41, Chassib Ayed Ahmed, 27, Marwan Ayed Ahmed, 28, Kahtan Ayed Ahmed, 24.

Taxi passengers: Ahmed Finer Muslih, 25, (taxi-driver), Khalid Oyada Abid, 27, Wajdi Oyada Abid, 22, Akram Hameed Flayeh, 21, Muhammad Fatal Ahmed, 21.

-- Paul E. Ester 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

which wiki article is this from? --Mmx1 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * no:Haditha-massakren /Vints 05:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutralized?
In the first paragraph, people are said to be "neutralized". This is military jargon and, in any case, human beings are not "neutralized". Could we change it to "killed"?--Zhengfu 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)  I agree, what is this, RoboCop?

Incident vs. massacre
And I see we've moved from Haditha massacre to Haditha incident. Without disputing this now (does anyone seriously doubt these people were "massacred", whether by the Americans or someone else?) I'll just comment that changes as major as a page renaming, for an article of such current importance, deserves an explanatory note on this talk page. --Saforrest 06:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, let's dispute it now. Since a contextual definition of massacre is readily available, it's obvious to anyone without an agenda that an investigation would need to be completed before one could conclude that US Marines killed "noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense." How can you expect anyone to AGF with you? Haizum 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think incident is best until the investigation is completed. Right now we cant even say if some where used as human shields as the latest story is proposing etc. If they are convicted then I think it should be moved back to massacre. Innocent till proven guilty. -- zero faults  talk  10:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the innocent untill proven guilty bit, I find the human shield invention offending. Since the Israelis started using this propaganda, everybody feels the need to explain the murder of women and children by invoking the human shield mantra. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the same distorsion of the language used by Rumsfeld when defining torture. According to him, if it doesn't kill the prisoner then is not torture, just abuse.--tequendamia 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop trolling, that has nothing to do with this article. Haizum 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point as you wax poetic about "golden warriors" and "warriors of steel" on your home page and then are so quick to condemn real warriors who are human and may or may not have made human mistakes. If only we all existed on your home page or had the strength of you behind your computer.--Looper5920 12:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no justification in using the weasel term "incident" to describe this event. Googling "haditha incident" vs "haditha massacre" clearly indicates how the world refers to it. The original title was "massacre" (small "m" is correct, as this isn't a formal title but a descriptive one); if someone wants to justify renaming it to incident, please do so here. &#0151; JEREMY 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Right because the word "incident" is much more charged than "massacre." Jeremygbyrne, meet POV. Haizum 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Google hits have no bearing on WP:NPOV. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide that this was a massacre. No official investigation has been concluded and no one here knows for sure what happened. So pending the results of such an investigation, the article should remain named Haditha incident to avoid advocating one POV over another. Before you start a move war, I recommend we file a request for comment. — Aiden 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite my belief that it probably was a "massacre", we as wikipedia editors must stick to the facts as they emerge. We should continue to call it an "incident" until we have sufficient citations to use the label "massacre".  As for Google, we just need a redirect so that those searching for "Haditha incident" will find this article. Anarchist42 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are holding a prejudicial belief without any emperical information. It doesn't get much more irrational than that, I'm afraid. How is anyone supposed to believe that once information is presented you won't remain POV? Haizum 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not up to wikipedia to try to apply its NPOV ideals to what the world is calling this event. To everyone else, this is the Haditha massacre; just look at the titles of the interwiki links. That en is calling it an "incident" &mdash; which I've got to say carries all the newspeak stench of "collateral damage" when applied to the mass killing of noncombatants &mdash; is highly POV. &#0151; JEREMY 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the label "indident" appears weaselish, and I do believe that is was indeed a massacre; nonetheless, readers expect wikipedia to be unbiased and accurate. I suggest that we not use the label "massacre" in the articles' title just yet.  At a minimum we should not allow the title to change until us editors can reach a consensus. Anarchist42 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It only appears weaselish because you are entrenched in a POV, so just admit it. If information came out tomorrow that concluded beyond any shred of a doubt that it was an accident, you'd still be saying the word "incident" is weaselish. Why would you be so POV at that point? Because you are doing the same thing now. Haizum 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree it probably was a massacre. However, pending the results of an official investigation, we cannot know for certain. Thus, we should avoid jumping to conclusions and adhere to WP:NPOV, which states we should not take a side. Calling it an 'incident' applies something happened without drawing conclusions not supported by any facts. — Aiden 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * = "I think US Marines committed war crimes without any sort of proof yet I'm not taking a side." Like it or not. Haizum 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User:ILike2BeAnonymous changes the title from 'incident' to 'massacre' withiut discussion. I suggest that we return it to 'incident' until we can reach a consensus. (Although I also suggest that we return the 'War crimes' Catagory).  Can we all agreee upon that, at least for now? (I will refrain from making such changes until we discuss the matter a bit more) -Anarchist42 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on; this is just so much mincing and prevaricating and pusillanimous parsing bullshit. Undisputed facts are that noncombatants were killed by U.S. military personnel. Hence, a massacre, no matter what the eventual outcome of whatever investigations there are. We don't need all the details to emerge to at least call this "incident" what it really is. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My complaint was that ILike2BeAnonymous made the title change without discussion (a point he failed to answer). My hesitation to use the word "massacre" (despite my belief that is was) is partially due to the qualifer "a considerable number" in the word's definition. - Anarchist42 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Boston Massacre -- see any Brits edit warring over that? Ashibaka tock 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Any neutral editors making the same analogy? Haizum 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ILike2, please stop with the personal attacks ("parsing bullshit"). It is not undisputed and it is not yet a "fact" that US Marines transgressed. From what I read, there was an IED which hit a small patrol and then the soldiers were fired on from some of the houses. While kicking in doors and fighting back, some innocents were likely killed by the Marines. Frankly, this village is a radical stronghold and I would not be at all surprised if some local fanatics killed extra of their own people so as to blame USA. And if you think that's not as equally likely as Marines killed 5 year old kids, then you possibly are biased. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 21:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the incident is pretty much "undisputed" and it most probably is a "fact" that "US Marines transgressed", according to US soldiers statements and the fact that the military has arrested and detained the troops involved. As for your made-up fantasy that "some local fanatics killed extra of their own people", well what can I say? Perhaps you simply refuse to believe that it is possible for one unit to go bad out of 150,000 stressed-out troops, but please try to refrain from your lame attempt to dimish the unwarranted slaughter of small children. - Anarchist42 21:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There were no shots from the houses. There were shots from a field in the opposite direction, and the order was given that the Marines were to light up the houses to make sure that there was nobody around to provide shelter or protection for those in the fields.  The squad initially opened fire on the houses with large caliber weapons, and then went door to door clearing each house and killing anyone inside them.  They then collected the bodies, tagged each with a number by writing it on the forehead of the corpse with a marker, and then photographed each one separately.  The explosion of the IED earlier in the day was the catalyst for the incident.  The high losses of soldiers, along with the deplorable living conditions at the FOB, both contributed to an atmosphere of revenge within the unit, and when the order was given to attack the houses, there was very little resistance to what they all knew was an illegal act.  Brian1975 05:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Haditha killings, a more neutral title (following a similar precedent in another contentious article, Borovo Selo killings). "Incident" is far too vague (what kind of incident was it?) while "massacre" is too judgmental at this stage - we don't yet have the full story of what happened. The sensible middle ground, I think, is to describe it as "killings" - we can at least all agree that multiple persons were killed in the incident/massacre. -- ChrisO 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheesh - why can't editors DISCUSS title changes first? Is it all that difficult.  I prefer the new title (for now, at least), but unilateral title changes for controversial articles about current events is simply bad form, no? - Anarchist42 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The old title was simply not NPOV - if you see something that is plainly not NPOV you should be bold and fix it. I've temporarily protected the article against further moves to avoid further move warring. -- ChrisO 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. My only beef was the lack of prior discussion (I was getting a bit tired of endless title changes, but the current one works best for now). - Anarchist42 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the term "killings" as a neutral description of what happened given what we KNOW (not assume, presume, believe, etc). --Mmx1 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Most the other language Wikipedias call it massacre. Skinnyweed 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Use of the word massacre presumes guilt.  Killings is an accurate description until the case has been adjudicated--Looper5920 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That charges have yet to be brought against the men by their own millitary is irrelevant. Eye witness accounts, the soldier's own testimony and the physical evidence supports that U.S. Marines fired upon and killed unarmed men, women and children. = massacre.

It's entirely relevant. There hasn't been any testimony, only media stories telling the story that the tellor or media want told. What if most of the killings were done by persons other than the Marines? What if they were armed, and their arms removed before the photographs? What if they were killed inadvertently in the process of killing armed combatants? --htom 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm expecting an immediate revert from the rightwingPOV :P but I've removed 'Incident' all together as it was inserted to avoid calling it a massacre in the classic "'rape of nanking' into 'the china incident'" style. 'killings' was substituted as an acceptable middleground to maintain NPOV untill the guilty verdicts come through, so 'Incident' is a relic no longer needed.81.151.124.131 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo

I imagine some of you are dancing with glee right about now. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I personally am disgusted by the incident and would never dance with glee when innocent civilians were massacared by soldiers. It's good that the people resposible are being charged, but it doesn't change the fact civilians were massacared because of some deranged soldiers Nil Einne 10:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
This article would greatly benefit from a chronological outline of the events of the night in question. Some things, like the initial bombing and the time of death of the American soldier, should be agreed upon by all concerned. Other events which are contested can be sourced as appropriate. --Saforrest 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for that. &#0151; JEREMY 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We really need a much more detailed timeline.


 * When did the Marines(group1, those attacked) arrive?
 * When did the IED explode?
 * When did the Marines(group1) leave?
 * Did they all leave together?


 * When did the Marines(group2, those taking photos) arrive?
 * When did the Marines(group2) leave?
 * When did the Marines(group3, the body transport team) arrive?
 * When did the Marines(group3) leave with the bodies?
 * Are these two groups (2 and 3) the same, or different, or is one a part of the other?


 * When were the videos taken?
 * Were all of them made at the same time?

htom OtterSmith 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote Style
Changing the quote style back and forth makes no sense, so let's discuss it here.

My point is: Wikipedia has more to offer than bold and italics; let's use it. Using semantic tags makes sense in all kinds of ways, eg. for accessibility reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.210.168 (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for discussing your changes. Indeed, italics are very useful in clarifying what part is quoted.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, as I said elsewhere, take it to the style sheet guys. These are block quotes and should be marked as such. Accessibility is one reason, uniformity of Wikipedia style another. The alternative would be that every article has its own style sheet, hand-crafted by using various font tags, tables and other twencen HTML crutches.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.210.168 (talk • contribs)

Blockquote makes more sense. - FrancisTyers 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, Francis and 217 are right. The WP:MOS states that (1) quotes should not normally be italicized (here), (2) that quotation marks should not be used in blockquotes (here) and that blockquotes should be formatted with the "" notation. (here).TheronJ 15:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Category War crimes
An editor has removed the "Category:War crimes" tag without discussion. I have refrained from reverting until we discuss the matter. I could not find any "Alleged war crimes" Category, and all evidence so far suggests that this will indeed end up as a well-known war crime, thus I suggest that we use the "War crimes" Category. (I hope that we can keep the debate focused and reasonable, and avoid hypotheticals). Anarchist42 17:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This follows much the same thought as calling it an 'incident' versus a 'massacre' before the investigation has been concluded. No official report has been release and no charges have been filed against any soldiers. Wikipedia is not in the policy of judging people--it is not a legal authority. There is no reason to apply a 'War crimes' category to the article before anyone has even been convicted of a crime nor an investigation completed. — Aiden 17:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since most war crimes don't result in charges, I don't think we can use that as a determining factor. As far as Wikipedia not being a legal authority, that is a straw man arguement.  Nonetheless, the soldiers have been arrested, and several small children were shot in the head at close range: this is highly suggestive that a war crime did indeed occur.  Thus I believe that there is every reason to apply the catagory of "War crimes" to this article; remember that catagories are usefull for people who are looking for articles for which they don't know the exact title of. I am trying to be as unbiased as possible with this article, and I hope that other editors will refrain from using NPOV as a shield for their personal beliefs (I've read numerous comments here which suggest that some editors simply refuse to accept the fact that some soldiers can go crazy in the heat of combat). -Anarchist42 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point of view, but this is not a fog of war incident where the soldiers had lost the chain of command. The reports state that the soldiers were operating under the command of officers, and under field command of a sergeant.  Incidents of vigilante justice don't typically happen under a chain of command, and they usually don't feature a well-organized attack plan with air support.  Yes, people go crazy in the heat of war, but in any case that doesn't exonerate soldiers or the command of the execution of non-combatants, particularly when some of the dead are children.  Luciathedog 21:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Umhmm.....citation for this? "Lost the chain of command?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? You're speaking out of your ass. Moreover, a squad of Marines needed air support and a well-organized attack plan to massacre unarmed civilians? Something's fishy. Well-organized attack plan? I can see the five paragraph order now.
 * Commander's Intent - To achieve the company's mission of winning the trust of the Iraqi people, we are going to go and kill some unarmed people. This will take us some 3-5 hours because we're really bad shots. And we'd like some air cover because unarmed civilians scare us. --Mmx1 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, you're last comment was just inflamatory and I would like to see it struck from this page. You are convicting these Marines before the trial even begins and I cannot believe that you are not going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. Did civilians die in this fire fight, yes. We're they killed by Marines or Insurgents, we will never know because the locals refuse examination of the bodies. US troops do not wake up every day and set out to kill civilians. At the risk of repeating myself, as a veteran infantryman of this war I know that the insurgents choose the time and place of battle 95% of the time, because they have to fire on us first before we know that they are enemy combatants, since the insurgents don't wear any kind of uniform. I also know for a fact that insurgents intentionally select ambush locations that guarantee that civilians will get killed in the crossfire. I don't know if you have ever been ambushed sir, but I have and it is not a good time. The first thing one does when they find themselves in an ambush is that they seek cover, and return fire to gain what is called "fire superiority" which in laymans terms means that more bullets are fired at the enemy than they are firing at you. This is known as a "Mad Minute", when the unit being ambushed basicaly shoots the hell out of everthing in small arms range until the enemy is forced to stop shooting and you can move out of the enemy's kill zone and begin to assault the enemy's postion to capture, kill or drive him away. Now I ask you, what happens when the insurgents kick off an ambush in a crowded neigborhood and use peoples houses as fighting postions. I tell you what happens, civilians get caught in the crossfire. This is the number two play in the insurgent playbook next to IEDs. They intentionally intiate ambushes in crowded areas where civilians will get hit then blame the Americans, parade the bodies on CNN and infuence world opinion, even those of people in our own country. As you can see the tactic works well. The cold hard truth is that it is easier for the insurgents to get civilians killed, and blame it on Americans than it is to kill American troops. Sir I understand that you are motivated by your sense of decency that most Americans share, but you must not be fooled by this tactic. What does the world expect a Marine or Soldier to do, sit there and get killed or let his buddys get killed because there may or may not be civilians present. I don't think that it is a realistic expectation. Furthermore I believe that if a prosecutor can produce enough evidence to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the killings actually occured the way that the Iraqis alledge, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law. My biggest qualm on convicting these men is that the best physical evidence to support the Iraqi's claim is the bodies of the victims. I find it interesting that the Marines' accusers refuse to allow the bodies to exhumed and examined my an impartial 3rd party on 'religous' grounds. Once the bodies are buried to Muslim standards the souls of the deceased go on to heaven, so what happens if they are dug up, Allah kicks them out of heaven? I would think that these people would be eagar to do anything to see justice done if their family members had been killed in the manner they described. Mmx1, I would like to add that I find your comments so full of personal rancor that I must wonder what the US Military ever did to you, personally to produce such inflamatory and grossly inaccurate characterizations of me and my brothers-in-arms. I'll have you know that in Iraq, my unit spent our last three months providing security for the restoration of a water treatment plant. In that 3 months at Tarimiyah, we lost one man and three men lost limbs so that Iraqis could have decent drinking water. With that I invite you to take your "baby killer" rhetoic somewhere's else because, although some people in this forum might not know any better, I do and I'm simply not buying any of it.

