Ok, so you have ridiculously wishy-washy morals?

Do you have a valid point?

Yeah, that means our soldiers too. You know, the ones that have been over there longer than they were supposed to? Fighting in a pointless war and all that...

I know what you mean. Perhaps someone doesn't really deserve humane treatment, but it's up to us to give it to them anyway, is that what you're saying?
If so, then in effect I agree.


Not all insurgents are the same. There are several different groups with different motives that make up the people we call insurgents. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it al-Zarqawi that was responsible for the beheadings? He doesn't represent all of the insurgents, only the al Qaeda ones.
Even if they were all in the same group that carried out beheadings, it doesn't make it right for us to kill their unarmed and/or wounded.


If it came down to a clear, entirely certain toss-up between the life of one of our soldiers and the life of an enemy combatant, I would understand the decision to preserve one of our troops.
Treating them with respect is not throwing the lives of our soldiers away.


I don't disagree.

Basically. The scumbags who are torturing and murdering hostages, be them civilians or military don't deserve humane treatment, for example. However, I believe that if they are captured in a military operation they should be treated as prisoners. I do also think, though, that they should be killed in the initial assault (ie, in a similar manner to what happened to Uday and Qusay). Bottom line is that we should not resort to their levels but I also don't see any evidence yet to make me believe the Marine acted inappropriately.

I like that. On a fundamental level, we agree, except for the philosophical quibble about whether or not people innately deserve to be treated humanely no matter what. And I suspect even that is irrelevant, because what I was thinking of by "deserve" is how they should be treated, not in the sense of justice.
We probably disagree about what constitues humane treatment, but for now it doesn't matter.
I'm glad that we share similar beliefs because by far I prefer arguing from common ground than not. And it makes me respect you more, and I'd rather respect you than not.

Now that that's done...

The sad thing is, I think they likely would be better off being killed then taken prisoner.

Something else: Every time we're responsible for an innocent, unarmed, or wounded death, more arabs decide that the US is evil and immoral and fight against us. Some of the insurgents are people who lost innocent family members to our bombs, or had family members humiliated at Abu Ghraib. I find it pretty easy to sympathize with them.
The arab world holds us to very high standards. While it's impossible to meet all of them, I think we are falling far short of reasonable expectations.

That's my two cents. Unless I get it published, that's more than my opinion is really worth. I don't think we can take the argument over how justified his actions are any further than that.

Everyone is overlooking the best part of the petition!



woo hooo! atta' boy! get right back into the fray!



to make my post valid: I agree for the most part with Kieran and Avenger and Raoul Duke.

Somewhere I can hear the snicker of insurgents when they see people on a internet forum justifying a person playing dead for the sake of instigating a ambush.

Show me where it says he was planning an ambush.

Maybe he didn't word it right but it has already pretty much been reported that these people had fired upon marines after being left alone before. At a minimum he probably would have fired upon them again if given the opportunity.

Show me where it says he wasn't. He's dead -- what are you going to do, ask him?

He's a prisoner of war, of course he would. An American who tried to do that would be a hero.


Good God. Do you know anything at all about debating? You're the one who made the claim, you have to prove he was. Sorry, we don't all have magical psychic powers like you do, but that's the way it works.
Show me some evidence that you don't molest children.

You know, this made me laugh very, very hard. It reminds me of a friend from high school who if you asked for example" Why do birds fly?" would answer, "Why don't they fly?" Oh man, precious memories. Thank you.

Who would an American soldier like that be a hero to? American citizens. Who would this man have been a hero to? Terrorists that kill Iraqis as quickly as Americans. Don't confuse the enemy combatants as being some sort of loyal "Iraqi Resistance". They are not.

Also, don't confuse this tangent as being related to the "humane" issue. We basically resolved that.

Why? One is a question of intent versus purpose and the other is just a retort.

If I have to illustrate it for you a man lying on the ground, feigning death, for all intents and purposes, has an intention of surprise attacking. Whether the intent is actually in his mind or not is not to be asked. If you are in a wartime situation and the enemy is clearly playing dead, he has every intent to harm you when you turn a blind eye. It's the truth of war. Kill or be killed.

Also the question "Show me where he was trying to ambush" is a exact illustration of your friend asking the inverse without supplying evidence of the case at hand.

I'm not sure whether this was a serious response, or a joke.....lol.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. What I meant by an American would be a hero is that it's expected for war prisoners to try to break free, it's glorified. Rightfully so.

So just because this guy would likely kill his captors given the chance, it's not really different from any other situation.


The only thing I saw about the guy playing dead was the freaked out soldier saying he was. Perhaps the captive was asleep, or unconscious? If had been shot in the effing face the day before, I'd be fricking paranoid, so maybe the soldier was jumping to conclusions.

i still don't understand this 'he was shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty'