It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good news for a change! Marine cleared in videotaped shooting

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
The U.S. it seems, appears to escape unharmed by all "accountability moments". Though this has certainly been the case for everybody involved in this illegal action from executives to low rank soldiers.


ever heard of a female soldier name England, who had an Iraqi detainee on leash.




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   


ever heard of a female soldier name England, who had an Iraqi detainee on leash.


Personally I think she's a sacrificial lamb, held up as a "bad apple" who was acting on her own, meanwhile the commanders and intel officials who encouraged her behavior and those of her compatriots get away scot free.

Lynndie England would never have been charged if journalists had not exposed the scandal at Abu Ghraib. She probably would have been promoted.

But the abuses at Abu Ghraib became a political embarrasment for the US, and England, being of low rank and little importance, was made to be the fall guy (or gal in this case.)



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
The Two-Way Leash


Originally posted by xmotex
Personally I think she's a sacrificial lamb, held up as a "bad apple" who was acting on her own, meanwhile the commanders and intel officials who encouraged her behavior and those of her compatriots get away scot free.

Bingo. However, this seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the “mainstream” press.

Instead, we are treated to a dog and pony show starring a cast of miserable schmucks who deserve what's coming to them -- while the spooks who orchestrated the whole thing quietly disappear into the woodwork from whence they came.

Above And Beyond The Call Of Duty


Originally posted by xmotex
Lynndie England would never have been charged if journalists had not exposed the scandal at Abu Ghraib. She probably would have been promoted.

Yeah, sure, “journalists” exposed the scandal.


I'm sure the real story of how those pictures made it to the press would answer a lot of questions about what Abu Ghraib was really all about.

Everyone in the chain of command of Abu Ghraib publicly and forcefully claimed intelligence agents were directly involved in and soliciting abuse of detainees -- before they were systematically silenced.

Their warnings fell on deaf ears as the fans of international fury were dutifully and predictably fanned, and the psyop launched to a stunning success.

Embarrassment Market


Originally posted by xmotex
But the abuses at Abu Ghraib became a political embarrasment for the US, and England, being of low rank and little importance, was made to be the fall guy (or gal in this case.)

As “embarrassing” as Abu Ghraib was/is for the U.S., somebody apparently decided it was a fair trade.

The U.S. soldier gets made out as a tough bloodthirsty oppressor, instead of a “heroic but defenseless” girl with a jammed rifle being cornered, captured and raped by brave Arab freedom fighters, as depicted pre-Abu Ghraib in the international media -- remember?

Meanwhile, on the front page of almost every newspaper in the world, Arab men are shown being sexually humiliated, ridiculed and tamed by our women.

That's an image Arab men won't ever forget.

Arab men capture and rape female American soldier? Okay, then female American soldier gets even with dozens of Arab men.

This is textbook stuff.

Mission accomplished.





[edit on 5/5/2005 by Majic]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Well just saying "journalists" doesn't give credit where credit is due, it was in fact Seymour Hersh, the same guy that exposed the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, and no great friend of .gov a$$-covering in general.

Which does not rule out the possibility that it was handed to him as a plant, as part of a psyops plan. But one thinks they would have handed such info to someone more pliable, if that was the case.



Everyone in the chain of command of Abu Ghraib publicly and forcefully claimed intelligence agents were directly involved in and soliciting abuse of detainees -- before they were systematically silenced.


This is true, including, as everyone seems to forget, the General who was CO of Abu Ghraib at the time. I forget her name at the moment though...

[edit on 5/5/05 by xmotex]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
CNN



""The evidence indicates that based on the actions of those AIF (anti-Iraqi forces), the corporal reasonably believed that they posed a hostile threat to him and his fellow Marines and justifiably fired in self-defense.



"AIF" "Anti-Iraqi Forces" LOOOOL! That is the most ridiculous thing I have hear for a long while, even on this board! Instead of saying "Anti-American Forces" which is what they are, they call it Anti-Iraqi Forces. It's their country - how can they be against their own country when they're fighting a foreign occupation? U.S. propaganda at its best!



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   


how can they be against their own country when they're fighting a foreign occupation? U.S. propaganda at its best!


They are also fighting, killing and blowing up thier own people aswell.
Civilians and Iraq Security Forces. Most Civilian Deaths came from Other
Iraqis.

But yeah, I noticed that too.....stuck me as kind of odd



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   


A review of the evidence showed the Marine's actions were "consistent with the established rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict," Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said in a statement.

The Camp Pendleton statement said the corporal "could have reasonably believed that the AIF (anti-Iraq forces) shown in the videotape posed a hostile threat justifying his use of deadly force."

source:
ruthland.herald



Yea really - he looks like he could represent a BIG threat by lying there.

But anyway, it happened in Fallujah and I guess nobody will really answer for the actions commited by US Forces commited there.

The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head.

"He's dead now," one marine in the squad shouts after the shooting.

[edit on 5/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Souljah (sp). We were not there now were we? The man on the ground could have reached for a grenade for all we know.