SPC Matthew Epps, C co 2-7 CAV 8DEC06
 * SPC Epps - I think you missed the sarcasm in Mmx1's statement. He was making your same point.  Just in a little less verbage.--Looper5920 10:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-added /Category:Iraq_war_crimes, I assume it's being deleted by a POV editor who disagrees with the implications of the category's existance rather than it's relevance. Anyway the category as it stands relates to "articles or topics related to war crimes or alleged war crimes committed during the 2003 Iraq conflict." not necesserily war crimes that have already seen a guilty verdict(this would have excluded this article from the category in it's prior form). The Haditha massacre, regardless of if you think it was justified or not, allegedly involved attacks directed against civilians, which is an act accepted to be a war crime when part of of an international conflict by, amongst others, the International Criminal Court. 81.132.51.161 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * Added it again. It's been deleted at least four times by an editor who apparently is unable to actually read the category itself or discuss it here. Until someone can, on this talk page, rationally explain how the Haditha massacre was NOT an alleged war crime we will continue to put the category back up. To be honest such stark refusal to discuss a conflict of changes made is verging on vandalism. Please Looper, discuss your reasoning, do you have any beyond not liking that a category exists that lists alleged war crimes most of which your own country was apparently responsible for? 81.132.51.161 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * I haven't deleted it yet, but I might in the future. If you want to make a category "alleged war crimes" you might have more luck in getting people to leave it there. As it is, it feels (to me, at least) too much of a denial of the presumption of innocence. This is a topic which has been discussed, here, before, btw. htom 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah very well, it does fit the category but not the category tag. I can see your reasoning behind this. I've suggested a name change on that category's talk page so that options can be discussed. I will refrain from adding the category again until the tag better fits the scope of the category itself, as i can now see how the current tag may be misleading. It's unfortunate because this article is sadly isolated for an article of it's value and war crimes is the context such an event will most likely be category-searched for. 81.152.196.94 14:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * Before anyone thinks of putting it back, you might want to first check if anyone has been charged under the War Crimes Act of 1996. (The answer is probably no.)  Considering that at least eight of the dead "civilians" were terrorists, it's unlikely that any of the defendants could be convicted of a war crime.
 * Perhaps the real war crime was to allow terrorists to surround themselves with children without an ounce of criticism.
 * -- Randy2063 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Newsflash: the rest of the world doesn't care whether the US authorities considers this a war crime or not. You can't give any sensible explanation to how American soldiers fatally shot a bunch of childrens at close range without it being a war crime. And I am fairly not-interested in militaristic propaganda articles, thank you. Merat 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A sensible explanation? OK, try this on: Terrorists, intent on causing problems for both the Marines and the citizens of the town, kidnap a bunch of the children to keep the citizens quiet while they deploy the IED and set it off; the Marines, in hot pursuit of the terrorists, attack their hiding place, killing the terrorist's hostages as well as the terrorists (and some of the children's parents, who come rushing to rescue their children and are thus confused with being the armed terrorist reserves.) I'm not saying that that's what happened, but if it is what happened, it would look a lot like what I've seen. And it would indeed potentially be a war crime, but committed by the terrorists, not the Marines. Think about your POV in making your assertion above, please. htom 00:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I admire your vivid imagination, I would want you to be a tiny bit reasonable. We have an American soldier participating in the attack and an Iraqi girl surviving it, both saying that this was a massacre of civilians. An investigation points to it too. Add to that, that there has obviously been a cover up of this "incident". With that as a background, I find your explanation not plausible at all. Merat 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, since when is it considered "terrorism" to attack enemy military units? I find US soldiers in Iraq a neatly legitime target. Your twisting of concepts is amusing. Merat 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a lot more to the laws of war than who one shoots at. -- Randy2063 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merat, this isn't about what "the world" would like to believe. It's about what is.
 * As htom just said, these situations can be complicated. And terrorists have the responsibility for putting children in harm's way.  The Marines may still have rules of engagement to comply with, and they'll be held to that.  But when terrorists operate around children, the Geneva Conventions do not say the Marines need to be the ones backing down.
 * You can't just reinvent the definition of war criminal for personal satisfaction. If it were up to me, I'd add most of the GTMO detainees to the War Criminals category, as well as most of their fascist-supporting lawyers.  But "war criminal" has a more precise definition, and you know as well as I do that we need to do this by the book.
 * -- Randy2063 01:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Killing 24 defenceless civilians without any provocation is a war crime by all standards, quit your fucking bullshit. I'd add you to the War Criminals category if it was up to me. Merat 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Language, language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism If the goal of the terrorists was to have the Marines kill the children, that would certainly be an act designed to terrorize their parents. htom 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With the same logic, the American soldiers can be described as terrorists if they killed the civilians without provocation (which they obviously did). I'll keep that in mind when they'll be jugded guilty. Thanks for pointing that out! Merat 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Terrorism has a definition too.  Nothing "obvious" about this case.
 * -- Randy2063 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So your point of view is that while Iraqis are definitely terrorists if they attack the US military, it's unclear whether American soldiers are terrorists when they massacre 24 civilians? This discussion is pointless and hopeless unless you can show a tiny bit of intellect. Merat 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong on both counts. I'm only saying that it's not as simple as that.  It's important to look at the laws of war.  It wasn't all that long ago that opponents of U.S. policy were acting as though they cared about the Geneva Conventions.
 * You may think it's not terrorism on those occasions when they only attack the U.S. military but that logic falls apart when the terrorists choose to operate around innocent civilians. In such a circumstance, innocent civilians die and the fault may be that of the terrorists no matter who pulls the trigger.
 * There's still more to it than that but it's an important distinction. And as I said, the Marines have rules of engagement that they're accountable for.  But then it's no longer a "war crime."
 * -- Randy2063 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't really follow your logic, but I do wonder why you first say that you don't necessarily view Iraqi militants as terrorists, just to call them terrorists a few sentences later. It seems like with your point of view, Iraqi militants are always guilty of whatever they're charged for unless proven otherwise, while the American soldiers are being defended to the absurd, and far beyond.
 * And according to the UN definition of terrorism, operating around civilians is not terrorism. "In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: 'intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.'" A definition so broad that it would include that sort of tactics as terrorism would also have to include many of the bombings the US has commited since it's entrance in WWII. Merat 08:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Or is the word "terrorist" synonymous with "enemy" for you? That would explain a lot. --Merat 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it may not be as authoritative as you'd like to think, I'll gladly take the UN's definition for now. (Using civilians for cover doesn't make any better.)  They're still terrorists by that definition, and the U.S. Marines involved in this incident are still not.
 * The definition doesn't fit U.S. bombing missions after the GCs of 1949. They're not intended to hurt innocent civilians.
 * Yes, I so see "terrorist" and "enemy" as synonymous in this war but it's not for a knee-jerk reason. Just look at any "body count" figures, and the breakdown of who killed whom.  Every insurgent group in Iraq fits that UN definition.  They're all targeting civilians.  Some worse than others.
 * -- Randy2063 00:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quit fooling around. There were no Iraqi militants around whether you consider them terrorists or not. The US soldiers massacred 24 civilians. If there's any terrorists in this blood bath, it's them. You obviously lack the logical skills needed for a productive discussion. Merat 00:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some who disagree on how many were civilians.
 * -- Randy2063 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to break in, can we please chill with the fanciful scenarios. No kidnapping of children is alleged by anyone, not even the people who put shot the kids. The eight people were identified by a process, and by a man with a name, who has testified. Read the page for details.

There are eight people identified as "insurgents" (not terrorists) by some of the defendants' supporters. This identification, according to media accounts is because four of them (who arrived in a taxi), are claimed to have had weapons in the car. They were shot on arrival. No kids with them. Four more were asserted by the marines to have engaged them in a firefight. Residents contradict the claim. They were killed in one of the house. No kids there either. Now, the first four were at least noncombatants, possible war crime by marines for shooting them anyway. The second four seem to be possible noncombatants, and possibly shot when they posed no threat (per Delacruz's testimony). War crime if either is true, no crime if both false. And then we have two more houses, with clearly no combatants.

[Incidentally, there is the story of the 12-year-old girl who knew the bomb would go off. Suppose she did. Suppose she wanted it to go off. Suppose she cheered because the soldiers from faraway were blown up by her neighbors. Now, partisans of the U.S. can hate her, but that doesn't make her a combatant. Not any more than those who watched the Gulf War or Shock and Awe and cheered it on became combatants. No weapon, no combatant. Put another way, killing kids, women or men who hope that you lose the war is still a war crime.]

The real debate going on now is whether the Marines killed the noncombatants on accident, thereby obviating responsibility. According to the indictment and the Marines, it doesn't. Marines must, as they say, make a positive identification of hostile intent. Throwing in grenades first and checking later doesn't cut it. According to the defense, it does. I think the identification of a war crime is quite clear, but more importantly, I think identifying what is actually at issue is essential.--Carwil 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merat asked for a "any sensible explanation to how American soldiers fatally shot a bunch of children at close range without it being a war crime." I provided one; I didn't say it was what had happened. I don't have a copy of the RoE they're using there, but doubtless they'll be introduced in some form. Innocents die in war, as does the innocence of Marines, and neither is necessarily a war crime. Sad but true. htom 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked for a sensible explanation and I never got one, because there isn't any. "Sad but true"? Excuse me, but I'm about to drown in your crocodile tears. --Merat, 2nd June


 * If you declare that there can be no sensible explanation, your mind seems to be made up, and other's ideas will doubtless only confuse you into such accusations. htom 16:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Replication of date (Nov. 19, 2005) redundant in first two paragraphs?
--Joe Decker 21:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of article?
There is a misinterpretation of the cover-up in the June 2006 section of this article. The misinterpretation occurs here:

<i>
 * ...the Los Angeles Times reported,[6]


 * Military officials say they believe the delay in beginning the investigation was a result of the squad's initial efforts to cover up what happened.


 * Despite this, the article continues to say:


 * Military and congressional sources said there was no indication that the members of the intelligence team did anything improper or delayed reporting their findings.</i>

The two statements quoted are unrelated. The first statement refers to the fire squad that covered up the massacre, while the second statement refers to US military intelligence. The military intelligence were doing a routine information gathering exercise that follows any combat situation, and took pictures that may or may not have been acted upon. Hence, the following statement:

'':There is no question that the Marines involved, those doing the shooting, they were busy in lying about it and covering it up — there is no question about it. But I am confident, as soon as the command learned there might be some truth to this, they started to pursue it vigorously. I don't have any reason now to think there was any foot dragging.''

I believe that the current version either


 * inappropriately insinuates that the military intelligence was complicit in the cover-up, based on the timelines and the lack of media reports

OR


 * incorrectly assumes that the MI unit was there at the same time as the fire squad

OR


 * incorrectly reads the article which it is quoting

In any case, I think that the word despite causes the problem. However, the attempted cover-up by the principle US soldiers is the real issue at hand, and I think we can do a better job of this. What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciathedog (talk • contribs)


 * I agree, and took a shot at clarifying the distinction between the Marines involved and the intelligence squad. Take a look at my changes and the LA Times article and let me know what you think.  Thanks, TheronJ 03:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Excellent writeup done with an economy of accurate words.  I think that the article accurately and honestly represents the situation with as little bias as possible.Luciathedog 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like Nomen reverted my write-up. I've started a new talk section here. (Whoops - forgot to sign)TheronJ 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

List of sources
Sources:


 * www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/020606tape.htm
 * www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_Haditha.htm
 * www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_gunfire.htm
 * www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_misquoted.htm
 * www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_probe.htm

