Skip to comments.Haditha Child: I Knew of Bomb Plot to Kill Marines
Posted on 06/03/2006 8:26:22 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
A 12-year old survivor of the alleged massacre of innocent civilians by U.S. Marines patrolling Haditha has admitted she had prior knowledge of the plot to detonate an IED as their convoy was passing by her house on the morning of Nov. 19, 2005.
In a CNN interview broadcast Wednesday, Safa Younis - who says eight members of her family were killed by U.S. troops - recalled that she was getting ready for school as the Marine Humvee approached.
"I was planning to go to school. I was about to go out of bed. I knew the bomb would explode so I covered my ears," the youngster said, according to a CNN translator.
"The bomb [then] exploded," she explained. "The bomb struck an armored vehicle. I don't know if it was a Humvee or an armored vehicle. When the bomb exploded, they came straight to my house."
Younis complained that after the bombing killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, his fellow Marines broke down the front door of her house.
"The American forces entered the house and started shooting with their guns. They killed my mother and my sister Nour. They killed her when she shot her in the head. She was only 15 years old. My other sister was shot with seven bullets in the head and she was only 10 years old."
The Haditha co-conspirator continued:
"And my brother Muhammad was hiding under the bed when the U.S. military hit him with the butt of the gun and the started shooting him under the bed. The U.S. military then shot me and I was showered in blood. We couldn't leave the house because the U.S. military surrounded the area with a large number of soldiers."
Younis said she survived by pretending to be dead.
But the "innocent" Haditha 12-year-old failed to give any further details about which other family members knew about the bomb plot. Or whether one of her relatives had detonated the blast.
True that cardinal4!
You're going to cite a movie to me as an authority?
Were not the Iraqi bodies (results of the evil of Saddam and his henchmen) in mass graves in Iraq exhumed?
Intresting how these people keep turning up with ties to terrorist groups or far left Hate America Always groups INDEPENDENCE: April 2006Thousands more gathered in Salem, Ore., and other cities in peaceful, ... An eyewitness Khaled Ahmed Rsayef whose brother was among the dead told the Time: ... redindependence.blogspot.com/ 2006_04_01_redindependence_archive.html - 836k - Cached - Similar pages
Watch the video here.
Video on lower right hand side of the screen. Called "Haditha Uncovered.
Perhaps someone can explain to me the logical and factual flaws in the "Iraqi Civilian Right Groups" "story. How can these facts be logically reconciled with what the Iraqis, and some supposed Freepers, are accusing the Marines of doing?
To Quote Time:
"According to published reports, a number of Marines from the storied 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division are accused killing more than 20 Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of one of their comrades by a roadside bomb in November, 2005."
Okie, 20 Dead Civilians. Which we are told were all shot thus supposedly proving "the Marines falsified the original report". So what could just be an honest mistake between a Marine's assumption on the spot of cause of death in his After Action Report (We didn't fire up the building, they were dead, must of been the bomb shrapnel) with a medical examiners report filed after a autopsies is NOW claimed by the accusers as"proof" that the "Marines Lied".
Ok so the accusation is they were all shot to death at short range in a building that had not been penetrated by any rounds from outside. No bullet holes in the building, must mean it was not Collateral Damage but a deliberate act is the accusers claims. In other words the accusers claim the Marines shot to death the Iraqis inside the building as a deliberate act not an accident of war. In fact, Some are running around claiming a shrapnel wound is so obviously different that a Combat Infantry Marine would know the difference between the two. Leave aside the obviously question why would Infantry Marine would be examining the wounds of dead Civilians, lets assume, that is correct.
Ok, then how come the "survivors" as interviewed for CNN by the "Iraqi Civil Rights group" are making such obviously absurd claims on the video?
"They burned the room with my father in it then threw a bomb"? Neat trick that. How they "Burn the room"? We don't use flame throwers. "Threw a bomb" but the accusers are telling us it all gun shot wounds. "a Bomb" inflict shrapnel wounds.
