Get back to me on that when you are the one in a deadly situation... ask these wounded insurgents if they approved of the trickery that their comrades were using to kill American soldiers-- feigning surrender, booby-trapping bodies, blowing up public events where families were gathered.
I just asked you/ people to not become the people/ the evils we are fighting and you come around and affirm that you want to become them.
None of that is an excuse for Marines to lower their standards, principles, and values. All that shows is what the other side does. I would think the last thing we want is to become anything like that.
Don't want to become them but do occasionally. Where is/was the sensational news coverage about the soldiers killed by the feigned surrenders or the booby-trapped bodies? This is thier modus operandi; it is our occasional departure from the norm and all you want to do is incriminate and punish. I don't mind a little discipline but I think it is hyper-critical to even pretend to think that you would be a different person under those circumstances.
So we should let the bad examples go, and only worry about it when it becomes common place? I disagree. I think it is far better to point out that we don't condone not following the geneva convention. The best way to show that it isn't standard procedure is to come down on it hard when the few examples to occur.
This is why the Marine reacted in the way he did. NONE OF YOU can say that you wouldn't react in the same way if this was what you feared. http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20041177.txt November 22, 2004 Release Number: 04-11-77 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INSURGENTS FAKING DEAD FIRES ON MARINES FALLUJAH, Iraq – Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent, who while faking dead, opened fire on the Marines that were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets here at approximately 3:45 p.m. on 21 November. For more information, please contact Capt Bradley Gordon, public affairs officer, 1st Marine Division, gordonbv@1mardivdm.usmc.mil
Re #1-- all the news stories heretofore created the impression that there was but one victim still alive. Now it appears that there were more than one. Does this mean that the marine wrongly reacted to nothing or did the one still-living guy do something to make the marine suspicious. The author says that he didn't see anything, but the victim was in the periphery of his recording vision. Re #2 -- I just found the description of an "old man" among the insurgents surprising. By all accounts to my knowledge, these insurgents and the terrorists (except for the leaders) are described as young men.
What you call a bad example, I am calling self-defense. The military will handle their own; they don't need help from us amateur armchair warriors. The military depends on discipline. In a way, you can make an argument that this guy was acting with discipline-- making a tough split-second decision. Would you feel better were he the victim of the insurgent?
I agree............who's to say that the guy didn't have a bomb ready to blow up the whole place? Or like described, to get up and start shooting. I think they should give the Marine a medal. War is hell folks. If you've never been in that situation, then you have no idea what it is like. It's easy to criticize news that's 3,000 miles away, while sitting your fat butt on the couch.
I hope the Marines do handle it. They might not need my help, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion. Sorry if having an opinion about the duty of those serving our country bothers you. Killing an unarmed wounded man does not make it self defense. In the video of the scene I haven't seen any weapons at all. Would it make me feel better if he were killed by an insurgent? No I would feel angry, and upset. But I know if it were me, I would rather be murdered than to murder an unarmed wounded man. Both of those are pretty low on my list of things to do, though. I would rather die face to face where I am an armed and the insurgent was armed. Even more than that I would rather take out an armed insurgent while I was armed, and get away unhurt. Even more than that, I would rather we hadn't enetered this unnecessary war so none of that was even a possibility. But we are there now, and it isn't pretty.
You are welcome to have your opinion, my concern is to understand how the expression of it is helping the war effort in any way.... This game the insurgents play is totally one-sided: you have to remember, the booby-trap is hidden... on purpose. You might not know about it until it goes off. These are the rules that the insurgents have created... let them die by it.
It's not only helping the war effort it is a part in helping our nation upheld it's principles. The more people that openly oppose the killing of unarmed wounded men, by our troops, the more pressure our government will put on the Marines, troops, etc. to uphold our name and honor. If the insurgents have a bomb strapped to their body, they will die those rules. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when once honorable troops start using the rules of terrorists. Yes the soldiers should be aware and prepared for booby trapped bodies. That doesn't mean shooting every wounded unarmed soldier they come across.
