Iraq War footage (graphic)

Hell yea, kill, main, murder, let the blood of some other people flood the streets of some country somewhere, while our children listening to our cheering for violence and war load up on antidepressants and shoot up their schools, oh hell yea, the true American way!

You know what? I think the marines did not do quite enough, what they should have done, is butcher the corpse so they can sell the body parts on eBay as war trophies, now that's the ticket!

Why stop there? Open up a novelty gift shop, stocked to the roof with ears, noses, limbs, guts, etc from peoples of all colors and races that we go out somewhere to kill. That's the way for the common man can profit from war, forget oil and stuff.

How about a reality TV show, "The wheel of torture!"?

Put up eager contestants, (like the war cheering crowd of the ATS forum) and have them guess how much torture any given terrorist, insurgent, illegal combatant, what have you, can take before spilling it.

Put them on the clock! A wholesome entertainment show that really says "Good morning America!".

Spin the wheel, choose the torture, guess the time frame in which the "subject" will break (or die) and win "fabulous prizes!"

Like a year of free gas pumped by a personal Iraqi slaborer "imported" directly from the streets of Fallujah for example.

Heck, help the country, be a patriot and save the Army on the interrogation/torture expenses.

Do it the "Running Man" way, call now, cease the moment, be a winner, don't let the opportunity pass you by, reach for the dream, take what's yours, be all that you can be! The operators are standing by!

All of you quibbling demagogues that try to justify war crimes have never sensed the bone marrow chilling shriek of death. Be it a scream or a breath of whisper.

Once you do, you'll want to throw up every time you hear a sad kitten miaou, or kill it, depending on what one is made of.

If the choice is to kill, it makes one an anti-human, and that by virtue warrants a "cleansing" response from the social immune system.

That day is coming, start thinking.

I will be in the Russian army in one year and am ready to kill any enemy I encounter. However, I will not cheer that I killed him, or show off about it, or celebrate it, AND I WILL DEFINATELY NOT FEEL GOOD ABOUT DOING IT.

Originally posted by Russian soldier
I will be in the Russian army in one year and am ready to kill any enemy I encounter. However, I will not cheer that I killed him, or show off about it, or celebrate it, AND I WILL DEFINATELY NOT FEEL GOOD ABOUT DOING IT.

There is a reason why they say war is hell.

Good luck when you get in, hopefully things will stay calm for Russia, as far as major fighting goes aside from Chechyna, and you won't have to go to war.

War is a difficult experience that I hope most of you never have to see first hand. When you are in this situation and you have someone shooting at you and you have the opportunity to take them out if is not only a feeling of relief but excitement. In this case many have stated that yes they did injure him but he was still armed thus still making him just as dangerous. In a firefight a person can still shoot even though they are shot. There is a difference in being shot and being dead, the enemy is dangerous until they are dead! If these marines did not kill him and he had got a handle on his weapon he would have been just as dangerous as he was at first and he very well may have killed one of our boys. It is not a good thing to cheer over death but it is a good thing to cheer that you did not lose any of your our troops. It is always a good day when your entire platoon goes to bed at night and has the ability to wake up the next morning, all of you. I think we are looking at the cheering as a celebration of killing an enemy, and this may be the case but I also think the celebration is also that the firefight is over and the marines were the victor's in this small fight. Agagin I do not applaud the comments that were probably misconstrued and taken out of context but I do applaud the end result of the fight. I think in any given situation it should be handeled in this exact same manner. The marines have a motto "one shot one kill." Unfortunately they did not kill the second man on the first shot and gave the reporter time to get the camera rolling but this is war and almost anything goes. If we turned the tables the Iraq soldiers would not have been this kind as to shoot and kill a wounded man, they would take him back and tape the murder of the man while they cut his head off for all of America to see!

Well, the point shouldn't be what would the Iraqi do in that situation should it?

Did our soldiers in WWII run concentration camps because the Nazis did? Does the enemy's lack of morality justify our own?

