New War Crime Allegations?

[tim_duncan2000]

I know what you mean. I think it's extremely insulting to suggest that the military somehow turns them into bloodthirsty automatons who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let me get this straight.

A Marine, who was shot in the face the previous day, shoots an unarmed terrorist who was pretending to be dead after watching many of his comrades get blown up by booby trapped bodies is enough to show the America is evil, and this soldier has to be investigated and punished and this administration must be punshed etc.

Yet a Navey swift boat vet shots an unarmed Viet Cong running away in the back of the head and not only is he not to be tried for war crimes, he is to be praised as a hero and nominated for President in the political party condemning the Marine.

Double standard here is super thick.

 

[freeandfun1]

Let me get this straight.

A Marine, who was shot in the face the previous day, shoots an unarmed terrorist who was pretending to be dead after watching many of his comrades get blown up by booby trapped bodies is enough to show the America is evil, and this soldier has to be investigated and punished and this administration must be punshed etc.

Yet a Navey swift boat vet shots an unarmed Viet Cong running away in the back of the head and not only is he not to be tried for war crimes, he is to be praised as a hero and nominated for President in the political party condemning the Marine.

Double standard here is super thick.

I think Double Standard is the motto of the DNC..... Isn't it? :scratch:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

NBC and its embedded reporter should be charged with sedition. Isn't it just amazing how they jumped on that story, ignoring so many others they could have reported?

But you can't charge sedition since we are not officially at war, can you? So it looks like our Marines are going to become compromised and have their hands tied behind their backs. In which case, since they won't be able do their job, what the h*ll are they doing there? Better to bring them back home!

If Bush allows this soldier to be court martialed, he should not be Commander-in-Chief because if he subjects the troops to slimey seditious reporters he doesn't deserve to be their leader.

Damn liberal press!

 

[krisy]

All this mess is a result of the MEDIA being there. Yes,I like seeing updates and to know what's going on,but this is f'ing ridiculous. This was our ENEMY. Now it's all over the news. The mean ol U.S. troop shot a poor wittle innocent TERRORIST. Why is this an issue? Maybe I should wait for an investigation,but just what I know so far,I will stand by the soldier that is fighting men who want to cut our heads off so we can be free from terrorism here.I can't stand this stinkin crap!!!!! I wish anyone that wants to critisize would go live life in Iraq for ONE day an see how quick they shoot. There wouldn't have been an uproar in WW2 about this,people had more sense back then. I say-stand behind our troops!!! They are living a life that we can't evn dream of right now!!!!

 

[drac]

From the CS article you sourced:

"Yet in the heat of the moment Saturday, a young marine did severe damage to the image of a precise and clean assault that the US had hoped to project from Fallujah. The footage has already become more fodder on jihadi websites peddling the conspiracy theory that the US is on a crusade against global Islam. It also caused cringing in the capitals of US friends and allies. Tuesday, UN Human Rights chief Louise Arbour called for an investigation of alleged US abuses in Fallujah."

I really get sick of crap like this. "precise and clean assault". When the hell will the media and the damn politicians come to realize that THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!!!

If our damn government could not manage a "precise and clean assault" on the Branch Davidians, how the hell do you expect us to do that when attacking a whole damn city?

Let the arabs spew and sputter. The best thing we can do is make those assholes understand we're not messing around. If you're our enemy, you're going to die. The thing which emboldens arab terrorists is LACK of action, not shooting some dumb bastard in the head.

***end of rant***

***serious raving to follow***

i agree, the worst part of it is that mistakes like this will happen and everybody seems trying to zoom on it like war is some sort of clean room surgical operation... argh....

there is a truth in saying that people desirve the goverment they have, we should of just partition iraq into kurdish zone and let saddam rule the rest.

 

[no1tovote4]

I just don't understand anybody who is giving this Marine grief about this. In a place where those who are pretending death suddenly become weapons or pull weapons, this guy chose to pretend that he was dead?

If I were this terrorist I would have been holding up my empty hands after I tore my clothes off so that they would know that I was not a weapon in my own right rather than pretending death.

If I were he I would have made sure he was dead before he did something like this as well.

 

[gaffer]

I'll speak from personal experience at war.

I watched the video. The Marine did everything right. The situation they were in calls for shoot first ask questions later. If you even suspect the guy is a threat you kill him. Its not cops and robbers there. That scene was probably replayed many times over in other locations just not filmed by anyone. It was taped and reported because some reporter wants a pulitzer prize.

Those screaming about how terrible it was have never been in combat and have no business even talking about it.

