It doesn't matter if this guy was Syrian, Canadian, Iraqi, or Saudi. He was wounded soldier and was murdered. Trying to say it was ok because he was from somewhere else, or war is hell so it's ok to murder someone doesn't make this justifiable. War is hell, but there are certain rules that our country has agreed to follow. The rules don't make war un-hellish, but they are there for a reason. Anyone who breaks those rules should suffer the consequences. There is no excuse for what was done. Anyone who tries to make an excuse is discrediting our nation's commitment to law, order, and doing the right thing.
logic meet rhetoric... you have continually claimed that our presence there is to pacify the middle east by creating a stronghold in the middle of their territory. i dare you to deny that the US presence there does not affect the way of life for those living in the middle east. If al quaeda developed a stronghold in Canada, you would find it wrong if we went in there and fought them on canadian turf? you're being very selective in choosing different eras of international theory. secondly, I call BS that you actually care about having a democracy in Iraq. Why do you care so much about the brown people there with their crazy religions? you don't, you want us to have control in the region, and democracy is your excuse to appeal to the liberals. im not a liberal so this rhetoric won't work on me. thirdly, its hypocritical to say earlier that the UN is worthless and we shouldn't follow them and then rely on the defying of sanctions. If thus you are relying on the potential threat that Iraq posed on us to be a standard, then, yes syria poses more of a threat to us than Iraq. 4) you cite domino theory. funny thing is, before we were preventing countries from turning red. now we are trying to be the ones causing the dominoes to fall. same theory, different side. lastly you are still trying to legitamize murder which our country and our troops are appalled at. that's no worse than a muslim who sympthasizes with those executing westerners.
Agreed. However, I think we must hold the other nation up to the same standard and not make excuses for them.
Uh, I think you're speaking to the wrong guy here, nyquil. Maybe you have giddy confused with someone else. I don't think he's worried about the color of anyone's skin, or that we seize control of the region. He's certainly not trying to appeal to liberals. And I'm not sure if he thinks the Muslim religion is crazy so much as he thinks the radicals using a perverted form of it are crazy. giddy is confused about the Republican Party, and he's stubborn. I'll go along with that! Then again, I'm stubborn too, sometimes. Keep D&D Civil!!
You are way-off in your eval of the situation. You better look at the video and read the story again.
I would like to have my cake and eat it too. While I detest the politics of the engagement with Iraq, my heart goes out to those guys fighting the cause. What's abuse from the soldier's perspective in a war? Survival has to be job one. If I were in one of their shoes, I would have been court marshaled the very first day of action. (Shoot first, think second...pretty much what I do around here ) I don't see how anyone can hold a soldier to much of a moral standard in a war. The enemy is potentially everywhere.
I just reread the story and I've seen the video a few times and I will stand by my evaluation of the situation. The problem with this debate is almost everyone is trying to cast this in a much larger context rather than consider the specific incident. On one side are people decrying this as an example of premeditated barbarity while on the other side people are saying this justified because of the barbarity of our opponents. While there may be some truth to either view I think that's ascribing motivations that might not be there given the immediate situation. I didn't support the invasion of Iraq and think its been handled badly but I understand that our troops are in a battle risking their lives and taking fire. Under such situations snap decisions like that are bound to happen. Bottom line for me is I don't see any premeditation in this action. There is nothing to indicate he was shooting this guy to make an example of him. He was surprised that someone he thought was a corpse started moving and acted impulsively. I'm not condoning it but I'm not going to condemn it either.
Originally posted by nyquil82 logic meet rhetoric... you have continually claimed that our presence there is to pacify the middle east by creating a stronghold in the middle of their territory. i dare you to deny that the US presence there does not affect the way of life for those living in the middle east. If al quaeda developed a stronghold in Canada, you would find it wrong if we went in there and fought them on canadian turf? you're being very selective in choosing different eras of international theory. <b>You say stronghold; I say democratic Republic. The US presence there does affect the way of life in their territory: IT BRINGS THEM HOPE. Look at their leaders-- that's all you have to do. You may not like GWB but he's not banking on our backs like Saddam or like Arafat! The US has helped Muslims the world over. We were invited into Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda prefers to take the law into their own hands and you want to make them an analogue?</b> secondly, I call BS that you actually care about having a democracy in Iraq. Why do you care so much about the brown people there with their crazy religions? you don't, you want us to have control in the region, and democracy is your excuse to appeal to the liberals. im not a liberal so this rhetoric won't work on me. <b>Who is supposed to be the racist here: you or me?! You have no evidence that I care not about brown people or their relligion. I await your apology for this awful insinuation. I care about having a democracy in Iraq because the world needs a democracy in Iraq.</b> thirdly, its hypocritical to say earlier that the UN is worthless and we shouldn't follow them and then rely on the defying of sanctions. If thus you are relying on the potential threat that Iraq posed on us to be a standard, then, yes syria poses more of a threat to us than Iraq. <b>It's not hypocritical. That is the standard that the rest of the world is apparently willing to rest upon. I didn't pick it; it was put there long ago as a legitimizing standard.</b> 4) you cite domino theory. funny thing is, before we were preventing countries from turning red. now we are trying to be the ones causing the dominoes to fall. same theory, different side. <b>It does depend upon where you are falling, doesn't it? Oh, and it does matter what side you are on.... sheesh!</b> lastly you are still trying to legitamize murder which our country and our troops are appalled at. that's no worse than a muslim who sympthasizes with those executing westerners. <b>Why don't you volunteer to go over and frisk the dead and dying enemy for booby-traps. I think the event is regrettable but it happens in war due to multiples of circumstance.</b>
I agree. There is no such thing as a clean war which is why I think it should never be entered lightly. I don't think this war is the right war but at the same time we should respect that for the most part our troops are attempting to do their duty to the best of their ability. Even in the last universally agreed "just war" WWII incidents like this and worse happened a lot.
