Talk:Haditha massacre: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:20, 4 June 2006 editILike2BeAnonymous (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,861 edits →Marine expert on "Hell & Haditha"← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:39, 25 September 2024 edit undoFreedom4U (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers12,053 edits add crime wikiprojectTag: 2017 wikitext editor
(817 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talkheader}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Disaster management\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=B
			<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
			\|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =y
			\|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
			\|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
			\|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y
			\|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
			\|Middle-Eastern=y\|US=y\|Post-Cold-War=y}}
			{{WikiProject Pritzker-GLAM\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Death\|importance=mid}}
			}}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}
			{{OnThisDay\|date1=2011-11-19\|oldid1=461370302\|date2=2015-11-19\|oldid2=691332196}}
	{{TrollWarning}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	==War crime==
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	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.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	: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.  ] 11:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			\|counter = 3
	::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.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
	:::''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.  ] 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			\|algo = old(90d)
	::::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.
			\|archive = Talk:Haditha massacre/Archive %(counter)d
	:::::I agree. This is neither the time nor the place for the words of the weasel. ==] 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) --] 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	"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. ] 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}

			== External links modified ==
	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! ] 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	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 ] was implemented. This argument clearly is a ].
	*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.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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.
	:--] 01:10, 1 June 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 ] has been abolished by the US the rest of the world is in agreement.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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. --] 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 ]?
	:::Name one conflict since 1918 where the Geneva conventions have been fully observed by both parties. --] 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. --] 14:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified 8 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::: 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. --] 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120021340/http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3283 to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3283
	::::: 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.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230215242/http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/21/iraq.haditha/ to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/21/iraq.haditha/
	::::: 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.
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/general-drops-charges-for-two-marines-in-haditha-shootings/article_20b159c0-290b-52f0-84c1-a25dc41aefb3.html
	::::: 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. --] 16:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715221551/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070712-9999-1n12haditha.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070712-9999-1n12haditha.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115032850/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57358997/desecration-of-the-dead-is-as-old-as-war-itself/ to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57358997/desecration-of-the-dead-is-as-old-as-war-itself/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918030805/http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/06/08/haditha/index.html to http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/06/08/haditha/index.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415194701/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=23219 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=23219
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/27/124438.shtml
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605084806/http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11335 to http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11335
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070509-9999-7m9haditha.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	Are the killings of civilians by IEDs and car bombs war crimes, even if those killings are not committed by coalition forces? htom ] 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. --] 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? ] 09:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	Hold the phone, some of us get carried away by their enthousiasm.
	*Even if the ] 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?
	]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
	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. --] ] 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'''. ]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	: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. --] 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::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''". ] 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. '' --] 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 ] 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. ] 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. --] 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. - ] 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". --] 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:In an effort to come up with an answer I had a look at the ] 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.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	: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 ]. 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.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	: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?

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
	: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. ] 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

			== Possibly unnecessary link ==
	:This entire discussion is assinine -- everyone is ignoring the fact that it is a war crime to kill anyone that is <i>unarmed</i>, 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 ] 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 ]? 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 ] 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 ]. ] 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 ] 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 ].''
	::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? --] 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 ] 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.--] 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

			Should the word "anonymous" in "The investigation found evidence that "supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot civilians", according to an ] Pentagon official," be linked? I think the readers know what anonymous means, we don't ] to ] the ] with ].
	==What does an Iraqi civilian look like?==

			] (]) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	Is this a picture of an Iraqi civilian?

			:I assume the author was trying to make sure it was understood that this was the journalistic version of "anonymous", but I agree that it is ''probably'' unnecessary to wiki-link it here. People most likely understand what is meant. ] (]) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	* http://vietnamnet.vn/dataimages/200511/original/images817921_jordan_woman_bomber.jpg

			== Claim of suicide without citation ==
	Is this a story describing an Iraqi civilian?