--Striver 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(Striver - I added a new heading just to distinguish your list of sources from the previous discussion - if you meant for them to refer to the previous discussion, please feel free to delete it. Thanks,TheronJ 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Ishaqi massacre link
I replaced the link because although the military probe has cleared it the Iraqis are have since rejected it and it is still nonetheless related to this article. --Jersey Devil 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Marine expert on "Hell & Haditha"
"Former U.S. Marine infantry leader, W. Thomas Smith Jr..." Read it here - Neutral arbiter 07:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You post a link to the National Review&mdash;and then have the nerve to go by the moniker of "Neutral arbiter"? What kind of bullshit is that?
 * Wait&mdash;I can answer that; just the garden-variety so-called "NPOV" bullshit, aka Randian objectivist bullshit (Jimbo Wales' bullshit POV, that is).
 * In any case, you'd be well-advised to read a real news report about the "incident", like this one. Oh, and have a nice day. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting your incivility to an administrator. There is no reason to act that way on here.--Jersey Devil 07:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Real classy answer ILike2BeAnonymous. I don't know why you are taking this so personal.  The funniest part though was your reference to the Sunday Herald as a NPOV account of what happened.  Why doesn't everyone here just take it easy for a few days, wait for the final report and take it from there.  No point getting your panties in a bunch over speculation.--Looper5920 08:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotta love this quote from On Killing cited in the National Review'' article:
 * In order to fight at close range one must deny the humanity of one’s enemy.
 * Excellent; I will remember that when next I evaluate a voluntary member of an armed force. &#0151; JEREMY 10:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What the hell does that mean? Apparently you have never read the book or have no notion of what it takes to do the job.  99% pecent of all people on earth are not cold blooded killers thus a major theme from the book is that 99% of all people who kill people during war are in some way afflicted with some type of PTSD.   This can range from bad dreams to complete mental failure.  Many find a way to deal with it but some never do.  Since the dawn of time soldiers have found ways to dehumanize the enemy to make killing easier in their minds.  It is done in little ways, as an example the refering to the Japanese and Germans as "Japs" & "Krauts" during WWII.   The same way the Japanese preached to their soldiers that Westerners and Chinese were lesser human beings.   Please do us all a favor and keep to yourself these weak, want to be witty & one lined thoughts on a very complex issue and come back when you have something serious to add to the argument.--Looper5920 10:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What the hell does that mean? It means I think war is a sickness, those who participate in it other than involuntarily are without exception broken, and those who utilise it as a tool of government epitomise the very worst aspects of our nature. Believe me when I tell you, I have precisely zero intention to be "witty" when attempting to express the unplumbable depths of my disgust for the military. &#0151; JEREMY 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I guess I am broken and you are disgusted with me. The fact that you actually believe what you wrote is scary.--Looper5920 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Disgust for the military hmm? Well, as a Dutch citizen listening to stories from my parents seeing US soldiers parade through the streets handing chocolates to the children I am thankfull every single day that there weren't to many people around with that attitude back then. I can't express enough my gratitude for US servicemen and women past and present, and their British and Australian counterparts, as well as others who serve to defend freedom, the same freedom that gives you the right to be disgusted at them. You call war a sickness, I call it a, sometimes all too necessary, evil that we must bear if we value our liberties enough to defend them. I am glad that millions of Afghanis and Iraqis, together with countless millions around the world, do not share your views of disgust. You sir, should be ashamed of yourself.--Kalsermar 21:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it me or did Jeremy just piss on the grave of every soldier who fought for this country from the Revolutionary War to the present?? The Left may indeed be right in one way about this War turning into another Vietnam...the collective "spitting on" and degrading of every person who is in the military is in full force by the Left.  But perhaps Jeremy is right...except for ending Slavery, stopping Fascism, Naziism and Communism...War has accomplished nothing. --Jeravicious 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but which war stopped Communism? Also keep in mind that not every user here is from the USA (this country)Nevfennas 22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Stopped the spread of Communism - Korean War and the Cold War (with it's military buildup causing, in part, the collapse of the Soviet Union). --Jeravicious 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Alleged war crimes
Dont delet that. Even if it is cleared of being one, it still will be a *Alleged* war crime. If it becomes proven, then it will be included in the *war crimes* category. --Striver 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Question: Until there is a conviction and a legal finding of fact, any accusation is "alleged." Labeling this "alleged" is also rather unsatisfying to all points of view. Wouldn't "War Crimes Investigations" be more accurate in long run. The label would hold true until the case is tried in court and a finding is rendered.--Brian H 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this is the only war going on right now this category serves no other purpose than to label every death in Iraq from a US military member a war crime until proven otherwise. Is there a category for "alleged murderers"?  Either it happened or it didn't.  Let's wait till it all pans out before we start classifying everything.  It may take a month or two.  Let's see what comes from the investigations and related probes.--Looper5920 11:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree its a category that doesn't really fit and serves to bias the situation. Its also a category with 2 incidents last I checked. The category itself doesn't seem appropriate as its too general to even be a category. -- zero faults  undefined  11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * wait a minete.. "the only war going on right now"? were you being serious? There are many, many wars 'going on' at this moment. Even if you're going to take the stereotypical american stance and ignore the rest of the world then you've still got Afghanistan. 81.132.51.164 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

Support our troops
This article should be removed or at least changed drastically. As far as I know, The Wikipedia is a wholly American project, so I don't see why we should accept anti-american trash like this from foreigners. This is a just war and unfortunately you have to break some eggs to make an omelet. Most people understand the extreme pressure our boys are under over there, obviously foreigners don't. If it's not just some boys who snapped under pressure, this might be the only rational way to fight this war. When they fight dirty, we fight back and in the long run more lives might be saved and that is the only thing that matters. This might even save more Iraqi lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningmusic (talk • contribs)
 * If you dispute any of the content of this article you are quite welcome to modify it. I could say more but we have rules about civility and it could get nasty. Jooler 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As an American it irks me to think someone would advocate the suppression of crimes for PR reasons. I have been fairly active on this article in trying to make sure it is shown that these are purely allegations, not facts. So long as the article maintains a neutral point of view, there is no reason why it should be removed. And if it comes out that these troops did in fact murder civilians, I hope they are punished as any other person would be punished. That's not anti-American, that's American. — Aiden 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The pictures look pretty factual to me :-( I wish it weren't so, but it's quite obvious now that these are not merely "allegations".  -- Cyde↔Weys  17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is objectively rational to use tactics like collective punishment to discourage terrorist insurgents. In the long run this will save many American lives. To punish our troops for using a rational approach is not American at all, it's the exact opposite... insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningmusic (talk • contribs)


 * collective punishment? - we are talking aboutthe murder of children here. You think that that is justified? I think you must be trolling. If not your position is illigical, atrocities like this always end up as a recruiting weapon for the very people that the perpretators are trying to get at. Perhaps you think the attack on Oradour-sur-Glane was objectively rational or Bloody Sunday (1920) or Bloody Sunday (1972) or French atrocities during the Algerian War of Independence, all of which did the perpetrators no good whatsoever. Jooler 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What kind of American are you Morningmusic? You're advocating Nazi policies for our troops and censorship of the media. What is the point in fighting for the liberation of a country if we're just going to flush all good accomplished down the drain by advocating such policies that are wholly un-American? — Aiden 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll. Derex 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: collective punishment. OK, I know I'm responding to a troll here but since the troll's viewpoint is likely to be common among the ignorant I will continue ...


 * It doesn't matter how rational or effective collective punishment is. What matters is that we (the United States) purport to be a society of laws.  What does matter is whether the uniform code of military justice and other laws that govern our military's behavior allow collective punishment or not (I'm confident they do not).  If collective punishment is deemed a necessary tool for military use then the appropriate laws need to be changed.  Simply ignoring the laws makes us savages no better than the alledged evil-doers we are fighting against. Funkyj 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Murder and the UCMJ. I've downloaded a copy of the UCMJ and reading over the section on murder there is reference to unlawful killing but I can't actually find (by searching) where it says that killing civilian children or other non-combatants is unlawful.  I'm sure it must be there somewhere.  Can some UCMJ please provide a reference? Funkyj 19:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Article 118 of the UCMJ refers to premeditated murder (equivalent to First degree murder in the US). It does not make any distinctions between civilians, children, non-combatants or one legged people.  Murder is murder.  Most likely though any conviction will not be for Article 118.  The most serious charges will most likely be under Article 119 which is manslaughter since it states: Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.  Other charges that may be applicable could include: Article 81 - Conspracy, Article 92 - Failure to obey an order & regulation, Article 93 - Cruelty and Maltreatment, Article 107 - False official statement and Article 134 - General Article (This is the catch all article that is often refered to as "Conduct Unboming")--Looper5920 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (Perhaps this tangent should be moved to the UCMJ discussion page?) Yeah, I read that but I expect that law to be precise. Presumably there is some precise wording in the UCMJ that tells the reader how to distinguish murder from killing a hostile enemy combatant.  To put it another way there must be some well defined rules that spell out when a soldier may kill another person legally.  As for your suggestion that The most serious charges will most likely be under Article 119 which is manslaughter, I would disagree.  In my reading the examples of sudden passion in the UCMJ don't appear to extend to killing defenseless women and children.  quote from UCMJ on manslaughter:
 * Examples of acts which may, depending on the circumstances, constitute adequate provocation are the unlawful infliction of great bodily harm, unlawful imprisonment, and the sight by one spouse of an act of adultery committed by the other spouse. Insulting or abusive words or gestures, a slight blow with the hand or fist, and trespass or other injury to property are not, standing alone, adequate provocation.
 * Perhaps the members of the court martial might view the execution of a person suspected of triggering the IED as manslaughter, I seriously doubt that the members will rule the execution of an entire household as manslaughter under the UCMJ. Funkyj 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read the "npov" criteria and tried to make this text more balanced, but my changes are constantly removed by liberals and foreigners. Could anybody please tell the American webmasters that this propaganda piece needs to go (I don't know where to tell)? To the Americans that keep removing my changes, shame on you. Supporting anti-American propaganda makes you no better than them.


 * Your changes have been removed by, among others, a Marine and a Marine OC. Knock off the trolling and stop putting words in servicemember's mouths. You're doing us a disservice. I'm of half a mind that you're a planted troll trying to discredit us by making us look like kooks.--Mmx1 12:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never claimed to be a servicemember, I'm just a supporter. While I am very grateful to our boys in uniform, there are indeed some kooky people in the military. Not all Marines are true patriots, there are groups like IVAW so being a Marine is no guarantee that you're not anti-American.


 * At least the members of IVAW had the sack to join and enter the ring. Your bravery seems to be limited to  Wikipedia.  Do all US veterans a favor and please stop.--Looper5920 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to find out, if those who post here claiming to be US-Americans, are really that? I have my doubts about those who don't sign their comments. Nevfennas 12:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, because it's just a troll, and not even a good one. Though he is getting some bites. Derex 15:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not bite but he's editing the article so some discussion is warranted. --Mmx1 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a pity. Just revert him then; the talk page comments above are prima facia evidence that he doesn't seek neutrality. We don't have to assume good faith beyond a reasonable limit. It's hard enough writing an article without having to pretend that blatant trolls are trying to be helpful. Derex 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert all this troll's POV-laden edits on sight. Skinnyweed 13:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

TBH the OP seems like he's trying to debase the more rightwing viewpoint of this topic by making it seem more absurd. I know americans have a reputation for being profascist over-patriotic/nationalistic and ignorant; but this guy takes it way past stereotype into parody and as for Morningmusic, if you look at his previous edits he's a known troll & vandal. Ignore and revert with extreme prejudice ;) 81.151.124.131 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Eye witness accounts
First of all, "Differing accounts" seems to be a good title. However, this part of the article is not at all about eye witness accounts. While one of the two might have been present (the other wasn't), it's not an account of the incident, but an observation of the general state of warfare in Iraq.


 * Hence changing the section title to Differing accounts. — Aiden 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

LA Times article in Developments
Nomen, it looks like you reverted my changes without reading the relevant discussion on this talk page, or at least without responding to it. I will try to draft a new section that meets your concerns, but if you find it necessary to revert again, please discuss it here. Thanks, TheronJ 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Improvised Explosive Device?
I think this term is undescriptive and overcomplicated. What is an IED? Can we just call it a bomb?

Also, what kind of IED sparked the Haditha killings? A landmine? A remote-controlled bomb?

IED for the term; it is not considered a bomb or a landmine because those are produce in quantity (usually) and there are specific procedures for dealing with them once they are identified. We don't know what kind of IED it was. htom OtterSmith 17:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let the UCMJ do its job!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.105.204 (talk • contribs)

"Attack" or "alleged attack"?
I'm inclined to think that the incident should be described as an "alleged attack", and I have now reverted two edits which removed the qualification. "Attack" implies that the civilians were targeted deliberately, and it is alleged that this was the case. The opinion that it was deliberate is widespread and even plausible, but as there has been no definitive ruling from the official investigations yet, I believe our NPOV policy requires us to qualify the statement for now.

This is mainly a statement to explain my reversions (and what I understand the consensus to be) to the editors who removed the word. However, if anyone wishes to make counter-arguments, please do so. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The attack was in no way "alleged" (unless you happen to be a tinfoil-hat type who believes the moon landing was a hoax). It happened. What's in dispute is whether the attack was unprovoked and a massacre of civilians. So "alleged" in this instance is just a weasel word.
 * Besides, the second sentence in the article
 *  It has been claimed that a squad of Marines killed 24 Iraqi non-combatants after their convoy was attacked by Iraqi insurgents using an improvised explosive device ...
 * ought to serve as sufficient disclaimer for any "neutrality" nitpickers. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There was an attack (possibly several attacks). It is alleged that the civilians were attacked by the Marines. Some have alleged that the civilians were attacked by the insurgants after the Marines left. Right now, it's all a ball of confusion. htom OtterSmith 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, what sense does it make to use the word "alleged" in front of "killings" in this article? Is there some doubt that people were killed? No, so what gives? People were killed, 24 of them. The debate concerns the marines' justification, and even the "debate" is becoming a bit of a joke. "Shooting five guys lying face down on the street in the back of the head? A clear case of self-defense." Right. What I want to know is, why do all the USMC hard players seem to come from El Paso?


 * Among the questions is who did which of the killings. I see no one saying that they didn't happen. --htom 22:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ungrammatical first sentence
The first sentence currently reads:
 * The Haditha killings (also called Haditha massacre, Haditha incident) was an attack on Iraqi civilians by United States Marines in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. 

This is obviously ungrammatical ("The (killings) was ..."). That's why I changed the order of terms in the sentence so the first term would be the singular "Haditha massacre", which would solve this problem. (Before, we had another similar problem: "The Haditha killings were an attack ..."). But someone didn't like this and changed it back.

I suppose what's there now is less glaringly wrong, since there's some distance between subject and verb, but it's still wrong. Short of renaming the article Haditha massacre, the better option in my view, I'd suggest a reordering of the terms to solve the number-agreement problem. Who really cares if the name of the article isn't the first term? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a style thing. How about

The Haditha killing (also called the Haditha massacre or the Haditha incident) is an (alleged) attack on Iraqi civilians by United States Marines in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. It has been claimed that a squad of Marines intentionally killed 24 Iraqi non-combatants after their convoy was attacked by Iraqi insurgents with an improvised explosive device which resulted in the death of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas.[1]

htom OtterSmith 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly no grammar expert but if the Haditha Killings is the proper name for the incident than the singular was would not be incorrect, just like "The United States is" is correct afaik, even though states is clearly plural. Otherwise, you could always have put incident (singular) as the front one as well....--Kalsermar 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm probably even less of a grammar expert(i'm a writer, i have people to do grammar for me :P ) but it could be that Killings is being used here as a noun in a similar way to 'the troubles' in Ireland. TBH i was expecting a revert to massacre by now.. But anyway I'd agree with ILike2BeAnonymous in that a simple reordering of terms, putting the most used one 'massacre', first would sort this problem out 81.151.124.131 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo

Partial retraction from Time
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649-4,00.html


 * In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME." In fact, Human Rights Watch has no ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group. TIME regrets the error.

