[Reactor]

Really? Again its use against military targets is not prohibited.

Who knew? I thought the military qualified as "persons". I guess the current administration is going to somehow claim the "Incidental Animated Organic Matter" they used it against happened not to be people. Will they claim it's because they insurgents, aren't American, or just come out and say what they really mean, that they will ignore any law International or American that they don't feel like following?

 

[fluff]

It seems that it falls foul of the Chemical Weapons Convention if used against people of any kind, that is civilian or otherwise.

 

[DRB]

Who knew? I thought the military qualified as "persons". I guess the current administration is going to somehow claim the "Incidental Animated Organic Matter" they used it against happened not to be people. Will they claim it's because they insurgents, aren't American, or just come out and say what they really mean, that they will ignore any law International or American that they don't feel like following?

Quit frothing and pay attention.

I provided you the definition of what is considered an incendiary weapon vs. one that is not by the 1980 protocol. The actual protocol does not preclude the use of incendiary weapons (which smoke shells and illumination shells are not) against military targets. Military targets include military personnel.

 

[Reactor]

Quit frothing and pay attention.

I provided you the definition of what is considered an incendiary weapon vs. one that is not by the 1980 protocol. The actual protocol does not preclude the use of incendiary weapons (which smoke shells and illumination shells are not) against military targets.

O.K. here is Article 2, which further spells out limitations, remember Fallujah had a civilian population.

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

 

[N8 v2.0]

White phosphorus: weapon on the edge
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

US mortar bombs can be both explosive and phosphorus

The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.


The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.

'Shake 'n Bake'


This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

The article, written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.

It makes quite clear that WP was used as a weapon not just as illumination or camouflage.

It's [WP] not forbidden if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties

Peter Kaiser

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosive]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out," the article said.

In another passage the authors noted that they could have used other smoke munitions and "saved our WP for lethal missions".



A word about the term "shake and bake." Anyone with a family to feed in the US knows what this term, properly "Shake 'n Bake, means. Made by Kraft, it is a seasoning which is shaken onto chicken before baking. Its use gives the article the smack of reality. It's the kind of thing US soldiers would say.

Vietnam precedent
This tactic of forcing opponents out of cover is not new and should not really have come as a surprise. An article looking back at the Vietnam war published in 1996 by a US armoured unit (1st Battalion, 69th Armor) referred to "Willie Pete" weapons and their use in getting North Vietnamese troops to leave their positions:

"Our normal procedure was to fire these things at a hillside as soon as possible in order to get them out of the fighting compartment."

One wonders of course if, in Falluja, WP was used more directly to kill insurgents and not just to flush them out. In battle, soldiers take short cuts and this seems an obvious one.


Embed report
Evidence that this happened in Falluja comes from an article by a reporter, Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times in California, who was embedded with US marines there.


He wrote about a mortar unit receiving coordinates of a target and opening fire:

"The boom kicked the dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake 'n bake' into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."


The tactic therefore seems to have been not to flush them out first but to bombard them simultaneously with the two types of weapons.


Chemical Weapons Convention
The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:


Falluja illuminated November 2004
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

WP - the arguments

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.


The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

Critics claim that the US used chemical weapons in Falluja, on the grounds that it is the toxic properties which cause the harm. The UK's Guardian newspaper for example said: "The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it."

There is an intense debate on the blog sites about this issue. "It's not a chemical weapon" says Liberal Against Terror. "CONFIRMED: WP is a CW if used to cause harm through toxic properties," says Daily Kos.

Tactical use of WP

The other argument is about the use of WP as a weapon.

The initial denials from the Pentagon suggest a certain hesitation, embarrassment even, about such a tactic. Some decisions must have been taken in the past to limit its use in certain battlefield scenarios (urban warfare for example). It is not used against civilians.

However the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use.

This convention has the cumbersome title "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." Agreed in 1980, its Protocol III covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons."

This prohibits WP or other incendiaries (like flamethrowers) against civilians or civilian objects and its use by air strikes against military targets located in a concentration of civilians. It also limits WP use by other means (such as mortars or direct fire from tanks) against military targets in a civilian area. Such targets have to be separated from civilian concentrations and "all feasible precautions" taken to avoid civilian casualties.

Notwithstanding the US position on the Convention, the use of WP against insurgents within Falluja does at least bring the issue into discussion, though one should note that the soldiers who wrote the Field Artillery article do say that their unit "encountered few civilians in its attack south".

