Marine shooting in Iraq justified-poll

[hubel458]

I voted yes. With terrorist involved, boobytrapped corpses,men
from same units dying from same, he was justified to shoot and
not take any chances.Ed.

 

[popeye]

"IMBEDDED" (sp) photographers from now on better use better judgement from now on or they could wind up "ENTOMBED"

What moron would make take that footage and make it public? I hope they make his name known.

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

Not enough info yet....BUT

It's criminal that the Civil Rights Attorney's and Watch Groups are already hanging this Marine. It's like they have lying in wait to pounce on the marines. They don't care about waiting for the evidence. Why? Because they aren't concerned about the marine or the dead terrorist....They have an anti-war, anti-bush agenda! Period! This type of coverage is great propoganda for them.
If the terrorist was faking death and made a sudden movement...then he should be shot.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Kevin,

I don't know if a dialogue between us is going to be possible. I don't understand that viewpoint at all, I'll admit it. And I don't think you see mine. I'll try, if you will.

That was basically my whole point. Certain people, such as yourself, do not have the warrior or soldier mentality. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with you it just means you don't belong in the Army in combat. But keeping that in mind you should also not try to impose your viewpoint on those in combat who are fighting for your freedom to hold that viewpoint along with their very survival.

When you are at war the only thing that you have time to care about is your life and the lives of those fighting along side you. It is why the bonds between soldiers are stronger than just about anything else. You must put your life in the hands of those around you and trust them that much. It's why soldiers will fall on grenades to save the lives of their friends, because you know they'd do the same for you. It's why when someone is wounded in the open there is always someone willing to run back into fire to get the wounded man out. It is also why when there is a terrorist enemy who could possibly blow up your whole squad that you will treat him like the threat he is and PULL THE TRIGGER to put the safety of your men over the life of an enemy terrorist. That's the way it is in combat. You don't have to like it, but that's the facts.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

"IMBEDDED" (sp) photographers from now on better use better judgement from now on or they could wind up "ENTOMBED"

Are you seriously suggesting that reporters who expose possible crimes should be murdered? Wow, if murder is high road, what does one have to do to sink to the low?

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

in other words, you can't back up your statement.

No in other words I don't feel like digging through rules. I notice you just quoted the first sentence and didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my qualifiying statement.

Please explain how an unconscious enemy is supposed to prove that he's not a threat.

Do you know he was unconcious? If a terrorist was that concerned with surrendering then he would find a way to do it. Seeing as how they have already violated MULPTIPLE rules of war especially booby trapping wounded and dead terrorists they do not get the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Would you rather he waited and had a whole squad of marines killed by an IED?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Well, if I was that squad leader, the next time that cameraman/reporter was on patrol with me it would go like this: "Hey, press guy, see that bad guy against the wall over there? He looks like he's faking death. Go roll him him over and see...."

In fact, if I were the company CO I would be sure to assign the photog to the very next patrol I had headed for a terrorist lair, with those instructions to the platoon leader.

 

[Iain]

Coincidence, I'm still here, but I should be asleep.

That's not what I missing. Warrior mentality? Kevin what I was referring to was the statement of yours I quoted directly above what you quoted there.

That was where you said that you don't mind whatever your soldiers do. That leaves the field open to a lot of questionable, and downright wrong actions. Have a think about that.

Also think about what Grossman says about adrenaline filled combat situations - without modern training soldiers had a tendency to band together in the face of their flight or fight reactions - even with enemy soldiers. People like people. Modern training may have over-ridden all that but the price has been high. More British soldiers who fought in the Falklands have committed suicide since, than died there. Getting gung ho about warrior mentality is not a good thing.

Furious styles - thanks for agreeing with me. I read way too much 'two legged critters' and other such dehumanizing epithets around here at times.

Itgoesboom - you're absolutely right. I'm just shocked by the denial that there may be case to answer at all, when as you say we are not in full possession of the facts. An investigation needs to take place.

