Turning to Shit in Fallujah

[Nieninque]

Cant find this story anywhere online, but the news here had a report of a TV newscrew from NBC? following some american soldiers into a building where they found some seriously wounded iraqi men.

They showed one of them lying on the floor wounded, clearly incapacitated and unarmed and then the blacked out the screen as one of the soldiers shot him in the head.

It's all going to go wrong again :(

[Hulkein]

<<wounded iraqi men.>>

I think you mean wounded Iraqi insurgents who were trying to kill the soldiers minutes earlier?

[SpunGirl]

And I'm sure the media spin on everything is always entirely 100% accurate. I BELIEVE EVERYTHING I SEE ON TV.

-K

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Maimara
American soldiers?

Yep

Hulkein, it was soldiers going into an area they had cleared the day before, looking for bodies. They could see that the man was seriously injured and the others were dead.

[Caluss]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Cant find this story anywhere online, but the news here had a report of a TV newscrew from NBC? following some american soldiers into a building where they found some seriously wounded iraqi men.

They showed one of them lying on the floor wounded, clearly incapacitated and unarmed and then the blacked out the screen as one of the soldiers shot him in the head.

It's all going to go wrong again :(


I am a bit skeptical on this. You mean the American news turned off the cameras so American soldiers could kill a severly injured Iraqi insurrgent. Like that is going to happen. The newsman would have continued rolling the film so the could use to impeach President Bush. The media would do anything, to include using forged documents to pin something on this president. Something actually solid they are going turn away from. Righttttt.

[Chadj]

Now, I'm not saying I believe it at all, but Caluss.. think about this:

Soldier:"Turn it off"
CameraMan:"NO I WANT 2 IMPECH PREZ."
Soldier:"I have a gun. You don't."
CameraMan:"...k"

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Caluss

Originally posted by Nieninque
Cant find this story anywhere online, but the news here had a report of a TV newscrew from NBC? following some american soldiers into a building where they found some seriously wounded iraqi men.

They showed one of them lying on the floor wounded, clearly incapacitated and unarmed and then the blacked out the screen as one of the soldiers shot him in the head.

It's all going to go wrong again :(


I am a bit skeptical on this. You mean the American news turned off the cameras so American soldiers could kill a severly injured Iraqi insurrgent. Like that is going to happen. The newsman would have continued rolling the film so the could use to impeach President Bush. The media would do anything, to include using forged documents to pin something on this president. Something actually solid they are going turn away from. Righttttt.

They didnt turn the cameras off. They just didnt show that part on national television. That's why I said they blacked out the screen rather than stopped filming.

[Caluss]

Originally posted by Chadj
Now, I'm not saying I believe it at all, but Caluss.. think about this:

Soldier:"Turn it off"
CameraMan:"NO I WANT 2 IMPECH PREZ."
Soldier:"I have a gun. You don't."
CameraMan:"...k"

Chuckle. thanks for the silly post. You forgot to add the following

CameraMan (thinking to self) Dumb Ass American Soldier. Doesn;t he realize I am still here and can testify against. Thank God only morons are allowed in the infantry.

or

CameraMan '.....k.' Then pretends to turn it off and keeps filming since the American is still to stupid to realize the camera hasn't been turned off.

Ok, it is possible, but highly unlikely.

And by the way, I did say I was skeptical, not that there was no way it could have happened.

[Hulkein]

I actually did think I saw his head spraying, I just figured he got shot after putting up a fight.

Either way he was an insurgent who was being put out of his misery.

[Caluss]

Originally posted by Nieninque
They didnt turn the cameras off. They just didnt show that part on national television. That's why I said they blacked out the screen rather than stopped filming.

So you heard the the shot on the TV and they stated he was shot in the head?

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I actually did think I saw his head spraying, I just figured he got shot after putting up a fight.

Either way he was an insurgent who was being put out of his misery.

And you know that because you were there...

:jerkit:

Either way, whatever he was or had been, he was seriously injured and unarmed. If the US army need further reasons for people in Iraq to take up arms against them, this could be one of them

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Caluss

Originally posted by Nieninque
They didnt turn the cameras off. They just didnt show that part on national television. That's why I said they blacked out the screen rather than stopped filming.

So you heard the the shot on the TV and they stated he was shot in the head?

Yep

[Hulkein]

Yes, and you're there to know he is an innocent man.

:loser:

My position that he was an insurgent is a much greater probability than him being an innocent guy who was killed for no reason.

If some guy is beyond help, why would they leave him to die painfully and slowly? What if they believe the guy is pretending to be hurt to blow them up?

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Hulkein]

[Numbers]

Euthanasia.

Seriously, if he was in a building, lying there bleeding from the day before, while all of his buddies were lying dead next to him, do you honestly think there'd be any chance at all to save his life?

"But they should have tried to save him! Human rights!"

Bullshit. These insurgents are people who SUPPORT taking INNOCENT people hostage and having their throats slashed and heads cut off with a dull knife. These are people who, the day before, were doing their damned hardest to kill American soldiers. The fucker deserved what he got. He should be thankful the soldiers didn't kick him in the sack before putting a bullet in his head.

[Caluss]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Caluss

Originally posted by Nieninque
They didnt turn the cameras off. They just didnt show that part on national television. That's why I said they blacked out the screen rather than stopped filming.

So you heard the the shot on the TV and they stated he was shot in the head?

Yep

I am of the opinion no wounded prisoners should be shot/killed for any reason.

However, having said that, several things should be taken in consideration:

First: Everybody handles pressure differently. After days of being shot at, watch your friends and enemies get shot and die themselves, people tend to lose control of their minds. After all, War is Hell.

Second: If I recall correctly, there are 20,000 troops in Faluja, so 19,999 were not connected with the killing.

Third: I hope the marine gets what he deserves. I hope that is some serious counselling since the news report reflects he was acting extremely unrational prior to the shooting

[Ravenstorm]

Here it is. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4014901.stm)

Edited to add a second link with more details. (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=62 1563&section=news)

Raven

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Hulkein]

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.

Sucks for him. Guy gets shot in the face and returns to duty only to be court marshalled.

[4a6c1]

I'm not too sharp on these things, but in a war arent things like that *supposed* to happen??

There's that fucking shit about how some of the news is made up, you can buy it, I personally DO not, rather.

What (amuses) me the most is how they turned off of the video cameras even though the guys were still watching, whjat have you.

All in all, I don't know if anybody has seen that movie called Wag the Dog, but some conspiracies are more true than others.

[Caluss]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I'm not too sharp on these things, but in a war arent things like that *supposed* to happen??

Nope, they are not supposed to happen. But they do. This is why I am against imbedded reporters.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I'm not too sharp on these things, but in a war arent things like that *supposed* to happen??

Shooting helpless, wounded prisoners in cold blood? No. That's usually called first degree murder. I'm sure his lawyer will argue reduced capacity in some form because of his recent injury and the circumstances.

But what wonderful recruiting material it will be: US SHOOTS HELPLESS, WOUNDED OLD MAN. The line to join up starts on the right.

edited to add another link with a more complete picture. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6496898/) And to say he probably won't get court martialed, all things considered. Which will provide even more recruiting material but he doesn't seem to be guilty of willful murder based on the MSNBC report.

Raven

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Hulkein]

<<Shooting helpless, wounded prisoners in cold blood? No. That's usually called first degree murder>>

He isn't a prisoner if he isn't secured in a cell. Looked to me the guy could've been very dangerous still.

It is war.

[4a6c1]

OH

:?:

War is weird. I wonder why we do it anyways.

[Wezas]

Personally, I don't think the soldier should have been put back into the fray a day after being shot. Give the guy a few days to recover. Recovery isn't always just physical.

http://members.cox.net/legendwezas/fal.jpg

What he did was wrong, unless the prisoner was armed he should not have shot him, though with the tactics used by the insurgents how is one to know the truth anymore. That being said, he did what he is trained to do, marines are trained killers. War is a ugly thing, and sometimes Americans do ugly things as well. I agree with what was said previousy, there should not be reporters imbeded with troops at all.

He can and most likely will be brought up on some form of charges, and be repremanded in some way, unless it is made political it is doubtfull it will be a harsh punishment,

[SpunGirl]

I don't think any one of us can predict how we would react or behave after being exposed to and forced to endure the things that the soldiers in Iraq are. We don't have all the information.

-K

[Trinitis]

Without viewing the video, for all we know the guy was reaching into his shirt/robes/what have you. He could have been reaching to his wound, or pulling out a knife/gun/bomb/whatever. We don't know. The only people that know are the ones who saw it.

:shrug:

[Numbers]

Yeah, let's show mercy to people who booby trap the bodies of their fallen comrades.

Where are people getting the idea that these people even deserve mercy?

In my eyes it is not as much mercy as we do not want to become like the animals we fight.

[Numbers]

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=33668

I'd say that American troops have a long way to go before they turn into those animals, bullet in the head of a dying insurgent or not.

Of course we do, but we as americans have laws that govern how we fight in wars. Not only are we the strongest military out there, but we are also the most compassionate and offer the best treatment to EPOW's (Enemy Prisoners of War), or at least by the way we soldiers are trained we are expected to. What he did was wrong in accordance with his training. Just form a Intelligence aspect, the insurgent would have been much more useful if we could have recieved all the information possible out of him before he died. People are more willing to talk if their life is in jeopardy.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Dave]

[Tsa`ah]

We have this thing called the Geneva Convention ....

It's called a war crime.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Yes, and you're there to know he is an innocent man.

:loser:

My position that he was an insurgent is a much greater probability than him being an innocent guy who was killed for no reason.

If some guy is beyond help, why would they leave him to die painfully and slowly? What if they believe the guy is pretending to be hurt to blow them up?



Dear Fuckhead,

When you talk about conflict in an online text-based fantasy roleplaying game, you talk like a complete twat.
When you talk about conflict in real life, there is no change.

Whether or not this Iraqi was innocent or not of any crimes or attempts to kill the americans previously, he was clearly, CLEARLY seriously injured, unarmed and incapacitated. If there were to be action taken against the Iraqi man, it sould not have been the duty of the soldier in question to be judge jury and exectutioner.
Get a fucking clue.

This action will have given people more reasons to be anti-American intervention.

Just what the troops in Iraq want, I would guess. :rolleyes:

[Tsa`ah]

If he was an insurgent ...

Convention 1, article 3 of the Geneva Conventions:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

If he was a civilian ...

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)


This marine murdered a wounded combatant.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Whether or not this Iraqi was innocent or not of any crimes or attempts to kill the americans previously, he was clearly, CLEARLY seriously injured, unarmed and incapacitated.

Actually, insurgents have been booby-trapping injured Iraqis so that when Americans find them and try to help them they all blow up, so to say that a man lying there is clearly unarmed is a bit of a stretch. He could have just as easily been lying on a bomb waiting to kill as many as he could.

[Kainen]

It's war.. people die.. I am not saying it's right or it's wrong.. but it is what it is. People seem to think that war is played by some type of rules.. maybe for Americans and thier allies.. and I find that just as disturbing as the fact that our countrymen are dying in another country. The bottom line is that we werent there.. like someone said earlier.. he may have been boobytrapped.. at least the American soldier didnt torture the man before he shot him.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Kainen]

[Tsa`ah]

We, the supposed "good" guys", do not shoot the wounded in the head.

I understand things happen in times of war, but there is a line and there are rules.

We are supposed to be better people than those we are fighting. We don't use their tactics. We don't soil our fellow soldier. And we don't further tarnish the flag we bear.

We are supposed to be the example.

[Tsunami]

I don't think anyone should be passing judgement unless they've been there, and in the middle of all that shit. Being over here, you'll never, ever get all the facts, and you'll never know what its like to be standing there in the middle of that threat.

[Kainen]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We, the supposed "good" guys", do not shoot the wounded in the head.

I understand things happen in times of war, but there is a line and there are rules.

We are supposed to be better people than those we are fighting. We don't use their tactics. We don't soil our fellow soldier. And we don't further tarnish the flag we bear.

We are supposed to be the example.

Times of war.. think about what that means.. yes he IS supposed to shoot him in the head.. better that than one of our soldier getting shot.. as for being an example.. there is no being an example in a war.. to force someone to be an example is that type of situation can cripple them from doing what they may need to do to survive.. after all.. what ig the wounded man had been holding a gun.. or a knife? Better safe than sorry.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We have this thing called the Geneva Convention ....

It's called a war crime.
no not technicly, we as americans give the genevia convention to all combatants, but insurgents are not uniformed military that are covered by the convention.

[Tsa`ah]

Go read again and comprehend this time.

Before me condem this guy, I suggest everyone here go, sign up for the Marines, join the fighting in Fallujah, and then see how you act when you go through the experience. This is a war, shit happens. We got to be more sensitive when they behead people, but when something like this happens, we are animals. Fuck that.

- Arkans

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Go read again and comprehend this time.
Hey Tsa'ah im in the military, I have gone over the Geneva convention and know who is and who is not covered by it. My job is governed by it since I will be dealing with a lot of EPW, and detainees. Can you perhaps sit back and think since you have never had to deal with it, and are only reading it off of a website and know nothing of the legal parameters that it sets fourth that you may in fact know nothing. :gasp:

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Dave]

[Parkbandit]

Christ.. I actually agree with Tsa`ah on this one. I must be coming down with some virus. :sniffle:

I will add though.. the day before, I think 5 marines were killed by boobie trapped bodies in that very area of town. They walk into a building that was already cleared by another marine unit and were told that they were all dead. While they are in there, one suddenly begins to move.

Perhaps the marine used poor judgement on the situation and believed his life as well as the others in his party were in danger. We weren't there and I for one have never been in a combat situation like this.

sadly he is wrong, we as americans offer the same rights under the geneva convention to all combatants, though we are not required to offer them to insurgent and or terrorist groups.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Arkans
Before me condem this guy, I suggest everyone here go, sign up for the Marines, join the fighting in Fallujah, and then see how you act when you go through the experience. This is a war, shit happens. We got to be more sensitive when they behead people, but when something like this happens, we are animals. Fuck that.

- Arkans

Actually, when they behead people we are outraged and sickened by it. When we shoot them in the head in cold blood we are all "Hey it's war...shit happens...they arent wearing green so they arent covered by the Geneva Convention"

See the problem?

Exactly right Nieninque.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Dave
sadly he is wrong, we as americans offer the same rights under the geneva convention to all combatants, though we are not required to offer them to insurgent and or terrorist groups.

IF the marine shot this guy because he was an insurgent and not because he was concerned with his safety.. he did not follow the GC.

Since you and I have not spoken with this marine, his intentions are not known. We are only guessing.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Go read again and comprehend this time.

Hey dip shit im in the fucking military, I have gone over the Geneva convention and know who is and who is not covered by it. My job is governed by it since I will be dealing with a lot of EPW, and detainees. Can you perhaps sit back and think since you have never had to deal with it, and are only reading it off of a website and know nothing of the legal parameters that it sets fourth that you may in fact know nothing. :gasp:

Dave, just because you are in the military, dont even fucking pretend that you are the voice of authority on all things to do with the military. There are people who have never been in the military that know more than you will ever know about it.*

Have a debate about it, by all means, just dont say someone is wrong just because you are there, especially since you have just finished your training and your knowledge about anything at all, by way of wider military issues, is ropey at least.


* NB - I am not one of the people who know more than Dave will ever know about the US military. Just to clear that up.

[AnticorRifling]

Yeah I'll stay out of this one. I don't know all the facts, since I am now a civilian and I don't get all the facts remember what the American public doesn't know is what keeps them the American public, so I will refrain from making judgement.

You'd be suprised how different your viewpoint is when you've actually been there. Wounded or no when you're hopped up on adrenaline and there are things about that are trying to kill you chances are you take a shot.

Kind of like my buddy that still wakes up screaming because he has nightmares of the 6yr old he killed. Why did he kill him? The 6yr old was pointing an AK at him and his squad. They don't prepare us for that stuff. But if I have to decide between him or me, him loses.

[Tsa`ah]

Why the hell did you need to quote me twice and post twice? Oh ... you're a fucking moron, that’s all I have to remember.

Hey fuckface ... EVERYBODY IS COVERED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

Civilians and combatants. Insurgents are Insurgents. We are on their soil.

You are obviously the one of the dumbest fucks to walk in a uniform. I fear for the safety of the soldiers in your company.

You completion of boot camp does not make you an expert. It means you survived boot camp and have been stamped as "acceptable" for further training.

You have been and will always be a moron. The uniform doesn't change a thing.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[DeV]

On Nov. 4 , Amnesty International issued a statement reminding the United States and the Iraqi interim government that they are legally bound to observe in their planned offensive rules of all applicable human rights and humanitarian law treaties to which they are states parties, as well as rules of customary international law binding on all states.

In war, we(Americans) are supposed to lead by example. It's hard to truly understand because those soldiers risking their lives never know what they'll have to encounter. It's even tougher to pass judgement on what the soldiers are going through when they're on the ground fighting face to face and not knowing what might happen one minute from the next. Emotions run high.. however, they are bound by the the rules and there are no exceptions when it comes to blatant disregard. Just my general feelings...

War is tough.

[StrayRogue]

Not going to read the denial and republican excuses, but in the papers and on the news was several videos of American troops happily executing surrendered enemies. "We've got a survivor"...a shot "he's gone". All on tape. Yay for freedom and democracy.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Not going to read the denial and republican excuses,After all, straw man arguments are much easier to construct.

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Go read again and comprehend this time.

Hey dip shit im in the fucking military, I have gone over the Geneva convention and know who is and who is not covered by it. My job is governed by it since I will be dealing with a lot of EPW, and detainees. Can you perhaps sit back and think since you have never had to deal with it, and are only reading it off of a website and know nothing of the legal parameters that it sets fourth that you may in fact know nothing. :gasp:

Dave, just because you are in the military, dont even fucking pretend that you are the voice of authority on all things to do with the military. There are people who have never been in the military that know more than you will ever know about it.*

Have a debate about it, by all means, just dont say someone is wrong just because you are there, especially since you have just finished your training and your knowledge about anything at all, by way of wider military issues, is ropey at least.


* NB - I am not one of the people who know more than Dave will ever know about the US military. Just to clear that up.

I am not pretending to be the authority on the subject. I am however learned in the geneva conventions.

As I said what this guy did was wrong, be he a insergent or not. The geneva convention however does not cover Insergent gorups and/or Terrorist groups under its umbrella of protection. That is all I am saying.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
The geneva convention however does not cover Insergent gorups and/or Terrorist groups under its umbrella of protection. That is all I am saying. So, does that mean once their captured you can do whatever you want with them? Take no prisoners, leave none wounded... What are the soldiers limitations? Are the insurgents considered POW's or war criminals?

Answer me that, if you can.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah


Civilians and combatants. Insurgents are Insurgents. We are on their soil.
[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Tsa`ah]

Non combative Civilians yes, Uniformed members of a state military yes. (I am not debating the legality of what he did, as I said he was wrong many times) Insergent groups however, which are non military, non civilian are not garnered rights under The Geneva convetnion as it is currently written. They are exceptions to the rules. It is pointless however to say it anymore, because you will not take anything i say as being remotely truthful.

As to us being on their soil. I am afriad most of the people we are fighting currently are not Iraqi. They are from places like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on. A simmiler situation to the conflict in Afghanistan with the Russians, though we are being Far Far more successful in curbing the violence and attacks from the insurgent groups there.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Dave]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Dave
The geneva convention however does not cover Insergent gorups and/or Terrorist groups under its umbrella of protection. That is all I am saying. So, does that mean once their captured you can do whatever you want with them? Take no prisoners, leave none wounded... What are the soldiers limitations? Are the insurgents considered POW's or war criminals?

Answer me that, if you can.

No of course not, though they are not being considered EPW's. We have regulations that govern how these type of people can be treated. There are many a person that we have in our custody that we are not required to give the comforts afforded to EPW's. Insurgents are not considered war criminals either. Currently we have many in hidden locations around the globe that are going through extensive interrogations and will continue to do so until we feel that they are of no more intelligence value. They dont get to see the Red Cross (or Red Crescent for that matter) They do not get to notify their families and let them know they are alive.
We in america have set fourth a standard on how we treat our prisoners, what he did was wrong no matter the situation, but dont call the geneva convention into it because it does not apply.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Not going to read the denial and republican excuses,After all, straw man arguments are much easier to construct.

No I'd just rather watch the unbiased news source where its happening in front of me. Of course today every report from Fallujah has been subject to US military review, restrictions and censorship. Hurrah for freedom.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually Dave, they fall under the category of Gorillas.

You can take the Administration's BS rhetoric on the Geneva Conventions, but the free thinking people of the world choose to take what the Conventions actually say.

The only requirement is that they carry arms. Uniform optional.

Re-read it and use your head this time.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Not going to read the denial and republican excuses,After all, straw man arguments are much easier to construct.

And to commit the fallacy of composition.

Hey Neineque, these guys have been blown up by bodies they thought were incapacitated. I am just defending the fact that this guy may have been doing something he thought would save their lives.

Get off your couch and get some fresh-air, you may feel better afterwards. ;)

[Nieninque]

I've just finished playing football for two hours, thanks. I feel great.

Regardless of his motives, he has been withdrawn from fighting, there is a lot of negative press about this incident amongst the Iraqi people and the international community.

He is being investigated as to whether or not he broke Military Law.

He fucked up.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Nieninque
I've just finished playing football for two hours, thanks. I feel great.

Regardless of his motives, he has been withdrawn from fighting, there is a lot of negative press about this incident amongst the Iraqi people and the international community.

He is being investigated as to whether or not he broke Military Law.

He fucked up.

Actually, you are assuming he fucked up. Since neither you nor I actually know his motivation.. why don't we wait until the investigation is completed. It's so easy for us to judge from the safety of our homes and country.

[Nieninque]

the fact that he has been taken away from the fighting speaks volumes.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
the fact that he has been taken away from the fighting speaks volumes. In terms of conjecture, it sure does. He's obviously training with an elite unit.

But somehow, I get the feeling that's not the conclusion you draw. :)

[AkMan]

Tough call. It's so easy to sit here and say shit but war changes people. I couldn't imagine going to work everyday when there is a good chance I'll get killed. People sniping you, bombs, rockets, grenades, ambushes, suicide bombers, car bombers. I'd hate to see our troops turn gunshy because they are afraid of a situation like this. I'm sure even a slight delay in your reflexes at the wrong time can be deadly. Kill or be killed.

The guy fucked up, but hindsight is 20/20. Unless they can prove he did it out of spite or vengeance I'd have to say it's just a casualty of war.

[DeV]

I have to agree with that Akman. It's easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and judge this soldier. But, we are not in his shoes and we do not know if he did this blatantly or because he is in a situation of life and death minute by minute and is acting on impulse because in a time of war that is basically what you are doing 24/7. I'm not sure how the military mentally prepares them for what they will be facing but I'm not going to pass judgement on his actions until all the facts are brought to light.

[Nieninque]

Im not judging him other than to say he fucked up and did something bad.

It is going to have a negative effect on how things are seen in Iraq, particularly by the iraqis

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Im not judging him other than to say he fucked up and did something bad.

It is going to have a negative effect on how things are seen in Iraq, particularly by the iraqis

To say he "fucked up" IS judging him actually.

[Back]

Hasen’t anyone seen Full Metal Jacket?

“Hardcore, man. Hardcore.”

[CrystalTears]

The media has caused more of a negative effect than anything actually happening over there.

I think showing any type of clips, videos or pictures of things happening over there are unnecessary for the public to see.

Report what's going on, but I think ever since 9/11 where they showed people throwing themselves out of the building, it's been a downward spiral of showing all this crap in the media and it's not helping any situation at all.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Nieninque
Im not judging him other than to say he fucked up and did something bad.


To say he "fucked up" IS judging him actually.

For once I agree with PB.

[Nieninque]

Actually...thats judging something he did. There is a difference.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Actually...thats judging something he did. There is a difference.

Which in turn, is judging him.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Which in turn, is judging him.

Incorrect.

Judging a person and judging a person's actions are two separate things. The two become synonymous when a person's actions are indicative of the person.

Someone who constantly fucks up is judged a fuck up ... as a person.

[Parkbandit]

If it's not judging him, then it certainly is assuming what he did and the motivations behind his actions.

Either way.. it's wrong to jump to unfounded conclusions.