 

[DRB]

O.K. here is Article 2, which further spells out limitations, remember Fallujah had a civilian population.

Still doesn't mean it was wrong. It means that a unit commander made a decision based on the situation at hand to employ WP as an incidenary weapon, hopefully, taking all factors into consideration.

 

[DRB]

It seems that it falls foul of the Chemical Weapons Convention if used against people of any kind, that is civilian or otherwise.

But it could also be argued than all explosives are chemical in nature and subsequently prohibited.

The CWC also goes to great pains to specifically spell out schedules of chemicals and precursors that should be regulated or are prohibited from use. Looking carefully over that list I don't see anything that my limited chemistry background that could be classified as Incendiary weapons.

At best it points out that neither the 1980 protocol or the CWC address this very well at all.

All of this being said, I would daresay that the use of any airburst weapon, HE or WP is going to have a very bad effect on open fighting positions. Folks get just as dead and hurt when exposed to either.

 

[Reactor]

Still doesn't mean it was wrong. It means that a unit commander made a decision based on the situation at hand to employ WP as an incendiary weapon, hopefully, taking all factors into consideration.

C'mon , A W-88 is technically an explosive weapon with incidental incendiary effects, but anyone who would use one on a town with civilians would be a war criminal. The Marines and Army made a point to show the media how thoughtful they were by bringing food to civilians trapped in the crossfire, and evacuating those they could. I'm not going to gig them for that, showing the media something positive in Iraq to improve their image is almost self defense at this point.

But at the same time they were apparently using incendiary shells and bombs in an area occupied by civilians. If true, and since it's an after action report I going to assume two commissioned officers didn't lie, they clearly violated the part 2 of Article II . They may have also violated Parts 1 and 3. The exemption for In Article 1.i is clearly intended to allow the use of flares and such as flares and such without the fear you'll be called a war criminal if one accidentally drops on a house. Even a simple reading of the Article I gives shows that using any shell or container containing flammable material against people is considered an incendiary device under the Geneva convention.

Using the administration's logic as long as I can demonstrate some other possible use for the weapon, I can use it intentionally against people, even civilians. So I could call a Trident D-5 W-88 warhead a flare, It would be a damn good one, and using it against a town would be okie dokie. Maybe I'd call it a seismic sounding charge...It would be good for that too...


The administration thinks it's being neaky: and splitting hairs when it's really doing :nuts: to the country and making everyone else in the world .

 

[DRB]

But at the same time they were apparently using incendiary shells and bombs in an area occupied by civilians. If true, and since it's an after action report I going to assume two commissioned officers didn't lie, they clearly violated the part 2 of Article II . They may have also violated Parts 1 and 3. The exemption for In Article 1.i is clearly intended to allow the use of flares and such as flares and such without the fear you'll be called a war criminal if one accidentally drops on a house. Even a simple reading of the Article I gives shows that using any shell or container containing flammable material against people is considered an incendiary device under the Geneva convention.

The administration thinks it's being neaky: and splitting hairs when it's really doing :nuts: to the country and making everyone else in the world .

Article I does indicate anything about use. It says nowhere that incendiary weapons can't be used against military personnel. You saying it over and over and over doesn't make it true.

Even Article II leaves it to the commanders in the field to use their judgement. I keep seeing they were using it to drive armed combatants out of trench lines and fighting positions. Since it would seem sort of silly to dig a trench line when you had access to buildings, its reasonable to assume that it might have happened away from civilian populations.

But you know what, I don't know from the evidence, reports and accounts so far. I haven't even seen a map showing where within the area that the use of WP occurred. Again to make the determination of violation of the Article II that becomes fairly important information.

The nuclear weapon analogy is pathetic and doesn't deserve any sort of response.

 

[fluff]

But it could also be argued than all explosives are chemical in nature and subsequently prohibited.

The CWC also goes to great pains to specifically spell out schedules of chemicals and precursors that should be regulated or are prohibited from use. Looking carefully over that list I don't see anything that my limited chemistry background that could be classified as Incendiary weapons.

At best it points out that neither the 1980 protocol or the CWC address this very well at all.

All of this being said, I would daresay that the use of any airburst weapon, HE or WP is going to have a very bad effect on open fighting positions. Folks get just as dead and hurt when exposed to either.

You might argue that indeed. But when the representative if the organisation tasked with interpreting the CWC states that WP is classified as a chemical weapon if used in an anti-personnel capacity it makes your argument look more than a little shakey. The quote on the BBC website is unequivocal.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Have you seriously checked the pictures of pentagon attack, N8? ("911 in Plane Site" DVD, for example, has well documented clippings of CNN, Fox News and many other primary sources from that day, September 11th.) The small aperture of the initial impact (about 16 Ft), the lack of explosion upon impact, and the lack of wreckage of a large airplane (44 Ft x 125 Ft of Boeing from tip to tip of the wings and rudder) all do point to a different sort of attack.

When you take a masters level engineering course in aircraft accident investigation and visit an actual crash site get back with me on this one...........

 

[DRB]

You might argue that indeed. But when the representative if the organisation tasked with interpreting the CWC states that WP is classified as a chemical weapon if used in an anti-personnel capacity it makes your argument look more than a little shakey. The quote on the BBC website is unequivocal.

So prior to this had the OCWC every spoken to the use of WP as a "chemical" weapon? I haven't seen anything. The only reason I ask is that it was used in the first Gulf War in a manner similar to the method here. Even with the bulk of the work being previously completed to the CWC prior to the Gulf, I find it surprising that this would have never come up before. But hey new interpetations on things happen everyday and I'm fine with that.

What I am not fine with is that in WP's "legtimate" application as illumination and smoke rounds it is going to be deployed most commonly in air bursts 40 to 100 feet above the ground in close proximity to the areas you are illuminating or smoking. Which is exactly the same method as it was deployed in Fallujah. The ONLY difference between the two is "stated" intent. And that's a crock because then the manual or the articles are simply going to be changed to indicate "that make sure to have sufficient smoke and/or illumination as conditions dictate with an attempt to minimize enemy exposure to the toxic effects of WP." (made up quote but close enough)

In essence the statement from the OCWC has said this is okay.

Up until now, the things considered covered by the CWC were those items that had no business on a battlefield. There is no legitimate battlefield use of sarin, mustard gas and the whole list of items listed in the schedules. Dual use items meant items that had legitimate civilian use AND could be weaponized thru direct use or with modification. Again it didn't belong on a battlefield and its very presence would be considered a violation.

 

[DRB]

When you take a masters level engineering course in aircraft accident investigation and visit an actual crash site get back with me on this one...........

Oh I can't believe I'm going to do this but

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The second being the one.

This guy says the Towers not the Pentagon is the problem.

 

[Reactor]

Article I does indicate anything about use. It says nowhere that incendiary weapons can't be used against military personnel. You saying it over and over and over doesn't make it true.

Even Article II leaves it to the commanders in the field to use their judgement. I keep seeing they were using it to drive armed combatants out of trench lines and fighting positions. Since it would seem sort of silly to dig a trench line when you had access to buildings, its reasonable to assume that it might have happened away from civilian populations.

But you know what, I don't know from the evidence, reports and accounts so far. I haven't even seen a map showing where within the area that the use of WP occurred. Again to make the determination of violation of the Article II that becomes fairly important information.

The nuclear weapon analogy is pathetic and doesn't deserve any sort of response.

Since when is dropping bombs of WP and targeting WP shells on people and "Incidental effect" ? The exemption you are using to justify their use

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems

is clearly not intended to allow you to target people with incendiary devices for effect

to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target

If the incendiary effect isn't the intended primary use, then why are people being targeted ? Why not use a conventional shell or bomb?

What's pathetic is trying to justify intentionally using WP on people by trying to split hairs. Clearly targeting WP on people makes it an incendiary device for the purposes of the Geneva convention, to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Delivering it in an area where there civilians by shell or bomb is prohibited.

I know field commanders face tough choices. They are trying to break the enemy, while trying to minimize the losses on their side. If they think they can save a few of their boys, they'll use whatever means they can. War is no longer just on the battlefield. It's as much in the media and public opinion as in the trenches. In this war we face an uphill battle, Most of the world already thinks we were wrong to go to Iraq. Most of the world thinks of the US as a bully, and aggressor. It doesn't matter that the insurgents do horrific things every day, every single mistake and miss-step is going to be reported on. Every one of them reinforces the bad opinion that the world has of the US.

For what it's worth, I think insurgents using suicide bombers, and IEDs are even more wrong. Their tactics are cowardly, they do more damage to innocent civilian targets then military. They will reap what the sow. Eventually the Arab world will realize that these people are more dangerous, and eventually they will have to take action, for their own self protection if nothing else.

