Marine shoots UNARMED Iraqi

Status
Not open for further replies.

sablescort

New Member
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
3,504
Reaction score
0
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/nm/20041115/ts_nm/iraq_marine_shooting_dc

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's fucking faking he's dead. He faking he's fucking dead."


"The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said. No images of the shooting were shown in the footage provided to Reuters.

Now time to courtmartial that Marine for shoooting an UNARMED and WOUNDED Iraqi insurgent to death in a MOSQUE that is the holiest place to Muslims. Now that is going to PISS a lot of Muslims off and create a lot of terrorists to avenge for what happened in their HOLY PLACE!

Thanks George, you just created a pretty fucking fine mess and just pissed a lot of Muslims off!
 
Well, the rebels, the insurgents desecrate their own mosques by being in there, by stockpiling weapons, etc, etc.......
 
Tousi said:
Well, the rebels, the insurgents desecrate their own mosques by being in there, by stockpiling weapons, etc, etc.......

Yeah, but aren't the US-backed Iraq soldiers supposed to be ones who have the responsibility of going into mosques and not the US soldiers? :/
 
Just like I've been saying all along, the longer we are there, the more murderous we become.
Didn't you think it the least bit odd that there are no wounded rebels, they are all dead?
Hardly any prisoners?
According to the Helsinki Accords, it is forbidden to shoot wounded soldiers. But the Bush administration made it clear that international bans are not relevant to the USA.
Sick.
All this is just going to make it a lot easier to turn the entire Muslim world against us, over a BILLION of them.
 
Last edited:
I post frequently in the regards to my position on the war and the support of our soldiers. If, in fact, this happened the way the story is reporting, that soldier should be brought before a court martial.

The report said the Marine, who had returned to duty after being shot in the face a day earlier, had been removed from the field and was being questioned by the U.S. military.

I think this has a lot to do with it. If it happened as reported, I'd say this guy has some personal issues. Others are saying that the wounded there were in bad shape and many were close to death. I can't possibly see how this guy was any threat.

While I support our military and our troops 110%, it makes my stomach turn when I hear of troops doing things that are the exact things we are there fighting against.

I also believe that the above incident is something related to a single soldier and is not indicative of our military standards and the troops that are serving. Just like any other profession, someone can go over the edge (The term 'going postal' comes to mind).
 
Beowulf said:
Just like I've been saying all along, the longer we are there, the more murderous we become.

Yeah...reminds of 'Nam's "My Lai" massacre of unarmed civilians in the village of My Lai by the Army in 1967.

History repeats again. Seems we will always never learn from history and are doomed to repeat it.
 
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
US MARINE SHOOTS TERRORIST ON CAMERA

The latest controversy in the media is this tape that shows a United States Marine finishing off an "insurgent" on camera. Basically, the story goes like this. The Marines took over a mosque that was occupied the previous day by Islamic terrorists that had been shooting at them. Again, this was a place inhabited by people who were trying to kill them. Keep that in mind. Friday, the Marines were fired at by snipers and terrorists with rocket propelled grenades. They stormed the place, killing 10 insurgents. But Saturday, the place had been reoccupied, and the insurgents were at it again ... trying to kill marines.

A Marine approached one of the seemingly dead insurgents, and noticed he appeared to be breathing. Figuring he was faking being dead, and that he might pose a security risk, the Marine raised his rife, pointed it at the man's head and administered the final desert sand nap. Speaking afterward, the Marine who did the deed says he didn't realize that the man may have been from among the injured the day before.

All of this is being investigated, of course, to see whether it was a clean killing or not. But you have to ask yourself something: what would you have done? You're fighting a war, there are terrorists in a mosque shooting at you that want to end your life. These Islamic insurgents have, in the past, feigned death in order to lure American soldiers closer. They would then open fire, or they would detonate a bomb hidden in their clothes. It's judgment call, to be sure. I wasn't there, so I can't really judge if the Marine acted correctly.

