The USA's hands have been far from spotless, and this is a bad example of how our soldiers should behave, but this story is being blown out of proportion. Do not forget that
"Sites reported a Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent."
But yet you say
"I don't want to hear anyone on this site gripe if wounded GIs get shot by Iraqis - we did it first. We showed them that we're willing to kill wounded.
We taught them everything."
Lets not demonize the soldiers to achieve the cause. The war is the problem, not the actions of our soldiers. The soldiers should still perform their jobs honorably, but war is messy and you should find better ways to protest the war than to imply that one mans actions sullies the whole reputation of the armed forces. The AG prison scandal was much more damaging for the US than this because it could be indirectly linked to policy coming down from the white house, but this shooting is what happens in war. Try to deal with it without removing too much blame from the people blowing up their own bodies when we try to tend to them.
Posted by ChazRitz at November 18, 2004 05:42 AMWar is Hell. Especially without cause.
Posted by T2 at November 18, 2004 06:50 AMFrom the very beginning of conflict, playing dead and then attacking the surprised enemy has been a tactic. Every war has seen soldiers "making sure". Frankly, I'm surprised they GI's didn't spray down the room as soon as they entered. I don't fault the grunts. They want to live. The question is: why are they in that situation and who put them there?
Answers: no good reason and George Bush.
I don't want to hear anyone on this site gripe if wounded GIs get shot by Iraqis - we did it first. We showed them that we're willing to kill wounded." pessimist
WE DID IT FIRST????
Pess, where's your post stating "I don't want to hear any Muslims gripe if American GI's cut heads off and mutilate the bodies of any captured insurgents, women included? MUSLIMS DID IT FIRST
That would be a violation of the Geneva Convention - something else we did first.
Pess, where's your post stating "I don't want to hear any Muslims gripe if American GI's kill insurgents hiding inside Mosques being they're being used as military compounds to kill Americans? MUSLIMS DID IT FIRST
OK - I will agree with you on this point. If these Muslims truly believe that their mosques are sacred, they should not profane them by using them as forts.
You also posted an article of the Geneva conventions to have your readers believe Americans are in violation when nothing could be further from the truth.
OH? Do justify your contention.
Why didn't you post this?
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention
Why DIDN"T I? Because - if you bother to read something besides the crap spewed by FAUX 'News', you would see stories of US troops machine gunning everything in sight - including kids. Even MSNBC is posting such tales - and they are a part of the corporatocracy. I cannot do anything about the Mulsim terrorists who are merely opportunists and out of anyone's control - even Zarqawi's. But I can do something about the conduct of my country's military. Under the Constitution, as a civilian, I outrank any military officer.
Your support for Muslim insurgents and your anti American (Blame America first) rhetoric is truly disturbing.
Then get off your dead ass and go enlist. I know a seventy-year-old ex-Marine who's decided to re-enlist, so you have no excuse. Go fight the war of subjugation that you think is holy and righteous if that's how you really feel - and we'll see if you triumph. Unlike you, I want my country to be right, and I won't support it when it's wrong. THAT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
pessimist
Posted by Chevy at November 18, 2004 07:33 AMWell, at least Chevy actually had something intelligent and cogent to say this time! Nice work!
As a veteran of 6 years of service, who WAS ACTUALLY TRAINED as an infantryman, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the claims that an injured enemy soldier is one of THE MOST dangerous things you can ever encounter.
Think about it for a second- and put yourself in this situation: you are a combatant, you're injured, your enemy is aproaching, you know it and there's nothing you can do about it, (for the most part.) Don't you think you would do or try to do anything in your power to attempt to "take him out" if you could and esspecially if you were fairly certain you were going to die or be killed anyway? "Going out in a blaze of glory"- if you will- defending your country and your religion?
And from my personal perspective, while being trained how to engage an enemy on the field of battle, part of my training was this: (this is called a "movement to contact" drill, and this is basically the conclusion of it- standard US Army infantry training,) once you have overrun their position, and you are setting up a security perimeter, I was trained to "double tap" enemy combatants (yes, that means put a second bullet in them) as you sweep through. This happens BEFORE searching them for any materials and removing their weapons- because the first priority is to secure the location from further attack, before search and intelligence gathering operations can commence. First thing is PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS. While you would probably never find that in any Infantry tactics manual, that is what I was taught. The theory behind it is based on classic military doctrine: once you have passed an enemy you think is dead or that you didn't know was there in the first place, they are now at your back or your flank and you are in THE MOST vulnerable position you could possibly be in- in a combat situation. Therefore, minimize the risk by assuring they are dead before putting your back to them.
