Shooting the wounded

"No".

Is risking troops in general for the goal of peace necessary? Yes. (That's why we are there, right?) Is this an example where those goals outweigh some of the safety considerations for the soldier involved? Yes.

This is not a one-for-one trade. Not shooting the unarmed wounded man did not automatically equal death for that US soldier. It hadn't been the death of the US soldier who bandaged the man previously, for instance. And, as Blackhawk mentioned, there are procedures for dealing with that situation.


Eventually, we will find out more than what has been said so far, and perhaps there is more reasoning behind the shooting than the ones given. BUT, many of you are advocates of the rather weak reasons given at this point. We are there to make peace. This broadcasted action will do the opposite and weakens our leverage to make justice prevail. If we are not just and gracious winners, we will reap what we sow. That was the lesson of post-WWI Germany, and of the antebellum south. This is a step backwards and DECREASES our national security. The pen IS mightier than the sword, but the TV is mightier than both.
 
Last edited:
What really chaps my butt with this merry debate is that some of you are acting like the concern is for the dead guy. It isn't. The concern is that this serves as a concrete example of the US saying one thing and doing another. We are shooting our credibility in the head. If we cannot preserve the moral high ground, we don't deserve the title. Some other guidelines to avoiding becoming monsters:
1. Don't torture people.
2. Avoid killing civilians.
3. Don't use WMDs.
4. Don't execute, starve, force march or otherwise kill prisoners.
5. Don't loot the countryside.
6. Don't rape the locals.

I'm sure some of you are already working out a list of occasions where the above are somehow acceptable, but they aren't. That's not us, that is not what we stand for and that is not what will ever bring us any peace.

If you don't like that your son or daughter might be put at risk for the sake of a political peace process, by all means, let's leave Iraq. But if we are going to stay, we are going to have to work within the rules, or there is no point.
 
Handy,

I'm ok with that list and with the premise that, in almost all circumstances, you don't shoot the wounded. However, in this instance, the wounded have been shown to be just as capable and willing to kill our forces as whole enemy combatants have. There damned well ought to be some consideration for this fact before GI Joe gets his ass thrown in the brig for defending himself in a situation that his up close and personal experience tells him is an immediate threat to his life and the lives of his fellow soldiers. No, this situation is a direct result of the enemy behaving outside of the parameters of civilized conduct and our need to respond safely and effectively to their choices. 'If your wounded fight to the death then we will have no other choice than to kill them, period'.

Your analogies about the imposition of crushing terms on post WWI Germany and Reconstruction on the defeated South are interesting and certainly a cautionary tale. If we are forced by circumstance to violate our own rules, it should be in specific, appropriate, measured response to specific behavior on the part of the enemy.

That's why you haven't seen any carpet bombing in response to booby trapped wounded.
 
'If your wounded fight to the death then we will have no other choice than to kill them, period'.
Click to expand...
Which utterly fails to explain why another US soldier went to the trouble and (apparently) extreme danger of bandaging the same guy several days earlier. It seems that our forces aren't operating under the same set of engagement rules, even within the same unit.
 
This was an unfortunate incident. However, I would not fault the US Soldier for his actions. If I had been in his shoes, I feel I would have done the same thing.

The problem is that video journalists come back and show their one side of the incomplete story (propaganda) in an attempt to incite whatever emotional response they want from the general ignorant masses. They have an agenda, and it isn't to report the facts. The facts of this situation aren't that US soldiers are going around picking off all the wounded.. a "leave no prisoners" approach. What is happening is that it has become a commonplace strategy for islamic terrorists to play dead once wounded, and then ambush unsuspecting american troops who wish to treat them humanely as defined by international law.

The terrorist cells are using our adherence to international law, which was intended to benefit the terrorist cells in this case, to kill us. Therefore, they no longer deserve the protection normally given to them under this part of international law. They brought it upon themselves. If you can't adapt to a situation, you perish. Our troops are simply adapting to survive.

