Marines taking out the trash in Fallujah

I don't judge this Marine at all because it is a situation that unless a person is there we don't know.
I will leave this up to the Marines who are there and hopefully the Command won't pull some hokey chit by condemning this guy without reason just because of their worrying over Public Relations.

- Grim

I agree.

Irrespective of what peoples views are, there are strict and well defined codes of conduct required. It's up to the authorities to determine if they were broken or not. They're doing this job and until they report on the facts there is little point in argueing the point.

Paul.

If the rules of war say that it's better to have a marine be killed by somebody faking death than to make sure that the person faking death (is that justified with the rules?) is really dead, then I say let the people who made the rules of war fight these wars with their own rules (while their enemies cheat on them). Not torturing prisoners, I could understand, but risking your life because it says in a book that if somebody appears dead than they obviously must be dead or completely unarmed is ludicrous. I'd honestly rather have an enemy combatant who abuses the rules the U.S. soldiers try to follow to kill them being mistreated a bit than to have the soldiers die because they're forced to follow some rules that are supposed to (and fail miserably at) making war a little nicer.

Thanks for the link to Mathew Heidt's view on what may have taken place. In my opinion, it is a clear-sighted, sympathic and sane assessment.

I think someone just did not follow procedure, and it wasn't the shooter. As I understand it a team of marines cleared out a mosque on Day 1, on Day 2 another group of marines entered the mosque and found 5 injured iraqis. Now, if they were prisoners, where were the guards, who could say "don't shoot him". If they were placed by other iraqis thinking that once cleared marines don't look back, then they become a genuine threat.

I think someone higher up missed a call or an order or something.

One think bothers me, and I may get mail about this, but if a soldier has been shot in the face, shouldn't he take a little time off? Even a marine? I know, cold professionalism, but that could alter perspective. Not consciously but, I don't know.

IG

Like I said in the other thread. Issue everyone cattle prods, if they flinch they are alive.

I know this is going to read awfull,,,,,,,,but I say kill-em all and then they can go to paradise and be with x amount of virgins sooooooo we would in essensse be doing the crazed
fanatics a favor. Blasting our troops for defending themselves or holding them to this "higher" standand is insane.

i agree....this crap reminds me of the B-version of Rules of Engagement I personally think the guy was doing the only logically real thing to do. If an enemy is FAKING that he is dead....why would he be doing that? Tell me? And for ppl like Chris Matthews to sympathize with these animals is beyond me....YES, they are animals....interesting how i hear about this marine being a war criminal, but the guys who just disagree with us are out killing innocents....and idiot stupid moronic without a clue Americans are siding with the enemy....This kind of crap is what is going to make the Iraq war the 2nd Vietnam....Americans turning on their soldiers....makes me sick

It is soooo refreshing to hear people facing up the reality of war. How many prisoners has Abu Masaq Al Zaqwiri taken and shown mercy to?

I totally abhor the terrorist activity in iraq, but we cannot ignore important questions as to it's cause.

Why are these people animals?
Were they animals before the US invasion?
What has turned them into animals?

It very intellectually shallow to say they are terrorists and deserve to be treated like animals. The US must accept responsibility for the fact that most of these people have become terrorists (there are undoubedly some true evil people as well). History has show that human experience of war turns many people into animals. It's not a justification but a fact. We need to stop ignoring this fact and focus on how to change these peoples view point and beliefs, rather than calling them animals. That's one gaurenteed way to inflame the situation further and create more terrorists. Then what, nuke the whole country? Turn the US into the biggest mass killer since Hitler and Stalin?

Paul.

It very intellectually shallow to say they are terrorists and deserve to be treated like animals. The US must accept responsibility for the fact that most of these people have become terrorists (there are undoubedly some true evil people as well). History has show that human experience of war turns many people into animals. It's not a justification but a fact. We need to stop ignoring this fact and focus on how to change these peoples view point and beliefs, rather than calling them animals. That's one gaurenteed way to inflame the situation further and create more terrorists. Then what, nuke the whole country? Turn the US into the biggest mass killer since Hitler and Stalin?

