Oi, oi, I can see where people like Kieran are coming from, but still, the gist of it is here, correct?



Now the rest of the hullaballo I don't particuluary give a rats be-hind about. The fact is, no matter how you slice it in any way, that action, in that context, is wrong. Wether he should be punished, predisposing factors, ect, ect, is a moot point. The action is wrong, and no way in hell should anyone actually condone it. However, just because something isn't morally right, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I'd probably shoot him as well if I thought it meant putting my life or the life of my comrades in jeporardy. But that doesn't make it right or justified, which many of you seem to be pushing.

Don't invade other countries? Okay... what a spit in the face to every soldier out there doing his duty. They don't have a choice. It's easy to criticize. Harder to act.

That I can respect. You're awknowledging the situation and that is very much appreciated. Some here haven't done as much.

If you sign this, then you should have no right to complain or feel outrage should footage surface of an American GI being shot as he's propped up against a wall and squirming. Whenever they do something like this, it's sending a message that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable and valid.

If they're going to start shooting everything that twitches and has olive skin, out of suspicion, then why didn't they execute the other one in the video before he has a chance to speak? Their reflexes aren't that slow. How many times has this kind of behaviour happened when cameras aren't present? How many more times will it happen?

I'm starting to see the reasons why Rumsfeld banned the use of cameras by US troops in Iraq. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil?

It's not the same situation. If you see a US soldier on camera, that is bcause he/she has been captured. The insurgents are showing him/her as a prisoner who is in fact (with out doubt) unarmed and defenseless.

The insurgents have booby trapped their wonded so that they explode when someone tries to render aid or they have a trigger and blow themselves up. There is a huge difference bewteen those two situations. US medics are trained to aid anone who is wounded, but when those wounded start blowing up, that changes the game, big time.

Alright, yes I'll grant you that. And I'm not saying what he did isn't understandable, even though I might still believe that it was wrong/reprehensible/immoral and deserves further investigation.

But if I'm capable of misinterpreting the situation, how do you think most of the non-Israeli Middle-Eastern population is going to understand the situation?

Let him at least go through a mock trial, and cleared of his charges if his story holds, so that the administration at least seems to be sorting through its own trash.

Sure, it's not the individual soldier's fault. But what, are we now no longer able to criticise the armed forces of any country ever because they're "doing their duty"? France in Vietnam? Nazi Germany in France? Am I allowed to criticise their involvement? What was a German soldier supposed to do when any of the French people could have just up and shot at him???

You criticise the rebels for bombing their corpses. If China invaded the USA, would you have sudden compunctions about your actions? I doubt it.

Yeesh. Soldiers are not some ubermensch deserving of our unwavering support. They sometimes do bad things. And it's not excusable.

signed it.

whatever happened to the golden age of genocide? makes wars much less hassle and much more efficient.

If you want to blame people for the war, blame the politicians and the top brass who approved and are running the thing.

I cannot even believe you guys are so stubborn as to say this guy was wrong. What other alternative did he have? No one has answered that question yet.

I guess you guys are advocating that basically he just put the morality of the situation over the logic, and inspect the body, and die.

Agreed, Matthew. Soldiers should be scrutinized. I'm only saying that it's a lot easier to criticize the situation than to go through it yourself, so I would hope you can at least see his point of view. That's all.

But the trooper WOULDN'T have died in this case. The guy was unarmed and no report from the thing has ever mentioned that he was rigged with explosives. Another patrol had passed through the same area and left these wounded behind in order to be picked up later.

If he really made an honest mistake and it shows that he had a valid reason to execute the injured person, then he has nothing to lose by an investigation, does he?

"But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again."

The guy had no way of knowing if the wounded man was booby trapped or not, unless he went over and looked. Which would be a little late, I think.

I'm not justifying it morally, I'm justifying the rationale behind it. Morality and rationality don't always mix.

Of course I'm not going to be happy. It's one of my guys. But that doesn't mean I'm going to demonize the insurgents just because of that kind of incident. Soldiers know what they are signing up for when they join and that could be one of the consequences for joining.

Your logic sucks. Sure, in this case he wasn't, so??? That doesn't change the fact that he COULD have been. So you want the marine to risk his life to save the life of an enemy soldier. GET A ****IN CLUE ABOUT HOW WAR WORKS.

uh-huh

He also had the security of the news crew to consider, its no situation to be messing around in, theres nothing more to say, he did his job imho, a terrorist would do no less.

Raoul, chill. Don't get huffy over what someone else says.

