Latest on BBC on Fallujah?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-11-16 02:42am

Christ.

Frankly, I can see the soldiers side; in combat, you'd think uninvolved civilians would stay away form the American Infidels. And its always easier to shoot first.

But you guys, come on. Some of you are as bad as them, and they're supposed to be the worst thing since sliced bread. And not taking prisoners because the US Army is incapable of treating them humanely is so ass-backwards it boggles the mind. Taking prisoners is inconvienient for you? Don't start wars.

I've got no sympathy for crazy fundies... but I've got no sympathy for Shepites, either.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-16 02:51am

How many hostages have been killed in Iraq by the insurgents? Like it or not, the body-count almost certainly adds up so that this invasion has killed more innocent people than the insurgents have with their hostage-takings.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-11-16 03:14am

Actually to the best of my knowledge americans soldiers have tortured more people to death then insurgents have killed hostages.
Does anyone have a total count of the number of hostages killed by iraqi insurgents ?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-16 03:36am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:I'm tired of worrying about making the shithead Muslims angry when they already hate us.

This would be the "if X is bad, then two times X won't be any worse" argument. I don't see how it makes any sense.

Plekhanov wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Fucking nuke Mecca too.
And that will achieve what exactly?

Well, at least it would prove once and for all to all the Muslims that there are no omnipotent angels protecting Mecca.

GeneralTacticus · Post by **GeneralTacticus** » 2004-11-16 03:50am

Plekhanov wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:I'm tired of worrying about making the shithead Muslims angry when they already hate us. Fucking nuke Mecca too.
And that will achieve what exactly?

It will make him feel all warm and fuzzy inside thinking about how many innocent people died as a result.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-11-16 04:00am

Darth Wong wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:I'm tired of worrying about making the shithead Muslims angry when they already hate us.
This would be the "if X is bad, then two times X won't be any worse" argument. I don't see how it makes any sense.

What you don’t see the sense in Prawn’s argument? Let me explain how brilliant it is with an example from the UK’s recent history. Back in the 70s in Northern Ireland, those dirty Catholics were marching for human rights, we sent the Paras in to deal with them and once the Fenian bastards saw we were prepared to kill them for no good reason they shut up moaning once and for all, the Republican movement collapsed and people stopped joining the PIRA. You see all the US need to keep on doing is committing ever more Bloody Sunday type events and all our troubles will be over.

Plekhanov wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Fucking nuke Mecca too.
And that will achieve what exactly?
Well, at least it would prove once and for all to all the Muslims that there are no omnipotent angels protecting Mecca.

Fundie Muslim confronted with the destruction of Mecca “Yeah but you see the only reason the angels didn't protect Mecca was because Muslims aren't devote enough and because we failed to drive the infidels from the holy land”

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-11-16 04:06am

GeneralTacticus wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:I'm tired of worrying about making the shithead Muslims angry when they already hate us. Fucking nuke Mecca too.
And that will achieve what exactly?
It will make him feel all warm and fuzzy inside thinking about how many innocent people died as a result.

What innocent people? They’re all guilty of being “shithead Muslims” aren’t they? Any non-Muslims who get caught in the blast are obviously guilty by association [/sarcasm]

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-16 05:13am

Aside from the fact that we simply cannot allow ourselves to sink to the level of summarily executing prisoners of war, it does nothing to help win the war or extinguish the insurgency. Perhaps if they were fighting for a Baathist restoration, or some other political goal, but a holy warrior can't be stopped by turning his friend into a martyr.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-11-16 06:42am

Wait.

Was this marine aware that another unit had been there before? Perhaps, as is doctrine (I was taught) he was clearing the place. When overrunning an enemy position, and making your first sweep through the camp, you plug every single person you see, if at all possible. when you come BACK through the position, that's when you take prisoners. If this guy was thinking that this was their initial sweep....*plink* One less asshole sniping american soldiers from a Mosque. Yes. Mosque.

Mosque(n.)-1. A place so holy in the Islamic faith that, in wartime, it is often used as a fortified fighting position from which to violate the infidel Geneva conventions. 3. a building usually built at the lowest point in a city, so all crap will flow directly to it.

Just playing envil Infidel american Dog JIHAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD LULULUULULULULUULULULULULUlu!!!Advocate.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-16 07:28am

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Actually insurgents who do not wear readily identifiable marks are not considered legitimate resistance under Geneva and it is perfectly legal to line them up and have them shot.

No it's not, first it has to be proved thath they are illegal commbatants by a military tribunal. The common soldier does not get to make these decisons.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-11-16 08:45am

From what I've heard that the Marines on the ground in Fallujah are seeing, insurgents are pretending to surrender, and many really are "playing dead," waiting for Marines to pass by so they can pull a weapon from underneath and ambush them. While it is easy to sit here and pronounce guilt, they have to make one-the-spot decisions with little to no forethought, a wrong one which can lead to their instant death or that of their buddies. In war, you fight for you buddies, not some Convention. That being said, if the Marine is found to be at fault in this, he will be convicted by a court martial.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-11-16 08:48am

So why didn't Mr Genius Marine kick the prone Iraqi in the balls, to make sure he wasn't 'playing dead'?

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-11-16 09:19am

Stofsk wrote:So why didn't Mr Genius Marine kick the prone Iraqi in the balls, to make sure he wasn't 'playing dead'?

