What about the grief of the children?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041116/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_investigation_dc

ok i was reading this and it occurred to me that many of the soldiers are trying to justify this particular marine's actions. Many site stressfull conditions and extenuating circumstances such as "maybe his two buddies were killed in fallujah".

I wonder if one of the children from fallujah, or afghanistan, or a bunch of other places, whose whole family was killed as a result of US bombing, then killed a US president, would their extenuating circumstances and grief be taken into account in their trial? or would it be deemed as politically motivated and not really their fault?

oh and before i get any more intelligent responses like "asshole" (that took a lot of thought Z28Josh), "Fuck You" Murco, or "Fuck Off" thegladhatter . I'm just asking a question, if you don't have anything worth saying remember... its better to shut the fuck up and let people think you're stupid than open your mouth (or your keyboard) and prove it.

Are they trying to justify his actions or are they trying to give reasons why it happened?
Under the right circumstance anyone can become a killer. He may have finally gotten to that point. I am sure it's tough over there. It would be an easy place to loose it and go on a rampage if you were so inclined.

Also, killing a president is different. Now if they killed a soldier over there.....Oh, never mind. That's happening already.

what you said is very true and i feel sorry for EVERYONE that is over there. It can't be easy, and would be difficult to remain rational. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN JUSTIFY AND ESTABLISH CAUSE (WHY?).

My point was more aligned to questioning when peoples conditions and imposed stress started being taken into account.

I fail to see why killing a president is any different if it was their orders that made the bombs fall indiscriminately. In other countries presidents and heads of state have had to account for war crimes.

good point with the soldier though, people on both sides have been killed unarmed, and there is always people saying it is terrible and always people saying it is justified. I think if anything this demonstrates that to claim that any good/evil claims are complete crap.

along those lines... and your "thats happening already" lines. I wonder whether those same soldiers were as quick to look at "why it happened" when the WTC got hit? I am NOT justifying that nor would i, but i don't think people tend to look for why in instances like that, nor would those soldiers ask for the "terrorists" prior conditions to be taken into account, just their actions.

I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong."

I would love to meet this bastard in person. The guy was unarmed and wounded, what possible threat can he be? These are the type of people that give the other marines a bad name.

Not saying that it shouldnt be investigated, as it should be, however you have to keep in mind that there have been instances in which people have been playing dead and had explosives concealed on them. That seems like a very plausable reason to me.

Trd have you seen the beheading video? Neither of the victims look armed or dangerous to me. However the US military seems to be held to a higher standard than other armies of the world. The french shooting into a crowd of unarmed protesters is considered less volatile than this, and I remember it being justified by Taranaki, saying that some of them were cannibals. There is no way to justify a soldiers actions of killing an unarmed enemy on the ground, but lets be honest about this, it has happened in every war that has been fought by man. Soldiers enduring constant fear of Death and possibly torture every day endure tremendous mental anguish. Some take it better than others, obviously this soldier couldn't take it anymore probably because of some of the things that had happend to him earlier in the day such as what Tehvisseeus's said.

NEITHER? there have been more than two beheadings, the majority have not been americans.

i don't hold the US military to a higher standard... it's just the US is the only developed nation invading other countries on a regular basis. The US military has also been caught out killing unarmed people a lot lately, most has been due to stupid use of firepower, showing no discretion. this however (unfortunately) shows something far more intimate.

now i don't think we should get into comparing numbers of unarmed people killed, especially civilians, because we have done that before and all know the results.

I put this thread in cause i was shocked by comments like the one Raz quoted.... that doesn't sound like the marines even care that the guy was unarmed. I know these things could happen by accident, particularly with the pressure, but when looking at it in hindsight with attitudes like that.... you wonder just how much of an "accident" it was and how much of a premedative culture exists within those troops.

If you were there, you might understand it. I once fired on five "unarmed" civilians, because it looked like they were either planting rice, or mines. I called for arty, but they delayed, wanting me to be sure of what they were doing. Luckily, a Korean army major came along and immediately called a Korean artillery unit to fire, which they did, relieving me of the duty. The "innocent civilians" were vaporized. Did I feel bad about it? NO. It's just the way it is. Shit happens. Save the touchy-feely stuff for campus. It doesn't work in the real world.

did it turn out that they were planting mines?

