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.

 

WAR: Military to Investigate Marine Shooting Video

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
You have EVERY right under the rules of war to shoot a wounded man if there is a CHANCE he is still engaged in combat. Wounding someone does not mean tag your out of the game now..stop shooting. It means the guy is not able to fight as effectively now as before.

The LOCATION this happens is irrelevant but its telling that these thugs are hiding in Mosques, schools, and civilian population centers.

If someone wants to surrender then they have to make a clear effort to do so. If our marines had accepted the mans surrender and THEN shot him then it would clearly be a violation of the rules of war.

However, the SOBs have been playing dead / wounded and then killing our soldiers when they try to help. So now, no more help just a quick death.

Fine with me.




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by aape
There are rules of engagement that every civilized nation preserves. And shooting wounded men defending their mosque isnt tolerated by any means. And its a pure excuse to say its about manpower..you have 30 soldiers to 1 iraqi men in fallujah...
-ap

Get Real!!! There are NO Rules of engagement in an assault, none. Ask the chinese, the veitnamese, the german or the russians. Any one in any war in the last hundred years.
And how do you know how many insergents there were ? Do you have access to there TOE?Were you in thier HQ?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JCMinJapan
And if it had been a marine in captivity and they shot him, we would be the ones to complain and say how they are not following the Geneva Convention. Either way this is just another wasted life and another way for one or more sides to get compassion. We will of course use one side that favors us in each situation and so will the other side.


Not really. We don't complain much when they drag our soldier's bodies around and burn and hang them and take body parts for souvenirs... Our "higher standard" thinking has to go. We're not better than anyone else in the world so we should stop acting like we are if we want to get some real work done.

Zip



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karl der Grosse

And how do you know how many insergents there were ? Do you have access to there TOE?Were you in thier HQ?


Well the death toll was about 1100 when us said fallujah was taken..so even if there were 2000 "terrorists" hiding in fallujah, you would have more than 10 times the man power..plus tanks
...just saying that its wrong to shoot wounded/unarmed..not taking sides for either side because i know that iraqiis wouldnt give a chance to a wounded american, but its understandable because you are invading their country from their point of view. alas the peace should come.
-ap



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
If it was me and I was in that Marine's shoes, I would have done the same thing the marine did, no second guessing if the injuried man was unarmed or armed, he was there fighting against our troops ( from what was said) before he was injured, and the Marine had to take steps to make sure that man couldn't cause anymore deaths.

SELF-DEFENCE !!!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   
aape yes it's wrong by my standards now. I'm sitting in front or the computer, happy and content. drinking a coke and listening to the history channel. But when your more scared than you have ever been , tired hungry[eat MRE' for a week you'll understand.] thirsty you can't take a chance.The stakes are higher than you or I can undwestand . His life is what he's playing for. Thier is nothing,nothing more inportant to him right now. If he doesn't win he may be dead. You don't take chances with your life why should he? I know how he feels. I was scarred to a quarter of a century ago too. I'm a marine. If you can put yourself in his boots then maybe you'll understand why he did this.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
You have EVERY right under the rules of war to shoot a wounded man if there is a CHANCE he is still engaged in combat. Wounding someone does not mean tag your out of the game now..stop shooting. It means the guy is not able to fight as effectively now as before.


That is not true, unless the rules haver changed since I was in Iraq last year, or they are different for the Marines than the Army.

You cannot "double-tap". Meaning, shooting a guy, then walking up to him and shooting him again to make sure he is dead. That's murder.
Before we shipped out for Iraq from Ft. Bragg, we had a good month of training on the Rules of Warfare, Code of Conduct, Geneva Convention, etc.

After you shoot a guy, you give him first aid. Common sense is used of course, I mean, you shoot him if he is still a threat, obviously.

Everyone keeps talking about booby-trapped enemy. Does anyone know the proper way to check a "dead" enemy for booby traps? It takes two people. One soldier covers the body, the other one lays on top, and lifts the body up quickly. The guy covering looks, and identifies any threats, or shoots if there is one. The soldier doing the looking is protected by the dead body.

Discipline, rules and regulations, keep the military together. When you have a break-down or a disregard of how a professional behaves, I don't think you should have the honor of wearing the uniform.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
curme yes everyone gets those before going overseas to a combat zone. I take it your airborne infantry. How much combat assaults were you in? And if you are not a signatory or the Geneve Convintion those rules do not apply to you. Also by those rules partians are not treated as military personel but as brigands. AND may be exucuted WITH OUT trial. Is thier any difference here. These men are clearly not Iragi military, nor i believe would the claim to be.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join