US Marines Say 'Fearless' Fallujah Fighters Were on Drugs
During the recent battle between insurgents and US marines for the city of Fallujah it had been noticed that the defending rebels were fighting in a ferocious manner attributed to religious fervor and American hatred.
After the assault, however, substantial amounts of adrenaline, amphetamines and needles were discovered and the US forces now believe that the enemy was fighting while high on drugs which included crack cocaine.
"One guy described it as like watching the 'Night of the Living Dead,' " one marine said. "People who should have been dead were still alive". Another soldier reported seeing an insurgent run off after taking five machine gun bullets.
sounds very familiar. Remember when the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan? They told stories about the rebels being on drugs the same way. Is this part of the terrorist training or is this a myth of dis-information? Interesting.
In researching this story I came across a similar one concerning individual US servicemen talking about how they were (and are) forced to take similar drugs. Some said that the effects were powerful enough to make them do things which normally they would not have considered, including killing people who were not clearly identified as the enemy. The story is here: http://www.truthradio.com/
this is more propaganda to make the mindless among Americans believe that it's drugs, not invasion, murders and atrocities, that are fueling the resistence movement. convenient of the reporter not to go into the "go-pills" popped by U.S. military before operations.
... i'd want to be as out of my skull as possible before the event in addition to after, no matter how sound my reasoning for the fight. not as if you've got much to lose at that point. what are we gonna do, strip them of their medals when we find out?
yeah, awfully convenient to not mention the uppers our own troops are given.
a difference betweengiving anphetimines wgich just keep you awake and alert, and giving drugs which pretty much cut out the centeral nervous system. i am just supprised they didn't give them pcp, although i can see why, but the insurgants would have lasted even longer then from the crack. and in the US at least, there are amphertimines that are legal with a perscription, so the US soldiers are not taking illiagle drugs, but crack is illiagle everywhere as far as i know.....
It's the government that makes them illegal. I'm sure that speed is illegal for the public but is given regularly to pilots.
Anyway the comments are not about bad ole USA. They are about typical government double standards. Non miltary defenders of their lands on drugs is bad. Trained military invaders on drugs is good. What? I think that you will find that most of the Iraqis don't use drugs as a norm but when they are going to martyrdom then those sending them don't want them to think about it much. Our guys don't get sent out on suicide missions normally.
I didn't read anywhere that we were damning them for it. Just saying, "Some of these guys are on stimulants and it's giving them a bit more of an advantage than they already have". I know I don't want to have to fight someone who won't die.
On a different note: Sometimes I wish I had some speed. Most of the classes taught by civilians around here could tranquilize a pissed-off bear.
You don't want some speed. Its ok while you are on it but it has side effects when you come down. Cronic Depression. Mood swings. Which is why it is addictive. This is not to say that you can't keep it under control. I have never tried it but I have talked with people who have. The high is ok but the come down sucks.
somewhere, i cannot remember though. That soldiers were finding quite a bit of xanax and uppers that they believe they were taking. Its well known (i havnt researched much though) that they have been doing this for a while now.
I can't comment on what Air Force personnel do, but being a Army soldier, I have never even heard of soldiers being given drugs. Not even rumors through the grapevine. I spent a long time as a ground pounder and never once was offered anything but some ibuprofen for sore feet that we referred to as "Ranger Candy". Hell, to get even that I had to go to sick call in the morning and show some type of painful sores.
Perhaps the guys who took 5 machine gun bullets and ran off, were protected by Allah? I mean, look at Indonesia, the tsunami destroyed everything in its path except for Mosques.
On another note, American soldiers are on drugs. No this isnt an anti-USA comment, its the truth. Especially the carrier pilots, those guys meth it all day and night long.
I will accept your reference, and your comments if you will explain how the chemical cocktail was "forced upon ... Special Forces soldiers operating behind enemy lines."
Did someone visit them on a daily basis to ensure they were taking their cocktails?
FYI, Special Forces soldiers operating behind enemy lines live off the land.
I would appreciate hearing about your experiences that support your acceptance of the article you referenced and accepted without question.
If you believe everything you read, then you must believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
who? me? I've not said anywhere that I accepted any story relating to this subject, just that I had read them. I have no way of knowing what is fact or fiction and on that basis I treat the subject as a point of interest, nothing more. Sit down and relax.
