How many Marines will die Now?

Originally posted by TPL
I was sickened, yet at the same time i try to put myself in the mindset of the soldier. If i was him i would have shot him in the arms if i perceived a threat.

If you perceive a threat in which an appropriate level of force requires using a firearm to eliminate the threat, you shoot to kill.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by TPL
I was sickened, yet at the same time i try to put myself in the mindset of the soldier. If i was him i would have shot him in the arms if i perceived a threat.

If you perceive a threat in which an appropriate level of force requires using a firearm to eliminate the threat, you shoot to kill.

What about shoot to disable?

IMHO The Marines are heros. And this particular Marine was doing his job.

I don't think this Marine would have shot unless he believed it necessary. He was operating in a battle zone in a situation extremely hazardous to his health.

Originally posted by TPL
What about shoot to disable?

If your goal is to disable, use of a firearm is not an appropriate level of force.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by TPL

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
If you perceive a threat in which an appropriate level of force requires using a firearm to eliminate the threat, you shoot to kill.

What about shoot to disable?

If your goal is to disable, use of a firearm is not an appropriate level of force.

Then which weapon is?

Originally posted by TPL

Then which weapon is?

If the appropriate level of force requires using a weapon to subdue a target, the appropriate weapon would be one not designed to inflict permanent injury on the target or the use of an ammo type not designed to inflict permanent injury on the target. Which is really a moot point in military operations, as neither are available.

Which leaves either hand to hand subdual or subdual of the threat through intimidation, i.e. point a weapon at the perceived threat and attempt verbal communication until the target is no longer perceived as a threat.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 16-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by TPL

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
If your goal is to disable, use of a firearm is not an appropriate level of force.

Then which weapon is?

If the appropriate level of force requires using a weapon to subdue a target, the appropriate weapon would be one not designed to inflict permanent injury on the target or the use of an ammo type not designed to inflict permanent injury on the target. Which is really a moot point in military operations, as neither are available.

Which leaves either hand to hand subdual or subdual of the threat through intimidation, i.e. point a weapon at the perceived threat and attempt verbal communication until the target is no longer perceived as a threat.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]

OK i see the logic in that.

How did we get to discussing "passive" measures in a war? In war there is no "communication" with an enemy. You kill it, then talk, or YOU are dead. Are you people nuts? Wrong weapon in WAR?

How many Marines will kill the enemy, look round, and then kill any reporter that is nearby?
All of them, I hope.
It would be too much to hope for, that the lawyers shot by marines be reporter/lawyers.

Originally posted by Jakomo

Am I the only one who watched this video and was sickened by it?

Nope, there are others who refuse to watch it b/c it's so vile and disgusting. Sometimes I truly wonder what separates us from these barbaric terrorists...doesn't look like we are immune to the same type of evil. I don't need to see that video to decide whether or not that guy deserves to get punished...I've already heard enough...no sympathy from me.

This is such a touchy subject for most. Many will not voice the opinions for fear of what may happen to family and friends that are service men and women, active at this time.
The military has both good and bad points. They do use a brainwashing type training program...this I have witnessed first hand.
With this in mind I do believe they should change a few of the rules. Where the public image is not as important as getting as many of our troops back home safe and sound.
So one member of the enemy was shot dead. Many of you here know that the action of faking an injury has and will continue to be one of the enemys favotite tricks.
Cameras should not be allowed and the soldier that shot this enemy dead does not deserve what he will indeed get for his actions. He should recieve a metal, instead of court marshall.
This is where a secrete team should counteract and save the hero, hide him away till all blows over and put the man back to work undercover.
Or our government could just throw him a party, tell the enemy to kiss our backsides and continue with life as if nothing wrong happened, and for most of us, the ones that will speak up...nothing wrong did happen.
I just really hate this man has to go through whatever our government will put him through just to save face. It's a real shame.

A quick bullet through the brain or a two minute ordeal of your head being sawed off with a kitchen knife?

Who exactly are the monsters here?

Originally posted by DrHoracid
How did we get to discussing "passive" measures in a war? In war there is no "communication" with an enemy. You kill it, then talk, or YOU are dead. Are you people nuts? Wrong weapon in WAR?

