NationStates Jolt Archive

For the time being there has been a very big contversey going around. the U.S soilder who shot that terroist. Should have he done it?? Should he be punished??
I leave these questions up to you to debate. In my personal thought i think the soilder was justfied. If he did not shoot that guy then they all may be dead right now. In war you do not have a minute to decide. You have only a second.Iin that second can be life or death. What would you have done??

Well first I would learn to spell and use proper grammar...


However in this particular case I would say that my first reaction would be to shoot. Reports have indicated that the soldier had been shot less than 24 hours prior to the shooting of the wounded Iraqi, and had lost at least 2 members of his Platoon in that same period. To say the least his nerves were frayed, and there is no way they can be blamed.

What would you have done??

The same damn thing. This man did what everyone with his training would have done in the same situation. Their training sets for snap decisions, and sometimes those decisions are wrong. The man is innocent of any crime.

It is a serious error to hold soldiers in warfare to the same standards as those to which police department personnel are held. Combat is definitely a different situation.

In a combat situation, where your life and the lives of those around you may depend upon quickly reacting to a rapidly developing situation, where you're so pumped with adrenelin that your nerve endings seem to extend outward in all directions from your body, the experienced soldier must rely on "instinctual" reaction. Without constant monitoring and intervention on the part of NCOs and officers, the tendency will become "shoot first and ask questions later."

It's all about survival.

The military is right to hold a court of inquiry, but based on the facts of which I am aware, this soldier acted correcty.

First off, there is no justification to call the victim a terrorist. Admittedly he cannot be considered a complete innocent, as he was (presuably) of his own choice in a war zone, but that does not automatically make one a terrorist.

Justified? How do mean the term, the way I use it, no it wasn't justified, but it was understandable and forgivable. Was it (the shooting) worthy of punishment? Maybe, not knowing the totality of the circumstances I cannot really say. I reserve judgement on whether or not it is either acceptable or unacceptable behavior, although on the surface it appears to be unacceptable behavior.

It is a serious error to hold soldiers in warfare to the same standards as those to which police department personnel are held. Combat is definitely a different situation.

In a combat situation, where your life and the lives of those around you may depend upon quickly reacting to a rapidly developing situation, where you're so pumped with adrenelin that your nerve endings seem to extend outward in all directions from your body, the experienced soldier must rely on "instinctual" reaction. Without constant monitoring and intervention on the part of NCOs and officers, the tendency will become "shoot first and ask questions later."

It's all about survival.

The military is right to hold a court of inquiry, but based on the facts of which I am aware, this soldier acted correcty.

I really hope you get shot for no reason some day and leave a note telling your family it was justified.

First off, there is no justification to call the victim a terrorist. Admittedly he cannot be considered a complete innocent, as he was (presuably) of his own choice in a war zone, but that does not automatically make one a terrorist.

Justified? How do mean the term, the way I use it, no it wasn't justified, but it was understandable and forgivable. Was it (the shooting) worthy of punishment? Maybe, not knowing the totality of the circumstances I cannot really say. I reserve judgement on whether or not it is either acceptable or unacceptable behavior, although on the surface it appears to be unacceptable behavior.

Actualy they know that he was a terorist, because he had been in a shoot out with a group of marines the day before, thats how he got wounded in the first place.

Well first I would learn to spell and use proper grammer...


However in this particular case I would say that my first reaction would be to shoot. Reports have indicated that the soldier had been shot less than 24 hours prior to the shooting of the wounded Iraqi, and had lost at least 2 members of his Platoon in that same period. To say the least his nerves were frayed, and there is no way they can be blamed.
Hahaha, it's grammar, not grammer.

Personally, I don't think it was justified.
But as Squi said, it was understandable.

At least the soldier made it a quick death, and did not try to take out his anger on the Iraqi by mutilating him or making his last few moments of life a living hell.

I really hope you get shot for no reason some day and leave a note telling your family it was justified.

Well, having been shot AT many times, but fortunately never having been hit, I feel at least somewhat qualified to address this issue. I fail to see what your post had to do with what I said in mine.

If you call him a terrorist right off the bat you are prejudicing the case against the guy. Shooting at soliders doesn't make you a terrorist, chopping off a civillian's head would make you a terrorist. The shooting of that one wounded Iraqi was shown on tv stations throughout the middle east and will probably push scores of Iraqis into joining the resistance which will cost American lives.

I really hope you get shot for no reason some day and leave a note telling your family it was justified.I suspect you have less respect for human life than the soldier in question or the man you're responding to.

If you call him a terrorist right off the bat you are prejudicing the case against the guy. Shooting at soliders doesn't make you a terrorist, chopping off a civillian's head would make you a terrorist. The shooting of that one wounded Iraqi was shown on tv stations throughout the middle east and will probably push scores of Iraqis into joining the resistance which will cost American lives.

All right I can understand that. THing is either way they are the ones trying to kill this soilder and if I remeber correctly their have been reports of them booby traping their dead so he could quite possibly and reasonably thought the guy had a bomb.

Hahaha, it's grammar, not grammer.
Did I really make that typo? Damn, thats what I get for writing that reply in about 20 seconds. Damn you 100 words a minute!

HE'S FUCKING FAKING IT!

lol.

war sucks.

He was a prisoner of war, which are protected by international laws. If an American POW was accidentally shot, the scandal would have gone through the roof. Remember the American POWs in 2003?

Edit: Yes, I agree, war sucks. It should be made illegal.

If your putting yourself or being put in a position where your in a war zone it is wise to look at every subject as someone that wants to either kill you or kill those that want to harm you. It has been the downfall of many superpowers to be overly brutal and find their very precense strengthens the resistance against them. By allowing international media inside and out of Iraq the US is at least worthy of an effort to hand over a fair shake. The problem is that we rely on the media to follow suit and give a fair shake as well. I think by allowing the information of what the kid had been through prior and the fact that not a person anywhere but that kid (and God) can explain what was going through his mind when he took the other mans life.

I think by allowing the information of what the kid had been through prior and the fact that not a person anywhere but that kid (and God) can explain what was going through his mind when he took the other mans life.

The clause in that sentence is messed up. :D

Yes, the media can serve some good in that way. But it may (and usually does) give incorrect or abridged information that serves to form false assumptions.

He was a prisoner of war, which are protected by international laws. If an American POW was accidentally shot, the scandal would have gone through the roof. Remember the American POWs in 2003?

Edit: Yes, I agree, war sucks. It should be made illegal.
The question is whether he was truly a POW. Firstly, if he wasn't Iraqi then he wasn't a POW at all. There has yet been a reliable source saying that without a doubt he was truly an iraqi. Just an "insurgent". Secondly there was gunfire reported in the mosque BEFORE the guy killed him. The only report of what went on is from the reporter. None of those involved have described to the press what went on before the insurgent was killed.

war sucks.

Yes, it does. Aren't you glad there are those willing to fight in your stead?

None of those involved have described to the press what went on before the insurgent was killed.

Nor will they until the court of inquiry renders judgement.

He was a prisoner of war, which are protected by international laws. If an American POW was accidentally shot, the scandal would have gone through the roof. Remember the American POWs in 2003?

Edit: Yes, I agree, war sucks. It should be made illegal.darn server keeps knocking me off, thanks for picking up the slack

One is not a POW until one's surrender has been accepted. He was apparently in the process of surrendering, but that doesn't make one a POW or afford one protected status as a POW under international law. This is a red herring argument and should be ignored.

I really hope you get shot for no reason some day and leave a note telling your family it was justified.

You are an idiot. Have you ever been in combat? I have. He was justified. The piece of crap he shot was a terrorist. The only thing the Marine (not Soldier) did wrong was he only shot once.

Nor will they until the court of inquiry renders judgement.
I know, but until the complete story is out it's rather useless to sit in judgement.

It's pretty much all situation ethics here.

Scenerio 1
The marine walks up and shoots the guy out of nowhere because he saw him in fire-fight earlier. Not justified, the marine should be tried for murder.

Scenario 2
The guy pulls out a gun and points it at the marine. The marine shoots at him and kills him. Justified. The marine gets off ok.

Depending upon what type of situation it was makes the killing justified or not.

Very probably, it was not justified. I really wont claim to understand US military law, but one would certainly hope that it would be possible to spread the blame in such a way that it was clear (to personal and the international community) that it was unacceptable, without being too punitive with regards to any one individual, although I somehow dont expect such a pragmatic resolution to be forthcoming.

One of the problems of living in a blame, point the finger, damm, and blame some more society; in order to find someone culpable you have to find them to be a villian, in order to find someone not culpable it seems necessary to find them not to be a villian.

Very probably, it was not justified. I really wont claim to understand US military law, but one would certainly hope that it would be possible to spread the blame in such a way that it was clear (to personal and the international community) that it was unacceptable, without being too punitive with regards to any one individual, although I somehow dont expect such a pragmatic resolution to be forthcoming.

One of the problems of living in a blame, point the finger, damm, and blame some more society; in order to find someone culpable you have to find them to be a villian, in order to find someone not culpable it seems necessary to find them not to be a villian.
Why do you automatically believe the news reports of the situation? I have yet to see an account from someone who was in the mosque from the first incident of gunfire to the guy's death.

It's pretty much all situation ethics here.

Scenerio 1
The marine walks up and shoots the guy out of nowhere because he saw him in fire-fight earlier. Not justified, the marine should be tried for murder.

Scenario 2
The guy pulls out a gun and points it at the marine. The marine shoots at him and kills him. Justified. The marine gets off ok.

Depending upon what type of situation it was makes the killing justified or not.

"Situational ethics" is inappropriate in combat. Neither of your scenarios apply in this case.

You got that right.

You are an idiot. Have you ever been in combat? I have. He was justified. The piece of crap he shot was a terrorist. The only thing the Marine (not Soldier) did wrong was he only shot once.

Semper Fi! Carry on.

Yes, it does. Aren't you glad there are those willing to fight in your stead?
Respect for the troops does not entail a desire to go to war for dubious reasons.

If it's not justified, then it's a symptom of Bush adopting The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine as part of his Pre-Emptive Strike policy.

It's pretty much all situation ethics here.

Scenerio 1
The marine walks up and shoots the guy out of nowhere because he saw him in fire-fight earlier. Not justified, the marine should be tried for murder.
Pretty wierd to try him for murder for doing something completely legal under international and most moral law. Shooting a known enemy conbatant in a war zone is not murder. The victim was apparently surrendering (from the video I saw), but if he was a combatant in a war zone and the soldier knew he was a combatant then there is no problem (without the apparent surrender). One can go into some deatail about the legalistic points, but they all hinge upon the question of surrender.

You are an idiot. Have you ever been in combat? I have. He was justified. The piece of crap he shot was a terrorist. The only thing the Marine (not Soldier) did wrong was he only shot once.

Hehe, i agree, although I don't think it was right or wrong to shoot once :)

If it's not justified, then it's a symptom of Bush adopting The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine as part of his Pre-Emptive Strike policy.

Oh, you mean like American forces killing Germans trying to surrender during the D-day invasion was a symptom of FDR adopting The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine as part of his Kill the Krouts and Nips policy?

Why do you automatically believe the news reports of the situation? I have yet to see an account from someone who was in the mosque from the first incident of gunfire to the guy's death.
I dont automatically believe the news reports of the situtation.

If you call him a terrorist right off the bat you are prejudicing the case against the guy. Shooting at soliders doesn't make you a terrorist, chopping off a civillian's head would make you a terrorist. The shooting of that one wounded Iraqi was shown on tv stations throughout the middle east and will probably push scores of Iraqis into joining the resistance which will cost American lives.

Read the above post, this guy was involved in a shootout prior to this.
It is easy to sit here in the total and complete safety of the land of milk and honey and cast judgement from the vast experience and information we get from 1 minute of video, becoming the societal equivalent of an armchair quarterback drinking a 6 pack watching this war like it was Sunday football.
America needs a conscience, but what we don't need is to fight ourselves, especially in a war based on partisan ignorance. If it comes from anyone's mouth associated with a political party, doubt its veracity, doubly so if someone stands to make a buck from it.

war is hell, you dont wait to see if the enemy has a gun or has a grenade.
if you see an enemy that is pretending to be dead and then he starts to move you dont want to wait and see what happens. there is no doubt about it that the marine was not scared, in enemy territory many of you would probably be shooting at anything that moved.

he is innocent of any crime and if he is charged with anything it is because of liberals not understanding war is hell.

the person who should be blamed is the person behind the camera, what the hell was he thinking handing that tape to the news networks.

... the soldier had been shot less than 24 hours prior...dont forget...he was shot on the face.

the person who should be blamed is the person behind the camera, what the hell was he thinking handing that tape to the news networks.
Aha, you dont get that kind of crap happening in a totalitarian society.

BTW the murdered POW was not a terrorist or a "terroist" :D or whatever else you want to call him.

Well first I would learn to spell and use proper grammar...


Well, I would first learn to spell, and then use proper grammar before ……

But whatever, I'm sure you had some kind of point.

Pretty wierd to try him for murder for doing something completely legal under international and most moral law. Shooting a known enemy conbatant in a war zone is not murder. The victim was apparently surrendering (from the video I saw), but if he was a combatant in a war zone and the soldier knew he was a combatant then there is no problem (without the apparent surrender). One can go into some deatail about the legalistic points, but they all hinge upon the question of surrender.You need to see the full video.

Aha, you dont get that kind of crap happening in a totalitarian society.

Im not saying the press should not report on what goes on, what im saying is that in times of war you do need to limit what you share. After the war is over share allyou want but when there is still an enemy that will destroy any american you do not share this type of info. like what was said in a previous post about killing surrendering germans in the dday landing, this was brought up after the war. you do not need to hear it directly as it happens to know war is hell.

The Marine is innocent and anyone who has not served in the military or in a war zone has no idea what this all about.I am not saying you do not have the right to comment but please weigh your comments against your experience.....He had to react the way he did or his brothers would all be dead. No debate...One can not take a chance in a war zone...

Hehe, i agree, although I don't think it was right or wrong to shoot once :)

I should think that one shot was better. It seems much more humane than emptying an entire clip on a wounded man. From what I've heard, it was either the chest or the head - quick and easy.
If he had riddled the guy with bullets (and probably screaming expletives as well, if he was that angry), I'd be worried about it enhancing the view that some people have that sees all American soldiers as non-thinking, trigger-happy grunts. That would inflame public opinion even more.

Again, I repeat my view of not seeing this as justified, but still seeing it as understandable.

I suspect you have less respect for human life than the soldier in question or the man you're responding to.

I have no respect for people who kill others for no reason.

The war is not justified. The killing is therefore not justified. You can't tell me I'm wrong just because i haven't killed in the army before. Don't tell me it's all about survival. You made your choice to be rediculed when you chose to sign up to this killing spree.

The Marine is innocent and anyone who has not served in the military or in a war zone has no idea what this all about.I am not saying you do not have the right to comment but please weigh your comments against your experience.....He had to react the way he did or his brothers would all be dead. No debate...One can not take a chance in a war zone...

I agree 100%, alot of people dont seem to realize what it is like to be in constant fear.

i think the military should start using their own camera men more and stop allowing contract camera men at the front

I agree 100%, alot of people dont seem to realize what it is like to be in constant fear.

So if an iraqi who lived in constant fear shot an American how would you react then?

Actually lets extend that. I'm afraid of snakes, am I then justified to go to another country and kill them?

Oh, you mean like American forces killing Germans trying to surrender during the D-day invasion was a symptom of FDR adopting The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine as part of his Kill the Krouts and Nips policy?

You conveniently overlooked the word "If". And unlike WW2 where the Geneva Convetion was mostly observed by the combatants and the sides more or less black and white in presentation, the Iraq Occupation is full of
gray spots such as Abu Ghraib. The last thing anyone wants is for an Iraqi My Lai to crop up.

While I agree that the soldier shot the man because he considered him a threat, I believe that it was a mistake in judgement. I'm assuming that the marines were at the very least travelling in fours, and he was the only one to think he was a threat.

