"Marine kills wounded Iraqi"- Why should I care?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by masterskywalker, Nov 16, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. masterskywalker Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2001
    star 5
    Is that a little too "insensitive" a title?

    My point #1:

    War isn't about being sensitive.

    This utterly assinine story has been circulating through the media over the past few days.

    My inital response:

    Tough ****.

    The media, in my view, should be utterly barred from all battlefields. Warfare happened just fine for thousands of years without these stupid moral critiques written by people with less battle experience than a garden slug. This sort of shooting happens in EVERY war (most notibly in WWII), and its just giving the Al-Jazzrel propaganda machine more fuel for the fire.

    Let me be more clear, I believe the rules of war should be followed, and they are for the most part by Western nations. If prisoners are taken they should not be abused. HOWEVER, there is a fine line DURING A BATTLE between what is a POW and what is a combat soldier is blurred. Tt times, these "Rules of Engagement" are shackles that get good soldiers killed when they don't have to. Anyone remember a little film called Rules of Engagement? The term, "take no prisoners" is seen by the MEDIA, behind closed doors of course, as this abhorrent abomination when in fact it has been practiced for thousands of years. We cannot IMAGINE the kinds of strain a soldier goes through in combat. Then the media trys to make murderers out of good soldiers who are fighting for their lives. It reminded me of a History channel special where they practically interogate this old Russian soldier who admited he slit the throats of several unarmed German prisoners:

    "These people had killed my family, my friends, and a few minutes ago they had tried to kill ME. The outcome of the battle was in doubt. How dare you judge what I did? It was war, and I was a soldier"

    I don't know whether what that man did was right or wrong. *I* wasn't there, so I'm not going to judge what he did as evil, like the HC did. God knows how much of a modern day spin they'd give to Patton, MacAurther or Andrew Jackson. They'd make them into butchers to rival Ghengis Kahn.

    Be honest, when you saw Saving Private Ryan, and the US soldier at D-Day shoots the two surrendered Germans, did you think those soldiers were MURDERERS? Or simply made a wrong choice? Personally I didn't think anything of it at all.

    Navy SEALs are specifically taught to shoot downed soldiers in the head to make sure they cannot continue to fight (or at least they were). You would not believe the kind of crap they took over this unofficial rule. Its for a very good reason, and you've seen it in movies a thousand times. A wounded soldier can still pull out a grenade and blow himself and his enemies up if he has the will to do so. This is what that Marine in Iraqi thought he was facing, who the hell are we to judge? We weren't THERE, and neither was the media!

    Richard Marcinko, another great soldier malinged by the press (He was refered to as 'Legendarily ruthless' by Newsweek), relates a similar experience:

    In Grenada, a soldier was put under house arrest for doing something very similar to the situation above. He was, or nearly was, court martialed.

    In Israel, a captain gave his troops orders to gun down a group of fleeing miltia. He couldn't see whether or not they were armed, but he wasn't about to take any chances with the lives of his men. So he had them all gunned down. That soldier received an on the spot promotiong by the General in that area.

    To anyone with an open mind, read the Rogue Warrior by Marcinko, it exposes a lot of this politically correct garbage that exisists in the military and in the politics of war. Contradictions like "nicely" subduing enemy forces...

    If you're going to take Vienna, for Christ's sake, TAKE VIENNA! Worry about the scandals after the war's over!

    This kind of garbage is simply cementing the idea in my head that the meida are a bunch of money grubbing vultures, who deliberatly stir up controversy to sell a product regardless of the consequences.

  2. MaceWinducannotdie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 31, 2001
    star 4
    For someone who admits he wasn't there you sure think everyone is entitled to your opinion
  3. AdmiralZaarin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2001
    star 5
    The media, in my view, should be utterly barred from all battlefields.

    I personally see the media as being a safeguard against atrocities. Perhaps they do sometimes make a fuss over small things (such as this), but if the eagle eye of the press is over the soldiers, then the troops will think twice before committing another Lidice or My Lai.

    The term, "take no prisoners" is seen by the MEDIA, behind closed doors of course, as this abhorrent abomination when in fact it has been practiced for thousands of years.

