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

The general consensus seems to be that this person was an enemy combatant who was, for some unknown reason, feigning death.

The reason the person is suspect is that moments before another wounded man identified himself as being unarmed, and the Marines LEFT HIM ALONE.

In other words, wounded terrorists were afforded their lives when they played by the rules.
This insurgent was playing dead, a tactic used numerous times by insurgents to kill unsuspecting Marines.

The man was not unconscious, as he was clearly feigning death and was moving around.

He was deemed by the Marine as a threat and eliminated in order to protect the squad.

I personally see no problem with this.

The political truth about this situation is that far-left politicos including George Soros are trying to use this as proof that the Iraq conflict is wrong and a mess.
The media scrutiny was immediately against the marine.
Bill O`Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have come out in support of this Marine, which is a good thing.
O`Reilly is making sure that attention is paid to the situation by his viewers.

The Marine acted in defense of his squad and himself against an unknown. In a war zone an unknown is a hostile until deemed otherwise.
The Marine did his duty and erred on the side of caution.

However, I fervently believe that if the cameraman and the marines were killed by this insurgent that the video would still be used as ?proof? that Iraq is a mess.

I can see a politically motivated media assault when its so blatant as this.

 

As much as I dislike the way the press has manipulated war scenarios in the past, I do agree that we need them there as a constant reminder that literally no one is above reproach. The old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely, springs to mind.

 

Flyer once again trumps me...He is an anti-war activist because one of his photos was used on an anti-war website?

That has to be the most ridiculus assertion I ever heard.

I can see those otherwise unpublished pictures could have come from careful selection from Sites blog. I humbily retract.


BYW: I know you've seen more rediculous assertions...if only from me!

 

BYW: I know you've seen more rediculous assertions...if only from me!

Hey, what can I say?

I'm fond of hyperbole.

 

I was listening to the Savage Nation on the radio and someone said there was a new affiliate that called this "killing in cold blood" or something like that and didn't use such harsh words to describe the numerous beheadings that happened. That seems irresponsible to me.

 

Hey...the press doesn't believe a terrorist can kill in cold blood.

 

If things are as Icehawk reported I'm going to go with completely justified.

It would of course be nice if it didn't happen but it would also be nice if people didn't blow themsleves up in an attempt to kill more soldiers.

I'm ignoring the words used because frankly these are young men and soldiers and the phrasology reflects that.

 

Trying to run down as much data as I can on the information.

The Iraqi Insurgents, in other words Terrorists, have been using the Mosque as a troop base, as well as using it as a base of fire to engage Marines.
The Marines apparently assaulted the Mosque, killed and wounded quite a few insurgents, and then had to move on.
Twenty-Four hours later the Marines of this particular soldier?s squad are told they are going to the Mosque. They are informed that wounded Insurgents are in the building, but are also told that they think the Mosque has been reoccupied with enemy fighters.
Therefore, the marines entered the Mosque.

The Marine in question was looking over the wounded Insurgents when he found one in particular. This insurgent was clearly breathing, but was doing his best to seem as though he was not conscious.
The Marine exclaimed ?The [blank] is pretending to be dead!?
He then said this a second time.
According to new reports the insurgent began to move to his right.

So this is what we have.
Insurgent wounded are in the Mosque.
The Mosque was reported to be reoccupied.
24 Hours earlier the soldier in question was almost killed, bullet grazed his face, by an insurgent pretending to be dead.
You have an insurgent, wounded, not moving, and clearly still alive, doing his best to seem inconspicuous as Marines enter the room.
In a room this size a single grenade could kill everyone, and a quick flash of a gun can at least kill the Marine or Camera Men.

The Marine, after realizing the insurgent was not dead, and instead apparently pretending, weighed the information in his head for approximately 1/10 of a second, and opened fire.

The insurgent was killed, and the Marine then said, ?He?s dead now?

Amnesty International and groups like it are calling for an immediate investigation into a ?possible war crime?.

Other Marines however are in fervent support of this man, many saying they would have done the exact same thing.

 

Reuters

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Marines rallied round a comrade under investigation for killing a wounded Iraqi during the offensive in Falluja, saying he was probably under combat stress in unpredictable, hair-trigger circumstances.