One thing I'd like to point out is the fact that there were other wounded combatants there, and noone opened fire on them. So I don't think it's fair to say that the marine shot the wounded man purely out of spite or racism (as I've seen people claim in other places), nor do I think it's fair to suggest that the marines do not respect the rules of war.

The marine in question made a judgement call and the only reason we are even discussing this is that in this particular situation he was wrong. We have no idea how many US personnel have been killed/wounded so far due to the fact of being fired upon after the Iraqis signalled surrender, or booby-trapped bodies, etc. All those things must be considered.

So if an iraqi who lived in constant fear shot an American how would you react then?

Actually lets extend that. I'm afraid of snakes, am I then justified to go to another country and kill them?

the iraqi has the same right to shoot the americans if they are in fear and an american is setting himself up ready to blow up and kill the iraqi and possibly his fellow soldiers.

and about the snakes, its a little different there. a snake does not strap on exposives and blow you up, in fact a snake doesnt harm you unless you try to harm them. NOT THE CASE AT ALL WITH IRAQIS. these people have the ability to launch an attack and take out half of the USA.

this is something you need to realize, to many people think war is just within a few miles. a submarine can be on the other side of the world and launch an attack. it is a kill or be killed world now, it is not generals sitting on horses while civilians watch on the side lines.

One thing I'd like to point out is the fact that there were other wounded combatants there, and noone opened fire on them. So I don't think it's fair to say that the marine shot the wounded man purely out of spite or racism (as I've seen people claim in other places), nor do I think it's fair to suggest that the marines do not respect the rules of war.


this "wounded" combatant was the only one that moved in a way to create enough fear for them to shoot. like i said before you dont wait to see what will happen.

You need to see the full video.I don't know if there is more relevant video I haven't seen or not, but the question comes down to was he surrendering or not. I fail to see what relevance the video of the instantaneous case has to do with the exapmle presented for situational ethics, and surrender was not an issue for the situation presented. If someone is a know combatant in a combant zone (and is not surrendering), then you can shoot them when they're sleeping, micturating, you can hide in a box and surprise them or pretty much anything else, it is not necessary to stop shooting them when they are not actively trying to kill you, they cannot call "time out". I am only adressing the scenerio presented for the situational ethics argument, not the case in question.

the iraqi has the same right to shoot the americans if they are in fear and an american is setting himself up ready to blow up and kill the iraqi and possibly his fellow soldiers.

and about the snakes, its a little different there. a snake does not strap on exposives and blow you up, in fact a snake doesnt harm you unless you try to harm them. NOT THE CASE AT ALL WITH IRAQIS. these people have the ability to launch an attack and take out half of the USA.

this is something you need to realize, to many people think war is just within a few miles. a submarine can be on the other side of the world and launch an attack. it is a kill or be killed world now, it is not generals sitting on horses while civilians watch on the side lines.

Oooh by your name I just know we're in for a good fight here. SO you know for a fact that THAT Iraqi was strapped with explosives? Do explain your divine insight there.

Oooh by your name I just know we're in for a good fight here. SO you know for a fact that THAT Iraqi was strapped with explosives? Do explain your divine insight there.

More to the point, how could THAT marine know that THAT Iraqi didn't have explosives, given previous events?

Oooh by your name I just know we're in for a good fight here. SO you know for a fact that THAT Iraqi was strapped with explosives? Do explain your divine insight there.

i never said that iraqi was. What i was saying is that if you have been paying attention to the news from iraq you would know that there have been bodies set to explode. if you did not know this maybe you shouldnt be commenting on this at all. Iraqis are brutal and will not hold back at all, but its ok for an iraqi "soldier" to shoot wounded Americans but the other way around its a huge case.

More to the point, how could THAT marine know that THAT Iraqi didn't have explosives, given previous events?

exaclty!

people dont seem to understand in times of war you do not wait to see what happens.

More to the point, how could THAT marine know that THAT Iraqi didn't have explosives, given previous events?
How do I know you don't have explosives? SHould I shoot you?

Oooh by your name I just know we're in for a good fight here. SO you know for a fact that THAT Iraqi was strapped with explosives? Do explain your divine insight there.

WHat does knowing for a fact have to do with it the suspision would be enough in a case like this. Whats the guy supose to do pat the man down? If he tried that and the dude had a bomb him and his squad would be splatterd all over the inside of that mosque. That is assuming that was what happened of course namely that if what happened was he walked in stared at the guy twiching there for awhile AND then shot him you have a completly different matter. However from the clip I heard on NPR it sounds like he was under the impression that the guy was facking being dead which is needless to say suspiciouse behavior.

i never said that iraqi was. What i was saying is that if you have been paying attention to the news from iraq you would know that there have been bodies set to explode. if you did not know this maybe you shouldnt be commenting on this at all. Iraqis are brutal and will not hold back at all, but its ok for an iraqi "soldier" to shoot wounded Americans but the other way around its a huge case.

"Iraqi's are brutal and will not hold back." Generalization of the century.

Do you even listen to yourself? Hey I asked you the very same question. Or should be a big case either way. But you guys just don't give a crap for the thousands of Iraqis dying. Do you?

How do I know you don't have explosives? SHould I shoot you?

not before i shoot you then

ARE WE IN A WAR? AM I THREATENED BY YOU? DO I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE ABOUT TO KILL ME AND MY FELLOW SOLDIERS?

answer to all these question = no

that was an ignorant thing to say

how old are you? 10, 11

How do I know you don't have explosives? SHould I shoot you?
That is just so stupid on so many levels that I don't know were to start.

not before i shoot you then

ARE WE IN A WAR? AM I THREATENED BY YOU? DO I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE ABOUT TO KILL ME AND MY FELLOW SOLDIERS?

answer to all these question = no

that was an ignorant thing to say

how old are you? 10, 11

I'm human. So are the people being killed.

How do I know you don't have explosives? SHould I shoot you?


Poor analogy. If you had reason to suspect that I did and I would use them to kill you, then no you should wait till I blow you up. :)

"Iraqi's are brutal and will not hold back." Generalization of the century.

Do you even listen to yourself? Hey I asked you the very same question. Or should be a big case either way. But you guys just don't give a crap for the thousands of Iraqis dying. Do you?

the thousands of iraqis bring it on themselfs, the marines do not
a marine does not go into a town trigger happy
they shoot when there is a threat.

iraqis shoot their own people and americans

Poor analogy. If you had reason to suspect that I did and I would use them to kill you, then no you should wait till I blow you up. :)

Poor/Simple. Depends how you look at it. So what was the Marines reason for suspecting it? Just because he was there?

"Iraqi's are brutal and will not hold back." Generalization of the century.

Do you even listen to yourself? Hey I asked you the very same question. Or should be a big case either way. But you guys just don't give a crap for the thousands of Iraqis dying. Do you?
I have to agree that his inclusion of all Iraquis is a bit much, but the truth is that the insurgents at least do have a history of using unconventional methods, which well stratigicaly sound on their part since they wouldn't stand a chance otherwise does intitile the coilition forces to be more suspiciouse and cautiouse than normal.

Damn I have horrible spelling awe screw it its almost 2.

the thousands of iraqis bring it on themselfs, the marines do not
a marine does not go into a town trigger happy
they shoot when there is a threat.

iraqis shoot their own people and americans

Americans shoot their own people. How assumptious can you be. Americans kill more of their own people than any other other nation in the world. Oh really, not trigger happy are they. I guess this whole mess is just mist to you.

Poor/Simple. Depends how you look at it. So what was the Marines reason for suspecting it? Just because he was there?


Because of similiar tactics used by the insurgents in Fallujah . We've already been over this.

The soldier in this particular situation had been shot in his face and seen one of his best friends die due to a instance similar to the one in question because no one took appropriate action. I will give this man not only the benefit of the doubt, but the outright discression to be the judge and jury in ANY situation like that. Also, this would not be an issue if some non-combatant reporter who was being protected by the men he was with had been smart enough to give the tape to the military to put the Marine on trial first. The reporter has a job to do what is right, and HE failed. He saw his chance at glory and took it instead of doing the right thing, and while I cannot say I wouldn't have been tempted to do the same thing, it would appear to me the reporter should have been more appreciative of his life instead of career. The media has been trying to find a way to destroy the integrity of our military since day one, and this is the final straw, our military should not be put under scrutiny in time of war. But, it is the times that we live in.

I'm human. So are the people being killed.

very good, they are human

but lets think about this, are you shooting at me?, is there a chance that if i walk by you, you will explode?

untill there is i will try to attack you before you attack me.

I have to agree that his inclusion of all Iraquis is a bit much, but the truth is that the insurgents at least do have a history of using unconventional methods, which well stratigicaly sound on their part since they wouldn't stand a chance otherwise does intitile the coilition forces to be more suspiciouse and cautiouse than normal.

Damn I have horrible spelling awe screw it its almost 2.

Rightio, well firstly thanks for the civil reply.

Ok so is this all just another Vietnam? Like I'm hearing the same over-patriotic, prejudice crap coming from some people round here as I've read about then.

Poor/Simple. Depends how you look at it. So what was the Marines reason for suspecting it? Just because he was there?
No the Marines reason for suspecting it were two fold;
1. the insurgents have a history of suicide bomings and booby traping bodies
2. The soilder was under the impresion that the man was facking being dead hence the "Hes Fuking Facking" and it is quite logical to be suspiciouse in such a case when ones life might be indager.

very good, they are human

but lets think about this, are you shooting at me?, is there a chance that if i walk by you, you will explode?

untill there is i will try to attack you before you attack me.

And your reason for shooting me is that I'm laying on the ground with a gun shot wound, screaming for mercy? A war of possibilities. Sounds so damn re-assuring.

And your reason for shooting me is that I'm laying on the ground with a gun shot wound, screaming for mercy? A war of possibilities. Sounds so damn re-assuring.

rofl screaming for mercy? Now you're just making up things as you go along.

Americans shoot their own people. How assumptious can you be. Americans kill more of their own people than any other other nation in the world. Oh really, not trigger happy are they. I guess this whole mess is just mist to you.

Its american criminals that kill people, im american and i dont kill other americans. in many places if someone is trying to kill you you have the right to harm them. criminals pay for their actions. these iraqi people say they are fighting for iraq. they arent, if they were fighting for iraq dont you think they would have a little more respect for the irqi people.

And your reason for shooting me is that I'm laying on the ground with a gun shot wound, screaming for mercy? A war of possibilities. Sounds so damn re-assuring.

that is made up, Have you seen the tape? or do you just listen to liberal media?

Actualy they know that he was a terorist, because he had been in a shoot out with a group of marines the day before, thats how he got wounded in the first place.

Shooting at someone that your at War with doesn't make you a terrorist does it? cause if it does than this country (the united States) was founded by terrorists and we should probablly all kill ourselves and end this looming "terrorist threat" once and for all.

right?

Its american criminals that kill people

And it's Iraqi extremists that kill other Iraqis, so quit generalizing like some hack right-wing pundit.

And it's Iraqi extremists that kill other Iraqis, so quit generalizing like some hack right-wing pundit.

and it was an iraqi extremist that the marine killed
that iraqi was not innocent

Shooting at someone that your at War with doesn't make you a terrorist does it? cause if it does than this country (the united States) was founded by terrorists and we should probablly all kill ourselves and end this looming "terrorist threat" once and for all.

right?
Alright all agree on the point that he might nesescarily be a terrorist, but he was still trying to kill american soilders so he was a combatant not a civilian bystander.

and it was an iraqi extremist that the marine killed
that iraqi was not innocent

Heh I don't think anyone stopped to ask him what his political view was. For all we know he could have been forced to fight by the insurgents.

Rightio, well firstly thanks for the civil reply.

Ok so is this all just another Vietnam? Like I'm hearing the same over-patriotic, prejudice crap coming from some people round here as I've read about then.
Sorry for the delayed response I had one wrriten out but my computer gliched any way heres the short version.
Thank you.
It looks like it just might be that is why so many people are making comparisons. And since we took out their goverment creating anarchy we have a responsibility to try and fix it. An yes we don't appear to be doing that good of a job at that unfortunently.

Alright all agree on the point that he might nesescarily be a terrorist, but he was still trying to kill american soilders so he was a combatant not a civilian bystander.

I can dig it .. by the way if i were unfortunate enough to be over there (because i needed money for college or something) fighting a yet to be justified war I'd be pretty scared about folks trying to kill me too .. I may have shot the guy had I been in his position but who can say?

Sorry for the delayed response I had one wrriten out but my computer gliched any way heres the short version.
Thank you.
It looks like it just might be that is why so many people are making comparisons. And since we took out their goverment creating anarchy we have a responsibility to try and fix it. An yes we don't appear to be doing that good of a job at that unfortunently.

we are helping them alot the thing is they are not doing much to help themselfs. kind of hard to help people that dont try and help themselfs.

Heh I don't think anyone stopped to ask him what his political view was. For all we know he could have been forced to fight by the insurgents.
Is that important. I mean thats kind of caluse, its just as likely that he was a volunteer willing to do any thing to kill those marines.

Is that important. I mean thats kind of caluse, its just as likely that he was a volunteer willing to do any thing to kill those marines.


True. My point is we simply don't know anything about the man, except that he was found wounded in a mosque, a mosque that had people in it that were shooting at marines.

I can dig it .. by the way if i were unfortunate enough to be over there (because i needed money for college or something) fighting a yet to be justified war I'd be pretty scared about folks trying to kill me too .. I may have shot the guy had I been in his position but who can say?

college is just a benefit you are given when you join. you do need to realize once joining if there is a war chances are you are going to it. you should be prepared to do so.

we are helping them alot the thing is they are not doing much to help themselfs. kind of hard to help people that dont try and help themselfs.
That maybe but either way things are don't seem to be a bed of roses. Its got to be hard for the people to have running gun battles going on in the streets.

and about the snakes, its a little different there. a snake does not strap on exposives and blow you up, in fact a snake doesnt harm you unless you try to harm them. NOT THE CASE AT ALL WITH IRAQIS. these people have the ability to launch an attack and take out half of the USA.

Er, unless there has been some nukes or whatever found recently, they never had the capacity to take out the US in any way, shape nor form.

and it was an iraqi extremist that the marine killed
that iraqi was not innocent

"that is made up, Have you seen the tape? or do you just listen to conservative media?"

In other words, how do you know anything about that old man. Oh, that's right, you don't...no one knows who he was, only that he turned out to be unarmed. Odd, that...who do you get your news from, Michael Savage?

You seem to have missed my point about generalizing. In fact, by your response, it seems to have sailed right over your oblivious head...

Er, unless there has been some nukes or whatever found recently, they never had the capacity to take out the US in any way, shape nor form.

but they did, they didnt find any weapons of mass destruction but a can of raid can kill a man faster then same radiation can.

explosives being sold to a group of people planning a trip to the us also wouldnt be very good

True. My point is we simply don't know anything about the man, except that he was found wounded in a mosque, a mosque that had people in it that were shooting at marines.
Yeah we don't but neither did the Marine when he had to make his desision and if he saw it as a situation of that guy or him and his freinds I can see why he might react the way he did. The thing is it is not always the facts that are important, but the way things apear. For example some people in the Arab world are going to see this in the worst light possible even if that is not the case, but that doesn't matter because what is important is the way the see it and what they do about that. That s pretty much the whole purpuse behind propaganda on either side.

Having been in combat, I can say that what the Marine did was a mistake and one he will be paying for the rest of his life. Not from any prosecution, but from his own mind replaying it and the age old soldier's question, "What if?"

Yes, it was a mistake. Justified? I don't know, I wasn't there. Were I in his shoes, I may have done something differently. I doubt I would have pulled the trigger until I saw a clear danger to myself or my men. A man laying on the ground and then suddenly moving is not a good enough reason to shoot. It is against the rules of engagement.

War sucks, yes, but there are rules to war. The investigation will be held and the USMC will determine the best course of action.

