Video: American Soldiers Shooting Iraqi Civilians

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Insurgents in Iraq and the taliban in Afghanistan are quite capable of running away. Most of them are not stupid or suicidal. Often they perform hit and run tactics, aka guerilla warfare. They strike and then they run away. Usually we catch up to them and they die, but they do run away.

but what you're describing is people who have engaged the US army. that guy was driving in his car, then got out and scrambled. it was obvious he didn't have any weapons on him, at least not any ak 47s. ...was he running to the other guys car who crashed to get the grenade launcher? was the other guy who was ducking for cover by the car an insurgent to?

it's not like insurgents don't exist, but it's obvious the people getting gunned down in that video were civilians. they were not trying to "hit and run"...only run, for their lives.

Its pretty easy for me to see how almost 100 thousand civillians have been killed in Iraq since the start of the war. I am seeing a very blatant disregard for life.

Originally posted by Spawwwn
it's obvious the people getting gunned down in that video were civilians. they were not trying to "hit and run"...only run, for their lives.

You know this because why? They were not in uniform? Half of the Iraqi regular army doesn't wear a uniform. Don't expect any of the insurgents to wear one.

Your other reasoning is flawed as well. If a U.S. soldier puts his gun in the back of the car he's driving in does he become a civilian? Does an unarmed soldier on his way to battle become an civilian until he picks up a gun again?

Of course the last argument might be that the car was unmarked. I was deployed to Saudi Arabia for 4 months during Desert Storm. The car I drove the entire time was a civilian car. It was a white 4 door Toyota. Driving this car did not make me a civilian, and being in uniform had nothing to do with me being a civilian. If we planned to go downtown we usually didn't wear military clothes, even if it was to purchase supplies or tools for military use.

As others have pointed out these two cars, that pulled up at the same, most likely ran through a road block, and ignored the sound of gunfire to get to that location. Should the marines have waited till they picked up guns to return fire? There's absolutely no proof they were civilians, and a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that they were insurgents.

Originally posted by dbates

As others have pointed out these two cars, that pulled up at the same, most likely ran through a road block, and ignored the sound of gunfire to get to that location. Should the marines have waited till they picked up guns to return fire? There's absolutely no proof they were civilians, and a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that they were insurgents.

If you lived in a country where almost one hundred thousand civilians have been killed, some raped and murder in front of their families by US soldiers you may have second thoughts about stopping at any roadblocks. Let me say this, if some other country invaded my country and started raping my daughters and sons and watch them take such pleasure in killing I would be right there setting off road bombs myself. We live under a horrible dictator much worse than Saddam who has killed more Iraqis then Saddam could have ever of dreamed. So yes, I feel for the civilians who are living in that hell and have a bunch of teenagers with guns and happy trigger fingers, I feel for the ones that are already dead and the ones that soon will be thanks to Bush's BS war.


Debates, thanks for putting your life on the line over there, much props! I just don't see it as cut and dry as you do. Also you say there was no proof that they were civilians and a resonable amont of evidence that they where insurgents, would you care to present that proof? All I have seen are assumptions made by you and inserted as fact ie. most likely ran through a road block, and ignored the sound of gunfire to get to that location.

Should the marines have waited till they picked up guns to return fire? Well seeing as how the Marines were located up high in a secure outpost and the "insurgents" were protected by an '87 Honda civic, I would say that firing a couple of warning shots or demanding identification before unloading 30 rounds into that dude would seem appropriate, 2cents spend it how you like

[edit on 29-3-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by Spawwwn

but what you're describing is people who have engaged the US army. that guy was driving in his car, then got out and scrambled. it was obvious he didn't have any weapons on him, at least not any ak 47s. ...was he running to the other guys car who crashed to get the grenade launcher? was the other guy who was ducking for cover by the car an insurgent to?

it's not like insurgents don't exist, but it's obvious the people getting gunned down in that video were civilians. they were not trying to "hit and run"...only run, for their lives.

People under the Rules of Engagement who enter a firefight are likely to be shot unarmed or not. They are very likley to be engaged if they are carrying a cellphone, camera, or radio. Driving into a firefight is probably the stupidest thing someone could do. Unless they are suicidal.

We still have people arguing this issue on the pro-civilian side? If you are arguing from the perspective that these were civillians you need to go back and read every post in this thread. There has been NO evidence presented that shows these were American marines firing on civillians. There has been nearly LIMITLESS evidence shown that these were indeed insurgents. This means that basically the thread title has been proved false and this thread should die.......deny ignorance?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Bugman82]

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by dbates

As others have pointed out these two cars, that pulled up at the same, most likely ran through a road block, and ignored the sound of gunfire to get to that location. Should the marines have waited till they picked up guns to return fire? There's absolutely no proof they were civilians, and a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that they were insurgents.