KieranHorn [4:39 PM]: damn puter

BoricuaDelight[4:41 PM]: no prob. yeah I saw you got kicked off I'm reading the thread. I'm against war, but i agree with you, in war you have to react and when so many of the terrorists dont follow proper war etiquette, it becomes "kill or be killed" so that soldier did the correct thing. I do agree he should seek counseling from the war trauma and being shot in the face, but I dont see what he did as irriational when the terrorists use such bizarre and inhumane tactics in their warfare

KieranHorn [4:42 PM]: I find the phrase "proper war etiquette" hilarious

KieranHorn [4:43 PM]: "Now soldiers, this is the polite way to take someone's life...."

BoricuaDelight [4:43 PM]: yeah well war in itself isnt proper I know, but just seems that u know when there are fights, some people fight dirty that's what I mean by that


BoricuaDelight [4:44 PM]: well soldiers in america tend to go by rules, capturing people if they give in etc, whereas they capture people torture them and kill them

BoricuaDelight[4:44 PM]: not saying how american's do it is "proper" and I guess the terming is off, but that's what I meant to say by that

BoricuaDelight [4:45 PM]: american's tend to give more respect in those types of situations, respecting that it is another human life, whereas terrorists dont care who or what you are, they are just out for the kill and hence fight dirtier

BoricuaDelight [4:45 PM]: I dont know my wording is probably off, and I know warfare doesnt exactly have rules and is dirty in gen. but I tend to see americans go about it a little bit more dignified but in such situations you have to think like the enemy

BoricuaDelight [4:46 PM]: and if the enemy saw you there and would kill you, you have to react in the same manner because if not you could lose your life

BoricuaDelight [4:46 PM]: I dunno, I am prob. wording myself incorrectly

KieranHorn[4:48 PM]: The problem I have with "proper warfare" is that it is usually a bunch of ****ing politicians and journalists that have never even heard the whistle of a bullet go past their ear or have felt the impact of an explosion toss their body to the ground that make up these "rules".

BoricuaDelight [4:49 PM]: yeah well I agree, which is why I say it becomes kill or be killed. but I do know in other places americans are known to take hostages and sometimes release them later, as opposed to terrorists where they take hostages torture and kill them for the hell of it. I guess i see your pt. about the terming being incorrect

KieranHorn [4:52 PM]: I am certainly up for two warring countries to set down ground rules that they will both follow, like not killing medics, but as soon as my enemy starts killing my medics, I see no reason why I should hold myself to some kind of position of "moral superiority". Having moral superiority may make me feel good, but it will kill soldiers.

BoricuaDelight [4:53 PM]: yeah I stated that in my pt. that i feel americans tend to go by such rules, but when it comes to fighting terrorists it becomes kill or be killed and that I dont think he did the wrong thing especially in situations where they are boobytrapping the bodies

BoricuaDelight [4:54 PM]: "...many of the terrorists dont follow proper war etiquette, it becomes "kill or be killed" so that soldier did the correct thing. I do agree he should seek counseling from the war trauma and being shot in the face, but I dont see what he did as irriational when the terrorists use such bizarre and inhumane tactics in their warfare"

BoricuaDelight [4:54 PM]: (from what I first posted)

KieranHorn [4:54 PM]: Yes, I know

KieranHorn[4:55 PM]: I'm of the philosophy "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Except I take it a step further and say "break a tooth, I'll break your mouth."

BoricuaDelight [4:56 PM]: haha

....................

Laura:)

Kill or be killed, although accurate in a way, still seems like it's trying to fool you into believing that real bullets weren't going to go through real people.

Except the marine had no way of knowing whether the guy had explosives or not. Sure, later on they found out he didn't, but how's he supposed to know unless he goes up and searches the guy? Do you just assume that none of them have explosives and go and search them? You do that, and one mistake means the end of your life? Are you willing to take that kind of risk?

I'm not trying to justify the soilders actions here, I'm merely trying to find out what everyone thinks he should have done. Some of you are very quick to condem him, but seem unable to provide any sort of alternative action he could have taken other then putting himself at grave risk by inspecting someone who very well could have an explosive device and would like nothing better then to take a few US soilders with him when he dies.

All I'm asking is why shouldn't he be tried?



While shooting an unarmed opponent qualifies as a war crime, according to the Hague Conventions so does faking surrender and or death or being wounded in order to gain an upper hand and kill your would be captors. Add in the factor that they are fighting illegal combatants (in that they don't represent a state or national entity), so technically the law wouldn't even apply to them (the excuse that Rumsfeld et co. are using for the Guantanamo detainees).

Indiliberate "honest" mistakes seem to happen all the time (Bombing the PRC embassy in Belgrade, strafing a column of Kosovar refugees, friendly fire incidents, "collateral damage" etc.).

So why sign the petition if you believe that the killing was appropriate, even in its human error?

That's a good point. Having a trial to have it on record that his actions were acceptable considering the circumstances would be best. There is also the risk that PC BS could get involved and convict him of war crimes which would then set a precendent that would prove lethal to our soldiers.