One thing for sure. This incident will garner more media reaction and public outrage than did the public beheadings of innocent citizens by Islamic terrorists. I wonder if this particular insurgent had killed any American or Iraqi soldiers before he was rendered incapable of doing so.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
 
Military Investigates Shooting of Prisoner
Tuesday, November 16, 2004

...Sites reported a Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent.

NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the wounded Iraqi had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.

The Marine has been withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of the investigation, the U.S. military said.

...The judge advocate general heading the investigation, Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude the Marine was acting in self-defense.

"The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent," Miller said. "So they would have to be using force in self-defense, yes."

...Charles Heyman, a senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in Britain, defended the Marine's actions, saying it was possible the wounded man was concealing a firearm or grenade.

"You can hear the tension in those Marines' voices. One is showing, 'He's faking it. He's faking it,'" Heyman said. "In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded."

If the injured man makes even the slightest move, "in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him...."
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
The Helsinki Accords forbid executing wounded soldiers, keep THAT in mind.
Even those that were, gasp, trying to kill you.

And keep in mind that we SAW the tape, we SAW that he clearly had no weapons on him or around him. It was a cold-blooded execution, but that is getting to be standard. The only reason this was caught on tape was that it was caught on tape, PERIOD. It was just rotten luck for the killer to have had a camera crew with him. I wonder how many others he "finished off?"

You make the four "innocent civilians" the equivalent of destroying an entire city and its inhabitants??? They were NOT "innocent civilians"----they clearly knew the risks of going into a war-torn country and their luck just caught up with them, that's all. It is more or less inevitable.

This was NOT an isolated incident. I am from a military family and I have a lot of veteran buddies, and they assure me that this is just like Vietnam, only more evil in nature.
Again, I remark to you guys how it's pretty fishy that there are no wounded Fallujah fighters. They are ALL DEAD. Think about it.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Now the Muslims are REALLY angry. :O


Shooting of Iraqi in Mosque Angers Muslims

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The fatal shooting of a wounded and apparently unarmed man in a Fallujah mosque by a U.S. Marine angered Sunni Muslims in Iraq on Tuesday and raised questions about the protection of enemy fighters once they are out of action.

International legal experts said the Marine may have acted in self-defense because of a danger that a wounded enemy may try to blow up a hidden weapon; a key issue was whether the injured man was a prisoner at the time.

The shooting happened Saturday, one day after the Marine, who has not been identified, was wounded in the face and after another man in his unit was killed by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent.

However, the incident could cause major political problems for the government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and his U.S. backers at a time when Iraqi authorities are seeking to contain a backlash among Sunnis to the invasion of the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

American and Iraqi authorities tried to prevent rage from spreading among Sunnis, many of whom watched dramatic footage of the shooting that aired throughout the day on Al-Jazeera television, a Qatar-based satellite station. American stations did not show the killing itself.

"Look at this old man who was slain by them," said Ahmed Khalil, 40, as he watched the video in his Baghdad shop. "Was he a fighter? Was anybody who was killed inside this mosque a fighter? Where are their weapons? I don't know what to say."

It was unclear to what extent other Iraqis, particularly the majority Shiite Muslims, cared about the shooting.

Maysoun Hirmiz, 36, a Christian merchant in Baghdad, said she was not satisfied by an announcement by the U.S. military that it had removed the Marine from the battlefield and will investigate whether he acted in self defense.

"They will say or do the same thing they did with the soldiers who committed the abuses against Iraqis detainees in Abu Ghraib prison, and they are still free, enjoying their lives while they destroyed other peoples' lives," Hirmiz said.

The central figures who allegedly carried out the physical abuse and sexual humiliation of inmates at the notorious prison west of Baghdad are currently on trial, facing trial or have already been sentenced.

The Abu Ghraib scandal, which erupted last spring when photos of the abuse became public, generated a worldwide wave of revulsion that raised questions about the treatment of Muslim prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as part of the Bush administration's war on terror.

The shooting in the Fallujah mosque became public Monday with the airing of the footage taken Saturday by pool correspondent Kevin Sites of NBC News. In his report, Sites said the man who was killed didn't appear to be armed or threatening in any way, with no weapons visible in the mosque.

In a statement Tuesday, the 1st Marine Division said it launched its investigation "to determine whether the Marine acted in self-defense, violated military law or failed to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict."

It was unclear from the statement whether the incident was reported through the chain of command Saturday or only when the pool footage became generally available two days later.

Sites said three other insurgents wounded Friday in the mosque were also shot again Saturday by the Marines.

International legal experts said protection of injured combatants once they are out of action is a basic rule in warfare but that the Marine shown in the video may have acted in self-defense.

Charles Heyman, a British infantry veteran and senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in London, defended the Marine, saying soldiers are taught that the enemy "is at his most dangerous when he is severely injured."

Other experts contacted by The Associated Press were careful to avoid a public judgment because of the dangerous and uncertain situation in Fallujah, where U.S. troops were still fighting insurgents.

"It's clearly recognized that people in combat situations are under enormous strain," international Red Cross spokesman Florian Westphal said in Geneva. "Obviously, we were not on the spot so we cannot judge the precise circumstances of what was being shown here."

Westphal said the Geneva Conventions are clear: Protection of wounded combatants once they are out of action is an absolute requirement.

However, the status of the wounded man was unclear. A different Marine unit had come under fire from the mosque on Friday. Those Marines stormed the building, killing 10 men and wounding five, according to Sites. He said Marines treated the wounded and left them.

The same five men were in the mosque Saturday when Marines from another unit arrived. Westphal said he couldn't say for sure from NBC's account whether the man was a prisoner.

Heyman said there is a danger that a wounded enemy may try to detonate a hidden firearm or a grenade, and if the man made the slightest move "in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him."

However, legal distinctions are unlikely to carry much weight among many Iraqis, especially Sunnis already angry over the Fallujah offensive. Allawi said he ordered the assault after Fallujah's leaders refused to hand over Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other foreign fighters.

But Sunni militants saw the invasion of the city 40 miles west of Baghdad as a plot by the Americans and the Shiites, such as Allawi, against religious Sunnis - an allegation both governments deny.

"The troops not only violated our mosques with their sins and their boots but they stepped on our brothers' blood," said Khalil, the shop owner. "They are criminals and mercenaries. I feel guilty standing here and not doing anything."

At a news conference Tuesday, Iraqi Interior Minister Falah Hassan al-Naqib, himself a Sunni, said that although "killing a wounded person is rejected by us," Fallujah militants were "killers and criminals" who committed brutal acts.

That meant little to Hameed Farhan, 51, who works for the Transportation Ministry in Baghdad.

"I did not see it because there was no electricity at home, but my wife was at her parents and she described it for me," Farhan said. "She was crying. Tears welled up in my eyes. I wanted to scream."

Resources:http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86D7AN01.html
 
Beowulf said:
The Helsinki Accords forbid executing wounded soldiers, keep THAT in mind.
Even those that were, gasp, trying to kill you.

And keep in mind that we SAW the tape, we SAW that he clearly had no weapons on him or around him. It was a cold-blooded execution, but that is getting to be standard. The only reason this was caught on tape was that it was caught on tape, PERIOD. It was just rotten luck for the killer to have had a camera crew with him. I wonder how many others he "finished off?"

You make the four "innocent civilians" the equivalent of destroying an entire city and its inhabitants??? They were NOT "innocent civilians"----they clearly knew the risks of going into a war-torn country and their luck just caught up with them, that's all. It is more or less inevitable.

This was NOT an isolated incident. I am from a military family and I have a lot of veteran buddies, and they assure me that this is just like Vietnam, only more evil in nature.
Again, I remark to you guys how it's pretty fishy that there are no wounded Fallujah fighters. They are ALL DEAD. Think about it.

From what I've seen on picture, it clearly doesn't show whether that wounded solider is armed or not. That wounded person is behind an object, so we can not assume that he was unarmed or not. If he was laying there all naked, without anything blocking the view, then we can call that a clear murder. In past, normal people, seems so innocent and civilized, came up to them and blew up killing them. So how would you feel like a Marine in that situation, and determine quickly that he is faking death and with bombing fresh in your mind, you would've done the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top