Haditha and Rules of Engagement

You ever hear of Innocent until proven guilty?
guess not

Stop supporting terrorist you jerk.

If and when they go to trial and if they are found guilty then YES, Lock them up and throw away the key. they are animals for doing it.
UNTIL then, They are to be considered innocent until proven guilty

Stop trying them in the court of idiotic opinion

Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!

Please get your facts straight before expressing an opinion.

1) The Marines and Army are similar, but different

2) Haditha had nothing to do with rape. A convoy of Marine humvees was hit by a roadside bomb, whose detonator (person) was in one of the nearby houses. The Marines dismounted. At that point, the story of the Marines involved and the story of the local Muslims differ. The Marines say they were fired upon from the houses they eventually entered (look at a map of the area, say from a Time magazine, and the houses were specifically entered while others were skipped, suggesting that the Marines' story is accurate). The locals say there were no shots and the Marines went on a blind rampage, shoving women and children into closets and executing them. The credibility of Muslim insurgents is very shaky, as they are known for twisting events, altering evidence, and propagandizing the events. However, I am not going to pass judgment on the locals, as I do believe it is possible for a few infantrymen to lose their heads, even among the Marines, who are known for composure in combat (regardless of what some media/movie outlets might have you believe). It is difficult to say exactly what happened, and I will have to withhold my judgment until the situation has been further studied. At the moment, I believe the actual sequence of events lies somewhere in the middle.

3) The rape of a "kid" (teenager under 18) was I think done by an Army soldier, not a Marine, but I could be mistaken. It is indeed a very horrible incident, regardless of branch of military. As a side note, this accusation is coming from a people who treat women as property, allow men to marry multiple wives, allow men to beat their wives, and whose infallible Prophet had a 9-year old among his wives. This only makes the situation hypocritical, not excusable, as the US serviceman should hold himself to a higher standard, and he should be punished to the maximum extent of the law if he is convicted.

4) Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are nothing but exaggerations by the liberals in the press. The "human-rights violations" at Abu Ghraib are less than you would see in college fraternity initiations and football team hazings. Since it has been turned over to the Iraqis, the detainees at Abu Ghraib are actually trying to get the Americans back. A few naked guys doing a cheerleader pyramid might seem bad to the coddled American press, but Islamic law and brutality to criminals is far, FAR worse. Guantanamo can scarcely be called in violation of "human rights" because the worst that happens there is small cells (solitary confinment in US prisons?), lousy meals (go to a college cafeteria :-P ), and techniques like sleep deprivation, loud music, and bright lights. Treating suspected terrorists like that somewhat pales when compared to the beheadings, torture (electric shock, cutting with knives, etc), and the like that is done to kidnapped civilians by the enemy. Additionally, most (not all) of the detainees at Guantanamo are NOT covered by Geneva Conventions for a number of reasons, the first being that they are not uniformed military, but participating in combat and terror attacks in civlian clothes, second because they do not represent a country or government but a religious or paramilitary group, thirdly because Geneva Conventions only apply when countries who have signed the Convention fight each other. It would help if you actually read the sections of Geneva that applied to prisoner treatment.

[deleted]

What the hell does condemning rape and torture have to do with supporting terrorists?