Enemy: "We Surrender!!"
You: BANG BANG BANG "There is no 'communication' with an enemy!!"

But to answer your question, it was because I pointed out that "If you perceive a threat in which an appropriate level of force requires using a firearm to eliminate the threat, you shoot to kill."

All I can say here is these guys and gals are fighting for their lives. We know the enemy will do what ever it takes to kill our warriors. They don't follow the Geneva Conventions. As some of the other posters said, we don't know all the circumstances, so no one should be quick to judge! If I were in the same situtation I would problly do exactly what he did. You can't take any chances, because it could cost the lives of your fellow warriors and yourself. You do what needs to be done! And that is kill the enemy thats why you are there. In combat it's kill or be killed period. You don't have the luxury of time on your hands to sit around and think about what your going to do as bullets and RPGs are flying by your head.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by friday2112]

how many Marines will die? as many as it takes!

if you join the army marines or whatever force you go in knowing you might be killed. i hate these soldiers who cry like girls because their scared that they might die and they wish they would have never joined the army or marines!....................so tell me this why did you join?

Originally posted by Amuk
I will get flamed for this but whatever, They have a history of faking surrender and then pulling a gun or bomb. They also booby trap dead and wounded (sounds like another war and another time)

If they dont want there wounded killed quit doing the above. Till then dont whine because of it.

Exactly

Joining the army is the dumbest thing to do. Why? because you fate lies with cooperations and the mind of leader's who love to konqueor the world. You have to fight for what the leader believes not what you believe.

They just pump a bit of pyhs war on you, which makes want to fight. But the reality is you just manuiplated into it.

The only thing i support. Is the army for defence purposes this mean's troops may only fight in their own land. This will cripple crazy leaders like hilter, stalin, bush, rossvelt from trying to create their own empire.

The reality the white house admit's that invasion of middleast, is imperislistc measures. America militart might, has given it's self options it belives it can create an empire, so they created sept 11 to tricked the public into supporting their imperatisc dreams.

First of all Thinker, if your post is an indication of your education I doubt you would be able to pass the ASVAB to enter the armed forces.

That said, I have watched the video and it is hard to justify what that Marine did. Yes, the insurgents have been boobytrapping the dead and injured. Just as the Viet Cong did. Yes, the insurgent was playing dead, but he was unarmed. The Marine killed an unarmed injured enemy.

This war is now starting to sound like Vietnam. I refused to admit it until now. The US if fighting an enemy that is able to easily move from civilian to combatant. The enemy is fighting an unconventional war that US soldiers are not trained to fight. (I know that Marines do a lot of MOUT training but Army does not). Soldiers are getting frustrated because the enemy doesn't fight the way we like our enemies to fight, now they are letting out their frustrations.

This was a failure in leadership. Nobody in the video reacted to the shooting. Where were the Marine's NCO's? Why didn't they question him shooting the unarmed man? Is this now part of the Rules of Engagement? Is the SOP "If enemy fakes death, shoot him to be sure"?

As a service member myself, I am disgusted.

jsobecky:

Jakomo, were you as upset when beheadings took place? How about the latest murder - the woman peace worker? How about the civilians that were massacred and hung from the bridge? Aren't those even more outrageous?

Absolutely I found those things both sickening and outrageous. But none of these acts are being commited by people trained by the military and part of an Army that is claiming they are interested in "liberation". They're perpetrated by murderous idiots. Isn't there a difference?



"Well it's the insurgents fault because they are not fighting by the rules."

That's a cowardly thing coming from a force that's vastly superior in technology and training than their enemies. Cowardice.

"He could have had a gun or been hiding a grenade so I capped him to be sure."

Cowardice.

Rules of engagement prevent US troops from shooting an enemy where there is no threat being posed. Any REAL threat, not imaginary or "possible".

I can't think of any reason that could justify this. None.

jako

Originally posted by Jakomo

"He could have had a gun or been hiding a grenade so I capped him to be sure."

Cowardice.

Rules of engagement prevent US troops from shooting an enemy where there is no threat being posed. Any REAL threat, not imaginary or "possible".

I can't think of any reason that could justify this. None.

jako

Armchair quarterbacking at its finest folks!