I also think our military is fighting one of the cleanest wars in history, they are doing their best in a difficult situation. They are behaving a lot better then the Soviets did in Afghanistan. But they are under a microscope, connected to every media outlet in the world, so every mistake is magnified a hundred times. We can't afford to do anything morally ambiguous, or borderline illegal, especially after Abu Gharib.

While I disagree with the political leadership that started this war in the first place, I don't blame the troops, many years ago I was in the military. I remember some of the stuff we did and it scares me now. There were times we were where we shouldn't be, with hot wet torpedoes in the tubes and a targeting solution, literally one button push from sinking someone. Now I'm horrified by risks we took.

The world is a lot less polarized than it was. We aren't seen as the solution to a Soviet Communist empire any more. Now much of the world sees the US as the problem. That's something we have to fix. Unilateral action, pulling out of treaties, and marginal actions aren't helping.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Oh I can't believe I'm going to do this but

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The second being the one.

This guy says the Towers not the Pentagon is the problem.

Where's my tinfoil????????

 

[DRB]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

I am not using any excemption to justify their use, I don't need one.

If in fact incendiary weapons of any sort were prohibited from use against personnel, they would have specifically added a line to address that. It would probably read like this:

"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make military personnel the object of attack by incendiary weapons."

I certainly don't see that anywhere because it doesn't exist.

For the last time, targeting military personnel with incendiary weapons is NOT prohibited anywhere within the Protocol being discussed. You keep saying it and it still will not become magically true. It does put restrictions in regards to civilian populations but again those are clearly judgement calls, as would be employing HE rounds in both ground and air detonation scenarios within the same areas. These judgement calls are not ones that I will even begin to question until I see further information on where exactly they were used.

The annoying thing is that if I was wanting to make these acts in violation of the Geneva convention I wouldn't be using this. I would be dragging out another aspect of the convention. It makes a great deal more sense and is certainly more relevant.

What is it? You figure it out instead of using this tired a$$ dog to hunt.

 

[Reactor]

I am not using any excemption to justify their use, I don't need one.

If in fact incendiary weapons of any sort were prohibited from use against personnel, they would have specifically added a line to address that.

BLAH BLAH {tinkling in the wind}

If you paid attention, you would have seen

Clearly targeting WP on people makes it an incendiary device for the purposes of the Geneva convention, to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Delivering it in an area where there civilians by shell or bomb is prohibited.

Last time I checked Fallujah was a city, occupied by civilians.

You can stop the bombastic Rush Limbaugh imitation of trying to justify his drug use after he said all drug users should be shot.

I think the use of WP {or any other indescriminate weapon} is unethical. The airborne delivery of WP, targeting a military objective in a city, is contrary to the Geneva conventions. Your trying to split hairs and redirect the argument doesn't change that.

 

[DRB]

If you paid attention, you would have seen



Last time I checked Fallujah was a city, occupied by civilians.

You can stop the bombastic Rush Limbaugh imitation of trying to justify his drug use after he said all drug users should be shot.

I think the use of WP {or any other indescriminate weapon} is unethical. The airborne delivery of WP, targeting a military objective in a city, is contrary to the Geneva conventions. Your trying to split hairs and redirect the argument doesn't change that.

EDIT: Nevermind its a waste of time when you drag out the Rush comments.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Last time I checked Fallujah was a city, occupied by civilians.

If you call terrorists civilians I suppose so. Pretty much all non-combatants had abandoned the city days, if not weeks, a head of the Jarheads taking it.

The use of WP as a 'shake & bake' munition sounds legal and quite effective to me.... the jarheads needed to screen their movements and get the terrorists out in the open in order to hit them with HE and it looks like their tatic was effective.

 

[Reactor]

EDIT: Nevermind its a waste of time when you drag out the Rush comments.

Yeah, I thought the same thing when you started the BLAH BLAH comment, and the tired a$$ comment. My dog may not hunt well but your dog is a vegitarian.

I guess I have to accept that Americans are going to be hated in just about every country in the world. When we have a President who holds people indefeniately without charges, threatens a veto if the Senate puts in a provision prohibiting torture, and incidents like Abu Gharib it's just about inevitable.

Freedom costs a buck O five, oh yeah.

