support the Marine acused of murder

Yes, the enemy is always the most dangerous when he's too weak to be able to do anything at all.
The stupid get no support from me. :)

What would we do if everybody who was charged with murder just said "I didn't know he wasn't the guy I wanted to kill. I wanted kill somebody else, this was just an accident." Should we let them go, because everybody makes mistakes every now and then?

These terrorists do not follow the rules of war.

Perhaps not, but just because they don't doesn't mean he doesn't have to either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No way in hell I'm signing that BS.

So if this Marine is not going to be held accountable for his actions, who is?

Perhaps there should be a parallel petition to impeach the man who started this war in the first place.

Signed it.

Considering the fact that insurgents have been boobytrapping bodies, I cant say that if I was in that situation that I wouldn't have done the same.

I'm just going to use my old man's quote when i asked him about this. "Our soldiers shouldn't even be there."

I'll sign it just because I can.

Signed

I don't see how our guys manage to think straight in such a harsh environment, but they do. They should be applauded not charged.

Tehvisseeus has it right

If he killed somone he should be charged, why not? Cop kills somone they'll get strung up by their balls, why not do the same to the soldier who does the same thing? Only difference is the victim wasn't an american.

Signed it.

Considering the fact that insurgents have been boobytrapping bodies,


I fail to see the relevance of this statement.The murderer fired his weapon because he believed his victim was still alive.

There seems to be a notion that somehow it's ok for bad things to happen in good wars.I'd go along with that notion,save for the fact that this is not a 'good' war.It's been a pack of lies from the word go.

Ask yourself who was responsible for Sept 11.Was it a bunch of 'insurgents' fighting for their own country in Fallujah? Like fuck.

This war is a crock and the man that started it should be impeached.

So if this Marine is not going to be held accountable for his actions, who is?

Exactly. Heaven forbid an almighty holy saint of the United States of America, righteous saviors of the world, would have to take responsibility for his actions! :eek::rolleyes:
I don't see how our guys manage to think straight in such a harsh environment, but they do.
I'm not sure I'd call blasting a wounded, unarmed man in the face "thinking straight..."

ya bunch of cry babies.

ya bunch of cry babies.
lol, ran out of logical arguments so resort to name-calling.


that's very mature of you.

Considering that his buddy was killed two days before in a similar incident where a suspected terrorist blew himself up. Then the marine being injured the prior day from a similar incident and then seeing the possibility of it happening again he did what he was trained to do. He felt his life could be in danger and the guy may blow himself up as had happened previously. I support the marine he did nothing wrong.

ya bunch of cry babies.

If you expect the world to value the lives of those who perished in the World Trade Center, please don't get pathetic when we value the lives of other people that we never met.

Considering that his buddy was killed two days before in a similar incident where a suspected terrorist blew himself up. Then the marine being injured the prior day from a similar incident and then seeing the possibility of it happening again he did what he was trained to do. He felt his life could be in danger and the guy may blow himself up as had happened previously. I support the marine he did nothing wrong.

That is the justification that has been formulated by the pro-war lobby....Do you have any evidence to back it up?

That is the justification that has been formulated by the pro-war lobby....Do you have any evidence to back it up?

Do you have any evidence to back your opnion up?

I signed it, I can't say I would of done anything differently. If they played by the same rules as the Americans then it was uncalled for but when they put bombs under dead terrorists, kill their own kind its to be expected.

There is one problem with "he shot him because he though he was boobytrapped" argument: He got close to him. You don't get close to someone who might have a a bomb since that would be suicide. So that argument would work only if he would've shot him from a distance.

Yes, the enemy is always the most dangerous when he's too weak to be able to do anything at all.
The stupid get no support from me. :)

What would we do if everybody who was charged with murder just said "I didn't know he wasn't the guy I wanted to kill. I wanted kill somebody else, this was just an accident." Should we let them go, because everybody makes mistakes every now and then?
There is a pretty big difference between just murdering somebody and somebody being a victim in a war.

There is a pretty big difference between just murdering somebody and somebody being a victim in a war.

Exactly.If you die in a firefight,you are a victim of war.
If you are shot twice in the head while laying on the ground and showing no sign of threat,you are murdered.

okay

You know what my answer is. What the soldier did was wrong. The insurgent hid with those bodies to try and escape. So that means that he did not want to die, so the bodies he hid near probably were not booby trapped, or if they were, he would have disarmed them. The soldier could have easily arrested him. Life inprisonment I say.