He could have had a gun by his side...If he even attempts to go for...BAM.
Justification.

It seems to me that you do not have a problem with Iraqi insurgents or whatever killing other Iraqis......with high numbers. But when an American does it you are the first one to call foul play...why is this?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head.



Two words come to mind...Good Shot! Another POS sent to Paradise, courtesy of the USMC.


Maximu§



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Yeah I saw the video a while back.

It was little more than the execution of an unresisting, unarmed, and apparently unconscious wounded man. But the Bush brigade is perfectly comfortable with that kind of thing apparently. I can't say I am suprised, these are people incapable of discering right and wrong, they can only understand things in terms of "us" or "them", and if "they" do it, it's an abominable crime, if "we" do it, it's A-OK and a brave blow struck for God, Mother, and Apple Pie. Tribal loyalties outweigh any kind of evidence or even any loose basis in reality.

If the exact same situation happened but the parties involved were reversed, with an insurgent shooting a wounded US soldier, they'd be decrying the murder as proof that Arabs are inhuman monsters and claiming this shows how we need to carpet bomb Arab cities and the like.

Can't say I am suprised of course, pretty much par for the course these days...



[edit on 5/5/05 by xmotex]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

Originally posted by Souljah
The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head.


Two words come to mind...Good Shot! Another POS sent to Paradise, courtesy of the USMC.

Shooting an Unarmed man in the head is a Job for SS Soliders. The deliberate shooting on unarmed fighters and wounded men who are not representing any immediate danger is a war crime according to the international laws

The Geneva convention forbids any attack on a person not taking part in a battle during war times, and the third joint article in the four Geneva conventions clearly forbids any attack on any person not taking part or no longer taking part in war acts,whether he was injured.

Its a Crime, and nobody will answer for it. As Always...



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   


If the exact same situation happened but the parties involved were reversed, with an insurgent shooting a wounded US soldier, they'd be decrying the murder as proof that Arabs are inhuman monsters and claiming this shows how we need to carpet bomb Arab cities and the like.


No, just the poor SOB who done it. Not all Muslims.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Souljah (sp). We were not there now were we? The man on the ground could have reached for a grenade for all we know.

He could have had a gun by his side...If he even attempts to go for...BAM.
Justification.

Good 'Ol - Shoot First, Ask Quesitons Later, huh?

Seems to me it works well.

Hatm Massoud, a school teacher in Iraq::

"This is the real terror, which is practiced by the American occupation forces and reveals the reality of the Washington allegations of respect of human rights. This act violated all international laws and traditions and shows the basic nature on which democracy is built, and it shows the freedom that America and its president George W. Bush are trying to impose on the Iraqi people."

Fake Leader - Fake Invasion - Fake Democracy - Fake Freedom



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Yea really - he looks like he could represent a BIG threat by lying there.

A standard grenade has a kill radius of 16 feet and an injury radius of 50 feet. He was plenty close to be killed if the guy had an explosive.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Souljah
Yea really - he looks like he could represent a BIG threat by lying there.

A standard grenade has a kill radius of 16 feet and an injury radius of 50 feet. He was plenty close to be killed if the guy had an explosive.

OK; maybe he could have a granade. I saw the video, and this guy looked pretty helpless, like he just wanted some help. Well, he got his help in the form of a bullet. Were this guys soldiers, or not - who really knows.

As always, everybody will have their own story and their own opinion.

You have Yours, and I have Mine.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I got a question...

If the guy had an explosive behind his head, is shooting him IN the head a good idea? Is there a chance that you shooting him in the head could set off any explosive device?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Were this guys soldiers, or not - who really knows.

Well, they were in a Mosque that had RPG and gunfire coming from it, so odds are he wasn't just a random passerby in the street, especially considering that insurgents tend to *target* civilians.

But you know what? The insurgents target civilians and have no qualms against using their own wounded as boobytraps. The insurgents themselves sure as hell aren't following the Geneva Conventions, so I'm not gonna throw the book at someone who actually did something about it.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Yes the man posed no threat what so ever, Ever heard of "Live today fight tomorrow" Had these marines actualy fell for this ruse, this man would still be alive, and fighting our forces.. That marine SAVED lives.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
So to all of you trying to come up with pretzel logic justification for this shooting, how about trying to answer my question.

If the roles were reversed, and it was an insurgent shooting a wounded and unarmed US soldier lying on the ground, presenting no apparent threat, would it still be OK by you?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Hey these guys up the ante by rigging their wounded and dead to blow, now they have to face the consequences of the battlefield they created. It would utter ignorance and suicidal not to take extreme measures with wounded insurgents after such events (I'm sure I’ve heard more than one such attack) and I remember back when the story broke that a member of the unit had been killed by a wounded combatant the previous day. And didn’t they say that the Insurgent killed had a weapon around him or something? Wasn’t he shot when he wouldn’t or couldn’t respond to orders concerning said weapon?

Really not did anybody remember this?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join