Also kind of brushes across the fact that the 'journalism student' is also a 43 year old co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group 212.42.10.194 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * the fact that the student is 43 years old doesn't seem particularly important to me. The fact that he is a co-founder of HHRG does seem very relevant.  Presumably the point of background on the student is help readers determine what biases and agenda the student has.


 * I think your usage of "retraction" is incorrect here. TIME printed a correction, not a retraction.  A retraction is when someone comes back and says our original statement was just plain wrong.  here is a nice article discussing the differences between retractions, apologies and corrections.  It is my understanding that TIME, while making some factual corrections, is standing by the original story.  Funkyj 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From my understanding the student gave the tape to the human rights group, not that the student is a member of the group. -- zero faults  undefined  18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * AP world news story http://www.wral.com/apworldnews/9336366/detail.html Caption of the photo of Thaer al-Hadithi with the story: Secretary-General of the Hammurabi Organization for Human Rights and Democracy Monitoring, and also a Haditha resident who witnessed parts of the incident, Thaer al-Hadithi, gives a detailed account of the alleged massacre of 24 Iraqis by U.S. Marines last year, to an Associated Press reporter at the offices of the group in Baghdad, Iraq Tuesday, June 6, 2006. The US Marines allegedly stormed at least 20 homes after a deadly bombing in a security sweep that lasted up to nine hours, he said. htom OtterSmith 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we not going to include "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" to the description of Taher Thabet? I thought it was considered "highly relevant." As the article stands right now, it still just shows him as a generic "human-rights worker," which could mean anything to the reader. Now this is definitely a blog with an opinion, but it does summarize some interesting facts (just for the sake of simplicity here):
 * Al-Haditha is 43 years old. He "created" Hammurabi 16 months ago. (Before that he worked directly under the head of Haditha’s hospital, Dr. Walid al-Obeidi, who pronounced that all the victims had been shot at close range.)


 * In fact, al-Haditha is one of Hammurabi’s only two members. He serves as its "Secretary General" while the only other member, Abdul-Rahman al-Mashhadani, performs as its "Chairman.")


 * Al-Haditha is the one and only person behind this tape. He made it. And he sat on it for four months before turning it over to Time magazine.

Reuters has this :
 * ''Defense lawyers say the man described by Time as a journalism student, 43-year-old Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi, was in fact the founder of Hammurabi and one of only two employees.


 * "Not that a 43-year-old can't be a student or that an organization can't be two people, but these are the kinds of things that you would bring up" in court, the source said.''


 * A lawyer for one of the Marines under investigation, who also declined to be identified, said that Hammurabi was not a known or registered human rights organization and had no track record of reporting any other abuses.


 * "And it turns out these two employees have family members spending time in local prisons for insurgent activity," the attorney said. "I think the origins of the tape would have been better suited if it came from somebody who really did have altruistic motives in their heart."


 * Abdul Rahman al-Mashhadani, director of Hammurabi Human Rights and Democracy Monitoring, declined to answer questions from Reuters about the organization.


 * "We don't answer such questions that we consider as intelligence and information gathering," he said. "They (Reuters) should have monitored the media so that they can get a good image of us."''

Yahoo News also refers to this (HHRB & al-Haditha), in a piece by Fred Barnes. Those sources are just quick Google hits; I haven't done a ton of digging for more. I'm going to add HHRB to "human-rights worker" and include the link (as a ref) to the Reuters piece. I'd like to also add the Barnes piece, if nobody objects, but I'll wait for a response on that one (because it's Fred Barnes). --Beth C. 09:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged"
As of now no official investigation has been concluded and we have only conflicting reports as to what happened. Several Marines have stated these people were not civilians, while several others have stated they were. For those who do not know, Wikipedia maintains a policy of a neutral point-of-view, meaning we do not take a side. We simply are to report what X says about Y. In this case, X has alleged that Y killed civilians. Thus, it is a violation of NPOV to say "The Haditha killings was an attack on Iraqi civilians" when we have no idea whether they were or not. Basically, that's saying "Wikipedia disbelieves the account of the Marine." However, it is perfectly neutral to say that "The Haditha killings was an alleged attack on Iraqi civilians" as that shows that the Marines have been accused of these atrocities, which they have. For some reason, User:ILike2BeAnonymous continues to remove the word alleged and revert any readdition. I feel this is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV and a form of POV-pushing, as it seems he (unlike the rest of the world) knows 100% certain what happened on that day. — Aiden 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term alleged should be used until an investigation has proven otherwise. Wikipedia articles should not appear to be laying guilt or innocence, however they are currently allegations and should be referenced as such. -- zero faults  undefined  18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But in the first paragraph, it says that they were civilians - it is implied by "including children as young as two years and women". I agree with the the problem of judging wheter the Marines actually killed any of them, deliberately or accidentally, therefore I have edited it. The only problem was that there were people dead - "alleged attack" also seems to imply nothing happended. 203.173.153.74 10:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I changed it say "24 people were killed, allegedly Iraqi civilians, by marines." I don't think maries are saying they did not kill these people anymore, its just now they are saying they were insurgents right? So that is why I changed it from saying allegedly by marines. -- zero faults  undefined  12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The allegation is that Marines intentionally killed 24 non-combatant Iraqi residents of Haditha; don't move the goalpost.


 * If the Marines killed 24 insurgents in combat, or some smaller number of insurgents in combat with the remainder accidentally killed in the combat ... that's what the Marines who issued the initial report claimed. The Marines being blamed are claiming that they did not claim that any Iraqis were killed in the bomb blast, and say that that misunderstanding was made further up the chain of command. htom OtterSmith 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the extra "allegations' in "Allegations of Evidence for the alleged killings" since it looks silly. Or you could make it "Purported allegations of irrelevant and immaterial hearsay evidence of no probative value for the alleged accidental killings of people who were dead before the soldiers even got there but in perfect health when they left and the soldiers were never there in the first place but they were perfectly justified in killing them because it was self defense" if that would be more exculpatory. Edison 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening two sentences
They're ugly. I propose to change them to:

The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha massacre or the Haditha incident) occurred on November 19, 2005 in the town of Haditha, Iraq. A convoy of United States Marines was attacked with an improvised explosive device, which killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. Subsequently, it is alleged, the surviving Marines killed twenty-four Iraqi non-combantants.

htom OtterSmith 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Take out the superfluous "surviving" and I'll endorse it; only one Marine was killed, so it's not as if only half the squad was alive to participate in the (alleged, of course) killings. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I used "surviving" to distinguish those who survived the IED attack from the other Marines that were there over the day. htom OtterSmith 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, the term is doubly inappropriate, as there may have been "survirors" (meaning those who weren't killed in the attack) who couldn't participate in the killings as they were wounded. I'd say just drop it; it falls into the category of "unnecessary and superfluous words that people often insert into articles here in hopes of making them more 'encyclopedic'".
 * By the way, what does "htom" mean? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There were wounded; how many, and whether or not they participated or were even conscious I don't know. How about "remaining Marines"?  htom (a Unix-ism for H. Thomas) OtterSmith 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence needs to be restructed, surviving marines seems to mean all alive marines as the subject prior is the death of Terrazas. Changing it to remaining marines symbolizes the same thing, unless you state some marines may have been incompacitated, I do not think simply changing the wording will help. I think this is the unfortunate result ofa lack of publically available information about what happened. -- zero faults  undefined  18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, the only serious complaint is about "surviving", the rest of the change is acceptable? I'll put it in as ... alleged, one, some, or all of the surviving Marines ... and people can play with the qualifier, unless there's some other objection. htom OtterSmith 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Zerofault's changes in the section above work better I think. — Aiden 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Or:
 * The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha massacre or the Haditha incident) occurred on November 19, 2005 in the town of Haditha, Iraq. A convoy of United States Marines was attacked with an improvised explosive device, which killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. Subsequently, it is alleged, an unknown number of those Marines killed twenty-four Iraqi non-combantants.
 * htom OtterSmith 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Going once ... htom OtterSmith 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Nice work. -- zero faults  undefined  20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Going twice ... htom OtterSmith 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. htom OtterSmith 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Veterans Point of View
Having served as a US Army Infantryman in Iraq for a year, I will tell you straight up that the insurgents attempt to take advantage of the average grunt's sense of decency by using "non-combatants" as human sheilds, observers and artillery spotters. These acts I've seen personally. I've seen boys on bicyles ride up to unwary soldiers and stuff the muzzles of pistols up under their body armor and shoot them. I have personally killed a 14 year old boy who was aiming an AK-47 at me. Knowing what I know about Iraqi insurgents and their ability to terrorize civilians into doing their will and knowing soldiers and marines like I do, I would have to say that the Iraqi version of events is reasonably unlikely. Refusal of Iraqis to turn over the bodies of the alleged victims only reinforces this belief. However if it turns out that Marines did in fact target unarmed civillians in some sort of revenge killing, then the people involved should get the harshest punishment allowable by law. Lastly, both sides of this debate are too quick to give the accused attributes that don't accuratly reflect their true nature. These are not knights in shining armor that their supporters would portray them as, nor are they the blood thirsty killing machines that "soldier haters (if the shoe fits)" would portray them as. These people are just regular folks with a very hard job to do. No one who has never fought on the unconventional, non-linear battlefields of Iraq can say that they or anyone else could have done any better in similar circumstances.

Matt Epps


 * From what I understand, they do not turn over the body because of religious reasons, the bodies cannot be dug back up unless an ayatollah permits it, am I right? The real problem I have is the doctor that performed the examinations of the bodies was a doctor who claims to have been kidnapped and tortured by US soldiers, a bit of conflict of interest. I would think people seeking justice would turn over the bodies to accomplish just that, then again according to their beliefs the bodies cannot goto heaven then, I think. Am I getting this wrong? -- zero faults   ' '' 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ayatollah is a Shia title. The article is dealing with Sunni people, but the point is correct.  Exhumations in the Muslim world are extremely rare, and usually not up to the surviving family to decide.  Brian1975 05:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Epps again: So if the bodies were buried in accordance to Islamic practice and then exumed, do the deceased get booted out of heaven? It seems rather convienient that the best physical evidence to support their claims is off limits. Like everyone else, I'd like to know the truth, and those bodies are the best evidence to either confirm or deny that the said killings happened the way they have alleged.

SPC Epps, it's not a matter of the deceased being "booted out of heaven", it's simply a matter of religious requirements. I think you'd find that truly devout persons of ANY faith would refuse to violate their religious dictates, regardless of whether it would be helpful in a court case. I'm hardly a "soldier hater", despite my disgust for and opposition to the war, I have respect for the sacrifices of the good soldiers out there. But those sacrifices do not constitute an excuse for murdering the unarmed and innocent. As a patriotic American (conservatives don't "own" patriotism), I believe that these soldiers should be even more accountable for commiting these crimes while wearing our nation's uniform and fighting under our flag. They tarnish all americans with their actions, and I find it hard to believe that a truly patriotic American could defend them, only someone desperately clinging to a political agenda, or a manipulated ignorant. -Z.I.

Ethics seminars
User:ILike2BeAnonymous, I'm in two minds about reverting it again but I'll give you a bit of time to explain why this statement you reverted back in needs to stay in. What makes what one BBC analyst thinks many other people might think worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedic article? What about all the other statements regarding this incident that are not included? What makes this so important other than that it is a POV statement?--Kalsermar 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Its pure POV, except its a newspaper writer with a long line of articles attacking the US. The section comparing this to My Lai is similarly pure POV.


 * MOVED My Lai discussion to a new section below. --Beth C. 11:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Murder Charges
I added a "Murder Charges" sub section to the developments section based on a new Reuters report. Sysrpl 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That should be reverted; this is about a different incident, in Hamdaniya. Which should probably have its own entry, so that we can have distinguishing links of some kind. It's complicated enough without mixing two different incidents. htom OtterSmith 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It does, it's Hamdania incident (in the see also). Wiki spelling dropped the "y".Doing the move now. --Mmx1 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The spelling seems to change depending on who you ask. I think it was first stated that the y was not suppose to be there. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarifying, I'm moving the Reuter's report, not the article. Agreed that spellings do vary and I would leave the article unless there's compelling arguments for a different spelling. --Mmx1 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No compelling arguements, I thought you were moving the article not the Reuters report. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Living conditions
I added the following text to the living conditions sections, but it was almost instantly removed:


 * It can be argued that the for the US soldiers, which are accustomed to the superior living standards of the US, these conditions in large part acted as a trigger for the events. The same excuse cannot be invoked by the Iraqi insurgents as they have been accustomed to living in squalor most of their lives.

What is the point of the living conditions section if not to make this point explicit? 84.48.58.93 14:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article which mentioned the poor living conditions uses it as an example of the unit's lack of disipline. The trashed and makeshift housing was created by the soldiers, not the environment. --waffle iron talk 15:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Plain and simple: the statement is original research. — Aiden 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure it's OR, but the real problem with it is that it is incorrect, ignorant and bigoted; Iraqis enjoyed a very high standard of living (albeit under repressive totalitarianism) before they were invaded and their country blasted back into the dark ages. &#0151; JEREMY 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Take your politics somewhere else.--Looper5920 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The living conditions statement is very critical to this piece of work, although I don't agree with the assessment that the Iraqis "liv[ed] in squalor most of their lives." Throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's, Iraq was considered a first world nation, with their currency exchange rate about US$3.22 to 1 Iraqi Dinar throughout the 70's and 80's.  Immediately after the war in 2003, the exchange rate had flipped to be about 1,600 Iraqi Dinar to one US dollar, or $0.000625 per dinar.  This is a devaluation of over 5,000%.  This is not politics, this is verifiable fact.  Many Arab Iraqis, in predominately Sunni areas, feel that their lives under Saddam's rule was much better than it is now, and living conditions are most often cited as the reason why.  For the US Marines sent to live in FOB's in areas like this, it is irresponsible to report on the incident without citing the causes and triggers that allowed a situation such as this to develop and eventually occur.  In the US, we treat individuals who are incarcerated for heinous crimes to a better standard of living than we do to the men and women who volunteer to work for the military and get sent to hostile places to work.  This also is not politics, but fact.  The standard of living on a small FOB in a hostile territory is quite low-- extreme heat, massive amounts of dirt/sand that permeate everything, lack of running water and poor sanitation, lack of recreation, high casualty rates among their friends, lack of adequate medical care, and a host of other factors all contribute to a resentment that develops toward the people of Iraq, and toward the establishment that sent them there in the first place.  These factors are critical to understanding why this situation happened.  If we don't answer the why, then what's the point of an encyclopaedia? Brian1975 06:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is to be (sadly) expected that many marines and their terminally credulous sycophants "back home" will seize upon any excuse, rationale, or other mechanism of "blaming the victim" to lessen the crimes documented at this article. "My country, right or wrong", "Those poor marines, living in such filth!", "Look at what the enemy did to them before these crimes were committed!", blah blah blah.  However, it is not expected that these persons can come here and spew their blithering whitewash nonsense.  Are not the blogs enough for them?  Isn't there a sufficient amount of media time devoted to rah-rah support of the troops, even as they engage in activities like this?  Just about everyone else recognizes that this sort of thing just gives the USA an increasingly bad name, and that these charges are a Good Thing and that if there is in fact a defence, it is for the charged to make, not their clueless supporters via Wikipedia proxy.