I do not believe the Marine's nerves were on edge. He may have been in a heightened state of adrenaline and awareness that comes with combat and training. Anyone who has been in combat and been trained for that combat knows what I mean. There is a calmness to combat. In the movies, you see chaos and blood sprays and body parts flying about and, yes, that is very real; but if you were to put a camera in the soldier's mind, there is a focussed calm that the uninitiated will never understand.

I shall watch and see. Inaction on the part of the USMC will send a message to other Marines that such things will be tolerated and I think that may be dangerous. Too harsh of action against the Marine may send a message that endangers lives because of combat soldiers being more apprehensive to act.

It's delicate, it's difficult, and I'm glad I don't have to make such decisions.

we are helping them alot the thing is they are not doing much to help themselfs. kind of hard to help people that dont try and help themselfs.

Helping them? How? Specifics please. Mind you, I'm asking how the actual military is helping them, not the aid organizations.

Its american criminals that kill people

This is not a very good analogy. You see, if we apply it elsewhere, for example the american government to collapsing while under the invasion of a foreign army. Once that is the case, it is likely that anarchy would reign as well. From that instance, I believe there would be a significant rise in illegal activities i.e. rebellion, gangs, fiefdoms?

So if we have such an example and call the participants criminals, than the insurgents in Iraq can be called criminals. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy.

Oh but who am I kidding? Hypocrisy is the number one currency of humanity.

As to whether the soldier was justified, there is insufficient evidence for a verdict.

"that is made up, Have you seen the tape? or do you just listen to conservative media?"

In other words, how do you know anything about that old man. Oh, that's right, you don't...no one knows who he was, only that he turned out to be unarmed. Odd, that...who do you get your news from, Michael Savage?

You seem to have missed my point about generalizing. In fact, by your response, it seems to have sailed right over your oblivious head...
Thats not true acording to the New York times report I read he was involved in a shoot out the day before thats how he wound up wounded in the first place. And before you say he might have been an innocent bystander that is unfortunantly not important all that is important is what that marine percieved to be going on. Look at my earlier post on why perception is the only thing that is important in situations like this.

but they did

But they don't. We're fighting a war now, not then.

they didnt find any weapons of mass destruction but a can of raid can kill a man faster then same radiation can.

explosives being sold to a group of people planning a trip to the us also wouldnt be very good

A can of raid? What the hell are you on about? Is the ability you purport that they have to wipe out half the US that they'll all come over here and buy bug spray at Walmart to attack us one by one?!

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

"that is made up, Have you seen the tape? or do you just listen to conservative media?"

In other words, how do you know anything about that old man. Oh, that's right, you don't...no one knows who he was, only that he turned out to be unarmed. Odd, that...who do you get your news from, Michael Savage?

You seem to have missed my point about generalizing. In fact, by your response, it seems to have sailed right over your oblivious head...

i think it is safe to say when you are hanging out in a place that is shooting at americans your not exactly passive or trying to help the americans, wounded from shooting at americans

have you ever heard of mob mentallity, that is why you have to generalize. people act differently when they are in a group then they do when they are alone. generalizing helps you understand what that group is going to do. it is neccesary.

But they don't. We're fighting a war now, not then.



A can of raid? What the hell are you on about? Is the ability you purport that they have to wipe out half the US that they'll all come over here and buy bug spray at Walmart to attack us one by one?!

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

that wasnt my point, my point is alot of stuff found is not listed as wmd but has every capability to kill thousands even millions

"Situational ethics" is inappropriate in combat. Neither of your scenarios apply in this case.

Well, we're asking a question about wether or not the killing was justified. That involves your ethics of the case. I presented two likely scenarios of what happened. Depending on which was the actual event that occured makes the killing justified or murder. So I would say yes, situational ethics does matter here and both scenarios are legitamite as well as usable.

Ethicss occur everwherer, they are split-second decisions. In combat killing someone who you think is a terrorist is an ethical decision. You do not know for sure. Its in the way you were brought up.

Thats not true acording to the New York times report I read he was involved in a shoot out the day before thats how he wound up wounded in the first place.

Source?

And before you say he might have been an innocent bystander that is unfortunantly not important all that is important is what that marine percieved to be going on. Look at my earlier post on why perception is the only thing that is important in situations like this.

I'm not going to argue that the Marine was under a lot of pressure. The guy'd been shot in the face, among other things. I'm not sure if I condemn his actions or not, save for the idiocy of doing it in front of a camera. Look at my earlier post that says...well...absolutely nothing about what should happen to the Marine. That was not my point.

that wasnt my point, my point is alot of stuff found is not listed as wmd but has every capability to kill thousands even millions

OMG<! Tey have STUFF! RUN!

Please. We have quite a good idea of what qualifies as WMDs, and cans of raid (to use your example) ain't on the list. Your "point" is ridiculous, quit grasping at straws.

that wasnt my point, my point is alot of stuff found is not listed as wmd but has every capability to kill thousands even millions

Yes, cars kill hundreds of thousands around the globe annually and their not listed as WMDs. I don't have specific numbers but the number of people dying from tobacco smoke related lung cancer is enormous. Alchohol is a dangerous substance, especially when you combine it with someone behind the drivers wheel.

Please. Do try to excercise some reason here. Everything has a capacity to be turned into a weapon, be it a broken chair leg to some 1.2 tons of high speed metal. The only true WMDs, nuclear weapons, are called so because you only need 1 of them to be able to cause destruction on a massive scale. If a high yield FAE does not classify as a WMD, nothing lesser should be called one.

Chemical and biological weapons do not classify as WMDs because there are still defensive methods against them, typically involving contamination suits. That and the fact that actual destruction is non-existent since it only effects living beings. A weapon, yes. A WMD, no.

OMG<! Tey have STUFF! RUN!

Please. We have quite a good idea of what qualifies as WMDs, and cans of raid (to use your example) ain't on the list. Your "point" is ridiculous, quit grasping at straws.

Raid was just a point i was using, i never said they will come and spray raid on us.

were all the weapons in ww2 harmless, if so then they dont have much. but if you consider the weapons of ww2 dangerous then you think they have enough to attack us. Iraq has better weapons then that used in ww2 and those weapons are not listed as wmd but can still kill many.

Chemical and biological weapons do not classify as WMDs because there are still defensive methods against them, typically involving contamination suits.

then how can people argue that they couldnt attack us?

i think it is safe to say when you are hanging out in a place that is shooting at americans your not exactly passive or trying to help the americans, wounded from shooting at americans

Fine, and I contend the old man was probably there praying as his home town burned around him. At least I have the proof that it's a place of worship. You have nothing but your generalizations. Who's also to say the guy wasn't put there after being shot? Oh, but that's right, such a thing doesn't fit with your assumptions...he must have been a terrorist!

have you ever heard of mob mentallity, that is why you have to generalize. people act differently when they are in a group then they do when they are alone. generalizing helps you understand what that group is going to do. it is neccesary.

Yeah, my higher education is in social psych. Let's compare notes, shall we? ;)

A nation is not a group, a nation is a collection of groups. You are a fool for generalizing that Iraqis want to wipe out all Americans, as much of a fool as I would be if I said that Americans wanted to wipe out all Iraqis. One can generalize in an intelligent manner. Clearly, this is an art you've not yet learned with your lay-understanding of mob mentality.

Raid was just a point i was using, i never said they will come and spray raid on us.

were all the weapons in ww2 harmless, if so then they dont have much. but if you consider the weapons of ww2 dangerous then you think they have enough to attack us. Iraq has better weapons then that used in ww2 and those weapons are not listed as wmd but can still kill many.

So, you are saying that it is both logistically and militarily possible for the Iraq, pre-invasion, to have attacked the US...


...please, according to reports it took them 45mins to load their AKs and defend the place in an unorganised manner. Their armies crumbled and even their 'elite' guard were walked over. There was no way that Iraq could have attacked the US in a conventional manner, and post 9/11 anyone coming to the US from Iraq would have been vetted first.

As for Iraq having chemical and biological weapons, the regieme they had used a vast amount of them against themselves and the Iranians, so the amount they had was pitiful. And to actually transport what they had half way around the world, nigh on impossible.

Raid was just a point i was using, i never said they will come and spray raid on us.

were all the weapons in ww2 harmless, if so then they dont have much. but if you consider the weapons of ww2 dangerous then you think they have enough to attack us. Iraq has better weapons then that used in ww2 and those weapons are not listed as wmd but can still kill many.

You have utterly no idea what you're talking about, do you? So now your contention is that they had weapons?

I really have no argument against such a ridiculous post, and I need to get to work in the morning. A quote I've heard about not engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed keeps bouncing around my head...this tells me it's time to sleep.

Source?



I'm not going to argue that the Marine was under a lot of pressure. The guy'd been shot in the face, among other things. I'm not sure if I condemn his actions or not, save for the idiocy of doing it in front of a camera. Look at my earlier post that says...well...absolutely nothing about what should happen to the Marine. That was not my point.
I'm thinking it was one of this weekes New York Times the printed version so not sure how to source it to you as I don't really have it on hand not to mention that hell it s late here and I could quite possibly be mistakenly just repeating some thing I read on these forums so heh I'm willing to to let the issue slide seeing as how you are willing to keep an open mind. Personaly Im treating this the way I try to treat most such situations Innocent until proven guilty, so long as I haven't been give previouse reasons to distrust theperson.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/prisonerwar.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm

And this is all.

I'm thinking it was one of this weekes New York Times the printed version so not sure how to source it to you as I don't really have it on hand not to mention that hell it s late here and I could quite possibly be mistakenly just repeating some thing I read on these forums so heh I'm willing to to let the issue slide seeing as how you are willing to keep an open mind. Personaly Im treating this the way I try to treat most such situations Innocent until proven guilty, so long as I haven't been give previouse reasons to distrust theperson.

Hmm, I'll have to watch for that...I imagine one of my news sources will catch wind of it, if that's the case.

I'm not rendering a decision on this one, like I said, at least not with the little info we have now. It's a combat situation, and a very messy one at that. I'll leave it up to the system to decide, and while I don't necessarily trust that system, I think it's the best that can be done at this point. I don't think he should have shot the guy, but then again, I haven't been shot in the face or seen any comrades blown apart recently.

I have no respect for people who kill others for no reason.

The war is not justified. The killing is therefore not justified. You can't tell me I'm wrong just because i haven't killed in the army before. Don't tell me it's all about survival. You made your choice to be rediculed when you chose to sign up to this killing spree.

You make so many wrong assumptions and logical errors in this post that I have no idea where to begin. Congratulations, you win the 2004 Obfuscation Award!

The injured and unarmed man shot dead by a US marine was not a "terrorist". Please think about what you are saying, look beyond the media branding of peoples as "terrorists". That man was an insurgent, a normal Iraqi who felt the US were forcibly occupying Iraq and had bad motives (not exactly an uncommon view in the world) and that he would fight for what he believes.

He's then left behind in a mosque for several DAYS, along with other Iraqi men (several of whom died due to the incompetance of the US forces who didn't evacuate them to seek medical help). He was against a wall, barely alive, and gets executed by a US marine....who doesn't even show remorse for having taken a man's life. This is purely down to the US belief (and reinforcement in the media) that an Iraqi life is worth less than a US life, and that Iraqi = terrorist/9-11.

What is pretty pathetic is the attempt by the US forces, government and media to try and suggest there was an excuse for the actions of this Marine. The reporter kept telling them these were wounded Iraqis that had been left here days before, there was no chance one of these men would have a bomb on them or plan to commit suicide in an explosion. These men were also not foreign fighters taking part in "terrorist" attacks. US forces have also already been recorded multiple times on video as executing wounded Iraqis who no longer pose a threat. This is against all rules of combat, and also has a negative impact on winning the "hearts and minds" of Iraqi people and even insurgents. If they keep seeing these crimes and how the US will murder them if wounded, then they will simply fight to the death and recruit more people to the resistance cause. Don't be deluded into thinking these people are "evil terrorists", and don't have the arrogance/hypocrisy to excuse your own soldiers from disgraceful military conduct and yet be totally unforgiving when you are on the recieving end.

Some of the views posted by US members are so extreme that I cannot believe you have been allowed to remain so ignorant. I guess it really is testament to the propaganda and misinformation provided to you by your government and the media. Shame really, because it makes the rest of the world react negatively to the US and growingly, the US public, for giving legitamacy to these actions and refusing to hold those people in your government accountable for their errors and crimes (i.e. Rumsfeld)

then how can people argue that they couldnt attack us?

Your response and the quote do not match. However, your response can be countered if the following is assumed.

Assumption
You mean attack us you mean the former Iraqi government launching an attack on US soil. If so, let us take a look at a few factors shall we?

1: Logistics
For any attack to take place, especially if your attacking as a nation, you need to be able to deliver your weapons and armies wherever you need them to be. So for the sake of convenience, let us presume that Iraq managed to magically produce some 200 tons of sarin gas which somehow eluded discovery. Now, delivering it. Prime targets for any chemical attack would probably be any major urban zone if you wish to cause as much damage as possible. For this example, let us take New York, Washington, and several American metropolitan areas. Conducting an attack there would most probably require either an extensive covert network capable of transporting large quantities of highly dangerous products, long range bombers or ballistic delivery vehicles. Given that there was a strictly enforced no-fly zone around Iraq and that most, if not all of its ballistic missles were destroyed, that only leaves the first option. This again is not very likely. Why? The no-fly zone also applied to the borders and I believe they were rather well patrolled. Something as conspicous as several tons of sarin gas, even distributed over several convoys, would have been caught by then.

2: The weapons
This is a largely debatable topic but as we can see by all the evidence to date, there were no significant caches of chemical or biological weapons. If's, do not count.

3: Military force
Much of the Iraqi military force was poorly equipped, poorly trained and demoralized. This is proven by how quickly they collapsed during the invasion. A dedicated force would have taken up guerilla tactics early on and gone to form a resistance force. Of those that did, a very small minority did so. And this minority was more interested in removing the American invaders rather than dealing damage to US territory. You have to remember though, not all the insurgents in Iraq now are Iraqi's themselves.

4: Willingness to go to war
Here is where it really becomes odd. When Iraq went to war against Kuwait, it did so with the hopes that it would win and was apparently doing so. Of course, US intervention turned the tables on them. Now we have to consider this. Iraq is not a terrorist organization, it cannot be picked up and hidden nor can it be scattered across the world. That means that if Iraq conducted an attack against any nation, it should be prepared for the retaliation. Say what you will of Saddam, but he was not a stupid man. Stupid people doid not climb to the top of the rather tumultous political situation back then. Rather, they ended up dead, disgraced or in prison. It should be apparent that if Saddam acted aggressively against any nation, there would be some very serious repurcussions and he would lose his seat of power. Given all that, I doubt Saddam actually wanted a war at all after his armies ignomius defeat in the Gulf War and its subsequent disintegration in the face of sanctions.

The injured and unarmed man shot dead by a US marine was not a "terrorist". Please think about what you are saying, look beyond the media branding of peoples as "terrorists". That man was an insurgent, a normal Iraqi who felt the US were forcibly occupying Iraq and had bad motives (not exactly an uncommon view in the world) and that he would fight for what he believes.

How do you know he wasn't a terrorist? How do you know he was Iraqi?

He's then left behind in a mosque for several DAYS, along with other Iraqi men (several of whom died due to the incompetance of the US forces who didn't evacuate them to seek medical help). He was against a wall, barely alive, and gets executed by a US marine....who doesn't even show remorse for having taken a man's life. This is purely down to the US belief (and reinforcement in the media) that an Iraqi life is worth less than a US life, and that Iraqi = terrorist/9-11.

Several days? source?

The reporter kept telling them these were wounded Iraqis that had been left here days before, there was no chance one of these men would have a bomb on them or plan to commit suicide in an explosion.

Where'd you hear this?

US forces have also already been recorded multiple times on video as executing wounded Iraqis who no longer pose a threat.

Source?

You have utterly no idea what you're talking about, do you? So now your contention is that they had weapons?