Marines interviewed on Tuesday said they didn't see the shooting as a scandal, rather the act of a comrade who faced intense pressure during the effort to quell the insurgency in the city.

"I can see why he would do it. He was probably running around being shot at for days on end in Falluja. There should be an investigation but they should look into the circumstances," said Lance Corporal Christopher Hanson.

"I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong."

The military command launched an investigation after video footage showed a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded and unarmed man in a mosque in the city on Saturday. The man was one of five wounded and left in the mosque after Marines fought their way through the area.

A pool report by NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the mosque had been used by insurgents to attack U.S. forces, who stormed it, killing 10 militants and wounding the five. Sites said the wounded had been left for others to pick up.

A second group of Marines entered the mosque on Saturday after reports it had been reoccupied. Footage from the embedded television crew showed the five still in the mosque, although several appeared to be close to death, Sites said.

He said a Marine noticed one prisoner was still breathing.

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's **** faking he's dead."

"The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head," Sites said.

NBC said the Marine, who had reportedly been shot in the face himself the previous day, said immediately after the shooting: "Well, he's dead now."

The Marine commander in Falluja, Lieutenant General John Sattler, said his men followed the law of conflict and held themselves to a high standard of accountability.

"The facts of this case will be thoroughly pursued to make an informed decision and to protect the rights of all persons involved," he said.

Marines have repeatedly described the rebels they fought against in Falluja as ruthless fighters who didn't play by the rules. They say the investigation is politically motivated.

"It's all political. This Marine has been under attack for days. It has nothing to do with what he did," said Corporal Keith Hoy, 23.

Rights group Amnesty International said on Monday both sides in the Falluja fighting had broken the rules of war governing the protection of civilians and wounded combatants.

Gunnery Sergeant Christopher Garza, 30, favored an investigation but like other Marines said the Pentagon should weigh its decision carefully.

"He should have captured him. Maybe the insurgent had some valuable information. There may have been mitigating circumstances. Maybe his two buddies died in Falluja," he said.

Sites said: "I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least."

The U.S. military has been embarrassed by scandals in Iraq, most prominently the Abu Ghraib affair in which at least eight U.S. soldiers have been tried or face courts-martial over the abuse of prisoners at the jail outside Baghdad.

There have also been several cases in which soldiers have been charged with wrongfully killing Iraqis during operations.

 

Lord_Darth_Vader, true, but I wasn't talking about the military. I'm talking about everyone back home, yelling, "Yeehaw, nuke the ragheads!" And all that stuff. People who say, "Oh, it's just some morons in Whatever-Third-World-Country, who cares?" It's like, we don't even see these people as human anymore?

I'm just so weary of the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!" argument. It just depresses me to no end. We're turning into a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians.

And from what I've heard of Allawi, I wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years from now, we'll be going back in to take him out just like we did Saddam. After all, Allawi was one of Saddam's top henchmen. AND, remember, Saddam was one our buddies once upon a time.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.


Of course, I'm disgusted with the Lynndie England types as well.

 

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

That is why we are doing this ourselves instead of funding another dictator to do it. See, we learn from our past.

 

I was thinking about this some more on my way to get groceries and I'm really on the fence about this. I started thinking about the conduct of war and that if an american surrendered in war we would expect him to be treated fairly and certainly not executed.

BUT, these insurgents aren't your typical enemy, they don't take prisoners, and that changes things, or does it? If the other side chooses not to follow the rules of war, does that give us free reign to do the same? But then again, we're not even dealing with another army, this is just a rogue group of thugs, so how can you apply the actions of the insurgency to every Iraqi that takes part? If one insurgent plants a bomb under a body does that justify the cold blooded killing of another insurgent that maybe doesn't hold those same ethical standards?

My conclusion is, he shouldn't have done it. There are standards put forth by the military that you have to live up to, and if you can't do that, then you need to get out of the military. Was it understandable? Maybe. But just because it may have been justified doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

I started thinking about the conduct of war and that if an american surrendered in war we would expect him to be treated fairly and certainly not executed.

The problem with that comparison is the enemy hadn't surrendered. He was trying to fool that soldier into thinking he was dead. An act, IMO, that justified action as it is a proven stratidgy for killing our men.

 

He was trying to fool that soldier into thinking he was dead. An act, IMO, that justified action as it is a proven stratidgy for killing our men.