I believe the standard should be the one evoked by Christ which holds that you should do onto others as you would have them do onto you. If you're wounded in a firefight with an enemy do you expect to get blown away while you writhe on the ground in agony? If so, then this approach is probably appropriate.

The only comment on the video I will make is that it appeared that the US military personnel were well protected behind a heavy brick and mortar wall while the victim was in open territory and not even facing the US personnel. It looked like a proverbial turkey shoot to me.

I believe that as a society we owe it to ourselves in similar situations to know enough of the foreign language to order the wounded fighter to hold up his hands, drop the weapon, lie still, etc. Know enough Arabic to be able to shout rudimentary commands at the guy. Then, if he is not responsive, wait and watch. If he makes a threatening move do what you have to. I saw no threatening moves in this video and nothing indicating urgency in the shooters.

The cavalier attitude towards the shooting is disturbing. There was no interest here in preserving life. I believe this is representative of our military's attitude in Iraq from the top down. It is a soul-less approach to warfare and will ruin the military in the long run if it persists because there is no honor in it. A warrior must have a code and he must have the honor of living by it. Without it he is nothing but a thug and murderer - a common criminal. There is nothing to applaud in that regardless of the hoped for outcome.

No we did not run concentration camps because our enemy's did but that is not the point. We are always one step above the enemy's of the world. I think America is one of the only countries that follow the Geneva Convention. The reason that the American troops are behind cover is because that is the way they are trained. It is common sense to take cover when being shot at, and if the Iraqi soldier is not smart enough to figure this out he is better off dead. I find it ironic that you use Christ in your post but look at where this war is going on at. This is supposed to be the holy land literally a few blocks from where Christ was born and died. Do you think this land is over run with Christian people who live the word of God, hardly. Some of these people are animals and this is the majority of the people that the soldiers and troops of America are fighting with. Please do not feel sorry for one of these insurgents being killed during a time of war.
How can you expect the American troops to learn the language of the foreign countries they must travel to. Some of the members of the Marine Corps infantry are jumping from one country to the next in a matter of months. Lets be honest the military members are composed of several people that do not come from a well educated family. Most of the members do not come into the mlitary with a masters degree from a bg name college. Most of the guys are 18 or 20 years old looking for a chance to start over, people at the end of their road. There are translators in the military that speak the language of their current country they are visiting, but there will never be enough to have one right next to you all of the time in case a firefight breaks out. In a real time war you can't say"time-out, I need to go get my translator so I can tell you so surrender." The hard fact is that people die during a war it is not nice and it is not pretty but it happens and everyone that is fighting knows this. Have you ever heard the daing all fair in love and war, this is very true.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Well, the point shouldn't be what would the Iraqi do in that situation should it?

Did our soldiers in WWII run concentration camps because the Nazis did? Does the enemy's lack of morality justify our own?

I believe the standard should be the one evoked by Christ which holds that you should do onto others as you would have them do onto you. If you're wounded in a firefight with an enemy do you expect to get blown away while you writhe on the ground in agony? If so, then this approach is probably appropriate.

Don't know where you've been for the last 3 years, but that is exactly what US soldiers wuould expect from the enemy in Iraq

Originally posted by marine2004
We are always one step above the enemy's of the world. I think America is one of the only countries that follow the Geneva Convention.

Obviously you are not keeping up with current events!!

Check out your own governments proposals where they are selectively choosing to dispose of the convention regulations when and where it suits them

Torture is abhorrent in whatever form whether it be for propeganda videos from the taliban or for information gathering..This world is sick

But the cure is coming soon..

Originally posted by marine2004

How can you expect the American troops to learn the language of the foreign countries they must travel to. Most of the members do not come into the mlitary with a masters degree from a bg name college.

Did I suggest they learn the language? No, I did not.

I suggested they learn how to issue simple orders, such as "hands up" etc. If the conflict is worth dying over it's worth learning a few rudimentary commands. College degrees would not be required nor would masters degrees in foreign languages. All the military would need to do is issue simple cards with diagrams and phonetic spellings so grunts could do their job. Take five minutes a day reviewing the cards and all the sudden you can communicate with them on a basic level. Hell man, they had time to issue PLAYING CARDS with the faces of the enemy on them.