If you lived in a country where almost one hundred thousand civilians have been killed, some raped and murder in front of their families by US soldiers you may have second thoughts about stopping at any roadblocks. Let me say this, if some other country invaded my country and started raping my daughters and sons and watch them take such pleasure in killing I would be right there setting off road bombs myself. We live under a horrible dictator much worse than Saddam who has killed more Iraqis then Saddam could have ever of dreamed. So yes, I feel for the civilians who are living in that hell and have a bunch of teenagers with guns and happy trigger fingers, I feel for the ones that are already dead and the ones that soon will be thanks to Bush's BS war.


Debates, thanks for putting your life on the line over there, much props! I just don't see it as cut and dry as you do. Also you say there was no proof that they were civilians and a resonable amont of evidence that they where insurgents, would you care to present that proof? All I have seen are assumptions made by you and inserted as fact ie. most likely ran through a road block, and ignored the sound of gunfire to get to that location.

Should the marines have waited till they picked up guns to return fire? Well seeing as how the Marines were located up high in a secure outpost and the "insurgents" were protected by an '87 Honda civic, I would say that firing a couple of warning shots or demanding identification before unloading 30 rounds into that dude would seem appropriate, 2cents spend it how you like

[edit on 29-3-2007 by kleverone]

.....Read what the person who created this video wrote please. He writes that there were 3 rifles and an RPG on the floor of that "honda". He also describes that those cars had blown through a check-point. They also knew the cars were coming ahead of time because of "eyes in the sky".

I guess in a real war environment letting the enemy set up before firing sounds like an extremely brilliant idea (sarcasm off).........do you understand that that was a wartime environment that could have meant their lives.........let me repeat that again........their lives...........

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Bugman82]

darn double posts :-(

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Bugman82]

Originally posted by Bugman82


.....Read what the person who created this video wrote please. He writes that there were 3 rifles and an RPG on the floor of that "honda". He also describes that those cars had blown through a check-point. They also knew the cars were coming ahead of time because of "eyes in the sky".

I guess in a real war environment letting the enemy set up before firing sounds like an extremely brilliant idea (sarcasm off).........do you understand that that was a wartime environment that could have meant their lives.........let me repeat that again........their lives...........

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Bugman82]

Yeah when I'm being shot at I like to leave my weapons in the back seat also also quick to make sure I run into a building without them (sarcasm off) Please show me the video of the weapons found as well. I know of a couple of police out here in LA in few years back in the Rampart division that had no trouble "finding weapons" on people after shooting them. Maybe you also failed to read my above post regarding checkpoints. I understand your side but I don't agree with your reasoning.

When running for your life grabbing your AK first just doesnt seem a priority to me and you know that youre running to your friends who would most likely have other weapons for you.
These firefights can be heard all over the city, the only reason I could see of someone driving into one, is if hes coming to participate.
Do you think he was just out for a sunday drive and thought how cool it would be to drive to an ongoing firefight?
makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by Bugman82


.....Read what the person who created this video wrote please. He writes that there were 3 rifles and an RPG on the floor of that "honda". He also describes that those cars had blown through a check-point. They also knew the cars were coming ahead of time because of "eyes in the sky".

I guess in a real war environment letting the enemy set up before firing sounds like an extremely brilliant idea (sarcasm off).........do you understand that that was a wartime environment that could have meant their lives.........let me repeat that again........their lives...........

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Bugman82]

Yeah when I'm being shot at I like to leave my weapons in the back seat also

also quick to make sure I run into a building without them

(sarcasm off) Please show me the video of the weapons found as well. I know of a couple of police out here in LA in few years back in the Rampart division that had no trouble "finding weapons" on people after shooting them. Maybe you also failed to read my above post regarding checkpoints. I understand your side but I don't agree with your reasoning.

unless you just happen to be driving down the road. I certainly didn't see anyone blowing any checkpoints in that video. My eyes tend to believe more than my ears so unless that guy can produce the entire vid or any other part of the vid then call me doubting thomas. Do you really think that this guy would just come out and say, Yeah watch us blast the Iraqi's because they are in the vicinity of known insurgents. Please take note of the fact that I mentioned earlier about the Iraqi civilian death toll. I'm sure they certainly have.

