I hope with my above posts you see the situation with better clarity. That "civilian" was apparently the only non-armed combatant my cousin engaged and his decision was reviewed as justifiable...But I'm proud of him because all the soldiers looked to an officer to make a decision, and the fool froze up. My cousin was actually more concerned about his fellow soldiers than himself and that is a fact. There are several if not many incidents where "innocent civilian deaths" are guised when the truth is "these civilians" put themselves in a position of a combatant by their actions or harbor combatants for the sake of continuing the combatants actions. I was watching the Discovery channel, and they interviewed an Iraqi translator for the military...he said: people call him a traitor when all he wants is peace in Iraq. He wants a better way of government, he wants the troops to leave, but he said they cannot leave till his people do better ....This coming from a genuine Iraqi citizen! My point is there should be more "innocent civilians" like him. There will be scores of "innocent civilians" killed, and I vastly blame the insurgents. They are responsible. My cousin wasn't proud to kill an unarmed person, he was proud to make a decision in the interest of others...
Yeah right. Maybe this is hard for you to understand, but when you said in the original post you were proud of your cousin for killing an unarmed "idiot" civilian (instead of saying you were proud of him for having the guts to make a decision) you sounded like a loopy nutcase. A couple of your subsequent posts have shed additional light on your feelings. Meanwhile, your original post led to expected inflammatory responses, which is maybe what you wanted anyway. Creepy does the exact same thing on a regular basis.
Another sad thing is that once removed from the propaganda in the military and the insane pressure of an unpopular ocupation and war(for example 70% of soldiers supposedly think Sadam was involved in 911 somehow), they will regret a lot of their actions in Iraq. They, too, will join the majority who think the war was not worth it. Our society and many of these troops will pay for a generation in the form of post traumatic stress disorder.
So making the wrong decision is better than no decision at all? Still support Bush? Keep in mind that all POVs are being distorted over there. Our military can't get away with randomly murdering innocent people despite saving 10 innocents for every casualty. That's the way it is, and it's why the Pentagon takes this very seriously.
It was the right decision...and it was proven when reviewed. If you won't stop despite several warnings even in the native tongue as it were, then too bad. You deserve to be shot. Use of deadly force is authorized... POV's are being distorted and in many instances supposed "innocent civilians" don't heed sense. They unnecessarily mingle with terroristic combatants, act without any awareness and put children in dangerous and unnecessary situations...tsk...I'd rather see real innocent civilians like "supercop", an Iraqi who informed on over 260 terroristic combatants (putting them in lockup)before the thugs killed him. There are innocent civilians who make a differance. My cousin and others in the military have high regard for the nobility, valor and courage of Iraqis who fight against the terroristic combatants and are the real innocent civilans who make a real differance...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha 1 case cleared. 1 case may be cleared.
I agree with Sishir Chang. While your cousin may not be guilty of a crime, I am not sure why you are proud of his decision. Yes he did make a decision. But sadly he made the wrong one. An innocent unarmed person is dead as a result. I might be understanding if my nephew(who is currently serving in the Marines in Iraq) made the same choice. No matter how understanding I was, I wouldn't be proud though.
I don't think it is right to blame victims. I don't blame rape victims for wearing sexy clothes, and I won't blamed an unarmed civilian for getting killed. I am not trying to blame your cousin either. I am sure that it was justifiable. But making a wrong decision, isn't necessarily something to be proud of.
It is your opinion on whether it was a wrong decision, but the dude was warned to stop in the native language. In fact, there was every attempt to communicate for the dude to stop. Given that he wore unusually heavy clothing, wouldn't show his hands and another undecided incident led to the killing of a handful of Marines...It was a threat situation. It's like I point a toy gun at a cop. I'm going to get shot and even though I was unarmed, I presented myself as a realized threat. The cop wouldn't have made the wrong decision. He made the right one. I am DAMN PROUD my cousin made the only acceptable decision he could have made...and that was to preserve himself and his fellow troops when encountered with a realized threat. Damn PROUD I am...
"After they handcuffed them, they shot them dead. Later, they struck the house with their planes. They wanted to hide the evidence. Even a 6-month-old infant was killed. Even the cows were killed, too." If the case is cleared, then they should arrest this guy for making a false statement.
I guess you can be proud of whatever you would like. I am not trying to saying there wasn't a valid reason for what your cousin did. I just think that any time somebody shoots an unarmed non-combatant then the wrong decision was made, even if it was an understandable one. I believe the we should err on the side of life.