That having been said, I'm honestly not sure how any of the above applies to the situation in question, as I was not there and neither were ANY OF YOU. It's easy to sit here behind your keyboard and make judgements.
It's truly a double-edged sword, and it's a difficult thing to make a judgement call on.
I also think one of the best points in this thread was made above by T2:
I don't fault the grunts. They want to live. The question is: why are they in that situation and who put them there? Answers: no good reason and George Bush.
Absolutely 100% correct on all counts my friend. Well said. I was a grunt myself and I know I would want to live- pretty basic.
Posted by Marty at November 18, 2004 08:41 AMZarqawi gets another PR gift. What the probability they execute the next hostage in the exact same fashion just to mock the US?
Posted by clone12 at November 18, 2004 09:09 AMWhile this incident is getting lots of play in the US and the UK, the rest of the world is focused on the pictures of the small children with the missing limbs, and the stories they are telling.
Remember how the US reacted to the stories about those poor children in Russia a couple months ago? That's what the rest of the world is seeing in Fallujah.
Posted by Observer at November 18, 2004 09:46 AMWhether you consider us to be "occupiers" or "nation-builders" or "peace-keepers", we are in a country fighting rebels who are overwhelmingly, albeit not exclusively, natives to that country and dressed like other civilians. It is a recipe for the "horrors of war" - the killing of innocents by the rebels and the killing of innocents by our soldiers. The real horrors we do not see on our news. In this type of war, innocent men, women and children are often killed because our soldiers often can't (or don't have time to, or are too scared to, or don't bother to) distinguish the innocents from the enemies. Fear, anger, fatigue, confusion. A lawless environment. It is hell and the hellish things that happen there should be blamed first and foremost on the Administration who rushed us into this unnecessary war.
Posted by Rob in Vermont at November 18, 2004 10:17 AMAmen, Rob in Vermont...
What a mess. I don't see any viable exit strategy in sight, not that Bu$hCo ever had one in the first place... I guess they thought they'd just clap their hands and the Iraqi's would obey, just like all the yes men they surround themselves with.
Scary as hell; I for one am glad I am NOT in the military anymore...
Posted by Marty at November 18, 2004 10:56 AMAs soon as that video of the shooting hit the internet and airwaves, I knew that the captive Ms. Hassan was a dead woman. Turn about is what it is. We haven't seen the last of the consequences of "our" soldiers' actions the world over. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bloody long war, and probably coming to our neighborhoods soon. Remember the Army tanks on the streets of Los Angeles a couple weeks back? Here come de jihad.
Posted by Donald at November 18, 2004 12:15 PMWhy didn't you post this?
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention" Chevy
Why DIDN"T I? Because - if you bother to read something besides the crap spewed by FAUX News" pessimist
I don't read or watch Fox news. I watch Don Imus MSNBC while getting ready for work which i stated here before when Ref. Maureen Dowd bashing Kerry. Pay closer attn. Pess.
Here's proof that I actually do reasearch before jumping to conclusions which is how I caught you being dishonest. http://www.genevaconventions.org/
scroll down to "International Rules About Soldiers" and read the 6th paragraph.
"You would see stories of US troops machine gunning everything in sight - including kids. Even MSNBC is posting such tales." Pessimist
BS, that's a canard, a prevarication Pess.
"They are a part of the corporatocracy".Pessimist
Your point? Corporations are owned by thousands perhaps millions of stockholders worldwide who elect a board.
"I cannot do anything about the Mulsim terrorists who are merely opportunists and out of anyone's control - even Zarqawi's. But I can do something about the conduct of my country's military. Under the Constitution, as a civilian, I outrank any military officer." Pessimist
Yeah someone once told me burning the flag comes under freedom of speech. I told him if he really believs that to attend a VFW meeting and try burning one.
Your support for Muslim insurgents and your anti American (Blame America first) rhetoric is truly disturbing.Chevy
"Then get off your dead ass and go enlist. Pessimist"
It aint dead, you should have been here before when the coffee kicked in.
"I know a seventy-year-old ex-Marine who's decided to re-enlist, so you have no excuse." Pessimist
I'm sure, he probably took a bus to Paris Island with a 45-70 trapdoor 1873 Springfield slung over his shoulder whistling "Hi-HO".
How do you know i'm not enlisted? I could be a recruiter sitting here at my desk surfing the net waiting for someone like you to show up.
"Unlike you, I want my country to be right, and I won't support it when it's wrong. THAT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT." pessimist
That is subjective based on your view of the world, not a statement of fact. My personal view is the war sucks but the US must position itself militarily in the Mideast w/longterm planning if its going to try to keep american borders safe. To do nothing as you prescribe would be a recipe for disaster.
