Marine: Guilty or not?

Read the story of the Marine in the other thread and post what you think.

I closed this thread before the original poster had finished making the poll.

I was to quick on the trigger - my apologies.













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)

Why isn't there a choice that says:
"I don't know - let the court review the evidence because we only have part of the story"

It may not have been right, but stuff like that happens - Every. Day. In a war.

Why isn't there a choice that says:
"I don't know - let the court review the evidence because we only have part of the story"

ditto. can it be added? in reality we can't judge just yet. unfortunately as everyone becomes more polarised they will tend to express themselves by proclaiming innocence or guilt rather than judging the situation. The guy will be an example, unfortunately it will be more a reflection of policy and a statement than a fair and relative trial.

It can be added, but I'll leave it to the thread starter to say if he wants it or not.













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)

I started the poll, but have no clue how to add that so if one of the mods could add that, i'd appreciate it. Thanks

I started the poll, but have no clue how to add that so if one of the mods could add that, i'd appreciate it. Thanks

Happy to oblige,and not just because it's the only logical answer. :)


Posted by fredjacksonsan -
It may not have been right, but stuff like that happens - Every. Day. In a war.
So we accept bad things because they were poorly judged,just because there is a war on?

Tell me how this is different from say, an armed hold-up where one of the assaillants gets scared and trigger-happy and shoots the cashier? Hell, his plan was only to rob the guy, he didn't mean to kill him.

If I remember right from the video, the marine gave the guy a warning or something. The rules of engagement state you must warn somebody before you open fire. The marine gave warning, the guy didn’t obey, and the marine killed him. He’s not guilty in my book and shouldn’t be in trouble.

I’d also like to say that we shouldn’t even be debating about this. Video cameras were not meant to be in battles or stuff like this. As much as people want to know, they shouldn’t know what marines do on the field of battle. The thing is that we got stupid pricks (ACLU) pointing their fingers at marines in these tapes saying “this isn’t right”, “you shouldn’t do this”, and “what you’re doing is wrong.” These people have never served in the military, been in a battle, or know anything about what these people go through. It’s men like this who gave their lives so they could go around preaching their crap. I say they should shut up and let these guys take care of business so they can get out of there a.s.a.p.

Hey thanks taranaki for fixing that poll for me.

If I remember right from the video, the marine gave the guy a warning or something. The rules of engagement state you must warn somebody before you open fire. The marine gave warning, the guy didn’t obey, and the marine killed him.If I remember right, then you remember wrong. I heard no warning.

If I remember right, then you remember wrong. I heard no warning.

Well I don't remember a thing about it. All I remember is I thought he said "put your hands up!" or something like that.

If I remember right from the video, the marine gave the guy a warning or something. The rules of engagement state you must warn somebody before you open fire. The marine gave warning, the guy didn’t obey, and the marine killed him. He’s not guilty in my book and shouldn’t be in trouble.

I’d also like to say that we shouldn’t even be debating about this. Video cameras were not meant to be in battles or stuff like this. As much as people want to know, they shouldn’t know what marines do on the field of battle. The thing is that we got stupid pricks (ACLU) pointing their fingers at marines in these tapes saying “this isn’t right”, “you shouldn’t do this”, and “what you’re doing is wrong.” These people have never served in the military, been in a battle, or know anything about what these people go through. It’s men like this who gave their lives so they could go around preaching their crap. I say they should shut up and let these guys take care of business so they can get out of there a.s.a.p.

Taking cameras into battle is a good thing.The more people see the realities of war, the better informed they are when it comes to choosing whether they want their leaders to commit to it.

I don't patricularly like Ogrish as a website, but it was the first non-arab site that would give me a link to the video.

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_marine_fatally_shoots_wounded_prisoner_in_fallu jah_mosque.html

If you watch it again, Muscletang, you will see that you are mistaken in your memory.Another good reason for allowing cameras into the war zone, they record cruime scene details for later reference.If this is indeed a crime scene,as the footage would appear to suggest, it will be an essential tool in the upholding of justice in Iraq.....and isn't that what Bush is claiming as one of his objectives?

I hope he gets off. I'd like to be on his jury because I'd NEVER find a Marine guilty of anything.

Silly me,I thought the whole idea of having a jury was to examine the evidence and reviewing each individual case on its merits.

Posted by fredjacksonsan -
It may not have been right, but stuff like that happens - Every. Day. In a war.
So we accept bad things because they were poorly judged,just because there is a war on?

Tell me how this is different from say, an armed hold-up where one of the assaillants gets scared and trigger-happy and shoots the cashier? Hell, his plan was only to rob the guy, he didn't mean to kill him.


I know I haven't been involved in infantry combat. Have you, Naki? The Marine in question made a split second decision. I can't say I wouldn't have done differently.

Your example of the holdup guy panicking isn't valid IMO. He's a ROBBER that is breaking the law intentionally. No one sent him there, he decided on his own. The soldier was ordered to go to Iraq and to patrol, etc. He's doing his job - much like a policeman. I think initial intent is the differentiator here; the Marine is intending to locate people intending to kill him, and protecting himself. The robber, on the other hand, intends to commit an illegal act.

Now you'll say that I'm stating it's ok for soldiers to do whatever they want since they were sent there. Nope, not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the soldier was sent to do a job, is doing it, and that in a moment of incredible tension shot someone who, on a fuzzy video, APPEARED to be helpless. He may have had a pistol that wasn't seen on the video, and we'll likely never know the true situation.

My initial statement was that things happen during war. War, in and of itself, isn't a "good" thing. Split second life and death decisions are made by 18 year olds under incredible stress.

.

I'm saying that the soldier was sent to do a job, is doing it, and that in a moment of incredible tension shot someone who, on a fuzzy video, APPEARED to be helpless. He may have had a pistol that wasn't seen on the video, and we'll likely never know the true situation.



Unless,of course,there is a proper court inquiry.I realise that soldiers are asked to make this kind of call every day, but this one was captured on film and widely distributed.It has become one of the defining media moments of the conflict,and it is important that it be shown for what actually happened, rather than just released by the media for everyone to put their own spin on.

I agree that it shouldn't just be put under the rug. If someone has done something heinous then they deserve whatever punishment suits that act.

If the soldier says he shot the guy because he was mad and was getting payback for being injured the previous day, that's definitely not right and court martial & punishment is appropriate.

But on the other hand if he thought the guy was 'making a move' (whatever the move was) and that any of the Marines in the room were in danger, then he's justified in defending himself and his unit.

I've only seen the video twice on TV, I'll use your link and check it out from home later.

theres one other problem Fred.

you say that the holdup guy is a "robber" intentionally going there to break the law. if he is part of an organised crime sindicate (i know robberies are a bit out of genre) does it make him any less guilty?

the marines in Iraq are breaking the law, they shouldn't be there. so if going into someone elses country like that is illegal then even though they didn't call the shots they are there to break the law. and they had plenty of time to get used to that idea before going into fallujah again.

I'm not saying he's guilty, i'm not saying he's innocent. but the analogy with the guy in the hold-up is a pretty good one.

and there's NO WAY that POLICE are necessarily justified... not like they havent been caught out.

The hold up example certainly is a good one.

Hmmm...organized crime figure in a hold-up. OK I'm not in the mob, but...it seems that an organized crime person/figure wouldn't have to go in to hold them up, but would instead go in to collect his "cut". Not quite the same, as there would likely be some agreement between the two that the money was to be paid -it's business, and while technically illegal isn't the same as robbery, where you walk in on a stranger and take what isn't yours.

To address the Iraq situation, it would have been robbery if the US invaded and demanded oil. [Ignoring the argument that that is why the US is there anyway].

But since the US is obstensibly in Iraq to take out Saddam and establish another form of government, then it could be argued that the soldiers are on the side of right.

So by Iraq standards, it seems the US invading is illegal. But then again, Saddam's government was ignoring the surrender terms so all bets were off. :)

as i said, out of genre. however, organised crime is not necessarily extortion. it is quite possible that someone be sent to carry out an armed robbery, probably not "the mob" though.

there is far too much to debate to claim undisputedly that the US is "on the side of right".

i don't know about you but i think if i was faced with an occupying invasive army who had been firing artillery at me, even if i wasn't fighting i'd definately treat them no better than a home invader.

just out of interest... the surrender terms, you don't mean the WMD do you? cause it seems that we were TOLD he was doing all sorts of things.

as i said, out of genre. however, organised crime is not necessarily extortion. it is quite possible that someone be sent to carry out an armed robbery, probably not "the mob" though.

there is far too much to debate to claim undisputedly that the US is "on the side of right".

i don't know about you but i think if i was faced with an occupying invasive army who had been firing artillery at me, even if i wasn't fighting i'd definately treat them no better than a home invader.

"Side of right" was a bad choice of words, let me try again.

OK, '91, Saddam invades Kuwait. US goes and kicks them out, but does not invade Iraq. Cease fire negotiated, Saddam agrees to terms.

'92-'04, Saddam ignores much of what he's agreed to, and the US goes back in to finish the job from '91. [Now I think both that: Pres. Bush had to show daddy he could do it, and that we should have taken out Saddam in '91]

So the US goes back in, since the terms Saddam agreed to were not being followed, and essentially the war was still on. That's the way I look at the situation and where I got "side of right" from, that since he wasn't doing what he said he would do to stop hostilities, that technically the hostilities were still going on. Much as in WWII, if say Japan had signed the surrender agreement then kept fighting.