I care about these people because they are people, not animals. I don't care if they're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Born Again. The Iraqi people only became a target for Bush when they had Saddam in hand and the war was "won". Or don't you people remember "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

They're human beings, not dogs. But most of you guys reject that and feel that you can pick them off indiscriminately because they're animals. And from Haditha it's clear that those feelings extend to unarmed women and children as well. Now what kind of insane pussy would shoot a kid or woman in the head? Proud Marines, I guess. Real tough guys. Why not just torture a dog and be done with it. I guess because we have Iraqis to torture.

Originally posted by seattlelaw...I care about these people because they are people, not animals. I don't care if they're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Born Again. The Iraqi people only became a target for Bush when they had Saddam in hand and the war was "won". Or don't you people remember "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

They're human beings, not dogs. But most of you guys reject that and feel that you can pick them off indiscriminately because they're animals. And from Haditha it's clear that those feelings extend to unarmed women and children as well. Now what kind of insane pussy would shoot a kid or woman in the head? Proud Marines, I guess. Real tough guys. Why not just torture a dog and be done with it. I guess because we have Iraqis to torture.

Some animals are better than some humans. It should not be acceptible to randomly pick off an animal either. This is a war situation and war is all about fighting, killing and (hopefully) winning. When you fight for your life and see your comrads injured and killed you cannot avoid getting caught up in the consciousness of a war zone.

These are young men and women fighting out there. They were trained to kill. It is sport to a soldier. It has to be. The idea of killing needs to be acceptible to them or they will get killed. To a soldier the enemy is niether human or animal. It is something that is there to be eliminated so it does not harm you.

It is ignorant to use the same yardstick to measure behavior on the frontlines of a war and life back in the peaceful environment of a distant land. This one is urban warfare. There are no frontlines. When civilians participate and you cannot tell the innocents from the bad guys in the daily life or death confrontation they all must become bad guys. The one that you let by may be the one that blows you to bits a minute later.


[edit on 18-7-2006 by Ignacio]

Most people on here are clueless...

I would of slotted that guy any day of the week, and yeah I would of cheered! Not because I just killed a wounded man but because I potentially saved the life of one of my buddies, or even me.

All people sitting in your swivel chairs talking about war like you know war makes me sick.

If you think that the marines in the video are sick and twisted... see what happens to your brains when you're subjected to the same horrors and fears.

Its war, people die then people cheer. Why do they cheer? Because they're still alive.

Originally posted by devilwaspwest point they have not had the same start in life WE have.
you cannot blame them. they dont know who to fight , thier own people are killing them and coaltion troops are killing them, who are they to trust?
do you trust the man that shot your neighbor because he fired at them, who was just fireing at them because he thought they were trying to kill him first?

I see you talk a lot about what you wouldn't do, and what mistakes are being made.

Just what would you do in respect of Iraq, what would YOUR policy be?

PS - I'm still not sure what this thread has to do with weaponry, and this IS the weaponry forum right?

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Retseh]

too all the people who are against the marine that did this. what would your answer be if the marine instead walked up to the terrorist, and the terrorist detonated a bomb in his shirt. what would your answer be then?

Originally posted by Swatman
too all the people who are against the marine that did this. what would your answer be if the marine instead walked up to the terrorist, and the terrorist detonated a bomb in his shirt. what would your answer be then?

simple, they would cheer. These are people who hate america for their various reasons and want to see the US fail in that region. hell, they want to see america fail period. The self-hting americans are the ones I especially cannot stand. :shk:

Originally posted by Ess Why Kay
What exactly did this guy do that he needed to be shot and killed?

He's a muslim.
What other reason do you need.
If they have the chance they would slit your throat and cut your head of with a blunt kitchen knife.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his"


"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change; it is, 'To use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."



