US Soldier: "Over 48 hours, we killed 30 plus civilians."

And that was his just squad.

Some choice exerpts of liberation, USA style.

***When the killing stopped, and they finished pulling out the bodies, they discovered time and time again that none had been armed.

“The youngest was a six-year-old boy,” Massey said softly.

In the case of the red Kia, the driver sat on the curb with his head in his hands, sobbing over his dying brother. The three pulled from the car spent their last minutes writhing in agony in the dirt.

“We didn’t even give them morphine,” he said.

Then came the order to pack up their gear and move out. “We were told to throw the bodies in the ditches at the side of the road so that’s what we did.”

His gaze is sad, but steady. “You know, I get asked a lot about fog of war. Over 48 hours, we killed 30 plus civilians. I can think of only one incident that it was fog of war where we didn’t know,” he says.

“The rest of them were cold-blooded murder.” ***

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Michele_Mandel/2004/12/05/765951.html

When American military deserter Jeremy Hinzman appears at his refugee hearing tomorrow, seeking asylum in Canada because he does not want to fight in Iraq, the AWOL soldier will not be alone.

Beside him will be Jimmy Massey, a former gung-ho Marine staff sergeant forever haunted by what he saw and what he did for his country in Iraq.

“We shot a guy with his hands up,” Massey recalled somberly, staring out the window of an Annex pub. "A young Iraqi, he was probably in his mid-20s. And then we shot a group of protesters. Then we shot a red Kia, there were four occupants in the red Kia Spectra, fatally wounding three of them.

“The driver was miraculously unscathed. Hearing him continuously asking me, ‘Why did you kill my brother? We’re not terrorists,’ I think was the worst thing that happened.”

His clear blue eyes turn back then from gazing outside, unwilling to evade the guilt he feels. “That’s something I live with every day.”

And so the 33-year-old fully supports Hinzman’s decision in January to head for Canada with his wife and baby after learning his unit was shipping out to Iraq.

While Hinzman enlisted voluntarily in 2001, Massey argues that for many of the poor and lower-middle class in America, the military remains the only way to get a decent vocation and a college education. By 2002, Hinzman had already begun to question his ability to serve in combat and applied to be considered a conscientious objector. He served in a non-combat role in Afghanistan and was prepared to do the same in Iraq, but his CO application was turned down.

Told he was heading soon to Iraq, Hinzman, 25, felt he had no other choice but to head north and seek refugee status.

At least two other U.S. soldiers have done the same, but all face the same daunting task. It is virtually unprecedented for Canada to grant refugee status to someone from the United States. Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) would have to accept that Hinzman faces persecution because of his political opinions or that he needs protection because he’d be subject to cruel or unusual treatment if sent back.

Not only is that a high, if impossible, threshold to prove, but Ottawa has taken the unusual step of intervening, to oppose the trio’s applications, arguing the soldiers are not being persecuted. Despite its opposition to the Iraq war, Canada is hardly anxious to open the floodgates to American deserters.

Hinzman’s lawyer, Jeffry House, had planned to argue that the Iraq war is illegal.

But last month, his case was dealt a severe blow when the IRB accepted the Canadian government’s argument that the legality of the U.S. war on Iraq is “irrelevant” to his claim.

He faces up to five years in jail if returned to the U.S.

So Massey has come here from North Carolina to tell the refugee board that as a soldier, Hinzman would have been expected to shoot Iraqi civilians under the mistaken assumption that they are masquerading as terrorists.

As part of the initial invasion force, Massey’s platoon was suddenly expected to switch from a “killing mentality” to a “pacification role.”

They were ordered to set up roadblocks on the outskirts of Baghdad and check cars for insurgents and weapons.

If the Iraqis failed to halt, the troops were instructed to open fire with their 50-calibre ammunition.

When the killing stopped, and they finished pulling out the bodies, they discovered time and time again that none had been armed.

“The youngest was a six-year-old boy,” Massey said softly.