We've had similar situations to that which describe with the shooting at cars. British soldiers in Northern Ireland have been convicted of murder in that circumstance. Probably not right, but checks on military actions do need to take place, you can't just shoot up every car that fails to stop in Northern Ireland, but then again the car that you let through may be full of explosives. Complicated, and every case needs to be looked at carefully, which is all that I am asking for in this case.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Having seen the video and read the audio transcripts, there is no possible way that the soldier was justified in shooting an unarmed prisoner. That soldier (I use the term loosely) is a murderer who deserves neither consideration nor sympathy.

- Chris

He wasn't a prisoner. He had not been taken into custody yet.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Coincidence, I'm still here, but I should be asleep.

That's not what I missing. Warrior mentality? Kevin what I was referring to was the statement of yours I quoted directly above what you quoted there.

That was where you said that you don't mind whatever your soldiers do. That leaves the field open to a lot of questionable, and downright wrong actions. Have a think about that.

Also think about what Grossman says about adrenaline filled combat situations - without modern training soldiers had a tendency to band together in the face of their flight or fight reactions - even with enemy soldiers. People like people. Modern training may have over-ridden all that but the price has been high. More British soldiers who fought in the Falklands have committed suicide since, than died there. Getting gung ho about warrior mentality is not a good thing.

Furious styles - thanks for agreeing with me. I read way too much 'two legged critters' and other such dehumanizing epithets around here at times.

Itgoesboom - you're absolutely right. I'm just shocked by the denial that there may be case to answer at all, when as you say we are not in full possession of the facts. An investigation needs to take place.

We've had similar situations to that which describe with the shooting at cars. British soldiers in Northern Ireland have been convicted of murder in that circumstance. Probably not right, but checks on military actions do need to take place, you can't just shoot up every car that fails to stop in Northern Ireland, but then again the car that you let through may be full of explosives. Complicated, and every case needs to be looked at carefully, which is all that I am asking for in this case.

That statement was part of the warrior mentality. And no you don't have it.....as I said there's nothing wrong with that. But the fact is simple.

War = killing

There is no "nice" or "fair" way to kill someone. You do not wait for him to be ready so it can be fair. You take EVERY advantage you can in order to make sure YOU are the one that does the killing and does not become the killee. Getting "gung ho about the warrior mentality" is the ONLY way to make sure that you survive the combat zone. Like I said however certain people are not able to handle this as evidenced by the suicides that you mentioned. There are really not that many people in the world that understand and can handle war.

As for the situations with the cars, prosecuting the soldiers and convicting them of murder does nothing but ruin morale of the military and have them less likely to do their job in the future. It comes down to this. Either you want the military to do their job or you don't. You can't expect someone to put his life on the line to defend your country when you tie one hand behind his back. This is war and people will die. Some people will die in not so excellent circumstances but that cannot be stopped. There is no such thing as a war where people will not get killed under bad circumstances. That does not make the soldier a murderer. It makes him someone doing his job and putting the safety of his friends over the safety of his enemy. Personally I would have it no other way.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Are you seriously suggesting that reporters who expose possible crimes should be murdered? Wow, if murder is high road, what does one have to do to sink to the low?

Cannibal, may I ask how old you are and if you have ever served in the military? In other words, do you have any idea what you're talking about?
I'mthe firstto pull the legalistic stuff in a political discussion and remind people that we are technically not at "war," because the Congress has not declared war. But, as the training cadre drummed into us ignorant louts before they shipped me to South Vietnam, it doesn't really matter what the polticians call it, when you're a soldier and somebody's shooting at you, it's war.

And in war conditions survival becomes important. In no way do I think what this Marine did could possibly rise to the level of "murder." I don't know if the UCMJ has a charge equivalent to manslaughter. If so, I hope the initial investigation doesn't even see fit to charge him with that. You want to know about murders? Ask Vietnam veterans about a warm and fuzzy little initiation ritual for idiot lieutenants called "fragging." Under the UCMJ it is very definitely a "bad thing" to blow up your own superior officer. Nonetheless, it did happen ... usually because the "victim" was an idiot and allowing him to continue in a command role would have endangered troops.