The root cause of this incident was a breakdown in communication. If the building had already been swept, and treated by medics, it should have been secured/marked so this wouldn't have occured.

I agree, Handy, that we must keep ourselves to a higher standard if we are to prevail in the end in any true sense of the word. However, I feel we are keeping our actions to a much higher standard. Our wounded aren't laying in wait with grenades to blow up islamic mercy crews. You just need to realize that we're dealing with a group of people with standards so low it might just be unfathomable to you, as it is to the majority of the world who views this conflict from the outside, atop their ivory tower. It is sad for our troops to have to do what they're doing now to survive, but that's all they're doing -- trying to survive. That is what should be reported about the scene in question. The troops are brave men, and showing what they're being forced to do to survive without showing what they've seen to get to that point isn't doing them justice. It is shameful for the media to be using these films in their propaganda. They may not like that Bush took us into there, but Iraq is an open pandora's box. We have to do what is necessary now that it has gone as far as it has -- the old government has been dissolved, so there's no turning back. Being bitter about things that have already happened and dwelling on them is counterproductive and childish. Instead of trying to sabotage the moral of the whole campaign, where thousands of our troops put their lives on the line day in and out, I'd think it'd be a better idea to try and just show our love and support as much as possible -- so they'd get themselves in and out as fast as possible. I agree that the Abu Ghirab prison debacle deserved scrutiny, but this whole incident just stinks of liberal anti-war propaganda, or it could be a case of terrible myopia.
 
IMHO: whether or not someone is wounded is immaterial.

What is relevent is if someone is a *threat*.

If someone is unwounded, yet not a threat.. you can't go around killing them.

If someone is wounded, yet still is a threat.. then you can kill them.
 
I was thinking back to tactics that arafat used to pull in his part of the world. I am pretty sure that when israeli troops would be on patrol especially with a tank, kids up to teens would throw large rocks at the soldiers. As this was going on at least 1 sniper would fire on the troops, from behind the children, maybe barely wounding an israeli. This would cause the israeli troops to open fire supposedly on a group of unarmed "children", and it was even better for arafat if a child was hurt or better yet killed. Could this have been a ploy to dicredit americans in the eyes of Iraqi's, and even more importantly the countries the US is using as bases for this operation.

Granted this is a longshot. A lot of things had to "go wrong" for this to happen. It is a fact that to die a martyr means a lot to these people. As for insurgents treating their prisoners badly, anybody who is an infidel is not human in thses fanatics minds. Even ancient historic carvings mean nothing to them. Does anybody remember before 911 when the taliban blew up priceless archeological Hindu?or Buddhist? statues estimated to be 5,000 to 6,000 years old, and would have been of great interest to science.
 
Sorry I've been off the net. Some of us have to work for a living. ;)


Armchair Commandos
Click to expand...
.

Yep. That's what I said, and that is what I meant. Sorry if that offends anyone, but in my not so humble opinion all of us posting here who are not sitting on a dirt pile in the dark eating an MRE listening to the (not so distant) gunfire are exactly that! Me included. I do except those few of us who take some of thier short time available at a keyboard in an 'internet cafe' set up in a tent somewhere in a desert to post here. You know who you are, and so do we.

Handy, where do I start? How about with this:

Not shooting the unarmed wounded man did not automatically equal death for that US soldier.
Click to expand...

My statement, not question, is to make the point that neither you nor I can make this statement sitting in front of a keyboard with a cold one and a smoke in hand. I could be very flip, regarding your revelation that you teach an anti-terrorism course, but I decline the opportunity, and instead stand on my assertion that we, all of us here, are not in a position to make any relevant observations as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of this Marine's action based on a snippet of video. In or out of context.

I admit that I don't teach anti-terrorism courses of any kind. Never have, and likely never will. I have met some people who could, and do. Some in the flesh, some only virtually, but most of the vitualities are on other fora, but occassionally drop in here.