I really have no argument against such a ridiculous post, and I need to get to work in the morning. A quote I've heard about not engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed keeps bouncing around my head...this tells me it's time to sleep.


Agreed, it's ludicrous to state that the Iraqi's could wipe out half of the USA, and sorry, to say it but it's borderline....no, it is moronic. There is simply no argument here, Iraq, in no plausable way had any capability whatsoever to wipe out half of the US.

It really wouldn't suprise me in the least if he believes that Iraq had everything to do with 9-11 as well.

As for the soldier, my belief is that he should be tried by the military (As he is being) IMHO this young man was in error, made the wrong call, and should be removed from service. Other than that, nothing else, he was wrong, but it was in a war zone, therefore I don't believe the charge of murder is warrented. He has however displayed poor judgement, and should be removed from a combat role within the military.

And who can I blame for all of this tradgedy? His initials are G.W.B. and he's the current President of the US. The only person I can say invaded a country without UN sanction, and under the false pretenses of WMD. Sure the reasoning, now, is to remove Saddam because the Iraqi people will be better off.

I have trouble proving that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, but I can prove that they would be better with him in power. Just ask the Families of the dead Iraqis affected by this war, the thousands of injured Iraqis, the 10's of thousands of homeless, or displaced Iraqis. Ask the families of the US troops killed in action if they are better off without Saddam in power. Ask them all, I'd wager it's in the higher 90% range of people affected by this war would say Iraq is no better off currently.

Ahh well, a decade or two more of this crap, and Iraq may be a functioning Democracy, free of insurgency, terror, and war. I just wish the US had deeper pockets, raising the National debt limit above 8 trillion dollars (that's $8.000.000.000,000) may help for the next year at least. But 800 billion tacked on to the debt won't last 5 years. See any issues with the US dollar lately? If you havent, then you aren't paying attention. Then again, if you believe that Iraq had the capibility to wipe out 1/2 of the US, you probably believe the US economy is chugging along strongly, or are you not paying attention. I leave that to the historians to decide.

My two cents (Actually my country here uses the cameltoe for currency)

Some of the views posted by US members are so extreme that I cannot believe you have been allowed to remain so ignorant. I guess it really is testament to the propaganda and misinformation provided to you by your government and the media.

Now you REALLY have to prove those outrageous claims you've made :rolleyes:

Propoganda and misinformation is the staple of any functioing government. Few will tell you the whole truth and none will ever give you untainted information.

I'm going to try to answer objectively, bearing in mind that I do not know the full situation, and that I cannot realistically say how I myself would act in a war situation with my life at risk and my nerves on edge.

To call the victim a terrorist is a blatant misuse of the word, and a tool of shameless propaganda (or, in your use, of mindless acceptation of propaganda).

The man was unarmed and wounded, and clearly did not pose an immediate threat. That being the case, the right thing to do would have been to take the time to assess the situation, since there was no immediate danger.

Having said that, prescriptive ethics are not always easy to implement on the spur of the moment when your sole blinding concern is your fear of being killed.

Were the soldier's actions understandable? Perhaps. Acceptable, no, but I wouldn't be too quick to condemn until I knew exactly what had happened. If the soldier was calm and deliberate, though, it was unquestionably murder.

(Oh, and by the way, note that if the reverse had happened, and an Iraqi resistance fighter had killed an unarmed, wounded American soldier, Americans would have kicked up hell...)

Actualy they know that he was a terorist, because he had been in a shoot out with a group of marines the day before, thats how he got wounded in the first place.

Terrorist? He was a Soldier that used to be on the wrong side, terrorists are people who blow up civilians wit car bombs and things like that.

Pretty wierd to try him for murder for doing something completely legal under international and most moral law. Shooting a known enemy conbatant in a war zone is not murder. The victim was apparently surrendering (from the video I saw), but if he was a combatant in a war zone and the soldier knew he was a combatant then there is no problem (without the apparent surrender). One can go into some deatail about the legalistic points, but they all hinge upon the question of surrender.

Uuh, sorry. But as long as I know it is illegal to shoot someone who is surrendering.

Here is the mosque killing video/report

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200411/r35639_88936.ram
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200411/r35639_88937.asx

How do you know he wasn't a terrorist? How do you know he was Iraqi?

Several days? source?

They were all Iraqi in there, the reporter and other Marines even say during the video that the men in this mosque had been left there from a previous day's fighting, waiting for medical treatment (for at least 1 day). One man pleads with the Marines after the execution, saying that he's been there, wounded, since yesterday and even gave evidence on video to them.

You are being deceived if you believe these men, as "terrorists", are anything like the people behind 9/11. These are people who regard themselves as the "resistance", Iraqis who previously suffered under Saddam Hussien. What you are not told is how the Falluja resistance movement started, with a few injured survivors from a US massacre of civilians. These days the US are lumping anyone who opposed them with guerilla tactis as "terrorists", which creates a false link with 9/11 in the minds of their citizens.

Where'd you hear this?

Source?

It is clearly mention in the video and has been doing the rounds in the British media. As for other videos of unarmed killings:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284086.html

During the actual "war", many British news stations aired footage of US troops shooting at civilians (due to lack of descrimination) and then leaving them to die. The British reporters decided to go and drag the children out of the car and take them to hospital in one circumstance. I remember one strange report on a unit of marines where they had riddled a car with bullets for passing a checkpoint, when they looked in the car they found nothing except a man, woman and little girl. Some members of the unit didn't give a shit, while one of them was in floods of tears and buried the little girl himself, by the side of the road. There was also an interview with a Marine who was discharged because he couldn't bring himself to carry out orders after the number of civilians they had killed in road blocks. There are also pictures taken by British journalists showing "illegal" acts of force/killing by US troops....as well as the suspect murders of Iraqi "prisoners" at Abu Ghurayb. There were also photos of rape and the murders following pack-rapes by soldiers guarding detention centres, and the story of one women who went to visit a relative in that prison, only to be locked up and repeatedly raped for months herself. Some of these pictures were leaked during the Abu Ghurayb prinsoner abuse scandal, but these were largely dismissed by the US media and government as "fake porn". It doesn't matter what proportion of the armed forces are behaving in this way, that is entirely the point. Each solder represents the US military, it is not like a lone terrorist, who represents noone but his own close group. I would never dream of suggesting the entire US military behaves dishonourably

If the US wishes to carry out wars like this, then you would have thought that extreme discipline would be expected at all levels, with no excuses being made. This is sending a message to the Arab and Muslim world, the US is failing to act in accordance with the highest standards (which it has itself signed up to) and as such, hatred for the US and their foreign policy is even greater now.

the iraqi has the same right to shoot the americans if they are in fear and an american is setting himself up ready to blow up and kill the iraqi and possibly his fellow soldiers.

and about the snakes, its a little different there. a snake does not strap on exposives and blow you up, in fact a snake doesnt harm you unless you try to harm them. NOT THE CASE AT ALL WITH IRAQIS. these people have the ability to launch an attack and take out half of the USA.

this is something you need to realize, to many people think war is just within a few miles. a submarine can be on the other side of the world and launch an attack. it is a kill or be killed world now, it is not generals sitting on horses while civilians watch on the side lines.

Heloooo, welcome to reality, "these" people could not even take out one hundredth of the USA, even if they tried to.

Now you REALLY have to prove those outrageous claims you've made :rolleyes:

how exactly are they outrageous? Perhaps they are only outrageous within the US

Was the Marine justified in the shooting? It all really comes down to how good the defense lawyer is. First a few facts: you always have the right to use deadly force if you fear that your life is in danger; enemies who are surrendering are protected under the Geneva Convention and Law of War; terrorist or freedom fighter depends on who you ask. The circumstance such as "the marines had been fired at previously" is irrellivant. Under laws of war I can shoot at you all day, kill 50 of your friends and then if I truely attempt to surrender I am protected (yes I know it is a rather silly rule but it is there). The Iraqi's never signed teh Genev Convention so they do not have to abide by it so the arguement that they would do the same thing doesn't apply. If the defense can argue that due to recent incident where enemy personnel were faking death or injury as a means to attack US personnel then they can logically attempt to show that the Marine was justified as he "believed he was in mortal danger". Of course the prosecution will attempt to paint a picture of an unarmed, wounded person who just happened to move a little too much and be killed by a trigger happy Marine. It is easy to sit back and watch tape from a safe location and second guess what occured. Kind of like replay in football. The refs make a split second call at full speed and then it is overturned using various camera angles in freeze frame. The Marine had a split second to deciede if the man was moving to trigger a bomb or not. The only person who will ever truely know if the Marine was justified because he thought he was in danger or committed a revenge murder is the young man himself. He has to live with his actions for the rest of his life. None of us can say for certain what we would have done as we were not there. Hopefully we never find ourselves in that young Marines shoes.

Did the iraqi militia man have a nuclear submarine in his pocket? How come the michigan militia are proud and patriotic defenders of the great land of the United States from any government or foreign tyranny, but some iraqi guys in their home town shooting AK47s at foreign soldiers who are there to kill them are terrorists capable of destroying the US?

Whoever he was, he was one injured unarmed guy. Shooting him was cowardly murder and I don't expect better from any army in the world. Their job is to kill people, and prisoners are a pain. If you've killed 5 enemy soldiers today, what difference is a 6th?

Hopefully we never find ourselves in that young Marines shoes.

I don't have to hope that I'll never be a soldier in a war pointing a gun at an injured enemy combatant. It will never happen because I won't let it happen.

I say shoot the freaking reporter that was dumb enough to tape it then show it: let the military do its job!

I say shoot the freaking reporter that was dumb enough to tape it then show it: let the military do its job!
heh you were in such a hurry to troll that you misspelled your sign. :D

"Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage."

Woody Allen

Uuh, sorry. But as long as I know it is illegal to shoot someone who is surrendering.Surrendering is not part of the scenario presented. That's why there is a little aside "(without the apparent surrender)" and one of the three sentences reads "One can go into some deatail about the legalistic points, but they all hinge upon the question of surrender". My point is not refering to the actual videotaped case but to the scenario presented by BLAGistan: scenario 1.
The marine walks up and shoots the guy out of nowhere because he saw him in fire-fight earlier. Not justified, the marine should be tried for murder.

Who said that dude was a terrorist? The original poster, that's who. Do we know this for a fact? No. So was it justified? It's impossible to say until there's more information. Is it likely that info will become available? Hardly.

War is not a good thing, people. Ending the lives of your fellow human beings prematurely is a really, really bad thing. You can make all the excuses you want, but it doesn't change the immorality of causing death. On any side.

All right I can understand that. THing is either way they are the ones trying to kill this soilder and if I remeber correctly their have been reports of them booby traping their dead so he could quite possibly and reasonably thought the guy had a bomb.

but he was not dead yet?

Here is the mosque killing video/report

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200411/r35639_88936.ram
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200411/r35639_88937.asx



They were all Iraqi in there, the reporter and other Marines even say during the video that the men in this mosque had been left there from a previous day's fighting, waiting for medical treatment (for at least 1 day). One man pleads with the Marines after the execution, saying that he's been there, wounded, since yesterday and even gave evidence on video to them.

Right, but you claimed they had been there several days.

You are being deceived if you believe these men, as "terrorists", are anything like the people behind 9/11. These are people who regard themselves as the "resistance",Iraqis who previously suffered under Saddam Hussien.


Considering they are in Fallujah I doubt they suffered much under Hussien. But you claim that the man was Iraqi and a member of the resistance, and how does anyone know that? I'm not saying he's not, I'm just illustrating the point that noone has positively identified the man yet.

Also, there have been terrorist attacks on innocent Iraqis and there were the hostage taking and killings of many people. IIRC the body of Hassan (or at the very least another European woman) was found there just recently. How do we know this man (or any of the ones in the mosque for that matter) wasn't a member of that group?






During the actual "war", many British news stations aired footage of US troops shooting at civilians (due to lack of descrimination) and then leaving them to die. The British reporters decided to go and drag the children out of the car and take them to hospital in one circumstance. I remember one strange report on a unit of marines where they had riddled a car with bullets for passing a checkpoint, when they looked in the car they found nothing except a man, woman and little girl. Some members of the unit didn't give a shit, while one of them was in floods of tears and buried the little girl himself, by the side of the road. There was also an interview with a Marine who was discharged because he couldn't bring himself to carry out orders after the number of civilians they had killed in road blocks.

I also know about the civilians killed at road blocks, but I also know about the many marines/soldiers who were killed at road blocks by what appeared to be civilians but were suicide bombers. I'll have to find the source, but I clearly remember a pregnant woman being forced to run up to marines, and an exploding device on her person was triggered.

edit: Just so that we're clear, I've always felt that the marine made the wrong decision. The fact that he's the only one in the group of marines there that fired suggests to me that the others didn't think he was a threat. The question is whether or not what he did constitutes a criminal act under the rules of war, and that's what the investigation will determine.

The question is whether he was truly a POW. Firstly, if he wasn't Iraqi then he wasn't a POW at all. There has yet been a reliable source saying that without a doubt he was truly an iraqi. Just an "insurgent". Secondly there was gunfire reported in the mosque BEFORE the guy killed him. The only report of what went on is from the reporter. None of those involved have described to the press what went on before the insurgent was killed.

thats an "insurgent" even if he was a merc. or from another country fight for what he thinks is right it still makes him a pow

Pretty wierd to try him for murder for doing something completely legal under international and most moral law. Shooting a known enemy conbatant in a war zone is not murder. The victim was apparently surrendering (from the video I saw), but if he was a combatant in a war zone and the soldier knew he was a combatant then there is no problem (without the apparent surrender). One can go into some deatail about the legalistic points, but they all hinge upon the question of surrender.

dude sorry to brake it to you but this little war (the one in iraq) is not legal, the only thing that keeps there buts clean is that they are a super powerand have nukes...

For the time being there has been a very big contversey going around. the U.S soilder who shot that terroist. Should have he done it?? Should he be punished??From what I heard (and note that I've yet to read all claims and counter-claims in this thread, so the proof against this POV could already be posted) the enemy combatant concerned had been actively battling the US forces, been effectively suppressed (fellow combatants having been killed and the team as a whole could not fight any more at that time) and medical attention had been applied to the injured survivors of the engagement, as it would in the event that any civilised/disciplined force triumphs and has opportunity.

Ideally, the wounded would then have been carted off to a medically-equipped internment camp (or equivalent facility), but the US did not have the resources and thus had to leave the troops there (I assume they removed weaponary from the vicinity). I think that caused the problem.

The unit involved in the incident in question arrived later, it seems, and the soldier involved would have heard about (or at the very least easily imagined) incidents where insurgents had feigned death only to attack his friends and colleages, never mind the booby-trapped corpses, mortally-wounded-turned-'suicide-bombers' and of course we know this guy had been shot at earlier. Did the soldier have any indication that the insurgent did not have access to weaponary?

I think I would have done the same in his position. I do not necessarily think it was 'right' (in an absolute sense) but in a field of conflict he may well have made the best decision available to him, especially given his recent past, given how he, his unit or others could have succumbed to an attack from the insurgent in question. In war (for such it is) difficult decisions need to be made and it could well have been a Kobayashi Maru situation. To have done nothing would have endangered eveyone, whereas he is at the mercy of public opinion for the action has has taken.

Some might say that perhaps the fault lies with the commanders for allowing a soldier to continue patrolling after his prior injury, but (realistically) these are soldiers we are talking about. Maybe the blame is to be taken by those who did not provide for secure medical transportation for the insurgents away from the area of conflict, but it sounds like the predicted logistical needs for the operation were found to be insufficient almost from the start, even if the Red Crescent convoys been allowed to contribute, at great personal risks to themselves.

I say all this with only armchair training in soldiery, so I could be so very wrong. He was not /wrong/ to do so, though ideally the situation should not have occured in the first place.

"Iraqi's are brutal and will not hold back." Generalization of the century.

