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
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
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.