Now that Saddam has been removed, I think the US needs to get out and let the Iraqi people govern themselves. Once the election is over, the US should get out asap.


I think I may have just opened a can of worms. :D

yeah see... i feel a little ignorant.

as i said, we were TOLD he was doing all sorts of things. eg. WMD. so i dont KNOW what he was or wasn't doing. and i'm not going to believe bush when he says it. understandably.

i also don't fully understand the precurser to the Iraq-Kuwait war. I remember seeing that whole thing about kuwait advancing it's border and using directional drilling equipment to tap into Iraq's oil reserves. that would be theft. I also remember something about Sadam applying to the UN and US to help stop it, and being turned away repeatedly. See i'm not sure i should believe this either. but Iraq had to have some reason to invade. what was it?

Many of the things Pres. Bush has said don't ring true to me, and WMD was one of them (although he was quite convincing). It may have been better to state that the 91 war was still ongoing and that is why we had to go over, to finish the job.

I am sadly ignorant about the precursor the Iraq/Kuwait war, prior to the actual war.

Man, are we off topic or what? This is about the Marine's guilt or lack thereof. I'll start a new thread with connections between 91 and 03 Iraq wars....

Taking cameras into battle is a good thing.The more people see the realities of war, the better informed they are when it comes to choosing whether they want their leaders to commit to it.

I agree and see where you are going with this statement. I still must object some though when it comes to certain cases.
One historian (I have no idea but our history teacher was discussing it with us) said that if cameras were with the troops on the beaches of Normandy, Americans would be screaming the next day to bring them home. Now I know some cameras were there but I'm talking about with today's video technology.
It's ok now to see what happened by realistic movies like Saving Private Ryan today. At the time though people didn't need to see what was going on. I hold by that and say that people don't really need to see everything that's going on.

I'd like to be on his jury because I'd NEVER find a Marine guilty of anything.

What if a marine positioned in the U.S. shot your wife?

I fully admit the chance of something like that happening is 0.0000001%, but my point in saying this is that it's probably not best to make blanket statements like that that aren't necessarily true...

I agree and see where you are going with this statement. I still must object some though when it comes to certain cases.
One historian (I have no idea but our history teacher was discussing it with us) said that if cameras were with the troops on the beaches of Normandy, Americans would be screaming the next day to bring them home. Now I know some cameras were there but I'm talking about with today's video technology.
It's ok now to see what happened by realistic movies like Saving Private Ryan today. At the time though people didn't need to see what was going on. I hold by that and say that people don't really need to see everything that's going on.


I know this staterment may seem very unrealistic, or very unamerican, depending on your viewpoint. but perhaps with a little more education people might be able to avoid wars in the first place, and horrific scenes like normandy, vietnam and Iraq might help that by providing motivation for war to be avoided in the first place.

but Iraq had to have some reason to invade. what was it?

From what I remember Saddamn believed that Kuwait was a part of Iraq. At one point in history I think Kuwait was but Saddamn wanted Kuwait back so he invaded to regain it. Much the same way as China acts towards Tawain.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/020801_082002140807.htm

yeah see... i feel a little ignorant.

as i said, we were TOLD he was doing all sorts of things. eg. WMD. so i dont KNOW what he was or wasn't doing. and i'm not going to believe bush when he says it. understandably.

i also don't fully understand the precurser to the Iraq-Kuwait war. I remember seeing that whole thing about kuwait advancing it's border and using directional drilling equipment to tap into Iraq's oil reserves. that would be theft. I also remember something about Sadam applying to the UN and US to help stop it, and being turned away repeatedly. See i'm not sure i should believe this either. but Iraq had to have some reason to invade. what was it?
You dont have to believe Bush, or Clinton. Just ask the UN weapons inspectors if they were kept from searching certain areas of Iraq and when they were kicked out of the country all together. Saddam invaded Kuwait for their oil. Kuwait does not need to drill under Iraq for oil. Kuwait has so much oil that they dont even need pumps for their drills. The oil is so plentiful that its own pressure forces it out of the ground. I was on the border of Iraq and Kuwait during March of 2003, do you know how many oil wells i saw on the kuwait side of the border? NONE. I saw plenty when we crossed and secured the ramala oil fields during the first 2 days of the war. And lets not forget about the thousands accounts of rape and murder on the behalf of the friendly Iraqi's!

And lets not forget about the thousands accounts of rape and murder on the behalf of the friendly Iraqi's!

How about we just forget about the thousands of unsubstantiated references to them then?Similar claims were made by the Iraqis about the Marines,but without proof ,they are all pointless.