Do you even listen to yourself? Hey I asked you the very same question. Or should be a big case either way. But you guys just don't give a crap for the thousands of Iraqis dying. Do you?

if a nation invaded any country, lets take canada. the people would also become brutal and will not hold back, thats the problem with invading. dam those bothersom natives(and not native americans)

dude sorry to brake it to you but this little war (the one in iraq) is not legal, the only thing that keeps there buts clean is that they are a super powerand have nukes...Even if we accept that the war is illegal (and I have yet to see any international law which it clearly is in violation of), then the criminal actor is the state, not the individual soldiers.

I think that the shooting was fully justified. In a warzone where insurgents are willing to blow themselves up in order to kill a few more soldeirs, I think it'd impossible to tell whether the guy is actually surrendering, or hoping to kill a few more troops after he figured out he can't shoot very well.

Right, but you claimed they had been there several days.

Some of them had been according to UK new reports, the guy who was alive and talking about being videoed had been there for a day though. But 1 day or several days is still the same thing in regard to how that marine treated the Iraqi. There was no fear of attack from a wounded man against a wall, the Marines didn't even show fear themselves, he just killed him for the hell of it. But since everyone is trying to make excuses for the actions of this marine, it is worth pointing out that the claims of him being a threat are a completely insulting joke.


Considering they are in Fallujah I doubt they suffered much under Hussien.

Saddam persecuted people who questioned him or his regime, no matter where they lived...and supressed their religion and religous leaders. Even if you believe these people had a great time under Saddam, since when has that been enough reason to massacre them? An AP photographer described how he saw US gunships mow down civilians trying to cross the river to escape the US onslaught (and so he decided to fall back and hide from the US helicopter), since they all believed they would die from rocket attacks if they stayed in their homes

But you claim that the man was Iraqi and a member of the resistance, and how does anyone know that? I'm not saying he's not, I'm just illustrating the point that noone has positively identified the man yet.

It seems that the US picks and chooses when it wants to label someone an "insurgent" or "terrorist". According to the comments from the other men alive in that mosque, they were working to liberate Falluja as part of the resistance.

IIRC the body of Hassan (or at the very least another European woman) was found there just recently. How do we know this man (or any of the ones in the mosque for that matter) wasn't a member of that group?

Are you joking now? Firstly, even if he was that isn't reason to execute him under international law or any code of ethics. Secondly, he was still unarmed and wounded - in the EXTREMELY unlikely event that he was involved with Hassan then he should have been kept alive for information at the very least. And thirdly, Hassan is strongly thought to have been killed by a criminal gang since the "terrorists" in Iraq had refused to accept her and in fact stated that she should be freed (as she was involved in helping Iraqis). It is also believed by UK intelligence, that she was killed in panic over the start of the Falluja assault, before the people involved escaped from the town along with the heads of organised insurgent groups. It's like excusing the execution of a US soldier because he "might" have been involved in the torture/murder scandals at detention centres in Iraq

I also know about the civilians killed at road blocks, but I also know about the many marines/soldiers who were killed at road blocks by what appeared to be civilians but were suicide bombers.

Of course, but that doesn't excuse the US army from breaking international law or murdering civilians because they "might" be suicide bombers. The number of civilians killed is well above the number of US casualties, and the US is meant to be setting an example and winning over the people of Iraq and the Arab world in general. This kind of behaviour and excusing of murder (based on fear of a suicide attack) is not acceptable under international law and should not be a policy the US follows. Of course accidental deaths will occur, but they can be forgiven only when every precaution was taken, as opposed to the killing being an early option. British troops, for example, havn't been involved (proportionally) in anything like as many civilian killings or killings of unarmed/wounded men.

Just so that we're clear, I've always felt that the marine made the wrong decision. The fact that he's the only one in the group of marines there that fired suggests to me that the others didn't think he was a threat. The question is whether or not what he did constitutes a criminal act under the rules of war, and that's what the investigation will determine.

"Wrong decision", well his behaviour on the video illustrates quite clearly that he wasn't making a decision based on threat etc. Both his comments and actions strongly suggest that he simply wanted to kill the man, something that isn't exactly unheard of among US troops during this war. I'd be shocked if the "investigation" failed to hold him responsible for breaking international military law, nothing in his actions was justifiable or excusable under those laws.

The same goes for the footage of the Apache gunning down people in a field, that is an illegal act in every way. It's not like it is exactly rare either. During the war itself, several British soldiers wounded in action were extremely critical of the US military. One group of men said how they were targeted by an A-10, even though they had a UK flag on the roof of their hum-vee and were not behaving in any way that would deserve attack (whoever they were). The pilot took 2 passes at them and killed 2 of them, even while they were signalling that they were friendlies. It is a lack of scrutiny and respect for the lives of non-US personnel that is likely a major contributing factor to these occassional acts. The US should be the first to condemn them and make every effort to avoid their occurance again (as opposed to covering up any incidents)

maybe they should use tasers, the cops arnt afraid of using them, im sure they would work just as well against people they arnt sure are surrendering, the people get disabled and you didnt kill anyone

You are an idiot. Have you ever been in combat? I have. He was justified. The piece of crap he shot was a terrorist. The only thing the Marine (not Soldier) did wrong was he only shot once.

You're wrong. He wasn't a terrorist, he was an insurgent, which means he was a guy basically fighting to overthrow or destroy the governing powers for whatever reason. Terrorists are people who operate outside of a combat zone and try to kill innocent people in the course of their day. Like the Sept. 11 guys. This guy at least had the nuts to show up on the battlefield, and not go after old women and little children.

You're also wrong about the Marine only shooting once, he should have had his weapon set for a three round burst, that way he could have fired three rounds with one trigger pull. ;)

By the way, I believe that Marines are trained to do what that kid did. Retreating soldiers often leave thier critically or fatally wounded buddies booby trapped with a handful of grenades to let go of when they are rolled over by the advancing enemy. The US has done the same thing. That insurgent had not surrendered, and was therefore still a threat, and threats are to be eliminated before they eliminate you. And, I'll be honest, if someone pretending to be dead had shot me in the face the week before, I probably would have yelled 'gun!', shot him twice, and not worried about it. Ain't war fun?

Look im just throwing this in. I feel that what the marine did wasn't a wronge action. Yes it was a bad but who cares. Notice how the terrorist are slicing peoples heads off and killing random civilians. So then why is it wronge when we kill an unarmed enemy? We all know that that guy would have done that same right? Well my opinoin is clear ok I think we need more people like that in our army. But also think of this. WTF are we doing in Iraq in the first place.
If Bush hadn`t attacked iraq this whole thing wouldn`t of happend. Not saying its bush's fault he's a dumbass but still. anyway the Iraqie got what he deserved.

yeah I think the people who are concerned with court-marshaling this guy have the wrong priorities. first of all, this is a chickensh-t issue and I personally feel our time and money could be better spent sending more ammunition, food, etc. to the young men and women who have put themselves in harm's way.

some Iraqis, not ALL, just the bad ones, are really hitting below the belt. they are taking advantage people that are trying to help them. ex: there have been live grenades put under dead bodies (pin pulled and the body provides the pressure so they don't go off). this way when we turn over the body to BURY THEIR DEAD, our troops are killed. why risk that?

this marine was shot in the face just prior to this incident. he's wearing body armor in 115 degree weather. i had the opportunity to talk to an infantryman who is on leave from Iraq; he said that on his last mission, not a single person didn't puke on themself at least once due to heat, grime, whatever.

this marine is totally justified in what he did. :sniper:

Damn right he was justified.

The monsters frequently employ tactics such as booby-trapping their dead and wounded, so as to blow unsuspecting American soldiers to Kingdom Come. The soldier wasn't stupid. He was undoubtedly well aware of that possibility. For valuing his own safety, I see no reason he should be punished.

we are helping them alot the thing is they are not doing much to help themselfs. kind of hard to help people that dont try and help themselfs.

Do you suppose that it is possible that, if the U.S. troops are trying to help people, and those people are killing them for it, perhaps they simply do not want their help?

In the American Civil War, if 'Rebels' surrendered to some 'Yankees', and a 'Yankee' shot one in the face, because he might have had a bomb, would it be right? No, if you were Southern, you would be outraged at the thought. You cannot kill every person you come across because they 'may pose a threat'. ANYONE could pose a threat. It is not a soldier or Marine's job in Iraq to kill terrorists or insurgents. It is to keep people safe, and to protect and rebuild the Iraq the U.S. destroyed. (I say 'job', and not 'duty', because these people are there for money-- Without the draft (which I do not agree with, or support) Americans who join the military do so of their own volition, commonly for money. It is not a glorfied occupation, and the people who chose it are not automatically heroes. They are at best, mercinaries.) (I say 'destroyed' because, right or wrong, the U.S. robbed the Iraqi people of the only stablity and control they had over their lives. Iraq is very nearly a made up country, and it most likely cannot function at all without a dictatorship).

People have a tendancy to de-humanize their opposition in a war, whether it be their son, or a person from a distant land, etc.

As was said, these people in Iraq are just people.

Yes, some Iraqi insurgents kill other Iraqis. In the American Revolution, Colonists killed other colonists, because they were siding with the people they felt were opressing them. The 'insurgents' in Iraq are fighting what they see as invaders. They are fighting for their freedom, and for the right to choose their own ways to live. U.S. troops are killing them for it. Think about that.

yeah I think the people who are concerned with court-marshaling this guy have the wrong priorities. first of all, this is a chickensh-t issue and I personally feel our time and money could be better spent sending more ammunition, food, etc. to the young men and women who have put themselves in harm's way.
Nonsense, a court-martial is probably needed to clarify the issues and either exonerate the marine or punish him if he acted wrongly, more than anything else. Without adressing the question of whether or not the incident is worthy of the ammount of press it has recieved, it has recieved a fairly hefty chunk of press and now must be adressed. The rest of the marines need to know that they will not be punished for shooting combatants even though the combantants are faking surrender and that they will not be permitted to gun down people trying to surrender. And, they need to know that they can get a reasonable hearing in cases where the facts are in question. Failure to clarify the issue will have a deleterious impact on the effectiveness of the Marines, and a court-martial is probably needed at this point to do that, although if not for the press an investigation would be more thatn enough.

Saddam persecuted people who questioned him or his regime, no matter where they lived...and supressed their religion and religous leaders. Even if you believe these people had a great time under Saddam, since when has that been enough reason to massacre them? An AP photographer described how he saw US gunships mow down civilians trying to cross the river to escape the US onslaught (and so he decided to fall back and hide from the US helicopter), since they all believed they would die from rocket attacks if they stayed in their homes

No doubt he did persecute people who defied him, but mainly the Kurds and the Shiites. Although Saddam's regime was secular his heritage is Sunni, and the majority of the baathist party were Sunni.


It seems that the US picks and chooses when it wants to label someone an "insurgent" or "terrorist". According to the comments from the other men alive in that mosque, they were working to liberate Falluja as part of the resistance.

Uhh, I'm not calling him insurgent or terrorist. As I said earlier in this thread, for all we know he could have been forced to fight.


Are you joking now? Firstly, even if he was that isn't reason to execute him under international law or any code of ethics. Secondly, he was still unarmed and wounded - in the EXTREMELY unlikely event that he was involved with Hassan then he should have been kept alive for information at the very least. And thirdly, Hassan is strongly thought to have been killed by a criminal gang since the "terrorists" in Iraq had refused to accept her and in fact stated that she should be freed (as she was involved in helping Iraqis). It is also believed by UK intelligence, that she was killed in panic over the start of the Falluja assault, before the people involved escaped from the town along with the heads of organised insurgent groups. It's like excusing the execution of a US soldier because he "might" have been involved in the torture/murder scandals at detention centres in Iraq

No, that's not my point. My point is you claim that he wasn't a terrorist, but instead an insurgent; that claim can't be verified. Note also that nowhere have I ever said it makes a difference whether he was a terrorist, insurgent, or innocent bystander, or that the marine's behavior is excusable.



Of course, but that doesn't excuse the US army from breaking international law or murdering civilians because they "might" be suicide bombers.

That depends on the circumstance. I certainly don't believe they should be walking down the streets of Baghdad and killing people who look suspicious, or firing at every civilian that comes close to a road block, but that's not what happened either.

The number of civilians killed is well above the number of US casualties, and the US is meant to be setting an example and winning over the people of Iraq and the Arab world in general. This kind of behaviour and excusing of murder (based on fear of a suicide attack) is not acceptable under international law

Actually it is, if the soldier believes the person poses an imminent threat.

Of course accidental deaths will occur, but they can be forgiven only when every precaution was taken, as opposed to the killing being an early option.

Aren't you assuming that there were no signs to tell civilians what to do and what not to do at checkpoints? Aren't you assuming that the marines did not issue warning? At what point do you think it's acceptable for the marines to believe a civilian is actually a suicide bomber? Before or after the explosion?

British troops, for example, havn't been involved (proportionally) in anything like as many civilian killings or killings of unarmed/wounded men.

That may be true, but I can only recall one instance where British troops came under attack from suicide bombers either. Do they have any warplanes in the region?



"Wrong decision", well his behaviour on the video illustrates quite clearly that he wasn't making a decision based on threat etc. Both his comments and actions strongly suggest that he simply wanted to kill the man,

If he simply wanted to kill people, why didn't he go around killing everyone in the mosque?

The same goes for the footage of the Apache gunning down people in a field, that is an illegal act in every way. It's not like it is exactly rare either. During the war itself, several British soldiers wounded in action were extremely critical of the US military. One group of men said how they were targeted by an A-10, even though they had a UK flag on the roof of their hum-vee and were not behaving in any way that would deserve attack (whoever they were). The pilot took 2 passes at them and killed 2 of them, even while they were signalling that they were friendlies. It is a lack of scrutiny and respect for the lives of non-US personnel that is likely a major contributing factor to these occassional acts. The US should be the first to condemn them and make every effort to avoid their occurance again (as opposed to covering up any incidents)

Ehh, it's not like there isn't friendly fire among just American troops, or that friendly fire only occurs with American troops. :rolleyes:

Yes it was a bad but who cares.

Clearly you don't. By contrast anyone who values the life of a human being would.


Notice how the terrorist are slicing peoples heads off and killing random civilians. So then why is it wronge when we kill an unarmed enemy? We all know that that guy would have done that same right?

I can't believe I'm reading this... Well actually I can; sadly, it's symptomatic. Let's see... What is wrong when you kill an unarmed enemy?

1) The victim was not a terrorist but an enemy resistance fighter, so your "comparison" (if it can even be dignified by that word) holds no water whatsoever. As someone else pointed out, that would be like justifying the random murdering of US soldiers on the basis that some US soldiers have committed atrocities (in the prisons, etc).

2) In war, you expect the enemy not to massacre your soldiers when they're captured. To ensure this, you respect a universal agreement that you won't do it either. If you kill enemy prisoners, you're sending an open invitation to all your enemies to kill whatever prisoners they can take on your side. (Once again, please differentiate between Iraqi resistance fighters and those who use terrorist tactics.)

3) Killing a helpless man is an act so revolting to any decent being that I don't believe I even need to explain it. (This point is made simply because you seem to be saying it would be fine to walk up to anyone who's just surrendered and clearly not a threat, and put a bullet in their head.)

4) Regarding that last sentence of yours: No, we do not. Somehow I doubt you knew the victim personnally, and if you're making another absurd generalisation you're not even worth the time it would take to point out how ridiculous your statement is.

I was pissed off when I saw the video and was told of what was "too upsetting to show". However, that was my initial gut reaction. I have never been in a situation where the propsect of suicide bombers hitting out at you is very real. Therefore I cannot truley say that the fear this fighter was going to blow up himmself, me and my squad mates would steady my hand, he could have been a suicide bomber, he wasnt, but he could have been. It is not black and white, nothing is; the only thing leading me to a condemnation was the fact that the Iraqi's hands were showing, so setting off the bomb may have been hard. Do not know what I am really saying here so I will stop, just bear in mind that you are not in that situation so do not know for sure how you would react, hardly anyone could.

This may have been said already, so forgive me for not having read all the posts in this thread, it is getting rather long.