Because another favorite trick is to set off a grenade or other explosive when the opportunity presents itself.

In my opinion, this Marine will be made an example of to calm down those who will scream bloody murder about it ONLY because it was caught on camera, otherwise it would have been business as usual.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-11-16 09:25am

Dargos wrote:
Because another favorite trick is to set off a grenade or other explosive when the opportunity presents itself.

In my opinion, this Marine will be made an example of to calm down those who will scream bloody murder about it ONLY because it was caught on camera, otherwise it would have been business as usual.

Precisely. This is standard operating procedure, however illegal it is, when you are fighting an enemy as committed as Islamist fanatics. How manyJapanese do you think surrendered on Iwo Jima? It was just a handful, the same with all the other pacific islands. They had a typical tactic of waiting until a soldier came up to them and then setting off a grenade, killing both theirself and the US soldier. Considering this is the same pool of people that one recruits suicide bombers out of, it's not unreasonable to guess that similiar things have happened there. Were it not for this video we would certainly have learned of it only decades later; now, of course, he will be punished and he should be punished. The context does not excuse the act, but it also shows it to be not directly attributable to any unusual brutality.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-11-16 09:26am

Darth Wong wrote:How many hostages have been killed in Iraq by the insurgents? Like it or not, the body-count almost certainly adds up so that this invasion has killed more innocent people than the insurgents have with their hostage-takings.

That's a given, but I submit it would be wrong to avoid including the number of civilians killed in suicide bombing attacks on both coalition and Shia religious targets, the combination of which almost certainly exceeds the number of civilians killed as a result of Coalition actions.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-16 11:26am

Chardok wrote:Wait.

Was this marine aware that another unit had been there before? Perhaps, as is doctrine (I was taught) he was clearing the place. When overrunning an enemy position, and making your first sweep through the camp, you plug every single person you see, if at all possible. when you come BACK through the position, that's when you take prisoners.

Have you seen the video yet?
It isnt swift, there's a pause between "He's playing dead", "He's breathing" and a much longer pause before the marine shoots him in the head.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-16 02:26pm

Unclewest gets a lot of emails from the field and here's one from a SEAL:

Same unit, previous day, live unwounded decoy ‘body’ waits for our troops to give him aid because he knows the good Americans will, and as he is rolled over to be given help, hits the detonator, kills the troop that was to give him aid and wounds five others, a typical suicide bomb attack right? Wrong, not even close folks, this is ‘house to house’ a war zone.

Same unit this day, unit receives word that mosque has been reoccupied, troops re-enter and see ‘dead’ man still breathing. Troop shoots the body before the detonator is hit, saves his own and other lives. Only one difference, this particular body didn’t have explosives rigged, well that’s good, but the next time I want YOU to go check first, ok?

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-11-16 03:44pm

This just isn't "good old honorable World War Two" any more, with stand-up enemies in uniforms.

The enemy today not only does not care about dying, he embraces it, and seeks it out, so long as he can bring a few Westerners with him.

Our M-16 was a great weapon for the "civilized" European war we envisioned-- where a wounded enemy would tie up a half-dozen other soldiers who gave a shit and tried to apply aid to their buddy.

Now it's like, "Oh, they got Achmed! Lucky Him!" "I'm next!" "No, me! me!"

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2004-11-16 04:04pm

From what I can make of the insurgents exploding possum tactics, the only error this soldier made was shooting the guy in front of the camera. Now his actions will be used by the insurgents for recruitment and he will have to be made an example of to appease all the people crying foul.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-11-16 04:08pm

The preassure that this soldier was under being shot at and wounded yesterday is unbeliveble.

Nod now just because he is on TV he is going to get courtmarshaled and possible faces a long time in jail...

Fuck get the one really responsible for the neeedless war in Iraq, inpeatch Bush and his fellow chickenhawks!

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-11-16 04:28pm

Just to quote my lessions from the army.

If you have to take any risks in getting a prisoner.

JUST DON'T DO IT!!!

War is not you godamn playground game where you shout bang bang you are dead count to one hundred and try again.

People die in war and it is a soldiers duty to try and stay alive!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-16 10:40pm

If you suspect someone is playing dead you give them a quick kick in the nutsack, not shoot them.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-16 10:53pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:If you suspect someone is playing dead you give them a quick kick in the nutsack, not shoot them.

BOOOOOOOOOM

Okay, you're dead now. He was holding a detonator in his hand.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-16 11:04pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:If you suspect someone is playing dead you give them a quick kick in the nutsack, not shoot them.

And if he has a grenade he sets it off and you're dead.

If they're playing possum I can't say as I blame them for shooting first and asking questions later. The enemy doesn't obey the Geneva Convention or even basic deceny; I fail to see why we should expect our soldiers to worry about them at the expense of their own life.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-11-16 11:48pm

From what I saw of the video and what I know of this situation, it seems this is what happened: they come into the room, see a bunch of wounded, dying, and dead men. At first glance, they thought the insurgent in question was dead. Then they see him breathing, and instead of assuming, "Oh, we made a mistake", like a civilian would or they would have in normal times, they think, "He was playing possum!" I would have plugged him too, and probably so would most of the people who are calling for this Marine's head.

That said, what can you do? You can't let a soldier kill a wounded enemy POW on camera and do nothing; there are political considerations at play that override common sense, honor, understanding, fairness, and even basic human decency. This is a lousy fucking war.