I don't see how our guys manage to think straight in such a harsh environment, but they do. They should be applauded not charged.
Yes, everybody who kills men who are barely capable of breathing and are waiting for medical help should recieve a standing ovation.
Everybody who decides to throw away common sense and rational thought in the face of no apparent danger deserves much respect!
That you believe the soldier was "thinking straight" says alot about your thinking.
He felt his life could be in danger and the guy may blow himself up as had happened previously.
So he walked up to him at point blank range, so he could get himself out of harms way... I see we have some more "straight" thinking going on here. :) "hey that guy may be boobytrapped with explosives which could harm us if we were close to him, let's walk up real close to him so we're not in danger" That argument makes alot of sense. :grinno:

There is one problem with "he shot him because he though he was boobytrapped" argument: He got close to him. You don't get close to someone who might have a a bomb since that would be suicide. So that argument would work only if he would've shot him from a distance.
Who here has been in combat? The marine shot him because he was faking his death. Now you can think about this two ways. 1.) The insurgent was faking his death so he could get away. Which in my opinion is unlikley since he knows that the Americans have the best medical support anywhere, and the rest of the town is crawling with marines. 2.)He is faking his death so the marines will be careless around him which gives him a chance to attack. This is more reasonable since it has happened more than once during the fallujah take over. And if he wanted to give up why not put his hands in the air?

When I went to Iraq I told myself that I wasnt going to die because I was worried about making a mistake.

And as for neutrino-The marine was already in the room before he knew their were insurgents lying on the floor. As soon as he saw the insurgent move he yelled twice then shot him in the head (a good double tap i might add!) So how could he shoot him from a distance when they are doing room to room fighting? And in my opinion the marine did not shoot him becuase he thought he was booby trapped. He shot him because he was moving and could still inflict harm on him and his fellow marines I.E. grenade, explosive!

Anyways, nobody could possibly know what they would do in that situation. Not even a combat experienced person like myself.

Anyways, nobody could possibly know what they would do in that situation. Not even a combat experienced person like myself.
I don't know... a lot of losers seem to think they know EVERYTHING!!

Yes, everybody who kills men who are barely capable of breathing and are waiting for medical help should recieve a standing ovation.
Everybody who decides to throw away common sense and rational thought in the face of no apparent danger deserves much respect!
That you believe the soldier was "thinking straight" says alot about your thinking.



Some reality show should send everyday people into Iraq with a U.S. uniform and an M4A1 to see how they do in a similar situation. I/m sure they would manage to kill a civilain or even worse a friendly.

Our guys are doing the impossible, but when they make one mistake they are attacked as if their error was as simple as 2+2=3.

I've never been in a real combat situation. I've only played airsoft where the penalty for loosing is laying in the sun for 15 minutes, then walking back to the trucks to get some water. Even in a game which is a million times less sress full everyone makes similar mistakes

I don't know... a lot of losers seem to think they know EVERYTHING!!

indeed. :rolleyes:

From what I know about the crime, If he ends up being found guilty by whatever millitary court he's tried by he should be given 25-life with parole and lots of time with a shrink. If he infact was searching a building that had been bombarded or something with dead 'insurgents' all over and the dude moved suspiciously then yea I can see him shooting. If it wasn't a building that had 'insurgents' in it with 100% certanty then string him up for killing somone who he couldent have known was a regular innocent person. Don't tell me that he was just protecting himself or any other soldiers because they all know they are there for the greater good and they know their lives are at risk to protect the greater good eg. innocent people... that is why we're there right? Liberation? :sadwavey:

The actions of this marine are a symptom of a larger problem. This war is an unwinnable mess. There is no way that troops should be used as 'policemen' to keep the peace in an extremely dangerous environment. There is no way they must be forced to make a split decision about who is an innocent civilian and who is an 'enemy combatant' when they all look and behave the same.

If the US wants to continue this disgraceful mess, do not engage in the hypocracy of putting your troops on trial. If they believe this marine is a murderer, then they should be consistent in their logic and get all the troops out.

lol, ran out of logical arguments so resort to name-calling.


that's very mature of you.