The bottom line is that we are in no position to whether it was justified or not. Our Marines are extensively trained to be effective in battle and to defend themselves and their comrades. They know and understand ethics and they know right from wrong. The fact is that the only ones in a position to make that judgment are the Marines in that unit. They made the call. We now must support them and have faith that our troops know what they're doing out in the field.

It's not for you or me or anybody else to analyze that action unless you've been there. I don't know whether the guy laying on the floor representaed an iminent threat. I can't say. What I can say is the Marine in the field standing there felt that he was, and acted in accordance with his training and experience. If here were here with me now, I'd shake his hand. He's already done far more for me and my family than any of these armchair quarterbacks who question his integrity.

He's already done far more for me and my family than any of these armchair quarterbacks who question his integrity.

What exactly has he done for you and your family?

He, along with the rest of the US Military and our Allies, is out there destroying a threat to my country. That equates to a threat to me and my family.

If I have to explain this further, then I would question your understanding of the situation.

He, along with the rest of the US Military and our Allies, is out there destroying a threat to my country. That equates to a threat to me and my family.

If I have to explain this further, then I would question your understanding of the situation.

How exactly are any Iraq's a threat to the USA?

Shooting at someone that your at War with doesn't make you a terrorist does it? cause if it does than this country (the united States) was founded by terrorists and we should probablly all kill ourselves and end this looming "terrorist threat" once and for all.

right?There's a difference between Guerilla warfare, and Terrorism, namely the killing of women and children, amung other things.

Terrorist? He was a Soldier that used to be on the wrong side, terrorists are people who blow up civilians wit car bombs and things like that.
Yes I konw I recanted that a few pages back when some one else made the same argument.

Sitting back and questioning the Morality of events that take place during war is great and all, but when it comes down to it, combat does odd things to the human brain. Tell me, would you kill someone that was trying to kill you earlier that day? Would you kill someone that's likely killed your friends? It's easy to sit back and question if something was right or wrong. And yes, the marine in question may have been wrong, but in some circumstances it's understandable. Should he be punished? Let the judge decide that. The man's going to have to live the rest of his life with what he's done, and I'm sure he knows whethor what he did was justifiable or not. I don't think he needs us pointing fingers at him. In any case, I feel no pity for those who take shelter in holy places and then proceed to conduct military/terrorist activities out of them.

First off, there is no justification to call the victim a terrorist. Admittedly he cannot be considered a complete innocent, as he was (presuably) of his own choice in a war zone, but that does not automatically make one a terrorist.

Justified? How do mean the term, the way I use it, no it wasn't justified, but it was understandable and forgivable. Was it (the shooting) worthy of punishment? Maybe, not knowing the totality of the circumstances I cannot really say. I reserve judgement on whether or not it is either acceptable or unacceptable behavior, although on the surface it appears to be unacceptable behavior.

Oh give me a God damn break. This war Squi, not a fricking tea party. He was terrorist/insurgent. What you think he was doing in Fallujah anyways?? Selling carpets?

In the American Civil War, if 'Rebels' surrendered to some 'Yankees', and a 'Yankee' shot one in the face, because he might have had a bomb, would it be right?

I'm curious as to why you make this analogy. Have you ever heard of Confederates booby-trapping bodies, firing on Federal troops after brandishing a white flag, etc? .

It is not a soldier or Marine's job in Iraq to kill terrorists or insurgents. It is to keep people safe, and to protect and rebuild the Iraq the U.S. destroyed.

I disagree. They are not the police, that's why Iraqis have been trained for that. The marine's job is to kill the enemy, the enemy that is incidentally blowing up Shiite children for the crime of standing in line for candy.

(I say 'job', and not 'duty', because these people are there for money-- Without the draft (which I do not agree with, or support) Americans who join the military do so of their own volition, commonly for money. It is not a glorfied occupation, and the people who chose it are not automatically heroes. They are at best, mercinaries.)

I disagree. I know quite a few people who did it only for college, but I also know several who did join the military out of a sense of duty. There was a surge of enlistment after 9/11. Do you think they joined simply for the money?


Yes, some Iraqi insurgents kill other Iraqis.

And how do you propose we keep Iraqis safe if they are being killed by other Iraqis? Ask them to hold hands?

The 'insurgents' in Iraq are fighting what they see as invaders. They are fighting for their freedom, and for the right to choose their own ways to live. U.S. troops are killing them for it. Think about that.

I don't mean to sound callous because I don't want any harm done to our troops, but I wouldn't have any problem with the insurgents if they kept their attacks to military personnel, but these people aren't.

How exactly are any Iraq's a threat to the USA?

They're killing our soldiers. That's a threat.

How exactly are any Iraq's a threat to the USA?

I figure you probably ask that mainly because you've already decided that they aren't, and any answer I give will be dismissed.

On the other hand, there are those reading these posts who might be interested in my reply and so I will do so.

Are you aware that a good number of the combatants in Iraq are not Iraqis? Lots of them are nationals from other nations who are swarming into Iraq for the chance to get at a few American and British soldiers. It's a Terrorists' dream.

That's part of the plan, you see. Because if these people weren't in Iraq trying to spread mayhem, they might very well be doing it in Washington or New York, perhaps even London. Better to fight them far from here, where the Americans are well armed and trained and can fight back, unlike most victims of terrorists.

And watch the news- US Marines have found an Al-Qaeda hideout in Falujah.

'nuff said.

I don't mean to sound callous because I don't want any harm done to our troops, but I wouldn't have any problem with the insurgents if they kept their attacks to military personnel, but these people aren't.

The resistance during WWII also targetted civilian targets, even if they were not german but from the same country as the one killing them, just because they were suspected of working together with the germans. They also blew up some things. Of course, they could not it on a scale like in iraq as the germans were a bit more oppressive: if you were caught, chances were high you would soon beg to be killed. If the germans were a bit too upset with resistance activities, they would just round up some innocents and kill them, or even kill everyone in a town. Point is, the insurgents just see the US as the invaders and people that work with the US as traitors and for the rest they just participate in resistance-like activities, only adapted to the situation.

On the topic: on the video i saw on the news, you see a wounded man not moving, and a couple of soldiers. You hear the soldiers (or a soldier) say something like "he's not dead .... he's still breathing! ... He's f***ing faking it!", all in a way that sounds like the soldier is angry because the guy is not dead, and then he just executes the man. IF the wounded man did try to detonate a bomb, grab a weapon or something like that, which is not visible on the video, THEN and only then his reaction is appropriate. Anyhow, the man will have to be charged as this video is not exactly a good commercial for the US. I think that if the guy is not convicted, the evidence showing that the wounded man posed a threat will have to be great just to convince moderate enemies of the US that US soldiers still have to follow some rules. (hardcore enemies will not be convinced i think)

And who would actually give a damn.
A "terrorist" si dead, no one's going to bring him back.
Hell with it! :mp5:

I figure you probably ask that mainly because you've already decided that they aren't, and any answer I give will be dismissed.

On the other hand, there are those reading these posts who might be interested in my reply and so I will do so.

Are you aware that a good number of the combatants in Iraq are not Iraqis? Lots of them are nationals from other nations who are swarming into Iraq for the chance to get at a few American and British soldiers. It's a Terrorists' dream.

That's part of the plan, you see. Because if these people weren't in Iraq trying to spread mayhem, they might very well be doing it in Washington or New York, perhaps even London. Better to fight them far from here, where the Americans are well armed and trained and can fight back, unlike most victims of terrorists.

And watch the news- US Marines have found an Al-Qaeda hideout in Falujah.

'nuff said.


mm illogic


1) al-zarqawi is NOT al-qaeda
2) fallujah would not be a stronghold for the insurgency or terrorists had the us invasion not made it that way
3) and where are your stats that there is more outsiders in iraq than insurgents?
i doubt you have any because i doubt that is even slgihtly measurable

Actually, Zarqawi's groups are now openly a part of Al Qaeda.

alot of the posts in this thread exemplify explains why there is an iraqi insurgency and why the rest of the world hates us - you people are isensitive stupidly emotional sheople who believe whatever the higher up dipshits tell you and dotn give a fuck about any one not with the us and dont give a fuck about them because they arnt from the us, anyoen agianst the us is only worth death


you all make me fucking sick

Actually, Zarqawi's groups are now openly a part of Al Qaeda.
meh

And who would actually give a damn.
A "terrorist" si dead, no one's going to bring him back.
Hell with it! :mp5:

As a lot of people who are living in an anti-US climate and are 'on the edge' of joining any 'terrorist organisation' (they might just join the insurgents in iraq and revolt against the US, so i added brackets) will see evidence of the US being evil in this event, it is of high strategic importance that this case is investigated properly and that if found guilty, the soldier is to be severely punished.

you all make me fucking sick

We can't have that. You might lose your appetite and do something rash like vote.
:D

They're killing our soldiers. That's a threat.
And do you know why they're killing our soldiers?

And do you know why they're killing our soldiers?
because we like to mow down unarmed civilians and claim they were terrorists?

We can't have that. You might lose your appetite and do something rash like vote.
:D



:D

mm illogic


1) al-zarqawi is NOT al-qaeda


*BUZZ* Wrong answer, please try again. Zarqawi's stronghold was found to include Al-Qaeda material and was so identified.


2) fallujah would not be a stronghold for the insurgency or terrorists had the us invasion not made it that way

So prior to the US Invasion Fallujah was just an ordinary town, and arbitrarily designated by the resistance, then brought up to a full fledged enemy stronghold overnight. Gotcha.


3) and where are your stats that there is more outsiders in iraq than insurgents?
i doubt you have any because i doubt that is even slgihtly measurable

So your doubts outweigh my facts? I find that interesting. You question my source and then offer yours as nothing more than a matter of opinion. I find that laughable. I'll leave it to you to research this. It appears you need it more than I.

Besides, what if I told you my source was Fox News? I bet you'd dismiss it. If I told you it was MS-NBC perhaps you'd take it as gospel. What if it was the AP? Drudge Report? What about Reuters? Which source, exactly, would you trust?

By all means, friends, disagree with me if your have a factual basis to dispute my assertions, but baseless doubts don't count.

alot of the posts in this thread exemplify explains why there is an iraqi insurgency and why the rest of the world hates us - you people are isensitive stupidly emotional sheople who believe whatever the higher up dipshits tell you and dotn give a fuck about any one not with the us and dont give a fuck about them because they arnt from the us, anyoen agianst the us is only worth death


you all make me fucking sick

I'm supposed to take this as a serious argument? Cussing, bad spelling/grammar and name-calling, and then you say WE are the insensitive stupidly emotional people?

That's hilarious.

And by the way, before you go accusing the pro-war debaters of not caring about anyone but our own, tell me... How much pain did you feel for the Kurds who were being gassed to death in Northern Iraq prior to the war? How much did you weep for the political prisoners and torture victims of Saddam's regime?

Keep your hypocrisy to yourself. I'll waste no more time responding to it.

because we like to mow down unarmed civilians and claim they were terrorists?
Nah. It's because we invaded them. And do you now why we invaded them?





BECAUSE THEY WERE CLAIMED TO BE A THREAT TO THE US!

Therefore, whoever I had asked that original question is using ex post facto rationalization.

Oh give me a God damn break. This war Squi, not a fricking tea party. He was terrorist/insurgent. What you think he was doing in Fallujah anyways?? Selling carpets?What do you want a break on? There is not a dichotomy, one is not either a terrorist or an innocent. Insurgent is a good word, I accept that designation but there is no reason to call him a terrorist merely because he was in a combat zone, even if he was firing on US marines. I object to the callous disreagard for form in the use of the word "terrorist", while there is no set defintion for the word, it is inappropriate to consider all people engaged in violence to be terrorists, if we use so loose a standrd for the word "terrorist" we might as well label the US marines as terrorists also, after all they are using violence to cause terror and enforce their will upon people. So here's your break, if we calssify the US marines as terrorists, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the man shot was a terrorist (under an overbraod defintion of the word). Insurgent is fine, there is evidence to support that classification, but no evidence to support classifying the victim as a terrorist.

What do you want a break on? There is not a dichotomy, one is not either a terrorist or an innocent. Insurgent is a good word, I accept that designation but there is no reason to call him a terrorist merely because he was in a combat zone, even if he was firing on US marines. I object to the callous disreagard for form in the use of the word "terrorist", while there is no set defintion for the word, it is inappropriate to consider all people engaged in violence to be terrorists, if we use so loose a standrd for the word "terrorist" we might as well label the US marines as terrorists also, after all they are using violence to cause terror and enforce their will upon people. So here's your break, if we calssify the US marines as terrorists, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the man shot was a terrorist (under an overbraod defintion of the word). Insurgent is fine, there is evidence to support that classification, but no evidence to support classifying the victim as a terrorist.

That is a good point.

I will say however, that the reason the terms are so often used interchangeably is because many of the enemy combatants in Iraq are sort of filling both roles. For example, when a group of masked men cut off the head of a helpless captive on tv for the world to see, that's terrorism in its purest form.

Those same guys might very well run out and engage the Marines in a firefight. Under those circumstances they are indeed insurgents.

The guy who was shot in that mosque would indeed be classified as an insurgent. It's just that there's no way to know if he's been one of the guys on camera cutting off someone's head.

For what it's worth.

We're talking about a wounded insurgent that was wasted along with a few hundred other of his comrads -- big deal.

Bleeding hearts should worry about the innocent women and children that were killed in the cross-fire, not this dipshit.

Say what you will about Stalin, that quote of his really is something...

Was it justified to kill a terrorist?

You gotta be kidding me . . .

This was a TERRORIST; somebody who seeks to harm others!!! Sorry for sounding so cynical, but in a situation like this it's kill or be killed. The soldier was FULLY JUSTIFIED to do what he did

Shooting of prisoners or wounded is a war crime.

The US prosecuted SS members for just that for incidents that occured in the Battle of the Bulge.

The same laws and morals should apply to all - there is no special "get out of gaol free" card for the US. Neither for shooting prisoners nor for abusing them.

Slate has a pretty good article on this

http://www.slate.com/id/2109904/

because we like to mow down unarmed civilians and claim they were terrorists?

And I'm sure you know that Chess because it is the absolute worst possibility. Would hate to think that anything our soldiers do might be positive! Could crack one's worldview, ya know!

Shooting of prisoners or wounded is a war crime.

The US prosecuted SS members for just that for incidents that occured in the Battle of the Bulge.

The same laws and morals should apply to all - there is no special "get out of gaol free" card for the US. Neither for shooting prisoners nor for abusing them.

Yes but there is a difference between premeditated murder and a snap jugment against a legitiment threat possability.

And I'm sure you know that Chess because it is the absolute worst possibility. Would hate to think that anything our soldiers do might be positive! Could crack one's worldview, ya know!

I agree with you on that. But if you listen to some people american soldiers are only out their for the bloodshed. You know they make a game out of it. Hell i'm gonna go grab my hunting rifle and see if i can get me some iraqies myself. Yehaw. :sniper: :sniper: Oh ya got that one he's worth 15 points.

I agree with you on that. But if you listen to some people american soldiers are only out their for the bloodshed. You know they make a game out of it. Hell i'm gonna go grab my hunting rifle and see if i can get me some iraqies myself. Yehaw. :sniper: :sniper: Oh ya got that one he's worth 15 points.

The best way to make soldiers effective is to make them hate the enemy and want to kill them. What do you think they are for? Their trained to win wars and you do that by destroying the enemy.

"Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque. ... The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat. Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war. ... When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque?" --The Wall Street Journal

The best way to make soldiers effective is to make them hate the enemy and want to kill them. What do you think they are for? Their trained to win wars and you do that by destroying the enemy.

Some of the SS were particularly trained in just such a manner.

They executed (murdered) American prisoners during the Battle of the Bulge.

Some were later charge with War Crimes by the US.

Was the US right to charge the SS with war crimes?

Is there a special rule which applies only to the US?

Some of the SS were particularly trained in just such a manner.

They executed (murdered) American prisoners during the Battle of the Bulge.

Some were later charge with War Crimes by the US.