    Slavery was acceptable for many millenia. Just because it is tradition does not mean it is a good thing.

    Be honest, when you saw Saving Private Ryan, and the US soldier at D-Day shoots the two surrendered Germans, did you think those soldiers were MURDERERS? Or simply made a wrong choice? Personally I didn't think anything of it at all.

    Just to be nitpicky, the two surrendering soldiers weren't Germans, they were Czechs (presumably from one of the regiments consisting of Eastern Europeans dragooned into the Wehrmacht), and were screaming "Please don't shoot me, I am not German, I am Czech, I didn't kill anyone, I am Czech!"

    I was actually horrified by the way that the shot them in cold blood, and then joked about it.
  4. Nightowl TFN Timetales Writer

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    (sigh) The media are going to have us lose this war yet.

    A wounded soldier can still pull out a grenade and blow himself and his enemies up if he has the will to do so. This is what that Marine in Iraqi thought he was facing, who the hell are we to judge? We weren't THERE, and neither was the media!

    Unfortunately, the media WAS there (in the form of that reporter with his camera) when that Marine popped that Iraqi in the mosque -- that's the problem. They've had reporters embedded among the troops since the war began, hoping and praying for just this kind of story.

    This kind of garbage is simply cementing the idea in my head that the media are a bunch of money grubbing vultures, who deliberatly stir up controversy to sell a product regardless of the consequences.

    You forgot to add a media that's clearly in the pocket of the Democratic Party -- a media who hate President Bush with a fanatical zeal worthy of Al-Qaida. A media that's already been caught this year MAKING UP stories to try to sabotage the war and the President. The people currently in charge of the networks, the newspapers and the magazines (like their Democratic sponsors) made their names from the Vietnam War, turning the American people against it and the soldiers who fought it -- and come hell or high water, they're gonna do it all again. Regardless of the consequences to our people or our nation.

  5. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Maybe if everyone knew more about the horrors of war we'd have less war. Eh? Too liberal?
  6. Nightowl TFN Timetales Writer

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    A fine noble sentiment, Obi-Wan, but it doesn't hold an ounce of water. What about those who are already well aware of the horrors of war, are desensitized to it, and frankly (my dear) don't give a damn? Those who actually LIKE war and see it as a great means to an end (usually involving absolute power)? Media coverage of war atrocities ain't gonna stop them. It's just gonna make their job of conquering and killing those who ARE sickened by war much much easier.
  7. MaceWinducannotdie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 31, 2001
    star 4
    Gee Nightowl, you're right. It's our Patriotic Duty as Americans to recognize war is kewl.
  8. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Why should you care? Because he may have done the wrong thing for the right reason, but he may have done the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

    I realize the media frenzy will turn this into a semi political issue but if he did shoot the person otu of revenge or hatred it was wrong and smears the men and women and uniform.

    I am going to be the first to stand up and say our troops should not take chances, and in this cas eI can see that arguement quite clearly, but I want to make sure that arguement is accurate before giving him a pass.
  9. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    Why should you care? Because he may have done the wrong thing for the right reason, but he may have done the wrong thing for the wrong reason.


    Can you please give me any "right reason" for shooting someone lying on the ground, unarmed and wounded, in the head from 2 metres?
    That guy is a cold-blooded murderer.Sentence him to death - that's what he deserves.
  10. Lord_Darth_Vader Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2001
    star 5
  11. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    Media presence stop atrocities?
    You have to star this out:

    ********
    clear and simple.

    If anything a media presence on the battlefield puts an extra burden upon the soldiers in that they must protect reporters and thier cameramen, and be afraid that if they do something that isn't politically correct the newspapers at home will crucify them.

    In Iraq, the United States is fighting a semi-organized force of terrorists.
    As such these terrorists use everything, including dead bodies, to kill Marines. Bodies boobytrapped with grenades, wounded men pretending to be dead, only to drop a bomb in the lap of a Marine Squad, etc.

    The marine in question had a split second to decide whether or not a wounded man pretending to be dead in a room full of Marines was a threat.
    It would have taken a single grenade to kill every person in that room.

    The Marine erred on the side of caution, killed the man, and did so in a quick manner.