Thanks.

Actually that is called sarcasim.

But if you want arguements then I don't mind indulging.

The man the Marine killed most likely killed his share of this marines fellow soldiers or at the very least tried to. Should I feel bad for this guy? You give me a reason. This "militant" or whatever you want to call him ( I call him a radical mulsim extremest) was clearly this marines enemy. This marine was shot just days before. This marine was in a hostile country (and I don't give a crap why he was there so don't start on that)surrounded by hostile people who would do the same or worse to him given half a chance. Should I feel bad for this radical? Give me a reason. Should this marine be courtmarshled? This marine should be released from duty. His job is done.

I'm seeing an awful lot of people saying "If they're going to fight that way we can too..." Two wrongs don't make a right! If you commit war crimes "because the Iraqis did first," you've still committed war crimes - and you have just become hypocrytical, since this whole war is more or less about "liberating" the Iraqi people from a "known war criminal."

The marine shot him because he was faking his death.

OH! Was he now. Funny, everything I've seen seems to indicate he was one of five previously wounded Iraqis who were waiting for Marine evacuation so they could get medical treatment...


I can understand that it's extremely stressful over there, and that these marines are scared for their own lives. However, these are men that have been trained by "the greatest military in the world" to not make mistakes. If we let him away with murder because he was stressed out and scared, then we have set a precedent, and must now let every stressed out, scared person away with murder...

Just a quick question.... Do we all honestly think we can change eachothers minds about polotics by arguing over stuff like this? I don't, I am here because I want to listen to the arguments of all sides, and give my input.

If you expect the world to value the lives of those who perished in the World Trade Center, please don't get pathetic when we value the lives of other people that we never met.

I expect nothing of the world. I could care less what the world thinks about about the wtc incident. What matters to me is what I think about it. So feel free to feel bad about this person who is in the middle of a war with one purpose in mind. Kill anyone who isn't part of his twisted little clan.

i will sign no petition. that doesnt mean i dont feel for this guy.

he might have made a mistake, but even non intentional homicide is tried in civilian courts. mistake or not, we must hold our military to the same standards we hold our civilians.

So feel free to feel bad about this person who is in the middle of a war with one purpose in mind. Kill anyone who isn't part of his twisted little clan.
Mr. Mind Reader. How do you know he wasn't scared shitless, like many US Marines are, and just wanted to be left alone, so he huddled there quietly?

Consider, perhaps Iraqis have sober minds, fears, loves, emotions just like Americans. Maybe this guy had a family he just wanted to keep safe? How would you react if you were in his shoes - wounded, hiding out for the enemy to leave? What if it were the Iraqis in the US, and were storming a church you were hiding out in, so you could get one last glimpse of your family?

Thanks.

Actually that is called sarcasim.

But if you want arguements then I don't mind indulging.

The man the Marine killed most likely killed his share of this marines fellow soldiers or at the very least tried to. Should I feel bad for this guy? You give me a reason. This "militant" or whatever you want to call him ( I call him a radical mulsim extremest) was clearly this marines enemy. This marine was shot just days before. This marine was in a hostile country (and I don't give a crap why he was there so don't start on that)surrounded by hostile people who would do the same or worse to him given half a chance. Should I feel bad for this radical? Give me a reason. Should this marine be courtmarshled? This marine should be released from duty. His job is done.

So..

in summary..

You assume that the victim was a killer...NO PROOF.
You call him a radical Muslim extremist.....NO PROOF.
You don't give a crap why the Marines are there........YOU SHOULD.
Surrounded by hostile people....yep,they're other Marines.Presumably you can't be calling the dead and wounded inside the mosque hostile,unless your dictionary is written different to the rest of us.

This Marine should be put on trial.It's the only way that all of the facts will be made public.

I'll sign it just because I can.

i think this is the smartest thing anyone on this forum has said.
he'll sign it because he can, and if it wasnt for that marine and every other marine, soldier, sailor and airman thought has fought and died for this country maybe we wouldnt be able to sign it.

i am a marine(retired) and i think we should destroy anything and everything that tries to stop us from completing our mission.

and for you tree huggers who think its wrong for us to be there remember, the only reason you can stand up and speak your mind is because of all of our victories and losses as a country.

i am a marine(retired) and i think we should destroy anything and everything that tries to stop us from completing our mission.
So whats our mission?
and for you tree huggers who think its wrong for us to be there remember, the only reason you can stand up and speak your mind is because of all of our victories and losses as a country.
Does that me we shouldent examine possible wrong doing?