			The lines "In 2011, Sharratt's lawsuit was dismissed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Sharratt killed himself at his home in Pennsylvania on August 3, 2022. He was 37." include 3 citations:
	<blockquote>''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. ''</blockquote>

			- <nowiki>https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm</nowiki> a record of the court dismissal mentioned in the first sentence above
	Could someone describe an Iraqi civilian and differentiate that person from an Insurgent....
	] 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

			- <nowiki>https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10110591811606638&set=a.10101634311289078</nowiki> a Facebook obituary post from Sharratt's sister that can be argued has a vague implication of suicide
	:No, that's not a picture of an Iraqi civilian, it's a picture of a Jordanian suicide bomber. --] 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

			- <nowiki>https://www.greenleefuneralhome.com/obituary/justin-sharratt</nowiki> the official obituary posted by the funeral home (which can also be found in the local paper https://www.observer-reporter.com/obituaries/2022/aug/10/justin-louis-sharratt/)
	:: 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. ] 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? --] 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

			Based on the FB post, one could make the case it is reasonable to assume Sharratt took his own life, but is that enough to justify the definitive statement "killed himself" used in the quoted line above? I mostly ask as a clarification of Misplaced Pages's standards on details like specifying the manner of death of a real person. ] (]) 15:07, 2 August 2024 (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.  ] 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. --] 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.)'' ] 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."'' -- ]
	:::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? --] 10:59, 1 June 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)?]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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.--] 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.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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. --] 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Not all, but then again: !]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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. --] 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.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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) --] 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. --] ] 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... ] 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	And yet another incident. Luckily only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of US soldiers miss certain ethics.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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--] 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. ] 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn

	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. ] 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Categories ==

	I recently added ], which was removed as "incorrect - does not fit". What I am trying to categorise is the way that this incident, and the ] 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? ] 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.--] 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 ] 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. ] 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.--] 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. ] 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I ''think'' that is for stub cats, not regular cats. ] <small>(])</small> 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 ], either in some particular action or alongside it, where the spree killing might be unobserved. htom ] 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::There does seem to be some confusion and overlap between ] and ]. But it is fairly easy to distinguish between different sorts of killings by weapons, motive and other criteria. Have a look at ] for some examples of massacres that aren't spree shootings. ] 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 ]. --] 13:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:See ] to see how consistent the naming policy has been. ] 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	::There is not even a completed investigation and we already have an article dubbing this a 'massacre'? —] 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. —] 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. --] 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 <i>incident</i>? I would contend that the title alone is a manipulation of the popularly used and understood term <i>Haditha massacre</i>, which came about in the media and popular usage by comparisons to the ]. 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 <i>Haditha incident</i>, 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. ] 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. --] ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. --] ] 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"? ] 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 ] 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. ] 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.{{unsigned\|217.235.244.253}}

	: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. --] 11:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Please, do not implicate me in this debate since the edit history clearly shows {{user\|217.235.244.253}} had the discussion with another user. Thank you.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Wonderful then it seems the issue is concluded. My apologies for implicating you in this issue. --] ] 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: From ]: "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.{{unsigned\|217.235.244.253}}

	==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.





	::Not to mention the article is titled ''Haditha massacre'' when nobody here knows exactly what happened. —] 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.

	== 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] to take an article which describes 'exection-style killings' and extrapolate that to compare to the ] 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 ]. 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. —] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ] 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 ... --] ] 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Video is video, regardless of who made it or released it. Your red herring is quite irrelevant. - ] 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. --] ] 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Where the hell is Haditha? ==

	Can someone put up a map showing where this town is in Iraq? ==] 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 ] article itself. ] 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::It is now on ] page. --] ] 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	==List of alleged civilian victims==
	I do not have a source{{fact}} 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.