I never found out. It happens, and you don't dwell on it. I had never really given it that much thought until the subject came up here.

mmm... that WAS lucky then.

see when marines put so little thought into their actions, value other peoples lives so little....

how do you expect anybody to give them any respect?

and when america holds so few responsible for what is criminal activity, how do you expect the rest of the world to respect america?

buildings fall down...shit happens. don't get upset about it.

When the rest of the world hears shit like this and other instances like the Abu Gharib prison incident, the integrity of the US soldiers gets shot to hell. And now you wonder why people think that the marines are being blamed for civilian casualties.
There is your reason...not necessarily because of what happened, but more of what was said from the other marines. Its sad to see others favouring this type of behaviour.

......and I remember it being justified by Taranaki, saying that some of them were cannibals.

WTF?
Hello...reality check here......

Go back and check.You are the first person to ever use the word 'cannibals' in this forum.If you intend quoting me as a source, please goet it right.

Trd have you seen the beheading video? Neither of the victims look armed or dangerous to me. However the US military seems to be held to a higher standard than other armies of the world.

The US forces are there because Bush claims to be fighting terrorists.Of course the Marines are expected to behave to a higher standard than the terrorists, or the reason for their being there becomes transparently bogus.

It's bogus anyway,Bush just wants control of the oil, but at least do us the courtesy of pretending to give a damn about human rights.

If you were there, you might understand it. I once fired on five "unarmed" civilians, because it looked like they were either planting rice, or mines. I called for arty, but they delayed, wanting me to be sure of what they were doing. Luckily, a Korean army major came along and immediately called a Korean artillery unit to fire, which they did, relieving me of the duty. The "innocent civilians" were vaporized. Did I feel bad about it? NO. It's just the way it is. Shit happens. Save the touchy-feely stuff for campus. It doesn't work in the real world.

America lost that war as well, didn't they?

That depends on who you ask. A soldier doesn't lose or win, he just shows up, does his job, and hopes the politicians make the right decisions. In the case of Kennedy, he fucked up. And as far as Marines looking bad, that's bullshit. They do a job that no-one else does, or can do. I hope they clear this Marine of wrongdoing

I hope they clear this Marine of wrongdoing

he shot an unarmed man laying at his feet. If that is not wrongdoing, then I'm stumped to figure out a better definition for the word. Bush claims to be fighting a war against terror,this Marine should not be allowed to get away with terrorist-style execution.

Clinton bombed an aspirin factory full of civilians. Were you as outraged then?

The unarmed civilian was in the wrong freaking place! He should NOT have been there.

I think WAY too many people are WAY too quick to pass judgement on this guy.

The unarmed civilian was in the wrong freaking place! He should NOT have been there.





I would think that the is good reason for "unarmed civilians" to be found in the buildings. They are called AMMO BEARERS. They are the lookouts, spies, spotters, water-bearers, radio operators, bombers, etc. But if you think they are "innocent" when staying behind after having days to leave the area, then I want to sell you some real estate.
I also question the media's use of the term "unarmed." Does that mean no weapon, or no weapom in sight? What about grenades? How does the media know that the ammo wasn't expended and the weapon thrown out the window, much less a soldier that is in a firefight. The guy that reported this had better watch his back, that's for sure. Man, I wish they would start the draft, and we could say good-bye to a lot of the whiners. Let them try combat on for size.

The unarmed civilian was in the wrong freaking place! He should NOT have been there.

Fundamental difference of opinion.The Marine should not have been there.The guy he MURDERED has every right to be in his own home town in his own home country, even if he is defending his country from a land grab of monstrous proportions.

Am I the only one to notice that every body in that building that wasn't US military was barefoot?

I know the significance of that, but how many others do?

Am I the only one to notice that every body in that building that wasn't US military was barefoot?

I know the significance of that, but how many others do?

Well spotted,T4. Would lend support to any argument that the murder victim and the other occupants were not some random bunch of 'insurgents' who had gone to Fallujah looking for a fight.

Clinton bombed an aspirin factory full of civilians. Were you as outraged then?

YES. :rolleyes: Perhaps you haven't figured it out yet, but most of the opposition to Bush has nothing to do with the party he represents, but the criminal actions that he represents.

The Korean war never ended. Its still ongoing - there is just no current firing going on.

The incident is being investigated. There was a second lieutenant convicted of killing an Iraqi civilian a short time ago. I didn’t see anything about that in here. Only because there is a video clip that people are all up in arms.

Let the investigation continue and see what the results are. Condemning him with only that one piece of video footage is premature but it is your entitlement.


I wonder if one of the children from fallujah, or afghanistan, or a bunch of other places, whose whole family was killed as a result of US bombing, then killed a US president, would their extenuating circumstances and grief be taken into account in their trial? or would it be deemed as politically motivated and not really their fault?

Now that was dumb piece of circular logic.

oh and before i get any more intelligent responses like "asshole" (that took a lot of thought Z28Josh), "Fuck You" Murco, or "Fuck Off" thegladhatter . I'm just asking a question, if you don't have anything worth saying remember... its better to shut the fuck up and let people think you're stupid than open your mouth (or your keyboard) and prove it.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice. :nono:














Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Am I the only one to notice that every body in that building that wasn't US military was barefoot?

I know the significance of that, but how many others do?
When you enter the mosque, you are suppose to take of foot-wear for prayer. But that is of little evidence because some can protest on the case that he may not have had shoes in the first place.

The unarmed civilian was in the wrong freaking place! He should NOT have been there.

I think WAY too many people are WAY too quick to pass judgement on this guy.

and in 1938 a bunch of jews were sure as hell in the wrong place then...

JFK was in the wrong place....

and sure as shit someone built those buildings in the wrong place...

...you were fine judging then though huh hatter?

why is everyone saying innocent civilian? all i saw was UNARMED!

it was my understanding that the person shot wasn't necessarily civilian or innocent, read the part about how a couple of days earlier the mosque was taken by force. 10 killed, 5 wounded. The wounded were meant to be picked up, but weren't. (left to die) then a few days later theres reports of people in there so they go to investigate. out of the 5 wounded, one is still alive and breathing. unarmed because they had already shot him and cleared the building. so they shot him again. ok so some is speculatation.

had they picked up the wounded in a humane and decent time frame then this would not have happened.

When you enter the mosque, you are suppose to take of foot-wear for prayer. But that is of little evidence because some can protest on the case that he may not have had shoes in the first place.

Good point, and you could second guess this aspect for some time.

Maybe his comrades took his boots since he was wounded and couldn't use them anymore.

Maybe his comrades took the boots to make sure he wasn't positively identified as a combatant by his military style footwear.

Maybe he was badly wounded and almost dead already, head 1/2 gone or something like that, and the Marine did him a service by putting him out of his misery. (Assuming I'll get a statement that the Marine wasn't a doctor, etc)


The above is speculation, but AlohaRocky has a point. The people in his example may have been planting a mine. The problem with Vietnam and now Iraq is that (regardless of gov't policies and right or wrong) the combatants on the ground are fighting for their lives. US personnel wear uniforms to be identified. The insurgents don't wear uniforms. In many cases in Vietnam, the VC would fade away and later be picking rice or going about their business. The villagers WERE the VC, they just decided to stop fighting for awhile. I believe it's the same in Iraq, the insurgents choose when and where to strike or fight or ambush, and then fade into society until the next time they have an opportunity.

It's guerrilla warfare, and the lines between right and wrong blur for the non-guerrillas, as EVERYONE they meet is potentially a deadly adversary. Did the Iraqi have a pistol or explosives on him? I haven't heard the media say.

-edit- and of course, the Iraqi in the mosque could have been a devout and innocent worshipper. If so, why did he not run when the battle started?