Notice also the mannerism of the "children survivors". Having come thru what would of been the most terrifying event of their lives and being forced to talk about it again, yet the kids show no hesitation or emotion. Just a dull recital of supposed "Facts" as if they were reciting a story as an memorization assignment in School. Very strange that. Absolutely no real emotion, just a breathless recital of "Facts" Then when done speaking look over to the person standing to the right of the camera (You can see his shadow behind the kids). Sure looks like kids looking at a teacher to see how they did in reciting their "lesson"
Then there is the part where the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" filming the kids told the Iraqi boy to "show his wounds". It must not of occurred to the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" making the video to consider the Iraqi boy's supposed "wound". Apparently no one bothered to think about where he was "shot". The supposed "wound" supposedly inflicted by US Marines at point blank range, (as claimed by the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group)" is directly over his spine. Yet when told he got up and turned around for the camera to "Show his wounds"?
If he HAD been shot there, he would be crippled for life, his spine severed just below the neck. So all this is being based on the claims of an "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" which are demonstrated to be lying. Since they lied about this, what ELSE might they have lied about? So maybe some one can explain these inconsistencies in the "witnesses" testimony? Some "Americans", especially in the Junk Media, maybe want to rethink their rush to judgment on these Marines
Why did they go straight to HER house? Was it the only house in the area?
I'm praying that the Marines in question won't be thrown under the bus by the politicos who are trying to score points for their efforts.
It just strikes me as odd how she referred to them as an 'armored vehicle' and a 'humvee'. If she had said a 'tank' or a 'truck', fine...but the terms she used are very precise for a 12 year old Iraqi girl.
No apologies required. I just respond when I see my name. 8)
If this is true, it is no reason to kill children. Still, being in the situation is different from discussing it from our safe comfortable homes. I can see the other side. How some marines could have "lost it" in the heat of the passion. Sad all around.
If they did do this, it was wrong. But it was more wrong for the adults of this household to put their children and other family members at such risk. At the very least, they should have moved family out of harm's way if they are going to be war participants. You don't go to war hiding behind your children.
1. Everyone agrees this started with an IED explosion crippling a US vehicle.
2. There is no doubt that the IED attack killed one of our troops and wounded at least one other.
3. There are reports of a firefight.
4. There are reports of dead civilians.
We all agree on the facts.
The key part about the IED killing one American, and rendering the other American soldier on conscious is that this is the moment of enemy contact. When contact with the enemy is made, the rest of the team have an obligation to fight through the ambush and secure the bodies of the wounded and dead. This is no small thing. One of our guys, in an interview by a NBC affiliate recalls the IED going off, his driver being killed, and he woke up in the hospital 24 hours later, thanks to the rest of his team.
When 2 members of your team have been rendered combat ineffective by enemy contact, 1 wounded, the other dead, the rest of the team are obligated to go lethal.
In the weeks and months ahead, many people will attempt to over look these facts, and we should not let them.
The IED was the Atrocity, and that's the reality.
The plot thickens...
This statement by the "witness" raises all sorts of doubts about the credibility of the Murtha-jihadist propaganda version of the story, as you well know. If a 12 year old knew about the IED then others in the house surely did, too. Were some of her family members involved, or did they 'merely' see the jihadists setting up the IED? They knew a 500 lb. bomb was going to go off in front of their house and they did not flee the area?????? Anyone would know that all hell would break loose after the explosion, with a likely firefight and home searches, etc. Either the family was being kept their against their will in order to become victims, or else they were part of the plot. This all smells like a jihadist agit-prop set-up.
Now if this were a 5 or 6 year old I could understand the confusion but a child of this age would KNOW which family member fell on her, would KNOW whether she was in the bathroom, kitchen or living room, would KNOW and thus have stated from the beginning that her sister was shot in the head 7 times (rather interesting she only now remembers this event in enough detail to count the number of shots but can't seem to remember WHO, if anyone, fell on her and saved her life).
I don't expect anyone to remember these kinds of traumatic events perfectly, but PLEASE, there's just NO WAY her story would change this much. That ANYONE would believe the (CHANGING) story of a girl, a "doctor" & "photographer" (both held by US as terrorist sympathizers or worse, thus having a grudge) and the MSM over a Marine is just astounding. So tell me, just what is it that makes you inclined to believe these Marines are coldblooded killers of innocent Iraqi's? I seen a ton of information posted that certainly casts doubt on the veracity of the Hadithan's version of events, but little that supports it. So just what "facts" make you believe the stories in the press? Where's your "proof" of a slaughter? Time for you to put up.
Q: What's worse than a lying lawyer?
A: A lying Baath-jihadist scumbag of a lawyer.