Shooting the wounded

gburner

New member
I'm saying that the Marine entered the room, saw the man lying half prone and almost immediately percieved him as a threat, stating repeatedly that he was 'playin' dead', a ruse that had led to the death and maiming of Marines in recent, previous incidents. The soldier was within his rights to shoot him based on this threat perception and previous deadly behavior exhibited in similar situations by the enemy. My only regret is that he couldn't kill him twice.

As far as his nationality is concerned...perhaps you would have been more satisfied to see the Marine's brains splashed about the room as he bent down to check the man's passport and took one in the forehead for the home team...just to make abso-freaking-lutely sure that we didn't offend anyone, including you.

Can you bring anything useful to the discussion?
 

Handy

Moderator
G, if you don't understand that good people don't shoot other people, just in case, then there is no point to any discussion.

This is not the final push to Berlin. We are using ground forces to minimize damage both to people and the image of freedom and justice that we espouse to the region. You might be surprised what shooting unarmed people on television does to people's opinions.

And don't feed me another "sucking sound" line. Your line of thinking solves the "Arab problem" with genocide. We are on the ground to make a lasting peace, not to inspire a new generation of terrorists. Leave that to the Israelis.
 

444

New member
I didn't really get a good view of the news footage of this incident. I saw the fuzzed out version from accross the room and really couldn't see what was happening.
Let me begin by saying that I have never been in military combat. I have never been in a gun fight of any kind.
I have done some sims training, and been through a few shoot houses that had hostages and non-combatants. However probably the most enlightening thing like this I ever did was a video shooting range: I don't know what you call it, but it is like watching senarios on video tape projected on a large screen on a shooting range. As the senarios play out, you have to decide whether or not to draw, whether or not to shoot, whether or not to get behind cover etc.
Something that I quickly leanred is, that when you have a split second to decide what to do and you are pumped up, you sometimes make a wrong decision or one that seems right at the moment, but later turns out to be the wrong decision. Based on this experience, I would have to assume that all this is greatly magnified when you butt and those of your buddies are on the line. When you are in the middle of on-going, active combat. When you are in an area where the people were given fair warning to get out. Where it is a logical assumption that the people who decided to remain are your enemy. Where you, yourself had been recently wounded.
I shot that course quite a few years ago. The only senario that I remember now is one that I am sure many on this board have seen. You are a police officer responding on a call of a possible sniper on a freeway overpass. You arrive and find a man on the overpass, as reported. The man starts walking toward you. You issue a comand to stop and put his hands up (or whatever you choose to say). The guy ignores you and keeps walking toward you. His right hand goes behind his back. His right hand suddenly starts forward. You fire two shots center mass. The video tape contiues with two holes in the target. The man is holding a card that says: "I am a deaf mute".
I can very easily see how I could walk into a room that contains people I consider to be my enemy lying on the floor. They don't understand English and I don't understand their language. One man suddenly starts to roll over or turn around. I don't know if he is armed, has a bomb strapped to himself, or he was lying on a greande. I have a split second to react. I have been recently shot by a man looking just like this one.
Based on what I imagine the situation to have been, I am going to fire.
How many times on this board has someone used the phrase: I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six ?

It is a great American past time to armchair quarterback. Some people actually take this seriously and make absolute statements about what they would do or what should have been done. I do it myself, but I realize that my doing it from the comfort of my own house, with plenty to eat, plenty of sleep, minimal stress is entirely different than actually being there at the tip of the spear making the same decisons based on a fraction of the information we have now. I find it very productive to do this in my own job. I review calls I run in my head after the fact and armchair quarterback them. What could I have done differently ? What could I have done better ? What other information could I have gathered ? Were my skills up to snuff ? I often even review calls with my partners to see if I had tunnel vision and missed something important, or was there something I never even thought of or never knew ? But in cases like the ones we are discussing, I don't think we have the capacity to put ourselves in that guys shoes and know what actually happened, how fast it happened, what frame of mind he was in, what circumstances surrounded the incident etc.
Most of us make mistakes. Some more than others. One thing that I find interesting is that some people pay a greater price for their mistakes than others. In your job, you may make a mistake and it is no big deal.In other jobs, a mistake may cost someone their life. In neither case was the mistake intentional. I am sure that in this case, the young Marine wishes it hadn't happened: if for no other reason than he is in trouble for it. However, in his job, mistakes are a lot more dramatic than most people's jobs. And, his job and his mistake are going to be much more widely known and second guessed. No matter what happens, he will pay a heavy price for that split second decision. And the same people that complain about this incident would also complain if he was killed. One thing I am sure of: the people that have been there and done that will be far less critical of him than the armchair commandos who got their experience on a video game.
I had lunch today with two Korean war era Marines today. Both of them can't believe that this has become an issue. These are men that are now well along in years and have had many life experiences. Time has had it's chance to soften their viewpoints on life. Neither condemed this Marine in any way. Instead they comdemed the media for making a circus out of it. One guy looked down at the table, took off his glasses and said in a low voice, I would be doing life in prison right now............ and his wife grabbed his arm and said she didn't want to know about it. Not that it matters at all, but that guy left the Marine Corps. after the war and became a very succesful businessman. Raised a family and is now a multimillionaire.
 

