Shooting the wounded

It doesn't make sense to let enemy combatants live. They are trying to kill you, by definition. If you can't safely contain them/if they aren't safely contained, then killing them makes perfect sense.

War is about killing people and breaking things--simple as that.
 
to me carpet bombing with daisy cutters and gbu 24s followed up with FAE and nukes would make more sense
Click to expand...
A minute ago you're upset because a terrorist was killed. Now you want to nuke everyone? Or are you just saying that you missed the part of my 4 sentence post where I said "enemy combatants"?
 
It doesn't make sense to let enemy combatants live. They are trying to kill you, by definition. If you can't safely contain them/if they aren't safely contained, then killing them makes perfect sense.

War is about killing people and breaking things--simple as that.
Click to expand...

How can anyone argue with this? We need to quit caring more about the welfare of those we're fighting than we do our own military personnel. Like it or not, the faster all of them die, the faster we come home. That's what war is. Trying to fight a "civilized" war simply increases your casualty count and prolongs the inevitable.

Having reporters and cameramen embedded with marines may sound good on the surface but, in reality, it just gives armchair viewers, who have no concept of the reality of the situation being faced by our military men, the chance to be "spun" by the liberal media for their own agenda. It is counter-productive, dangerous, and should end immediately.
 
We lost Vietnam because of reporters. That said, the Soviets used the strategy of "kill them all" in Afghanistan and that didn't work out well, and look how our very different strategy worked there?
 
OK, I agree that revenge must be at least a partial motive for killing the wounded. But you must admit, if your best friend had just gone to give a wounded combatant some water, just to have his head turned into a mass of goo by a grenade the Iraqi had hidden up his ass, you would be wary and angry.

The Marine's jobs are to stay alive and kill enemy combatants. If the wounded sometimes shoot back, then why not. As for bombing the entire country into the stone age (like thats a step backwards for that country), if everyone in the country were to become combatants, then yes we should, but since they are largely "innocent" civilians previously brutalized by a corrupt regime, we should at least attempt to preserve their lives.

Try to put yourself in our soldiers place. The last 3 Iraqis you have gone to give medical attention had grenades hidden under them. 5 out of 10 bodies lying on the last road you passed came to life to fire on you (remember the shotgun-stretcher video everyone?). Wouldn't you make sure the ****ers were dead?

While these numbers are probably exaggerated, you only have one life to live, might as well not take any chances.
 
why would you have any problems with just bombing them
Click to expand...
Are you seriously asking me why I wouldn't advocate the deliberate killing of noncombatants?
killing unconcious wounded prisoners
Click to expand...
The man was not a prisoner. Being wounded doesn't automatically make you a prisoner. The man may or may not have been unconscious. Being able to determine if a person is unconscious or merely lying still by using only a videotape as evidence is a pretty impressive skill. The neat thing about doing it using a videotape is that if you guess wrong you don't get killed by a suicide terrorist who's merely playing possum and waiting for his chance.
 
Even in war, killing people isn't a way to make friends. It is a way to win wars.

Lessee,

Against our side (assuming you see this as a negative act) we have a video of a Marine killing wounded combatants.

Against their side we have multiple videos of abducted noncombatants being beheaded.

Hard to make a real case that we're becoming known for committing atrocities while the Iraqi insurgents operate strictly according to Hoyle.
 
Look, even if it turns out that the marine is culpable, it's still only one man. Clearly there has been no attempt at a coverup so if it is determined to be wrong there's no conspiracy to continue this sort of thing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in all this. The matter is under investigation--are you unhappy with the investigation? No punishment has been announced so you can't be unhappy about that.

I get the odd feeling that you are hoping that this will discredit the entire OIF. There are thousands of U.S.troops over there. To impugn the entire military action for the actions of one person in the ranks is extreme. Remember the U.S. soldier who grenaded his commander's tent? Remember Lee Harvey Oswald? The military has never claimed to be entirely free of bad apples. That doesn't mean that everything they do is wrong.
 
im unhappy with people coming up with "what if" scenarios for the marines action
Click to expand...
What else is there to do at this point? Do you think we should condemn him before the results of the investigation are known?
 
Just look at the facts, these guys were the equivalent of wounded prisoners, and the marine made a mistake by shooting him. It was a bad bad mistake but it happens all the time due to the fog of war, which doesn't make it right.
 
If that was an american on the ground and that footage was shot by al jazeera, with an insurgent saying the same things would you call that murder?
Click to expand...

