The Marine who shot dead an injured man

[The Mandarin 0]

The Marine who shot dead an injured man, What do you think?

 

I think the real problem is the metrosexuals, and if you disagree then your beliefs are stupid and your mother smells.

 

I'm learning the folder.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The Marine who shot dead an injured man, What do you think?

 

I think the real problem is the metrosexuals, and if you disagree then your beliefs are stupid and your mother smells.

 

I'm learning the folder.

You're a savant.

[cbacon 0]

.....Jesus Christ.

 

Anyone who wishes to defend these fuckers, go to hell.

Question: By that token, do you also condem the shooting of the Iraqi in cold blood, insurgent or not?

The fucker was shooting at Marines and more than a few insurgents have grenades, IEDs, or pistols hidden away.

 

By the way, do you know anything about basic infantry SOPs, mission specific SOPs related to Fallujah, Marine AIT infantry training, the UCMJ, MOUT tactics, or the Geneva Convention?

 

You don't?! Then maybe you, and most people in this thread, should shut your fucking mouth.

I'm aware of the basics of the Geneva Convention and usually look it up for referencing as news breaks, so yes. I'm also aware of what constitutes a war crime.

 

So no, I won't 'shut up' when pointing out a blatant injustice.

[Vyce 0]

.....Jesus Christ.

 

Anyone who wishes to defend these fuckers, go to hell.

Question: By that token, do you also condem the shooting of the Iraqi in cold blood, insurgent or not?

The fucker was shooting at Marines and more than a few insurgents have grenades, IEDs, or pistols hidden away.

 

By the way, do you know anything about basic infantry SOPs, mission specific SOPs related to Fallujah, Marine AIT infantry training, the UCMJ, MOUT tactics, or the Geneva Convention?

 

You don't?! Then maybe you, and most people in this thread, should shut your fucking mouth.

I'm aware of the basics of the Geneva Convention and usually look it up for referencing as news breaks, so yes. I'm also aware of what constitutes a war crime.

 

So no, I won't 'shut up' when pointing out a blatant injustice.

Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

 

And again - I have to sit back and laugh bitterly at people like C-Bacon here, who will go out of their way to completely demonize American soldiers over one incident - when we don't know all the facts and the soldier may yet be absolved - and conveniently ignore how the other side treats ITS prisoners.

 

If this were a story of insurgents capturing an American GI, of course, it would be a story about how the insurgents beheaded the soldier or killed him in some other fashion, because 99.99% of the time THAT is how the insurgents treat THEIR prisoners.

 

Yet somehow it's the Americans who are the true villains here. Which this ONE incident "proves." This ONE, isolated incident. Where we don't even know all the facts.

 

At least C-Bacon is predictable in his foolishness. But then again, what am I to expect from someone who quotes Chomsky in his sig?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We can't expect very young men who are in a combat theater being shot at, IED'd, and booby-trapped to put down their weapons and start singing Kumbayah. At this point, all they are trying to do is stay alive and achieve their mission objectives. They aren't thinking politically or socially. They are stressed to the max, exhausted, hyper-alert and in pure survival mode. My heart aches for them and I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing given the circumstances.

[Guest MikeSC]

.....Jesus Christ.

 

Anyone who wishes to defend these fuckers, go to hell.

Question: By that token, do you also condem the shooting of the Iraqi in cold blood, insurgent or not?

The fucker was shooting at Marines and more than a few insurgents have grenades, IEDs, or pistols hidden away.

 

By the way, do you know anything about basic infantry SOPs, mission specific SOPs related to Fallujah, Marine AIT infantry training, the UCMJ, MOUT tactics, or the Geneva Convention?

 

You don't?! Then maybe you, and most people in this thread, should shut your fucking mouth.

I'm aware of the basics of the Geneva Convention and usually look it up for referencing as news breaks, so yes. I'm also aware of what constitutes a war crime.

 

So no, I won't 'shut up' when pointing out a blatant injustice.