I can only hope "acteg97" is just some person who randomly made up a profile just to post that BS and get people angry at soldiers. I myself support the soldiers on a humanistic level, as in one person caring for the life of another in their pursuits (even though I do NOT support the war, or the soldier mentality.) That being said, I feel the soldier in question should be held accountable for his actions- whether a guilty or innocent verdict is reached, it stands that a trial is still necessary. I'll put it to you this way: if the role was reversed, and it was a member of the Iraqi militia who shot a marine who had killed his friend (leaving him potentially fearing for his own life in a close-quarters situation like that) would "the enemy" put their own man on trial? I'm assuming most here (on either side of the issue) would say no. And yet, in the same breath, supporters wouldn't hesitate to call the enemy barbarians who obviously have little respect for human life if they're willing to kill an american soldier laying prone on the ground. What we have here is a bad case of double standards -- the viewpoint is suddenly reversed since the shoe is on the other foot. And so, if we DON'T try this marine for his actions, how can anyone expect to justify our methods as any better than "the enemy?" Any attempt to do so would merely be a result of seeing it from our particular bias. Well, guess what they're doing on the other side? Suddenly it's not so clear as good vs. bad.

i think this is the smartest thing anyone on this forum has said.
he'll sign it because he can, and if it wasnt for that marine and every other marine, soldier, sailor and airman thought has fought and died for this country maybe we wouldnt be able to sign it.

i am a marine(retired) and i think we should destroy anything and everything that tries to stop us from completing our mission.

and for you tree huggers who think its wrong for us to be there remember, the only reason you can stand up and speak your mind is because of all of our victories and losses as a country.

This post is so wrong on all levels. :disappoin

The argument that every war is critical to every Americans right to free speech is an outright lie. It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Saddam did not have the capability to launch attacks on the US,nor has it been proven that he intended to develop and use such weapons.This war is more about controlling overseas interests than any noble 'cause'.

If you are retired, your 'mission' is over.Leave the issuing of orders to the smarter guys at HQ. If there are any.Thoroun is not the only person wondering what the mission is.First up it was capture the WMD[but that was always a lie]. The real mission was to 'get Saddam'. Of course, because the Bush family hated him, it followed that the Iraqis would be delighted to let America take over their country,right?Sorry,wrong. The current operations against 'insurgents' are nothing more than attempting to crush resistance to ongoing US interference in the Middle East.

Too many Marines and too many Iraqis have died at the whim of George W Bush.His mission is a failure, and only brute force and ignorance is keeping him in control of Iraq.The 'insurgents' that he has ordered slaughtered have more right to Iraq than he does.Somebody give him a loaded pistol and tell him to do the decent thing.

Your final insult, collectively labelling anyone who objects as 'tree huggers' shows a total lack of understanding of the issues. 48 % of Americans told Bush to get lost at the last election.95% of the rest of the world feels the same way.

Mr. Mind Reader. How do you know he wasn't scared shitless, like many US Marines are, and just wanted to be left alone, so he huddled there quietly?

Consider, perhaps Iraqis have sober minds, fears, loves, emotions just like Americans. Maybe this guy had a family he just wanted to keep safe? How would you react if you were in his shoes - wounded, hiding out for the enemy to leave? What if it were the Iraqis in the US, and were storming a church you were hiding out in, so you could get one last glimpse of your family?

He had the same chance to leave that tens of thousands took. The ones that stayed behind stated for one reason. To whoever wasn't in their clan.

So..

in summary..

You assume that the victim was a killer...NO PROOF.

You assume he wasn't.....NO PROOF.
You call him a radical Muslim extremist.....NO PROOF.
What do you call someone who stays in a town when they were given more than enough time to leave. Others who didn't want to be a part of what was obviously comming left. THe ones who stayed behind stayed for one reason. What do you call him?

You don't give a crap why the Marines are there........YOU SHOULD.
I'm not going to rehash that subject. It has been done to death with no results. I don't give a crap why because that's not the subject on this thread.