I have a problem every time a terrorist kills an American. If the roles were reversed and an insurgent shot a wounded American Marine under the same circumstances, I would have no more problem with it than if he shot a healthy Marine from a block away. It is not murder, it is the brutality of war.

I do not know how much clearer I can be: It is legitimate to kill a wounded adversary who you believe poses a threat.
 
Last edited:
Normaly on this thing, I'm the bleeding heart liberal, espousing human rights, treating prisoners with respect and all these anti-neo-con things. But here I gotta say that it looks like things worked out pretty well. I would be a terrible demoralizer if the troops over there had too always had to be worried about someone second guesing their split-second actions on the battlefield. Maybe this guy wasn't a threat, but how do we know what he was doing?
Now if we could just start going after the officers responsible for the prisoner tortures at Abu Ghirab we'd make some more progress.
 
This is terrific news! First off, I haven't been exposed to nearly as much as this guy had been, and I've been to Iraq. The operations preceeding the reconquest of Falluja was a nightmare where troops were harassed, lacking sleep, and being forced to respond AFTER being shot at or assaulted. This guy never deserved to have anything happen to him.

The prisoners at ABU G. were non-combatants clearly (again- I don't care much one way or the other), but the guys in a mosque who were shooting at troops just hours before are in such a questionable status that it would take months or years to determine their status under the GC before a trial could go forward.

I do love the UCMJ. I wish civil laws were similar. I believe our courts would be fairer, and our justice swifter. On a General Courts Martial, you are nearly guaranteed of an educated jury. You will recieve more due process, and the sentences will more than likely fit the crime and not be swayed either way.

God bless the Officer who completed this investigation!
 
War rule #1..........Win, Live and go home.......

This is one of those topics that should never be put to rest......

War is hell, people on both sides of the action die, get wounded and suffer with the mental and physical issue that lives on long after the shooting stops.....

Inbedded journalist should be military members only. The civilian sector knows little of war and it's ways until they stand in their own urine soaked pants and shaking uncontrolable due to the fact a mine just went off, a soldier just was shot, a car bomb just exploded to close to them. They put the good troops in danger because they are trying to get film for the 6 pm news back home. It must be hard to lead a group of brave soldiers into a battle with CNN three steps behind ya....screwing up most of the covert tactics you may try like hell to employ.

As far as the issue of a wounded enemy soldier; If the troop is feeling in anyway that injured bad guy is threat I would expect anyone to eliminate that threat to you and those good troopers around you. For the media to play the so called judge and jury is unreal. That crap will cause some other troop to hesitate to make the right and quick action in some other hostile incident. Thus causing him or his comrads to be injured or killed. That is 100% the reason I wouldn't allow the media into :(war. I guess that's why I am not the general or anyone whom has to take the crap dished out by the so called popular political correct folks........ I don't let the family come in and watch me go to the bathroom either. Some things are for reasons that shouldn't have to be explained ......... but that is the age we live in..... :(
 
The military has ruled that the Marine was acting in accordance with the rules of engagement and he will not be charged.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness.
It's easy to judge someone when you are not in thier shoes. Armchair quarterbacking should be reserved for the NFL, and embedded news reporters should be kept away from the front line troops while they are in action. It's a recipe for unjust prosecution. Kudos to the USMC and the investigating body for not being swayed by media presentation of the events.

If this Marine had been charged, then the rules of engagement did not fit the situation in the field. It's that simple. When bombs are being set off by remote control, it's dangerous to be in an enclosed space with a breathing enemy. Just because he is wounded does not take away his ability to press a car remote and kill everyone in the room. If the GI is unable to protect himself proactively, then he is unable to do his job.
 
Are there any combat vets here who have killed a wounded enemy soldier?
Click to expand...
This is a pretty unfair question. Don't expect anyone to step forward and become the target for unwarranted internet abuse. That may not be your personal intent, but it will happen nonetheless. Ask this question of a few vets in person and see the reaction you get.
Many enemy soldiers who are killed are first wounded. Not to many die from the first bullet. The reality of war is very different from it's portrayal in the media. A wounded enemy is just as dangerous, if not more so, than an unwounded enemy.
Our troops were not there to give medical aid. If medical aid were not given, chances are death would have occured for this enemy combatant. I'd wager his buddies were not planning to medivac him out. Our troops are being attacked with remotely controlled explosives. As such, the Marine was not killing for the sake of killing, he was killing for self preservation. He was in fear of his life, as well as the lives of his buddies. We often argue on this forum for a man's right to protect his life and the lives of his family in civilian life. Yet some want to place a man in the same situation and strip him of this basic right and call it holding him to a higher standard. That reeks of hypocrisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top