There may be harsh circumstances surrounding the incident. The same is true of a lot of criminal cases. It might change murder from 1st to 2nd degree, but it is still murder.
While the Saudi monarchy invited us in I doubt most of the Saudi people did. Considering the Saudis records on democracy, human rights and rule of law their outlook isn't much different from Al Qaeda.
My thinking is similar to Sishir's. While I think that the shooting of unarmed wounded soldiers is an important thing and something we should look carefully at in the interests of justice, I don't know if it is a clear-cut murder as so many in this thread assume. From what I understand, these men were fighting with one group of Marines, who eventually stormed the Mosque and quelled them. They left 5 wounded and I assume took all their weapons. Another unit of Marines came to evacuate the wounded only to find more people attacking them from the same position. So, the weaponless sterility of that site had been contaminated and the wounded might have been re-armed or, apparently, booby-trapped. The Marines enter (where the resistance went, I don't know), there are dead and wounded around. One guy he had assumed was dead gives himself away to be alive. The Marine thinks (perhaps rightly) that the man was trying to escape notice by pretending to be dead, possibly to nefarious ends. The Marine doesn't know the man's intentions or to what degree he may be armed. So, to be on the safe side, he shoots the guy. Maybe they could have diffused the situation with nonlethal means, but it seems that they were dealing with insufficient information. If the guy had a gun and was wounded, he may have been subdued without killing him. But, if he had a grenade? Or was booby-trapped? Isn't the Marine justified if he genuinely feels he or his corp is in peril? So far, the insurgency has used every dirty trick they can think of; it isn't surprising that Marines are suspicious that something underhanded like that is afoot. From what I've seen and read so far, I don't know if I would convict the guy on murder. This seems more like a manslaughter sort of thing, if anything at all.
According to who? The reporter who wrote the story? Call me crazy but I'm going to wait until I know the whole story before I go around accusing Marines of murder during a time of war.
Originally posted by Deckard Uh, I think you're speaking to the wrong guy here, nyquil. Maybe you have giddy confused with someone else. I don't think he's worried about the color of anyone's skin, or that we seize control of the region. He's certainly not trying to appeal to liberals. And I'm not sure if he thinks the Muslim religion is crazy so much as he thinks the radicals using a perverted form of it are crazy. <b>Every religion has its crazies. Christians control their's better than the Muslim world does. Freedom and democratic republic government is their hope.</b> giddy is confused about the Republican Party, and he's stubborn. I'll go along with that! Then again, I'm stubborn too, sometimes. <b>Party politics is all about compromise. I could easily criticize every single candidate but there is no point. You gotta go with someone. Yes, I am stubborn... but civil! </b>
I would say manslaughter at most but given that there have been suicide bombers and booby trapped bodies IMO there would be enough reasonable doubt to acquit if this was tried.
Breaker Morant's last poem. In prison cell I sadly sit,_ A dammed crestfallen chappie,_ And own to you I feel a bit--_ A little bit -- unhappy._ It really ain't the place nor time_ To reel off rhyming diction ;_ But yet we'll write a final rhyme_ While waiting crucifixion._ No matter what end they decide_ Quick-lime? or boiling oil? sir We'll do our best when crucified_ To finish off in style, sir !_ But we bequeath a parting tip_ For sound advice of such men_ Who come across in transport ship_ To polish off the Dutchmen._ If you encounter any Boers_ You really must not loot ‘em,_ And, if you wish to leave these shores,_ For pity's sake, don't shoot ‘em._ And if you'd earn a D.S.O.,_ Why every British sinner_ Should know the proper way to go_ Is: Ask the Boer to dinner._ Let's toss a bumper down our throat_ Before we pass to heaven,_ And toast: "The trim-set petticoat_ We leave behind in Devon."_