If you were there, you might understand it. I once fired on five "unarmed" civilians, because it looked like they were either planting rice, or mines. I called for arty, but they delayed, wanting me to be sure of what they were doing. Luckily, a Korean army major came along and immediately called a Korean artillery unit to fire, which they did, relieving me of the duty. The "innocent civilians" were vaporized. Did I feel bad about it? NO. It's just the way it is. Shit happens. Save the touchy-feely stuff for campus. It doesn't work in the real world.

did he mention Vietnam somewhere else?

see i guessed he was talking about Korea. perhaps during the war, but from the level of maturity and gun hoe-ness, i GUESSED he had been stationed on the border between north and south. Also the US artillery showing a degree of caution seemed strange for a war situation.

so where was it rocky?

Back to the footwear....

It is custom in most muslim communities to remove one's shoes when visiting a family member or friends house.

Could it be just possible that these 'insurgents' were just some poor bastard family that got in the way of the Marines? Does anyone see any evidence of weapons on the video clip?Apart from the one that the Marine points at the guy's head and fires,twice?

Yogs,I fail to see how you can put any interpretation on this video that isn't sufficient to convict that Marine of murder.

I don't see anything either. If that is all there is, then he should be conviceted.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

That video was in no way a comprehensive view of what happened, any more than a 2 second video of two cars crashing shows everything in relation to that accident. There are numerous other things that are occurring. Just the video? Yes, it does show that one able person shot another that was lying down. It does not show what dangers may have been in that room, the condition of the person that was shot, weapons, wounds, or anything else. I admit I've only seen the video twice and may have missed things. But to go solely on the video I think would be wrong in this case.

I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong."

I would love to meet this bastard in person. The guy was unarmed and wounded, what possible threat can he be? These are the type of people that give the other marines a bad name.
Ok... You were shot in the face less than 24 hours ago, you've been in a combat zone for 8 days with little sleep, everyone you've seen in that time NOT wearing a US uniform is a potential killer (and you have to find out before you engage them), your platoon-mate was just killed 15 miutes ago by a dead-body laying on a grenade, you've had dozens of "dead or dying" suddenly sit up and try to kill you over the past 3 months, and a grenade on this body would kill everyone in the room - you've seen it happen a few times. I may have handled it differently but, I nor you are there.
The "kid killing the President" example is completely different as his actions would be deliberate and premeditated.
The anti-Bush crowd is so willing to jump on this story that has so many unanswered questions (was the guy really alive?) and portray this Marine, and the administration as evil.
They completely ignore the Hassan murder that was reported the same day and the killers are getting a free pass as their heinous act was justified. This after Al Jazeera (the terrorist network) even refused to air video of her murder!

i love it... now the media are terrorists if they air the wrong thing.

that must be why they get shot at so much.

The "innocent civilians" were vaporized. Did I feel bad about it? NO. It's just the way it is. Shit happens. Save the touchy-feely stuff for campus. It doesn't work in the real world.
Ok, Aloha, I'm as gung-ho as a former combat Marine can be and your post made me cringe...
The guy that reported this had better watch his back, that's for sure. Man, I wish they would start the draft, and we could say good-bye to a lot of the whiners.
Cringed again...
America lost that war as well, didn't they?
Korea was never settled, technically you could say it was a draw.

Murco,
1.Read over everything I have posted, I am not condemming the marine for doing what he did. I'm more enraged at what the others are saying about the situation.
2.You have to look at what was going on to understand why he did it...you also have to look into all other cases where unarmed civilians were killed to make sure none of the marines are cmmiting war crimes for shits and giggles.
3. Al Jazeera is no more a terrorist media as Fox News is a pro-Bush propoganda bullshit making machine.

When the rest of the world hears shit like this and other instances like the Abu Gharib prison incident, the integrity of the US soldiers gets shot to hell..
Mostly by reporters who don't show both sides of the situation. Yes, the abu-gharib photo-session was humiliating (what idiot decided to do that for pictures?!) but this same prison was the setting for other horrendous acts before.
In February 1998, 400 prisoners at Abu Gharaib prison were executed summarily. Two months later, 100 detainees from Radwaniyah Prison were buried alive in a pit in Ramadi province. These killings were supposed to "clean out" the prisons.
Our soldiers acts were stupid, but not deadly. Your drawing a conclusion from this "murder" and that stupidity is somewhat foolish....

that (if it occurred) was in 1998. I thought America was meant to be helping these people and ending these atrocities? not just changing the flag under which they were carried out.

also. Bush is all in favour of executions.