The news reports that I saw mentioned that there were five insurgents in the room. Granted, I haven't followed this from the beginning, but the only reports I saw were clear that there were other insurgents present. He was in the same room with them. It wasn't described as a huge room and the reporter was on the other side of it, it was described as a small room where the reporter was very close and able to see everything. He specifically stated that another of the five WAS moving and under a blanket no less. I just don't see how the marine could have thought an unarmed, unmoving man in plain view was more of a threat than a man wriggling under a blanket. Perhaps he was a civilian or perhaps he was pi$$ed at the US for invading his country. I don't understand why it is even material that an elderly man was among the insurgents.
Originally posted by andymoon The news reports that I saw mentioned that there were five insurgents in the room. Granted, I haven't followed this from the beginning, but the only reports I saw were clear that there were other insurgents present. <b>Yes, my point was not that there were other insurgents present but that there were other insurgents still alive. In my exposure to this story, only this reporter's personal tale reveals this fact. The definite impression created for me was that all the other men were known-dead but the one that the marine acted upon. </b> He was in the same room with them. It wasn't described as a huge room and the reporter was on the other side of it, it was described as a small room where the reporter was very close and able to see everything. He specifically stated that another of the five WAS moving and under a blanket no less. I just don't see how the marine could have thought an unarmed, unmoving man in plain view was more of a threat than a man wriggling under a blanket. <b>The marine in question was at the other end of the room, wasn't he?</b> Perhaps he was a civilian or perhaps he was pi$$ed at the US for invading his country. I don't understand why it is even material that an elderly man was among the insurgents. <b>I didn't say it was material. I just said, and I still say, it was unusual.</b>
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade It's not only helping the war effort it is a part in helping our nation upheld it's principles. The more people that openly oppose the killing of unarmed wounded men, by our troops, the more pressure our government will put on the Marines, troops, etc. to uphold our name and honor. <b>I think it is putting our soldiers at risk. As I've said, the US military relies on discipline. They handle their own. I don't think that characterizing those who fall short as no better than the terrorists is doing anyone any good--- except the terrorists!</b> If the insurgents have a bomb strapped to their body, they will die those rules. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when once honorable troops start using the rules of terrorists. Yes the soldiers should be aware and prepared for booby trapped bodies. That doesn't mean shooting every wounded unarmed soldier they come across. <b>The problem is that, in all probability, if a terrorist dies via booby-trapped body, it is likely that a US soldier too will die. They don't booby-trap their bodies for nothing!</b>
Seems clear to me. If the insurgents were recognizing the Geneva Convention, this never would have happened. They're putting their own injured at risk with their illegal tactics. The marine's judgement may not have been good, but it was understandable and is no way a war crime. His motivation was self-defense, and what he said was supportive of that. He did not run around shooting all of the injured in the room, just the one that he thought was 'acting' dead. None of us would have prefered to have this happen, but that doesn't make the marine's actions wrong. I respect everyone's opinion on this issue, but I think a reasonable review of the facts indicate that this isn't a very good debate topic. Defending oneself is not a war crime.
I am not in favor of putting our soldiers at undue risk. But risking them rather than violate the Geneva convention is the rules that our nation has agreed to abide by. Again by violating the rules of the Geneva convention encourages others to do the same to you. This is a perfect example. Because the insurgents have violated them in the past, this soldier did it in the present. We have had soldiers captured in this war, and treated reasonably well. Obviously we have had othe hostages that weren't were beheaded, but it is better that we go after those that violate the conventions on the other side, and uphold the conventions on our side. I would hate to put future captive soldiers at risk because we don't follow the Geneva convention. Like I've said before, it's not a pre-meditated evil thing this soldier did. Given the circumstances it would be more like manslaughter than murder, but manslaughter is still a crime. Crimes deserve to be punishded
