How do you feel about killing the wounded?

[SPG]

Something to think about. If there is an enemy soldier wounded and no longer able to fight, should he be captured, treated, imprisoned, or should they be killed on the battlefield?
I believe that the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Military Code of Conduct both state that the wounded must be treated, not executed.
For those who will immediately look at Iraq/Afghanistan as the model and call the opposing side terrorists and thus all should be killed, consider that this rule is for both sides.
After you think about it for a while. Take a look at the clip in the link below.
I do need to warn you that this is extremely graphic stuff, and is fairly disturbing since it's real.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

[zimv20]

wow. that's lovely. really ****ing lovely. glad that guy thought killing a downed iraqi was so 'awesome'.

[Frohickey]

Okay... i'll take the bait.

Sometimes you don't get the full story. We don't get the beginning of the fight. Did the Iraqi on the ground start an attack? Ran past a checkpoint? Was he shot and was writhing on the ground trying to detonate an explosive device? Was he giving up?

Remember the North Hollywood shootout where a couple of bank robbers with kevlar vests were shooting at cops and bystanders as they were trying to make their getaway? If I remember right, one of the robbers was shot and intentionally denied precious medical treatment. There was not enough medical personnel to treat the robber as well as his victims, so the medical personnel were told to work on the victims first.


I think that its actually bad policy to shoot wounded, because it actually works against you. When you are fighting and you do not give any quarter to the enemy, the enemy would rather fight to the death than surrender, because its the same thing. Sometimes in fighting, you can actually win when the other side surrenders enough. That and you can get precious information from wounded enemies as well, sometimes questioning them prior to administering medical aid, sometimes concurrent with, etc.

[Gymnut]

As an Infantryman that has yet to see combat, any any hostile individual whether they are wounded or not is still a perceived threat. True, we are instilled to show compassion towards our enemy when he is casualty, but often we are not shown the same. There are those that will feign injury or are in fact injured that wouldn't mind still luring our soldiers under the guise of compassion to aid them when they're true intent is putting a bullet between our eyes. Yes, as soldiers it is the humane thing to care for fallen enemy when it is 100% sure in our minds that he is no longer a threat.

[Frohickey]

hmm... sometimes, as zimv20's post indicates, being too compassionate could get you killed, as indicated by gymnut's post.

[G5ROCKS]

I feel no reason to watch the horror of a man being killed. Whether this particlar incident was against the rules of war I cannot say. However, I do not doubt but that such incidents do happen in wars among all armies. The entire concept of "rules of war" somehow seems obscene to me, as though war is a gentleman's game. It isn't.

Combat messes with the mind. It is unnatural to kill another person, it is also difficult to transition from killing the enemy to rendering aid. Again, I did not watch the video, but unless the guy was clearly surrending, one might expecct the Marines to err on the side of caution and fire until the threat was clearly neutralized. Even at that, there were reports early on in the combat of a number of US troops who lost their lives as Iraqis pretended to surrender and then opened fire.

I could not help by note the irony of this site boasting about "news you won't see on CNN" and then having a CNN transcript. Uh, that would be "news you did see on CNN, pal"

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I feel no reason to watch the horror of a man being killed.

then watch it for the guy gloating afterwards. doesn't seem he regards the incident w/ any horror.

[huntsman]

Yeah!!! They got him! Woohooo! Hehehehehe :cool:

Hell yeah, that video was awesome! I'm gonna watch it again!

[wwworry]

amazing

Look at what what you saw and then these responses.

A wounded man is shot dead. Soldier is euphoric.

Wounded man is imminent threat.
Compassion is un-natural.
Media is not to be trusted.

Is it any wonder we are at war in Iraq? These same responses were the meta-reasons for war in the first place. The obvious facts of the situation are lost in interpretations of fear, power and spin. The soldier could be swinging a cat by its tail or killing 15 children in Afghanistan and you would get the same responses. Do you wonder why some are afraid for America?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by wwworry
Is it any wonder we are at war in Iraq? These same responses were the meta-reasons for war in the first place. The obvious facts of the situation are lost in interpretations of fear, power and spin. The soldier could be swinging a cat by its tail or killing 15 children in Afghanistan and you would get the same responses. Do you wonder why some are afraid for America? don't you think that was just slightly alarmist? i think you're wrong about the reactions to the 3 situations you just posited, for one thing, and for another, i think the war in Iraq is being fought for much, much more complicated reasons than you suggest.

americans' moral grounding is getting shot to hell, but the same is true of most of the remotely powerful countries in the world. the situation in iraq does not stem simply from americans being pompous jerks who have no respect for the sanctity of life of enemies, but from a changing global climate in the wake of the end of the cold war. we haven't seen the worst of the change, by any means, and it's not "all america's fault." I really don't think this is the place to decry american morals. it's a little bit disappointing, but it's one story blown out of proportion.

[G5ROCKS]

zimv20,
I read the transcript. That is sufficient to get the gist of the soldier's reaction. When someone is trying to kill you, and you kill them first, your initial, natural reaction is euphoria, not calm, balanced reflection, or a philosophical discussion of the merits of your survival vs. his.

Originally posted by wwworry
amazing

Look at what what you saw and then these responses.

A wounded man is shot dead. Soldier is euphoric.

Wounded man is imminent threat.
Compassion is un-natural.
Media is not to be trusted.

Is it any wonder we are at war in Iraq? These same responses were the meta-reasons for war in the first place. The obvious facts of the situation are lost in interpretations of fear, power and spin. The soldier could be swinging a cat by its tail or killing 15 children in Afghanistan and you would get the same responses. Do you wonder why some are afraid for America?

wwworry,
Look at what you saw in the headline on the piece. "Marines execute Iraqi." Sorry, but execution may not quite the be appropriate term. Rather, "Marines kill Iraqi in fire fight and cheer." What do you freakin' expect them to do? Kill someone and then hold a memorial service for him on the side of the road? If those Marines thought they were under threat from that location, and it seems clear they did, I'm not going to say that they should not defend themselves.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
wwworry,
Look at what you saw in the headline on the piece. "Marines execute Iraqi." Sorry, but execution may not quite the be appropriate term. Rather, "Marines kill Iraqi in fire fight and cheer." What do you freakin' expect them to do? Kill someone and then hold a memorial service for him on the side of the road? If those Marines thought they were under threat from that location, and it seems clear they did, I'm not going to say that they should not defend themselves.

I was writing about the responces from this board.

What alarms me is the amount and extent of apologies. I will repeat:
The soldier could be swinging a cat by its tail or killing 15 children in Afghanistan and you would get the same responses (apologies).

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by wwworry
I was writing about the responces from this board.

What alarms me is the amount and extent of apologies. I will repeat:
The soldier could be swinging a cat by its tail or killing 15 children in Afghanistan and you would get the same responses (apologies).

Well, if they had dragged him out, handcuffed him, and shot him in the back of the head, they'd by up for a court martial, and you would definitely not get the same response from me.

It's a war. People die. That's what makes it so horrible. Sometimes, they even get shot twice if they are unwilling or unable to surrender fast enough.

edit: I'm waiting for someone else to come along and complain about the sensationization on the part of the web guy who called it an "execution." Anyone?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
edit: I'm waiting for someone else to come along and complain about the sensationization on the part of the web guy who called it an "execution." Anyone?


You might have a wait on your hands. No one complains about sensationalism when it's sensationalizing<sp?> what they want to hear.


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I'm waiting for someone else to come along and complain about the sensationization on the part of the web guy who called it an "execution." Anyone?

execute means to put to death.

had i written the headline, i wouldn't have used the term. but after viewing the footage (have you done so yet?), i also wouldn't have said the marine was 'defending himself'.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
execute means to put to death.

had i written the headline, i wouldn't have used the term. but after viewing the footage (have you done so yet?), i also wouldn't have said the marine was 'defending himself'.

You wouldn't have used the term because it is the wrong term to use. Execute, in terms of killing, generally refers to carrying out a legal sentence, not someone being killed in a firefight. The use of the term "execute" is highly inappropriate from a journalistic standpoint in those circumstances.

Euthanize means to put to death, too, but the meanings are not the same. Would you say that the man was euthanized? Of course not. It is equally inaccurate to call someone being killed in a firefight an execution.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Execute, in terms of killing, generally refers to carrying out a legal sentence


not always. e.g. i'd say daniel pearl was executed.

It is equally inaccurate to call someone being killed in a firefight an execution.

please watch the footage and see if you feel the same way

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
not always. e.g. i'd say daniel pearl was executed.



please watch the footage and see if you feel the same way

And this firefight is an instance where the use of the term execution is not appropriate. Much like one would not say that Daniel Pearl was euthanized. An execution is something that is generally carried out on someone in custody, under the control of the one doing the killing. Pearl fits that, they may have even had their own little trial for him, I don't know.

I don't need to watch the footage to know that there was a firefight, with armed assailants and bullets flying, that the man in question was not in custody, and that use of the word execute is inappropriate in those circumstances. I can tell that from the transcript. You wouldn't use execute yourself, and with good reason. It's the wrong word to use. I don't need to watch the footage of Daniel Pearl having his throat slit to know that his murderers did not act out of a sense of self preservation.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
An execution is something that is generally carried out on someone in custody, under the control of the one doing the killing.


you're reduced to inventing definitions to maintain your objection. consult a dictionary.


I don't need to watch the footage to know that there was a firefight

jesus christ, you're operating out of sheer ignorance. you are willfully excluding valuable data -- data which contradicts your impression of what actually happened. until you can take some responsibility for informing yourself, you'll understand why i cannot take you and your underinformed opinions seriously.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
you're reduced to inventing definitions to maintain your objection. consult a dictionary.



jesus christ, you're operating out of sheer ignorance. you are willfully excluding valuable data -- data which contradicts your impression of what actually happened. until you can take some responsibility for informing yourself, you'll understand why i cannot take you and your underinformed opinions seriously.

zimv20,
Far from inventing a defintion, I did consult a dictionary and found that exection especially refers to carrying out a legal sentence. Guess what? That hard to do if a person isn't in custody.

I am not Jesus Christ, and I am not operating out of ignorance. Could a person be expected to believe that there was still a threat? Yes. Therefore, we aren't talking about an execution, we're talking about someone being killed in a war. It's still horrible because war is horrible.

[Frohickey]

I think that we do not have the full story here. We do not know the involvement of the wounded enemy prior to getting wounded. The camera footage just isn't there.

Could be that the guy was not surrendering.
Could be that the guy was surrendering.
Could be that the guy has a grenade and is only mock surrendering so that he could sucker a few soldiers to help him and frag them and then he would get his 77 virgins.
Could be that guy was an innocent bystander that got in the way, and the soldiers are really bad people who just got done swinging a cat by its tail and spreading napalm on it before lighting it up.