AND as long as you are drawing comparisons between those executions and the actions of the marines. It's important to remember that even in American culture and social values, which you would expect to be engrained in marines. Execution is allowable, when sentanced by the state, however torture and humiliation are not. How you can say sure we can kill people but must treat them humanely at home, but away from home we can abuse them is beyond me!

ALSO for america to say another country is wrong for it's laws is a bit strange considering to many countries Americas laws are flawed. I AM NOT saying i think what you SAY happened in Iraq was right or fair. But i don't think the fact that 7% of executions in america are innocent people is fair either. Nor do i agree with many other laws. But I don't suggest that people could be held accountable to another countries laws when their actions are carried out in a country that allows it. OR that they should be necessarily reinstated for the fact that what they did was perfectly legal in another country! if they were in prison its quite conceivable they were there for a reason.

i love it... now the media are terrorists if they air the wrong thing.
Al-jazeera has been a media outlet for the Jihadist long before this war. You can't say they show both sides of an issue, they never have. I don't know if it's fear of Jihadist reprisal or blind islamism but they have never reported any pro-American stories and I'm personally amazed that we haven't even attempted to block the signals from their sattelites just to minimize the "call to arms"... That is one of the first steps when engaging an enemy, control the media...
Here come the comments about Fox.... :rolleyes:

I thought America was meant to be helping these people and ending these atrocities? not just changing the flag under which they were carried out.
I can't believe you are equating anonymous pictures of some guys nutsacks, as perverse as it is, with mass-murders! Photographed stupidity is not an atrocity...

Murco,
1.Read over everything I have posted, I am not condemming the marine for doing what he did. I'm more enraged at what the others are saying about the situation.. The "others" are Marines who are facing the same situation as the shooter every day. His expression was probably more of support for is fellow Marine who now faces a trial, not the act itself. Also, was he quoted accurately?
2.You have to look at what was going on to understand why he did it...you also have to look into all other cases where unarmed civilians were killed to make sure none of the marines are commiting war crimes for shits and giggles.. Marines (and I've trained 100's of them) are not murderous criminals, they are professional people whos goal is to accomplish missions while inflicting as little harm to everyone they can. They kill when they must and are well trained about just when that point is.
3. Al Jazeera is no more a terrorist media as Fox News is a pro-Bush propoganda bullshit making machine.Others in this forum have asserted that Fox is a right-wing newsgroup, I felt it was appropriate to point out Al-jizeera's political position.

ok ok, let's all settle down and lok over this one more time.

1.US marines stormed the mosque killing 10 men and wounding five. Those 5 were treated and the marines left them there.
2. The next day, marines went into the mosque and founf those same 5 men were there.....so under Geneva Conventions, which states clearly that, "protection of wounded combatants once they are out of action is an absolute requirement."
3. It has been said in the first reports that man didn't seem to be armed or threatening in any way...also no weapons were found in the mosque.

Murco, the fact that you know there will be comments reflects the fact that you aknowlege the similarities.

Al-jazeera has been a media outlet for the Jihadist long before this war. You can't say they show both sides of an issue, they never have. I don't know if it's fear of Jihadist reprisal or blind islamism but they have never reported any pro-American stories and I'm personally amazed that we haven't even attempted to block the signals from their sattelites just to minimize the "call to arms"... That is one of the first steps when engaging an enemy, control the media...
Here come the comments about Fox.... :rolleyes:.

Murco, the fact that you know there will be comments reflects the fact that you aknowlege the similarities.

I can't believe you are equating anonymous pictures of some guys nutsacks, as perverse as it is, with mass-murders! Photographed stupidity is not an atrocity...

where is the line drawn between murder and state sponsored execution? eg. Bush killed 153 as governor, and more as President... was that murder? the standards are multiplying.....