Ignition

New member
if terrorist are going to aceept and adhear to a rules of engagment or follow the geneva convention. at what cost of life do we finally say, hey maybe these kamakazi terrorists need to be dealt with swiftly
 

Handy

Moderator
The Japanese didn't follow the Geneva Convention in WWII. Should we have treated Japanese prisoners like they treated us?

Would Japan be an ally today if we had behaved as they did, and would we have as much pride in winning that war if we had behaved so poorly?


Consequences.
 

Ignition

New member
japan was a country, terrorism isnt. terrorism if allowed to go unchecked with all this political red tape it just going to get worse.



but i can also see what your saying at the same time.

we still have to behave professionally and we should hold ourselves to higher standards.

but to make such a big ordeal out of this only ties the military's back and will just cause many more problems, but hey this is what the liberal left wing media wants... more problems with the war, make it so bad that we just cant fight anymore. give our troops squirt guns so that we wont hurt anyone.
 

PsychoSword

Moderator
G, if you don't understand that good people don't shoot other people, just in case, then there is no point to any discussion. - Handy

I agree with Handy and I think the problem is that we're all becoming desensitized to these kinds of acts because of constant media exposure.
 

joab

New member
G, if you don't understand that good people don't shoot other people, just in case, then there is no point to any discussion
Yeah, they do. In war the rules are different than they are for street cops.
The Japanese didn't follow the Geneva Convention in WWII. Should we have treated Japanese prisoners like they treated us
I know a WWII submariner that told me, in front of one of his shipmates, of sinking a Jap ship leaving many enemy sailors floating in the sea, The rescue operation consited of surfacing and machine-gunning the survivors.

Check the GC rules of non uniformed combatants I can't quote them or even remeber them correctly. But I believe that they are not as lenient as they are for recognizable enemy troops.
Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
Handy,

The Japanese didn't follow the Geneva Convention in WWII. Should we have treated Japanese prisoners like they treated us?

Maybe not the best analogy, as I can guarantee you that more than one wounded Japanese troop got sparked on the suspicion of "playing possum."

Look, the military has a system for handling incidents like this, can't we let it breathe? :confused:
 

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
joab,

Check the GC rules of non uniformed combatants I can't quote them or even remeber them correctly. But I believe that they are not as lenient as they are for recognizable enemy troops.

Under the rules of war that were in effect until after WWII, non-uniformed combatants were subject to summary execution. This was changed in 1977, when it was decided to give "freedom fighters" the same rights as uniformed combatants.
 

444

New member
"I think the problem is that we're all becoming desensitized to these kinds of acts because of constant media exposure."

I think the problem is that we are debating whether or not it is the right thing to do, to shoot unarmed wounded prisonors. The answer to that questions is obvious and a waste of good bandwidth.
The real question is whether he should be excused for having done so.
Are all the factors involved an excuse ?
Should he be held to the standard of what perfect behavior would have been under ideal circumstances, or is the definition of perfect different for different circumstances ?
 

gburner

New member
Handy,

I do not advocate genocide...of Arabs or any other people. Putting those words in my mouth only diminishes your arguement.

People are killed 'just in case' all the time in warfare, by both good people and bad. That you don't
comprehend this reality again diminishes your arguement.

That this incident was caught on camera will save the soldier in question as it is apparent that he considered the enemy combatant to be an active, deadly threat. If there was the desire to just shoot prisoners for expediency's sake, he would have walked into the room blasting.

You didn't answer my question regarding your apparent preference that the Marine have his head blown off while checking the man in question for weapons. You also refuse to acknowledge that the folks being rooted out and killed are, for the most part, foriegn fighters on jihad and not Iraqi 'patriots'. Dispite your protestations to the contrary, these jihadists fight to the death, are fanatically opposed to surrender and should be treated as such.