Originally posted by kleverone
unless you just happen to be driving down the road. I certainly didn't see anyone blowing any checkpoints in that video. My eyes tend to believe more than my ears so unless that guy can produce the entire vid or any other part of the vid then call me doubting thomas. Do you really think that this guy would just come out and say, Yeah watch us blast the Iraqi's because they are in the vicinity of known insurgents. Please take note of the fact that I mentioned earlier about the Iraqi civilian death toll. I'm sure they certainly have.

They drove right in the middle of a firefight. The marine that recorded this video said that the car going at the side of the building was the escape car for the insurgants. Plus its a firefight. Theyre pretty loud in there own right. Anyone driving into one would know which means they cant be up to any good, especially in a war zone like iraq where we are fighting terrorist who have no true rules of engagement.

And If im stupid enough to drive right in the middle of a firefight and i happen to be up to no good, damn straight im going to be high tailing ass on out of there. Its just to bad we didnt have a bigger bullet round that would have knocked the #er down the first time he got hit.

Now I see why it is often times pointless to do research on the actual situation. All it does is affirm to those who believe your position that they are right. Those that didn't believe your position in the first place never will........no matter what evidence you show.

Summary of the evidence for insurgents:
1. AK-47 shots clearly heard in the background - This is pretty major evidence to be stinkin honest
2. Sniper shots being fired at the marines - This is also more pretty darn important evidence
3. Oh, and wait......testimony from the person who actually shot the video - enough said

Yep, but this evidence can be thrown out the window because two cars extremely close to each other barrell into the picture during a firefight that could be heard a mile away............man, they must have had their radios turned up too loud

Would you please refute this evidence if you're so sure it was a civillian massacre.......I beg of you, refute it.

my goodness some are so stubborn..........
It is a serious issue when we have people sitting in their comfortable office chairs with their flat screen monitors blatently saying that those marines have disreguard for innocent lives because they fired upon two cars entering the scene of a firefight.........those who are saying these kinds of things have NO combat experience and are watching a low quality video but they can somehow tell those were innocent civillians.......



[edit on 30-3-2007 by Bugman82]

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Bugman82]

To hear an interview with the Medic that shot this video then check out my post on this matter. It kind of gives it a different perspective when you here him tell exactly whats going on.

here

Originally posted by dbates
You know this because why? They were not in uniform? Half of the Iraqi regular army doesn't wear a uniform. Don't expect any of the insurgents to wear one.

But what proof do we have they are terrorists/enemy combatants?? i tihnk someone fleeing is a sign they DON'T want to fight. our best "proof" that there was any reason for the marines to shoot, is that there was ONE sniper that was fireing from the rooftop or something (allegedly) so then why shoot at people when they are fleeing in terror? i simply don't understand. I have seen no good explanation for why they had to shoot unarmed people in the back. Just because the "rules of engagement" state that you can kill women and kids if they walk into a firefight, doesn't mean you have to shoot everybody that walks in. IF they seen civilians, scrambling for their lives, why not simply yell "hold fire!' and let the civilians take cover. There comes a point in war that you should have some kind of honor, but it seems the american soldjers have none..at least in this case. Well trained honorable soldjers would have held there fire for literally 5 seconds so that the people could get to a safe place. all these guys are doing is shooting and gawking as people fall. it's discraceful. makes me sick to even be an american knowing my people are doing this kind of mess.

Originally posted by dbatesYour other reasoning is flawed as well. If a U.S. soldier puts his gun in the back of the car he's driving in does he become a civilian? Does an unarmed soldier on his way to battle become an civilian until he picks up a gun again?

I dont see how this is correct reasoning? You're kind of twisting what i said a bit. The man was simply in his car driving, he didn't get out of the car with a gun and then open fire. He didn't drive up and then take cover and try and throw a grenade. Forget all the masks and veils of "what is and is not acceptable in war", i can't see how these people can shoot someone who is unarmed, in the back. That's flawed reasoning to me. Guy has no gun, made no moves once he got out of his car to fight, and looked like he was trying to duck and cover for his life, so then why shoot him? Reason i say your twisting my words is because, i'm not saying that terrorists can be unarmed, or that soldjiers without guns are any less of soldjiers..what i'm saying is that the guy was fleeing with his hands in the air, i think at that point he can be eliminated as a threat, so why then shoot him?

Originally posted by dbatesOf course the last argument might be that the car was unmarked. I was deployed to Saudi Arabia for 4 months during Desert Storm. The car I drove the entire time was a civilian car. It was a white 4 door Toyota. Driving this car did not make me a civilian, and being in uniform had nothing to do with me being a civilian. If we planned to go downtown we usually didn't wear military clothes, even if it was to purchase supplies or tools for military use.