The second post that I put up was just an additional link which I thought was relevant. It was not supposed to 'cancel out' the main story but compliment it - ie. some Iraqi insurgents reported to be on drugs, with a 'by the way, it has been reported that some US troops may be on drugs also.
"Out of the hundred articles/stories you read about today, why did you choose THIS one."
Why not? I chose it because I wanted to and because it was interesting to me and I wanted to therefore share it. Thats how I choose all the stories that I put up. I generally don't write abbout subjects that are of no interest to me.
"Your second post/ article on the subject should have either supported or refuted the first one."
Why should it? It is not my responsibility to support or refute what my source reports. Take it up with theunionleader.com. I'm just reporting what they did, nothing more. Its up to you to decide whether its true or false, not me. I just work here ;)
"Instead, you chose an article that neither supported nor refuted the message, but attacked the messenger."
Attacked the messenger? It was a seperate story, in no way connected. How did it attack anyone?
"What did the second article you posted have to do with the first one?"
If you read my post again, I found the link while reading up on the initial story. It was relevant in that it was about a fighting force allegedly taking drugs. That seems reasonably relevant doesn't it?
"For what purpose was the second article introduced? To back up the first one? or to cancel it out?"
The second article was introduced because it was vaguely relevant and inteeresting. There was no 'cancelling out' or 'backing up' motive. What is your problem with this? Are you familiar with how SN stories and forums work?? It appears not.
...but 20/20 ran a story a couple years ago concerning U.S. pilots on amphetamines. The story featured a pilot who had fired on Canadian forces by accident. Apparently, he was ordered to take a pill containing 5mg of dextroamphetamine so he could maintain focus for long periods of time. The pilot argued the amphetphetamine affected his judgment. I thought it was BS at the time b/c 5mg is a relatively small amount of a dextroamphetamine. In comparison, many children are prescribed this drug (or a similar drug like Adderal) for ADHD and might take 20 to 25mg a day. I am in no way in support of the military forcing a pilot to take amphetamines, but it isn't fair to compare crack cocaine to 5mg of dextroamphetamine...if this really is all the 'speed' members of the U.S. military are asked to take.
>> the tsunami destroyed everything in its path except for Mosques You know why.... Because everything they had were shacks... The hotels that you saw destroyed were all resorts on the beach. They took the grunt. Other than the hotels on the beach, all thats left are the shacks where people lived, and the mosques...
Mosques are NOT on the beach. They were not destroyed simply because they were inland - and made of brick and mortar...
Actually I dont know why the mosques werent destroyed, all I can do is guess they were built better. Your wrong. Everything around the mosques, yes, inland about 3km, was completely destroyed.
Shacks? Your kidding me right? All that was left were the foundations(cement etc) of buildings. Doesnt sound like a shack to me.
I have heard of the Air Force stories. I can even see some reasoning, kind of like drinking coffee to stay awake on load road trips, since they are essentially sitting on their asses. But being a soldier myself for a long time, I would have to call bullshit on any story of drug use by soldiers that came from the command. Ground pounders don't need help staying awake when you're humping 150 pounds of equipment over long distances. I see plenty of folks here, none of which even live in the U.S., let alone served in our military, really happy to throw this accusation around, with little or no proof.
I aint dumb enough to believe in that ridiculous theory. But still if god got some sense of humor, all the militants will spend eternity with 72 male chimps. ;)
US Marines Can Say What They Want... who the hell is going to take what they say as "Fair and Balanced" (which is what America expects ....no?)
Debating this is pointless
They told us that the fighters in Fallujah were foreign terrorists (NOT TRUE it turns out) , then they told us the fighting was coming to an end and only a few "pockets of resistance " were left (ANOTHER CROCK) and now they have to make up an excuse for these guys putting up such a fight against such an overpoweringly superior enemy ...the answer is simple it's called "nothing to loose" or "fighting for your life" or something like that..
