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.

 

What the Marine Did

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

From Slate.com
What the Marine Did

This case would not exist without Mr. Sites. That a young soldier deferred to instinct over the rulebook in combat is unsurprising. What was surprising was the near-instant transmission of a battlefield video around the world, allowing us to witness the actions of one American rifleman. Judging by the swift condemnation from all over, the world is drawing its own conclusion about what happened in the bloody mosque. But to judge the Marine fairly takes more perspective and context. The video is clear enough, but truly understanding requires navigating an underlying landscape littered with legal ambiguity and moral craters.

This Slate article offers an analysis of this now world famous incident and the circumstances surrounding it.

While it is common to assert that the "camera never lies", a lack of context can nonetheless accomplish the same thing.

Fallujah is not Peoria, Illinois, and war is not a walk in the park. What is appropriate in one set of circumstances is inappropriate in other circumstances.

What do you think of this analysis?




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Another apology for war crimes ?? How often will you guys be posting this ?? Until we embargo you into pre-industrialized age ??



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Another apology for war crimes ?? How often will you guys be posting this ?? Until we embargo you into pre-industrialized age ??


Um, what else do you want us to do? Not apologize?

I'm not saying that warcrimes are OK, but it's not like we can hop in the Delorean and stop them from happening.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Another apology for war crimes ?? How often will you guys be posting this ?? Until we embargo you into pre-industrialized age ??


1) Did you actually read the article?

2) What do you mean by "we"? Do you personally have embargo powers?



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Until we embargo you into pre-industrialized age ??


Who is "we"? Japan? (your screen name refers to a move in "Go")




[edit on 19-11-2004 by NetStorm]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Sorry, i am just reacting allergically to questions like 'was it a war crime?'. I feel it's the natural responsibility of any leadership to point out it's own errors, and the actually contrary is happening.

Regarding your second question, no i don't have embargo powers. But that is the direction Bush is currently embarked on.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Another apology for war crimes ?? How often will you guys be posting this ?? Until we embargo you into pre-industrialized age ??


Hi, I just wanted to say here, as I have been posting in other threads:

Killing a wounded enemy is not a war crime. It only becomes a war crime if we accept a clear surrender and take them into custody. Just because the guy's got a bullet in the gut does not mean he intends to stop fighting. Nor is it the responsibility of our soldiers to make any type of determination about his intent unless he makes himself 100% totally clear. Even then, since these bozos dont follow international law we have no obligation to extend these rules to cover them.

These vermin have been faking injury and death to ambush our soldiers. So instead of taking chances they shoot first and ask questions second. THIS IS NOT A WAR CRIME.

You cannot cite one instance of international or U.S. Law that is being violated by these actions. Dont try to cite ANY Geneva conventions because they only apply to uniformed soldiers. The Geneva conventions clearly state that irregular / non-uniformed soldiers are not protected under that treaty. Spies were shot / hanged without trial during WWII and no one said boo.

Please stop making new threads to try to make this case. The US Soldiers are ruthless and efficient and good at making war. It shocks a lot of people that war is actually about being as ruthless and efficient as possible.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Sorry, i am just reacting allergically to questions like 'was it a war crime?'.

The article does, in fact, raise that question, so I can understand your reaction if you are allergic to such questions.

But why the allergy? Do you know for a fact that this was a war crime? The article raises the issue of context, which is legitimate. What makes questioning incomplete information wrong?

In an environment where enemies dress as civilians, shoot from under the cover of white flags and call for medical assistance only to detonate explosives when help arrives, there is no shortage of war crimes.

The problem comes from assuming that only one side is guilty of them. Without a clear understanding of what is really going on in Fallujah, judgments in cases like these will be uninformed and therefore necessarily wrong.

At best, it's a guess made from ignorance.

For Americans, a major problem is context. We are being "sheltered" from much of what is happening in Iraq, both good and bad. This control of information is intended to control public opinion, and is contemptible.

But to expect Americans to switch the channel from Everybody Loves Raymond or Queer Eye For The Straight Guy to footage of a scene like this and be able to make rational judgments about what is actually happening is expecting more than most people can deliver.

Likewise, to show such a scene over and over on Al Jazeera, while conveniently glossing over why a U.S. Marine would be suspicious of a wounded insurgent "playing dead", is nothing more than brazen manipulation of viewers for ratings and political effect.

