Marine Sues Murtha

You're wrong. The military told one story, then, when confronted by the evidence, changed it - way before Murtha said anything. Look at the timeline.

You personally spoke to each and every one of them several times since November? Is that how you know what you claim to know?

 

There are the photos, the video, witness testimony, the wounds on the bodies, the damage done to the houses and the changing stories put out by the military. Try reading McGirk's article.

Yes, the media and the military. Are you claiming that the photos, video, eyewitness accounts and the military's changing stories have all been made up or doctored by the media? Is there any reason why you believe McGirk's investigative article is not accurate? Did you read it?

It seems you like to make things up yourself and make judgements based on your attitude rather than anything anyone actually said.

You are deliberately misrepresenting my position. Congratulations on a fine example of hypocrisy.

Which Marines, by name? Who exactly did which deed? You should be able to say if it were true that they have been tried by the media and Murtha.

You can't say because that hasn't happened - you just parrot the same sound bite ad nauseum.

 

Apparently, you haven't bothered to read the posts or follow the links posted or you wouldh't have to ask those questions. Well, that explains how you can repeat the same hate-radio sound bite over and over so shamelessly despite everything.

 

Do tell.

Back up your claim.

 

I don't; why do you mischaracterize my stance?

 

For me? :laugh: Do it for your own credibility.

That is a, how can I put it, deliberate & knowing untruth. I do regard what is said and you know it. While I don't have much regard for known liars, but I do have some - enough so that I actually read and consider what they say.

They? Who they?

In any case, it wouldn't matter how much effort I would expend if your source were any good.

Another deliberate untruth.

For shame, carpro!

You would know, but you haven't demonstrated it regarding the media reports, the military's varied versions and Murtha's cupability.

Did you actually read McGirk's report? If not, why not if your mind is, as you claim, not made up? More information is better than less information, I find.

A lie on two counts: first, not only have I not "bought into" anything he said, I disagree with some of it; second, he didn't pronounce a "verdict" on anyone.

If you can show where I've said any particular Marine committed a particular act (which would be at least approaching a "verdict") do it; otherwise you owe me yet another apology.

No one has accused you of doing so unlike how you've accused others.

That is an incredibly poor excuse. You made the claim so it's up to you to provide the evidence; you know that. Until you prove otherwise, I'll have to assume you haven't any that cannot easily be impeached.

I know you unjustly consider me to be biased so you could enlighten the lurkers, if you had something, anything, to offer other than, "I know something you don't know" and your parrot-talk.

 

Here (linkie)

Yeah.

Do you know what they reported and that it was discredited by further investigation?

Did you read Post #14? How about the timeline I provided?

I assumed it was SOP when civilians are killed. What do you claim is why?

I know what the military reported then and that those in command were shown that the evidence (bullet wounds, lack of shrapnel, spatter patterns, body count, eye witness reports backed up by photos and the morgue reports) why it couldn't possibly have happened that way, two other investigations, one criminal, were begun? Do you know what those investigations concluded?

You really don't know how much I've studied the subject, do you? Furthermore, I don't agree with the "cold-blooded" part, but the evidence I've seen so far has supported the "murder" part. If more evidence surfaces (feel free to provide it), perhaps I'll reach a different conclusion.

Apparently, you have paid no attention to what I have posted or, surely, you couldn't post malarkey like that. Either you are ignorant of what and why I believe or you are deliberately distorting it - shame on you either way.

Once again, you are trying to make this thread about a fellow poster instead of discussing the topic - your topic - and the evidence surrounding it. So far, the only evidence you've posted is that Murtha called a group of Marines "cold-blooded murderers" - which nobody has disputed. Your other claims are largely unsupported hyperbole and gross distortions of your fellow posters' beliefs. You pose questions, then ignore the answers. You don't answer any of my questions, you just skip over them. Now you're trying to tell me what I believe, agree with and have made up my mind about - that is just wrong.

Once you stop providing evidnce and logic to support your position and start ranting about your fellow posters' beliefs and attitudes , you've lost the arguement.

 

Same people.

See post #85.

 

(Barbarian observes that investigators found that the suspects lied about the way the civilians died, and whether or not there was a firefight outside the houses.)

Yes, we do. The civilians had bullet holes in them, not shrapnel wounds. The outside of the houses, from which the suspects claim people were firing at them, and at which they claimed to be firing, have no bullet holes. But there are lots of bullet holes inside.

But the evidence so far uncovered by the investigation. Why would they lie about it, if they had nothing to hide?

Lawyer to presiding officer of the court-marial:
"Sir, the defendents insist that they are innocent."

Officer:
"Welll, then I guess, we'll have to let them go."

Sure...

 

The problem is that the dead Iraqis (men, women, and children) have bullet holes in them, not shrapnel wounds. The houses the suspects claim to have been firing at, don't have bullet holes on the exterior, but lots of them inside.

So yes, they lied. Demonstrably so. BTW, they initially said that an improvised bomb killed the civilians.