True, but it's not the car..but the actions of the person who fled the car. See he got out and tried to get out to a safe place, both of them did. they didn't reposition, and try to get to the trunks. they made no moves that someone engaging you in battle would make.

Originally posted by dbatesAs others have pointed out these two cars, that pulled up at the same, most likely ran through a road block, and ignored the sound of gunfire to get to that location. Should the marines have waited till they picked up guns to return fire? There's absolutely no proof they were civilians, and a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that they were insurgents.

Yeah but who's to say they could even hear the gun fire? or if they could hear it, how could they tell where it was comming from? You'd be surprised how disorenting sound can be, they might have tried to drive through quick because they thought the sound was comming from somewhere else, there's no reason to belive or assume that they knew where gunfire was comming from. the reality is that gunshots are common in iraq, so you may not be keen on where the sounds are comming from, because they could have sounded like they were far away.

And that last line is particulary flawed dbates. I think there's more proof that they were civilians rather than insurgents. The fact they got out and ran away to me says they might have been civilians, and yes i do belive that the marines could have taken the 5 seconds to see where the people were heading, and called a cease fire to simply let the civilians take cover. But no the marines where like "whoo boy there go some more ducks for me to cap!" didn't you hear how they gloated and laughed whene veryone was dead? They said there was one sniper in the area (from what i gathered) so shooting passers by as they are fleeing is simply uncalled for.

Lastly, i have a big problem with cowards. Shooting an unarmed civilian as they are running for their life is a cowardly act. Many people will think i'm crazy, but guns are the worst thing ever for war. There are no innocent bystandards of a sword. People may think i'm nuts and say "oh we can't fight wars with swords" but why not? Gun makers are the ones who force us to dishonorably shoot people in the back of the head. Oh well i'm realistic and unfortunatley guns are part of life nowadays, but dang this video is the exact reason why i hate guns with a passion, there's just no honor in killing someone with a 29 cent peice of metal.

Spawwwn, my above post was directed mostly towards your direction. All you have is speculation and ignorance. Have you ever been in that combat situation before?......in reference to that question, how do you think you can speculate in any way, shape, or form on the video at hand and seem like you have a valid argument? Your arguments are nil because as we've shown through research there is:
1. An intereview with the person who shot the video
2. AK-47 fire clearly in the background that would validate a firefight NO MATTER WHAT YOU SPECULATE......remember your speculation is based on nothing but bias towards the situation.
3. Snipers rounds were fired.
4. Two cars drive in simultaniously onto the scene of a firefight.......this actually is a greater argument towards the fact that these were not civillians as no civillian would approach a firefight in that manner. We also have heard from the person who shot this video that there was even a check-point they had gone through and the US soldiers knew ahead of time these cars were coming.......they were ready because they knew they were insurgents.

I can't begin to fathom how, with all the evidence presented, one can continue to IGNORE it and proceed witht his or her own speculative viewpoint that does not take into consideration any combat experience in this type of situation at all...........all I can say is wow.......

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
Bottom line is this...I hear americans say, "I am an american I have the right to say what i want". What in fact you should be saying is this.."I am an american, I HAVE BEEN GIVEN the rights to say what I want" Until the day you earn it...the rights of this country really aren't yours!

Bullpoo, anyone has the right to say what he wants and that is an unalienable right. And contrary to your believe one does not have to kill another person before he's allowed that right.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/4/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Them Iraqis arn't innocent.
Did you know that 95% of all insurgents drive their vehicles by there own or with another person. These iraqis wouldn't have headed towards a firefight if they were civillian, just because they don't leave the vehicles with weapons doesn't mean they didn't have them. Think about it, if you were getting shot at you'd just get up and run-these people have no military training.
*SNIP* i don't see any of you in Iraq or Afghanistan, so you havn't got a clue what it's like, this makes your opinions worthless too

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/4/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by kleverone
[Should the marines have waited till they picked up guns to return fire? Well seeing as how the Marines were located up high in a secure outpost and the "insurgents" were protected by an '87 Honda civic, I would say that firing a couple of warning shots or demanding identification before unloading 30 rounds into that dude would seem appropriate, 2cents spend it how you like

[edit on 29-3-2007 by kleverone]

Easier say than done. Each second counts where your life is at stake. Even if you were in the most freaking protected FOB in the freaking world, you don't take chances. You know how fast a car could get from point A to point B packed with explosives?

Even though its Liveleak, I put the youtube thing on, I am hoping the Mods can somehow compensate and change the link to Liveleak.

Forget it, it don't work, I'll just give the link instead and you see a vehicle packed with explosives and all the firing the Marines gave.

www.liveleak.com...

How fast was that?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by deltaboy]