In the case of the red Kia, the driver sat on the curb with his head in his hands, sobbing over his dying brother. The three pulled from the car spent their last minutes writhing in agony in the dirt.

“We didn’t even give them morphine,” he said.

Then came the order to pack up their gear and move out. “We were told to throw the bodies in the ditches at the side of the road so that’s what we did.”

His gaze is sad, but steady. “You know, I get asked a lot about fog of war. Over 48 hours, we killed 30 plus civilians. I can think of only one incident that it was fog of war where we didn’t know,” he says.

“The rest of them were cold-blooded murder.”
Massey had had enough. After his honourable discharge in December 2003, he’s travelled the world protesting the war.

During a speech in Boston, he was asked why the Iraqis failed to stop at the checkpoints. He didn’t know, until a Muslim woman came up later to explain.

**The fist the Marines raised to stop them would have meant solidarity to the Iraqis, she said. And the warning shot fired in the air was seen as a traditional sign of celebration. “They thought you were celebrating the fact that you were liberating them,” she told him, “when in fact, you were murdering them.” **

Now he must live forever with the bloody trail he left behind. Jeremy Hinzman, he said, should not have to.

Tsk tsk. Similar news articles are now rampant all over the web. Too bad they're only met by silence here.

I guess these Americans must be real proud on the juvenile antics of their beloved soldiers and how their tax money is being spent.

What would you expect a deserter to say? "Things were fine, I am a wimp?" Probably not. Does this deserter have motivation to make things seem terrible? Yes. Do you think that if this occured, that embedded reporters would be all over it?

Just because things are "all over the Web" does not make them true. Anti-US propaganda is seldom questioned by those who simply choose to beleive it...

i wonder why you defend yourself ohioguy. 30 is still less than the number saddam killed.

while you're at it, answer this:

ohioguy so if you think this article sums things up pretty well then you believe you are at war against Islam and those who believe in the Quran as it is. everyone on this thread, and almost everyone on this forum, professes absolute belief in the veracity of the Quran, believe in every single thing in it. Do you consider us your enemies by this avowal?

you know what they say, every pharoah has his day....

Go read the report of ANY of the embedded reporters. They are all very careful to say that the military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. As the Fallujah mosque incident shows, if there was something to be exposed, these reporters would expose it. When you consistantly hear from these reporters the same thing, your understand. These guys are not Baghdad Bobs. Infact, if they expose a massacre, or a problem, their reputation as a reporter goes sky high.

I consider myself and my country at war with radical Islam. Interpret that anyway you see fit. There was no "War on Islam" prior to 9/11. Most of us did not give a flying fcuk about you guys, and certainly there was no nationwide cry to subvert Islam. 9/11 changed a lot. OBLs fatwas were not taken seriously, nor was violent Islam. Clinton was asleep. The country was asleep. Fighting Islam was the last thing on our minds.

But Islam DECLARED war on us. You want Jihad, 9/11 got you Jihad. We have been dragged into war by radicals who want to pick a fight with the most powerful country in the world so that they gain legitimacy. We had two choices, fight back or continue to be attacked. Our choice was clear. But radical Islam will stain all of Islam. The voices and actions are louder than the moderates, so the "moderates" frankly don't count. That is not an insult to the Quran, it is just the way it is.

I swear, sometimes i think your Bush's spokesperson. Or maybe you write his speeches for him?

no OG, you didnt address my question. this platitude about 'violent Islam' is all very well but the author of the article you said summed everything up precisely categorically stated that Islam is a violent religion and those who believe in the Quran in toto are the enemies. do you agree with that, and are the people on this forum your enemies.

i dont care about Clinton, i dont care about OBL, i dont care about your 'moderates'. are those who believe in the Quran, which entails belief in its absolute veracity, your enemies.

^^I am really Karl Rove

Why do you think Bush got reelected? He reflects what alot of people think.