The "others" are Marines who are facing the same situation as the shooter every day. His expression was probably more of support for is fellow Marine who now faces a trial, not the act itself. Also, was he quoted accurately?

was georgie boy quoted correctly when he said there were WMD ready for deployment in Iraq? that seargent in particular was a sick fuck... some of the soldiers sounded like they offered support and sympathy of the situation (which is good)... but when they are outranked on the ground by a sick fuck with stripes....

ok ok, let's all settle down and lok over this one more time.

1.US marines stormed the mosque killing 10 men and wounding five. Those 5 were treated and the marines left them there.
2. The next day, marines went into the mosque and founf those same 5 men were there.....so under Geneva Conventions, which states clearly that, "protection of wounded combatants once they are out of action is an absolute requirement."
3. It has been said in the first reports that man didn't seem to be armed or threatening in any way...also no weapons were found in the mosque.
2-"Once they are out of action" - It wasn't a certainty that they were out of action... And if they aren't member of a formal army, wear uniforms, answer to a central authority, or follow the international laws of warfare I don't really see them as combatants protected under Geneva standards. They were thug criminals...
3-"Didn't seem to be armed or threatening" - Keyword here, seem..

actually i'd say "didn't" was fairly important...

likke didn't have weapons, didn't do anything but breath, didn't have the ability to get away.

it really doesn't matter what you see, they are protected at LEAST as enemy combatants, and SHOULD be protected as POW's under the geoneva convention. WHICH i might add is a voluntary set of standards for the signiataries to adhere to, NOT a standard that must be followed by non-member nations. much like the Kyoto agreement, or the Hague war crimes tribunal which because the US refuses to aknowlege can't touch bush for war crimes. AS SUCH... regardless of whether the people they are fighting in iraq follow the geoneva conventions, they must be treated with the respect that the convention demands. As the US has declared "war on terror" and "war" on Iraq, these people are Prisoners of War, regardless of whether they are terrorists or Iraqi freedom fighters.

you are trying to justify the US's failure to adhere to international standards of human rights and treatment. These days they don't sign international rights agreements or anything that they might have to break later, unfortunately, they signed the geoneva convention, perhaps they were more humane then and didn't see where their nation was headed, and so now they make excuses not to follow it.

as far as not wearing a uniform goes.... if publishing your uniform and having it accepted by your enemy is the standard by which to judge, what would you describe the americans who faught for liberation from the British as? if they didn't have a uniform they weren't an army.
the uniform of terrorists is plain clothes... now you say that is not a uniform, but as i said, just because you dont like their uniform doesn't mean that its not one. too hard to see who to shoot? set a standard, lobby for the US to stop using camoflague! those standards are getting further and further apart!

Yeah that was over 200 years ago to... We were colonies of farmers and small business owners, what's their excuse for not having uniforms?

They dont wear uniforms to blend in with the civilians, why? Because we're not SUPPOSED to fire on civilians....

Murco, the fact that you know there will be comments reflects the fact that you aknowlege the similarities.
Or that your responses are so predictable...

where is the line drawn between murder and state sponsored execution? eg. Bush killed 153 as governor, and more as President... was that murder? the standards are multiplying.....
....
Apples and oranges, again...

it really doesn't matter what you see, they are protected at LEAST as enemy combatants, and SHOULD be protected as POW's under the geoneva convention. WHICH i might add is a voluntary set of standards for the signiataries to adhere to, NOT a standard that must be followed by non-member nations.unfortunately, they signed the geoneva convention, perhaps they were more humane then and didn't see where their nation was headed, and so now they make excuses not to follow it.
I'll concede that we are bound by the convention, which we agreed to, and there are certain protections afforded the Iraqi rebels. In the vast majority of situations we follow those standards to a tee but there are occasional situations, like this one, that defy standards set forth in that agreement...

An Al Queda "freedom fighter" took an Iraqi officer's wife hostage, and ended up killing her. Guess he didn't read the Geneva Convention, huh? Those Al Queda are so brave, they kill women and children intentionally, all day, every day. No wonder the libs are so in awe of them.

Margaret Hassan. Nuff said.

Yeah that was over 200 years ago to... We were colonies of farmers and small business owners, what's their excuse for not having uniforms?