On the other hand, I have 'lived the dream' so to speak, in the not so distant past, and it is a frigging nightmare the likes of which most of us can only barely comprehend, much less deal with every day for a one-year tour that gets multiplied by 1.5 or 2. I am not recommending that anyone walk a mile in my shoes, because I am barely qualified to carry water for those 18-22 year olds who are bearing the brunt of this fight.

Boiled down, my assertion is this: We don't know what tripped this Marine's response on the trigger. We can't know from the video, which I have seen, several times. Yacking about what ifs and guilt only shows our ignorance. Artificial rules, written in diplospeak by diplodinks don't help, and generally just confuse the issue. In the end, the only judgement a man can make is whether he can sleep at night, and look himself in the eye in the mirror in the morning, and live with what he has done to do his duty and stay alive, and protect his buddies. That's it. That's all these guys have to do. And it's a hell of a lot more than most of us ever have to ask of ourselves.

I'm pretty done with this subject now, unless someone says something that I can have a constructive response to.
 
This is not a one-for-one trade. Not shooting the unarmed wounded man did not automatically equal death for that US soldier. It hadn't been the death of the US soldier who bandaged the man previously, for instance. And, as Blackhawk mentioned, there are procedures for dealing with that situation.
Click to expand...
Without more information it is impossible to determine whether the Marine's actions were justified or not. For the record, given the proper circumstance and based on the footage I have seen, the Marine may have been dealing with the situation properly.
Could you please explain how an armed force, engaging invading soldiers, would be defined as "terrorists". That doesn't seem to be part of the definition the US military uses.
Click to expand...
I do not teach an anti-terrorism class but I have been through a few. I do know the definition and I see how it could apply. Per FM 101-5-1
terrorist (JP 1-02) - An individual who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve a result.
Click to expand...

It seems that our forces aren't operating under the same set of engagement rules, even within the same unit.
Click to expand...
That is an irresponsible and insulting statement, especially considering it is based on 30 seconds of video and a bunch of speculation. This may seem like a simple event, but it is not. The complexity is mind-boggling. Without a thorough understanding of all of the circumstances, it is impossible to make any type of judgement regarding the legitimacy of the Marine's actions.
 
National Socialist Radio (NPR)

Handy's right because NPR, aka National Socialist Radio, is ALWAYS RIGHT and because they NEVER LIE.

So gather 'round the radio one and all, and listen to the gospel truth about those evil Marines - they fight for AMERICA, for Hillary's sake not the all good, all wise UN.

And be sure to tune in Father Keillor, the good and wise priest of socialism for the latest crimes against humanity comitted by the evil son of Satan "W" and his antichrist assistant, Cheney.
 
Having watched the snippet of video several times now and some things seem clearer. The wounded one by himself raised his hand and ID'd himself as a wounded one. He was not shot. Troops were sent in by the tank people or ? because they felt combatants were in the mosque. Someone there had been disarmed 24 hours before but the current status was obviously not known. It is possible they were left from the day before. This does not sound like a pacified situation, more like a dynamic survey of unknown danger in the midst of war. Life and death decisions were made. Someone who had defied all warnings to leave the area and had stayed in an attempt to kill American soldiers was wounded at some point and ended up in the mosque and ended up dead.
Edited to add: Shot terrorist was not in clear view of camera angle.

Human Rights Watch is calling for the court martial of the soldier who identified this terrorist as a potential continuing threat and terminated that threat. This was not done wantonly or sadistically.
 
Last edited:
P.S.

Do the Genva Conventions apply to civilians that take up arms??? I think they do NOT. (i.e. or even soldiers that fight in civilian uniform or 'enemy' uniforms for that matter)
 
Do the Genva Conventions apply to civilians that take up arms??? I think they do NOT. (i.e. or even soldiers that fight in civilian uniform or 'enemy' uniforms for that matter)
Click to expand...

While fighting in the enemy's uniform is not considered a legitimate ruse de guerre, ununiformed freedom fighters were given full rights as combatants in Geneva in 1977, as mentioned on the previous page.
 