Why do I bring this up? Because let's face it, man, if combat can lead soldiers to blow up their OWN officers when circumstances make it necessary in order for the team to survive and complete the mission, why do you have so much trouble understanding why a prudent soldier might think it appropriate to neutralize a known enemy that posed an unknown but real and valid threat?

 

[Iain]

I wouldn't dare suggest that guys who committed suicide after the Falklands did so because they didn't have the 'warrior mentality' unless I had directly experienced what they did. I saw an interview with a typical hard British squaddie who admitted that he sees the dead body of the young Argentinian soldier he shot (during combat) several times a day. Lying on a cold hill with his brains in his helmet. Pretty difficult to deal with.

You do everything you can to survive, and even then you'll be lucky to survive unscathed mentally. Allowing for soldiers to 'do anything' is asking for more mental consequences.

War is killing. You're right. And according to Grossman soldiers rationalise that by realising they had to do what they did to survive. If they do things that they realise they didn't need to do - kill old men etc - that cannot be rationalised, except by pretty abnormal people. That is what I am arguing against - the idea that they should just go and do whatever they like - it's the soldiers themselves who pay the price for that, there are things human eyes should never see, and some things humans should never do.

NB _ I'm not saying this particular marine did anything wrong.

 

[popeye]

Are you seriously suggesting that reporters who expose possible crimes should be murdered? Wow, if murder is high road, what does one have to do to sink to the low?

I'm not suggesting murder ..... I'm suggesting "stuff happens" to those who are traitors to those that serve, and are found out. That's life. The guy who was shot is now being serviced by 1000 virgins according to Allah. So he should be one happy mofo. BTW what do cannibals enjoy the most meal wise?

 

[patentmike]

The situation on the tape is not clear. Nobody sitting in safety and comfort has a right to jump to conclusions. NBC, just like ALjazeera, decided to run the tape for all it's worth to discredit the military and the president. Remember those similar incidents in Bosnia? No? That's because there was no desire by the legacy media to discredit that president. It happened. Combat is messy and it's not exactly something you can switch on and off for the cameras. Wait an extra second to make sure you see a grenade, and you (and the reporter standing over your shoulder) die.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I wouldn't dare suggest that guys who committed suicide after the Falklands did so because they didn't have the 'warrior mentality' unless I had directly experienced what they did. I saw an interview with a typical hard British squaddie who admitted that he sees the dead body of the young Argentinian soldier he shot (during combat) several times a day. Lying on a cold hill with his brains in his helmet. Pretty difficult to deal with.

You do everything you can to survive, and even then you'll be lucky to survive unscathed mentally. Allowing for soldiers to 'do anything' is asking for more mental consequences.

War is killing. You're right. And according to Grossman soldiers rationalise that by realising they had to do what they did to survive. If they do things that they realise they didn't need to do - kill old men etc - that cannot be rationalised, except by pretty abnormal people. That is what I am arguing against - the idea that they should just go and do whatever they like - it's the soldiers themselves who pay the price for that, there are things human eyes should never see, and some things humans should never do.

NB _ I'm not saying this particular marine did anything wrong.

Ok we're starting to get somewhere here. We're basically on the same page except that I do not clasify the terrorist in this situation, who could have very well been a threat, as something that they did not need to do. I think you may be taking my words to the extreme. I'm not talking about shooting someone in the gut just to watch them squirm around and suffer or cutting off ears and making a necklace. I'm talking about using every tactical advantage you can in order to make sure your enemy is killed instead of you. In this case I have to say the benefit of the doubt is not given to terrorists who have already proven they are willing to booby trap bodies and suicide bomb themselves.

