woiyo wrote:BPB - As usual, you do not have your facts straight.
I posted what occurred, you read it and that is how you respond???
here's the facts..... you're okay and in fact, more than okay with the fact the marine killed this guy....but are outraged that someone would kill one of ours.......you are indifferent to the death of all but Americans or American "allies" in war......I am disgusted by the death of ALL in war.....
I believe that if some disturbed radical right winger broke into my house in the suburbs of North Raleigh and slaughtered my wife and children because of my political views while I was at work your response would be to blame me for their deaths because of me being anti bush.......
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:woiyo wrote:BPB - As usual, you do not have your facts straight.
I posted what occurred, you read it and that is how you respond???
here's the facts..... you're okay and in fact, more than okay with the fact the marine killed this guy....but are outraged that someone would kill one of ours.......you are indifferent to the death of all but Americans or American "allies" in war......I am disgusted by the death of ALL in war.....
I believe that if some disturbed radical right winger broke into my house in the suburbs of North Raleigh and slaughtered my wife and children because of my political views while I was at work your response would be to blame me for their deaths because of me being anti bush.......
I saw nothing in wo's posts that indicated that he is "okay"
IF in fact the Marine killed the Iraqi illegally.
BPB asks - "you are indifferent to the death of all but Americans or American "allies" in war?"
YES!!! Here's why.
The US Military's responsibility and mission ended the day the regime was overturned and the search for WMD ended. However, for some ill-advised reason, this administration has determined that our troops must act as "traffic cops", a task they are not trained for. They are trained to kill the enemy and "blow-up" things.
Yet, since this administration has deemed it necessary for our troops to act in this way, these events are sure to occur and will occur again. Our troops are NOT "peace-keepers".
My advise to GW would be if he feels it absolutely necessary to eliminate the insurgents, use EVERY OTHER weapon in our arsenal to accomplish that taks, not our troops.
WTF? Why is this even being discussed? An unarmed & injured prisoner to-be was shot dead in cold blood - the Marine should be charged with murder, and thus given the maximum penalty that goes with premeditated murder.
The question that should be asked is: how many times has this happened that we didn't hear about? Lets face it if there wasn't a reporter there at the scene we'd never have heard a thing about this event.
Quote:BPB asks - "you are indifferent to the death of all but Americans or American "allies" in war?"
YES!!! Here's why.
The US Military's responsibility and mission ended the day the regime was overturned and the search for WMD ended. However, for some ill-advised reason, this administration has determined that our troops must act as "traffic cops", a task they are not trained for. They are trained to kill the enemy and "blow-up" things.
Yet, since this administration has deemed it necessary for our troops to act in this way, these events are sure to occur and will occur again. Our troops are NOT "peace-keepers".
My advise to GW would be if he feels it absolutely necessary to eliminate the insurgents, use EVERY OTHER weapon in our arsenal to accomplish that taks, not our troops.
Think about the big picture, woiyo!!!
You can't eliminate insurgents who are hiding amongst the populace with
bombs and tanks and planes without killing a hell of a lot of innocent civilians.
That is not an acceptable outcome for the US military.
Therefore; what other choice do we have for city fighting than to go in with troops?
Cycloptichorn
We can all form our own opinions, and those opinions are more founded on our political stance than on the "facts" of the instant case. What are the facts? It's pretty certain that a young Marine engaged in fierce urban fighting shot and killed a wounded enemy. That killing may be deemed justified, unintentional, or some degree of murder. BTW, it isn't in any case a war crime, but rather a capital crime that occured during combat.
The videotape is certainly evidence of what happened, but it isn't conclusive. Seeing may be believing, but it doesn't always faithfully record what actually happened. We don't see what else was happening outside the limits of the camera lens. We are given a single point of view that may differ drastically from other points of observation. Watching a videotape from ones armchair can never duplicate the emotional wave that carries men through combat situations.
To understand what happened in this incident, will require a thorough investigation by military specialists. There already appear to be a whole series of mitigating factors. What did the Marine defendant know at the time, and what did he reasonably believe? If he did not know that the wounded enemy was unarmed, and reasonably believed that deadly force was appropriate to protect himself and his squad mates, then the killing was justified. It would be murder only if the young Marine knew that the man he killed was unarmed and no threat. What was the Marines state of mind at the time? Was he capable of rationally making the decision to "execute" the wounded enemy, or did his emotional state preclude his forming the necessary intent?
The USMC is noted for its discipline and for its esprite de corps. The defendant will be represented by competent counsel, the case investigated by officers and non-coms to fully explore the circumstances surrounding the case, and the case will be tried before a board of officers and non-coms who will make the judgements, not a bunch of us feather merchants.
Now, what is my personal opinion on the basis of what little we think we know? I think that the Marine emotionally operating almost on auto-pilot, and did not know the status of the wounded. The wounded person had clearly been wounded while doing his best to kill American Marines, and presumably was still capable of killing (all it would take, would be to roll off of a grenade or pull the pin). The Marine, I think, did what most of us would do in similar circumstances ... act to protect himself and his buddies. This sort of thing happens in combat much more often than it would seem in the movies, or on television. In this case, the young Marine had the misfortune of being videotaped by a reporter. Now there seems to be a rush to judgement on the part of the public, especially those who never let an opportunity to smear American policies go unheeded.
Let the courts martial process proceed, this is a tempest in a very tiny demitasse.
Asherman wrote:BTW, it isn't in any case a war crime, but rather a capital crime that occured during combat.
The Geneva Conventions say crystal clear: Protection of wounded combatants once they are out of action is a basic rule.
Cyclo - I already stated my position. However, let me restate that our military operation was completed the day we removed the Saddam regime from power and the day we stopped looking for WMD. Let the Iraqi people and the UN rebuild and police the "neighborhood".
Since the threat to the US was eliminated the day the regime was removed AND we stopped looking for WMD, those soldiers who died in that effort died for a justifiable cause.
Yet, this administration feels it is necessary to have our troops perform a task they are NOT trained for. Therefore, ANY US SOLDIERS death NOW can not be justified to a cause.
If the Iraqi people, the Iraqi "military/police" are unwilling and unable to defend their "neighborhood", why should my "son/daughter" fight for THEIR cause.
As a result, the only other option to protect the lives of the young men and women who wear our uniform, since this administration deems it necessary to remove the insurgents AND the Iraqi people/military are unable or unwilling, would be to use ANY AND ALL WEAPONS to remove the insurgents.
ANY AND ALL WEAPONS ???
Could you elaborate ? are you saying what I think you are saying ?
Gautam wrote:ANY AND ALL WEAPONS ???
Could you elaborate ? are you saying what I think you are saying ?
No need to elabobrate. To repeat, if this administration feels it is necessary for the US to eliminate the insurgents since the Iraqi people/military can not or will not, then it is the administrations OBLIGATION to protect the lives of OUR soldiers.
And what weapons would you suggest, woiyo? Do we have weapons that kill only insurgents? Please tell us what you have in mind.
Kicky, join the club which does not understand "ANY AND ALL".
Tell us Timber what should we think? She'd be still alive today, helping Iraqi citizens if your f**king lot had stayed out of the country!!!
Gautaum, Hopefully he will realize how stupid what he's saying is and give it up.
Eh, timber, are you falling down now to such a degree of "argumentation"?
So, the 'others' will tell 'theirs' to remember this killed wounded and unarmed person ....
kickycan wrote:Gautaum, Hopefully he will realize how stupid what he's saying is and give it up.
Which opinion of mine do you deem stupid?
1) The fact that our soldiers should NOT be there
2) Since GW deems it necessary that they are there, our soldiers should be protected