Surrounded by hostile people....yep,they're other Marines.Presumably you can't be calling the dead and wounded inside the mosque hostile,unless your dictionary is written different to the rest of us.
They weren't dead and wounded when they decided to hide out in the mosque in the hopes of killing were they? They made their decision and now they live(or die) with that decision.

This Marine should be put on trial.It's the only way that all of the facts will be made public.
That's not my decision to make. I can only voice my opinion.

95% of the rest of the world feels the same way.

Any proof to back this claim up or did you pull that number out of a hat?

Any proof to back this claim up or did you pull that number out of a hat?

I decided to follow the lead of the Bush apologists in this forum and start getting creative with the truth.

Incidentally 87.5% of all males over 30 called Bjorn think Bush is a total cocksucker. :icon16:

When I see news reporters trailing the insurgents, fliming their every move and catching their mistakes(if a mistake was made) then we can judge both sides.


The only good insurgent is a dead one. Once the insurgents are gone can the Americans and the civilized Iraqic citizens move on. A wounded insurgent can live to fight another day.

How many of you have seen the whole footage of this event and not just the edited version shown on your local biased news programs? None of us should be judge and jury till all the facts come out.

He had the same chance to leave that tens of thousands took. The ones that stayed behind stated for one reason. To whoever wasn't in their clan.There were many people who were left in the city who had no intent to fight, but had no where to go - hiding in their houses, burying their innocent dead in their gardens, etc.

You are probably right, he likely was an "insurgent," but my point is that you can't just objectify every Iraqi in the town as a robot with a gun and an urge to kill. Again, reverse the roles. You are a marine fighting off invading Iraqis - you've been wounded in a previous attack. You've run out of weapons and you're scared for your life. The Iraqis, a group claiming to be a humanitarian, civilized bunch claim they will return to give you medical care so you can see your family again. You're more or less the only remaining living American in the building when a large group of armed Iraqis storms in again. Wounded, unarmed, and hugely outnumbered, would you try to attack, or wait innocently for help?What do you call someone who stays in a town when they were given more than enough time to leave. Others who didn't want to be a part of what was obviously comming left. THe ones who stayed behind stayed for one reason. What do you call him?Radical, extremist, sure, but "Muslim" is a prejudice.

Anyways, I must applaud the strange ability of many Americans to be able to be fully convinced that their cause is right and true, and that the rest of the world has got it all wrong - I wish I could have that level of conviction, it would certainly make life a whole lot simpler...

You assume he wasn't.....NO PROOF.

What do you call someone who stays in a town when they were given more than enough time to leave. Others who didn't want to be a part of what was obviously comming left. THe ones who stayed behind stayed for one reason. What do you call him?



If it was your town, what would you do? Run away?

Your president has invaded their country and is culpable for every murder committed so that he may continue his occupation.The 'free elections' will be a joke,with only 'approved candidates' being allowed to stand.
The new government will be seen as lackeys to UScommercial interests and attacked at every opportunity.Surprise surprise, the US will be staying for a very long time to enforce Bush's ridiculous travesty of a free Iraq.

Anyways, I must applaud the strange ability of many Americans to be able to be fully convinced that their cause is right and true, and that the rest of the world has got it all wrong - I wish I could have that level of conviction, it would certainly make life a whole lot simpler...

The rest of the world is full of lemmings. Not all, but many regardless of what side of an ilse they may be sitting. To many people go with the flow instead of making up their own minds based on (the least biased as possible) facts.

If won't even elaborate on the 'rest of the world' comment when billions of people in the world have no opinion on Iraq.

I can understand that it's extremely stressful over there, and that these marines are scared for their own lives. However, these are men that have been trained by "the greatest military in the world" to not make mistakes. If we let him away with murder because he was stressed out and scared, then we have set a precedent, and must now let every stressed out, scared person away with murder...NO you cannot understand! Thats like someone understanding what love is without experiencing it. The U.S. military has made mistakes and those people are being punished. However this was not a mistake, the marine felt threatened so he eliminated the threat. If these so called mulsim extremist want to die for their cause then by all means let the marines schedule their appointment with allah!

NO you cannot understand! Thats like someone understanding what love is without experiencing it. The U.S. military has made mistakes and those people are being punished. However this was not a mistake, the marine felt threatened so he eliminated the threat. If these so called mulsim extremist want to die for their cause then by all means let the marines schedule their appointment with allah!