As for how the military changes people. The purpose of basic training and advance training is to instill discipline. Not to creat murderers. You must be willing and able to follow orders immediately without thinking about it. It could be a matter of life and death and hesitation can be deadly. They are also taught to react in extreme stress situations. That is what that Marine did.

They are killing garbage over there. Not some boy next door type or even another soldier.

When in doubt, pump a few rounds in em.

 

[MadMax]

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. There is no other way to say it.

I have been in many battles, some fiercer than others. There is no "complete surrender of self control" or self guidance nor is it "required". The "we" you speak of as knowing the face of war is horse puckey too. I know the face of war and I can tell you that unless you have been there, you have NO FRIKKIN IDEA what war is about or what it is like. US soldiers are not automatons or berserkers. Many of you who have never been there like to pose yourselves as so morally superior...you have no clue as to what you would do in a similar situation. Most soldiers don't know for certain what they will do in any given situation until they are in it. Hopefully, basic training and predeployment training will be sufficient to ensure their survival and help their fellow soldiers survive too.

You folks who are so morally superior to those soldiers in combat can take your holier than though attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine.

As I stated in my post I had to edit ( due to intoxication ) I couldn't have said it better ;-) I give the man a medal and say F*CK the savages!! They were using dead bodies to blow us up prior to the incident, he had also been wounded by the savages, prior to incident.... My solution wouldn't have been as pretty ( drop MOAB ) on city to spare American lives.... Peace!

 

[MadMax]

From the CS article you sourced:

"Yet in the heat of the moment Saturday, a young marine did severe damage to the image of a precise and clean assault that the US had hoped to project from Fallujah. The footage has already become more fodder on jihadi websites peddling the conspiracy theory that the US is on a crusade against global Islam. It also caused cringing in the capitals of US friends and allies. Tuesday, UN Human Rights chief Louise Arbour called for an investigation of alleged US abuses in Fallujah."

I really get sick of crap like this. "precise and clean assault". When the hell will the media and the damn politicians come to realize that THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!!!

If our damn government could not manage a "precise and clean assault" on the Branch Davidians, how the hell do you expect us to do that when attacking a whole damn city?

Let the arabs spew and sputter. The best thing we can do is make those assholes understand we're not messing around. If you're our enemy, you're going to die. The thing which emboldens arab terrorists is LACK of action, not shooting some dumb bastard in the head.

***end of rant***

***serious raving to follow***

Yep, YAbadabadoo TV and Al Arab we'llsmearya should be treated as terrorists and nothing more, they are propaganda TOOLS for Zwascareme and Beenslobin, if the mass " Arab street " rely on them for their info, I say F*CK em and let em rot in hell. I give the marine a medal and move on..We wil NEVER win the " hearts and minds " of the hatred filled Mooslums in those countries. Bottom line if the suicidal assclowns want to call Geehad, I say fine, bring it towel head! The ONLY thing they respect ( not like I care ) is force, and we have PLENTY of that....

 

[KarlMarx]

I'll speak from personal experience at war.

I watched the video. The Marine did everything right. The situation they were in calls for shoot first ask questions later. If you even suspect the guy is a threat you kill him. Its not cops and robbers there. That scene was probably replayed many times over in other locations just not filmed by anyone. It was taped and reported because some reporter wants a pulitzer prize.

Those screaming about how terrible it was have never been in combat and have no business even talking about it.

As for how the military changes people. The purpose of basic training and advance training is to instill discipline. Not to creat murderers. You must be willing and able to follow orders immediately without thinking about it. It could be a matter of life and death and hesitation can be deadly. They are also taught to react in extreme stress situations. That is what that Marine did.

They are killing garbage over there. Not some boy next door type or even another soldier.

When in doubt, pump a few rounds in em.

Ya gotta wonder ..... whose idea was it to have embedded reporters? The media is what helped to lose the Vietnam War, why do we have them in Iraq at all? Look at Afghanistan....very little coverage, few allegations.

Let the soldiers do their jobs without some pin headed reporter looking over their shoulder!

The way the war in Iraq is going, before you know it, you're going to have instant replay, the ESPN Sport team and John Madden commenting. Monday Night Combat at Fallujah!

Maybe the 101st ought to return the favor, and send a couple of divisions of men and women to look over the shoulders of the reporters in the newsrooms of CNN, The New York Times, MSNBC and so on. While the reporters are battling deadlines, our fightin' men and women can video tape them and pass judgement on them for all the world to see. I can assure you, it wouldn't be a pretty sight. I'm sure they could quickly unearth something to make Abu Ghraid look like a walk in the park.