 

[Reactor]

If you call terrorists civilians I suppose so. Pretty much all non-combatants had abandoned the city days, if not weeks, a head of the Jarheads taking it.

The use of WP as a 'shake & bake' munition sounds legal and quite effective to me.... the jarheads needed to screen their movements and get the terrorists out in the open in order to hit them with HE and it looks like their tatic was effective.

Interesting the Marines and Army made such a media circus over delivering food to the people stuck in their houses.

 

[Skeg]

I love the smell of Napalm in the morning... smells like victory!!!!

 

[DRB]

You might argue that indeed. But when the representative if the organisation tasked with interpreting the CWC states that WP is classified as a chemical weapon if used in an anti-personnel capacity it makes your argument look more than a little shakey. The quote on the BBC website is unequivocal.

Here is the quote we were talking about. Its attributed to Peter Kaiser.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

I've found the following statement attributed to Peter Kaiser a few places including the Independent.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327094.ece

However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for "military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty.

The two seem in contradiction to each other.

 

[fluff]

Here is the quote we were talking about. Its attributed to Peter Kaiser.



I've found the following statement attributed to Peter Kaiser a few places including the Independent.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327094.ece



The two seem in contradiction to each other.

Yup. It's a ****ty way to be killed but then most are I guess. Seems legal after all. Though that's a whole other philosphical question.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Interesting the Marines and Army made such a media circus over delivering food to the people stuck in their houses.

Meh... I'm sure there was some hold outs who didn't make it out. Maybe 3-5k out of the 120,000 population of the combat area... I am pretty sure the jarheads weren't calling in shake & bake strikes on random targets either. WP was more than likey used where conventional HE wasn't effective against the terrorists who were in hardened bunkers trying to kill marines.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Yup. It's a ****ty way to be killed but then most are I guess. Seems legal after all. Though that's a whole other philosphical question.

Its like the Army having to use a full metal jacketed round as opposed to a soft lead nosed round like you would for hunting animals.

 

[Reactor]

Meh... I'm sure there was some hold outs who didn't make it out. Maybe 3-5k out of the 120,000 population of the combat area... I am pretty sure the jarheads weren't calling in shake & bake strikes on random targets either. WP was more than likey used where conventional HE wasn't effective against the terrorists who were trying to kill marines.

I hope you're right. I don't think most US soldiers would risk civilian casualties if they had any other option. But I was surprised by Abu Gahrib and the Mosque killing, so I'm not so sure what the Gen-X military thinks anymore.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I hope you're right. I don't think most US soldiers would risk civilian casualties if they had any other option. But I was surprised by... the Mosque killing, so I'm not so sure what the Gen-X military thinks anymore.

You mean where a terrorist pretended to be dead then made a threatening move and the marine capped him? The same incident where the marine was totally cleared of any wrong doing?

That incident?

And remember Margaret Hassan, abducted British-Iraqi aid worker? The one where the Marines discovered a mutilated body of a Caucasian woman that was decapitated, disemboweled and all appendages chopped off.

 

[Reactor]

The footage I saw looked like an injured man laying on a floor almost totally incapacitated. Marines had shot him a couple of days earlier and he hadn't moved. Whatever move he made was so slight you couldn't see it on camera. My wife was horrified, on the other hand, I can see how a Marine who has been fighting for days, running on pure adrenaline and has lost members of his platoon to dirty fighting could think it was another dirty trick.

There have been too many black eye incidents. How about the Marine 1st LT that gunned down two unarmed men standing at the side of the road while their car was searched at a check point? I haven't heard much about it lately, last I heard he was going to be court-marshaled? Not trying to be snitty, I really want to know if anyone has seen any further information.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The footage I saw looked like an injured man laying on a floor almost totally incapacitated. Marines had shot him a couple of days earlier and he hadn't moved. Whatever move he made was so slight you couldn't see it on camera. My wife was horrified, on the other hand, I can see how a Marine who has been fighting for days, running on pure adrenaline and has lost members of his platoon to dirty fighting could think it was another dirty trick.

There have been too many black eye incidents. How about the Marine 1st LT that gunned down two unarmed men standing at the side of the road while their car was searched at a check point? I haven't heard much about it lately, last I heard he was going to be court-marshaled? Not trying to be snitty, I really want to know if anyone has seen any further information.

All discussed here:

First incident:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102655&page=2&highlight=marine



Second incident:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110482&highlight=marine