There is just not enough here.

[Gymnut]

I highly doubt that our wounded and captive soldiers receive anywhere near the same treatment as we are expected to give to our fallen enemy. Fallen U.S. soldiers are not bandaged and given medical aid, rather they are treated as trophies when brought down, their bodies paraded about the streets. I have yet to be deployed but try to imagine what the men and women of our armed forces are going through. Many have been away from their homes and families for extended periods of time. For many, this is their first armed conflict they've participated in. The average age of our soldiers is between 19-21. They are being attacked by individuals that hide amongst the general population of Iraq, often not caring whether they are killed or not, providing they take a few U.S. GI's with them. Unless you've served in the armed forces, you cannot really grasp the comraderie and bond that you form with the people you train and fight with. You've all gone through the same ****** and you've all suffered the same hell. So when a buddy you've known since Basic Training takes a piece of hot lead, be damned your pissed and fired up and must summon an enormous amount of restraint not to send the lot of them to hell.

[SPG]

Here's what I've heard about the backstory on this. The Marine unit came across the guy who looked like he was setting up a small bomb on the side of the road. He ran, they shot him as he ran away. They came up a little closer and saw that he was down and wounded, this is when the cameras got there. They then shot him numerous times from a distance until he was dead.
They then found that he was setting up a bomb hoping to blow up near a convoy. There was no firefight, there was nobody else there shooting at americans.

I don't know if he was trying to surrender, but on the video the guy doesn't look like he's doing anything but lying on his side in pain.
Why couldn't he be captured? Wouldn't it be better for our own goals to capture someone like that? What was the threat of a guy lying in a pool of his own blood barely able to move?
What about the soldier's reaction? Primitive bloodlust and vengeance? It doesn't look good, that's for sure.

Spin it all you like and try to make excuses...it's just wrong and it's what the rest of the world sees.
We really need to stop making excuses and rationalizations about even the most awful things we see. Some things are just plain wrong and need to called.

[SPG]

Rationalization to outrage ratio stands at 4:1 with one flippant remark.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i think the war in Iraq is being fought for much, much more complicated reasons than you suggest.


I could start a hangman tread wth this one: _ _ _ and sounds like Odole:

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by SPG
Here's what I've heard about the backstory on this. The Marine unit came across the guy who looked like he was setting up a small bomb on the side of the road. He ran, they shot him as he ran away. They came up a little closer and saw that he was down and wounded, this is when the cameras got there. They then shot him numerous times from a distance until he was dead.
They then found that he was setting up a bomb hoping to blow up near a convoy. There was no firefight, there was nobody else there shooting at americans.

I don't know if he was trying to surrender, but on the video the guy doesn't look like he's doing anything but lying on his side in pain.
Why couldn't he be captured? Wouldn't it be better for our own goals to capture someone like that? What was the threat of a guy lying in a pool of his own blood barely able to move?
What about the soldier's reaction? Primitive bloodlust and vengeance? It doesn't look good, that's for sure.

Spin it all you like and try to make excuses...it's just wrong and it's what the rest of the world sees.
We really need to stop making excuses and rationalizations about even the most awful things we see. Some things are just plain wrong and need to called.


Assuming the above is what basically happened I would have shot him dead too. Why? Suicide bomber. You already think the guy is setting up a bomb, and suicide bomers aren't exactly unheard of in the middle east. Plus the would-be bomber knows he's probably fatally wounded anyway, so why not take out as many of the enemy as you can? That's what I would do.

Anyway, this is all hindsight, hours of contemplation and speculation with a little bit of Monday morning quarterbacking toosed in for good measure. Those Marines had a few seconds to size up the situation and take action.

You talk about spin, what about the spin you are putting on it?

So, did I have the one flippant remark or was that someone else? :D


Lethal

[wwworry]

you are so lethal, Mr. Wolf

[SPG]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
So, did I have the one flippant remark or was that someone else?

No, just another rationalization.

Here's another couple for you to use: Let's get rid of all of our own personal freedoms so that the government can tell us we are safer.
Let's remove all vestiges of rule of law since we're the most powerful now.

[SPG]

Just one other comment on this,

What if it was another army killing wounded US soldiers?

Explain how that would be different please.

[pseudobrit]

Even if he was a suicide bomber, the troops were at a standoff distance and behind cover.

It took three shots to hit him.

G5ROCKS -- you're arguing in circles.

[LethalWolfe]

Nuts, I was hoping my remark about sensational headlines would be flippant. Oh well.

Originally posted by SPG
Just one other comment on this,

What if it was another army killing wounded US soldiers?

Explain how that would be different please.

Why would it be different?


Lethal

[mactastic]

It would be different because I think that the same people who are apologizing for the soldier killing the Iraqi would be calling for blood if there was video of an American being treated like that.

Did you all feel the same way you feel about this Iraqi as you did when you watched Black Hawk Down?

"Oh I would have shot those GIs too, you never know what sneaky thing they might be trying to pull"

"It's not an execution when the helicopter lands in the middle of a firefight, how do you know those GIs wouldn't try to blow themselves up and take a few jihadis with them?"

Sound like what you thought when you watched it?

[SPG]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Why would it be different?