Hmmm, what about leading American newspapers' online editions? They are on "the web" so I guess they must not be credible eh? I posted articles from the Washington Post and the LA Times citing EMBEDDED reporters who had a lot of horror stories to tell. Please don't embarrass yourself by making me dig them up.

**no OG, you didnt address my question. this platitude about 'violent Islam' is all very well but the author of the article you said summed everything up precisely categorically stated that Islam is a violent religion and those who believe in the Quran in toto are the enemies. do you agree with that, and are the people on this forum your enemies.

i dont care about Clinton, i dont care about OBL, i dont care about your 'moderates'. are those who believe in the Quran, which entails belief in its absolute veracity, your enemies.

**

"that Islam is a violent religion and those who believe in the Quran in toto are the enemies."

Islam in and of itself is not violent. No religion is. But make up your mind. Over and over again here on these boards we are reminded that Islam is not monolithic. That different sect and different views are common among Muslims. There are schools of Islamic thought that emphasize concepts in the Quran (Jihad) while minimizing the more peaceful aspects. I have heard "jihad" variously described as a struggle, an internal struggle, but todays relaity, it is frequently used in the same way that "Bonzai" was 60 years ago. Some tape shows guys screaming "Allahu Ahkbar" as the PRG hits something, are we supposed to ignore that and continue to believe that Islam is the "Religion of Peace"? Because Islam is a highly political relgion, it is the political ambitions of Jihadis that I rail against.

This cognitive dissonance is probably more disturbing to you than me. I really don't care how Islam has ended up this way, that is really more your concern than mine.

Just because Islam is a religion of peace that doesn't mean it will not defend itself when under attack. Resistance is a very healthy sign for the religion and only the transgressors need to be concerned with that.

OG, luckily those Allah-Oakbarites are small in number and are destined to hell. Majority of muslims have no sympathies for RPG terrorists. The siht is going to hit the fan soon and all these Mujahideen will come home to roost and whatever little support they have will be completely finished. They have more support in places with no democracy. Therefore, it is important to bring democracy in Iraq, which will change the entire landscape of the region, and they are afraid of it happening.

:jhanda:

I’ve heard those lines regurgitated before :hehe:, in fact long ago. No progress yet huh :frowning:

Maybe they’re more for your consolation than anything else.

What is inconsistent in saying that there are sects to a religion, differing schools of thought each violent to different degrees? As for how you should see Islam, what you certainly shouldnt see it as is whitewashed in one colour. If you are facing a conflict against Muslims subscribing to a certain view of Islam and applying that view of Islam to their particular circumstances that doesnt mean you paint Islam in general which has as its fundamental tenet an absolute belief in every word of the Quran the colour of your enemies. Avoid simplistic views of the world and you'll probably end up harming a lot fewer people.

I subscribe to the view that jihad is both a spiritual and physical struggle against spiritual and physical corruption. including war. i do not agree with wtc attacks under the guise of war-jihad and that is NOT because I havent studied my religion and the Quran enough or advocate an absolute pacifist interpretation of Jihad.

"will not defend itself when under attack"

Exactly. So propagandists and radicals whip up a scenario where they are attacked. They will conveniently forget to explain why in Bosnia/Kosovo the US intervened to save Muslims. That little fact gets left out of the propaganda, it sort of blows apart the whole theory. So it is ignored.

It is easier to blame the "Great Satan" than to look inward. The US is principally a scapegoat for internal failures. Corruption, infighting, tribalism, ethnic loyalties, crime, illiteracy, and a failure to modernize, those things do not make a glamourous, romantic fight. But the Jihadis can flush the toilet, and you all will think the water is pretty and exciting while it swirls. The Jihadis are leading Muslims to even darker times.

if it is the result of propaganda and misinformation how is it a war against the religion?

I am sorry but the invasion and destrcution of 2 countries under the laughable guise of liberation needs no propagandists or radicals to whip up anything. Your country is doing their job for them. :k: