Marine shooting in Iraq justified-poll
- Thread starter CentralTexas
- Start date
- Status
CentralTexas
Member
Sigmaman- here ya go
back to the question
if a terrorist did this to a marine would you call him a murderer
yes or no
Uh, no especially if we conducted war the way they do. Glad to see you at least used the word "Terrorist" instead of "victim"
CT
back to the question
if a terrorist did this to a marine would you call him a murderer
yes or no
Uh, no especially if we conducted war the way they do. Glad to see you at least used the word "Terrorist" instead of "victim"
CT
sigmaman said:
I already answered this question. Any terrorist that kills any american in ANY way I would call a scumbag terrorist. Do you expect them to meet our soldiers for milk and cookies at noon? No they are out to kill us the same as we are out to kill them. That is what WAR is all about. We're not over there fighting because the terrorists are such nice people and we have a petty disagreement. War = killing....plain and simple.
If you really want to get picky the true "murderers" are the ones who flew a CIVILIAN plane into a CIVILIAN target with no warning. The rest as I said are simple scumbag terrorist killers who need to be killed.
DRZinn
Member
Except, of course, that some people would be jumping all over each other to be the first to call him a murderer. Without having the facts.Dbl0Kevin said:
I'm gonna go with...
*drumroll*
Not enough info.
For instance:
Was he placed in the corner, having been taken into custody by US forces and searched and secured, and then simply executed?
Or was he laying there in a pile of corpses looking like another IED-strapped suicide bomber lurking in wait? Oh...no weapons discovered? Okay...you volunteering to go look for 'em before we know everything is safe?
Hey, let me be the first to say this:
If you start booby-trapping surrendering militants and hiding live killers amid the dead bodies, you cannot expect to have your warriors taken into custody like this is some stand-up war. The rules of warfare apply when both sides abide by them. I'm hurt means I'm hurt. I surrender means I surrender. When you turn it into "I surrender....*BOOM* Ha ha! Fooled You!" you really cannot gripe when next time you don't get the chance.
Mike
*drumroll*
Not enough info.
For instance:
Was he placed in the corner, having been taken into custody by US forces and searched and secured, and then simply executed?
Or was he laying there in a pile of corpses looking like another IED-strapped suicide bomber lurking in wait? Oh...no weapons discovered? Okay...you volunteering to go look for 'em before we know everything is safe?
Hey, let me be the first to say this:
If you start booby-trapping surrendering militants and hiding live killers amid the dead bodies, you cannot expect to have your warriors taken into custody like this is some stand-up war. The rules of warfare apply when both sides abide by them. I'm hurt means I'm hurt. I surrender means I surrender. When you turn it into "I surrender....*BOOM* Ha ha! Fooled You!" you really cannot gripe when next time you don't get the chance.
Mike
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
The answer is not enough information.
It's too easy to second guess from 14,000 miles away and from a video clip.
It's too easy to second guess from 14,000 miles away and from a video clip.
I voted last night before this thread took off.
I was also not going to post in it because of the turn the thread in Roundtable took. But here I am posting.
I voted 'not enough info', and that was my position before.
Glad to see that a good number of people agree with me. And here is why they should - we don't know what happened yet, but there needs to be a full investigation and if wrong was done that needs to be punished. No whitewash, no total secrecy, no ignoring of the facts by anyone.
What bothers me is that some here want to absolve this Marine of any case to answer before they have a real clue what happened. What also bothers me are the people who want this kind of thing kept secret.
That's me out. If it was a British soldier I'd feel the exact same way. No desire to whitewash, no desire to crucify - I want the facts.
I was also not going to post in it because of the turn the thread in Roundtable took. But here I am posting.
I voted 'not enough info', and that was my position before.
Glad to see that a good number of people agree with me. And here is why they should - we don't know what happened yet, but there needs to be a full investigation and if wrong was done that needs to be punished. No whitewash, no total secrecy, no ignoring of the facts by anyone.
What bothers me is that some here want to absolve this Marine of any case to answer before they have a real clue what happened. What also bothers me are the people who want this kind of thing kept secret.
That's me out. If it was a British soldier I'd feel the exact same way. No desire to whitewash, no desire to crucify - I want the facts.
last post
i really dont care that that iraqi died
but he was murdered in my opinion
the marine will be found guilty
and the reporter served no useful purpose in reporting it
well actually al qaeda and zarqawi probably got a spike in there recruitment drives so i take that back (its sarcasm dont report me to the fbi please)
i really dont care that that iraqi died
but he was murdered in my opinion
the marine will be found guilty
and the reporter served no useful purpose in reporting it
well actually al qaeda and zarqawi probably got a spike in there recruitment drives so i take that back (its sarcasm dont report me to the fbi please)
CannibalCrowley
Member
No, unknown people are considered unknown until proven hostile.Dbl0Kevin said:
Why not, you did. That's a bit hypocritical.
No it's not. Patrolling the streets and shooting everyone on sight isn't very effective at winning those hearts and minds.
The investigation was not focused on the individuals, it was an overview of the prison conditions as a whole. The general who was investigating it had already issued his report and no one had even been charged. But 60 Minutes aired their piece and within a month the soldiers were charged and I believe at least one court-martial had started.DocZinn said:
Still no answer, let's try again:
What is your definition of "feigning death" and how would you recognize such on sight? Just by looking at someone briefly from across the room, can you tell whether he is "feigning death" or simply unconscious? Can you please point me to the proper article of a convention which states that feigning death is a war crime (if such an article exists)?Dbl0Kevin said:
ojibweindian
Member
Damn straight I would. I root for the home team.
ravinraven
Member
That's unfair!!!
From way back up the thread, I got this gem: "Besides, didn't Kerry get a medal for shooting a wounded enemy?"
You all know that sKerry is a liberal CS therefore not subject to the rules that govern Americans. The question is out of order.
rr
__________________
From way back up the thread, I got this gem: "Besides, didn't Kerry get a medal for shooting a wounded enemy?"
You all know that sKerry is a liberal CS therefore not subject to the rules that govern Americans. The question is out of order.
rr
__________________
DRZinn
Member
In that case, perhaps the photos needed to be released because that incident wasn't being investigated. BUT, the brass in that case ddin't have the public release hanging over their heads; they thought they could keep the whole thing quiet.CannibalCrowley said:
Look at it from their view:
1. Questionable shooting.
2. Videotape, which will look very bad if released.
3. Two choices:
A. sweep it under the rug, tape gets released, you look bad
B. investigate it, the tape (probably) doesn't get released, but at least if it does you can say "See? I already took care of it."
DRZinn
Member
It's not really a perjorative, Styles. It's a pretty common term in the military to mean any native of the Middle East. It's easier than saying "Hey, I've got three Iraqis or Syrians or Jordanians coming around the north side of the building." Some use it as a perjorative, but that can be done with any word. Heck, even the hated n----- wasn't originally a bad thing, just a term that meant an African. Came from the Spanish word negro, meaning, of course, black.Furious Styles said:
capt. Nemo
Member
Heaven help us!
Just reading some of the posts in this thread makes me realize that we can't win this war or any other. We're fighting a wild fire here and some would like to try and put it out with a garden hose. With the press and some of our dimwitted people defending the enemy and persecuting the Marines...we have a WINNER!
And it ain't us.
Just reading some of the posts in this thread makes me realize that we can't win this war or any other. We're fighting a wild fire here and some would like to try and put it out with a garden hose. With the press and some of our dimwitted people defending the enemy and persecuting the Marines...we have a WINNER!
And it ain't us.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Speak for yourself, and don't include me in your "we all"sigmaman said:
Leatherneck
Member
Totally irrelevant. Those Marines clearing Fallujah had dam well better assume that any Middle Easterners out of uniform and found in hothouses in the city at that point are indeed hostile. As to whether this guy needed killin' or not, I still withhold judgement for lack of being there. There were witnesses, and apparently most are rooting for our marine, so my prejudice is in sympathy with the shooter. But it still needs investigating; I believe one will clear him.
The posters on this thread that liken urban warfare against a devious and innovative, entrenched enemy to any domestic situation are wacko.
TC
TFL Survivor
CannibalCrowley
Member
Not prosecuting this Marine would be like trying to put out the blaze while tossing lit torches into it.capt. Nemo said:
First off, calling for the Marine to be prosecuted for an alleged crime is not defending the enemy. Secondly, if you can't argue your point without name calling, this isn't the correct forum for you.
St Johns said:
Ok I really have to question you "not enough info" people. Exactly what more information do you need? The facts of this case are very simple:
1. They are in a combat zone....NOT the streets of NY.
2. The room they were in was NOT secured....it MAY have been secured the day before but in urban warfare a LOT can happen in an hour not to mention a day and it could be reoccupied or rearmed
3. It is common practice for wounded and dead terrorists to be booby trapped or have bombs so they can suicide and kill marines.
4. While sweeping this room one of the terrorists was faking that he was dead and not responding to commands when the marines shouted.
Given all that information what else would you like to satisfy before you allow a marine to do his job and kill the enemy and also protect the lives of himself and his fellow marines in that room?
CannibalCrowley said:
No you're wrong. Sorry you're just wrong. When there are nothing left but insurgents in the city then they are considered hostile plain and simple.
No I did not.....my analogy was relative while yours was not. In my analogy of someone pointing a gun at you and you were not required to determine it was loaded the terrorist himself equals the gun. Being in a combat zone coming up on the enemy is the equivalent to having a gun pointed at you. What is so hard to grasp about that? You on the other hand tried to equate this to the marine walking down the streets of NY and shooting a bum lying in the street. WRONG
Guess what it's not the marines jobs to win hearts and minds when in the midst of combat. Winning the hearts and minds begins when combat ends, until then their job is to kill people and break things and do it so well that they live and the enemy does not. I will say again if you feel so strongly otherwise feel free to commission your own platoon who will swear an oath to hold the lives of the terrorists above their own lives and head on over there and do the job yourself.
I'm not going to go digging through the articles of war just to please you but I will tell you this. It is common knowledge that the standard practice of terrorists is to pretend they are dead or wounded and then when the marines approach they are blown up. Knowing that tactic it is perfectly reasonable to be overly cautious when dealing with an enemy of unknown status. The burden is on the ENEMY to prove that he is NOT a threat. Not on OUR soldier to prove that he IS.
Look people the basic problem is this: These kinds of incidents should not be shown to the general public when the war is still going on. "BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!" Yes I can already hear those cries now. Guess what....tough. The marines and soldiers have a right to LIVE and to win the war that WE sent them out to fight. The basic fact is a great majority of civilians do NOT understand what it is like to be in combat and to be fighting for your very life day in and day out. These tactics that the marines are using are NOT new and have gone on throughout every war. The marines, are in fact, fighting much more honorable than the terrorists. When was the last time you saw a marine boobytrap the dead or wounded body of another marine? Or when was the last time you saw a marine surrender to the terrorists only to blow himself up? I sure as hell can't remember any of that. Some of you people are trying to equate what goes on in combat to what goes on in normal civlilized life.......you can not do that. Combat is dirty, it is kill or be killed....civilian life is not and because of that most people just don't get it. Not that there is anything wrong with that......not everyone is meant to be warriors or soldiers. For those that are, however, get out of their business and let them fight the war to win and to survive. Then after it's all over you can see all the damn video you want and study and learn and evaluate till you heart's content.
Think about it. This marine has done nothing wrong, yeah I know some will argue that. But he didn't. But no matter what happens in the useless investigation now it will be a victory for the enemy. If he is found guilty then the enemy can say "look at how brutal the American's are!" and if he is found not guilty then they will say "look how the American's won't punish one of their own". This video served NO purpose except causing arguements like these and giving the enemy propaganda. How any of you can be for that and be on the side of your country in this war is beyond me.
Think about it. This marine has done nothing wrong, yeah I know some will argue that. But he didn't. But no matter what happens in the useless investigation now it will be a victory for the enemy. If he is found guilty then the enemy can say "look at how brutal the American's are!" and if he is found not guilty then they will say "look how the American's won't punish one of their own". This video served NO purpose except causing arguements like these and giving the enemy propaganda. How any of you can be for that and be on the side of your country in this war is beyond me.
- Status
