When this story broke, I went traipsing around looking for the full video, and ended up at some Arab language site, and saw it there. You aren’t missing anything substantial, the video available here only deletes the actual moment of impact, and is entirely repulsive only because you already know what it depicts.
Whether it is as morally corrosive as Janet Jackson aureole is a matter for deeper minds than mine own.
I also saw the extended video tonight and have to say the soldiers didn’t sound too ‘calm’ to me either…especially at the end. Unless you are defining ‘calm’ differently than I do…screaming and shouting curses doesn’t normally qualify.
Still, based on the dialogue alone, I’d say this soldier is going to be in some trouble…I fully expect a courts martial for this marine. I make no prediction at this time on the eventual outcome as I still am uncertain we really have all the facts.
-XT
They sounded calm to me. It was obvious as hell that the victim wasn’t a threat.
Didn’t sound calm at all to me. They sounded nervous as hell.
Whether or not that will make any difference in the hearings, I don’t know.
Sam, regardless of what the Swifties said, Freepers and right wingers all over the internet were trying to spin Kerry’s Silver Star incident as murder and were calling for investigations and trials.
This is horseshit, ad hom flaming inappropriate for GD.
It shouldn’t. Being nervous is not a legal defense to murder. I thought the guy seemed pretty matter of fact, though. A little amped up maybe, but not in a panic.
I agree that soldier that did the shooting (“he’s f&^ing faking”) didn’t sound calm, but the other solider he was talking to (“yeah, he’s breathing”) didn’t sound anymore stressed then one would expect for being in a war zone.
The video also shows them meeting in front of the door of the mosque with a group of soldiers that have already been inside. They describe to the newly arrived group who is inside. I think from the dialogue here, the fact that they feel safe enough to chat in front of the open door, plus the way they enter, that it’s obvious the mosque has been re-secured.
Also notice that there are other insurgents alive in the mosque that aren’t shot, so presumably they felt secure enough to not just kill everyone in sight. Also the camera is on the guy that gets shot for several seconds before it happens. He doesn’t move, and it’s not clear that he’s even concious. I suppose he could have had a weapon on him, but one would assume that the first group of soldiers would’ve noticed this, and that with several soliders having weapons trained on the guy, they could’ve searched to make sure instead of just shooting him.
Well, that’s rather the point. It’s not merely a matter of immediate right-this-minute stress; it’s also the buildup of one-eye-open-for weeks-at-a-time stress.
No amount of stress is an excuse for murder.
Oh, yeah? OK, smarty-pants, let’s say you’re married to Anne Coulter…
I agree, the general stress of being in a battlefield can, I’m sure, make you more likely to snap and do something like shoot a wounded man. It doesn’t make it right, of course, but, it does make it at least understandable. This is, in fact, what I think happend, the guy snapped from the pressure and lashed out at the wounded man.
I pointed out the difference in the tone of the man who did the shooting from the apparent mood of the others to show that it didn’t appear that he shot the wounded man because the man was an obvious threat, as presumably if the marines thought they were likely to be shot at, they would’ve been less relaxed, more cautious entering the mosque, ruffer with the other live insurgents, etc.
Bullshit. If you are stupid enough to wander around without your rifle, that doesn’t exempt you from enemy fire.
If I have a clear shot at an enemy soldier, I’m going to take it. If the soldier is unarmed or running away, that’s his problem.
A soldier is not a police officer, he is not required to determine that his target is armed and poses an immediate threat to someone. His job is to kill the enemy.
Is it his job to kill unarmed wounded captives?
Absolutely, it is. In fact you need look no further than this board for evidence. Right now you can hear from middle america the chorus to accompany the video:
as they nod sagely to each other.
This is why the US armed forces are there. To do precisely this. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Why act all coy now?
Maybe because their actions are fueling more insurgency… and that means more americans will get killed ?
You know its not that much of an intelectual feat to imagine how heavy handed military approach to “problems” is giving insurgents legitimacy, recruits and eventually victory…
But then… since the political leaders don’t see that… why should grunts… ? Sad.
Well that’s fine if your idea of the function of an armed force is based on Rambo and Chuck Norris movies. If you want to see this thing as some sort of Hunish invasion that is your business but it is not the view that has developed in the West over the last 500 years or so. If you are willing to accept the killing of wounded and incapacitated on the battlefield there is no reason you should not also accept rape and pillage, stacks of skulls, the destruction of cities and sowing the rubble with salt, poisoning wells and the exile of survivors or their sale into slavery.
Honest to God, can’t people see that this is wrong and self destructive on almost every level, morally, politically, militarily, economically. You can try to excuse it; you can try to apologize for it; you can defend it, but you cannot justify it.
This is not some adventure movie made for 14 year olds. This is reality. In reality actions have consequences. What do you suppose the consequences of this and similar incidents might be? Do you suppose it might increase resentment toward the occupation? Do you suppose it might intensify resistance to that occupation. Do you suppose it increases the possibility that our children and grandchildren might have to serve a tour in the Iraqi Army of Occupation?
Well spoken… but made for 14 yr old movies sometimes have more complex morality (bad vs bad)… expect “Good vs Bad” mentality answers… we are fighting “evil”… a good terrorist is a dead “terrorist” vomit.
This whole incident raises a few questions for me. If a soldier would knowingly do something like this infrnt of a camera, and we are not talking a hidden camera but an imbedded camera man, what do the soldiers without camera men around do out there?
Look, as well trained and tough as people want to believe these soldiers are, they are just kids. 19 to 25 year old kids. I think there is a certain highschool psychology still in play. The pack mentality still exists. They kill the bad guy and all cheer as if it was a touchdown at homecoming.
I guess if you need an army you sure don’t want to have people reflecting on the rightness or wrongness of killing or questioning the actions of the group. The flip side is that you have well trained immature kids out in hot situations which means that acts of stupidity are bound to happen when proper adult supervision (meaning older officers or leaders) is absent.
It was a day and a half later, and he had (allegedly) felt well enough to engage in combat - if he gonna bleed to death, what’s taking so long?
I can only quote South Park - “never trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn’t die.”
Regards,
Shodan
There is no evidence that he engaged in any more combat.