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

yes this is war, but he obviously shot and killed the guy in cold blood...if you listen to his comments they go something like "he's **** faking he's dead..."

*shoots him point blank*

"He's dead now."

this was wrong no matter what side you are on. sadly i think it will cause more insurgents to fight to the death now rather than be captured. self defense is not an excuse and i think he should be tried and put in jail.

 

I think the key point is that he was already captured by the previous group that went in there.

Also, one must wonder how prevalent this type of thing is if they had no second thoughts about doing this infront of an embed.

 

Valkor, if you would actually read the rest of the topic, he is justified, because elsewhere, insurgents played dead to get the Marines close to them, then detonated themselves with grenades. The Marine was scared witless that the Iraqi might be doing the same thing.

 

I think the point, as it currently stands, is that we don't know.

Yes, if the Iraqi was truly surrendering, and the Marine shot him anyway, that would be a violation.

If the Iraqi was merely playing dead, and had his hands tucked inside of his body or something, then the Marine would be justified.

However, No one can make statements like "he obviously shot the guy in cold blood," or the Iraqi was obviously booby trapped..

Because we don't know, do we?

 

"Such an order shouldn't be followed by the individual troops."

Wrong wrong wrong. During World War II, during numerous special operations Allied soldiers, both American and British were given orders to "take no prisoners" and they did just that. A Marine rescue of a POW camp and a British clearing of a large bunker on D-Day come to mind (I have the sources if you wish). The same thing happened during the battle of the buldge after the Germans started executing our POWs, we did the same to theirs. They could not afford to waste time dealing with and securing prisoners.

The idea that the U.S. would "Never issue the order to 'take no prisoners'" is completely false. A traditional sense of "what is right and what is wrong" does not always apply to war.

I wonder if that wounded Iraqi HAD blown himself up and a dozen other soldiers what the media reaction would be?

It always takes needless deaths for people to change, its human nature.

 

Anyway you cut it a guy still died. Its pretty sad, and a sickening piece of video. Since I think this war is unjustified, then I think every kill in the Iraq war by the US is unjustified and wrong. How can you seperate the people who are fighting to defend their loved ones and fighting for evil reasons? Once you invade a country and kill thousands of innocents based on presumptions, a good guy has the right to shoot back you without being a bad guy.

I don't think the soldier should be held accountable, I think George W. Bush should.

 

farraday, thanks.

 

I would like to see your sources.

The same thing happened during the battle of the buldge after the Germans started executing our POWs, we did the same to theirs. They could not afford to waste time dealing with and securing prisoners.

I don't know who "they" are in your above example, but I think you are confusing concepts.

I can say with great certainity that violations probably happened during every conflict.

One hopes training takes over, but training only goes so far, and its a side effect of mixing weapons and emotion.

However, making the claim that some prisoners were killed, does not equal the fact that such behavior was offically ordered.

In the Geneva conventions, Chapt 3, secs I and II detail some of the criteria. (the Geneva Conventions are ratified as part of the UCMJ)

 

Steven Ambrose's D-Day book list the bunker incident with the British. And American troops killing German POWs in retaliation for their murder of POWs is recounted in the book, Battle of the Bulge. I own both.

The Japanese POW rescue mission was recounted on a history channel special. I can't remember the name off hand, but it was one of the largest jail breaks in the pacific theatre and they had to elude a substancial pursuit once the rescue was made. There have been a number of books written about it as well. The Marines and their Philipeno allies charged in and killed all of the camps gaurds regardless whether or not they were surrendering.

You won't hear this stuff from the "Hollywood" accounts of these battles though, and I refuse to pass judgement on what they did.

So U.S. troops in WWII can do no wrong by nuking, firebombing and killing surrendering POWs, but one Marine doing the same in Iraq is immoral? Where is this disconnect in the American population that thinks we won WWII "cleanly" as the "good guys"?