Fine, we could do that. However, until they can stop being animals and start following the same rules as American soldiers must, I say, "To hell the rules that place the lives of American soldiers in danger."

Fine, we could do that. However, until they can stop being animals and start following the same rules as American soldiers must, I say, "To hell the rules that place the lives of American soldiers in danger."

Insightful for that, messy.

They will never stop being animals. They're terrorists. That's the point. You cannot however treat them as animals or else they've won. Others will see your actions and judge you as animals as well. If you can't be better than terrorists then you'll never win the war.

Paul.

Solitair: I can understand your desire for sensitivity, but the constant second-guessing and scrutiny by the media is harmful and wrong. How do you explain to a widow with children clinging to her legs that her husband is dead because he was required to give the enemy the advantage and was not allowed to defend himself from a likely threat?

I know that you are an extremely intelligent and educated man, and I mean you no disrespect, but I don't believe that allowing our military to fight in the manner that is successful and puts them in the least amount of danger is putting them on par with the terrorists. It's fighting a war to win.

"Why are these people animals?

Isn't this the same as question #3?

"Were they animals before the US invasion?"

Yes. They were behaving in the same manner. People in Iraq were beheaded, tortured, had their limbs amputated, were shoved off buildings, etc., etc. Throughout the Arab world people are at least familiar and at worst comfortable with this kind of "punishment". Apparently, given their reaction to these acts being perpetrated against innocent hostages they are comfortable with them as tactics in war.

What has turned them into animals?

Centuries of Middle East culture, frankly. What is being perpetrated to hostages is not that different than what happens to criminals in Saudi Arabia, or throughout Islamic nations for centuries. IF they are blase' about it, it isn't our violence that taught them to behead and torture.

They will never stop being animals. They're terrorists. That's the point. You cannot however treat them as animals or else they've won. Others will see your actions and judge you as animals as well. If you can't be better than terrorists then you'll never win the war.

If I have to choose between American soldiers being on par with the terrorists (which they'll never be unless they resort to hurting innocent or truly defenseless people) and American soldiers dying because the rules of war place them at a big disadvantage, then I'm going to choose the former. One can argue that either way, the terrorists win, except in the former, it's a short-lived victory as they end up dead.

I watched the film 'The Seige' again last night and it really brings across the dangers in allowing yourselves to lower your standards and morals for the greater good. This 1998 film staring Denzel Washington and Bruce WIllis is so on the point that it's hard to remember it was written pre 9/11 are pre second gulf war. Of particular point to this debate is the pen-ultimate scene where the FBI attempts to arrest the general for the torture and death of a terrorist. With a stand off of the matines pointing guns and the FBI and vice versa Bruce Willis says that he would order his soldiers to fire if he believes it's in the best interest of his country. Denzels response of 'order them to fire and make murderers out of them' hits the nail on the head.

No amount of rightousness of good intentions or greater good changes justifies murder.

We have seen already what American soldiers can do to defenseless inamtes in Abu Gharib. Do people really believe that allowing US soldiers to go about shooting without consequences would be any better? No there must be laws and moral standards for these brave men to live within. When these standards and laws appear broken then an investigation must take place. That's what makes America great and if you let go of that then you let go of the memories of all the men and women who have died for those ideals.

Please do take the time to re-watch the above film. It's American film making at it's best. Patriotic while dealing with relevant and tough issues,

Paul.

but there is a BIG difference between Abu Gharib and Fallujah.....

Abu Gharib was a prison camp....Fallujah was a battleground.

The marine THOUGHT he was being threatened....therefore....he eliminated that threat....on a BATTLEFIELD.....