You clearly have zero concept as to who the Conventions cover. You might want to actually do research and not regurgitate inaccurate talking points.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

"The fundamental violations of international law committed by terrorists, be they in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Spain, or Russia, render them ineligible for Geneva Convention protection. To apply the Geneva Conventions universally would be the undoing of those treaties. If there is no price to pay for doffing their uniform or shuttling combatants in Red Crescent ambulances, then soldiers would figure such illegalities to be worth it. Serious violations of the laws of war would become the equivalent of jaywalking. Those advocating universal application of the Geneva Conventions to [terrorists] are, in effect, encouraging future combatants to transform hospitals into ammunition depots and schools into machine gun nests. "

 

Source: http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_14990.shtml

[Guest Cerebus]

.....Jesus Christ.

 

Anyone who wishes to defend these fuckers, go to hell.

Question: By that token, do you also condem the shooting of the Iraqi in cold blood, insurgent or not?

The fucker was shooting at Marines and more than a few insurgents have grenades, IEDs, or pistols hidden away.

 

By the way, do you know anything about basic infantry SOPs, mission specific SOPs related to Fallujah, Marine AIT infantry training, the UCMJ, MOUT tactics, or the Geneva Convention?

 

You don't?! Then maybe you, and most people in this thread, should shut your fucking mouth.

I'm aware of the basics of the Geneva Convention and usually look it up for referencing as news breaks, so yes. I'm also aware of what constitutes a war crime.

 

So no, I won't 'shut up' when pointing out a blatant injustice.

 

So tell me, Professor, how, based on the scant evidence, would you consider opening an Article 32 for this individual whose name you do not even know? Maybe you'd like to enlighten the class on how, since he's such a glaring example of the cruelty of the American military, how flaws in MOUT tactics and Infantry SOPs led to this horrible murder? Do you think there were problems in the OPORD or maybe it was a FRAGO by the unnamed Marine's NCO that led to this brutal slaying. Either way, what do you think is the best way to pursue this case? If I were a betting man, I would say Article 118, but what do I know? YOU read the Geneva Conventions on the internet!

 

In fact, don't answer any of those questions. I can not simply allow you to sit here on a wrestling message board when international law scholars lack your invaluable and vast storehouse of knowledge! Go forth C-Bacon! Defend truth and justice from the American military!

[Secret Agent 0]

If I was over there I'd be damned if I followed any so called rules of war, especially when the enemy doesn't. I would do what ever it took to insure my ass got out of there alive, and take the court marshal when I got home.

[Guest BDC]

Story

 

The judge advocate general heading the investigation, Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude the Marine was acting in self-defense.

 

"The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent," Miller said. "So they would have to be using force in self-defense, yes."

 

"Any wounded -- in this case insurgents -- who don't pose a threat would not be considered hostile," said Miller.

 

Charles Heyman, a senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in Britain, defended the Marine's actions, saying it was possible the wounded man was concealing a firearm or grenade.

 

"You can hear the tension in those Marines' voices. One is showing, 'He's faking it. He's faking it,'" Heyman said. "In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded."

 

If the injured man makes even the slightest move, "in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him."

 

Hmmmm

[frisco 0]

It might not have been the most polite thing the marine cuold have done. But from what I read one of these insurgents who was playing dead had been rigged rigged with explosives and gotten another marine killed just the day before. All I can say is war is hell and I'm not in that marines place so I won't judge him.

What I did find pretty annoying was the Iraqi press (the terrorist press specifically) is saying how it was cowardess of the marine to shoot the insurgent and it was against Islam to do that. Yet they murder a woman--who is blind folded and handcuffed) in cold blood. What is that? An act of great courage?

Also this women is a volunteer who basically spends her time helping the Iraqi people. She is not someone working for the government. She is a charity worker.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yes. Margarat Hassan's death really bothered me. If this woman is not off limits, then who is? What could possibly be the motivation in killing such a gentle woman who had dedicated her life to making Iraq a better place?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yes. Margarat Hassan's death really bothered me. If this woman is not off limits, then who is? What could possibly be the motivation in killing such a gentle woman who had dedicated her life to making Iraq a better place?

Because they're fucking savages who don't care who they kill.

[Guest INXS]

Good.  All insurgents, injured or healthy, should be shot in the head.  Terrorist scum deserve no less.

'Insurgents' aren't terrorists. They are Iraqi people who have taken up arms against their occupiers. There is a world of difference between groups like those that behead hostages and those Iraqi people that are fighting against an illegal and cruel occupation.