 

[sigmaman]

wth hell ws wrong with the first group of marines?

the day before a group of marines were fired at by the same terrorists in that mosque. how come they didnt see the danger of the guy faking he was dead.
man o man those A-rabs sure are plenty sneaky . they conned that other group of marines into thinking they were harmless and wounded. they knew they just knew that another group of marines would come in the next day and then by faking they were dead they would blowed them up real good.
you all shud find out who was in that first group of marines ya know the ones that actually took that mosque and have them retrained into your school of cum -bat training
hell if i was that marine that was shot in da face by some udder non related walking dangerous A-rab id be looking to get me some too even better when they alls shot up like that
well see ya all later gotta go finish my six pack of meister brau and move the pick up truck so me sister/wife can mow the lawn in front of our here trailer

 

[motoman]

If I was on the jury

This Marine gets a pass. I was not there and Im sure he felt there was a threat present.

 

[Iain]

I think we are getting somewhere.

I'm studiously avoiding passing judgement on this particular case so I'll be a little more general if you don't mind.

I understand what you are saying in that last post, and admit I may have taken your intent a little far. I think I have read too many 'nuke Iraq' posts. I'm all for taking every tactical advantage, and fully agree with the sentiment that 'if you're in a fair fight you did something wrong'. I'm just into treating everyone with a certain amount of dignity, and if all the dignity they deserve is being tied up and left for a while until they can be dealt with properly that's fine.

There are two things I strongly object to - and that's whitewashing this case. As many people have said on this thread - we simply are not in possession of the full facts. That is why an investigation is needed, not a crucifixion. Agree?

The other is the dehumanization, nuke 'em attitude from some. We do need to be careful with that, I'm of a firm belief that this is the primary facilitating factor in all atrocities, be that Rwanda, Kosovo, Auschwitz etc.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

the day before a group of marines were fired at by the same terrorists in that mosque. how come they didnt see the danger of the guy faking he was dead.
man o man those A-rabs sure are plenty sneaky . they conned that other group of marines into thinking they were harmless and wounded. they knew they just knew that another group of marines would come in the next day and then by faking they were dead they would blowed them up real good.
you all shud find out who was in that first group of marines ya know the ones that actually took that mosque and have them retrained into your school of cum -bat training
hell if i was that marine that was shot in da face by some udder non related walking dangerous A-rab id be looking to get me some too even better when they alls shot up like that
well see ya all later gotta go finish my six pack of meister brau and move the pick up truck so me sister/wife can mow the lawn in front of our here trailer

Wow....just wow. So I take it you're trying to imply that marines are just uneducated hicks by your excellent use of the English language there.

First of all those terrorists could have very well surrendered the day before and made it clear to the first group of marines that they surrenedered. That group of marines was most likely not equipped to take prisoners so they left them in the mosque for someone else to pick up.

they conned that other group of marines into thinking they were harmless and wounded. they knew they just knew that another group of marines would come in the next day and then by faking they were dead they would blowed them up real good.

Second of all......YES that is EXACTLY what they do. Do you really think it is so far fetched that as soon as the original marines were out of the area they would have thought twice about re-arming themselves or possibly stapping an IED device on so they could suicide bomb. Oh of course not.....they're too honorable for that.

As for your insinuation about the trailor park....very classy. I just love pure and utter ignorance right out for everyone to see.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I think we are getting somewhere.

I'm studiously avoiding passing judgement on this particular case so I'll be a little more general if you don't mind.

I understand what you are saying in that last post, and admit I may have taken your intent a little far. I think I have read too many 'nuke Iraq' posts. I'm all for taking every tactical advantage, and fully agree with the sentiment that 'if you're in a fair fight you did something wrong'. I'm just into treating everyone with a certain amount of dignity, and if all the dignity they deserve is being tied up and left for a while until they can be dealt with properly that's fine.

There are two things I strongly object to - and that's whitewashing this case. As many people have said on this thread - we simply are not in possession of the full facts. That is why an investigation is needed, not a crucifixion. Agree?