 

[Gem]

Actually, many embedded reporters come back feeling that the troops the fought with were terrific, noble, brave young men and women who are a credit to the military and to the country they are serving. If you read their accounts, many of them have been brought to tears by the selflessness and courage of these 19 year old "punk kids."

I remember reading a story, I'm sorry I don't have a link...written by an embedded reporter who wrote that one evening, after some fairly fierce fighting, he was sitting around with 4 young men when the reporter mentioned that he had a cell phone, and that the news service he was with was picking up the tab...and that if they promised to keep their calls to around 10 minutes each...they could call home. They were all super excited, wanted to call their moms, a girlfriend, a young wife, etc. but one stood up and asked if the reporter would wait for just a minute...when the reporter asked why...he was told by this young man (you know, the one Michael Moore portrayed as a bloodthirsty idiot) said that one of the guys in their unit wife had just had a baby...and that he would give up his phone call home so that he could call her. Within 30 seconds...all the other young men had given up their 10 minutes...so the new father, their friend and comrade, could use all of their time to talk.....the reporter ended by saying that he had been moved to tears by the unbelievable integrity and goodness in these men...

The unfortunate thing happens when what the embedded reporters see and report is filtered back to the media here...who, not knowing first hand whats going on...and not being too fond of this war...report it the way we are seeing now...

My question for the elite media is this:

Where are the stories about how the insurgents are rigging their dead friends with bombs so that they explode and kill US and Iraqi Soldiers when they try to respectfully remove them???

Where are the stories about insurgents dressing up like members of the Iraqi Police Force so that they can get as close as possible to US troops before blowing them up?

Where are the stories and reports of the insurgents faking wounded...or faking surrender, only to open fire when our soldiers try to abide by Geneva Convention regulations?

Where are the stories regarding the fact that the man who was shot was in a mosque...why? Because he had been fighting US troops using his house of worship as a hiding place, a resting place, a planning center, etc. We've known this was going on since the beginning...

But they are the Freedom Fighters...and this Marine is the War Criminal?!?! Yeah...right....

*If you cant tell...as the wife of a soldier...I am sickened and disgusted by the treatment this story has gotten by some in the media...*

 

[dilloduck]

and just who is it that is protecting these reporters and videographers from being killed while they try to get a scoop???? I'd tell em to get the hell out of my unit and find thier own way out of Iraq ! Ungrateful bastards!

 

[CSM]

and just who is it that is protecting these reporters and videographers from being killed while they try to get a scoop???? I'd tell em to get the hell out of my unit and find thier own way out of Iraq ! Ungrateful bastards!

As I understand it, this particular reporter and his cameraman went to great lengths to integrate themselves into this unit and earn the trust of its members. I cannot help but believe that the soldiers of this particular unit (at the very least) will have a very hard ime trusting any embedded reporter team ever again. Can't say as I would blame them either.

 

[nakedemperor]

In my opinion, the rules of engagement shift from from war to war, from battle to battle. On a battlefield where your enemy ignores the generally accepted combat norms, you have no choice but to match his tactics. If your enemy ignores the Geneva convention, in some case, it is your right to self defense to ignore the Geneva convention as well. Over the course of United States history, there are many instances of the military ignoring the Geneva convention simply because they were faced with a choice: fight on equal footing and be willing to assume the tactics of your enemy, or essentially fight with one hand tied behind your back.

In Shakespeare's Henry V, the English were holding French prisoners after an initial engagement. They were, however, vastly outnumbered in enemy territory. They could expect to save their own lives (by taking the field) and abide by the accepted rules of engagement (giving prisoners quarter). Instead of guarding the prisoners with soldiers that needed to be at the front lines, they executed the prisoners. Henry's pragmatic decision to do so could be seen as immoral, but considering the circumstances, he was taking French lives to save English lives.

By assuming that an enemy soldier in Iraq was not in possession of a bomb, in close quarters, when similar tactics are known to have been used, you're endangering U.S. lives to preserve the life of an enemy combatant. Had the man been wear no possibly concealing garments, had his hands on his head, the situation would have been different; but as it was, it was necessary to approach the man at close range in order to ascertain whether or not he was a threat.

That isn't to say that there isn't point at which fighting fire with fire becomes immoral. The My Lai massacre, for example. The firebombings of Dresden by the Allies in WWII, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki after Hiroshima had already been nuked, the firebombing of Tokyo; saying "the Germans and the Japanese commited war crimes before, therefore we were justified in killing all these civilians" doesn't hold water in these cases. But in the case of this marine in that mosque, I say he did the right thing. Case by case basis.