 

In this thread, it's obvious that most people think that the 'insurgents' are terrorists and are the same people that go around beheading hostages and planning bomb attacks around the world.

 

The posting of those strung up civilian contract workers was a desperate attempt to justify what the marine did and as such was taken out of context. To know something about Iraq and it's history you would know that public hangings are the norm and were the norm even before Saddam rose to power. Although it was a brutal act it was not especially brutal in the eyes of Iraqi's.

 

Because I am English I am strongly supporting my country in this, and to a small degree America as well, but if America invaded England guess what? I'd drag the bodies of their civilian contractors through the streets and become an 'insurgent' as well. Can anyone else see the bigger picture? Perhaps it's because i'm not American that I can be a little more neutral on this.

[Guest MikeSC]

Good.  All insurgents, injured or healthy, should be shot in the head.  Terrorist scum deserve no less.

'Insurgents' aren't terrorists. They are Iraqi people who have taken up arms against their occupiers. There is a world of difference between the likes of Al Qaeda and the Iraqi resistance.

No, there isn't. The insurgents ARE outsiders.

 

Why do you think they killed Hassan?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Good.  All insurgents, injured or healthy, should be shot in the head.  Terrorist scum deserve no less.

'Insurgents' aren't terrorists. They are Iraqi people who have taken up arms against their occupiers. There is a world of difference between the likes of Al Qaeda and the Iraqi resistance.

No, there isn't. The insurgents ARE outsiders.

 

Why do you think they killed Hassan?

-=Mike

We don't know which group killed Hassan yet.

 

to answer your question I think that she was killed at this time in retaliation to what has been going on in Falluja, tho I concede that as soon as she was taken hostage she was dead.

[Guest MikeSC]

Good.  All insurgents, injured or healthy, should be shot in the head.  Terrorist scum deserve no less.

'Insurgents' aren't terrorists. They are Iraqi people who have taken up arms against their occupiers. There is a world of difference between the likes of Al Qaeda and the Iraqi resistance.

No, there isn't. The insurgents ARE outsiders.

 

Why do you think they killed Hassan?

-=Mike

We don't know which group killed Hassan yet.

 

I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Iraqis.

to answer your question I think that she was killed at this time in retaliation to what has been going on in Falluja, tho I concede that as soon as she was taken hostage she was dead.

Even though she was taken hostage BEFORE we attacked Fallujah? Wow. Pre-emptive hostage taking.

-=Mike

...The United States: We're Evil To Somebody, No Matter What...

[Guest INXS]

No, you don't understand. I didn't say that "she was taken hostage at this time" I said "killed at this time".

[Guest MikeSC]

No, you don't understand. I didn't say that "she was taken hostage at this time" I said "killed at this time".

Even though she was, and I quote, "was taken hostage, she was dead"?

 

Do you HONESTLY believe that pablum?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

In plain English, as soon as she was taken hostage she was going to be killed eventually regardless to anything else; my comment is that she was killed at this time in retaliation to the events in Falluja.

[justsoyouknow 0]

That makes it ok?

[Guest MikeSC]

In plain English, as soon as she was taken hostage she was going to be killed eventually regardless to anything else; my comment is that she was killed at this time in retaliation to the events in Falluja.

If she was, and I quote, "going to be killed eventually regardless to anything else", how can you attempt to claim that Fallujah, which was not a battleground when she was taken hostage, had anything to do with this?

 

Your attempts at creating moral equivalency would be laughable, if they weren't so sad.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

That makes it ok?

No it's not ok at all, i wasn't suggesting that for a second.

[justsoyouknow 0]

To know something about Iraq and it's history you would know that public hangings are the norm and were the norm even before Saddam rose to power. Although it was a brutal act it was not especially brutal in the eyes of Iraqi's.

 

I'm really struggling to understand the logic behind this one. It's their culture to murder people and hang them from a bridge, so that's ok. It's their culture to kill innocent civilians...and that's ok? We're evil, though?

 

 

if America invaded England guess what? I'd drag the bodies of their civilian contractors through the streets and become an 'insurgent' as well. Can anyone else see the bigger picture? Perhaps it's because i'm not American that I can be a little more neutral on this.