Chevy
Chevy:
Just playing devil's advocate here- and I reiterate: I HAVE served in the military, and was raised in a very military family...
My personal view is the war sucks but the US must position itself militarily in the Mideast w/longterm planning if its going to try to keep american borders safe.
And just what, pray tell, includes 'long term planning' about ANY of Bu$hCo's strategies?!?!? Go ahead, tell me one thing. Anything. I'm listening, and I mean it.
Do you realize that what we're doing over there is making America very UNSAFE?!?! Do you realize that what we're doing over there is tantamount to setting up terrorist recruitment centers- not only in the mideast, but in all corners of the world? (I just had to say that from your fairly ludicrous claim that you were a recruiter... Sure, it's a possibility, but I don't think so.) :-)
And where do you think this new generation of terrorist is going to focus it's well deserved angst? (This is a rhetorical question of course.) And where will our military be when we need them WHEN (not if) they attack us again? Stretched to thin, broke, (and painfully obvious to the rest of the world I might add,) basically useless against a band of unorganized, non-connected insurgents.
By that point the country will ALSO be broke and stretched to thin, and this will ALSO be painfully obvious to the rest of the world (ROTW.)
And by the way, since they (ROTW) care so dearly for us for all we've done to PISS THEM OFF lately, they really won't be a "coalition of the willing" right there to bail our asses out. They also hold basically all of our debt and won't hesitate to call in the markers when Bu$hCo attempts it's next foolhardy military disaster................. (I have nightmare about seeing/hearing DUBYA at the debates: "I'm a WAR president!!" As if that wasn't blatantly obvious you stupid f**knut!!!)
Again, nothing personal, just playing devil's advocate here. Let's live in the real world people.
Just my two sense.
Posted by Marty at November 18, 2004 02:04 PMAs a veteran who has served in combat, I think the shooting of the innocent Iraqi was along the lines of "what the hell is all this extended duty doing to our soldiers"? It's just a good example of what happens when a bunch of half-wits lead us into an unnecessary conflict.
I suspect the soldier feared for his life. I think I would under the circumstances. I blame George Bush who got us into this mess for the death of the innocent Iraqi, not the soldier who thought he was protecting himself and his buddies.
Posted by Dustdevil at November 18, 2004 03:31 PMPessimist said: "(MSNBC is) a part of the corporatocracy".
Chevy's comment: "Your point? Corporations are owned by thousands perhaps millions of stockholders worldwide who elect a board."
Dear darling Chevy,
By your infallibly unthinking Republican logic, it was the stockholders of Enron who were responsible for what happened there, right?
Just as the stockholders of Halliburton are responsible for all the barely-behind-the-scenes fraud relating to the Iraq contracts.
Have you thought this through, Chevy baby? Guess who is then responsible for the needless war and all the senseless deaths in Iraq (and for all the other shit that went down the first four years, and that will now go down the next four)? How are you ever going to bear this burden of guilt? You do realize that when you try to trot through the pearly gates in the fullness of time, your half-of-one-hundred-millionth share of the guilt will be enough to consign you to the other place?
Sarabeth
I'm trying to score this at home. Here's how it seems to read so far.
People who have not served in combat (or who choose not to wear their combat experience on their sleeve) tend to be horrified that:
a) A US soldier would just point blank shoot a wounded POW just lying on the ground, hands in plain sight, not moving at all, in fact so not moving at all that he's accused of faking death
b) Other soldiers would enthusiastically defend and even applaud what he did
(at least some of the...) People who have served in combat feel:
a) What's the big deal, it's okay to do it because you've got to kill the bastards before they kill you
b) What's the big deal, it's okay to do it because that's what we're trained to do, even though it'll never say so anywhere on paper
c) Even if it's a big deal, it isn't the poor kid's fault, it's Georgie's
Excuse me for asking (I'm only an ignorant civilian who didn't even know I outrank any soldier let alone every military officer), but isn't our whole ethos as a country supposed to be that we are the good guys, and that's an absolute? Isn't a major point of the way we train our military supposed to be that just because you got fired at this morning or just because your best friend got shot last night, you DON'T go out and kill civilians or wounded POWs or enemy soldiers trying to surrender? And that if you end up doing any of those things, it's ALWAYS wrong?
Posted by Sarabeth Guthberg at November 18, 2004 04:14 PMAn AP report time-stamped roughly 3 pm PST says (of the Falluja offensive):
"An estimated 1,200 insurgents have been killed, with about 1,025 enemy fighters detained, the military says."
Surely the military lawyers are advising them, that to avoid future allegations of lying to the American public, they should be saying "detained and not yet killed" or "classification as killed or detained subject to change" or some other sugary lawyery phrase?