George Patton


As a leader, a primary responsibility is to get your troops back home alive.
As a soldier, you have to depend on those to your left and right with your life. There is no time for hesitation- hesitation gets you killed. You can have an After Action Report after everything's over, and discuss what happened, what went wrong, what went right, etc...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
well devil its a little hard not to do that when you see your people and service men getting killed and getting their head chopped off I would do that same thing in their situation.

"It felt good, makes me wanna do it again" Do I have to say more.

I haven't read the entire set of posts but in case one of the pros missed it, you really need to look at the angle and scale of the foreground objects relative to the height of the light poles as the camera pulls back from zoom and sweeps over the soldier nearest to it.

To my eyes, that's at least 300-500 yards if not more because the Marines are on an elevated position. To 'go out and get him' would thus imply a full-up patrol op and that would mean significant force exposure through every turn of alleyway and culdesac, rooftop, window and doorway. Even as it might have required (a UCMJ chargeable offense under Article 99-2: 'shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend') the forfeiture or endangerment of an existing mission inherent to securing that point.

One can also not deny nor avoid the realization that Muzzle Mutts enjoy their work, the same as everyone who is good at what they do. There may also be a bit of guilt-as-group-think going on no different from cheerleaders at a football game buzzing up the crowd through rah-rah ism. In other circumstances we would call it mob hysteria and criminals have been let off for less.

Having said that, and acknowledging that the Hague as well as Geneva and probably the UCMJ all have relevant Articles (Hague 23 comes to mind) in dealing with the treatment of foes no longer able to defend themselves as either 'cruel and inhumane' or the 'refusal of quarter' ILLEGAL; the mistakes made here are rather more basic:

1. A man who is badly wounded needs two men to carry him and thus renders all three combat ineffective. He wil also leaves a blood trail. If you track those men back to a rally point or aid station, you can bag them all and possibly gain intel. If you make an example of them by /destroying/ that rally point or aid station (from the air) you inflict greater morale and logistical damage to the enemy force effectiveness overall for want of a greater indecency, far from the eyes of the camera.
Such being a fully justifiable action in a war where the the illegal combatants otherwise refuse to wear a uniform and be recognized under the leadership of a given personality.

2. If you make a given reaction one of 'combat' then indeed, as argued here, /anything goes/ as the primary means by which civillian rules and perspective are seggregated from military mindsets and application of force*. On the other hand, if you make it a function of /law/ whereby possession of firearms let alone approach to a U.S. force while bearing them is _ILLEGAL_, then you have reasonable cause to assume the the Iraqis know that they are doing something wrong before they undertake to. In this too, we have grossly misapprehended our _Hague Responsibilities_ under Article 42/43 to rapidly disarm and stabilize the country PRIOR to yielding authority to a followon regime whose principal constituents are empowered by militias.

That part of this would require 'even more heinous' actions such as violating their mosques on a routine basis of inspection, arrest and interrogation. Denying them the right to mass publically in numbers greater than 10. And again, _making it illegal to own ANY weapon_. Should have been the first means by which we made it clear that WE WERE THAT MEAN. And that the Iraqis, as a _defeated enemy civillian population_ would be treated under the Hague LAWS of land warfare exactly as they deserved to be. Neither better nor worse.