Sure I can. It's a terrible situation for all involved. However, the "well, he's dead now" attitude the soldier displayed seemed a tad laconical for someone who was truly despairing over the moral implications of his actions.



What do you mean? The war's over. "Mission Accomplished" and all that.

Personally, I don't criticize the regular German soldier. The Gespatto and the SS who ran the death camps and the Nazi leadership, yes. They were some evil ****ers. But the regular German soldiers (the Werhmect, the Waffen SS, the paratroopers, the Panzer divisions) were doing their duty for their country. Doesn't mean I like it, but I can espect them, none the less.

i pledge allegiance to the flag....

go america!

He's a terrorist, they don't deserve to live. The marine was merely helping him attend salvation.

Except attitudes like that debase our values of mercy and justice. What's the point of fighting against terrorists if we simply become like them?

I think the Marine should be verbally reprimanded. Mostly for shooting the guy in front of the camera man. Beyond that, I'd buy him a beer. What's absolutely hillarious is that most of the people criticizing that poor man supported Senator Kerry for President who admitted to doing far worse. Oh, the irony...

I wouldn't want to risk my life just because I was on camera. Marines should not be prevented from DOING THEIR JOB just because the public thinks it's not politically correct.

For police officers involved in shootings, when the investigation is held, HINDSIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED. The investigation goes from the officer's point of view and what a reasonable officer would've done at the time.

This guy was freakin' FAKING DEAD! Who knows -- what if he wanted the Marines to get closer so he could have knocked out half a squad with an explosive strapped to his body?

There's no way to know for certain. Better a dead insurgent than a dead -- or even injured -- Marine.

Do you have a link for that? I'm not trying to be jerk about it. I am just genuinely interested.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

Because, you know, Vietnam War Vets had so much choice in the matter. Not only that, but they knew exactly what they were doing all the time. Right?

Thank you, Wookie06.

And that can be applied to this conflict as well.

When you're right, you're right.

All I've got to say to those people who think they can shake their mouse-weilding fingers at the marine for shooting the insurgent, HINDSIGHT IS 20\20!!!

Oh sure, you THINK you know how to approach the situation NOW, after we know the outcome...
I'd like to see you guys try to approach that insurgent when you have no idea what is going to happen, and as many have already stated, the insurgents use the most gruesome tactics...you'd be ****ting yourself is what. You have no clue if those are the last seconds of your life or not. Better to shoot the son of a ***** is what I say. Those terrorists do not deserve humane treatment. period.

I have only glanced through this so far, so I'm gonna give my thoughts. Then I'll reply to what other people say...

What that marine did was completely unjustified, and he should be reprimanded.

However, I want to let him off the hook. If he's remorseful and aware that he made a mistake, that is. If he's proud of what he did that's a different story.
But if he knows he made a mistake and feels guilty, then I think he's gone through enough. I want him to quietly be sent back home.
This will piss off the arab world, but in this case as long as we make sure not to do it again, I don't mind.

I'm not sure if that's what we should do or not. Maybe he should be punished, I don't know. I definitely don't think it would be fair if they made an example of the poor guy because what he did is nothing compared to what others have gotten away with over there.

I'm not going to respond to everything that I think is wrong here, because that will be a waste of time and won't accomplish anything. Instead I'll try to be respectful.


Think about this for a minute. If one US soldier decided to boobytrap himself, would it be okay for the insurgents to kill any of our seemingly unarmed troops? Of course not. Just because some of them will do that, it doesn't make it right for us to kill any unarmed enemy we feel like. Sure, some of our soldiers will get killed, but that's what war is. Either we still respect enemy prisoners rights and lose some of our people unnecessarily and tragically, or we don't and they lose some people unnecessarily and tragically.

I do not think the life of one of our soldiers is fundamentally more important than the life of an enemy combatant. They have their reasons to attack US soldiers, just as we have our reasons to be there. The Americans in the Revolutionary War were terrorists too, after all.

We should do the right thing, no matter what. I won't pretend that I wouldn't have done the same thing; I don't know. When you've been through a lot there, it must be hard to tell the difference between someone you're supposed to shoot and someone you're not. I do not blame the soldier for making the error in judgement, I blame the fact that we're there. I blame the attitude that an American's life is more important than that of an Iraqi.


Everyone deserves humane treatment. Period.

I don't believe so. However it is everyone's responsibility to treat others humanely. Some just choose not to live up to that responsibility.

Except that the insurgents wouldn't hesitate to kill an unarmed US soilder. They've surely had no compunctions against kidnapping and cutting the heads off of civilians. I doubt a soilder is going to get better treatment.



In war, your own guys are the most important. Period. You don't just toss away your own troops because you want to treat the enemy decently. Thats more disrespectful of your own troops then anything. It sends the message that you think preserving enemy lives is more important then preserving their lives.