They dont wear uniforms to blend in with the civilians, why? Because we're not SUPPOSED to fire on civilians....

doesn't seem to stop you though does it.

perhaps they would rather spend their money on weapons ammunition so they can kill the imperialist pigs that invade their country. food or perhaps medicine since the US army (said pigs) are refusing the red cresent access to the civilians.

why do they need to wear uniforms? just cause you don't like it doesn't mean that they should make it easy. if your so obsessed with a fair fight... get your tanks and aircraft out of the country. I seriously doubt that the us would be so hasty in picking fights and unlawfully invading another country if they had to fight on equal footing. you don't make it easy for them, i fail to see why you expect them to do the same for you. Next you'll be bitching cause they keep ducking. perhaps that will be the excuse for killing civilians as they sleep... they kept ducking during the day!

US army (said pigs)
Is this a NZ thing?
I swear between you taranaki you guys have cornered the market on hate America rhetoric.

To each his own I suppose. You guys have sure changed my opinion of NZ'rs though.

i was trying to look at it from an iraqi perspective....
to say they aren't prisoners of war because they don't wear the same uniforms is rediculous. I wonder whether that argument was brought up when people stopped wearing red in battle, or again when people started using camo?

I don't hate america, but i hate what america does, and increasingly rather than america representing the west... america is representing america, drawing its own new category. When i was younger i hated the british for the same sort of things historically, now america is having its own little colonial reich today in front of the world, and i am meant to draw some sort of double standard and suddenly like it?

and again you show your ignorance rocky, as i have said previously, countries that are not signiataries, (or groups in this case) do not have to follow it. When america refuses to be held accountable for its actions, refuses to acknowlege the world court or war crimes tribunal, or the kyoto protocol, and so doesn't sign them, it would be completely double standards to expect another body to follow something they did not sign up for.

Apples and oranges, again...

"In February 1998, 400 prisoners at Abu Gharaib prison were executed summarily. Two months later, 100 detainees from Radwaniyah Prison were buried alive in a pit in Ramadi province. These killings were supposed to "clean out" the prisons....."

apples and oranges.... i agree though. There is a definate difference between state executions (right or wrong) and acts of murder. You brought up the executions in iraq so i thought it was worth looking at the fact that is accepted in the US, it would be a double standard to say "we can do it but you are evil if you do". it's important to look at whether actions were taken in accordance with any legislation in effect in that juristiction.

So by that argument, what is the law in Iraq? Do we go by the Islamic law, the regime law that Saddam had in effect, US Martial law, the law as seen by the Geneva Convention, or the law of survival? It's just a bunged up confusing situation, and one young Marine did something in the heat of the moment.

I haven't seen any reports from media that is with the Iraqi forces, even back when it was army vs army.

well back in 1998 it was sadams law... like its bush's law in america (ok so not ALL bush's law)

in iraq the US troops are required to follow the geneva convention as a start. Supplemental to that i am sure that there are laws regarding murder in place in Iraq, there is probably even parking fines! IF this is not an army, and if there is no law against murder, then they could kill as many marines as they want.

as far as marines go, i think their rules of engagement would have something about shooting unarmed wounded people. I was always taught that going against rules of engagement like that would have me on a murder charge.... but i guess americans are immune to that sort of thing.

well back in 1998 it was sadams law... like its bush's law in america (ok so not ALL bush's law)


as far as marines go, i think their rules of engagement would have something about shooting unarmed wounded people. I was always taught that going against rules of engagement like that would have me on a murder charge.....

The reality is you take prisoners IF YOU CAN. If you do not have men or time to spare, you just don't leave them to shoot the next man in the back. My only regret to this story is that the ranking Marine in that room did not have the experience or foresight to make sure that tape didn't leave the room. I bet it won't happen next time. That marine is worth a hundred reporters any day, at least to me..

I'm Not Sure If I Want You To Sign Up And Go Over There To Get Shot Or Whether I Think You Should Not Be Allowed Out Of America. You Honestly Confuse Me.

LOL, get unconfused. Go sign up and you'll be a changed man, I assure you. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Right now you're talking from a know-nothing position, and it's truly sad, but at the same time, amusing.