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.

 

Marines Shoot Faker in Fallujah

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   


www.abc.net.au...

The US military says marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.

"Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets," a military statement said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Maybe the Marine who was taped last week did the right thing. If someone is fanatical enough to do "suicide by marine" then I don't blame our forces for
their actions at all.




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I believe this was the argument all along. These freaks do thi sand expect us not to shoot their dumb ass?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Thank you for posting this. The haters like to sit behind their computers and rip our soldiers who are in the line of fire every minute of every hour of every day.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
This story should have been made up before the Falluja incident



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Anyone who chooses to play dead rather than surrender when given the opportunity should be shot.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
Anyone who chooses to play dead rather than surrender when given the opportunity should be shot.


twice



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:16 AM
link   
He opened fire on the Marine?

Why did the reporter who was there say there was no sign of weapons?

Did anyone see or hear his gunshots on the film?

Sounds like the military might be trying to spin the story.

You'll have a tough time getting the millions of people around the world who have seen the video to believe that.

I'm not saying it's not true.
Just that it's hard to believe.

The damage has already been done anyway.
Just look at some of the cartoons circulating on the Arabic forums:




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
Anyone who chooses to play dead rather than surrender when given the opportunity should be shot.

Simple as that, is it? Well, I'm curious. How do you discern between someone 'playing dead' and someone who's injured and/or unconscious?


[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
He opened fire on the Marine?

Why did the reporter who was there say there was no sign of weapons?

Did anyone see or hear his gunshots on the film?

Sounds like the military might be trying to spin the story.

You'll have a tough time getting the millions of people around the world who have seen the video to believe that.

I'm not saying it's not true.
Just that it's hard to believe.



I know where you are coming from, but I lean towards the media looking for trouble. "Engaging while faking death" " No weapons visible" Sure.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Three things:

1) Playing dead is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

2) Using a mosque or any other place of worship as a site to fight from is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

3) Fighting out of uniform is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

So basically this guy commited 3 blatant war crimes under the Geneva Convention before he was disposed of. Legally, the US soldier was acting within the terms of the Geneva Convention when he pulled the trigger.
That's even without the story of the boobytrapped body coming into play.

As unsavoury as it may seem - # happens in war. This guy bought all the # down on his own head.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Thank you for posting that Leveller. Some of thse people want it both ways. They cry its a war crime when a marine does something they dont aprove of, but never mention that these fighters are employing the most dirty tactics ever known to warfare and dont even come close to observing the Geneva rules.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Playing dead is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

Please point me in the direction where exactly in the Geneva Convention it says 'playing dead' is to be considered a violation. Not calling you a liar, I just have trouble finding this particular piece of information.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
It's in the same paragraph as "thou shalt not pretend to be wounded to gain favourable treatment from the enemy".

Cheers,

NSA



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Three things:

1) Playing dead is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

2) Using a mosque or any other place of worship as a site to fight from is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

3) Fighting out of uniform is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

So basically this guy commited 3 blatant war crimes under the Geneva Convention before he was disposed of. Legally, the US soldier was acting within the terms of the Geneva Convention when he pulled the trigger.
That's even without the story of the boobytrapped body coming into play.

As unsavoury as it may seem - # happens in war. This guy bought all the # down on his own head.


Excellent post! The soldier was in no way in wrong in his actions.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by no such agency
It's in the same paragraph as "thou shalt not pretend to be wounded to gain favourable treatment from the enemy".

Cheers,

NSA

LOL, NSA. I've yet to find that particular paragraph.

...well, Leveller...?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by Leveller
Playing dead is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the militant was therefore not covered by the Rules of Engagement.

Please point me in the direction where exactly in the Geneva Convention it says 'playing dead' is to be considered a violation. Not calling you a liar, I just have trouble finding this particular piece of information.



Perfidy

Article 37

"2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
"2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."

Hmm. Maybe I'm not reading this right, but as far as I can tell this particular piece talks about what isn't prohibited, such as camouflage, decoys etc..?

EDIT to add: You may have been referring to the previous paragraph:


1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy.
(snip)

However this paragraph states under which conditions it's not allowed to kill, injure or capture an adversary.



[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
At the end of the day the marine was doing his job.

Does he:

a/ try and help the "injured"man and risk being blown to bits by a possible booby trap?

b/ take no chances and shoot and live to tell the tale?

c/ walk away and leave him to wait for another possible target to come along?


I back this marine to the hilt. The only thing he did wrong , was to protect his own life and the lives of his comrades. He had no idea that there could have been a booby trap.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Thank you Bikereddie, I'm 100% with you with that sentiment. Let one of you naysayers, just one of you stand in that Marines shoes for one second over there before you say such things. You have NO IDEA what these poor kids are facing each day. Even some of you verterans have never faced what these brave young soldiers are facing right now, right this very second. Shame on you for not standing 100% behind this kid.

The very moment one "wounded" enemy boobie trapped himself killing a soldier at any time during this conflict he made it OK in my book for marines to act as this kid did. I would probably have done the same thing if I was young and brave enough to be standing in that soldiers boots.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Thanks skippytjc

I suppose i could be a bit bias about this issue as i have my son serving over there at the moment.

Although killing is wrong ,i would hope he would protect his life by doing exactly the same.
War is a nasty business and has no winners, just a lot of people who loose loved ones etc.

We have to try and understand what they are going through (our troops) and what their orders are at the time. They cannot tell us where they are , so i would presume they cannot tell us what they have been ordered to do.

One day, i suppose we will find out.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join