 

[Zhukov]

You think Nagasaki was a war crime?

 

[nakedemperor]

You think Nagasaki was a war crime?

I'm saying a case could be made. The bomb could have theoretically been used once and achieved the same effect on morale.

 

[CSM]

In my opinion, the rules of engagement shift from from war to war, from battle to battle. On a battlefield where your enemy ignores the generally accepted combat norms, you have no choice but to match his tactics. If your enemy ignores the Geneva convention, in some case, it is your right to self defense to ignore the Geneva convention as well. Over the course of United States history, there are many instances of the military ignoring the Geneva convention simply because they were faced with a choice: fight on equal footing and be willing to assume the tactics of your enemy, or essentially fight with one hand tied behind your back.

In Shakespeare's Henry V, the English were holding French prisoners after an initial engagement. They were, however, vastly outnumbered in enemy territory. They could expect to save their own lives (by taking the field) and abide by the accepted rules of engagement (giving prisoners quarter). Instead of guarding the prisoners with soldiers that needed to be at the front lines, they executed the prisoners. Henry's pragmatic decision to do so could be seen as immoral, but considering the circumstances, he was taking French lives to save English lives.

By assuming that an enemy soldier in Iraq was not in possession of a bomb, in close quarters, when similar tactics are known to have been used, you're endangering U.S. lives to preserve the life of an enemy combatant. Had the man been wear no possibly concealing garments, had his hands on his head, the situation would have been different; but as it was, it was necessary to approach the man at close range in order to ascertain whether or not he was a threat.

That isn't to say that there isn't point at which fighting fire with fire becomes immoral. The My Lai massacre, for example. The firebombings of Dresden by the Allies in WWII, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki after Hiroshima had already been nuked, the firebombing of Tokyo; saying "the Germans and the Japanese commited war crimes before, therefore we were justified in killing all these civilians" doesn't hold water in these cases. But in the case of this marine in that mosque, I say he did the right thing. Case by case basis.

Once again I find myself in the unque position of agreeing with NE. There is no doubt that indeed the Rules of Engagement (ROE) differ from war to war and in some cases from mission to mission. As is pointed out in his post, the right to self defense has always been and hopefully will always be a key parameter in any mission.

It is always easier to be an armchair general and critique any action from a historical perspective. It is quite different having to make a split second decision where all one has is what one knows at the time and their own experience to fall back on in making that decision.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm saying a case could be made. The bomb could have theoretically been used once and achieved the same effect on morale.

Well, you did say more or less that it was unjustified, and compared it to Japanese and German war crimes by saying the rationale behind it was 'they did this' therefore 'we did that'.

Were we or were we not at war? Did they surrender after Hiroshima?

I think it is a tragedy that today so many Americans are quick to question the legitimacy of acts committed during our 'total war' against the Japanese and Germans 60 years after the fact.

It leads me to believe that criticizing America has gained primacy over learning about what was actually going on during World War II and the stakes that were involved.

About 51 million people died during that war.

The four events you listed, Dresden (40,000), Nagasaki (92,000), Hiroshima (45,000), and Tokio (84,000), constitute collectively about one half of one percent of the total deaths.

It's about perspective and concentrating on what's really important.


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

 

[freeandfun1]

Well, you did say more or less that it was unjustified, and compared it to Japanese and German war crimes by saying the rationale behind it was 'they did this' therefore 'we did that'.

Were we or were we not at war? Did they surrender after Hiroshima?

I think it is a tragedy that today so many Americans are quick to question the legitimacy of acts committed during our 'total war' against the Japanese and Germans 60 years after the fact.

It leads me to believe that criticizing America has gained primacy over learning about what was actually going on during World War II and the stakes that were involved.

About 51 million people died during that war.

The four events you listed, Dresden (40,000), Nagasaki (92,000), Hiroshima (45,000), and Tokio (84,000), constitute collectively, about one half of one percent of the total casualties.

It's about perspective and concentrating on what's really important.


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

From a historical perspective (as in having the privilege of looking back - verses being forced to make a decision NOW), I too would say that Nagasaki was probably "over-kill". The Japanese were done at that point and they were ready to capitulate. We just used the bomb to keep Russia from entering Japan before we could. But that is JMHO. Truman all in all was a failed president. He is just held up as a true hero because he presided over the end of WWII. Look at the mess he made in Korea......