The other is the dehumanization, nuke 'em attitude from some. We do need to be careful with that, I'm of a firm belief that this is the primary facilitating factor in all atrocities, be that Rwanda, Kosovo, Auschwitz etc.

We're gettin closer except that I do believe there is enough information in this case to determine this marine did nothing wrong. Due to the fact that it is widely known and already proven that the insurgents will booby trap bodies and suicide bomb themselves in order to kill marines I don't think that there is any reason why that terrorist on the ground would not be a threat. As was said before in the long version of the video the same marines did NOT kill the rest of the wounded insurgents who responded to commands and complied with orders. This man was clearly a threat......whether he turned out to be strapped to blow or not doesn't really matter. As I said before the burden of proof is on the enemy to prove he wants to surrender.....not on our soldier to prove he is a threat....that is already presumed.

 

[Iain]

Dialogue is good.

I think essentially we understand each. We differ on this case, but only because I think it is premature to pass judgement. I understand how you have come to your conclusion. It worries me a little, but much less than any 'nuke 'em' posts do. I'm sure there will be an investigation, and hopefully any resulting court action (if any at all) will be far from a show trial.

Transatlantic dialogue is all well and good, especially when I feel like contact has been made, but the downside is that it is presently ten to one in the morning.

Night.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Dialogue is good.

I think essentially we understand each. We differ on this case, but only because I think it is premature to pass judgement. I understand how you have come to your conclusion. It worries me a little, but much less than any 'nuke 'em' posts do. I'm sure there will be an investigation, and hopefully any resulting court action (if any at all) will be far from a show trial.

Transatlantic dialogue is all well and good, especially when I feel like contact has been made, but the downside is that it is presently ten to one in the morning.

Night.

Doh!.....alright well good to come to a conclusion. If I'm ever in England I'll have to buy ya a brew of whatever you guys drink over there.

 

[Iain]

Doh!.....alright well good to come to a conclusion. If I'm ever in England I'll have to buy ya a brew of whatever you guys drink over there.

That's a kind offer, but we drink beer - I don't know if you've ever really tried that. (-note the rare use of smilie - too tired to convey that I am kidding with words)

I really hope this thread can remain civil and unlocked.

It really is goodnight this time.

 

[coma]

I voted that the shooter was justified.

I can only say i probably would have done the same thing, when in the midst of a battle, shoot first and stay alive is the only rule that is needed. If people don't like it then don't fight ...just die.

 

[sigmaman]

Wow....just wow. So I take it you're trying to imply that marines are just uneducated hicks by your excellent use of the English language there.

First of all those terrorists could have very well surrendered the day before and made it clear to the first group of marines that they surrenedered. That group of marines was most likely not equipped to take prisoners so they left them in the mosque for someone else to pick up.



Second of all......YES that is EXACTLY what they do. Do you really think it is so far fetched that as soon as the original marines were out of the area they would have thought twice about re-arming themselves or possibly stapping an IED device on so they could suicide bomb. Oh of course not.....they're too honorable for that.

As for your insinuation about the trailor park....very classy. I just love pure and utter ignorance right out for everyone to see.

actually i respect the marines too bad this got out
but to hear the far fetched explanations i have heard here trying to rationalise the killing of a wounded man yeah i do look down a little

im guessing here we all are
but im guessing the marine in question was pretty pissed off at being shot in the face " i would be too"
that he was out to kill some of the bastards including the defenseless
just cause i dont care about the iraqi or the marines behavioour at least im honest
the marine murdered a helpless man and i dont care if he did
so if thats what you mean freaking say it stop trying to come up with these
"oh the man was dangerous fantasies" makes you look kinda.....
well you can come up with your own words

on a side note the photogs name is kevin sites
http://www.kevinsites.net/2004_10_17_archive.html

here is he web blog check out the cool photos of the guys he was embedded with

i think that marine forgot the reporter was there when he did that
otherwise why would he of shown remorse
10 dollars says he is convicted of murder
who is a taker on that PM me we will set up the paypal transactions