    He did not go in gun blazing from the get go, which means he wasn't looking to splatter everyone in the room.

    He thought there was a threat to his buddies and himself, and he elimated it before he could be proved wrong.

    This is a war, the soldiers on the ground do not have time to ask if someone is friendly or not.

    If a person is showing a hostile action or hostile intent, military rules specifically state they are a fair target.

    Pretending to be dead in a room full of Marines, when likewise tactics have been used to kill Americans before, IS HOSTILE INTENT.

    The man should be praised and then left alone.
  12. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    SnorreSturluson

    At least one of the Marines killed in the fighting around Fallujah was killed by a badly wounded insurgent who played dead. Similar tactics were also used by injured Japanese troops in the Pacific Theater of World War II. The wounded soldier would have a grenade, and he'd blow himself and try to take a Marine with him.
  13. masterskywalker Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2001
    star 5
    "Maybe if everyone knew more about the horrors of war we'd have less war. Eh? Too liberal?"

    That, is what we call around here a pipe dream. Once media coverage began full scale during WWI, everyone thought it would be the last war ever because it was SO terrible and it was the FIRST time the public had seen the horrors of war...

    And you know what? It didn't do jack.

    "It's just gonna make their job of conquering and killing those who ARE sickened by war much much easier."

    Exactly, do you think the terrorists in Iraq care about what happened to their comrade? -"Why he's partying in heaven with 70 virgins! And look at what weak fools these Americans are! Trying to be 'civilized" when they're fighting us!"

    "It's our Patriotic Duty as Americans to recognize war is kewl."

    No, its your patriotic duty to recognize war is a dirty business and at times the end justify the means. Its only going to get more soldiers killed like in Vietnam to assume you can win a war without getting your hands dirty. Remember a little war called WWII? If America were fighting under the self imposed "humane" rules given by the media, we'd probably be still be fighting it today.

    "Why should you care? Because he may have done the wrong thing for the right reason, but he may have done the wrong thing for the wrong reason."

    That's for a military court to decide in PRIVATE. I can't imagine what this poor man's family is going through right now. I realize this particular situation may be "wrong", but let the military deal with it. They did just fine before embedded journalists you know.

    "I realize the media frenzy will turn this into a semi political issue but if he did shoot the person otu of revenge or hatred it was wrong and smears the men and women and uniform."

    The Marine in question sounded afraid for his life, not enraged. "He's F--- faking dead man!"

    "I am going to be the first to stand up and say our troops should not take chances, and in this cas eI can see that arguement quite clearly, but I want to make sure that arguement is accurate before giving him a pass."

    Which is what I want, but it shouldn't be turned into a circus because like it or not this kind of thing happens ALL the time in war.

    "Can you please give me any "right reason" for shooting someone lying on the ground, unarmed and wounded, in the head from 2 metres?
    That guy is a cold-blooded murderer.Sentence him to death - that's what he deserves."

    I think I know about a dozen of you at WSU. [face_plain] May you never have an influence on politics or the military. PETA forevar!

    "At least one of the Marines killed in the fighting around Fallujah was killed by a badly wounded insurgent who played dead. Similar tactics were also used by injured Japanese troops in the Pacific Theater of World War II. The wounded soldier would have a grenade, and he'd blow himself and try to take a Marine with him."

    Which is exactly my point, and what some liberals simply cannot get jack hammered through their heads. Not that the media would listen anyway.


  14. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    If America were fighting under the self imposed "humane" rules given by the media,

    I don't follow this point. I think I know what you are trying to say, but I think it needs to be clarified.

    The media doesn't impose policy on the military.

    In fact, as was pointed out, various militaries got together and agreed on the laws of war. This exists with or without the presence of the media.
  15. cal_silverstar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2002
    star 4
    I'm not in the military, so I can't possibly imagine what it's like to be in combat. Soldiers make life or death decisions in a split second. You can't really know unless you're there. We know that the enemy fighters fight real dirty. And an enemy is most dangerous when severely wounded. And that Marine's first priority in his mission is the safety of himself and his unit. That mosque wasn't Abu Ghraib prison. It's a COMBAT ZONE. In a combat zone, hesitation can equal death.