Was the US right to charge the SS with war crimes?

Is there a special rule which applies only to the US?

Their were instances of American troops doing the smae thing, and the british and the Russians and what about Vietnam? Thats what happens in a war people die. Besides the war crimes committed by the SS were of a much greater magnitude than of what has happened in Iraq. The insurgents dont obey the rules of war anyhow. Also their unlawful combatants not POWs

Some of the SS were particularly trained in just such a manner.

They executed (murdered) American prisoners during the Battle of the Bulge.

Some were later charge with War Crimes by the US.

Was the US right to charge the SS with war crimes?

Is there a special rule which applies only to the US?

Once again, the totally specious and infamatory comparisons of President Bush to Hitler, and the US to Nazi Germany. I for one, am sick unto death of such idiocy. Find another forum in which to spill your bile. No one with half an ounce of sense believes there is any comparison whatsoever.

The best way to make soldiers effective is to make them hate the enemy and want to kill them. What do you think they are for? Their trained to win wars and you do that by destroying the enemy.

Have you ever been in the military? I was trained disiceplin first, and how to survive second. Killing the enemy is just part of suriviving and getting the mission completed. Now i'm in the Air Force, but i'm pretty sure thats the same way my brothers and sisters on the ground were taught. Any soldiers here are welcome to comment on that.

As for the most effective way to make a soldier hating the enemy is by far one of the worst. When you hate an enemy, you bring emotion into the situation. This creates unknowns in how men react. As a commander you do not want a lot of unknows. The japanese tried this doctrine in WW2, but it was a miserable failure. The best way to make a good soldier is to make them
1) want to survive
2) want the men around them to survive
3) understand the importance or the value of a mission

If they see all of this they will be professional about their actions and even kill when they need to.

Have you ever been in the military? I was trained disiceplin first, and how to survive second. Killing the enemy is just part of suriviving and getting the mission completed. Now i'm in the Air Force, but i'm pretty sure thats the same way my brothers and sisters on the ground were taught. Any soldiers here are welcome to comment on that.

As for the most effective way to make a soldier hating the enemy is by far one of the worst. When you hate an enemy, you bring emotion into the situation. This creates unknowns in how men react. As a commander you do not want a lot of unknows. The japanese tried this doctrine in WW2, but it was a miserable failure. The best way to make a good soldier is to make them
1) want to survive
2) want the men around them to survive
3) understand the importance or the value of a mission

If they see all of this they will be professional about their actions and even kill when they need to.

Because the US military is totally unbiased in how they percive and inform their men of the situation. What about all those films that came out in WWII that depicted the Japanese as Barbarians?

i wouldve killed his ass straight out. (aka i think the soldier did the right thing and should not be punished, etc.)

they kidnap our citizens and soldiers, torture them, degrade them, and ultimately kill them in some of the most horrific means possible. that soldier sent that terrorist to his rightful place, hell. i know America has to stand up for whats right, etc. etc., but its high time America flexed its military muscle and did everything in its power to rid Iraq of terrorists. the problems along with this is of course is that it could potentially kill a lot of valuable relations with friends and allies of America. there are other consequences, of course, but as of right now i have to get back to work. ill reply more in depth when i get home.

Because the US military is totally unbiased in how they percive and inform their men of the situation. What about all those films that came out in WWII that depicted the Japanese as Barbarians?

Because they were in the eyes of the world. They're culture was death before dishonor, where as most of the world cared about life. This culture had japan commiting acts that i would consider barbaric on a large scale.

Have you ever been in the military? I was trained disiceplin first, and how to survive second. Killing the enemy is just part of suriviving and getting the mission completed. Now i'm in the Air Force, but i'm pretty sure thats the same way my brothers and sisters on the ground were taught. Any soldiers here are welcome to comment on that.

As for the most effective way to make a soldier hating the enemy is by far one of the worst. When you hate an enemy, you bring emotion into the situation. This creates unknowns in how men react. As a commander you do not want a lot of unknows. The japanese tried this doctrine in WW2, but it was a miserable failure. The best way to make a good soldier is to make them
1) want to survive
2) want the men around them to survive
3) understand the importance or the value of a mission

If they see all of this they will be professional about their actions and even kill when they need to.

I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for someone to say this.

I was in ROTC for three years-really not that long, but long enough to totally understand that the millitary isn't for me-but discipline comes before survivability.

Lets face it, if surviving came first, you would be in the military to begin with.

Have you ever been in the military? I was trained disiceplin first, and how to survive second. Killing the enemy is just part of suriviving and getting the mission completed. Now i'm in the Air Force, but i'm pretty sure thats the same way my brothers and sisters on the ground were taught. Any soldiers here are welcome to comment on that.

As for the most effective way to make a soldier hating the enemy is by far one of the worst. When you hate an enemy, you bring emotion into the situation. This creates unknowns in how men react. As a commander you do not want a lot of unknows. The japanese tried this doctrine in WW2, but it was a miserable failure. The best way to make a good soldier is to make them
1) want to survive
2) want the men around them to survive
3) understand the importance or the value of a mission

If they see all of this they will be professional about their actions and even kill when they need to.

You are at least partially correct. All members of the US military are taught the necessity of "good order and discipline," "fire discipline" being an important aspect of this. However, combat is a messy business and many in the military will react with rage after having lost a fellow soldier.

One unit during the Normandy landings ( as I recall ) was attempting to take a farmhouse where several Nazi soldiers were holed up. Several of the Americans were shot and killed by machineguns firing from the farmhouse. The entire unit seemed to be comsumed by a sort of "blood lust," a combination of rage and fear. They proceded to attack the farmhouse, killing all Nazi troops inside, then went on to kill every other living thing on the farm, cows, horses, pigs, even chickens.

Emotions can be valuable to soldiers, but usually only when kept within acceptable limits. This is one reason "good order and discipline" is so vital. Yet one thing that can be most helpful to soldiers in a desperate situation is emotion, generating adrenelin, generating overwhelming assault.

Like I said, combat is a messy business.

Because they were in the eyes of the world. They're culture was death before dishonor, where as most of the world cared about life. This culture had japan commiting acts that i would consider barbaric on a large scale.
yeah because an orderly system that favors honor is a horrible thing :rolleyes:

Their were instances of American troops doing the smae thing, and the british and the Russians and what about Vietnam? Thats what happens in a war people die. Besides the war crimes committed by the SS were of a much greater magnitude than of what has happened in Iraq. The insurgents dont obey the rules of war anyhow. Also their unlawful combatants not POWs

Please explain what makes someone an "unlawful combatant", apart from a declaration of such by the US?

Were US minute-men or militia in the Revolutionary War "unlawful combatants", because they were not uniformed or trained as regulars?

Were French and Russian partisans during WW11 "unlawful combatants", and thereore not subject to the rules of war?

And stating that there have been previous occurences of this type of behaviour does not make it right.

There have been numerous occassions of murder and rape throughout history - the number of occurences in the past in no way justifies the act.

i wouldve killed his ass straight out. (aka i think the soldier did the right thing and should not be punished, etc.)

they kidnap our citizens and soldiers, torture them, degrade them, and ultimately kill them in some of the most horrific means possible. that soldier sent that terrorist to his rightful place, hell. i know America has to stand up for whats right, etc. etc., but its high time America flexed its military muscle and did everything in its power to rid Iraq of terrorists. the problems along with this is of course is that it could potentially kill a lot of valuable relations with friends and allies of America. there are other consequences, of course, but as of right now i have to get back to work. ill reply more in depth when i get home.
this is exactly why they do checks before people are allowed to be on juries and why i hope they do psych checks before people are allowed into the military

you are an emotional nutcase and should be put in a padded room or doped up pretty heavily the rest of your life

yeah because an orderly system that favors honor is a horrible thing :rolleyes:

Right i don't know bout you but i wouldn't consider things such as the rape of nanjing or bataan death march honorable in any way. Oh and the list doesn't stop their.

Because they were in the eyes of the world. They're culture was death before dishonor, where as most of the world cared about life. This culture had japan commiting acts that i would consider barbaric on a large scale.

fact of the matter being if that was true why make the films at all? The Japanese my think you are barbarians for dropign nukes on them or fire bombing tokyo. and you are hardly in a position to judge who cares about life over realpolitik after all the regimes the US has proped up all over the world. Im not saying Iraq was the wrong thing just to have a war for the right reason is no reason to claim the moral high ground over teh way you fight it.

this is exactly why they do checks before people are allowed to be on juries and why i hope they do psych checks before people are allowed into the military

you are an emotional nutcase and should be put in a padded room or doped up pretty heavily the rest of your life

Here is one point where we agree. It sounds like the soldier made a wrong judgement on a snap disicision. His action turned out wrong, but it is a mistake that anyone of you could have commited. But this idea that all iraqi insurgents should be shot on site is wrong.

Right i don't know bout you but i wouldn't consider things such as the rape of nanjing or bataan death march honorable in any way. Oh and the list doesn't stop their.
oh yes, and the wstern world are good wholesome people and have never done anything horribly wrong to anyone

fact of the matter being if that was true why make the films at all? The Japanese my think you are barbarians for dropign nukes on them or fire bombing tokyo. and you are hardly in a position to judge who cares about life over realpolitik after all the regimes the US has proped up all over the world. Im not saying Iraq was the wrong thing just to have a war for the right reason is no reason to claim the moral high ground over teh way you fight it.

I don't entirely understand what you are try to argue. I don't mean for any disrespect at all, i just would like you to clarify. I got the point about the fire bombing, and i disagree with that doctrine. It was how ever the doctrine at the time so it wasn't just the americans who are to blame. After that though i'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Was it justified? In my opinion, no. A good soldier would've tagged him for a medivac team. However, whatever punishment he recieves should be lienient. His decision was in the heat of a battle.

oh yes, and the wstern world are good wholesome people and have never done anything horribly wrong to anyone

I never tried to claim that they didn't. War is ugly, and it can bring out the worst in man. And i agree that hate is a part of war. I just don't see that it is part of the training in a modern army. I see hate as a side affect of seeing your budies around you killed, and the stress of war.

I don't entirely understand what you are try to argue. I don't mean for any disrespect at all, i just would like you to clarify. I got the point about the fire bombing, and i disagree with that doctrine. It was how ever the doctrine at the time so it wasn't just the americans who are to blame. After that though i'm not sure what you are trying to say.

OK, wars are always going to be bad and nasty and all that stuff. Often the best way to fight those wars is the most distasteful. to win a war you do what is effective to win. you put the lives of your people before theirs. I dont slam the US because they fight a war in this way because its effective. what i dont think you should then be doing is trying to say that you dont fight wars this way cause you do, but its what has to be done to win

just real quick question, we got any soldiers in here and if so what branch and what country.

just real quick question, we got any soldiers in here and if so what branch and what country.

my cousins a paratrooper in Australia and my dads a major in the reserves

I never tried to claim that they didn't. War is ugly, and it can bring out the worst in man. And i agree that hate is a part of war. I just don't see that it is part of the training in a modern army. I see hate as a side affect of seeing your budies around you killed, and the stress of war.
you only WISH i was talking about wars only

OK, wars are always going to be bad and nasty and all that stuff. Often the best way to fight those wars is the most distasteful. to win a war you do what is effective to win. you put the lives of your people before theirs. I dont slam the US because they fight a war in this way because its effective. what i dont think you should then be doing is trying to say that you dont fight wars this way cause you do, but its what has to be done to win

Ok Much clearer. Thank you. And your right we do try to keep US lives from being lost. This is not to say we don't try to elminate civilian casualties. If we really were just trying to save US lives then the most effective way of dealing with the insurgents would be to flatten the town from the air. This is unacceptable to me and most in not all soldiers. Talking to veterns of modern wars, Gulfwar 1 and up, the general opinion is that soldiers don't like to kill, but it is a nesissery evil. I personally would rather not kill and spend my time helping build up third world societies, but i know that there are people out there who want to kill me as well as everyone i love so i'm not going to let that happen. I talked to a lot of people returning from iraq, and i listen to them talk about rebuilding schools, helping children, and making life better for the iraqi people. I wish that is all we did over there, but it isn't so i train to do the job the best i can so i can avoid killing innocent people, and save my brothers and sisters in arms from getting killed as well.

my cousins a paratrooper in Australia and my dads a major in the reserves

Cool thats awesome. I wish them both a long and beautiful life.

you only WISH i was talking about wars only

Well considereing that is the topic of the thread and you didn't specify, thats all i thought you were talking bout. And yes there are other things that have been done. Welcome to the human being. Major flaw: Greed

Well considereing that is the topic of the thread and you didn't specify, thats all i thought you were talking bout. And yes there are other things that have been done. Welcome to the human being. Major flaw: Greed
so its ok if everyone but the "barbarian" japanese honor society comits atrocities?

What I find hard to believe is that so many people in the Land of the Free and the Brave actually condone a soldier executing an unarmed and wounded combatant, lying prone on the ground, with no fire fight going on or anything. It’s the kind of thing that makes me shake my head and feel sorry for anyone with the misfortune to who knows anyone like that. It’s more than hypocrisy to condemn the brutal dictatorship of Saddam and then applaud your own acts of brutality in their place.

Soldiers are supposed to be professionals not a bunch of cowboys out killing for the sheer joy of it. This is a serious breach of discipline that needs to be hammered down before the other kids begin thinking that this is a cool idea and the top brass are giving them the thumbs up. This kind of thing does happen in war, but as a civilized people we’re supposed to be condemning these isolated cases not slapping people on the back for their war crimes.

Having spent some years in the Infantry, I know that there are drills for coming across wounded enemies to sort out the ones who might be concealing a grenade. I realize that after consuming one too many Hollywood action flicks that a lot of Americans see nothing wrong with capping anyone they don’t like, but even in War there are rules and the US is a signatory of the Geneva Convention. They signed that because they didn’t like the idea of having their soldiers executed by other nations who have signed the Geneva Convention and shouldn’t be allowed to parade out the terrorist word for anyone they want to violate the Convention over.

Yes the US isn’t fighting an organized army, but neither were the British in the early days of the American Revolution for that matter. The continued labeling of everyone taking up arms against the US in Iraq as an act of terrorism, should think about applying that label to themselves during the American Revolution, and quit using the term as a quick fix for accepting responsibility for US actions in the World.

Anyone who thinks that the killing of unarmed wounded enemy combatants needs to have their head examined and maybe play a few less video games. The result of this kind of mass stupidity is only going to make recruiting for the Iraqi rebels that much easier. The US needs to learn a few things from the British troops in Iraq, who don’t spend all of their time trying to do their best to piss of the locals. Aside from the recently taken over US sector by the Black Watch, things are much smoother where the UK soldiers are running the show. Let’s face it peacekeeping and occupation are not a strong suit of the US army.

The Bruce

so its ok if everyone but the "barbarian" japanese honor society comits atrocities?

I'm not entirely sure where you coming from with that, but but atrocities from anyone are wrong. But the cold hard fact of the matter is that anytime you get groups of humans together they are going to happen. Thats just the way it is, man kind is a sick pathetic speicies.

Maybe I missed something, but when I was in the Army we were told not to kill unarmed civilians in front of cameras. I don't know what the circumstances were, but from what it looked like the civilian was on the ground and posed no immedeate threat to anyone. When we were running checkpoints, we were supposed to use deadly force as a last resort when possible.

just real quick question, we got any soldiers in here and if so what branch and what country.

United Sates Army, 1966 - 2000 ( non-continuous )

we are helping them alot the thing is they are not doing much to help themselfs. kind of hard to help people that dont try and help themselfs.

THEY DONT WANT YOUR HELP. get it in your head, theys people dont want a people who they see as impure in the eyes of there god, theys people live by there religion(sp?). look at history the english tried ot do it it didnt work why do you think you can. at least the english had a beet start to there "liberation" movement

What I find hard to believe is that so many people in the Land of the Free and the Brave actually condone a soldier executing an unarmed and wounded combatant, lying prone on the ground, with no fire fight going on or anything. It’s the kind of thing that makes me shake my head and feel sorry for anyone with the misfortune to who knows anyone like that. It’s more than hypocrisy to condemn the brutal dictatorship of Saddam and then applaud your own acts of brutality in their place.

Soldiers are supposed to be professionals not a bunch of cowboys out killing for the sheer joy of it. This is a serious breach of discipline that needs to be hammered down before the other kids begin thinking that this is a cool idea and the top brass are giving them the thumbs up. This kind of thing does happen in war, but as a civilized people we’re supposed to be condemning these isolated cases not slapping people on the back for their war crimes.

Having spent some years in the Infantry, I know that there are drills for coming across wounded enemies to sort out the ones who might be concealing a grenade. I realize that after consuming one too many Hollywood action flicks that a lot of Americans see nothing wrong with capping anyone they don’t like, but even in War there are rules and the US is a signatory of the Geneva Convention. They signed that because they didn’t like the idea of having their soldiers executed by other nations who have signed the Geneva Convention and shouldn’t be allowed to parade out the terrorist word for anyone they want to violate the Convention over.

Yes the US isn’t fighting an organized army, but neither were the British in the early days of the American Revolution for that matter. The continued labeling of everyone taking up arms against the US in Iraq as an act of terrorism, should think about applying that label to themselves during the American Revolution, and quit using the term as a quick fix for accepting responsibility for US actions in the World.

Anyone who thinks that the killing of unarmed wounded enemy combatants needs to have their head examined and maybe play a few less video games. The result of this kind of mass stupidity is only going to make recruiting for the Iraqi rebels that much easier. The US needs to learn a few things from the British troops in Iraq, who don’t spend all of their time trying to do their best to piss of the locals. Aside from the recently taken over US sector by the Black Watch, things are much smoother where the UK soldiers are running the show. Let’s face it peacekeeping and occupation are not a strong suit of the US army.

The Bruce

Most of the arugment in this thread have the same argument. It generally runs along the idea of it was the wrong action, but we see how it could happen. We're not saying his actions were right, but their is no need crucifiy him over a split second desiscion. What most amazing about you arugment is that you have the arrogence to think that your drills are going to make everything so crystal clear so that you would never have any problem with it. Must be nice to live in such a black and white fiction.

United Sates Army, 1966 - 2000 ( non-continuous )

Right on. Welcome to the party.

Right on. Welcome to the party.

:D

Something I'm getting pretty sick and tired of are the people who say that a US marine shot an Iraqi prisoner. That US marine shot an enemy combatant who had already taken more than 10 rounds in his chest and he would have bled out less than minute later. That insurgent was also shooting at that marine from inside a house he looted. Now, I thought there was a difference between an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war; but hey, if I was wrong about that then maybe I was wrong in thinking apples and oranges were 2 different fruits.

i think it is safe to say when you are hanging out in a place that is shooting at americans your not exactly passive or trying to help the americans, wounded from shooting at americans

have you ever heard of mob mentallity, that is why you have to generalize. people act differently when they are in a group then they do when they are alone. generalizing helps you understand what that group is going to do. it is neccesary.
how do you know that this man Was not a priest? how do you know this man was not a doctor? how do you know that this man was not a medic that got hit be a random shot? there are many things that could make this man a non-combatent(sp?) but still hurt.

In the controlled setting of the Mosque, during mop-up, while not under fire or threatened by weapons IS the place where you rely on your professionalism and your drills. If you aren’t going to follow battlefield discipline and follow your drills you should stay in the rear with cooks, because you’re not much use past the forward edge of battle. This is the reason why soldiers actually train instead of just going from couch to combat.

One guy disarms himself and approaches the wounded combatant, while a second covers him with a headshot aimed in case the enemy tries anything. When you’re checking him, buddy is also looking for grenades and booby traps that you are blind to.

Example, when on top of the combatant and slowly rolling them over, while buddy watches for anything suspicious. Yes, it’s dangerous but it’s called soldiering not Sunday school. I have a lot of respect for the Marines, being one of the few units in the US who actually train for battle, but these isolated incidents are definitely War Crimes.

The Bruce

In the controlled setting of the Mosque, during mop-up, while not under fire or threatened by weapons IS the place where you rely on your professionalism and your drills. If you aren’t going to follow battlefield discipline and follow your drills you should stay in the rear with cooks, because you’re not much use past the forward edge of battle. This is the reason why soldiers actually train instead of just going from couch to combat.

One guy disarms himself and approaches the wounded combatant, while a second covers him with a headshot aimed in case the enemy tries anything. When you’re checking him, buddy is also looking for grenades and booby traps that you are blind to.

Example, when on top of the combatant and slowly rolling them over, while buddy watches for anything suspicious. Yes, it’s dangerous but it’s called soldiering not Sunday school. I have a lot of respect for the Marines, being one of the few units in the US who actually train for battle, but these isolated incidents are definitely War Crimes.

The Bruce

First off gotta apologize for my last comment, it was stupid. Sorry. But back to the topic at hand. That the thing about drills though. Everything goes according to script. It'd be wrong to think that it works all the time. And i'm not saying that it was right, but their were circumstances that could make making that mistake possible. Things like being in combat, seeing friends die, seeing friends killed by supposid non combatants. It may have been a war crime and he shot him out of anger. No one posting on this board know tha actual events surrounding it.

Oh and i probably should take some offense to the comment about US forces being as i'm in the air force. Its ok though, no one like the air force until the boms start droppen. :)

i won't pretend like I know what it feels like to be under pressure, under fire. however, i did recently have the opportunity to speak with an infantryman on leave from Iraq, and he had a very compelling story. we talked about his last major mission, in which nobody didn't puke on themself at least once from heat exhaustion, fear, grime, you name it.

i said it before and i'll say it again. this is a chickensh-t issue, and i personally feel our time and money would be better spent sending food or ammunition to the young men and women who have put themselves in harms way. the marine was totally justified in what he did. anyone who thinks that a man who had been shot in the face and had a good friend killed by a booby-trapped body should be court-marshaled needs to get their priorities straight. :headbang: these guys are under fire wearing body armor in 115 degree weather watching their friends get blown up by booby-trapped bodies. we are trying to BURY THEIR DEAD and they take advantage of that. stop being so politically correct! war sucks, but OUR guys are the first priority. GO USA! :sniper:

i won't pretend like I know what it feels like to be under pressure, under fire. however, i did recently have the opportunity to speak with an infantryman on leave from Iraq, and he had a very compelling story. we talked about his last major mission, in which nobody didn't puke on themself at least once from heat exhaustion, fear, grime, you name it.

i said it before and i'll say it again. this is a chickensh-t issue, and i personally feel our time and money would be better spent sending food or ammunition to the young men and women who have put themselves in harms way. the marine was totally justified in what he did. anyone who thinks that a man who had been shot in the face and had a good friend killed by a booby-trapped body should be court-marshaled needs to get their priorities straight. :headbang: these guys are under fire wearing body armor in 115 degree weather watching their friends get blown up by booby-trapped bodies. we are trying to BURY THEIR DEAD and they take advantage of that. stop being so politically correct! war sucks, but OUR guys are the first priority. GO USA! :sniper:

another one predisposed to deadly action, not allowed in the military

I always thought people liked the Air force less when the bombs started dropping, depending on how close they were. I’ve always gotten on well with air crews, who have to have a professional conduct to keep their crates from crashing. Especially those Harrier pilots! Are you a pilot or ground support/ordinance crew? I really feel sorry for those poor pilots stuck behind the controls of those deathtrap Ospreys though. I knew a gal who was a US chopper pilot and hope she never got that tasking.

These days the guys I feel the sorriest for are the Service Battalion/Logistics. They’re the ones who are least protected and the easiest targets to take a shot at. This is probably the worst time in US military history to be in the rear with the gear in a theatre of war.

Still, back to the original topic, yes it might be messy but these are the things that are driving every Arab with a hate on to sign up for the next wave of attacks against the US. These are the acts that will be used to inspire the next generation of terrorists. And after seeing what the last generation was like, you really don't want to see what the next generation will be like. This kind of thing has to be condemned or you're no better than the regime you toppled.

The Bruce

:headbang: yeah, call it whatever you want. I can't say that if I had been in that marine's shoes, I would have stopped to think about whether he was armed or unarmed, an insurgent or civilian, a priest, a teacher. would you? it's incredibly easy to say over a chat room that we would have been calm. our friends haven't been blown away by bodies covering grenades in the past few weeks.

I say again: Something I'm getting pretty sick and tired of are the people who say that a US marine shot an Iraqi prisoner. That US marine shot an enemy combatant who had already taken more than 10 rounds in his chest and he would have bled out less than minute later. That insurgent was also shooting at that marine from inside a house he looted. Now, I thought there was a difference between an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war; but hey, if I was wrong about that then maybe I was wrong in thinking apples and oranges were 2 different fruits.

the iraqi has the same right to shoot the americans if they are in fear and an american is setting himself up ready to blow up and kill the iraqi and possibly his fellow soldiers.

and about the snakes, its a little different there. a snake does not strap on exposives and blow you up, in fact a snake doesnt harm you unless you try to harm them. NOT THE CASE AT ALL WITH IRAQIS. these people have the ability to launch an attack and take out half of the USA.

this is something you need to realize, to many people think war is just within a few miles. a submarine can be on the other side of the world and launch an attack. it is a kill or be killed world now, it is not generals sitting on horses while civilians watch on the side lines.

This entire post is a fallacy. Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and it had no ability to strike the continental US. The worst they could possibly do is a missile barrage on Israel, and that would end horribly for them. It's certainly a far cry from your "launch an attack and take out half of the USA" nonsense. Exactly what would they attack with? AK-47s? Pipe bombs? Ha. These are budget rebels, not some sort of high-tech terrorist group.

I say again: Something I'm getting pretty sick and tired of are the people who say that a US marine shot an Iraqi prisoner. That US marine shot an enemy combatant who had already taken more than 10 rounds in his chest and he would have bled out less than minute later. That insurgent was also shooting at that marine from inside a house he looted. Now, I thought there was a difference between an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war; but hey, if I was wrong about that then maybe I was wrong in thinking apples and oranges were 2 different fruits.

not only is there a difference between enemy combatants and POWs, I think there is NO comparison to the USA and saddams baath party. ex; saddam didn't kill 5000 kurds with sarin gas out of caution. the marine was exercising caution, not hatred.

not before i shoot you then

ARE WE IN A WAR? AM I THREATENED BY YOU? DO I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE ABOUT TO KILL ME AND MY FELLOW SOLDIERS?

answer to all these question = no

that was an ignorant thing to say

how old are you? 10, 11

Someone should report this guy, I smell a troll.

I always thought people liked the Air force less when the bombs started dropping, depending on how close they were. I’ve always gotten on well with air crews, who have to have a professional conduct to keep their crates from crashing. Especially those Harrier pilots! Are you a pilot or ground support/ordinance crew? I really feel sorry for those poor pilots stuck behind the controls of those deathtrap Ospreys though. I knew a gal who was a US chopper pilot and hope she never got that tasking.

These days the guys I feel the sorriest for are the Service Battalion/Logistics. They’re the ones who are least protected and the easiest targets to take a shot at. This is probably the worst time in US military history to be in the rear with the gear in a theatre of war.

Still, back to the original topic, yes it might be messy but these are the things that are driving every Arab with a hate on to sign up for the next wave of attacks against the US. These are the acts that will be used to inspire the next generation of terrorists. And after seeing what the last generation was like, you really don't want to see what the next generation will be like. This kind of thing has to be condemned or you're no better than the regime you toppled.

The Bruce

Hehe fair enough about the bombs, but if you didn't get so close to the enemy they wouldn't be that close :) (j/k)I agree with your view on the service/logistics battalion being in the crappy situation. They are usually the ones on the move. It sucks to be in their shoe's. Right now i'm an officer canidate. I'm at the Air force academy. It sucks but its the quickest route to a pilots slot. I want to be and F-16 pilot.

Your right about the world view. That is important, but its also wrong to cruicify you own people to appease them. It should interesting to see what the investigation turns up. This deffinantley not an easy issue.

justified...no. the US is not at war with Iraq at the minute. The soldier is part of an illegal occupying army, and as such he and all his fellow soldiers should be ejected from the country.
I do not hold him accountable for what he did however, he was merely doing his job and I accept that. The accountability lies with George W. Bush - who at the time of the invasion of Iraq did not even hold popular sovereignty over the country he ruled.
If ever there was a war criminal to rival Milosevic...Bush has surpassed him, and it is my stongly held opinion that he deserves to be prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and other abuses of human rights he claims to stand up for. :headbang:

Raid was just a point i was using, i never said they will come and spray raid on us.

were all the weapons in ww2 harmless, if so then they dont have much. but if you consider the weapons of ww2 dangerous then you think they have enough to attack us. Iraq has better weapons then that used in ww2 and those weapons are not listed as wmd but can still kill many.

Yeah, they had better equipment then what was used in WWII, but that doesn't make it anything more then obsolescent Soviet shit.

Originally Posted by Non Aligned States
Chemical and biological weapons do not classify as WMDs because there are still defensive methods against them, typically involving contamination suits.

then how can people argue that they couldnt attack us?

Because they couldn't. Iraq had no weapons, no industrial capacity to support production, and no effective or reliable means of delivery for their non-existant weapons.

The accountability lies with George W. Bush - who at the time of the invasion of Iraq did not even hold popular sovereignty over the country he ruled.
If ever there was a war criminal to rival Milosevic...Bush has surpassed him, and it is my stongly held opinion that he deserves to be prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and other abuses of human rights he claims to stand up for. :headbang:[/QUOTE]

haha well said. i find it hilarious that we live in a democratic country where a minority of people decide the leader! however, i do not see bush as a war criminal any more than i see kerry as a stunningly attractive man. i really think we should show more support for our own people, pardon this marine, patch up any unfinished business and get the hell out of Iraq before anymore politically correct 'letter-writers' try to court-marshal our own troops.

i love this smiley because it reflects perfectly how I have felt since this issue was brought up; :headbang:

justified...no. the US is not at war with Iraq at the minute. The soldier is part of an illegal occupying army, and as such he and all his fellow soldiers should be ejected from the country...
If ever there was a war criminal to rival Milosevic...Bush has surpassed him, and it is my stongly held opinion that he deserves to be prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and other abuses of human rights he claims to stand up for. :headbang:

You could not have expressed how ignorant you are any better than those comments. Illegal occupation? Back it up with proof? How is it illegal? The UN gave the go ahead, the Iraqi government asked us to stay. Comparing Bush to Milosevich. Wow! Where to start with that one. Can you back that one up? Maybe with all the mass graves Bush has? Maybe some examples of genocide by Bush? Basically all you have to offer are the rantings of an idiot.

It is absolutely understandable how this could've happened. The Marine was shot in the face a day earlier, a member of his unit dies a day earlier from a booby trapped body. I heard an interview with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey yesterday who said ordinarily this Marine would've been given a day or two out of combat then rebriefed on the rules of engagement, then sent back out into the field, which I think is more appropriate than the public flogging received at the hands of people who have little to no real combat experience.

...in fact a snake doesnt harm you unless you try to harm them. NOT THE CASE AT ALL WITH IRAQIS. these people have the ability to launch an attack and take out half of the USA.

this is something you need to realize.......this is something You need to realize...

Big American Media Corporations are not very reliable.

You could not have expressed how ignorant you are any better than those comments. Illegal occupation? Back it up with proof? How is it illegal? The UN gave the go ahead, ..... Basically all you have to offer are the rantings of an idiot.
The UN said the War was Illegal.

The UN said the War was Illegal.

No, Kofi Annan made that comment and he is NOT the UN. In fact, he's in danger of being called out by a no confidence vote because of his corruption.

Because they couldn't. Iraq had no weapons, no industrial capacity to support production, and no effective or reliable means of delivery for their non-existant weapons.

Yes. Apparently all those Kurds who were gassed to death in northern Iraq are a bunch of hypocondriacs.