Reply
Wed 17 Nov, 2004 11:54 pm
I personally don't understand the controversy,We are at war. At its basic core. Thats when our soldiers fight other soldiers. In this circumstance we are at war with a fanatical religion. Agree with the war or not , Americans left and right are united in the belief that the safety of our military is paramount. That marine in my opinion, Did nothing but what he should have done! To ensure the safety of the american citizens. You , me, and don't forget HIM.
We use to fight wars to win! now there are a substansail amount of american citizens it appears are up in the air? ..The networks for example.
With these enemys fighting in the most reprehensible way, Playing dead , wiring explosives to their dead, posing as civilians and then ambushing our troops .... Our friends and nieghbors. I don't see any reason for debate i consider that marine an american hero ! for defending ME , You , and the Marine five feet behind him.
Hello sweet georgia.
There is always a reason for debate. I'm not condemning the soldier at all because I don't know all (any of) the facts. Never the less what I have heard suggested that the US military will investigate and that is proper.
It has been suggested that the soldier may have been returned to action a little early after an injury. If that is the case the investigation will turn it up and that mistake can be avoided next time.
Personally I don't think launching a few bullets into a body that might be wired with explosives is an optimal decision (I'd be running in the opposite direction).
My point to you would be that you should stay calm, not think that your armed forces are blameless regardless of what they do, but redirect your faith and support for them into a belief that the incident will be investigated fairly and thoroughly and justice will be done. As to the 'up in the air' citizens, be confident that they are a minority, about the same size as the minority that think that US soldiers should be shooting every 'ay-rab' they see lying on the ground, just in case.
Peace be with you and brink on the champagne.
Shooting an unarmed man...and you don't see a problem...
Quote: What does everybody think about the soldier , shooting that?
That??? He was a human being.
Well, what with shooting unarmed prisoners being a war crime and all, georgia - but, I guess if you can't see it, you can't see it.
Yes, this sort of war - like Vietnam - does raise the likelihood of such war crimes, given that soldiers are presumably extremely anxious a lot of the time about booby traps, etc and with reason.
I don't think it excuses these sorts of acts, though.
If it did, we could also excuse the acts of the insurgents who use terror tactics, because they are fighting invaders.
I suspect, though, that this sort of thing is now happening a lot more than we know - the biggest crime here may have been getting caught on video.
Okay, then, what would you do? You enter a mosque with apparently dead bodies. You have personally experienced Iraqi fighters playing dead and then coming up shooting, waving a white flag and then shooting, loading dead bodies with explosives. One of the bodies starts to move. Unable to tell for certain whether the individual has a weapon, in a war zone where people were recently shooting, should you wait until a shot is fired first, or shoot? Given this situation, the soldier should shoot, IMO. However, there is an on-going investigation that may tell us new information.
This is why I am in favor of imbedded reporters. Had that NBC reporter and his camerman not been there to shoot that video, this killing would have gone on and no one would be the wiser. It just makes me wonder how often is this happening, but no one is there to document the killing.
Under the circumstances described in this instance, shoot first and ask questions later...or more appropriately, answer questions of the investegators.
At least you will be certain to be alive to do that...and there will be one less illegal Iraqi insurgent.
doglover wrote:This is why I am in favor of imbedded reporters. Had that NBC reporter and his camerman not been there to shoot that video, this killing would have gone on and no one would be the wiser. It just makes me wonder how often is this happening, but no one is there to document the killing.
Had that "reporter" ACCURATELY communicated the facts of the matter initially, I doubt there would be much of a dispute. They did not report the event in proper context. Let's remember that this soldier the day before was shot and and wounded in the face. He did not ask out, he asked to go back with his "buddies. He acted correctly and honorably.
As a side note, I find it amazing that CNN would go to the "streets" to asks opinions of the people. Except the "streets" they went to were the streets of Iraq !!! How about if the media shows an equal amount of video of the enemy beheading innocent civilians. I will not agree with the left wing "moral superiorority" argument.
The soldier was wrong to act as he did. He was in a mosque where many Muslims will seek shelter. The soldier did not have enough information to become judge, jury, executioner. He should have reported the movement to his immediate superior in the squad who then could have made a decision as how to treat the situation.
Our soldiers are trained and conditioned for battle. They are supposed to be disciplined and know right from wrong.
This "soldier" was infact a Marine.
Now there is one less terrorist.
Yes, and we expect more from the Marines than we do the insurgents.
McG, I agree with you with one caveat. The mosque had been captured , lost, and recaptured. The wounded insurgents had been found in the first capture but had not been removed. Apparently the first time the area was still not secure. Officers in the platoon apparently knew the status and condition of the wounded insurgents in the mosque but that information had not been communicated down the ranks. I think some responsiblity for this incident lies with the commanders on the scene.
McGentrix wrote:The soldier was wrong to act as he did. He was in a mosque where many Muslims will seek shelter. The soldier did not have enough information to become judge, jury, executioner. He should have reported the movement to his immediate superior in the squad who then could have made a decision as how to treat the situation.
Our soldiers are trained and conditioned for battle. They are supposed to be disciplined and know right from wrong.
thanks McG...a voice of reason on the right...
I don't know what to think.
On one hand, some of the Iraqi people are sorta shady...they want our guys dead, at any cost.
On the other hand, our soldiers ARE suppose to be better trained and have better ethics.
But put yourself in their position. They are shipped overseas, hated, shot at, blown up and harrassed. By people they thought were surrenduring or were at the very least, not out to see them dead. They've seen piles of dead bodies; women, children, men, soldiers, grandparents, aunts, innocents and guilty persons. Bodies they put there. They are switched into the "kill or be killed" mode because that is in fact what it is. They are 19 and 20 year olds who never expected to have to deal with these things. They are doing what they were trained to do. Make the best decision they can make at the moment. Perhaps that was the best decision. Perhaps it wasn't. You weren't there. You didn't live it. You don't know for sure.
The prison stuff from before...that was just flat out wrong. But in this case, I just don't know. It's tough when you come across a situation like this and are expected to make the "right" decision, which may or may not get you and your fellow soldiers killed. Tough call. Wouldn't want to make it.
McGentrix wrote:The soldier was wrong to act as he did. He was in a mosque where many Muslims will seek shelter. The soldier did not have enough information to become judge, jury, executioner. He should have reported the movement to his immediate superior in the squad who then could have made a decision as how to treat the situation.
Our soldiers are trained and conditioned for battle. They are supposed to be disciplined and know right from wrong.
Do you think that these insurgents care? They don't care if they blow up and shoot out the insides of their mosques if they want us dead.
We generally have a problem with defiling religious structures but I doubt these people do.
But again, how can anyone say what was going through his mind at the time?? How can we know unless we were standing there in his shoes.
Killing wounded or surrendered enemies is not just morally wrong, it is also a bad way to fight a war. How do you convince someone to surrender the next time? This sort of behavior ends up costing more lives on both sides. (And more lives in the next war, and the next.)
I just know I would never be prepared to make decisions like the ones our boys are making now.
merlin- LOVE your signature
McGentrix wrote:Yes, and we expect more from the Marines than we do the insurgents.
So I can understand here, this soldier and his platoon, entering a military outpost occupied by insurgents who in the hours earlier to this platoons entry, was engaged in battle with another platoon of US soldiers, should have "waltzed" up to this "wounded" insurgent and ask him if he was OK?? All the while this soldier knows HOW he was wounded the day before from a boobytrapped body that killed a fellow soldier.
With this YOU expect him to approach and investigate????
I think if I read McM correctly said that the soldier should have got in touch with command and went from there.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace