Yes. One with a fully-functional, never-shattered legDRB said:
Someone's in trouble
- Thread starter valve bouncer
- Start date
Sorry man, but I picture the whole respect cult as a bunch of 15 year olds. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion either. If I got it wrong, fine. But you didn't do much better with your "been places that would make you crap your pants" comment.DRB said:
And it all started withEcho said:
Echo said:
Actually it started with:
You making assumptions about what was done, and what should have been done differently, when you weren't there and know nothing about the situation outside of a couple of small tidbits of information from the internet.DRB said:
No I asked two questions based on what someone else had posted.Echo said:
The first one being was what understanding he mentioned being an Army Ranger (something I have a little experience with) gave Chop.
The second one being....
Which in the circumstances is probably going to be the very first question that investigators are going to ask. I never said one way or the other whether I thought the Marine was right or wrong. I do have the experience both in training and in real life on numerous occassions, in my opinion, to make such a judgement.
And any conclusion, imagined or otherwise, I may have come to is no different than your own free pass you have seemingly provided this Marine.
well this thread sure got gay
Then there was a pretty big deal about it....... Seems I saw commercials, newspaper ads, and all sorts of debate about it.N8 said:
And I thought that it was faked and he didn't do anything? Ya'll don't get it both ways or at least you shouldn't.
It is that marine's and his officer's obligation to protect him from such a combatant. It is our obligation to then ensure that such protective actions are reasonable and necessary.Andyman_1970 said:
I believe what is in question is whether this marine's actions were reasonable and necessary, and I have no problem with asking that question. Nothing would make me happier than to find out the answer is "yes."
The question is, did the Marine have reason to believe the person was a threat? We can't really answer that from the video.
What is assured is that this video won't be good for us, PR-wise.
And Burly, I'd rather be an 0302 than a pouge e-dog anyday...but I digress. Lexx, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'm an officer, and I'm a grunt. A grunt is an infantryman of any rank. There are plenty of enlisted personnel who aren't grunts.
If you want to talk **** about officers, I suggest you enlist. Then you might have a tad of credibility, even if you end up in Public Affairs. Or try going to OCS and see if you can hack that.
MD
What is assured is that this video won't be good for us, PR-wise.
And Burly, I'd rather be an 0302 than a pouge e-dog anyday...but I digress. Lexx, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'm an officer, and I'm a grunt. A grunt is an infantryman of any rank. There are plenty of enlisted personnel who aren't grunts.
If you want to talk **** about officers, I suggest you enlist. Then you might have a tad of credibility, even if you end up in Public Affairs. Or try going to OCS and see if you can hack that.
MD
MikeD said:
what's worse is that i didnt just "end up" there, i requested it. :dancing: But whatever, I just got to do all the cool stuff and almost none of the BS. I cant complain.
I really have no issue with officers, I was just busting on DRB before he edited his post. There are some good guys out there who dont take themselves too seriously.
I wonder if psychologists will attack you for being mean to me.... wait wrong thread.BurlyShirley said:
But whatever, I just got to do all the cool stuff and almost none of the BS. I cant complain.
I really have no issue with officers, I was just busting on DRB before he edited his post. There are some good guys out there who dont take themselves too seriously.
Isn't that a VD officer? Or is it a remedial reading teacher? I know the Marines need lots of both.MikeD said:
What I meant by stating that I could understand, meant that I could easily see how this could happen. Urban warfare is the nasiest and most brutal type of battle. This Marine probably had his a** in a sling for quite some time just prior to entering this room. Meaning he was probably being fired upon among other things. He has so much energy, and emotion, and adrenalin pumping through his body at this point that anyone who isn't a fellow soldier of his, is basically a enemy. Everyone is an enemy until stated otherwise, especially one that uses enemies tatics (faking death) as this guy supposedly was doing. I could go on and on. In no way am I trying to justify or condone what this Marine did, but simply said that I could understand why he did what he did. Hope this clears things up.DRB said:
Yep....CHOP said:
What class were you? Or were you in the Regiment? OR BOTH?
I am placing my uninformed, wildly speculative, and mostly worthless opinion that the Marine was justified in the kill.
This is a public relations challenge never the less.
Having never served in the armed forces I have no real proof, but my best friend was enlisted, then a reservist/college puke, and now a Lt. in the Air Force. He is of the opinion that being an officer is greatly preferable to being enlisted.
This is a public relations challenge never the less.
Having never served in the armed forces I have no real proof, but my best friend was enlisted, then a reservist/college puke, and now a Lt. in the Air Force. He is of the opinion that being an officer is greatly preferable to being enlisted.
i don't agree with this war now. So is it strange that i have no sympathy for the iraqi insurgent in this case? Since this is war. in a sense i view it as everyone is going thru the motions of what war is all about.
i'm glad the video made it out, i think it's good for the people to be shown the cost and the toll of war.
i'm glad the video made it out, i think it's good for the people to be shown the cost and the toll of war.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/
It's time you have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.
Kevin Sites commentary on what he saw and what has happened since.
It's time you have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.
Kevin Sites commentary on what he saw and what has happened since.
Incredibly well-written. It's good to finally see the facts laid out by the eye-witness himself, with explicit statements of his personal biases or lack thereof. I cannot argue with his course of action, nor his logic and reasoning. Until we hear more from him or from another source, I feel he did exactly as he should have.DRB said:
Good read. Of course, taking it at face value requires the reader to accept that the writer is being totally honest and has a perfect recollection of what transpired. That may well be the case, but it's still one person's account of what happened, just described in more detail.
That commentary doesn't make it look good for that Marine.DRB said:
"Oh My God, it's coming right at us!!"Slugman said:
***UPDATE***
US marine cleared in mosque shooting
The Australian | May 06, 2005 | Jim Mannion
A US marine who was videotaped shooting to death a wounded unarmed Iraqi inside a mosque during an attack on Fallujah last year has been cleared of any wrongdoing after investigators determined that he acted in self-defence, the Marine Corps said.
Major General Richard Natonski, commander of the 1st Marine Division, ruled that the unidentified marine corporal would not face court martial because he fired his weapon in self-defence.
"He has determined that the actions of the Marine in question were consistent with the established rules of engagement, the law of armed conflict and the Marine's inherent right of self-defence," the Marine Corps said in a statement.
The November 13, 2004 shooting was caught on videotape by a television news cameramen who was embedded with the marines in Fallujah.
The corporal was heard on the video suddenly shouting that the wounded Iraq, who was lying propped up against a wall inside the mosque, was "faking he's dead." He was then seen raising his rifle and firing point blank at the Iraqi's head.
The videotape, which caused a sensation when they were aired on US television, triggered the investigation.
The Marine Corps said investigators reviewed the video tape, interviewed more than 22 marines who participated in the operation around the mosque, and examined ballistic and forensic evidence.
"Careful consideration was also given to the impact of the enemy's known tactic of feigning death or surrender before attacking Marines," it said.
According to the Marine Corps account, the area had been secured the day before by members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine regiment but intelligence reports said the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents.
The three who were killed had been wounded the day before in fighting with marines who disarmed them, cleared the building and then pushed on, abandoning the mosque and leaving the wounded Iraqis behind.
"That whole night and into the next day, marines were not near the mosque," said 1st Lieutenant Nathan Braden, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Camp Pendleton, California where the unit is based.
The next day a second line of marines moving through the area had "contact" with insurgents leading up to and away from the mosque, according to the investigation.
"Because of that gap between the two lines, the second line had to assume that there could have been new insurgents in every building, that insurgents were rearmed. It was almost like they were going through it for the first time," Braden said.
The corporal moved into the main mosque building to clear it. Once inside he shot the three wounded Iraqi insurgents, the Marine Corps said. The body of a fourth Iraqi who died of gunshot wounds also was found in the mosque but the bullets did not come from the corporal's weapon.
The shooting of the third Iraqi was captured on videotape by television cameraman Kevin Sites.
The three Iraqis turned out to be unarmed.
"The enhanced videotape of the shooting supports the corporal's claim that the wounded AIF (anti-Iraqi forces) was concealing his left arm behind his head," the Marine Corps statement said.
"While it is not clear whether the AIF in the videotape made any overtly threatening gestures, it is clear that the Marines of 3/1, to include the corporal, were aware that feigning death was a common enemy TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures)," it said.
"Accordingly, it was reasonable to believe that the corporal fired on the AIF after reasonably believing that the individual was committing a hostile act by exhibiting a known enemy TTP (feigning death and subsequently moving his concealed arm)," it said.
"Based on all the evidence in the case, and the rules of engagement that were in effect at the time, it is clear that the corporal could have reasonably believed that the AIF shown in the videotape posed a hostile threat justifying his use of deadly force," it said.
US marine cleared in mosque shooting
The Australian | May 06, 2005 | Jim Mannion
A US marine who was videotaped shooting to death a wounded unarmed Iraqi inside a mosque during an attack on Fallujah last year has been cleared of any wrongdoing after investigators determined that he acted in self-defence, the Marine Corps said.
Major General Richard Natonski, commander of the 1st Marine Division, ruled that the unidentified marine corporal would not face court martial because he fired his weapon in self-defence.
"He has determined that the actions of the Marine in question were consistent with the established rules of engagement, the law of armed conflict and the Marine's inherent right of self-defence," the Marine Corps said in a statement.
The November 13, 2004 shooting was caught on videotape by a television news cameramen who was embedded with the marines in Fallujah.
The corporal was heard on the video suddenly shouting that the wounded Iraq, who was lying propped up against a wall inside the mosque, was "faking he's dead." He was then seen raising his rifle and firing point blank at the Iraqi's head.
The videotape, which caused a sensation when they were aired on US television, triggered the investigation.
The Marine Corps said investigators reviewed the video tape, interviewed more than 22 marines who participated in the operation around the mosque, and examined ballistic and forensic evidence.
"Careful consideration was also given to the impact of the enemy's known tactic of feigning death or surrender before attacking Marines," it said.
According to the Marine Corps account, the area had been secured the day before by members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine regiment but intelligence reports said the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents.
The three who were killed had been wounded the day before in fighting with marines who disarmed them, cleared the building and then pushed on, abandoning the mosque and leaving the wounded Iraqis behind.
"That whole night and into the next day, marines were not near the mosque," said 1st Lieutenant Nathan Braden, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Camp Pendleton, California where the unit is based.
The next day a second line of marines moving through the area had "contact" with insurgents leading up to and away from the mosque, according to the investigation.
"Because of that gap between the two lines, the second line had to assume that there could have been new insurgents in every building, that insurgents were rearmed. It was almost like they were going through it for the first time," Braden said.
The corporal moved into the main mosque building to clear it. Once inside he shot the three wounded Iraqi insurgents, the Marine Corps said. The body of a fourth Iraqi who died of gunshot wounds also was found in the mosque but the bullets did not come from the corporal's weapon.
The shooting of the third Iraqi was captured on videotape by television cameraman Kevin Sites.
The three Iraqis turned out to be unarmed.
"The enhanced videotape of the shooting supports the corporal's claim that the wounded AIF (anti-Iraqi forces) was concealing his left arm behind his head," the Marine Corps statement said.
"While it is not clear whether the AIF in the videotape made any overtly threatening gestures, it is clear that the Marines of 3/1, to include the corporal, were aware that feigning death was a common enemy TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures)," it said.
"Accordingly, it was reasonable to believe that the corporal fired on the AIF after reasonably believing that the individual was committing a hostile act by exhibiting a known enemy TTP (feigning death and subsequently moving his concealed arm)," it said.
"Based on all the evidence in the case, and the rules of engagement that were in effect at the time, it is clear that the corporal could have reasonably believed that the AIF shown in the videotape posed a hostile threat justifying his use of deadly force," it said.