 * So, to answer your last question directly: it is, in fact, not the job of this encyclopedia to "answer the why".  If you want that answer, you must find it within the confines of a reliable source and, if you wish, communicate a summary of your findings here, with reference(s) affixed.  Anything else is a slam-dunk violation of WP:OR (please pay particular attention to the part about stringing together other arguments or facts to make a new argument that has not been published previously), and can be summarily removed without (gasp!) your permission.  201.224.130.145 10:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the job of ANY encyclopaedia, not specifically this one, to answer the who, what, when, where, how, and WHY of an event or item that is being written about. To do less than this is not to advance all knowledge about a particular subject.  I fail to see where my statement about the living conditions being a known cause for the event to place the blame on the victims (the Iraqi inhabitants of the town) in any way.  As for sourcing the material, I know one of the Marines at Haditha that actually pulled the trigger and I have seen the unpublished photographic proof of what happened myself.  Additionally, I have been to Iraq eleven times and witnessed the deplorable conditions first hand.  I doubt any decent article on the origins of World War 2, or any other "incident," would be complete without a discussion of the events that led to the instigation of that war by Herr Hitler.  Likewise, a WP article about an incident like Haditha is no more current or complete than a 10 second sound byte on a major American TV network if it fails to discuss the event in depth, including what caused it.  Brian1975 14:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A Crock of POV

 * 1) There shouldn't be a redirect for "Haditha Massacre."
 * 2) There is no mention of the frag and clear doctrine used by the Marine Corps when securing buildings that are actively firing upon them, mainly because 99% of Wikipedia editors are more concerned with anime, C++ and yoga. (a general criticism, not a personal attack, so don't even try)
 * 3) "B-B-B-B-But Haizum, why don't you cite the contextual information?" Because it should be done correctly the first time. Haizum 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, not to mention that 70% of the editors involved with this article are POV by their own admission. Haizum 01:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quick question, why shouldn't there be a redirect for Haditha massacre? It may be POV, but we are trying help our readers. Many may type in "hadita massacre", so it would be very appropriate to redirect them here, rather than just leave that page as empty. Seems like a valid redirect. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that explaination. Thanks. Haizum 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that a redirect might prevent someone from creating the massacre article anew not knowing that the incident one already exists--Kalsermar 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Section with Claims made in Recent NewsMax Article
I'm probably stepping into a snake pit here, but I felt that given the citation of all the news articles claiming that the Marines did carry out a massacre, it is only fair to cite the NewsMax article that makes counter-claims that are completely irreconcilable with conventional wisdom on the case.

I hope that in the interest of fairness people are willing to include this.

My gut instinct is that we are never going to know what happened at Haditha given the fact that the alleged crime scenes were not preserved and the fact that the insurgent control of the town is so pervasive.


 * Any other source than NewsMax? Somehow, relying on such a source alone is not reliable. Mutiple sources is better (See Verifiability and Reliable_sources) 203.109.210.197 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also need to paraphrase this large verbatim quote:

"Within minutes of the early morning IED explosion, a firefight erupted between insurgents and Marines. Civilians were caught in the middle of the firefight. Also, although civilians did die, their deaths were the result of door-to-door combat as the Marines sought to clear houses and stop the insurgent gunfire.

Ample evidence proves that a firefight took place. For example, every second of the ensuing firefight was monitored by numerous people at company, battalion, and regimental HQs via radio communications.

Video evidence supports the Marines' claims. Within a very few minutes, battalion, regimental, and division headquarters were able to watch the action thanks to an overhead ultralight aircraft that remained aloft all day. Photos of some of the action were downloaded and in the hands of Marines and the NCIS.

Some of the insurgents involved in planning the attack and firing at Marines during a daylong engagement have been apprehended and are in custody." 203.109.210.197 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My Lai comparisons
(Moved from Ethics seminars, above)

Definitely agree w/r/t the My Lai section being "pure POV." I'm of a mind to delete it right now. Or shall I also include the comparisons that can and have been made to other incidents where "insurgents" have killed civilians and made it look as though the murder was committed by US forces? Or more specifically, how about Ilario Pantano? It was "alleged" in his case, and he was cleared--after irreparable damage to his career, and likely, to his reputation as a human being. Comparing this in WP to My Lai gives the connotation of guilt. Comparing this to Ilario Pantano would similarly carry the connotation of the wrongfully accused/innocence. On second thought, I am deleting the My Lai thing for that reason if nobody can provide sufficient reason not to in the next day or so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beth C. (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 July 2006.


 * I'm afraid you misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy. It's not POV to describe a POV position, as long as the description is done in a neutral fashion (i.e. not asserting that the POV position is definitively true). It's certainly true that many media outlets have invoked the comparison - whether that's justified is another matter. I've expanded the section a bit to make the context clearer. -- ChrisO 07:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, thank you for responding. I probably should have just started a My Lai section (?), because the My Lai issue appears to be a point of contention with several people.  I guess I didn't make it clear why I believe it's a POV issue; it's the issue of people with a specific POV in the media/commentators comparing it to My Lai (biased sources). From the Al Jazeera link:
 * the United for Peace and Justice, (UFPJ), a coalition of more than 1400 international and U.S.-based organizations opposed to the U.S. "government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building," issued a press release, likening the brutal massacre in the Iraqi town to My Lai Massacre ...
 * (internal UFPJ link only added here) That's a very biased source. There are plenty of other sources who would claim the opposite.  Would you prefer I get sourced statements from people opposed to groups such as UFPJ that condemn such comparisons/make comparisons to Ilario Pantano/other such statements?  Or do you agree that an Al Jazeera article quoting a UFPJ press release is not a "reliable source" and thus the comparisons from such groups can be deleted? (And can we just move this to a separate section--sorry, my mistake adding the original comment to the wrong section!)  Thanks :-)  --Beth C. 10:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We're dedicating a entire section to hypothetical comparisons with a massacre that occurred in a different war in a different country in a different century. Systematic POV if I've ever seen it. — Aiden 13:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand what the WP:NPOV policy requires. ILike2BeAnonymous put it better than I could in his edit summary: "the fact that a significant body of opinion draws a connection here is worthy of inclusion, regardless of whether you agree with it or not." There's absolutely no doubt that a significant body of opinion does draw this connection, as only a few minutes' searching on Google News or other news databases shows - I found 50 British newspaper articles making the connection in the last month alone. Obviously it's a contentious comparison, but it exists, it's been widely discussed and it's notable. These factors make it worth mentioning in the article. -- ChrisO 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That many agree with the POV and the implications (American troops are out-of-control thugs) and hoped for effects (if we publicise this enough, the Americans will go home again) of that POV does not mean that it should not be called that and does not mean that it is true. --htom 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but according to Wikipedia standards, the ubiquitous connection between My Lai and Haditha satisfies WP:NPOV, specifically:
 * We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia.
 * Keep the notable (1400 groups unified) comparison in and cite any notable opinions on the matter that differ, per Beth C.'s facetious suggestion. --kizzle 03:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done, sweetie, quite unfacetiously. I'll be happy to add more, since you asked.  ;-)  --Beth C. 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob, just be a bit discriminate with what you choose to put in (on both sides). :) --kizzle 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I still challenge the sources used as not being "reliable sources," particularly UFPJ. If it stands, I'll just add sources that are fiercely defending these Marines.  I'm not deleting the objectionable sources because I'd much rather come to an agreement on the issue, but I insist that the article gives the implication of guilt, where the presumption should obviously be "innocent until proven guilty."  It is *not* balanced, and would not lead readers to come to their own conclusions. --Beth C. 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also "the fact that a significant body of opinion draws a connection here is worthy of inclusion, regardless of whether you agree with it or not" reminds me of this. A significant body of opinion *also* believes that this is *not* "My Lai."  IL2BA is also the one who was removing "alleged," when nobody has even been indicted. --Beth C. 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so quote both the people comparing it to My Lai and those who dissent. That's presenting both sides. --kizzle 05:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NewsMax's claims
I reformatted the article to make it more structured, and added some quotes. What do you think?

Also, is NewsMax a credible source for "Allegations of Evidence Supporting the Marines' Version of Events"? Since it's not yet reported in any of the mainstream media after a week, I propose to remove that section. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  08:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Somewhat credible; at least as credible as some of those accusing the Marines of war crimes. Time Magazine seems to be quietly backpedaling from some of the accusations, according to the opinion piece at by Mary Kathrine Hall at TownHall.com (last of the external links.) Someone has already removed that bit of POV, however. (The section, not the link to TownHall; it will be interesting to see what happens next.) -- htom 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it as credible? So, is NewsMax as credible as the Time?. I personally think that the media sources which have accused the marines of war crimes are much more credible.It's still suprising how many newspapers haven't picked up this new evidence. I think we should wait till "Allegations of Evidence Supporting the Marines" is covered in the mainstream media, before we include it in the article. Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  06:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see at all how it is any less credible than many other news outlets that have an overtly left-wing bias, like the Guardian, NPR, and Slate. I think it's unfair to characterize it as not being a credible source when SO many sources from the left are used quite liberally (no pun intended) throughout the article (and elsewhere in Wikipedia).  I mean this completely in good faith, Vorpal, but might you be considering such media sources (the Guardian, etc.) "more credible" because they just make more sense to you personally?  I certainly don't consider them any more credible than Newsmax.  They just have a larger circulation (or at least the Guardian and NPR do; I don't know if Slate does).  On that basis, will you consider reverting again to reinsert that story?  --Beth C. 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the issue of NewsMax's general credibility or readership is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. Surely the more important issue is whether its claims have been substantiated elsewhere? It's significant that they apparently haven't been. Many of Time's original claims were later substantiated by further reporting from other media outlets as well as comments from the military, Congressmen etc. By contrast, NewsMax seems to be isolated in making its claims. I think Vorpal's approach is right - a single-sourced claim which hasn't been endorsed by anyone else isn't really appropriate to include at this stage. (See WP:RS.) If other outlets do follow up the NewsMax story, then we should include it, but right now it's not really appropriate. -- ChrisO 09:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. If other outlets carry this story, only then we should include it. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How much of the confirmation is merely rewriting of Time's account? -- htom 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the US press, but I can tell you that the Times of London did its own investigation which provided additional details as well as corroboration of Time magazine's account. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2201470_1,00.html . The Times by the way is generally regarded as a right-wing newspaper. The reporting of this issue on all wings of the UK press has been very critical of the US, so there's no perceptible left/right division on the issue over this side of the pond. -- ChrisO 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't NewsMax reporting included in this article (both recent aarticles written in 2007)? This Wiki article is currently a blatant cover up of all reports defending the Marines and completely maligns them. Can anyone explain why these NewsMax articles are not even mentioned in this article??? Much of this material describes the scene of action entirely, much of which has been ignored by many media outlets. Gaytan 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/17/212703.shtml?s=lh
 * http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh

Introduction
I think that the introduction can be improved to explain about the haditha killings. I think the intro as it stands now, with the line "A convoy of United States Marines was attacked with an improvised explosive device which killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas." isn't really needed in the intro, and doesn't explain what the Haditha killings actually are.

IMO, a better intro would be "The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha massacre or the Haditha incident) refers to alleged killings committed by U.S. Marines on up to twenty-four local Iraqi residents, in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005 . It is alleged that the local residents were massacred by the Marines in the aftermath of an insurgent attack.[1]

What do you think? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the events leading up to it are essential.--Kalsermar 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree, no need to make it a lifeless sentence. Prefer the detail.--Looper5920 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, the events prior to the massacre aren't relevant to the events of the Haditha killings.81.152.196.24 12:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo
 * Of course they're relevant. The basic allegation is that the killings were revenge killings executed by the Marines. If you remove that motivation, you're going to have to invent another reason for the killings, even if it's that Marines are wandering around Iraq randomly killing people. Since the reason is known, put it in, in cronological order. --htom 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's warfare, one group of combatants attacking another group of combatants isn't exactly an exceptional event, there are other equally possible causes of the massacre; poor disipline, poorly operated chain of command etc. I fail to see why this one excuse is Put first and foremost in an article about a seperate event. Or am i wrong in thinking this article was meant to be about the Massacre, rather than the excuses for the massacre(If so i could set up a seperate article for the massacre if necessary); If not then wouldn't it make sense to start the introduction with information about the event the article is meant to describe? As it is it's the equivillent of starting an article on World War II with "The treaty of versaille was harsh and left germany jaded and economically crippled, it was this treaty which caused a chain reaction leading to the 'alleged' World War II." Wouldn't it make sense to start with the events of the massacre and keep the excuses somewhere further down(or in a different article).? 81.132.51.164 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo
 * No, it wouldn't. As you said, "It's warfare, one group of combatants attacking another ...." You seem to want to leave out what appears to be the initial attack, pretending that it didn't happen at all. We could leave out all of the deaths -- which are, after all, only an excuse for the trials -- and write about the slowness of the legal process, but I doubt that you'd want to take your principle that far. --htom 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * not exactly, I wouldn't remove the information about the events leading up to the massacre. I just think that it's completly out of place dominating the introduction to the article as it does. Isn't the purporse of the introduction to introduce the item that the article is about? That's certainly the case with every other article i've ever seen on Wikipedia. Strangely in this article this whole introduction section, barring the first sentence is about the build-up to the massacre not the massacre itself, surely this belongs elsewhere under a different subtitle. As it is, it sounds as though the convoy attack was the 'Haditha massacre'(a.k.a whatever) as the actual attack on Haditha is barely mentioned at all in the introduction... 81.132.51.164 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

Names of militaly involved
Sergeant Raymond Girouard, Private First Class Corey Clagett and Specialists William Hunsaker and Juston Graber - all of the 101st Airborne Division

Those are charged in a different case, as you can tell from the 101 Airborne tag (Army, not Marines.) --htom 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Elaborating, this occurred 9 May 200(6?) near Samarra.  ... Girouard, Hunsaker, Clagett and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the shooting deaths. The first three are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill Mason, the prosecution's leading witness.