This is not to justify or condemn, I am pointing out inherent CONTRADICTIONS in the perceptions many Americans have about what is "right" in war.

Many of the soldiers in Easy company (i.e. Band of Brothers) said that when they were fighting Germans, killing them was as easy as, "stepping on bugs." Does that mean they were, "bad people"? Of course not.


NO war in history, I don't care what side you're on, has EVER been won "cleanly" with no nasty business.

In the words of Fallout:

War... war never changes.

And its stupid to think it ever will.

Hanging this Marine out to dry because of what he did is WRONG. The media has no right to pass judgement on him, but that won't stop them from trying.

 

No, we have every right to condemn this incident. We were wrong not to condemn those incidents in WWII.

 

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

A. Because the occupying forces in the guise of US Marines et al should be seen as playing by the rules of war.

By not adhering to the rules of war the US loses moral highground and feeds the negative coverage which in turn will add fuel to the fire and possible breed more insurgency and in turn more Iraqi citizens against US forces.

War isn't just a shoot 'em up video game. You must understand the mind of the enemy, the sensitivities of the citizens and the politics of the region.

You must also have an understanding of perception. Wars have been won and lost with perception.

That is why you should care.

 

Which is EXACTLY why the media never should have covered this story in the first place! This is how the media, just like in Vietnam, is a detrement to HOW the war is being conducted. Arab media are already using this as propaganda! We don't need to HELP THEM!

This wouldn't have raised an eyebrow during other wars, yet I'm supposed to be "outraged" at this action?

 

We don't need to HELP THEM!

Then I would suggest NOT shooting captured prisoners.


This wouldn't have raised an eyebrow during other wars, yet I'm supposed to be "outraged" at this action?

It should have "raised eyebrows" during other wars. It only goes to show that American history has been whitewashed.

 

That's still not any kind of proof though.

Do you have any links to any offical orders, papers or accounts?

I find Ambrose's books to be quite compelling as well, and I enjoy watching the History Channel.

But again, a ficitionalized account of a specific incident does not represent offical policy or practice.

From Sec III, paragraph 85:

85. Killing of Prisoners
A commander may not put his prisoners to death because their presence retards his movements or diminishes his power of resistance by necessitating a large guard, or by reason of their consuming supplies, or because it appears certain that they will regain their liberty through the impending success of their forces

If you are going to make the claim that Allied Commanders regularly gave the order to kill prisoners because they didn't have time, you better be prepared to provide those orders.

Again though, it might not even matter in this case. If the Iraqi wasn't surrendering, he would be fair game.

EDIT:

Then I would suggest NOT shooting captured prisoners.

JF, the thing you have to keep in mind that this specific person wasn't determined to be offically captured or a prisoner.

 

1. Atrocities are committed in any and every war. This doesn't justify committing atrocities today. We are trying to better ourselves as human beings here people.

2. I am glad Bush didn't join the ICC. Yeah, I'm a flaming liberal compared to many around here, but I still don't think it's a good idea to put the United States troops at the mercy of an international court. Not that i think the soldiers who committed teh Abu Graib are getting a fair shake by our own government either, but I would rather the U.S. unfairly punish its own rather than some foreign body.

3. I wholeheartedly agree with Liberalmav's sentiment about the nature of this war and our enemy.

 

self defense is not an excuse and i think he should be tried and put in jail.

Again, I reiterate: if I'm a soldier and my battle-hardened instincts are telling me that there is an imminent threat from the enemy, I neutralize the threat, no hesitation. Because if it's between me and my unit or some enemy insurgent, I'm going to err on the side of the safety of my comrades.

 

It amazes me that any american that's not in the military or doesn't hold any political office can be against the media being in the war in Iraq. Hello, they're there FOR US! I've never even heard of that, why would anyone want to be completely ignorant of what's going on? It just doesn't make any sense.

