A Sad Day in Iraq...

[Gato_Solo]

NEW YORK — The U.S. military is investigating the videotaped fatal shooting of a wounded and apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner by a U.S. Marine in a mosque in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah (search), a Marine spokesman said.


The dramatic footage was taken Saturday by pool correspondent Kevin Sites of NBC television, who said three other prisoners wounded a day earlier in the mosque apparently also had been shot the next day by the Marines.

The incident played out as the Marines 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment (search), returned to the unidentified Fallujah mosque Saturday. Sites was embedded with the unit.

Sites reported that a different Marine unit had come under fire from the mosque on Friday. Those Marines stormed the building, killing ten men and wounding five, Sites said. The Marines said the fighters in the mosque had been armed with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 (search) rifles.

The Marines had treated the wounded, he reported, left them behind and continued on Friday with their drive to retake the city from insurgents who have been battling U.S.-led occupation forces in Iraq with increasing ferocity and violence in recent months.

The same five men were still in the mosque on Saturday, Sites reported.

Source...

 

[Leslie]

I guess that Marine should've been in a chopper. It seems to be ok if it's coming from a chopper or plane.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I guess that Marine should've been in a chopper. It seems to be ok if it's coming from a chopper or plane.

Don't get caught in a 'gotcha', Leslie...

 

[Leslie]

just sayin'

 

[Gato_Solo]

just sayin'

There's a big difference between walking up to a person and putting a bullet into them, and dropping a bomb from 15,000 feet, or firing a tri-barrel at a target designated by ground troops in the area. Just think you should know that before you cast dispersions...

 

[Leslie]

um...I don't think there is a big difference. Difference for who? The mileage between weapon and target makes a whit of difference? I see.

The end result is the same. You've got on one hand, marine who likely made a(n albiet) huge mistake in the heat of the moment compared against a policy of using aerial assaults with massive amounts of firepower without a whole helluva lot of regard to "collateral damage". One is terrible horrible and he's goin down bigtime, and the ones that dun in the other 30,000ish (low estimate) CIVILIANS are heroes.

Little bit of hypocrisy in policy there.

 

[Gato_Solo]

um...I don't think there is a big difference. Difference for who? The mileage between weapon and target makes a whit of difference? I see.

The end result is the same. You've got on one hand, marine who likely made a(n albiet) huge mistake in the heat of the moment compared against a policy of using aerial assaults with massive amounts of firepower without a whole helluva lot of regard to "collateral damage". One is terrible horrible and he's goin down bigtime, and the ones that dun in the other 30,000ish (low estimate) CIVILIANS are heroes.

Little bit of hypocrisy in policy there.

None that I can see. Every army has, basically, the same rule. This marine was up close, and personal. The aerial assaults you speak of, with the 'collateral damage' have been rather sparse...and when they were used, they were called in by ground troops taking heavy fire from the positions being taken out. Rule of thumb goes like this...If you are in an area where there is heavy gunfire, and you do not leave/try to escape/surrender, then you are no longer an 'innocent bystander'. You can try and debate me on this, but, in the end, it comes down to one thing...you are anti military, so no matter what the military does, you're going to be against it......and you want to talk about hypocrisy...

 

[Leslie]

I'm anti-pointless/negligent carnage. I'm anti-slimy policy for political gain.
BIG difference from a blanket anti-military. But if you don't understand where I'm coming from by now you never will.

sparse...and when they were used, they were called in by ground troops taking heavy fire from the positions being taken out

Tripe.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I'm anti-pointless/negligent carnage. I'm anti-slimy policy for political gain.
BIG difference from a blanket anti-military. But if you don't understand where I'm coming from by now you never will.

Tripe.

2 words...prove it.

 

[Leslie]

No, I'm not playing that game. You can read as well as I.

 

[Gato_Solo]

No, I'm not playing that game. You can read as well as I.

Yep...and nothing you can put up will ever state that civilians were deliberately targeted by US forces. Nothing you put up will say that mosques/churches/schools/hospitals/etc were targeted for anything other than the fact that they were/are being used by enemy forces to attack coalition forces by both direct-fire weapons and mortars. You, of course, will refuse to believe that, and weep for those who are caught up in it, but staying in an area that's being used by enemy troops is going to get more than the enemy killed. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Leslie]

You have a horrific case of selective reading. Waste of time here.

 

[ClaireBear]

I saw the said footage...

The most distressing thing I found bar the actual act... (the Beeb froze the action due to the distressing nature yet included the sound... bloke crying out in distress... gun shot... at very very very close range)... was the footage taken outside as they entered the Mosque.