How about we just forget about the thousands of unsubstantiated references to them then?Similar claims were made by the Iraqis about the Marines,but without proof ,they are all pointless.
please give me a link to where Iraqi's are claiming that U.S. Marines have murdered and raped thousands of innocent Iraqi's? Since you cant do that, give me a link to where they claim at least a hundred. Maybe even 10? Give me a credible link that reports a U.S. Marine who has been charged with raping one Iraqi civilian.

haha thats pretty funny considering that this whoe thread is based on video evidence of a marine shooting an unarmed man, and yet the majority seem to say he is innocent and shouldn't even be investigated or put on trial. if you are prepared to neglect investigation with such mitigating evidence as this then how could you ever accept that a marine be charged with rape, a video won't do it.

in which case your thousands of rapes under sadam hold no ground either as they are simply word of mouth, and word of mouth has nothing on video as far as lack of bias and accuracy of information go.

what a load of crap.

your thousands of rapes under sadam hold no ground either as they are simply word of mouth, and word of mouth has nothing on video as far as lack of bias and accuracy of information go.

what a load of crap.


Yes! What a load of crap it is! To think that rape, murder, and robbery happened during Sadam's watch is stupid!

Even though this is a guy who turned his chemical weapons on his own people, he didn't let stuff like rape happen, no sir.
Then I guess all those reports of Sadam's troops raping, killing, and loiting the people of kuwait as they rolled in to conquer it are a load of crap too.
Yeah, I'll second that motion, it's a load of crap what people are saying. Sadam is just a good guy and everybody is out to get him.

Yes! What a load of crap it is! To think that rape, murder, and robbery happened during Sadam's watch is stupid!

Ummm.....where and when in the world does that not happen?

Even though this is a guy who turned his chemical weapons on his own people.........

Interesting.....care to get into a debate about Halabja? Read on....

Then I guess all those reports of Sadam's troops raping, killing, and loiting the people of kuwait as they rolled in to conquer it are a load of crap too.

They hold about as much credibility as the "reports" (for want of a less misleading word") of babies tossed out of incubators, Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border and more recently - Jessica Lynch.

Yeah, I'll second that motion, it's a load of crap what people are saying. Sadam is just a good guy and everybody is out to get him.

Nobody said that except you.

This is all dragging this thread off-topic.

Alot of what supposedly happened under Saddam's reign is disputable.

If people want to debate that - try this other thread. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=333112

Who knows, you might learn something instead of causing yet another thread to degenerate into a meaningless bunfight.

Give me a credible link that reports a U.S. Marine who has been charged with raping one Iraqi civilian.

You have missed the point of my argument completely.There is no such thing as a credible link without hard evidence.Any link that I find for you would be a waste of my time because your closed mind has determined that no US Marine can do wrong. Clearly the Marine who is the subject of this thread calls that theory into question.

^that's my point.

thanks taranaki.

You have missed the point of my argument completely.There is no such thing as a credible link without hard evidence.Any link that I find for you would be a waste of my time because your closed mind has determined that no US Marine can do wrong. Clearly the Marine who is the subject of this thread calls that theory into question.

Im not asking for a link that has convicted a Marine. Im just asking for one link that shows a Marine being CHARGED with rape. Thats all!

How about we just forget about the thousands of unsubstantiated references to them then?Similar claims were made by the Iraqis about the Marines,but without proof ,they are all pointless.

This is what you said Taranaki. Either you made this BS up or you show me evidence that supports your claim.

Im not asking for a link that has convicted a Marine. Im just asking for one link that shows a Marine being CHARGED with rape. Thats all!

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=262589
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27059%257E1929831,00.html

Im not asking for a link that has convicted a Marine. Im just asking for one link that shows a Marine being CHARGED with rape. Thats all!

How about we just forget about the thousands of unsubstantiated references to them then?Similar claims were made by the Iraqis about the Marines,but without proof ,they are all pointless.

This is what you said Taranaki. Either you made this BS up or you show me evidence that supports your claim.

Your question does not provide proof of my claim.There is a difference between committing rape and being charged with rape.And lets be honest, if a Marine can be filmed shooting an unarmed man on the ground in a holy place,and escape without charge, then the Marines can pretty much do whatever they please,including rape, and get away with it.It is imperative that this Marine go through the justice system.His actions, and the subsequent actions of those who turned a blind eye to this incident,have blackened the reputation of the entire US military.

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=262589
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27059%257E1929831,00.html


Ok genius! I said "MARINE"

The first story was obvioulsy pulled out of someone's ass, and the soldier wasn't even charged. the second story was a soldier who raped a fellow american soldier, "not saying that this is any better."


As to Taranaki, looks like you pulled another fact straight out of crazy land!

The thread has been dead for a month,why bring it back, particularly when you can't follow the argument..:rolleyes: the Marine,as far as I know got off without as much as an investihation.Sad day for a once-honorable force. Closing poll and thread, subject is past its sell-by date.