So with all the justifying of shooting a wounded Iraqi, then nobody would have a problem with wounded US soldiers being shot instead of treated or captured? Yeah. I'm sure you'd hear a whole lot of:
...the Marine knows he's probably fatally wounded anyway, so why not take out as many of the enemy as you can? That's what I would do.


when a buddy you've known since Basic Training takes a piece of hot lead, be damned your pissed and fired up and must summon an enormous amount of restraint not to send the lot of the US Marines to hell.

Could be that the Marine was not surrendering.
Could be that the Marine has a grenade and is only mock surrendering so that he could sucker a few soldiers to help him and frag them

[LethalWolfe]

Do you guys want to keep the comments relevent to the situation at hand? How is what happend in Somalia in any, way, shape or form related to the situation we are discussing?

Other people might be hypocritical if the situation was reveresed but, as stated, I wouldn't be. So please refrain from lumping me in w/everyone else you disagree with.

Let's look at this situation in a generic way. A guy is caught setting up a bomb on the side of the road as a booby-trap (there have been a rash of these types of bombings for months). The guy bolts. He is shot and wounded. At a fairly long distance you can see he is still alive and moving. Does he still have explosives? If so, will he detonate them? Suicide bombing are a common tactic so the threat of him blowing himself up is very real. Are you willing to gamble that this bomber has no more explosives and will not detonate himself? Are you willing to put at risk the lives of your unit, and any civlians in the area?

I don't care who is the bomber and who is the unit that kills him. That doesn't change this situation one bit.

Since everyone likes doing "what if's" in this thread. What if the headline was, "Wounded Suicide Bomber kills Marines and Civilians." How many would chalk that event up as another example of how poorly the US is handling the situation over there? Or would the common opinion be, "Gee, I'm glad the US troops didn't kill the bomber but gave him the bennefit of the doubt. Too bad they were wrong which got them killed, and allowed dozens of civilians to be killed and injured."


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Even if he was a suicide bomber, the troops were at a standoff distance and behind cover.

It took three shots to hit him.

G5ROCKS -- you're arguing in circles.

What does the distance matter? If they were going to give him medical attention or capture him they would have to close in on him anyway. And there could be a civilians in the area w/in range of the bomber.


Lethal

[JesseJames]

Things happen in war. I don't judge any soldier or Marine for what they did unless I was right there with them in the dirt and misery with bullets whizzing past them.
It seems too easy to proclaim self-righteousness in our legal based society.
Go grab a flak-vest, Kevlar helmut, and an M-4 assault rifle and get out there and see how you feel.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by JesseJames
Things happen in war. I don't judge any soldier or Marine for what they did unless I was right there with them in the dirt and misery with bullets whizzing past them.
It seems too easy to proclaim self-righteousness in our legal based society.
Go grab a flak-vest, Kevlar helmut, and an M-4 assault rifle and get out there and see how you feel.

I tend to feel this way too and I try not to judge the troops themselves. They are trained killers and you can't blame a scorpion for stinging you when it's his nature.

Where I do place blame is in the men who allowed the troops to be in such a situation.

War is utmost hell, and unfortunately, most Americans these days seem to think it's cool like the movies. Even soldiers who've not seen combat or have and not had time to reflect on their experiences will often feel that war and killing are good things. Once they've seen enough or thought about it enough, though, they inevitably come to their senses.

[zimv20]

soldiers are trained to do more than just kill. they're also trained how to take prisoners. the geneva code specifies that wounded soldiers are to be taken prisoner.

is this an isolated incident or widespread? are soldiers operating on their own or do they have orders?

are there orders from higher up to kill wounded?

how would people feel about the answer to _that_ question, yes or no?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zimv20
soldiers are trained to do more than just kill. they're also trained how to take prisoners. the geneva code specifies that wounded soldiers are to be taken prisoner.

is this an isolated incident or widespread? are soldiers operating on their own or do they have orders?

are there orders from higher up to kill wounded?

how would people feel about the answer to _that_ question, yes or no?


Okay, so, let me get this straight (since we've left the topic at hand and headed into the world of hypothetical generalities). You think that once anyone gets wounded in anyway they should stop being fired at and the opposing forces should immediately advance on that wounded enemy to give medical attention and make him a POW? Even if that wounded person is still a lethal threat? I think people are missing a very relevent piece of the puzzle. Just because someone is wounded doesn't mean they still can't kill you and/or those, military or civilian, around you. If someone is wounded and rendered a non-threat that is one thing. If someone is wounded but still remains a threat that is quite another thing.

You are only looking at this from one persepctive and you are attempting to apply black and white, hard and fast rules to situations that change rapidly and vary greatly. No offense, but you seem completely out of touch with the reality that is combat at the grunt level.

Getting back to the point of the thread, I think the soliders in the video did the correct thing in this situation. Why? Because this guy had planted/attempted to plant a bomb which means there was a very real threat of him still having expolsives on his person. And all it could take is a twitch of the thumb or squeeze of a finger to blow himself up, killing and injuring those around him (military and civilian). And, like I keep saying, that is a very real threat because suicide bombing is a common tactic over there.

Now, if the situation was different, let's say the guy just had an AK-47, took some shots at the Marines and then bolted. If the Marines dropped him, same as the guy in the video, and then killed him, just like in the video, I think the Marines would have been in the wrong (assuming of course the wounded man did not attempt to fire/use his weapon anymore).


Lethal

[Rower_CPU]

I understand the precautions that soldiers must take in these types of situations. I cannot understand, nor stomach, cheering after killing an opposing soldier used for target practice.

