Tape showing US soldiers killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi

[Niessuh]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The version I saw cut out after the shot was fired. It showed nothing after that event.

It continues. The marines discover another "moving body", he avoid the same treatment by showing his wounded leg and offering info desperately

[Kidlicious]

I love the way Americans are comparing themselves to Saddam and Islamic fundies now.

[Alexander's Horse]

This story is really about loss of innocence. Most people have very unrealistic ideas about the reality of the battlefield. That is really why they support wars. That's why we have chicken hawks and the pro war cheer squad. If people knew what war is really like there wouldn't be any wars.

If I was wounded and overrun in my position I would consider myself very lucky to be taken alive. Its one of the most dangerous situations on the battlefield, especially when the enemy is booby trapping and leaving fanatical suicide bombers behind. I'm not surprised at all the soldier fired when the wounded man moved - better to shoot first than get blown up.

Get real people, grow up. This is the war many of you wanted. Don't blame the soldier or make excuses and turn away from its reality - especially if you wished for it.

[Pekka]

OK just saw the video too on euronews. It was very clear. There was no panic, and it was no touch firing.. how do you say it, when you fire fast. No, it was very clear video, there's just no interpretation for it, unless you really look for it and believe in Santa. That was illegal killing 101. The individual must face punsihment. And no my panties are not in twist at all. I don't see this as the image fo the US army, unlike some others do. All I'ms aying is, the video now that I saw it was very clear, I don't knwo what black screens FOX showed, this one had no black screen, it was an execution. Don't shoot a man in that situation. At least not when someone is recording it on camera. Darwin wins once again.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This story is really about loss of innocence. Most people have very unrealistic ideas about the reality of the battlefield. That is really why they support wars. That's why we have chicken hawks and the pro war cheer squad. If people knew what war is really like there wouldn't be any wars.

Wrong. I'd say that a number of the people who don't know anything about what a battlefield is like are against the war and screeching about this.

Oh sorry, am I interfering with your sanctimonious prattling? Go on. Bleat of how all those who don't agree with you are "chickenhawks" and a "pro war cheer squad" some more, please.

Odd, Pekka. I saw the video and went over it quite a few times and didn't come to your conclusion. Actually, considering that the one who was shot was way in the background of the video and there isn't a clear picture of what was going on, I'm wondering why it was so clear to you. Oh wait: it suits your prejudices.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
In peacetime, people get murdered; this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Do we infer that's too no big deal?

Yes. For Exhibit A, the trial of Scott Peterson... worthy of national attention? No.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Sinapus
Odd, Pekka. I saw the video and went over it quite a few times and didn't come to your conclusion. Actually, considering that the one who was shot was way in the background of the video and there isn't a clear picture of what was going on, I'm wondering why it was so clear to you. Oh wait: it suits your prejudices.

I know that coming to the same conclusion as Pekka can be quite loathsome, but how else other than "illegal killing" can you rationalise the shooting of a clearly wounded, unarmed man? Self defence? Justifiable homicide?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Pekka
OK just saw the video too on euronews. It was very clear. There was no panic, and it was no touch firing.. how do you say it, when you fire fast. No, it was very clear video, there's just no interpretation for it, unless you really look for it and believe in Santa. That was illegal killing 101. The individual must face punsihment. And no my panties are not in twist at all. I don't see this as the image fo the US army, unlike some others do. All I'ms aying is, the video now that I saw it was very clear, I don't knwo what black screens FOX showed, this one had no black screen, it was an execution. Don't shoot a man in that situation. At least not when someone is recording it on camera. Darwin wins once again.

Pekka, I believe there was some discusion early in the tape about if those men were new prisoners or from the day before. If the marine was ligetimately confused about them being new prisoners then in light of the Marine Corp's warning to their men about the dangers of wounded insurgents conducting suicide attacks the Marine's reaction my be justified in a "fog of battle" sort of way. I'm not saying I agree with that but I am attempting to explore all options.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I know that coming to the same conclusion as Pekka can be quite loathsome, but how else other than "illegal killing" can you rationalise the shooting of a clearly wounded, unarmed man? Self defence? Justifiable homicide?