The officer or whatever monkey they have in charge said this...

"Did ya's shoot em...?"

"Were they armed?"

Now correct me if I'm wrong but surely the first question should have been Were they armed?...

Seems a shoot first ask questions later situation...

The yanks should leave it to the professionals... the Brits!

 

[Gato_Solo]

You have a horrific case of selective reading. Waste of time here.

And you have a very terrible case of understanding the point. The marine who shot that wounded man will be punished. You know why? Because that's what should happen. Even in the military, we have a crime called murder, and that's, most likely, what he'll be charged with. You can go ahead and complain all you like, and post inflated statistics all you want, and tell me I'm being 'selective' all you want, but the truth of tha matter is that you will find fault in everything that doesn't match what you think exactly...and that, in itself, is the highest form of hypocrisy because you wanted a man who confessed to war crimes to be the President of the US...

 

[ClaireBear]

The marine who shot that wounded man will be punished. You know why? Because that's what should happen. Even in the military, we have a crime called murder, and that's, most likely, what he'll be charged with.

So the individual will be punished... great!

What about the guy who was leading the group?... the guy who trained this blood thirsty eegit?... the fool who passed him under psych test?

 

[Raven]

I saw the said footage...

The most distressing thing I found bar the actual act... (the Beeb froze the action due to the distressing nature yet included the sound... bloke crying out in distress... gun shot... at very very very close range)... was the footage taken outside as they entered the Mosque.

The officer or whatever monkey they have in charge said this...

"Did ya's shoot em...?"

"Were they armed?"

Now correct me if I'm wrong but surely the first question should have been Were they armed?...

Seems a shoot first ask questions later situation...

The yanks should leave it to the professionals... the Brits!

And if it had been the Royal marines in the same situation can you say without absolute certainty and beyod a shadow of a doubt they wouldn't have done the same? Emotions run high in a combat zone, regardless of nationality.

Anyone considered the fact that this guy was fatally wounded already?

 

[Gato_Solo]

And if it had been the Royal marines in the same situation can you say without absolute certainty and beyod a shadow of a doubt they wouldn't have done the same? Emotions run high in a combat zone, regardless of nationality.

Anyone considered the fact that this guy was fatally wounded already?

Or so they alledge. That's another point for the investigation to check into...and there is no leniency for a so-called "mercy killing".

 

[Leslie]

He has to and will be punished. It's unfortunate that he will be a wagthedog in this "war", making it look like anyone over there gives a flying fuck about the civilians.

I wanted Kerry? what the FUCK? um...NO. Nice assuming though. He would have been bad for my country too. I didn't want either fucking one of them.

You know, I'm sorta "no word for it" at what I am reading in this thread. I'd thought all along you were as I was doing with your posts...you read what I said and tried to at least understand my view and then responded. But no. You have no idea whatsoever what I've been saying all along. Everything in here you've attributed to me is the EXACT opposite of what I think. I thought you at least got it, even if you disagreed. I'm disappointed, but at least now I know you didn't bother. Now I won't either.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

1. There are days in Iraq that are NOT sad?

2. It's a war. Troops are being ambushed left and right. Innocents die daily from cowardly acts like suicide bombs.

3. Guess instead of shooting them we should kidnap and behead them after making ridiculous ransom demands and further political propoganda.

4. I see no outrage at the dozens of American and other soldiers who are ambushed every day in Iraq and elsewhere. Holding a weapon and being blindsided is about the same as what happened here if you ask me. (And you didn't... ) If a soldier is ambushed/blindsided, his weapon is of no import to him. He may as well be unarmed. Soldiers on routine patrol who are killed when a car bomb goes off have as much of a fighting chance as this person had, yet no one seems outraged over their deaths.

Just callin' it like I sees it.

 

[Gato_Solo]

He has to and will be punished. It's unfortunate that he will be a wagthedog in this "war", making it look like anyone over there gives a flying fuck about the civilians.

Then why not just level the entire place? If we didn't care about civilians, then that's exactly what we'd do...

You have no idea whatsoever what I've been saying all along. Everything in here you've attributed to me is the EXACT opposite of what I think. I thought you at least got it, even if you disagreed. I'm disappointed, but at least now I know you didn't bother. Now I won't either.

Nope. I said that this guy was wrong with what he did, and you brought up 'collateral damage'. Then you made claims about how bombing from the air and shooting them with helicopters was equal to what this guy did, and that hypocrisy was evident. I explained the difference, and you told me to, basically, explain it to the 30,000 civilians killed in Iraq due to our war. I posted statistics that showed the opposite. No mis-understanding here...