support the Marine acused of murder

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Er...he was in his own home country...if anyone should not be there,it's the Marine.

In a war zone...during a war...you don't go to your buddy's house for coffee and cards. The dumb ass shouldn't have been there. He made himself a target.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

In a war zone...during a war...you don't go to your buddy's house for coffee and cards. The dumb ass shouldn't have been there. He made himself a target.

So wait...if my house is getting burglarized, and I happen to run into the burglar, and he shoots me because of it, it's my fault right?

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Since Iraq was defeated by the US, means the US is free to be there. Like it or not the US defeated Iraq.

I thought we are there to 'liberate', and not 'defeat'?

Something you are finally admitting?

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

...I also believe deep down the insurgents know its a lost cause fighting the US because they are outnumbered and out gunned....

...Since Iraq was defeated by the US, means the US is free to be there. Like it or not the US defeated Iraq...

You obviously haven't grasped it yet.

Lost Cause
They do not have to win. All they have to do is prevent the others guys from winning and keep them bleeding both blood and money. Picture the way animals that hunt in packs bring down much larger and stronger animals and then apply that to the type of warfare going on.

Outnumbered
Are you aware that Sadr's militia alone is around 1 million strong?

Outgunned
As far as firepower goes - yes, and that is exactly why they are fighting the way they do - to neutralise the enemies advantages in equipment and technology as much as possible. However, they do have effective weapons, plenty of ammo and are able to improvise well.

Defeated
Well that depends on what your definition of defeated is. I see it like this - the coalition has established a presence in Iraq but they are not in control of it by any stretch. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the coalition is in a reactive posture and that the insurgency has the initiative.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

So wait...if my house is getting burglarized, and I happen to run into the burglar, and he shoots me because of it, it's my fault right?

Not talking about burglary. We are talking about WAR. There is a difference.

In a war zone...you don't go for visits to your buddies and lay around the crib drinking colt 45s and watching porn videos. You stay in a safe location unless you are up to no good.

Most SMART Iraqis would get out of Dodge.

If there was a riot in Watts and the cops were rounding up hoodlums and such....don't you think the wise residents would be laying kind of low? The trouble-makers will be together working out ways to advance their agenda of being trouble-makers.

[lazysmurff]

you assume guilt when you should not gladhatter.

none of us know all the facts, none of us can possibly know what either man was thinking at the time, none of us can possibly understand the situation because non of us were there.

when there is conflict like this it is simply in the best interest of all involved to carry out the trial, find the marine innocent or guilty and move on.

i must make something incredably clear. whther or not he is innocent has no bearing on whther or not he should go to trial. something americans have lost is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". this is why we have courts. to sort shit like this out. sending him to trial is not solidifying guilt. it merely means "hey, we're not sure what went on, we need to find out"

so please, stop freaking out.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

i must make something incredably clear. whther or not he is innocent has no bearing on whther or not he should go to trial.

My point exactly! Of course we all have our opinion of whether he's guilty or not, but our opinion in the matter means nothing. There needs to be a trial! Honestly, I don't even care what the ruling would be, I just think it's EXTREMELY unfair that any American should even think about ignoring something like this, while they would likely be in outrage if the roles were reversed...

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

He he should have not been there. There is a war going on and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oh! So that makes everything alright?

How do you know he wasn't a doctor, trying to heal his friends until he himself was wounded? How do you know he wasn't going to the mosque to pray (or whatever the Islamic equivalent is, pardon my ignorance) for a peaceful resolution?

All I'm saying is that we need to stop making judgements like this, since none of us know the details. Also, we never will unless there is a trial...

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by T4 Primera

Outnumbered
Are you aware that Sadr's militia alone is around 1 million strong?

Ok where in the hell did you get that info from? The Shi'a can barely do any damage to the US. Its the Sunnis thats doin most of the damage. IF it was true then US would've been long gone. Strength in numbers does mean something but Sadr's militia is no where near a million or even 15,000.

[mellowboy]

I dont know what the hell gladhatter is thinkin but that was the most dumbest thing i have ever heard. US should have never been there in the first place.

[YogsVR4]

That guy was an Iraqi living at home? Odd - what an unusual home.

I know its fasionable in some circles to be supportive of the people who kill American soldiers. The fact they terrorized the local population and murdered them in the streets is immaterial. Blowing up busloads of Iraqis, using places of worship as bases as well as targets is ok as long as it somehow hurts Americans and anything they are trying to do. The last thing these people want are elections and such travesties like that must be avoided.

Insurgents may kill on a whim and we hear the whole arguement about the US rightly being there being rehashed. A soldier kills an enemy and the Army puts on an investigation and people are calling for his head. Where is the investigation by the insurgents as to why they were using a mosque? Oh yeah - that doesn't matter because they were just defending their homes from an election.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[mellowboy]

^ They're DEFENDING THERE COUNTRY! They dont want the americans there and they sure dont want the puppet Iraqi Interim Gov't there as well!^ Anyone who helps the americans are enemies as well.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I know its fasionable in some circles to be supportive of the people who kill American soldiers. The fact they terrorized the local population and murdered them in the streets is immaterial. Blowing up busloads of Iraqis, using places of worship as bases as well as targets is ok as long as it somehow hurts Americans and anything they are trying to do. The last thing these people want are elections and such travesties like that must be avoided.

Insurgents may kill on a whim and we hear the whole arguement about the US rightly being there being rehashed. A soldier kills an enemy and the Army puts on an investigation and people are calling for his head. Where is the investigation by the insurgents as to why they were using a mosque? Oh yeah - that doesn't matter because they were just defending their homes from an election.

I don't at all condone the way the Iraqis are fighting, but just because they're doing things unfairly doesn't mean the US also can. On the contrary, the US should be a model of integrity, holding fast to their principles of justice. Matching the level that the Iraqis are fighting on shows, to me at least, that their conduct is acceptable, as you are now accepting that behaviour from your own. This invalidates the concept of the US trying to increase Iraqi standards to their own. Also, if the Iraqis are fighting dirty, the absolute best thing the US can do is to stand fast on their moral principles and concept of true justice - it is then that they would appear strong and wise. When, however, the US fights dirty "because the Iraqis did first," that shows, to me at least and likely to many frightened Iraqis, that the US is simply the next tyrant (def. "an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution", Merriam-Webster) rolling on through.

To sum up, I don't believe the Iraqis have fought well or fair. However, I believe the only way the US can truly succeed is by being an exemplary model of integrity and of the principles they propose; otherwise, they're just hypocritical terrorists blasting on through.

The last thing these people want are elections

So why is the US trying so hard to impose them?

[Heep]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

What really puzzles me is the death of aid workers and people trying to help in Iraq. I can understand going after soliders and contract workers for the US miltary. But why must they kill aid workers the UN aid workers and so on?

Don't get me wrong, I don't at all condone that, but honestly, they make better hostages. The government likely wouldn't even think about conforming to demands if the hostage was a faceless, trained soldier.

[mellowboy]

I still believe that Magaret Hassan isn't killed. And if she is killed then Iraqis have nothing to do with it.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

A soldier kills an enemy and the Army puts on an investigation and people are calling for his head. Where is the investigation by the insurgents as to why they were using a mosque? Oh yeah - that doesn't matter because they were just defending their homes from an election.

one, noone is really sure if he was an enemy or not.

two, just because the iraqi's arent investigating something like that doesnt mean we shouldnt.

and who cares if they were using a mosque to base attacks out of. you better believe if some nut-wit retard with an army invaded my town, i'd be using any standing building for shelter. sacred or not. if a church has to develop a few bullet holes so i dont die, so be it.