To surrender to either form of control is to embrace ignorance. I recommend denying it, instead.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what kind of combat stress or other BS excuses the guy might have went through leading up to the incident (big boo-hoo everyone)...the fact is there were other Marines in the room who acted responsibly and I'm sure they experienced the same trauma as he did. I think it's pretty pathetic the way the U.S. of A. is falling all over itself to justify this rouge marines actions. We're acting like the parent whose child is out of control, but we say "My sweet Johnny wouldn't do such a thing" every time the principal calls home....please. The guy needs to have his butt nailed to the wall an made an example of. Look, guy is about as sharp as a bowling ball anyway...I mean earlier in the clip, he's standing there talking to the officer and looking right smack into the camera, so he knew everything was being video-taped. Here's what the REAL deal is...the -sshole capped a bunch of unarmed prisoners (the officer asks him if they were unarmed when he shot them, and he just shrugs his shoulders), and when they walked back into the room and he saw that one was still alive, he wanted to shut the guy up to avoid trouble. What he did isn't the image of America that I want to be associated with...I thought we're supposed to be better than that?...maybe we're not the "good guys" anymore??????



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The US Soldiers are ruthless and efficient and good at making war. It shocks a lot of people that war is actually about being as ruthless and efficient as possible



Yeah....just any NVA soldier



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by toona
Yeah....just any NVA soldier


But they were fighting the evil capitalist pigs, so it's ok


Apparently, it's OK to fight dirty when you're the underdog. I don't care if you're 6'5", 300 pounds of pure muscle and a triple black belt. If some wimp kicks you in the nuts, you can kick him right back.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
MrNice...

I couldn't have said that any better or in a more accurate fashion.

BZ




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
good post majic




Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Another apology for war crimes ?? How often will you guys be posting this ??


Does decapitating civilians fall under "war crimes"? Im just curious.

Talk about double standards, get over yourself.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Another apology for war crimes ?? How often will you guys be posting this ?? Until we embargo you into pre-industrialized age ??


that was not an apology, if i read it correctly, and if i read it correctly, it is not an admission of war crimes, either.

i saw 90% of that video and there was nothing in it that was a war crime or anything close to it. the soldier may have seen the guys hand move and thought his life was in danger. personally, i think the guy was already dead and the soldier just thought he was alive, because i never saw him move at all.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Another apology for war crimes ??


thats strange...while we're on the topic of war crimes, I seem to remember a thread dedicated to:

Entire American Battalion wiped out while begging to be allowed to retreat
quote:
In a report in early this morning, Fallujah Mujahideen have rejected the US request for cease fire and have wiped the besieged American column on Al-Hadhrah street. After the American occupation forces made several military attempts to break the siege around their battalion that had been encircled by Mujahideen on Al-Hadhrah street for several days, they were unable to dislodge it. When those military attempts failed, they resorted to peaceful solution by requesting cease fire- using loud speakers to make sure that their plea is heard. Mujahideen subsequently rejected the American request and proceeded to wipe out the entire American column on Hadhrah street. Details of American casualties are currently being evaluated, verified, and will be forth coming;

seems your hero's in the "Mujahideen" wiped out an ENTIRE american column(?) after they attempted to surrender.....where's the world outrage?...condemnation??



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Look, I'm in NO WAY defending the people we're fighting...I'll be the first to agree that they fight "dirty", but the fact is the U.S. is morally better than that!!!!!

Yes, that means that our boys fight with an unfair advantage sometimes, but that's the price we pay for the "Moral Highground" that we occupy.

Fact: For example in Vietman, when our fighters & bombers would be on our way to bomb Hanoi. We would actually fly over the enemy airfields with thier jets lined-up ready to take off and attack us...but our rules of engagement placed the enemy airfields "off limits", so we had to let them get the first shot at us so to speak. Silly yes, stupid yes, but we're AMERICA, and yes we play to different rules sometimes, but that's why the world looks (or used to anyway) on our military with awe. It's not because we're the biggest bad-sses on the planet, it's because we have compassion when others don't. Take that away, and we're no different than say, Hitlers SS troops (very mean bad-sses but not someone we'd want to be associated with).



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join