And, these same nice, human beings (perhaps nobody on this site has called them that, BUT, i have seen and heard others refer to these terrorists in that way....nice, gentle human beings being forced to violence.....whatever).....these same terrorists tortured and used those tactics to there own country-ppl in Fallujah.....how anyone can defend them is beyond me....it truly is....it literally makes me sick to my stomach and damn near depresses me when I hear and read of other Americans demanding that this marine is charged with WAR CRIMES....while defending the freaking so-called Freedom Fighters.....Freedom Fighters my @$$....that so pisses me off.....

No amount of rightousness of good intentions or greater good changes justifies murder.

What justifies it is we'd rather have the American soldier alive than the terrorist. If another country's army wants to sacrifice its own soldiers to appear more humane, then that's their choice, but I'd rather America didn't sacrifice dozens of American lives just to make sure that one terrorist playing dead to kill more American soldiers is treated humanely.

We have seen already what American soldiers can do to defenseless inamtes in Abu Gharib. Do people really believe that allowing US soldiers to go about shooting without consequences would be any better? No there must be laws and moral standards for these brave men to live within. When these standards and laws appear broken then an investigation must take place. That's what makes America great and if you let go of that then you let go of the memories of all the men and women who have died for those ideals.

If American soldiers go around killing people without justification or torture people who are truly defenseless, then I'll agree that they shouldn't do that. However, if a soldier is in a battlefield and the enemy is known to feign death or injury, then I'll have no problem with the soldier making sure the enemy is dead rather than going: "Well, the rule book says if he looks dead or injured, he must be, and I must approach the enemy with open arms or turn my back on him and completely forget that he might kill me when my back's turned."

Actually, Messy....it would be more like this: "Well, the rule book says if he looks dead or injured, he must be, and I must approach the enemy with open arms or turn my----" BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another liberal who hasn't a clue about war: "Well, damn that Bush!!!! He has killed yet another one of our Americans!!!!!!!"

liberal

Why must you use labels like that? I am a liberal who very much supports the war on terror (my husband's overseas fighting it right now in fact) and wants to see our military have the freedom to defend themselves as necessary. Liberal does not = anti-military.

First off, the question as to whether the marine in this incident acted correctly or not is an issue for the US military.

The suggestion that Americans should shoot first and ask questions later under the justification of rather them dead than is dead is a bigger issue. Sure you may manage to save a few extra American lives in the short term but you will never win a war as you would sow the seeds of future destruction behind you. The damage you do to all that previous American soldiers stood for is tremendous. Do you realyl want your troops to be looked on with contempt and hatred where ever they go in the world and to be feared as barbarians who murder innoncents?

Mistakes do happen, but they need to be seen as mistakes not as the standard US rules of engagement.

Paul.

note to Soltair: uh, they already are hated......I know I was in S. Korea 10 years ago, and the South Koreans generally HATE us....


Note to Tex: read what it said, "Liberal who hasn't a clue about war"......you may be a liberal, but you also understand something about the war....in other words, you are not that liberal saying that

The suggestion that Americans should shoot first and ask questions later under the justification of rather them dead than is dead is a bigger issue. Sure you may manage to save a few extra American lives in the short term but you will never win a war as you would sow the seeds of future destruction behind you. The damage you do to all that previous American soldiers stood for is tremendous. Do you realyl want your troops to be looked on with contempt and hatred where ever they go in the world and to be feared as barbarians who murder innoncents?

Wasn't the enemy the marine killed shooting at them in the first place? That's not shooting first and asking questions later. If we want to keep comparing shooting an insurgent who was trying to kill them and might be feigning injury as they are known to do in battlefield to killing innocent children and beheading civilians, then perhaps all civilized countries should take a vow not to ever fight in a war, even if it kills them. After all, wars involve killing, and killing is one of the things terrorists do.
As for being hated by other nations, I'm sure if you asked the soldiers: "Would you rather die a horrible death or be hated by pompous foreigners who already hate you?" I'm sure they'd choose the latter. What would you rather happen to one of your loved ones? To be killed or to be looked down upon by Americans?