That is not up to you or us to decide. It is up to the military court of law and its panel of experts. Experts in military law and its application, psychiatrists, combat experts. Not to mention access the eyewitness accounts from both his team and the camera crew.


So making judgments one way or another without having access to the above resource is premature and irrelevant. If he is guilty he should be convicted and if found not guilty he should be released and given psychiatric help in necessary.

Some reality show should send everyday people into Iraq with a U.S. uniform and an M4A1 to see how they do in a similar situation. I/m sure they would manage to kill a civilain or even worse a friendly.
I'd kill a friendly. :)
The rest of the world is full of lemmings. Not all, but many regardless of what side of an ilse they may be sitting. To many people go with the flow instead of making up their own minds based on (the least biased as possible) facts.
You're making a mistake Yogs, you don't mean the "rest" you mean the "whole" United States included. If it weren't for the lemmings who believe everything they hear, and support everything they're told to support, where'd Bush be now? (for that matter where would most world leaders Be? - in jail with Saddam?)

The rest of the world is full of lemmings. Not all, but many regardless of what side of an ilse they may be sitting. To many people go with the flow instead of making up their own minds based on (the least biased as possible) facts.

If won't even elaborate on the 'rest of the world' comment when billions of people in the world have no opinion on Iraq.
I hate to disagree with you, Yogs, since you've shown yourself educated and rational, but here, I must.

I don't feel you're in a position to talk about how the "rest of the world," or, "everywhere but the US," think or feel. Also, you seem to be implying that Americans are the only ones who think, and who know what's right. Of course, there are lemmings all over the world, but that includes in the US as well.

I simply can't accept that the American way is the proper, right, true way when 200+ other countries and 6,000,000,000 other people operate differently...
NO you cannot understand! Thats like someone understanding what love is without experiencing it.
I didn't say I could understand their stress level, I just said I understand that it must be stressful.

Also, if the man he shot was wounded and unarmed, and was waiting for medical assistance, then yes, it certainly was a mistake.

However this was not a mistake, the marine felt threatened so he eliminated the threat. If these so called mulsim extremist want to die for their cause then by all means let the marines schedule their appointment with allah!
The Iraqi's feel threatended by the presence of US and ally forces taking over their country, do they all have the right to eliminate that threat, no questions asked?

I decided to follow the lead of the Bush apologists in this forum and start getting creative with the truth.

Incidentally 87.5% of all males over 30 called Bjorn think Bush is a total cocksucker. :icon16:


Now thats funny in a way.

However this was not a mistake, the marine felt threatened so he eliminated the threat.

And a court trial would establish whether or not he was justified to feel threatened by a man who was,by the Marine's own word,"faking dead".

On what I have seen, he shot a nunarmed man laying on the floor.If there is any evuidence that the victim had any means of harming a squad of heavily-armed Marines, bring it on. Lets see it.Because until someone shows me means and motive, there's a victim, and a coward with a rifle.

And a court trial would establish whether or not he was justified to feel threatened by a man who was,by the Marine's own word,"faking dead".

On what I have seen, he shot a nunarmed man laying on the floor.If there is any evuidence that the victim had any means of harming a squad of heavily-armed Marines, bring it on. Lets see it.Because until someone shows me means and motive, there's a victim, and a coward with a rifle.Thats a pretty bold statement coming from a navy man! Please try to refrain from calling an American Marine a coward because he did not ask to be put in that situation. He is doing a job and doing it well. The point is that the Marine felt threatened do to previous encounters with enemy soldiers throwing grenades when they appeared to be dead. So once the marine realized that he was not dead he eliminated the threat all together.

And yes raz if enemy combatants feel threatened then they to should defend themselves. They should not use white flags at road blocks to blow up enemy personal, and they should not booby trap dead bodies. But as usual US troops are fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. If we allowed our troops to fight no holds bar for 1 month, every terroris in Iraq would be dead. The Navy JAG will not punish this Marine, you can mark my words.

He is doing a job and doing it well.
Not according to the article...
The wounded were left to be picked up, not to be shot in the head. If what's supposed to happen doesn't happen, you're not doing a good job.