Oh then they told us they found Chemical weapons in Fallujah (YET ANOTHER CROCK) and I bet these drugs are the same thing they were waving in front of TV cameras months ago saying "look WMD’s "
Come on America use your brains, at least one between the lot of you could sort this one out
And since when are “US MARINES” a source of reliable serious news stories …
believe everything they hear on TV (or most of what our government says about Iraq). I don't appreciate being categorized with the brainwashed, propaganda-following, warmongering, uninformed, Bush-Worshiping Americans. There are plenty Americans that feel the same way. We have to put up with anger from the Bush followers, AND the rest of the world! However, I recently got out of the Air Force after four years of service, and have never heard of them issuing any drugs intoxicating drugs (Questionable vaccines definitely)
Yep the scots when they were fighting the English invasion would take mind altering substances before a battle to enable them to work themselves up into a frenzy, the berserkers is what they were called & they would be right at the front ready to literally smash through the English lines & kill as many as possible before being killed themselves.
Just messing I totaly understand your point I said it before and I'll say it again . I've never met a yank I din't like (is yank ok or is that totaly un PC ??) or at least find one be a good laugh , obviously 250 million people can't be thrown into one pot although 250 milion can't seriously be represented by two political parties either .....woooo ...starting a rant ......i'll log off before I get all excited and end up in typoland but you get my drift.
I'm insulted by your presumption. I've always considered myself politically center... if not slightly left-leaning. Of course, I'm not the one trying to be a source of reliable serious news stories.
Also, I can't speak for 1SgtMike, but Marines (most of us anyway) have better things to do than correct your spelling, so you shouldn't worry too much.
don't take it personally there are some real "my country right or wrong" nuts here who will usually jump in on an attack , if they can't get you on facts they'll get you on a typo , if they can't get you on a typo they'll try to blame you on the oil for food scam :-) etc
Seriously though The Marines is not a news agency and the reporters coming out of iraq have all pointed out that the military doesn't really understand the concept of objectivity (if it exsists which it doesn't but you have to try and reach it even if it's not possible )
I'm sure there are many soldiers out there who se the stupidity of the planning and pay the price for the mistakes being made in the White House .....
Don't take it personally there are some real "The United States is always wrong" nuts here who will usually jump in on an attack , if they can't get you on facts they'll get you on a typo , if they can't get you on a typo they'll try to blame you on the US wanting Iraqs oil, etc.
"The Marines is not a news agency", nor does interviewing five or six memebers who support your view mean that they speak for the entire Marine Corps.
"the reporters coming out of iraq have all pointed out that the military doesn't really understand the concept of objectivity (if it exsists which it doesn't but you have to try and reach it even if it's not possible)"
Do the reporters you rely on practice objectivity? Are they tactically or strategically oriented? What expertese do they bring into the discussion? What historical references do they use. (Based upon the numbers of US servicemen killed in the invasion of Normandy, I'll bet I could have quoted a few hundred who complained about " the stupidity of the planning and pay the price for the mistakes being made in the White House .....")
Should we have packed up and gone home?
I don't dispute the experiences of the soldiers and Marines on the ground. I wasn't there. But where were the reporters when the bullets were flying? In my experience they hide in a "safe area" (a hotel bar) to write their reports.
I don't know if the soldiers and Marines quoted were right or wrong. But I do know they did not speak for the US Army or the US Marine Corps.
In the cited article, "They are just as likely to be indications of drug smuggling ...." a senior military official in Baghdad said."
Since he was unnamed, he was not speaking on behalf of anyone other than himself, either.
If all you read and accept is the side which reinforces your beliefs, you've got a major problem.
I have NEVER seen an issue where one side was always right all the time, and the other side was always wrong, all the time.
I prefer to explore both sides of an issue, ceding points when they are earned, and always reevaluating the strength of my position.
Sometimes, it is time to stop, and make a stand. Sometimes, it is better to back up and regroup. And sometimes, it is better to walk away from a position that cannot be supported.
Some people are fortunate. They learn that lesson when only egos are at risk. Others learn it at the cost of lives.
they'll try to blame you on the US wanting Iraqs oil, etc
yeah but they have proof to back this up from the United States State Department in 1945 when they expressed their plans for the region pointing out that it was a "stupendous source of strategic power" . Also The Us government expressed concerns at the dangers in Arab thinking at the time that the Americans had no interest in the region except oil to which the US replied that this was a difficult feeling to contain because it was true….it was true then and still is
I don't dispute the experiences of the soldiers and Marines on the ground. I wasn't there. But where were the reporters when the bullets were flying? In my experience they hide in a "safe area" (a hotel bar) to write their reports.