    I believe the Marines have a saying: "Better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six."
  16. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    I saw the clip and it made me feel awful. Admittedly, it is a grey subject, and we can't determine what was going through the soldier's mind.

    The Marine sounded young. He sounded angry or scared or both that the guy was "playing dead". It seems like he could have taken him as a prisoner, but perhaps he was petrified that he was packing a pistol and any attempt might result in his own death.

    However, it is the duty of all soldiers to take prisoners, and it looks pretty much like he should have.

    There could be orders from the top to take no prisoners. Who knows what kind of insanity is spreading in that hell hole?

  17. Raven Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 5, 1998
    star 6
    Killing a former combatant who had been disarmed and surrendered/forced to surrender who gave no sign of being dangerous would be immoral.

    Killing a combatant who hadn?t necessarily been disarmed, who hadn?t surrendered, and who may have been dangerous is rather less immoral.
  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    However, it is the duty of all soldiers to take prisoners, and it looks pretty much like he should have.

    There could be orders from the top to take no prisoners. Who knows what kind of insanity is spreading in that hell hole?


    Wait...wait....

    This is the exact type of sentiment that my previous post was attempting to address..

    Before this gets veered off topic, I'm not defending nor condemning that individual. Currently, all we have is a single piece of video out of an entire situation.

    anything beyond that is speculation.

    Nothing is wrong with speculating, until one tries to make reality "fit" with such opinion.

    It is not a duty for any soldier to take prisoners. Offically, the criteria for taking prisoners has long been defined by international treaty.

    The mere fact that a person may be injuried has nothing to do with being taken a prisoner.

    An enemy has to cease all hostile action and/or surrender using recognized means to be afforded EPW protections.

    Next, an order from the top to "take no prisoners," would never be issued. Such an order shouldn't be followed by the individual troops.







  19. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    You should care because
    The Marine will be judged by a group of his Peers, NOT the UN world court!
    Another good arguement against that *stupid* World Court.
    Do you think a jury of French, German, Saudis, Etc. would be a fair group of peers?

    Oo-rah! Go Marines!


  20. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Except that the standards under the Geneva protocols are universal from country to country.

    As I'm sure you already know, Geneva is incorporated into US military law, so I doubt this would be a world court issue to begin with..
  21. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    Pardon me for the ignorance, but what exactly happened? I think this thread would have been more informative if it had started off with some background rather than just automatically launching into a rant.
  22. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    To summerize.

    Day 1. Marines with journalist embed storm insurgents holding out in a mosque. Several wounded insurgents are left in the Mosque as the marines move on for later pick up.

    Elsewhere day 1. Wounded insurgent(or dead, I've heard conflicting resports) is boobytrapped one marine is killed several others wounded.

    Day 2. Same marines with journalist return to the mosque finding another group of marines there.
    When they reenter the mosque the same wounded insurgents are there(there are reports of fresh wounds) one of the second group of marines in securing the room finds an insurgent who is 'faking dead' at which point the marine shoots him in the head.

    There is color commentary as such you might expect from soldiers.
  23. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Well, for the record the impression I have gotten is that this was a legit kill.

    Just a general question, however. What was the Iraqi supposed to do if he didn't want to kill Americans anymore and didn't want to die? Was he supposed to throw up his hands and surrender?

    My question is, legit or not, was there any way this Iraqi in this situation was going to get out alive?
  24. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Honestly, OWM probably not.

    The US military does teach a technique to use when one wants to clear a dead body/wounded enemy of booby traps.

    It requires two soldiers though, and the enemy ends up being the shield for whatever the trap is. Also, it's not the quickest technique in the world.

    Remember, if the Marines wanted to clear the building in a hurry, all they would have to do is throw a grenade into the room, and wait.

    An exploding grenade doesn't really care if its target is wounded, or surrendering, or having second thoughts about being there.

    "clearing rooms by grenade" is perfectly acceptable under Geneva.
  25. cal_silverstar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2002
    star 4
    Also, the Marines are not the cops and the insurgents are not drug dealers in a crack house. This is war.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.