That’s going to win a lot of hearts and minds. What values are we fighting for, exactly?
I think the point is that we’ve tasked ourselves to bring the rule of law to Iraq. You can’t do that by not following the rule of law.
I find it unlikely that the dead Iraqi had anything to do with killing the contractors, and that would have nothing to do with this even if he had.
I don’t want to crucify him. I’d like the military to investigate and discover his innocence or guilt. The video tape is damning, but there may be extenuating circumstances or reasons for the soldier’s actions that were not captured on film.
Most certainly, the hearts and minds of the insurgents are not paramount in my concerns. The hearts and minds of millions of Iraqis who have been forced to be deathly afraid of these thugs, are.
Values? How does freedom sound to you?
The Iraqi populace is on the side of the insurgents.
So you believe that you can further the cause of freedom by showing good Iraqis that you are really no better than the insurgents? Would you justify the beheading of captured insurgents as a warning to others?
-
You really need a dictionary. You obviously don’t know what “oxymoron” means.
-
You are oblivious to, well, international law. I don’t blame you. It is a fairly new field, only been around as an institution for 50 or so years, America tries to avoid it whenever possible. But htere is this whole place called the “UN” and a lot of these “treaties” and “declarations” that outline human rights and stuff. That is called international law. When a nation signs on, they are subject to that international law. We signed on.
drops his head onto his desk
No, YOU didn’t bat an eye. A lot of people did. People like Amnesty International and the UN… you know, whacko liberals. But the US kept selling Saddam arms. So I guess no, conservatives didn’t bat an eye. Plenty of other folks did.
Well, I agree with you up to a point. However as the saying goes…“when you are up to your ass in alligators, it is awfully hard to remember that your original job was to drain the swamp”. “Bringing the rule of law” will not be smooth and honest mistakes will be made.
Every soldier knows of the murdered contractors and the beheadings. Are you telling me soldiers have no vengence? Some soldiers had photos taken at the infamous bridge.
The media has already taken off with this story in their usual feeding frenzy.
I understand where you’re coming from. However just because the other side behaves like monsters doesn’t justify such behavior from our side.
It is a little disheartening. As someone else said, the video doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story.
Marc
Hey! Do you mind! I’d be out of a job if that were true.
My take on this is it may not be as eggregious as, say, Abu Ghraib, and there may be some justification in terms of rules of engagement. The verdict rests upon whether this particular soldier knew the wounded individual was disarmed. It’s conceivable that if the wounded individual had an explosive device hidden in his clothing, he might have detonated it when a soldier got close to inspect him. Since the fighters in Falujah have shown themselves to be prone to acts of martyrdom, suspecting a trap of some sort is not unreasonable; there are certainly reports of a similar scenerio leading to the death of a marine prior to this incident. I’ve seen no evidence yet that the soldier was fully aware of the wounded man’s status as armed or disarmed. Hence, I can see no hard evidence that this was an unwarranted act under the circumstances. Some of the responsibility for distrust of even a severely wounded individual must rest squarely on the Arab fighters in Falujah, since they have themselves shown no respect for the Geneva Conventions, and are clearly dangerous to their dying breath.
Hey, I’m no fan of this war, as you all must know, but I don’t see anything here that couldn’t be justified by the need to neutralize a suspected combattant without unduly endangering oneself. Everything basically rests upon what the marine did or did not know. Since he clearly expresses surprise that the wounded man is still breathing, it appears the marine felt he couldn’t trust him and shot him as a summary precaution.
What evidence do you have to support this?
IMNSHO, the insurgent wasn’t a prisoner. He may have been disarmed previously, but that unit moved on and did not take him into custody. The mosque was later reoccupied by enemy forces, and attacked by the Marines.
Getting wounded on the battlefield does not magically turn you into a noncombatant and exempt you from enemy fire. Your choices are to surrender, fight or die.
He couldn’t trust the dude because he was breathing? What kind of fucked up logic is that?
As for this fast growing “booby trap” excuse- why would the victim be any more likely to be mined if he was alive than if he wasn’t? And how would shooting the guy stop a bomb from going off?
And couldn’t ANY man, woman, baby, cat or dog conceivably be mined? Does that mean we should shoot literally everything that moves just to be safe? And, once again, how does shooting the body stop the bomb from going off?
He had already surrendered and you’re wrong about the law.
Kerry did somthing similar in Nam. He testified on TV about it. He gets a pass.
If the marine is a Democrat, will he also get a pass from Kerry supporters?
Um…no…Kerry did not do anything similar. You seem to be misinformed. You’ve probably been reading the Swiftie book or something.
Nope.
Of course! We of the left have no principles at all, unlike the noble and God-fearing right. Its just that when it came to choosing up sides, we picked the left-liberal side, really, its nothing more important to us than “shirts vs skins”. Hurling us headlong into an utterly unneccesary war? Trivial matter, really, just a bunch of blood and treasure. Something to bitch about, that’s about it.
Insurgents are probably pretty much that way too, just fighting for the heck of it, maybe get a chance to sport one of those oh-so-sexy sucking chest wounds.
Jesus wept.
Good Iraqis already know what the insurgents represent. Insurgents are not soldiers. They are mercenaries…hired killers.
An occasional mistake or misdeed on our part is not going to significantly undermine the many gains already made with the Iraqi people.
Insurgents that are found guilty can be disposed of in any manner as far as I’m concerned. If they are there, they are guilty. Letting the punishment fit the crime is not an outrageous concept.
That’s unlikely. Such a thing would have happened only once, and out of chance, there was a TV team at this precise place and time? I don’t buy it.
I do not doubt it happened many times. Actually, even without this video, I wouldn’t have doubted it did. What else could I assume? I don’t think the US troops are all wise and saintly men, who always keep a cold head in any circumstances, and are totally immune to vile feelings such as hate or fear.
WOW!! News to me. If that’s the case, the Iraqi election in January will surely reflect this. That means al-Zarqawi should win in a landslide. What the hell are we fighting for?
Seriously…your bold statement , if confined to the “Sunni Triangle” might be somewhat accurate. However if applied to all of Iraq, I think you are wrong.