The accused soldiers and Mason are members of the Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. ...

--htom 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

News
Some news guys: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/180806Haditha.htm] --Striver 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, more anonomous gossip reported as news. Interesting that no one's reported Kline's claim to have been misquoted and that Murtha's being accused of lying about when he was briefed. --htom 05:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reuters is a "anonomous gossip"? Sure, whadever...


 * Reuters isn't anonomous, but their source is. Hence, anonomous gossip reported as news. --htom 21:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you just invent a new rule? Did you just say that news on Reuters is not reliable if they keep their informants secret? --Striver 15:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an old rule, which seems to have been mostly forgotten, even though it was a very good rule. If you won't put your name on the story you're telling, in my opinion, the story should be looked at skeptically, not taken as being more likely to be true because the story's told anonomously (which seems to be the new and to me, foolish, rule.) --htom 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is more news: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_Haditha.htm Marine officer saw Haditha deaths as normal] --Striver 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Interview with one of the Marines who saw the scene within a couple of hours of the happening.


 * A sergeant who examined the scene hours after Marines killed two dozen Iraqis in Haditha last year said the shootings appeared to be an appropriate response to a coordinated insurgent attack, according to a sworn statement obtained by The Washington Post.


 * Sgt. J.M. Laughner, part of a Marine human-intelligence exploitation team that was hunting down insurgent bombmakers, went from house to house in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, and acknowledged finding two dozen bodies, including some of women and small children.


 * But Laughner said the scenes of the slayings appeared to match the version of events the Marine squad provided that day and did not seem especially out of the ordinary, according to a transcript of Laughner's interview with military investigators in March.

(There's more there.) --htom 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

External Link Deleted

 * ''The Massacre of Haditha - The Revenge Killing of 24 Iraqi Civilians Documentation of the Haditha killings

More of a hyperbolic allegation than documentation. --htom 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't bother to take it out again, since I don't want to start an edit war about it, but it is a collection of links primarily to the allegations made by those who are convinced that the Marines are guilty ("expose-the-war-profiteers.org" is a credible source?!), it is not documentation of the events that happened. I suppose it could be considered documentation of the allegations. --htom 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we reach NPOV here by linking some other well referenced page to balance it. Meggar 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strange form of NPOV, doubly-biased-if-available POV I'd call it. --htom 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to an open letter that warns of the dangers of railroading those accused. "Open Letter to Gen. Mattis" http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/09/from_the_marine.html#more --htom 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good letter htom. We need to be NPOV. External links aren't required or expected to be, seldom are, since writers work to get across their point of view rather than to make an encylopedia. Maybe the best ones start with "Expose-the-war-profiteers" or "From the Marines". It saves us the work of figuring out what they want to say. Meggar 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Crimes of War Project external link
Someone else look and decide whether or not to delete this; note that the article in their right hand sidebar at the linked story seems to have a considerablely less biased viewpoint. --htom 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The story it links isn't that biased, it does all the 'allegedly's in the right places and has good information on the posibility of command responsibility and what is likely to happen next. I say leave it.81.152.196.24 12:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

Pictures
Would anyone object to the inclusion of a stillshot from the video? ATM the map of iraq with the word 'Haditha' on it doesn't really add that much to the article. It would be easy enough to obtain but I thought I'd ask before doing anything because pictures of bullethole sprayed bedrooms, morgues, crying mothers, dead children etc. All tends to be inherently POV...

81.151.124.131 13:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ELMO

Text from Diana Irey article
The article on Republican candidate Irey is undergoing an AfD, and I expect the decision to be "delete". That article contains text on the Haditha killings (specifically, on Murtha's comments) that seem more detailed than what is now in the article. I'm not interested enough to sort through the text and links to see what really should go here, so I'm posting the text for anyone else who might be interested to look through it and incorporate it as desired. John Broughton |  Talk 15:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Congressman Murtha's statements came during an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; they came before Murtha was briefed by Marine Corps Commandant General Michael Hagee on the Haditha killings. However, according to Mark Zaid (an attorney for one of the accused) Murtha maintains that he had been “briefed by several Defense Department officials” on the matter before making his statements.  As of 2 August 2006, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed a lawsuit against Congressman Murtha for character defamation during an ongoing investigation into the Haditha incident.  Donald Ritchie, associate historian in the Senate Historical Office, said “that such defamation suits happen from time to time but that they tend not to go anywhere because of the constitutional protections members have.” Murtha's statements are said to be based on a report prepared by the military in  July.

Ethics Seminar
I agree that the information is useful, but could it be expanded on? Or I was thinking of trying to fit it into the 'Reactions' section.. To be quite honest, it's mainly just a style and flow issue but a sub section for a single sentence is a little inelegant, no? 81.152.196.46 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo


 * There isn't any justification for that being a separate section. As for the "Reactions" section, that title implies sort the section is about "How people responded".  In fact, it's most facts about the incident's aftermath, and about the coverup and investigations.  If I had more time, or interest in the article (and an unknown amount of time to defend my changes), I'd reorganize the article to make it flow a lot better (I think).  Since I don't have that time, I encourage someone else to make this article read more like a story and less like a conglomeration of unrelated paragraphs.   John Broughton  |  Talk 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I Deleted it as what small amount of information it contained was of little worth, had no citations and isn't really connected to the massacre closely enough to justify it's presence. In the context of the massacre it only served to portray US marines as too stupid to realize shooting elderly non-combatants pointblank in their own homes is "unethical". 81.151.124.255 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Charges to be announced
It'll be interesting to see what happens. 59.92.48.21 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Supposed to be a press conference later today where all of the charges will be announced. htom 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, the charges. Eight charged, four with murder.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 26, unpremeditated murder of 18 civilians; one count of making a false official statement; one count of soliciting another sergeant to make false official statements.

Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, 24, unpremeditated murders of five people; making a false official statement with intent to deceive.

Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 22, unpremeditated murder of three Iraqis.

Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, 25, unpremeditated murders of two Iraqis; negligent homicide of four Iraqi civilians; assault upon two Iraqis.

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, 42, failing to obey an order or regulation, encompassing dereliction of duty.

Also charged were 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson, 25, Capt. Lucas McConnell, 31, and Capt. Randy Stone, 34, a military attorney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC). Smart robot. Sorry. Still no word on the charges for the last three, other than a vague "failure to properly report". htom 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Official Charges and Specifications
Haditha, Iraq Investigation

Preferred Charges and Specifications

Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Chessani

Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92

Specification 1 (Violation of a lawful order): wrongfully failed to accurately report and thoroughly investigate a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war by Marines under his command. (Maximum punishment dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years)

Specification 2 (Dereliction): willfully failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters. (Maximum punishment: Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)

Specification 3 (Dereliction): willfully failed to direct a thorough investigation into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. (Maximum punishment: Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)

Sergeant Sanick P. De La Cruz

Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118

(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment: such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life]

Specification 1: did murder Ahmed Khutar Musleh, also known as Ahmed Fenr Muselh.

Specification 2: did murder Wagdi Aida Alzawi, also known as Wgedi Aida Abd.

Specification 3: did murder Kaled Aida Alzawi, also known as Kaled Aida Abd.

Specification 4: did murder Mohmed Tabal Ahmed, also known as Mohmed Betel Ahmed.

Specification 5: did murder Akram Hamid Flaeh, also known as Akram Hmid Fluih.

Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107

(False Official Statement)(Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years).

Specification: did with the intent to deceive, make to a false official statement.

First Lieutenant Andrew A. Grayson

Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92

(Dereliction) (Maximum punishment: Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)

Specification 1: willfully failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters.

Specification 2: willfully failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war.

Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107

(False Official Statement) (Maximum punishment: Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years)

Specification: did with intent to deceive, make a false official statement.

Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134

(Obstructing Justice) (Maximum punishment: Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years)

Specification: did wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation.

Captain Lucas M. McConnell 

Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92

(Dereliction) (Maximum punishment: Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)

Specification 1: willfully failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters.

Specification 2: willfully failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war.

Lance Corporal Justin L. Sharratt

Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118

(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment: such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life])

Specification 1: did murder Jasib Aiad Ahmed.

Specification 2: did murder Kahtan Aiad Ahmed.

Specification 3: did murder Jamal Aiad Ahmed.

Captain Randy W. Stone 

Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92

Specification 1(Violation of a lawful order): wrongfully failed to ensure accurate reporting and a thorough investigation into a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war by Marines from his Battalion. (Maximum punishment dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years)

Specification 2 (Dereliction): negligently failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters.

Specification 3 (Dereliction): negligently failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. (Maximum punishment: [willful] Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months [through neglect or culpable inefficiency] Dismissal, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months)

Lance Corporal Stephen B. Tatum

Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118

(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment: such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life])

Specification 1: did murder Noor Salim Rasif.

Specification 2: did murder Zainab Unes Salim.

Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134

(Negligent Homicide) (Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 3 years)

Specification 1: did unlawfully kill Abdul Hameed Husin Ali.

Specification 2: did unlawfully kill Guhid Abdalhamid Hasan.

Specification 3: did unlawfully kill Asmaa Salman Rasif, also known as Asamaa Salman Rasif.

Specification 4: did unlawfully kill Abdullah Waleed Abdul Hameed, also known as Abdullah Waleed Abdul.

Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128

(Assault) (Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 8 years)

Specification: did commit an assault upon Eman Waleed Al Hameed and Abid Al Rahman Waleed Al Hameed.

Staff Sergeant Frank D. Wuterich

Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118

(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment: such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life])

Specification 1: did murder Ahmed Khutar Musleh, also known as Ahmed Fenr Muselh.

Specification 2: did murder Wagdi Aida Alzawi, also known as Wgedi Aida Abd.

Specification 3: did murder Kaled Aida Alzawi, also known as Kaled Aida Abd.

Specification 4: did murder Mohmed Tabal Ahmed, also known as Mohmed Betel Ahmed.

Specification 5: did murder Akram Hamid Flaeh, also known as Akram Hmid Fluih.

Specification 6: did murder Huda Yasin Ahmed.

Specification 7: did murder Aida Yasin Ahmed.

Specification 8: did murder Mohmed Yunis Salim.

Specification 9: did murder Aisha Unes Salim.

Specification 10: did murder Sebea Yunis Salim.

Specification 11: did murder Zainab Unes Salim.

Specification 12: did murder Marwan Aiad Ahmed.

Specification 13: did murder six persons inside a house identified as House 1, by disregarding the requirement to have positive identification prior to engaging a target; and participating in clearing House 1 with deadly force without conducting positive identification prior to engaging individuals in House 1.

Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134

(Soliciting Another to commit an offense) (Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years)

Specification 1: did wrongfully solicit Corporal Dela Cruz to make a false official statement.

Specification 2: did wrongfully solicit Corporal Dela Cruz to make a false official statement.

Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107

(False official statement) (Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years)

Specification: did with intent to deceive, make a false official statement.

End-

Killings vs. Massacre
Interesting that this article is headed "Killings" while the shooting in Virginia Tech was a "Massacre". Is this depended on the nationality of the dead? --87.189.122.60


 * No. There's been lots of discussion of this here. Without trying to speak for others, in this case there were questions as to who did the killings and what instigated them. In the Virginia Tech case, who seems pretty solidly known, and that the victims were not instigators of the violence seems also well-known. htom 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In short the answer is yes. The decision to rename the article to 'killings' was mainly taken to placate right-wing US editors and USMC fanboys. Victims in Virginia were mostly US citizens and therefore the same editors are unlikely to kick up a fuss concerning that article. The article on the Haditha massacre in all probability won't get a more apt designation until enough time has passed for the murders to no longer be considered a political embarrassment for the American right and their beloved marine corps. I don't agree with it, but regrettably with wikipedia it's just the nature of the beast, rationality gives way to weight of numbers every time. Just grin and bear it until feelings surrounding the event have cooled. 81.151.124.185 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC) ELMO


 * Of course it was. I don't think massacre is very NPOV though; I think killings is better. I've been fighting to get the Virginia Tech page called Virginia Tech Shootings, as it was originally before some bleeding hearts felt it necessary to up the ante to massacre. Titanium Dragon 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed spelling of "Marine Corps". htom 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes using a less emotive out-of-place term like 'killings' or 'incident' in the place of the matter of fact 'massacre' can cause just as much damage to NPOV as it would be using a more emotive one like 'slaughter' or 'murders'. eg. If the article 'Nanking massacre' on the rape of Nanking had been renamed 'the Nanking incident', 'the Nanking killings' or 'the Nanking nastiness' then it would be obvious to all that it was politiziation of the events and a breach of NPOV. Articles like this only recieve special treatment because the perpetrators were yanks and the wikipedian USMC lobby has been increasingly defensive of late in the face of various war crimes and other embarassments. 81.151.124.255 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC) ELMO
 * Wahhhh.--Looper5920 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done, your most eloquent post yet. Of course there is the lesser issue with the 'killings' designation, and that is that we are now using less precise language to describe the range of the article. Unfortunately quite a few people have been killed in Haditha; 'Massacre' would be more obviously referring to these particular deaths. Combined with the inclusion of extraneous information on other deaths in the area, this brings an unwelcome degree of ambiguity to topic of the article. 81.151.124.255 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * I was responsible for the "killings" designation, way back in June 2006. Prior to that, it had pingponged between "massacre" and "incident". My decision to rename it had absolutely nothing to do with placating anybody - if an article's name is disputed it's standard practice on Wikipedia to find a neutral alternative that both sides can live with. In renaming the article, I followed the precedent that I'd set earlier on Borovo Selo killings, an article about an incident in the 1991 war in Croatia. There was a similar dispute in that case (Croatians call it a massacre, Serbs call it an incident). I resolved that dispute in the same way by renaming the article to "killings". It's possible to debate whether it's a "massacre" or an "incident" but nobody on any side can dispute the fact that people were killed. -- ChrisO 14:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your decision may not have been but the decision not to revert it was, but w/e that's irrelevant now.