Or maybe all their smart lawyers are too busy drafting briefs arguing why torturing detainees or killing wounded POWs not only does not violate the Genevea convention but is actually supported by holy scripture?
I'm just grateful for small mercies. All recovery starts with first accepting that you have a problem. At least the military has reached the point where they recognize that what they're doing in Falluja is offensive to many Americans.
Posted by Sarabeth Guthberg at November 18, 2004 05:14 PMIt gets better.
The same AP report continues:
According to CNN's footage, the suspected al-Zarqawi command center was in an imposing house with concrete columns and a large sign in Arabic reading "Al-Qaida Organization" and "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."
We're supposed to be in control of this country? We didn't even have intelligence agents in Falluja?
(Understandable, maybe? Porter Goss has been busy with things a lot higher up in Bush's agenda than nailing Al Qaeda.)
At this point, I would like to question whether Bush actually has any serious intention of nailing Al Qaeda or Osama bin L. The problem, of course, is that if you get Osama, then what's your agenda for the next four years? Far far better to keep playing at catching Osama, right?
Till 9/11, Bush really had no agenda as President (or at least not beyond "let's help the big corporations really screw the shit out of this country").
After 9/11, he's had only one agenda: the war on terror (which of course includes settling family scores with Saddam).
Much better to have an agenda than to have no agenda.
My clinching argument: take any Bond movie, kill off Blofeld halfway through, and what have you got? Pure box-office disaster. And the one thing we know Bush does not want is box office disaster.
Posted by Sarabeth Guthberg at November 18, 2004 05:28 PMAnd just what, pray tell, includes 'long term planning' about ANY of Bu$hCo's strategies?!?!? Go ahead, tell me one thing. Anything. I'm listening, and I mean it." Marty
Marty I was just emphasizing what I believe. I also believe once Iraq is stabilized it sends a very clear message to Muslim leaders who will think twice about their options of exihibiting terrorism if they want to remain in power.
Do you realize that what we're doing over there is making America very UNSAFE?!?! Do you realize that what we're doing over there is tantamount to setting up terrorist recruitment centers- not only in the Mideast, but in all corners of the world? Marty
Marty, there is no historical evidence to support that. If what you said were true why hasn't the taliban paid us a visit? Lets call it what it is. After defeating a super power like Russia these Muslims grew a pair of balls thinking they were invincible. OBL got the war he wanted with America and promptly got his ass kicked something Russia couldn't do in how many years? After seeing that plus Iraq go down what Mideast country has the balls to recruit terrorist to take us on?
1899-1913 America liberates? the Philippines due to a concession from Spain. Insurgents fought Americans for 14 years. Estimates 1.4 Million Filipino's killed.
Posted by Chevy at November 19, 2004 11:10 AMDear darling Chevy, Sara
I always said lib women were good for something, never have to ask twice. Can share em with your friends too!! Just Kidding Sara
By your infallibly unthinking Republican logic, it was the stockholders of Enron who were responsible for what happened there, right?" Sara Baby
Toots, I bet i have passed well over a million houses since driving. Only once did I see one going up in flames. Should I employ your logic and never buy a house because one burned they may all burn?
Chevy
BTW Sara was always my favorite name and being we're talking about wars allow me to post a letter Major Ballou wrote to his wife Sara during the civil war, he was killed a week later, first battle of Bull Run.
July 14, 1861
Camp Clark, Washington
My very Dear Sarah:
The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days,perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write again, I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.
I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged,and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how
strongly American Civilization now leans on the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I an willing,perfectly willing- to lay down all my joys in this life to maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.
Sarah, my love for you in deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence can break; and yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me unresisitably with all those chains to the battlefield.
The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God, and you that I have
enjoyed them for so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when, God willing, we might still
have lived and loved together, and seen our sons grow up to honorable manhood around us. If I do not return, dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name. Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I have
caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have often times been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your
happiness.
But, O, Sarah, if the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they love, I shall always be near you: in the gladdest days and in the darkest nights...always, always, and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath, as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it will be my spirit passing by. Sarah do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again.
Posted by Chevy at November 19, 2004 11:48 AMHey Leftie,
Like any liberal, you believe resolutely in what you see on tv being the truth. You don't know HOW MANY US servicemen and women were wounded and still shot by insurgents. Those they save tend to wind up getting torched and strung up, or else beheaded, and we didn't teach them that stuff, did we?
What we do know is that that same unit lost some good men a day or two prior when insurgents boobytrapped a wounded comrade of their own. THAT is what is known as a war crime, and no, we didn't teach them that, either.
Posted by Mike Lorrey at November 28, 2004 01:22 PM