Thats a pretty bold statement coming from a navy man! Please try to refrain from calling an American Marine a coward because he did not ask to be put in that situation. He is doing a job and doing it well. The point is that the Marine felt threatened do to previous encounters with enemy soldiers throwing grenades when they appeared to be dead. So once the marine realized that he was not dead he eliminated the threat all together.


So say you. And wrongly too. He signed up to protect and serve a country with a long and dishonourable history of armed interference in other countries' affairs for commercial gain.He wasn't drafted into the Marines,in fact,he probably had to train damn hard in order to be selected.

Watch the video again cody, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIM IS ARMED OR EVEN CAPABLE OF MOBILITY.

I'll call him a coward because that's what this video shows.You may see it as 'eliminating a threat',in much the same way that you would exterminate household pests, but here's the thing...this is not a rat,or a dog,or any other kind of vermin, this is a human being and if you cannot differentiate, then your opinion is worthless.There are ways and means of subdueing a potential threat,murder is not an acceptable option in a civilised society.If you genuinely believe that it is ok to slaughter your opposition rather than contain and control them, you are just as guilty of terrorism as they are.

Bah! If we'd just finished what we meant to do in Afganistan (bringing to justice the actual perpetrators of the WTC attacks) and stayed the hell out of Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this damn situation. Between sanctions and inspectors breathing down Saddam's back, Iraq was being kept in check. Were they a major source of funds for terrorism? NO ONE CAN OFFER ANY SOLID OUNCE OF PROOF EITHER WAY!

I still think this marine should be put on trial for his actions. And then we should start putting some of these damn politicians on trial for stirring up this whole shit-storm in the first place. How can we expect successful Iraqi elections to take place in a little over a month, when we're still losing soldiers to "insurgent" strongholds in a country we supposedly "ceased major military operations" in over a year ago!? Oh yeah, and I don't think an untied troop would be much more effective then a restrained one. I'd say soldiers pretty much received a blind eye in relation to their actions in Vietnam.. and we all know how that turned out.

Bah! If we'd just finished what we meant to do in Afganistan (bringing to justice the actual perpetrators of the WTC attacks) and stayed the hell out of Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this damn situation. Between sanctions and inspectors breathing down Saddam's back, Iraq was being kept in check. Were they a major source of funds for terrorism? NO ONE CAN OFFER ANY SOLID OUNCE OF PROOF EITHER WAY!

I still think this marine should be put on trial for his actions. And then we should start putting some of these damn politicians on trial for stirring up this whole shit-storm in the first place. How can we expect successful Iraqi elections to take place in a little over a month, when we're still losing soldiers to "insurgent" strongholds in a country we supposedly "ceased major military operations" in over a year ago!? Oh yeah, and I don't think an untied troop would be much more effective then a restrained one. I'd say soldiers pretty much received a blind eye in relation to their actions in Vietnam.. and we all know how that turned out.

Every sentence solid common sense.

One other thought crosses my mind.There was a camera crew in that confined space.Given that the 'embedded' journalsts are only there for PR work, and they are obliged to go where they are told,when they are told,etc,etc.someone must have checked out the mosque and decided that it was a suitably safe place for civilians to be filming.Now before anyone jumps in with the fallacy that the 'embeddeds' are neutral reporters who are allowed to follow the entire operation as and how they see fit, let's go back to some of the claims made by the pro-war contingent...


Considering the fact that insurgents have been boobytrapping bodies.....

Considering that his buddy was killed two days before in a similar incident where a suspected terrorist blew himself up. Then the marine being injured the prior day from a similar incident ....

but when they put bombs under dead terrorists, kill their own kind ........


The man the Marine killed most likely killed his share of this marines fellow soldiers or at the very least tried to.

So much hypothesis, excuse making and utter shit. :disappoin

Curiously, despite the fact that this unit clearly has an embedded news team in tow,none of the incidents claimed above as justification got caught on film. Please spare me the BS about the media being biased, the worst cases of bias are the fanciful crap put out by the tame American networks.


There is more than enough evidence on this piece of videotape to at least hold a preliminary inquiry as to whether the victim was murdered,or [ironic laugh]the Marine acted within the rules of the Geneva Convention.
At least the crew that recorded this event didn't try to cover it up and pretend it didn't happen.