 

I can't believe Mike skipped over this part.

 

You're basically condoning the killing of civilians and praising the insurgency here. You realize this, right? What is this "bigger picture" that you speak of, other than your complete and utter lack of human decency?

[Guest INXS]

In plain English, as soon as she was taken hostage she was going to be killed eventually regardless to anything else; my comment is that she was killed at this time in retaliation to the events in Falluja.

If she was, and I quote, "going to be killed eventually regardless to anything else", how can you attempt to claim that Fallujah, which was not a battleground when she was taken hostage, had anything to do with this?

 

Your attempts at creating moral equivalency would be laughable, if they weren't so sad.

-=Mike

Obviously she was not taken hostage because of the events that were to follow in Fallujah, time travel isn't possible. I said that she was going to end up dead anyway as that's the standard with these kidnappings, except for the few that were rleased after their governments opend up dialogue with the captpors. I am suggesting that Margaret Hassan was killed at this time due to events in Fallujah as an act of retaliation. They would have killed her regardless yes, maybe next week, maybe next month, maybe next year. maybe her killing at this time had nothing to do with Fallujah, it's my own thoughts on the subject i'm not saying that it is true.

[justsoyouknow 0]

It doesn't matter if it is or isn't true, just stop trying to justify it.

[spiny norman 0]

I think her death was incredibly tragic, and whoever did it was a disgusting person.

 

Onto this death: I can understand why the soldier did kill the person. I think it's an absolutely horrible death, however, and is in breach of the Geneva Convention (he was wounded, unarmed, possibly a civilian). I understand the soldier had no way of knowing this at the time.

 

I can see things from both sides here. I'm not going to say, however, "this soldier is a disgrace and needs to be courtmartialled", nor will I say "the man was obviously scum and deserved to die" because both sides are being as ignorant as the other. The military can judge him.

[Guest INXS]

To know something about Iraq and it's history you would know that public hangings are the norm and were the norm even before Saddam rose to power. Although it was a brutal act it was not especially brutal in the eyes of Iraqi's.

 

I'm really struggling to understand the logic behind this one. It's their culture to murder people and hang them from a bridge, so that's ok. It's their culture to kill innocent civilians...and that's ok? We're evil, though?

 

 

if America invaded England guess what? I'd drag the bodies of their civilian contractors through the streets and become an 'insurgent' as well. Can anyone else see the bigger picture? Perhaps it's because i'm not American that I can be a little more neutral on this.

 

I can't believe Mike skipped over this part.

 

You're basically condoning the killing of civilians and praising the insurgency here. You realize this, right? What is this "bigger picture" that you speak of, other than your complete and utter lack of human decency?

No i'm not saying that it is okay to murder people and hang them, i was demonstrating that while the act is barbaric and shocking to us, I don't think they did was done as a deliberate act of barbarity. The hanging up of dead rebellion members/treasoners is the norm for Iraq, as I stated even before Saddam's time, and no I do not agree with it at all. To us the contractors were innocent civilians to Iraqi's they were the enemy, taking Iraqi jobs and a member of a country that had invaded them.

 

The bigger picture is that all the Iraqi's are doing, whether anyone wants to call them insurgents or terrorists, is fighting off an invasion. It's a shame that this war happened in the first place but now that it has, well quite frankly, America has brought this resistance on them selves with areas of Iraq without electricity and water, little security, job losses, lack of elected leadership that the iraqi people approve of, Iraq's oil money going in to the pockets of Bush and his oil company buddies, houses, hospitals and schools being bombed to the ground, over 100,000 civilian deaths, arrests without trial or sufficent evidence and torture in prisons. I can see exactly why many Iraqi's have taken up arms against their occupiers.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

In plain English, as soon as she was taken hostage she was going to be killed eventually regardless to anything else; my comment is that she was killed at this time in retaliation to the events in Falluja.

Wow, thanks for completely proving my first post in this thread to be 100% right.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The top picture doesn't tell me anything, but is that a dead insurgent or Marine at the bottom picture?

I could pile on, but instead I'll be more than happy to forgive you. After all, it's not like you saw these images anywhere on Big Media...