These soldiers have been in combat for many months now. The honeymoon is over. It should be business as usual, not a frat party.

[JesseJames]

Do you have any idea about what it's like to young, male, and pumped up? Least of all to be a young, male, pumped up MARINE? Geez.
The military is expert at harnessing all that macho swagger. It's what wins wars for God sake.

I had a friend who tried out for the U.S Army sniper school. One of the toughest schools in the Army next to Rangers, and Special Forces. They do an interview-type psychological evaluation of all sniper candidates. One of the questions was, if a young child was coming at you with a grenade with probable intention to kill you what would you feel?
My friend said he'd feel recoil. He may have said it flippantly but it was the correct answer. You should kill the child. The thing was that he said it too fast. The interviewer said if he thought about it a little longer it would've been okay.

And to those Marines I say HOORAHHH! Get some!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by JesseJames
It's what wins wars for God sake.

Where's the war?

[skunk]

Originally posted by JesseJames
It's what wins wars for God sake.
Who's the God?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I understand the precautions that soldiers must take in these types of situations. I cannot understand, nor stomach, cheering after killing an opposing soldier used for target practice.

These soldiers have been in combat for many months now. The honeymoon is over. It should be business as usual, not a frat party.

These soldiers have been getting blown up by bombs placed on the side of the road for many months now. They just found and killed one of the guys that has been planting those bombs.

If you can't understand the reaction of these, or any, soldiers go read up on some psychology related to warfare and read some non-ficition about war on the front lines taken from first hand accounts. Although not relevent really to this topic Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen Soliders" is an excellent book. It is almost all first hand accounts w/Ambrose only stepping in every now and then to stitch those accounts together.

I understand the reaction of the troops although I do find it unsettling. But then again I am an outsider looking in. I'm not waking up every morning hoping I'll be alive to see my bunk again that night. Dehumanizing<sp?> the enemy is a requirement to get the job done. Just like cops, firemen, doctors/emts/pathologists have to emotionally seperate themselves from their duties in order to do their job and save lives soldiers must also distance their actions from their emotions. Most can do this, some cannot, and some go too far.

Almost all the combat vets I know have memories of events so horrible they will never speak of them and never wish those events on another living soul. But they faced those horrible things in order to survive. Or to make sure their buddies would survive. Or to make sure the people they were sent their to protect would survive.


Lethal

[Rower_CPU]

I've read Ambrose's "Band of Brothers". I must have missed the parts where they cheered after killing wounded Germans. ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I've read Ambrose's "Band of Brothers". I must have missed the parts where they cheered after killing wounded Germans. ;)


Most people do miss it. It's just a simple, "woohoo" on page 110. :p


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Okay, so, let me get this straight (since we've left the topic at hand and headed into the world of hypothetical generalities). You think that once anyone gets wounded in anyway they should stop being fired at and the opposing forces should immediately advance on that wounded enemy to give medical attention and make him a POW? Even if that wounded person is still a lethal threat?

i'm not dictating the rules of war. i'm merely saying that the Geneva Convention applies and i'm concerned that because "war is dangerous," the US military is feeling free to skirt the rules.

would you, in fact, support a decision by the US military to ignore the Geneva Convention?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by JesseJames

And to those Marines I say HOORAHHH! Get some!

just curious, in what branch do you serve?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm not dictating the rules of war. i'm merely saying that the Geneva Convention applies and i'm concerned that because "war is dangerous," the US military is feeling free to skirt the rules.

would you, in fact, support a decision by the US military to ignore the Geneva Convention?


I've never said the US, or any military, should ignore the Geneva Convention. How do you feel the Geneva Convention was side-stepped by the US in this situation? Like I asked before, is it your opinion that all wounded soldiers should immediately<sp?> stopped being fired upon and the opposing forces should attempt to advance on that wounded man, capture him, and give medical attention to him even if the wounded soldier still poses a lethal threat to the opposing forces and/or civilians in the area? Do you draw a distiction between a wounder soldier who continues to fight and/or that continues to pose a lethal threat and one that does not?

And yes you are appearing to dictate the rules of war by attempting to hold soldiers to hard and fast, black and white rules in an environment were everything changes in a heartbeat and every situation is different.


Lethal

[SPG]

Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the Marines.…A

Disgusting.…A

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.…A

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.…A

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties, sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.…A

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

1SG Perry D. Jefferies <pjefferies@hot.rr.com>
Copperas Cove, TX

[LethalWolfe]

SPG,

As I'm sure you know there are 2 posted e-mails on the website supporting the action, and 2 denouncing it. 3 ID themselves as part of the US Military the 4th just lists his name.

As I stated in more detail before, if the Iraqi was lugging an AK-47 and not a bomber I would most likely agree w/the e-mail you quoted. But he wasn't so I don't.

This thread has gotten rather long and I'd like to thank everyone who helped keep the discussion civil. I know it easily could have spiraled into the wasteland in no time flat.


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I've never said the US, or any military, should ignore the Geneva Convention. How do you feel the Geneva Convention was side-stepped by the US in this situation? Like I asked before, is it your opinion that all wounded soldiers should immediately<sp?> stopped being fired upon and the opposing forces should attempt to advance on that wounded man, capture him, and give medical attention to him even if the wounded soldier still poses a lethal threat to the opposing forces and/or civilians in the area? Do you draw a distiction between a wounder soldier who continues to fight and/or that continues to pose a lethal threat and one that does not?

And yes you are appearing to dictate the rules of war by attempting to hold soldiers to hard and fast, black and white rules in an environment were everything changes in a heartbeat and every situation is different.


Lethal

i understand everything you're saying about soldiers being allowed to defend themselves. i'm not disputing that, nor am i trying to dictate how soldiers behave, aside from saying they should behave according to the Geneva Convention.

i look at this one act and, solely on the what i see, question if the soldiers acted correctly. maybe your position is, "better safe than sorry." mine is, "the soldier has to do better."

absent data i've not been presented, to me it looks like murder. though a major job of the soldier is to kill, it is quite possible for the soldier to kill incorrectly. i wonder first if it's the case here. i wonder second if this is an isolated incident or if this behavior is endemic of the entire iraq effort.

if the latter, who set this policy and is it the right policy? again, these are the things i'm wondering, and no one seems to be presenting the answers.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zimv20
i understand everything you're saying about soldiers being allowed to defend themselves. i'm not disputing that, nor am i trying to dictate how soldiers behave, aside from saying they should behave according to the Geneva Convention.

i look at this one act and, solely on the what i see, question if the soldiers acted correctly. maybe your position is, "better safe than sorry." mine is, "the soldier has to do better."

absent data i've not been presented, to me it looks like murder. though a major job of the soldier is to kill, it is quite possible for the soldier to kill incorrectly. i wonder first if it's the case here. i wonder second if this is an isolated incident or if this behavior is endemic of the entire iraq effort.

if the latter, who set this policy and is it the right policy? again, these are the things i'm wondering, and no one seems to be presenting the answers.


No one is answering your questions about policy because no one on this board knows. Unless we have some members currently stationed in Iraq that are actively posting and would like to toss in their 2 cents we can only speculate. But I see no reason to assume that the US Military has offically stopped observing the Geneva Convention. The e-mail that SPG quoted specificly mentions US medics risking their lives to give wounded Iraqi soldiers medical attention.

I guess this is a good example of how different people can look at the same events and form completely different opinions on the matter.

To revisit a Q I posed earlier. If the headline read "Wounded Iraqi bomber kills Marines and Civilians: Dozens More Injured" would you be critical of the Military for not doing a better job of securing Iraq and protecting civilians? Or would you congratulate the Military for not killing the wounded bomber?


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
No one is answering your questions about policy because no one on this board knows.


i was unclear -- i was posing it as more of a question to the media. this is an area where i think the media should be asking the tough questions and, afaik, isn't.


I guess this is a good example of how different people can look at the same events and form completely different opinions on the matter.


it's a fantastic example


To revisit a Q I posed earlier. If the headline read "Wounded Iraqi bomber kills Marines and Civilians: Dozens More Injured" would you be critical of the Military for not doing a better job of securing Iraq and protecting civilians? Or would you congratulate the Military for not killing the wounded bomber?


you're making it too black/white of an issue. the opposite of murdering this particular iraqi isn't to throw all caution into the wind. it seems i'm right in that you're taking the "better safe than sorry" view. that's a view i can't agree w/ because the consequences are what the topic of this thread is about.

btw, the last question you ask is unfair -- do you REALLY think that accurately describes any position i've taken on these boards? do you HONESTLY think i put a higher value on iraqi lives than US?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by skunk
Who's the God?

Well... according to Jewish, Christian and Muslim scripture, the God in question is the same God. :D

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zimv20
i was unclear -- i was posing it as more of a question to the media. this is an area where i think the media should be asking the tough questions and, afaik, isn't.



it's a fantastic example



you're making it too black/white of an issue. the opposite of murdering this particular iraqi isn't to throw all caution into the wind. it seems i'm right in that you're taking the "better safe than sorry" view. that's a view i can't agree w/ because the consequences are what the topic of this thread is about.

btw, the last question you ask is unfair -- do you REALLY think that accurately describes any position i've taken on these boards? do you HONESTLY think i put a higher value on iraqi lives than US?


I never meant to imply that you placed more value on Iraqi lives than on US lives. I just kept the US/Iraqi motif going because that's what the thread was about. The position I've taken is due to my evaluation of the situation. It could have been US troops shooting an Iraqi bomber, Iraqi troops shooting an American bomber, or a dog shooting a cat. It is irrelevent, to me, who pulled the trigger and who died. Again, my opinion is based on the events of the situation, not the participants.

I am taking a "better safe than sorry" stance in this specific situation. But I'm not trying to present a "black and white" position. I'm trying to present a "it depends on the situation" position.

The reason I asked the "headline" question is because, in your opinion, the troops in the video chose the wrong course of action in killing the bomber. Now what if the troops did not kill the bomber but instead made their way to him to capture him and give him medical attention, the right course of action in your opinion. But before the troops get to the man he detonates himself and/or the bomb he planted. The resulting expolsion kills a couple of marines and/or civilians and injures a dozen or so more. In your opinion, was going to attended to the wounded bomber still the correct course of action?

You say "better safe than sorry" is a view you cannot agree with. Is that directed at this particular event (what we saw in the video), or at combat in general? Sometimes I'm not sure when you are talking about the specifict situation (the events in the vide) and when you are talking about "the bigger picture."


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I never meant to imply that you placed more value on Iraqi lives than on US lives.


thank you

But before the troops get to the man he detonates himself and/or the bomb he planted. The resulting expolsion kills a couple of marines and/or civilians and injures a dozen or so more. In your opinion, was going to attended to the wounded bomber still the correct course of action?


hindsight is always 20/20. let's say, in this instance, your bomb scenario occurred (heck, it probably has already occurred in other engagements). though tragic, we'd know that the soldiers were adhering to the rules of engagement as outlined by the Geneva Convention.

what, if any, change would/should command take w/ the rules of engagement? would they say, "from now on, shoot first, ask questions later?" would they advise their soldiers to engage in ways that run counter to the GC? and my big question -- in the bigger picture -- is: have they already?


You say "better safe than sorry" is a view you cannot agree with. Is that directed at this particular event (what we saw in the video), or at combat in general?

bigger picture. i am a realist in that i cannot expect every single encounter to be issue-free. if this is a single instance, then, great, court martial the murderer and i'll celebrate our restrained and professional military.

if this behavior is rampant, i'm gonna start looking at command. is murder being committed out of mismanagement and bad training, or through direct order?

hope this helps clear up my position.

btw, i'm throwing around the term "murderer" pretty loosely, and i'm using it as a term of convenience. i think the incident should be investigated and, short of a finding of guilt, the shooter is an alleged murderer.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
The reason I asked the "headline" question is because, in your opinion, the troops in the video chose the wrong course of action in killing the bomber. Now what if the troops did not kill the bomber but instead made their way to him to capture him and give him medical attention, the right course of action in your opinion. But before the troops get to the man he detonates himself and/or the bomb he planted. The resulting expolsion kills a couple of marines and/or civilians and injures a dozen or so more. In your opinion, was going to attended to the wounded bomber still the correct course of action?
Lethal [/B]

You do not understand.

If the troops approached the man to render aid, and the man detonated himself, and killed/injured the marines and civilians, that would still be the correct course of action. It would be correct because that would add to the bodycount the liberal leftists have been tallying as the price of the Iraqi liberation. It would be the correct course of action because it would validate their warped sense of justice.

Maybe I'm just too cynical that the leftist are really just good people with too much emotionality.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Maybe I'm just too cynical that the leftist are really just good people with too much emotionality.

i think we're _all_ cynical :-)

it's a mistake to think that i or anyone else likes seeing anyone blown up. my great "fault" is the ability to empathize w/ just about anyone, plus the constant mental exercises i do by reversing the situation.

in this case, it's "what if that was a bunch of iraqis shooting a downed US soldier?" in either scenario, i want an effort made to save a human life, rather than picking off a downed man from a distance.

if you grok this, then you should understand why i never take a "USA first" posture. it's always "world first".

[mactastic]

Yeah, liberals go to bed at night dreaming of more dead GI's and wishing (not praying of course) for the number to go higher. That's it exactly.:rolleyes:

Man, you know us all to well.

Versus you of course, who have out and out said you could care a whit about your neighbors access to health care, or a safe clean environment. Your right to do whatever you want trumps caring I suppose.

[Backtothemac]

Wait a sec here. How many of you have ever been deployed in a forward combat area? Do you know if the guy was laying on an AK-47? Do we know if he was trying to detonate a bomb? Do we know anything?

Yea, the soldier that killed him was euphoric. There is a rush that comes from combat when you KILL the enemy, and you live to tell about it. ESPECIALLY when you are 19 years old.

You cannot, and should not judge the actions of the individual from a 30 second video. You just don't know all of the facts.

Now, should their be an inquiry about what happened. You damn right. If there was nothing more to it than using a casualty for target practice, then yep. He should serve the rest of his life in a nice cell in Kentucky.

But, I beg to argure that there is far more to the video than what appears. Do not judge a soldier fighting to protect his country and HIMSELF without full disclosure of the facts of the incedient.

[mactastic]

Hey, I don't think that soldier did anything terribly wrong. Can't say I wouldn't have shot the guy too. War sucks. Bad Things happen in war. Sometimes people who don't deserve to die get killed. That's why we try to avoid going to war in the first place. And I don't even object to the soldier celebrating. It's not familiar territory for him to be killing someone I would imagine, and a calm rational response is probably beyond a young soldier in a situation like that. However, it should be within the powers of the people here on this board not to celebrate the killing of another human.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Do you know if the guy was laying on an AK-47? Do we know if he was trying to detonate a bomb? Do we know anything?

yes, we know all that --- because that was me.

i was there trying to DEFUSE a roadside bomb. and a US soldier shot me! i yelled "I'm an American!" but they thought i yelled "I'm UN-american" and they just kept shooting and shooting and shooting.

it really hurt.

:) :) :)

on a serious note, i agree there should be an investigation. further, as i've indicated above, i'd like to know if the killing of wounded iraqis is unofficial policy.

[LethalWolfe]

zimv20,

Thanks your last post (to me) it did clear things up for me. :)

I think people might be confused on the protections offered by the GC as it pretains to the video. Just because you are wounded doesn't mean you are protected under under the GC. Article 3 of the GC, first and fore most, protects "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...". Now, a wounded man taking no active part in the hostilities would be covered and should recieve proper attention, medical care ect.,. But a wounded man who is actively taking part in the hostilities recieves no protection from Article 3 of the GC.

In short, being wounded does not make you excempt from being a "legal" target. Being a non-combatant/taking no active part in the hostilities makes you excempt from being a "legal" target.

This is why I kept bringing up if people are making a distinction between a wounded soldier who is no longer a threat and a wounded soldier who is still a threat.

Of course the debate is still open as to whether the bomber, after being wounded, should've been considered a non-combatant or not (obviously I think he was). Of course all opinions here are based on mere speculation because all we have to go on is a short video clip that we have only the minimum of context for.


zimv20,

w/all the attenion this is getting I'm sure the Brass will look into it. And if the Brass thinks they went to far then they will be put on trial. But if that happens I hope it is because the soldiers did, in fact, go to far. And not because the Brass, or the White House, feels the need to convict/discharge innocnet troops because of PR.


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
if the Brass thinks they went to far then they will be put on trial. But if that happens I hope it is because the soldiers did, in fact, go to far. And not because the Brass, or the White House, feels the need to convict/discharge innocnet troops because of PR.


wholeheartedly agree

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zimv20
on a serious note, i agree there should be an investigation. further, as i've indicated above, i'd like to know if the killing of wounded iraqis is unofficial policy.

I hope it's offical policy. As long as the enemy soldier, Iraqi or not, is still a threat. ;)

Now, I'm just waiting for someone to take me out of context. :D


Lethal

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I hope it's offical policy.

You sick bastard!!! :p

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You sick bastard!!! :p


ROFL! Ahhh... that just made my night. :)


Lethal

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
ROFL! Ahhh... that just made my night. :)


Lethal

;)

Always glad to bring some levity into heavy discussions.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, liberals go to bed at night dreaming of more dead GI's and wishing (not praying of course) for the number to go higher. That's it exactly.:rolleyes:

Man, you know us all to well.

Versus you of course, who have out and out said you could care a whit about your neighbors access to health care, or a safe clean environment. Your right to do whatever you want trumps caring I suppose.

That may not be the truth but those on the left in their attempt to express their position come across as if they enjoy bad news and do not like good news. Please note how Rower is tired of me posting good news on the economy. I don't tell any of you to stop hating the president or stop posting stories that paint him in a bad light. Actions speak for themselfs as to why the left gets misunderstood by the conservative in this forum. This is actually happening across the country not just in this forum.

The thread was a major flame bait because there is not enough info on the particular incident to accurately come to one conclusion or the other. BTTM made some very good points, so I don't need to repeat them.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by g5man
...
Please note how Rower is tired of me posting good news on the economy.
...

I never said any such thing, and I have posted a total of 3 times in that thread. Rather than attack me personally here, why not address the points I raised in that thread?

I am tired, however, of the "predictions" you have made in all of your incarnations on this board that paint a slanted picture by ignoring the side of the story that opposes your views.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I never said any such thing, and I have posted a total of 3 times in that thread. Rather than attack me personally here, why not address the points I raised in that thread?

I am tired, however, of the "predictions" you have made in all of your incarnations on this board that paint a slanted picture by ignoring the side of the story that opposes your views.

Fair enough. I hope to have time to do so tomorrow.

Good Night.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
but those on the left...

But those on the right are all alike. We liberals are different and don't deserve to all be lumped in together, but those on the right are all of one mind about things. Not a bit of difference between an Arlen Specter and a Tom Delay.:p

In case you hadn't bothered to read my post in this thread, I am not really bothered by the idea that an injured Iraqi got shot. But that probably doesn't compute with you, a liberal not coming down on the armed forces? How can that be? But I get lumped in with "those on the left".

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by g5man
BTTM made some very good points, so I don't need to repeat them.


Oh, sure BTTM posts once in this thread and gets all the credit for good points. I posted until my fingers bled and I get nothing. Nothing!?!:mad: ;) :p :D


Lethal

[mactastic]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Oh, sure BTTM posts once in this thread and gets all the credit for good points. I posted until my fingers bled and I get nothing. Nothing!?!:mad: ;) :p :D


Lethal

I can see why you'd be bitter, particularly after being passed up already for most flippant remark, now this! Oh the indignity.;)

[g5man]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Oh, sure BTTM posts once in this thread and gets all the credit for good points. I posted until my fingers bled and I get nothing. Nothing!?!:mad: ;) :p :D


Lethal

You are right, I am sorry that I did not give you the credit you deserved.
;) ;)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, liberals go to bed at night dreaming of more dead GI's and wishing (not praying of course) for the number to go higher. That's it exactly.:rolleyes:

Man, you know us all to well.

Versus you of course, who have out and out said you could care a whit about your neighbors access to health care, or a safe clean environment. Your right to do whatever you want trumps caring I suppose.

Thats because your idea of giving my neighbor health care is by making me pay for part of it. Or that a safe clean environment means that the land I bought to build my retirement home needs to be reverted back to wetlands to protect the pygmy shrimp that lived in back in the Cretaceous period.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Thats because your idea of giving my neighbor health care is by making me pay for part of it. Or that a safe clean environment means that the land I bought to build my retirement home needs to be reverted back to wetlands to protect the pygmy shrimp that lived in back in the Cretaceous period.

Yeah, somehow I got the idea that I'm NOT the most important thing in the universe.

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, somehow I got the idea that I'm NOT the most important thing in the universe.

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me

You are not. To me, the most important thing in MY universe is me. And for your universe, I don't care.

Now, I'm perfectly able to volunteer and help you out, but it has to be ME that has made that decision.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
To me, the most important thing in MY universe is me. And for your universe, I don't care.

Lol, we all know that about you!