ARGUMENT:
Young men and women undertaking to TRAIN to kill someone not immediately endangering them at the moment of joining up. At the orders of someone also not immediately threatened. A CINC whom they have never met, whose opinions they do not know and who may not even have been electively empowered as their leader when they enlisted. Are always going to subject to suspicion of having limited conscience of the long term consequences of their actions.
Indeed, it is part of military 'remolding' of their character through basic indoctrination training that creates a combat threshold whereby they give up even more of the facade of self limiting norms of moral behavior as rewarding instinct for 'enjoying the moment' with survival and objective accomplishment under dangerous conditions.
Guilt at the means and Questioning of the final-goal validity of what they do, for the rest of their lives, being what nightmares of combat after returning to civillian life are typically all about.
Frankly, in a selective service nation where volunteering to kill for a college fund is all about personal choice, there is thus little qualitatively to be said for excusing the behavior of those who 'fail to realize' that they are indeed being used as a tool by a government that will not care after they leave the services. Whether they realize it was a bad act in an immoral cause or not.
Because you don't risk a 25 cent bullet balancing the books against the 300,000 dollars your parents have invested in you, if you don't -secretly or otherwise- WANT TO.
That WE should care what they do in our name because our greater restraint from indulging in that instinctive-killer base behavior is equally explicit.
More importantly, if war can be said to have a purpose, it is not in the glorification or denigration of killer mentalities on a rampage.
It is in the outcomes by which we gain the resources or eliminate the threat that drove us to use such men as tools to begin with.
If we leave Iraq with neither irrefutable contracts to produce the 20 billion barrels of oil under it's soil. Nor a nation strong enough to reject the influences of Iran and Al Qaeda as an 'extremist' Islamic Fundamentalist Revolution; that honorable objective will have been lost.
It is in THAT LIGHT which these soldier's acts must be weighed and measured. And because they have no control 'in the moment' of their actions, it is up to US to _assign value_ to their intrinsic character by setting the conditions under which indulging their base behaviors at least succeeds in getting U.S. what we need from those that they fight.

CONCLUSION:
The real enduring lesson of war is not that 'War is Hell' (Full Quote: "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell." Tecumseh Sherman).

Certainly not as an effective "It's our blood on the line not yours!" justification for soldiers to be what they natively are.

Rather, the lesson of war is that WE, the detached, from it's immediate consequences must remain that way in a most coldblooded analytical way. Engaging in the act of ultimate barbarism solely and not less than as much as in excess of the extent to which it gains us a lasting advantage.

FAILING to do this from more than a mere shock-of-morals context is where both the 'bleeding heart liberalists' and the 'staunchly retranchist neocons' both miss their mark.

For the world is not America and only Americans can ultimately 'care enough' to decide our fate.

Thus to assume that only American goals must be served is to know WHAT those goals are. And whether or not the behavior shown in the video has a place in their objective achievement.


KPl.



*It being one of the ironies of war in our society that 'only the experts can say if it's done correctly' and only the civillians can stask them to do the right thing from which a military perspective on tactical efficiency is often impossible short of refusal to obey.

Originally posted by devilwasp
there was time and the means to disarm him. so why didnt they?
trigger happy gets you and your squad killed.
marines shouldnt do that.
they have a right to retaliate and engage but not slauter

Why don't you disarm him tough guy - maybe get shot because you're a hesitating wimp...maybe be blown-up because the guy was concealing a grenade in his clothes while putting up his hands saying "don't shoot".

Take your self-righteous bull crap elsewhere...this is the real world.

The Marine in this video had been in a similar situation the previous day and had been shot(albeit a minor wound which he was able to return to duty from), in a similar situation, and another Marine had been killed in this same scenario. It's easy to criticize when you're not in that position.
While an enemy combatant is still in the kill zone, they're a valid target. Once you've cleared and secured the kill zone, and established that you have wounded enemy, then unless they're presenting a threat, you treat them. An example would be if one is conducting a linear or L shaped ambush along a trail, road, path, what have you. Once the enemy has entered the kill zone, and the ambush is initiated, the doctrine is nothing gets in or out, till the objective is secured. The assault team will bound to near side of the kill zone, and bound across double tapping any enemy spotted on the way across, and continue advancing to the far side to what is known as the limit of advance or LOA. Aid and litter, and EPW teams will then sweep back from one end of the kill zone to the other checking for survivors. It is unlawful at this point to shoot them, unless they offer a threat. In an urban scenario, the terrain and techniques are obviously different, but an enemy is considered a threat till proven otherwise. There have been many insurgents that play possum or have been booby trapped, and you simply have to treat them as a threat, or you'll take casualties due to carelessness. You don't want to have to explain to your buddies' family why you let them get killed, because of carelessness.