The deniability of whether the title describes the events doesn't really come into it. Nobody could have rationally disputed that an "incident" took place or that there was a "massacre". The problem was and is the presumption of innocence or guilt implied with the words chosen for the article's title, thus breaching NPOV. The POV issue with the "killings" designation is that it's not a neutral alternative, it’s intentionally vague and by the very absence of the more matter of fact and precise "massacre" innocence is implied which is POV. 81.151.124.255 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * One way around the problem with the language being too imprecise would be to introduce a date into the title e.g. "The November 19, Haditha Killings" as was done with the 'september 11, 2001 attacks' article because as there have been several famous attacks on september 11(but only one notable one in 2001), there have been many killings in Haditha. How does this title currently distinguish between the assasination of the mayor or the snipers getting pwn'd and the massacre the article is meant to be about? Adding a date would remove this unwelcome ambiguity, so how would you guys feel about doing that? 81.153.253.94 09:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * From what I understand, the word 'massacre' was avoided at first, because some people felt that it was still unclear what actually had happend. Now a US soldier has testified, and (from my POV) has admitted that they carried out a massacre. So I think there's no reason not to use the word. I propose we change the name of the article to Haditha massacre. --Merat 23:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you accept changing it back when others testify that they did not commit a massacre? htom 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The defendants definitely have self interest in making this look like an accident, thus they aren't very credible. If we later get credible information saying that the killings was not intentional then I'm absolutely ready to change it back to "killings". So do you support a name change? --Merat 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not until there are convictions. The accusors definately have self-interest in making it look like a massacre. Take a deep breath and let the process play out. htom 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is completely obvious that a massacre has taken place, we don't need convictions write it out. And explain to me, what possible interest could Dela Cruz have in lying about the killings? --Merat 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His immunity agreement is that he will testify against the others? He's told four? five? six? versions of what happened? (Eyewitness testimony to events is frequently wrong, and it's possible that he just plain does not remember.) htom 13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense at all. You mean that he'll have to lie about his comrades in order to keep his immunty? To me, that sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory. And it is still obvious that a massacre has taken place. This special treatment of the US military is very frustrating. We don't have any convictions for the mass executions in Lidice, but wikipedia still calls it a massacre. --Merat 14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, it does. He doesn't have to lie, just tell the one story (of the many different stories he's already told) that makes the most sense to the prosecution. On cross-examination, I'm sure those other stories will be brought out. In the Lidice entry, massacre is used as a subheading, and the actions appear to have been ordered by higher authority several days later. htom 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest delete of Background section
''Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. military forces have been stationed in and around Haditha to control the Haditha Dam, a major hydroelectric installation. The predominantly Sunni-inhabited area was, from the start, a major center of insurgent activity[citation needed]. As early as June 2003, American soldiers attacked an insurgent training camp near Haditha.[citation needed] Many insurgent attacks followed in the next three years[citation needed], and the area gained a reputation as one of particular danger for US[citation needed] and Iraqi government forces.[citation needed] On August 1, 2005, six marine snipers were killed outside or near Haditha.[7] Two days later, on (August 3, 2005), 14 Marines were killed in their Marine amphibious assault vehicle by an IED.[8]''

This information has nothing to do with the Haditha massacre and serves no purpose unless you are trying to put the marines actions down to 'combat stress' which would be a POV issue. This article isn't on events in which US troops were attacked in the province or the area around Haditha and so this all falls outside of the scope of an article on the Haditha massacre and should therefore be deleted. I would 'be bold' but it's a fair bit of text and has been there for a while so I thought I'd ask for other views before doing anything. 81.151.124.255 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC) ELMO
 * How about this for an intro. I can't imagine you'll find any POV issues with it.  United States Marines are obviously brainwashed individuals who indiscriminately kill innocent people on a regular basis.  They are incapable of any kind of thinking or compassion because 1) they are American, 2) they obviously are incapable of original thought if they joined the military 3) do not posseess the same knowledge of the situation on the ground as I (81.151.124.255)  have gained sitting in front of my computer on my fat ass 4) they are American...let's not forget that 5) they are only their to kill Iraqis and other Arabs and have never once tried to help these people out.  Would that suffice for an intro?  Alleviate you POV concerns?--Looper5920 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * fixed Looper's spelling 81.151.124.255 13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) ELMO


 * Ah, a fine attempt at trollery sir. Looper here is a marvellous example of why this section in its current form is a POV problem. In the same way that Looper's attempt at sarcasm portrays the marine corps as morons, the 'background' section only serves to portray inhabitants of the area as evil insurgents and back up one side in a 'does combat stress justify war crimes' debate. If someone were to start an article that includes that in its scope then I would have no objections to that and would gladly contribute what I could, but the place for information on this debate is not here. The 'Introduction' section of the article already makes clear that the area around Haditha is a currently volatile place by detailing the events of the convoy attack that preceded the massacre, there is no need to list every single US soldier who has died in and around Haditha since the war begun. Doing so only makes it clear that the article is openly taking the side of the perpetrators of the Haditha massacre and is thus an apostasy of wikipedian values. 81.151.124.255 13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * You don't get it. The reason it is called a "killing" at the moment is that it has not been adjudicated.  I was not there when the events took place and I am sure that you were not so we don't know what happened until it is adjudicated.  When it is all done, if they are found guilty of a crime then you can change it to massacre.  If it is found that although they acted properly the people died then it should remain as is.  Hate to be the one to break this...but sometimes innocent people die in war and it is not always bloodthirst that causes it.  I know, I know, this is a new concept and the BBC and the Guardian tell you otherwise. Until then you can rant and rave and stomp your feet like a spoiled child but the title is correct.  Do us all a favor and take the time to read all of the above information before making everyone have to explain to every new editor why the title is what it is. --Looper5920 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Psst... Looper you posted this in the wrong part of the page, this is on the relevance of the information in the "background" section. I suggest you follow your own advice "and take the time to read all of the above information" and btw the article is on the Haditha Massacre not whether the USMC troops were guilty or not. Maybe they were all at a family barbeque at the time, there was still a massacre in Haditha. (please place your responding rant in the correct area of the talk page so we don't clog up discussion here.) 81.151.124.255 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * Well how about rewriting the background section so it doesn't mention the training camp raid or other combat unrelated to the massacre, but instead expands on the subject of the convoy attack here instead of doing it in the introduction. The convoy attack is curiously absent from "background" for something that is refered to later and yet we devote space to extraneous information on unrelated deaths... this chunk "Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. military forces have been stationed in and around Haditha to control the Haditha Dam, a major hydroelectric installation." is good though.SemperFideliS81 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed rationale section
I removed the rationale section. It should at least be renamed or the information should be integrated into other sections. We can hardly speak of "a rationale" for killing toddlers, etc. If the goal is to represent the accounts of troops involved in the killings, the section should have a title that reflects that. But to speak of a "rationale" here implies that the Haditha killings were a considered policy, not exceptional activities by particular troops. I consider that disrespectful of the military, among other things. But most relevant here: it's unencylopedic.Benzocane 03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair point, and a good edit. Besides some guy who sat next to some other guy who got killed before the events had even started only had the most tenuous of links to the "killings". Still, seeing as we have a quote from one of the victims, it would be good for NPOV to get a quote from one of the suspects or a marine source more closely related to them. And I agree that the whole "rationale" section implies policy, which the Haditha massacre was clearly not. This isn't the way the US military usually kills non-combatants it's clearly against the rules of engagement. 81.151.124.255 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Reword intro
I reworded the intro to ensure that the encyclopedia describes what the haditha incident is, and then describes the supposed rationale. Previously, the rationale was present first, followed by the actual incident.59.92.85.224 07:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ilario Pantano
I have reworded the section on him. As per my comments on Talk:Ilario Pantano, saying he was cleared of all charges is misleading since from what I can tell, the murder charge was dropped due to insufficient evidence (it was recommended the charge of conducting unbecoming of an officer be persued but this was not done for whatever reason). This is a different outcome from being cleared of all charges Nil Einne 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Film
I am inclined to think that discussion of the film should go on its own page, with links between this page and that. Agree? Disagree?


 * Kinda-Disagree, the film getting it's own article would be a good idea, but I think it's noteworthy enough to have a mention on the main article. But maybe the plot details, cast information & filming style is too much. Prehaps limiting the discussion of the film in this article to just noting it's existence, who the director is and when/where it will air would suffice? Elmo 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job everyone!
An article like this isn't easy, and this talk page shows how tough consensus can be to reach. But the article as I read it just now was really good; NPOV, encyclopedic, well-referenced...just very proud of all you editors for the work you did. I do think that the Camp Kilo section at the end is not relevant enough to the subject of the article though, and think it should be dropped, as well as the film section, about a project not yet released, that is essentially "based on a true story"; i.e. fiction. (Making up the dialogue as they go along is fine for Blair Witch Project, not so good for historical accuracy). Besides, it reads like a promotional press release. Just MHO, anyway, again, great job. Lipsticked Pig 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * heh that's strange, I was just thinking that. Well done everyone who's worked on this article so far, this sort of thing is always a tough article to write to a good standard. This article really has come along way, I'm a firm believer in the idea that every wikipedia article should try to be of a good enough standard to be a featured article(at the very least) and although we're not quite there yet, we've come along way in the right direction. Good job guys. Elmo 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

le sigh, It was all going so well too.. Elmo 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Merat's edits
Merat,

As OtterSmith suggested, I'm going to hold more changes until tomorrow. If no one else does it, I will revert your changes at that time.

Aside from the other reasons I gave that this might not be a war crime, I found an additional one on your very own talk own page:

As you yourself had said on your talk page (new link), "Attacking military is, according to most definitions, never terrorism, so don't be silly."

While that's not necessarily true, (the U.S.S. Cole was in a neutral port when attacked, and that makes a big difference), but let's assume for the moment that there is some element of truth in what you said. So, using your very own reasoning, "attacking insurgents is, according to most definitions, not a war crime."

Assuming you hate the Marines so much that your previous reasoning doesn't matter to you, you may also decide to call for a vote. As I've suggested before, it would be interesting if we were to change Wikipedia policy so that we can call things war crimes based only on our personal feelings. Wikipedia might get sued again for this, but I don't think it would affect you.

-- Randy2063 01:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Impressive detective skills you got there tiger, it's just that the piece of text that you found on my talk page (and which you referred to) was a draft for a post in another discussion, and is probably completely irrelevant to this discussion. Because war crimes and terrorism are two diffrent concepts. Do you know that? As for the rest of your post, I don't even understand it. I don't talk jingoese. --Merat 14:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the terms of our discussion, war crimes and terrorism are not so very different at all. One short definition of terrorism described it as a "peacetime equivalent of a war crime."  You could argue that Iraq is not at peace but the defiinition of war is something we don't need to debate here.  The immediate question is still about whether or not they were insurgents.


 * The fact remains that attacking insurgents is, according to most definitions, not a war crime. The basis for your claim that there were no insurgents is still not proved.  You can discount some of those witnesses if you like but it's still only your personal opinion, and you're hardly an unbiased source.


 * Nothing impressive about my detective skills in finding your post. I was looking for a proper way to settle this, and merely looked at your talk page, and there it was.  You didn't delete it until afterwards.


 * -- Randy2063 20:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I adjusted the above link to Merat's talk page into its archives since he removed the quote I cited.


 * Looking back to his earlier posts here, Merat seems unaware that some of the dead were indeed insurgents. Perhaps the forthcoming courts-martial will show differently, but such hopes may prove forlorn.  The testimony offered by the witness under a plea agreement does not help either.  It may convict one or all of something, but not necessarily of the deliberate killing of civilians.  Even so, under the standards we've used for others, it's too early to make such a determination here.


 * If anyone has been following the legal proceedings at GTMO, and how they're presented here in Wikipedia, none of the detainees are yet called war criminals. They're not even called "terrorists" without some authorative citation.  It's difficult enough to get a consensus on calling them "Islamists."  And yet some want those standards thrown out when it comes to Marines.  If so, then let's at least make it official so that anyone who reads these articles knows that the double-standard exists.


 * I vote no double-standard. Or, if there is going to be one, it should be Marines innocent until proved guilty; and Jihadis guilty until proved innocent.


 * -- Randy2063 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Double-standards are bad m'kay. I have been following the illegal proceedings at GTMO and how they're presented here - It's only right that all the detainees aren't described as "terrorists" or "Jihadis" as you put it, considering that amongst their number there have been various unfortunate wedding party guests, tourists, random shopkeepers, civilian aid workers and journalists. But it's important to bear in mind that(despite the same result often being achieved as if it were the case) it's not a case of innocent until proven guilty, it's a matter of accuracy. There are undoubtedly a number of very-scary-men amongst the inhabitants of the USA's various concentration camps, but "Terrorists" is just an inaccurate collective term considering the presence of those who are not. Wikipedia is not a legal organisation it's an encyclopedia and innocent until proven guilty is just as POV & non-encyclopedic as guilty until proven innocent, instead we should leave the question of guilt/innocence to the courts and concentrate on recording the facts with the terminology which is the most apt. "War crime" is a more than apt term to describe the Haditha massacre as it clearly fits the description of a war crime provided by the ICC, "war criminals" being to used to describe the all of the us marines involved in(or accused of involvement in) the massacre would fall into the same vein of wrongly used terminology as the use of Jihadis/insurgents/evildoeers to describe the victims. But there is no presumption of guilt or innocence upon the individual suspects by refering to the massacre as a war crime it's merely stating the facts. Elmo 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside a disagreement on facts about GTMO, I can see a situation where what you're saying makes sense regarding some hypothetical incidents. If a war crime has definitely taken place, then labelling it as such doesn't render judgement on each and every Marine at the site.
 * The problem with this is that it doesn't necessarily apply to Haditha. It is by no means proved that any of those Marines understood that they were shooting innocent civilians without cause.
 * Maybe you were there, and maybe you saw that the scene was well lit and not hampered by dust and smoke. Maybe you saw that the children were recognizable as such, and separated by some distance from the adults.  If so, then you may know it was a war crime.  I was not there.
 * -- Randy2063 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can also find that piece of text here if you think it's interesting, altough it's still just a draft, wasn't written for this discussion and isn't relevant to it either.
 * Most of the reliable information we got, not to say everything, points to that all of the persons killed were civilians. So please, stop with your brainwashing bullshit. --Merat 15:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There you said it: "most"
 * I'd disagree on which sources are reliable. Trusting that Iraqi two-man "human rights organization" would be astoundingly silly.
 * -- Randy2063 20:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whereas trusting the word of us marines who have previously lied about what happened, how it happened, where it happened and when it happened; is apparently sound thinking...