Why do you suppose he was faking his death? The latest accounts coming in say more people may have been shot? What would you do in that situation IF some of your buddies were just shot? I'll tell you what I'd do, I'd fake being dead. But that's assuming this guy was actually faking it. He was already shot so it's not unreasonable to think that either A.) He was unconscious or on the brink of passing out or B.) He was dying

Which would obviously give the perception that he was faking his death.

 

? I'll tell you what I'd do, I'd fake being dead. But that's assuming this guy was actually faking it. He was already shot so it's not unreasonable to think that either A.) He was unconscious or on the brink of passing out or B.) He was dying

But you kinda loose those listed luxuries when that is also a tactic for killing your enemy.

 

Haha, dying is a luxury?

All I'm saying is there were far better ways of handling it than just shooting the guy in the hand. Again, maybe understandable, but if you can't do your job right then get out of the army. Heck, if you can't get your finger off the trigger for a couple seconds when you're being followed by a cameraman get out of the army.

 

All I'm saying is there were far better ways of handling it than just shooting the guy in the hand.

No, there wasn't a better way. It was a split second decision. The only way to have been sure was to wait for the sound of a gunshot or explosion. There was no other way to ensure his safty and the safty of the rest of the guys but to kill him.

We are making more of this then when our soldiers were burned, dismembered and hung from a bridge!!

 

We are making more of this then when our soldiers were burned, dismembered and hung from a bridge!!

That would be because we are the guys doing the bad thing.

 

We are making more of this then when our soldiers were burned, dismembered and hung from a bridge!!

No way J-Rod, that incident got TONS of news coverage and parts are still shown today. This latest incident is just about done with. We're just discussing it because it's a debatable issue, the soldiers being burned was not.

But anyway, so you're telling me that the best way to handle an unarmed DYING man is to shoot him in the head? What risk at that time did he pose? Maybe the marines should just shoot every living thing they see because it COULD be a threat. Shoot that dog, it might bite us! The fact is I'm sure the marines run into similar incidents every day and most marines are able to handle that situation appropriately. So did the first group of marines not handle the situation appropriately? Should they have shot them all in the head?

 

so you're telling me that the best way to handle an unarmed DYING man is to shoot him in the head?

If you know he's unarmed, of course not, your being ridiculous. But he is armed unless you know otherwise. It is war after all.

 

If you know he's unarmed, of course not, your being ridiculous. But he is armed unless you know otherwise. It is war after all.

The soldier could see perfectly clear that this guy's hands were free and there were no weapons in his vicinity. True, maybe he was hiding a weapon, but don't you think the soldier should have checked that first being blowing his brains out? The soldiers that came there a day before had to go through that same process and they didn't see it fit to shoot him in the face. So who's wrong in that situation? Again, should the first group have shot him in the head?

EDIT: I edited out calling you the king of ridiculous J-Rod, I shouldn't have said it.

 

If he had acted in the exact same manner very possibly yes.


Soldiers are not police officer, they are not there to apprehend people who are acting suspiciously, they are there to shoot those people in the head.

To review Police officer apprehend suspicious persons, soldiers shoot them.

 

Soldiers are nto police officer, they are not there to apprehend people who are acting suspiciously, they are trained to shoot them in the head.

If faking death (that's assuming he was actually faking death..we will never know) is acting suspisciously than we've got problems Farraday. If the guy put his hands in his pockets (if he had pockets) that's suspiscious, if the guy made a quick movement, that's suspiscious, but a guy faking his own death so he in turn won't be killed is not being suspiscious it's called doing what most people would do in that situation.

What would your opinion be if the situations were reversed and let's say the insurgency held themselves up to the same standards the United States military does and an insurgent thinks an american soldier is faking his death so he shoots them in the head? What would you say then?

 

"If faking death (that's assuming he was actually faking death..we will never know) is acting suspisciously than we've got problems Farraday."

Considering we're talking about people who booby trap dead bodies and perform suicide atatcks anything other then full and immediate compliance is rather suspicious wouldn't you say?

And frankly your prejudice is showing. If as reported one of the other wounded men inside had already complied with the Marines 'I'm unarmed, don't shoot, sitting quitely hands visable' and had not been summarily executed pretending this guy was pretending to be dead so he wouldn't be shot is pretty foolish.