Not all of them hide under the table (I’m a news cameraman myself , haven’t been out there though , thank God) and their reports are out there in p2p land if you’re interested I can post the names of the reports and you can download them if you want
I have NEVER seen an issue where one side was always right all the time, and the other side was always wrong, all the time.
Totally agree with you, all I’m asking for is the basic minimum of honesty from the US Admin as for objectivity I spelled that one out before , it’s totally impossible (imho) to write something without inputting your own beliefs into it in some form or another but what is totally dishonest is when the Mass Media in the US use the same slogan for the war that was sent to them by the White House “operation Iraqi Freedom” ( it was going to be enduring freedom until someone pointed out the there are millions on this planned “enduring” American freedom) to open their reports on the region . This raises the question that if the Press in the US was state controlled how it would be any different.
Prior to the war MSNBC; FOX ,PBS and others conducted over 400 interviews concerning the upcoming attack on Iraq … only 3 out of the 400 were peace activists.
"The Marines is not a news agency", nor does interviewing five or six members who support your view mean that they speak for the entire Marine Corps.
If this is the case why are American Tv Corps Using army and ex-army generals on their news shows (and show is the word it’s not news it’s entertainment with video game style graphics on screen). They rant on about this type of plane, the type of bomb it drops, is it laser guided, who made it etc etc . I mean if you’re talking objectivity and balance shouldn’t you then have a doctor after the ex-army general explaining what a fragmentation bomb does to a 5 year old child showing pictures etc ????
Talk about re-defining General news … Lol
The best card the US could have played in this whole Iraq deal would have been not to crush the Anti-Saddam rebellion which was building up in the country (bet you didn’t know that ?) and if they had of let it happen the chances are that Saddam would have gone the way of other brutal dictators … i.e. booted out by his own.
Do the reporters you rely on practice objectivity? Are they tactically or strategically oriented? What expertise do they bring into the discussion? What historical references do they use? (Based upon the numbers of US servicemen killed in the invasion of Normandy, I'll bet I could have quoted a few hundred who complained about “the stupidity of the planning and pay the price for the mistakes being made in the White House .....")
Have you ever been to Normandy??? I have … ask the locals. I suppose you saw P.Ryan what you didn’t see is that the slaughter only happened on 2 beaches (not to say it wasn’t horrific) but if you’re talking numbers the US contribution in to the war was pretty insignificant (and no I’m not belittling the sacrifice those marines made) in comparison to the 20 million plus Russians who died. Some troops arrived in Normandy to be greeted with Champaign by the locals. This is on film (Pathe News) … If memory server me correctly the US got a really shitty couple of beach heads .
Independent reporters are the only credible source of news coming out of the area along with charity organizations and relief worker reports all those embedded reporters which are practically part of he invading forces just catch juicy Tv images most of which won’t be shown if it's not in the the interest of the military .Also the Military isn't only in Iraq it's in the editing rooms at Fox , Cnn, NBC ,Cbs etc .
Since neither you nor I were there, here is an article by someone who IS there, a US Army Task Force (Battalion) Commander. (Just for the record, I am Marine, not army)
But you argue with him, and tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about. http://tinyurl.com/ And the next time you quote a reporter, ask him where, exactly, he was when the incident he is reporting on occurred. Is he presenting an eye witness account, or hearsay?
"I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms -- how convenient.
The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan."
"Operation Enduring Freedom The latest name for the US-led counter-attack on terrorism. It was originally called Operation Ultimate Justice, but Islamic clerics objected on the grounds that ultimate justice can only be dispensed by Allah."
We changed it because we didn't want to offend the Muslim troops that are helping us in Afghanistan... still has nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
So its the people in Afghanistan enduring american freedom...thx...
who comes up with these catchy names anyway what ever happend to the X war ... you know the Iraq war the Afghanistan war wouldn't it be easier and more honest ???
We don't know what to call our wars anymore because we have too many enemies, and sadly, we don't know who they are.
If it was the Iraq War then not only would we get it confused with the first Gulf War, then it also implies we are fighting Iraqi people when they want us to believe we are 'liberating' them.