 * When it's between Marines and fascists, I side with the Marines.
 * But we don't have to take their word for it: "forensic evidence...does not suggest execution-style killings."
 * At the same time, it seems that those two Iraqis who pushed the story had been previously arrested for affiliation with the insurgency, and it's believed that they were part of the initial ambush that day. That last part is only at NewsMax right now, but those two fly-by-nights haven't had anything good coming out from them.
 * You don't have to trust the Marines. Just weigh the evidence and understand what's on the other side of that scale.
 * -- Randy2063 02:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * oh ick newsmax.. I know every news source should be considered equally, but it might be wise to wait and see if that 'evidence' of your turns up on a reputable news source too... Elmo 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that someone pulled an item here cited by NewsMax. Say what you like about NewsMax, but they've been more reliable on this story than Time has.
 * I'm thinking of putting that item back. NewsMax has been giving us the voice of the Marines when that quite-noteable viewpoint was otherwise missing, and now we see that we were blindsighted by not having it expressed here.
 * Let's face it, NewsMax is covering the hearings while other news sources are not. In other circumstances some people might say that's the definition of an article that's not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.  Even Time isn't covering the hearings.  (Tim McGirk may fear he'd be subpoenad if he shows up.)
 * -- Randy2063 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * NewsMax doesn't fit wikipedia's own definition of a reliable source. "Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets" is the pertinent point here for defining whether or not NewsMax is reliable and it isn't. It is an openly partisan news source that is not considered of record or is notable. This is a highly covered killing, surely there would be a source that is more reliable than NewsMax to support their pov if it is of any value. Jayran 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The guidelines say there can be exceptions. The question is whether an exception is warranted here, and I think the answer can be found when you said, "This is a highly covered killing."  Yes, the killing was initially highly covered.  The hearings were not highly covered at all.
 * I don't see this as a big exception. NewsMax is a notable media outlet, albeit partisan, but no worse than taking something from Sidney Blumenthal citing an anonymous source.  It's not like we're citing a small website nobody's ever heard of.  The fact that Wikipedia has an indepth article on NewsMax allows readers to judge where their claims are coming from.
 * Moreover, I'm not asking that we give voice to NewsMax's opinions. But if they say something came out in the hearing, or if they interview a lawyer for the defense, then that's worthy of note.  And judging from earlier posts here, they may have been the first to cover the other side of this story.
 * -- Randy2063 00:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick search through archives and NewsMax is hardly covering this more than various major media outlets. If you search NewsMax with the limit being "Haditha" and "2007/6/", there are only 5 results, meaning they only used Haditha 5 times in June 2007. Of those 5, only one was directly related to the case - the others were: 2 articles claiming the media was covering up "the truth", an anti-Obama article, and an article on the "liberal" NBC news. The New York Times had 9 results, several were repeats or similar results but they actually covered this more than NewsMax.  TIME also covered this one same topic that NewsMax did in June.  I'm not really buying in to the idea that only NewsMax is covering this trial. Also, Sidney Blumenthal is a well-known, and a well-respected journalist that publishes in reliable sources like the Washington Post and Time, which are not dodgy sources like NewsMax - that is the difference. Jayran 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. That Time article was actually AP reporter Allison Hoffman.  It could have been syndicated.  She may have been covering the hearings more than any other reporter.  I'll be reading up on her work for the same items NewsMax had.
 * Sidney Blumenthal may be well-respected on the left but he's a former Clinton administration official, and is highly partisan. He writes for Salon.com which (oddly enough) is self-described as "tabloid-like" in the Wikipedia article.  His appearance in the article referenced shows him to have swallowed the McGirk line, including this bit:
 * The coverup at Haditha reportedly began instantly. However, an Iraqi journalism student shot a video the day after of the bloodstained and bullet-riddled houses where the massacre had occurred. That video made its way to an Iraqi human rights group and finally to a correspondent from Time magazine.
 * That's pretty dodgy in itself.
 * -- Randy2063 03:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The AP article was the one article by NewsMax in June on Haditha. It seems that everyone used that article. While Sidney Blumenthal was a former Clinton aide, it does not diminish the fact that he is publised in mainstream and reliable sources like the Washington Post and Time. (On a sidenote, the Salon article says that they are a "smart tabloid," not an online version of Star.) The Iraqi that provided the video did provide evidence that led to the acknowledgement of this incident by the US and despite attempts to link him and his associates to the insurgency that has been shown to be false by the Sunday Times. Considering that NewsMax is essentially covering only the same things that more respectable sources are, the article should use those instead. Jayran 16:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't deny that Blumenthal is an important opinion figure. I'm just pointing out that he's not an unbiased news source.  ("Smart tabloid" sounds like a guilty pleasure that you don't need to feel ashamed of having in your bookmarks.)  I do concede that it's proper to have Blumenthal in the section on reactions.  Perhaps we could compromise and have NewsMax represented in that section as well.  It isn't simply that we need their information.  We need to keep track of who was defending whom, and it currently gives the impression that nobody was really defending those Marines.  This article will be around long after the rulings are in.


 * Do you have a link on that Sunday Times article that denies the link of that Iraqi "reporter" to the insurgents? I searched the Times for "Haditha insurgent" but didn't find them debunking that in their Sunday issues.


 * BTW: The Inspecting Officer's report on LCPL Sharratt is linked to this blog (near the top) as a PDF of the original with another link (at the bottom) to a reproduction as an RTF. The document includes descriptions of portions Sharratt was involved in as told by each side.
 * -- Randy2063 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected
I've protected this page temporarily so that this issue can be resolved on the talk page. I've also blocked Merat for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. When he gets back, please take this opportunity to work out the issues amicably without further edit warring. -- ChrisO 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask you to remove the wretched combat infobox from the article? Merat 15:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can develop it a bit. As it is very uncertain that any form of a combat had taken place, it is extremely POV to use a combat infobox. Using it is to rely on the US Soldiers' side of the story (claiming that they were attacked by insurgents), and this while almost everything points to that all of the dead were civilians, massacred by the soldiers. Thank you. --Merat 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merat,
 * There is a vote in progress. Rather astoundingly, your position seems to be winning at the moment.  Just give it another day or two for any stragglers to take a stand.  (This is a weekend, after all.)  Even if I lose, we should at least have a record of who stood where so that the decision can be remembered.
 * If the consensus holds that one's personal judgement of the evidence is enough to call it a war crime then I'll consider it overruled. (Morally incorrect, but overruled nonetheless.)
 * On the matter of combat, you're mistaken. One Marine was killed in the bombing.  Then they were fired upon from those houses before the so-called "massacre" took place.  Being fired upon means that's combat.
 * If you want to say that consensus doesn't matter then you're in the wrong place.


 * -- Randy2063 20:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is this "vote" being conducted? I'll agree that it might have been a war crime, but since those being accused on one side (that is, the Marines) are in a legal process, it's probably best to wait until the outcome before making such statements. I continue to hope that they will be found to not have committed such an act, however, and doubt that such an outcome will have any effect on those demanding that they be guilty. htom 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC) htom 03:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't a clue how we decide this other than a show of hands. There are a couple in the section above this one.  Merat and Elmo say it's okay to call it a war crime now; you and I say not until a court's ruling.  (Even then there are legal matters that might make them guilty, but not of a war crime.)
 * It could go either way, but I suspect the court's decision won't make anyone happy, and that those who hate the Marines will be maddest of all. This article could become a madhouse when that happens.
 * -- Randy2063 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)w


 * I've never been that happy with the idea of "votes" as a way to resolve disputes in wikipedia. The minority is quite frequently correct and by the same token just because a particular idea is widespread doesn't make it more correct. Leaving a decision to the mere wieght of numbers means that any outcome is the result of whichever lobby group or agenda-users happened to be passing at the time and only encourages meatpuppetry(within a few subtle posts on the talk pages of usmc-portal regulars I could have hordes of users voting that the article should be deleted for being anti-american :P ). Elmo 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * htom(and other people who've said similar things - i don't mean to pick on you), wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not an extension of the US courts, or the courts of the people's republic of china, or the courts of anywhere else... that's why in wikipedia articles there is record of critism of the patriot act or the events in Tianamen square. If the court martial finds the suspects innocent of murder or gave them all immunity from charges, then all that would mean is that we can record in the article that the court martial found the suspects innocent of murder or gave them all immunity from charges. It wouldn't change the fact that going house-to-house executing non-combatants is considered a war crime by many international bodies and war crime conventions. Both of these facts have the right to be included in the article. But the results of the US court martial have no bearing on the validity of the fact that the massacre meets the criterea for being a war crime set down elsewhere. Elmo 06:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If, as alleged, the Marines intentionally went door-to-door executing innocent non-combatants that would be a war-crime, indeed -- but that is not the only explanation available for the deaths, and I'm asking that you refrain from leaping to that conclusion. I understand that many here consider it to be the only possible explanation and not a leap at all, and that shows more about their beliefs than about the actions of the Marines. htom 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that there's enough evidence to call this a war crime. In fact, many popular media outlets, such as the LA times, consider this as a war crime allegation. Also, My Lai was considered to be a war crime although only Calley was convicted.158.144.16.6 11:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice that you remember that he was convicted. Have we come to the point that accusations in the main stream media establish reality? (Well, in Wikipedia, where verification trumps truth, perhaps we have. : htom 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The allegation is a war crime only if all the facts are true. If it turns out that the story is half-true, such as if the Marines had entered the house only with a scant belief that they heard AK-47s being handled, then that belief (whether true or false) is enough to say it's not a deliberate massacre of civilians.  They could still be put away for criminal negligence, but not as war criminals.


 * Merat had suggested in one of his edit-comments that I examine the list of war crimes and asked if they all contained convictions. While I suspect that the legitimate ones in that list had, and so far it appears that they all did, another question might be, how many were of as small a scale as Haditha?  I haven't yet found anything comparable.


 * The purported outrage over Haditha is very similar to that over GTMO. Elmo had said there are innocent people being held there.  I've looked into these stories.  I can only find a couple where the evidence may be questionable, and even then it's sufficient to keep holding them under the standards required by the GCs.  There are no "random shopkeepers" at GTMO who were nabbed by accident.  (Those were weeded out in Afghanistan.)  Some are relatively minor-league scum, but they're scum nonetheless.  We've released far too many as it is.


 * Of the Tipton Three, widely celebrated as innocent victims, one had recently been wound up confessing on TV. Moazzam Begg, another celebrity ex-detainee, had been an al-Qaeda bagman, and probably worse.  And yet, these were the stars of the anti-GTMO hype.


 * Oddly enough, one of the reasons the anti-GTMO hype became popular is because of the "innocent until proved guilty" clarion. That's what makes the Haditha flap so interesting.  It has suddenly disappeared when applied to Marines.
 * -- Randy2063 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think GITMO is a valid analogy. Remember that it's the place where they violate the Geneva conventions and imprison someone without giving a chance to defend his imprisonment. The Marines, as they have confessed to the court at various times, are not "innocent" by any means. 158.144.16.26 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think any Marines had confessed to an actual war crime.
 * My analogy regarded the complaints by opponents of U.S. policy.
 * You're not quite correct on GTMO, though. As it stands right now, the detainees may still be kept until al Qaeda surrenders with only a tribunal to verify that they belong there.  A full trial is only if the U.S. decides to charge them with a crime.  That's currently considered as being in accordance with the GCs.
 * -- Randy2063 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just a pro-/anti-US Marines issue. The question is do we need convictions by a military court to label a military action as a war crime. And does a defense position by people indicted (are therefore legally entitled to a defense) mean that saying a crime was committed is POV. I think not. We know that internal investigations can be biased (not that I necessarily think it was in this case), so requiring a conviction is a poor standard. Consider Tienanmen, or consider all the systematic factors discussed in Bargewell's report. We need external reliable sources to describe it as a war crime. I think HRW plus a broad slice of the media (yes, the media, as a group), plus for all practical purposes the Marines' own investigation, will do it here.

Remember also the counterclaim is that they cleared houses without looking to see who was in them, not exactly un-criminal behavior.--Carwil 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * they must have had very long arms to fire rifle's from upstairs inside the houses whilst standing in the street outside the houses...


 * I'll agree that requiring a conviction isn't a perfect standard. I'm not sure of anything better.
 * It'll be important to look at what HRW says after the ruling, but they're subject to PR and spin and the demands of perpetual fundraising just like everyone else. When they do say something, look carefully at the facts that they use to justify their words.  If it's their interpretation of the law, then we can look at that.  If it's simply that they trust the word of an Iraqi witness, then that's something else.
 * That the Marines didn't look inside is not a war crime if they had a reasonable expectation of there being insurgents inside. Again, they reported taking fire from that house.
 * -- Randy2063 20:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 is neither categorized as a war crime nor called a massacre in its title. (And I'm not going to do either.) htom 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic clearly deserves the Category:War crimes. We should discuss general standards, also for the article name, otherwise the US-topics keep getting double standards.--BMF81 21:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * htom, the point isn't that the events in Tiananmen Square were a war crime which they clearly weren't and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that people were implying that. It's that the CPC still maintains that there were no civilian deaths within the square and that it was an appropriate and necessery use of force. The wikipedia article records information to the contrary and includes the article in 'category:Political repression in the People's Republic of China' this would not happen if they only followed the findings of CPC courts rather than sticking to the facts. Elmo 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ...so requiring a conviction is a poor standard. Consider Tienanmen, or consider all the systematic factors discussed in Bargewell's report. We need external reliable sources to describe it as a war crime. ... htom 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The prosecution's case continues to fall short of what was promised: "What the evidence points to is that the version of the Iraqis isn't really supported," Ware said.
 * There's still a good chance it can wind up as another Duke lacrosse case after all is said and done.
 * -- Randy2063 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * or another Dasht-i-Leili massacre case.


 * or, another My Lai massacre case.

Misspelling of "military"
BBC article showing the initial statements from the US millitary and the survivors of Haditha. from the External Links contains a misspelling of the word military. akuyume TC 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed it -- Randy2063 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality is highly suspect in this article
Look - this is bunk. I love how Wiki notes that "the topic is disputed" and then directly references the false Haditha "massacre" several times (and as captions to pictures).

Here's the real scoop on the traitor behind this hoax: http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/time-and-haditha-lies/


 * You listen to Savage, don't you :) Me and my dad love listening to him. Sr13 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about you try waiting until the legal proceedings are concluded before proclaiming judgment? That goes for both sides, naturally. -- ChrisO 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To be specific, this is probably a reprecussion from Savage's comment on the article yesterday; just see his page. Sr13 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how anyone could take Savage seriously. He has a crappy web designer for a start. ;-) -- ChrisO 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (I dunno, I think the website needs more cowbell.) Regarding this article, let's just summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. That usually works. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez, I knew a semi-protection was going to happen sometime later... Sr13 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair coment Chris O., but it doesn't hold mustard as your logic is flawed - this article doesn't practice what you preach in the first place. It (and links to it) repeatedly call this a "massacre" without - as you say - "waiting until the legal proceedings are concluded before proclaiming judgment"?

Also - good counter-comments on summarizing what's known from a NPOV. I would submit that this article seems quite a bit based upon the Time Magazine article - an article that the magazine has had to issue 3 separate retractions on. Thus, the whole "source" should be highly questionably, and not considered a NPOV>