Regarding killing people on TV...it's part of the propaganda war. They behead, strangle and shoot innocent, helpless women to make their point; we shoot jihadist dead enders to make ours. Again, you want to add all sorts of shades of gray to a black and white situation. We are not going to defeat our enemies by bringing them fruit baskets and having 12 step meetings with them...'okay, who wants to start tonite...anyone?? Hi, I'm Farouq...and I'm a jihadist, I'm powerless over my Kalasnikov and my desire for martydom has become unmanagable...HI, FAROUQ...' LOL.
 

K80Geoff

New member
Anyone notice that the "shootee" was by himself and his buddies in the foreground were huddling together and had their backs turned away from the deceased?

Can't see from the video what the "Jihadist" was doing. Was he raising his hands in the universal signal of surrender (C'mon we have all seen this in the movies, even the rag....er..insurgents)

Or was he acting in a manner that would bring suspicion as to his motives? Reaching in his garments to show the marine his grandchildren's pictures? Or rolling over to expose his Boo Boo to the marine? Or maybe his cell phone was ringing?

I guess the marine should have called in sick because of the wound he received the day before. Probably needs counselling, in fact his whole squad needs counselling, and the other insurgents too!

Must be those evil guns, we need to get them off the streets.




Better to be judged by five (Military Court Martial) than carried by six in a casket marked "Body parts missing".

Remember how a couple of still photos taken in vietnam turned the world against the US. I do.
 

wingman

New member
War is ugly, reporters should not be there until it's over......Let these young
men alone, let them do there job and stay alive..This is not a football game.
 

Handy

Moderator
You didn't answer my question regarding your apparent preference that the Marine have his head blown off while checking the man in question for weapons. You also refuse to acknowledge that the folks being rooted out and killed are, for the most part, foriegn fighters on jihad and not Iraqi 'patriots'.

Question 1: Yup, I did answer. I said that there must be a reason we aren't just carpet bombing. We are ALREADY putting those troops at risk, clearing buildings and taking prisoners. Shooting this one does not reflect that mission.

Q2: First, I haven't seen any evidense that the greater MAJORITY of fighters are foreign. Many are, and our men have little way of telling one from the other. As I ALREADY stated, are we shooting men on suspician of being foreigners?

Ignition:
japan was a country, terrorism isnt.
I teach an anti-terrorism class. Could you please explain how an armed force, engaging invading soldiers, would be defined as "terrorists". That doesn't seem to be part of the definition the US military uses. Or is that just a label we can now wallpaper onto anyone we are fighting against? None of the Vietcong wore uniforms: They must have been terrorists, by your definition, as well.
 

gburner

New member
As usual, your answer is no answer at all. Let's see, you have admitted that you haven't watched the video of the incident and you obviously haven't paid close enough attention to understand that a substantial portion of the 'insurgents' that we are killing or capturing are not Iraqi. How is it that the horse you sit upon is so high?
YOU teach an anti terrorism class...how illuminating.
 

Handy

Moderator
So you're downgrading from "for the most part" to "substantial"?

And I answered both your questions, even though I had ALREADY answered both your questions.


As usual, you advocate more killing, not less. How... predictable?
 

gburner

New member
You're quibbling, Mr.Handy. A direct question deserves a direct answer.

Do you believe that the death of a Marine (or any US Soldier) is preferable to the death of one of the enemy sworn to kill that soldier by any means necessary.

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
 

Ignition

New member
handy-

i label it as terrorism for lack of a better word, probably should of said taliban or insurgents. but this is not a country run military we are fighting.
 

Fred Hansen

New member
Regarding killing people on TV...it's part of the propaganda war. They behead, strangle and shoot innocent, helpless women to make their point; we shoot jihadist dead enders to make ours. Again, you want to add all sorts of shades of gray to a black and white situation. We are not going to defeat our enemies by bringing them fruit baskets and having 12 step meetings with them...'okay, who wants to start tonite...anyone?? Hi, I'm Farouq...and I'm a jihadist, I'm powerless over my Kalasnikov and my desire for martydom has become unmanagable...HI, FAROUQ...' LOL.
LMAO :D


If we just shed ourselves of our anger I'm sure we can reason with the death-cult psychotics. Paying them in kind with deadly force seems so terribly unfair. I'm sure that it is just our irrational anger toward them that forces Iraqi patriots to shoot helpless women in the head.

We should be ashamed at how our evolution into the Space/Computer Age has forced them to act worse than animals. :rolleyes:
 
Top