The thing that bothers me about this is who the heck was this guy? Why was he sitting unarmed in a mosque for so long? Was he actually an insurgent, or was he somebody they picked up along the way? Considering they're only letting woman and children leave Fallujah, that's a very real possibility.

So before you say "I don't care, kill em all" you should learn the facts surrounding it first since just because someone is in military custody does not make them a terrorist or insurgent or whatever the case may be.

My personal feelings on it are that I'm appauled by the soldier's attitude towards killing this guy, he acted like it was a joke. BUT, I do understand that's often how soldiers cope and desensitize themselves from the brutalities of killing somebody. If the guy he killed was an insurgent, I'd feel better about it, although what the soldier did was obviously against military rules and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

We were wrong not to condemn those incidents in WWII.

Michael Savage of the Savage Nation said it best: "If the media of today had been around back in World War II, you would be speaking German today. Or you'd be either a lampshade or a bar of soap."

 

Until you have been in close quarter urban assualt, don't pass a quick judgment on the kid. He was wounded the day before in close quarter combat. They patched him up and sent him back out the next day. Do you know a Marine got killed in the house next door to him by a booby trapped dead body? I say take no chances. With such a huge attack on the city, only insurgents or very stupid Iraq's would hang around.

When approaching a body in heavy room to room combat, it is always wise to put a round into the body to make sure it stays down. In this kind of war, our troops should take no chances.

And as for the person who said this kid is a murderer? You are full of it. This is the tragedy of war. You never murder the enamy, you kill the enemy, you are stopping a lethal threat. Frankly, that kid's life means more to me than a room full of injured insurgents. Why don't you gripe and complain to Nick Berg's family, or Margaret Hassan's family members??? I have no sympathy for anyone stupid enough to stay in a war zone that is fighting in close combat with our troops.

If you call him a murderer, than you better call me one too dammit. I have been in that situation before. And I am here alive to talk about it. There is an old saying you live by in combat - "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."




EDIT: "When the moment of live ammunition approaches, the moment to which all his professional training has been directed, when the lives of men under him, the issue of the combat, even the fate of campaign may depend upon his decision at a given moment, what happens inside the heart and vitals of a commander? Some are made bold by the moment, some irresolute, some carefully judicious, some paralyzed and powerless to act."

- Barabara Tuchman - The Guns of August

 

Michael Savage of the Savage Nation said it best: "If the media of today had been around back in World War II, you would be speaking German today. Or you'd be either a lampshade or a bar of soap."

Yeah, the media would have given Germany the power to launch invasions of Great Britain and North America.

 

Since I listen to Savage, I know what he meant:

If the media of today reported like they are now back in WWII, the public would be divided in their support of the war effort. If you read the papers from that era, you'll find entirely different language used to objectively report the news. They didn't portray Allied soldiers as murderers, nor did they present the German or Japanese point of view. They used words like "enemy" and Allied victories were major news stories that were not buried on page 10. It was propaganda in our favor, but it was a necessary contributor to public support and morale.

Savage tends to use hyperbole to get his points across, but they are still valid points worth thinking about.

 

It seems to me there is a double standard.

Some people are saying not to get upset over this incident, but they are the very people who were outraged when some of our soldiers were shot when they were taken prisoner at the beginning of the war.

 

Michael Savage once told a caller to his show that he hoped the man got AIDS and died. He's scum and I won't take anything he says seriously.

I'm so tired of, "Let's kill 'em all!" I'm disgusted and at this point, it's a wonder human beings aren't extinct, the way we constantly attack and destroy one another.

 

This pertains to whether the media Mecca reports or creates reality. Were the circumstances of the slaying truly a volatile situation for the U.S. soldier? If not, with torture in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the prisoner abuse scandel of Abu Ghraib detention center; daisy cutters being used civilian zones; and now this, it's becoming hard to discern who the "good guys" are.

<[-]> Saber

 

Marine kills wounded Iraqi"- Why should I care?


Because you're human ...... aren't you?