	-- ] 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	which wiki article is this from? --] 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:] /] 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"?--] 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Incident vs. massacre ==
	And I see we've moved from ] to ]. 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. --] 06:28, 2 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. --] ] 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.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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.--] 11:53, 2 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.--] 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.  ] 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Google hits have no bearing on ]. It is not up to Misplaced Pages 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. —] 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. ] 17:12, 2 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" — which I've got to say carries all the newspeak stench of "collateral damage" when applied to the mass killing of noncombatants — is highly POV.  ] 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. ] 17:28, 2 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 ], which states we should not take a side. Calling it an 'incident' applies ''something happened'' without drawing conclusions not supported by any facts. —] 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::] 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) -] 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. ==] 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	{{wiktionary\|massacre}}

	:::::::::My complaint was that ] 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. - ] 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::] -- see any Brits edit warring over that? ] <small>]</small> 21:25, 2 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 ] 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. <span style="border: 1px solid #000000; text-align:center; background: #FFFFFF">→ ] - ] ←</span> 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. - ] 21:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	I've moved the article to '''Haditha killings''', a more neutral title (following a similar precedent in another contentious article, ]). "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. -- ] 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? - ] 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	::The old title was simply not NPOV - if you see something that is plainly not NPOV you should ] and fix it. I've temporarily protected the article against further moves to avoid further move warring. -- ] 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). - ] 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). --] 04:41, 4 June 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. --] 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Here's for that.  ] 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Quote Style ==

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

	My point is: Misplaced Pages 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.{{unsigned\|217.235.210.168}}
	:Thank you for discussing your changes. Indeed, italics are very useful in clarifying what part is quoted.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 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 Misplaced Pages 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..{{unsigned\|217.235.210.168}}

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

	IMHO, Francis and 217 are right. The ] states that (1) quotes should not normally be italicized (]), (2) that quotation marks should not be used in blockquotes (]) and that blockquotes should be formatted with the <nowiki> <blockquote> </blockquote> </nowiki> notation. (]).] 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). ] 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. Misplaced Pages 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. —] 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 Misplaced Pages 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). -] 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::I appreciate your point of view, but this is not a ] 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 ] 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. ] 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.'' --] 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Replication of date (Nov. 19, 2005) redundant in first two paragraphs? ==

	--] 21:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Incorrect interpretation of article?==

	There is a misinterpretation of the cover-up in the <b>June 2006</b> section of this article. The misinterpretation occurs here:

	<i>
	::...the Los Angeles Times reported,

	::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:

	<i>: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>

	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 <i>despite</i> 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?{{unsigned\|Luciathedog}}

	: 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, ] 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.] 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	Sources:

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

	--] 17:28, 3 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. --] 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

	:You post a link to the ''National Review''—and then have the nerve to go by the moniker of "Neutral arbiter"? What kind of '''bullshit''' is that? ==] 07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:39, 25 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haditha massacre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 19, 2011 and November 19, 2015.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Haditha massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haditha massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unnecessary link

Should the word "anonymous" in "The investigation found evidence that "supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot civilians", according to an anonymous Pentagon official," be linked? I think the readers know what anonymous means, we don't want to clutter the page with links.

Woozybydefault (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume the author was trying to make sure it was understood that this was the journalistic version of "anonymous", but I agree that it is probably unnecessary to wiki-link it here. People most likely understand what is meant. Foilnewt (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Claim of suicide without citation

The lines "In 2011, Sharratt's lawsuit was dismissed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Sharratt killed himself at his home in Pennsylvania on August 3, 2022. He was 37." include 3 citations:

- https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm a record of the court dismissal mentioned in the first sentence above

- https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10110591811606638&set=a.10101634311289078 a Facebook obituary post from Sharratt's sister that can be argued has a vague implication of suicide

- https://www.greenleefuneralhome.com/obituary/justin-sharratt the official obituary posted by the funeral home (which can also be found in the local paper https://www.observer-reporter.com/obituaries/2022/aug/10/justin-louis-sharratt/)

Based on the FB post, one could make the case it is reasonable to assume Sharratt took his own life, but is that enough to justify the definitive statement "killed himself" used in the quoted line above? I mostly ask as a clarification of Misplaced Pages's standards on details like specifying the manner of death of a real person. Foilnewt (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: