Re: A killing in Iraq.......

I suppose that makes Malmady OK too?

Look up the definition of 'sarcasm'....

Reply to
Al Superczynski
Loading thread data ...

I know what sarcasm is. Look up appropriate.

Reply to
David Amos

You're the one that brought up Malmady, which has nothing to do with the actions of either Mr. Kerry or the Marine in question.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

I think it's been determined that those were Sarin antidotes. Still, who did the insurgents think were going to use Sarin?

BTW, photo #10 would make an outstanding diorama scene!

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Actually I think it does prove something. I raq qas not allowed to possess ANY chemical, biological or nuclear materian. That's ANY ans in zero. A test kit is more than none.

Also; how much Sarin does one need for a weapon? Depends on where and how its employed. Do you know how much agent was released in the Tokyo subway on 20 Mar 95 by the Aum Shin Rikyo cult . I don't know exactly how much they had but it was small enough to be hidden in some lunch boxes. The results of that small amount was pretty dramatic.

-- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

My Home Page:

formatting link

Reply to
Bill Woodier

(snip)

(snip)

It's just Dennis (again!) under some new username. You'd *think* he'd get the message we don't want him around here but he won't take the hint, the simple, stupid bastard...

Frank Kranick

Reply to
The Kranicks

The thread would appear to be that its OK to kill the enemy 'hors de combat'. IF its ok for the goose, so for the gander. US service men and woman may wish to know that the rules of war are defunct.

For my half penny worth if I were defending the Marine in the current incident I would blame the confused thinking within the Pentagon.

Insurgents in Afganistan = unlawful cambatants and rules do not apply. (Bet they wish Gitmo would go away) Insurgents in Irag = ? and rules do apply. Odd that isn't it?

Reply to
David Amos

"David Amos" wrote in news:_jXmd.194$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:

Hey asshole: Does the fact that the insurgents booby trap thier dead and wounded in order to kill or maim softhearted Americans - like the Japanese did in WWII. Does the fact that American medics have been killed trying to help "wounded" insurgents give you pause? How about the rules are that when you surrender you make some effort to indicate that you are surrendering and that pretending to be dead when you aren't is an indicator that your motives asre less than pure? How about the fact that the Marine in question had a friend killed by a booby trap, the day before, he'd been shot the day before and that the Marines were engaged at the time make any impression on you?

No? So we're an imperial power trying to subjugate the world for Haliburton and Exxon? Fuck off child. No one cares any more about you tratios and sympathizers. A time comes when we all work together. If you can't do that then get the Hell out.

Oh yeah the secret police will be right over to disappear. You people have gone past pathetic.

Reply to
Gray Ghost

Feel better now do we?

You must be really old to call me child, I'll remember that as I collect my pension at the end of the month.

All you say is of course just irrate dross. The rules of war, all war are specific. Just because one side may break them, however repugnant ( though I doubt the insurgents are signatories to the Convention, as the Japanese were not), does not invalidate them. If I recall America was the driving force behind the 1949 ammendment.

On this specific incident the Iraqi was 'hors de comat' on the Friday, treated for his injuries by Marine Medics and left for follow up troops. He was shot on the next day, Saturday.

I have every confidence that all countries armed forces have at some time breached the conventions regarding prisoners, its just amazing that this individual was so naive to do it in the presence of a camera. As a proffessional soldier he should be aware of both his rights and responsibilities under the Convention. Provocation is no excuse, however understandable.

Oh and please, moderate your language, it does not impress.

Reply to
David Amos

No, it's not. If the enemy engages in perfidy and/or treachery it loses its protections under the Geneva Conventions. See said Conventions if you don't know the definitions of 'perfidy' and 'treachery'.

Military forces *are* permitted to engage an enemy that is itself breaking the laws of land warfare. US military personnel are not authorized to die in order to protect the sensibilities of the Left.

That Marine doesn't need any defending unless he violated the specific ROE for the Fallujah operation. I suspect that that's what's being investigated.

Only if they themselves are abiding by the Conventions. They aren't.

Not at all...

Reply to
Al Superczynski

There is something you may or may not know regarding this incident, David. Read what I have written below, then judge the Marine again, if you must.

Days prior to this incident, this same Marine had been part of a group doing a similar search of a building and came across several dead and a wounded insurgent/terrorist. The wounded terrorist was calling for help and when two Marines came to his side to try to administer first aid, the raghead blew himself and the two Marines to bits.

The day before this incident, this same Marine and a couple buddies were searching another building and came across a similar situation with a wounded dirt-bag calling for help. As they responded, he also blew himself up killing one of the Marines and wounding this very Marine.

On the day of this incident, this Marine and a couple of his buddies were in this same, now familiar, circumstance; dead terrorists lying around the room and one wounded, calling for a help. As the Marines cautiously approached him, the wounded raghead began moving and the Marine, clearly alarmed by the words that were caught on the videotape, reacted to his training, instincts and experiences shot him in self-defense him.

I don't know you, David, so I don't know if you are old enough to have served in the military or to have seen combat; have you? I can say yes on both counts, having seen considerable combat as a Marine in Vietnam, as an Air Force liaison officer in Grenada, Special Operations in the Gulf War and Somalia. If you try to view this as an absolutely isolated incident, cropping off everything that happened leading up to it, a case could be made for an unjustified killing.

However, you can't do that now, can you? You are dealing with the mind, emotions, and training of a human being in an extremely tense combat situation reacting to events based on knowledge and experience. When you view it in the total environment of what had happened over the past several days, it becomes clear that this Marine was justified in doing what he did. In the same circumstance, I would have done exactly the same thing to protect myself and my fellow Marines. It was not a "killing," David; it was a justifiable combat engagement. If there is any blame to be assigned, dole it out to the dirtbags who have plant explosives on the bodies of their dead and their wounded in order to kill a few more of our troops who compassionately try to help them.

-- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

My Home Page:

formatting link

Reply to
Bill Woodier
  1. Yes I do know what perfidy is.
  2. I am aware of the law regarding self defence, and use of 'reasonable force'.
  3. Rules of engagement must comply with the overarching requirements of the laws of war.
Reply to
David Amos

Bill, no part of my post made any judgement either express or implied, merely a mild rebuke for those who feel the putting down of the injured is somehow to be applauded.

Yes I am old enough to have served, but not my chosen proffession, we have not had any form of compulsory military service since the late 50's.

I am confident that all armies have committed breaches of the rules of war, examples could no doubt be found ad nauseum. Yes the whole circumstances need examing and that is easy to do from the comfort of home. With hind sight was this man really ready to return to combat? Will he be penalised for a decision from above? I certainly dont know. What can be said is that he was naive to do it in the presence of a camera team, no doubt there will now be those who claim it is policy to kill the wounded, yet more moral ground lost.

Reply to
David Amos

"David Amos" wrote in news:Ehnnd.281$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:

Just another clueless shitbird. Why don't you just admit that Saddam had no WMD, that the US is wrong for going in and that you get a woodie everytime you hear about an American getting killed.

Terrorist sympathizer. That'a all you and your mutt contingent are. You deserve the same as the insurgents.

Reply to
Gray Ghost

What's your source for this? I'm a little leery of this account for two reasons: it hasn't (to my knowledge) been reported in the mainstream press, and since it's exculpatory of the U.S. forces, if true it would have been played up by the U.S. military.

Things have a way of getting inflated and distorted on the Internet. I'm prepared to wait and see what the official investigation comes up with.

Reply to
Alexander Arnakis

But do not play into his hands. Saddam *had* WMD's.....it is their current disposition that is still unexplained. Until we actually look under every stretch of asphalt, every slab of concrete, behind ever section of sheet-rock...have we *really* done a "thorough" search for the smaller, easier-to-hide elements of these weapons?

Plus...too many people seem to forget, that the original conflict in 1991, never officially ended...we had just been operating under a twelve year span of temporary "cease-fire". Iraq never really lived up to the cease-fire requirements.

Reply to
Greg Heilers

Silly man.

Reply to
David Amos

Whether or not the 'insurgent' was a threat had nothing to do with an embedded reporter being present.

If troops start second-guessing their combat decisions because of the embeds we need to stop the program before it causes the death of a single service man or woman.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Then why do you appear to assume that this Marine committed an unlawful act?

And your point would be what, exactly?

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Greg Heilers wrote in news:FmBnd.30682$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Sorry, I guess the sarcasm wasn't dripping enough. I was trying to say that he and his kind believe that ther was absolutely no justification for the invasion and that the wrold was a better place wth Saddam & Sons in power mudering, torturing, rapng and continuing to clandestinely invest thier oil millions in WMD programs rather than spend on his people.

Reply to
Gray Ghost

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.