It's kind of absurd what your saying. On the one hand, your saying "I am not trying to say there wasn't a valid reason". But, on the other hand, your saying "the wrong decision was made" because an unarmed combatant was killed. That's easy to say that last part after-the-fact but, when that sh*t is going down in real time, you don't have that luxury of knowing it was truly a civilian. So, you wouldn't have shot? Maybe the guy blows himself up and a bunch of your buddies die. You didn't error on the side of life in that situation, did you? I wouldn't want to go over there and put myself, along with my fellow buddies, in jeopardy because I was hesitant to pull the trigger in a situation where I'm justified, under established procedures, to take action based on the results of an interaction with an unknown...especially when the person I report to is acting indecisively in a potentially life-threatening situation.
No it isn't. I am saying he may have had reasons for shooting the non-combatant. I don't doubt it. But people usually aren't proud of someone because they had legitimate reasons for making the wrong decision. That doesn't mean there wasn't reason to make that decision. I have no doubt about it. But being proud of that decision is something different. You are talking about what the person could have done, and what would have happened. I don't think you look at decisions that have been made and say they were right or wrong based on what could have happened. If ROXRAN's cousin decided not to shoot. The non-combatant lives, his family still has him, and his fellow soldiers are all also alive. He doesn't have to go through any formal process to prove that there was a justification for him making that decision. Nobody is worse off because of it, and an innocent non-combatant maintains his life. What happened was ROXRAN's cousin made a decision that certainly had a rationale behind it and was understandable. I don't think anybody is arguing against that. But because he decided to shoot rather than not shoot the person, a civilian non-combatant is dead. A person who wasn't involved in the war is no longer living. Even if I understand the shooting, and don't hold it against him, I don't have to be proud. It isn't do nothing, or kill every time. I have no idea what I would have done. Nobody really knows in a situation like that until they are really there. But just because there isn't blame to be passed down on someone, doesn't mean it is something to be proud of. Isn't being proud supposed to be for something more? I am proud that he is serving at all. I am proud that he is thinking of protecting his fellows. I wouldn't be proud that he killed someone who was a civilian.
my father's adoptive father fought in WWII. he carried a flamethrower. he would seal up caves with fire and Japanese soldiers would come running out on fire. my wife's grandfather fought in Europe during WWII. he killed more than his share of German soldiers. speaking to both of these men, i don't get the sense that either is proud they killed anyone. they wish they had never been there to begin with. i'm proud of their bravery...they are/were both good men. i'm sorry they had to see the horrors they saw. i wouldn't wish that on anyone. "here's your gun...now go kill some of 'them' for us." i pray to God my sons never have to kill anyone. for any reason. no matter what justification they may have later.
I will agree in that I don't think anyone should be proud that an innocent civilian died. If ROXRAN is truly proud that the actions of his cousin caused an innocent to die, then I find that a little misguided. However, I believe ROXRAN should be proud that his cousin followed established procedure and, by doing so, acted in the best interests of those he serves with in preserving life. He should be proud his cousin did his duty. If the procedures for that situation are poorly conceived, then maybe the procedures need to be re-written for how to act around an unknown who isn't responding and behaving suspiciously. His cousin shouldn't spend the rest of his life second-guessing his decision. It's quite possible this civilian had his own pride and behaved in a way he felt was true to his own pride. It's also possible this civilian was either ignorant or stupid in how to act under such a situation. Or, said civilian just didn't understand the communications. Unfortunately, the soldiers are the ones who have to figure that out based on the communications and signals they are conveying to this civilian and how said civilian is responding via action and demeanor...which is a difficult thing to do...especially without a psych degree. The rest of this argument about, in hindsight, whether it was the right or wrong decision, etc. is a mute argument. There are situations over there everyday where difficult decisions, such as these, are made. In a lot of cases over there, it is either kill or be killed. There is no in-between grey area. Like has been said, we can't really speak on what we would have done in that situation because we weren't there. We're not living under the stress and the threat, and reality, of constant IED/suicide attacks by a mostly invisible enemy. We're not watching our buddies die in front of us. I believe a lot of decisions made over there are made based on the potential outcomes of doing nothing and what could happen should no action be taken. Otherwise, your going into a hostile place with more of a wait-and-see or sitting duck approach. That doesn't seem like a good mentality for a war zone. Can I say for sure that ROXRAN's cousin made the 100% right decision under the circumstances? No...I cannot. If your the dead civilian, then obviously it was the wrong decision. As we have said, these decisions are not clear-cut decisions and we were not there to be in that situation. I would hope that these "procedures" are under constant review and refinement after each said incident takes place in an attempt to better be able to determine how one should conduct themselves under such a situation. We know the military likes to give their own soldiers the benefit of the doubt in a lot of cases and there is usually some grey area involved where a difficult decision was made by a soldier.