Trapshooter, Blackhawk, etc.

Apparently I did not qualify my statements loudly or often enough:
Eventually, we will find out more than what has been said so far, and perhaps there is more reasoning behind the shooting than the ones given. BUT, many of you are advocates of the rather weak reasons given at this point.
Click to expand...
So far, I have been speaking to the FACTS, and the analysis of those facts by the other posters. I have objected, from the beginning, to the argument presented in this thread that shooting a man, JUST IN CASE HE'S ARMED, is an abomination that only hurts us. I have not taken issue with the anything more than how many people on this board so casually accepted the shooting.

As more information becomes available, I hope that both the ideas presented in this thread, and my argument with them become irrelevant. Moreover, I hope that whatever legitemately prompted the shooting can be properly explained to the public and decrease the furor this it is already causing.


Progunner, you are being ridiculous. No one has contested anything from the NPR news broadcast. The fact that this "socialist" radio is funded by YOUR tax dollars will keep me warm tonight.
 
Under the rules of war that were in effect until after WWII, non-uniformed combatants were subject to summary execution. This was changed in 1977, when it was decided to give "freedom fighters" the same rights as uniformed combatants.
__________________
Click to expand...
OK I can live with that.
Some poor armies wouldn't even be able to even get into a war if we imposed dress codes.
 
Some poor armies wouldn't even be able to even get into a war if we imposed dress codes.
Click to expand...

For some reason, I nearly busted a gut at the vision of a battlefield maitre d' passing out nasty-looking clip-on ties to underdressed troops at the jumpoff point. :D
 
Video unedited, you decide

I'm probably going against my better judgement by doing this, but here's how to get to the unedited video to judge for yourself:

THIS IS UNEDITED VIDEO. DO NOT GO HERE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE SHOOTING. THIS IS YOUR WARNING.

1: Go here: http://reuters.feedroom.com/
2: Scroll dow to where it says World
3: Click 'Load Channel'
4: Click 'Next' a few times until you see where it says 'Fallujah Shooting Caught on Tape'. Click this.

To me, this doesn't look like a good shoot. But I am not there, and I don't intend to judge the soldier. I am willing to give the guys getting shot at the benefit of a doubt, and some grey areas. It is so easy for us here to say it was a mistake, but not in that shot are many variables that cannot be seen. For example, it seems that the Americans had encountered them before. What happened, I do not know. But, that could have had a big effect on this.

I apologize if this is not appropriate. Feel free to remove the link if deemed appropriate.
 
kind of the case with us in the colonial states during the revolutionary war, or at least in its beginnings. we wore regular clothes while those nice fancy brits wore the bright shinny red coats. we still considered us fighting for a country.


but i dont think iraq sees the insurgants as fighting for them, but then im not over there and i really dont know public opinion.

either way this will get overplayed and will become some senators one goal in life to see this prosecuted to the fullest.


just think what ww2 or the revolutionary war would of been like with the reporting we have today. im sorry gi joe you cant hide in that fancy red coat and pretend to be one of their soliders, thats not playing fair.

no you cant shoot him, one of your fellow soliders patched him up a few days ago, nevermind he could be booby traped or hiding a gun; nope, you must now learn to fight this war with kind words and handing out peace signs
 
It's a war. How was the Marine supposed to KNOW that the guy was unarmed, and would stay that way?

Every swingin' - - - that walked by that live Iraqi and didn't shoot him should get office hours.

As a civilian in a peaceful city, I wouldn't turn my back on a live mortal enemy. Where would anyone get the idea that a military man in a war zone should be less concerned about his own longevity?

BTW, are you aware that the embedded clown who shot this video has published other stuff on an anti-war web site? See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41506
 
Last edited:
Iraq: Geneva Convention is null and void

The Geneva Convention applies only to declared wars between governments/nations fielding uniformed military personnel for military operations; therefore, the GC does not apply to operaions in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not sure about the applicability of the "Rules of War" but it seems like that set of rules would also not apply to the situation in question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top