Clearly wounded, yes. Clearly unarmed, no. The question is did that Marine know that those prisoners had already been checked for weapons? If he didn't then he has a case but if he did then he is bound to go to jail.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I would believe there have been worse crimes that are not on TV. I read an account posted in the other Falluja thread about refugees getting mowed down while they tried to escape swimming across the river.

To be fair Psyops air dropped millions of leaflets and conducted countless hours of radio broadcasts to explaining the proper proceedures for civilians to be identified or for insurgents to surrender. These people ignored those directives and so, rightly in my mind, were deemed to be likely retreating insurgents. You may also recall that for one month prior civilians were ordered to leave Fallujah as the city would be declared a war zone and that no one would be able to asure their safety. These people ignored both the warning and the directive on proper proceedures.

These proceedures are in place so that persons who want safe passage can be identified and those persons who wish to continue combat can be told apart. That these people refused to follow proceedures which surely they must have known (as the city was saturated) is inexcusable on their part. I see that as suicide after all this is a war zone.

[Zulu Elephant]

The whole thing reminds me a a South Park "quote"

As long as you shout "Maybe, possibly he's a suicide bomber" then you can kill pretty much anyone.



What are we fighting for again?

[Ned]

I think there is difference between enemy trying to surrender and enemy faking death. In WWII, it was common practice for Japanese to fake death and then ambush the Americans as they passed. After a few of these kinds of lessons, US soldiers routinely made sure the dead Japanese were dead.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I know that coming to the same conclusion as Pekka can be quite loathsome, but how else other than "illegal killing" can you rationalise the shooting of a clearly wounded, unarmed man? Self defence? Justifiable homicide?

Ah, that's your problem: you're treating it as a law enforcement problem and not war. No wonder you're confused. Sorry, but killing someone who appears to be faking death on a battlefield where similar behavior has been used to kill your comrades sounds rather prudent.

Again, judging from the camera view I'm wondering how you can apply the word "clearly" to it. You can barely see the guy in the background. Since I wasn't in that room, I don't see how I can "clearly" presume wrongdoing. That, apparently, won't stop you, but I can't do much about your prejudices.

Who knows? Maybe next time it'll be actual POWs being forced to dig their own graves and getting shot in them. Then I'd definitely call that illegal, and I'm sure you'll be all giddy about the whole thing.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Clearly wounded, yes. Clearly unarmed, no. The question is did that Marine know that those prisoners had already been checked for weapons? If he didn't then he has a case but if he did then he is bound to go to jail.

Actually, it doesn't matter if they were checked before. Insurgents went back in and started firing from it again, requiring the building to be re-cleared and requiring a re-check of the people who'd been there before. Also, they weren't taken prisoner. The Marines disarmed them, gave some basic aid and moved on. They were NOT taken into custody, so the folks calling them "prisoners" are either confused or deliberately lying.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
The whole thing reminds me a a South Park "quote"

As long as you shout "Maybe, possibly he's a suicide bomber" then you can kill pretty much anyone.

What are we fighting for again?

Is it that hard for you t6o believe that there was more going on then was showen in that short clip? Don't you think it is wise to let the JAG's Office take a look at all of the evidence before condemning a man? That is the proper legal procedure in these cases. Let's let legal procedures be followed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sinapus
They were NOT taken into custody, so the folks calling them "prisoners" are either confused or deliberately lying.

I'd say this is a salient point though a weak one. They had minders for at least the last 12 hours and the minders did search them. The key part is did those minders explain to the Marine exactly what the status of those insurgents was before events unfolded? Did they explain the insurgents had been checked for weapons? Did they explain exactly how wounded the men were? Did the Marine have reason to believe that insurgents had been facking death or surrender in order to continue attacking US Forces?

My personal belief is that this looks like a wrongful killing but there is still the possibility of a reasonable doubt.