babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi and cheer

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi and cheer
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 11 December 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post
Take No Prisoners

Another proud moment in U.S. Military History.

U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi to the cheers of fellow marines

-:WARNING:-

This video should only be viewed by a mature audience

Windows Media Player or Real Player software req'd.

Click on link below: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kimura
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4490

posted 11 December 2003 02:23 PM      Profile for Kimura     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Context, I need context.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 11 December 2003 02:24 PM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I saw this on CNN Presents a couple of weekends ago. It was part of an hour long special about the psychology of soldiers in combat. This clip is during a segment about the "high" many experience after killing the enemy. It was a very disturbing and surprisingly frank documentary.

What you don't see on this partial clip but was on the full clip is that the man has an automatic weapon. In the partial clip, it's on the ground (dropped when he was shot the first time) in front of him, blocked from view.

According to the narrator the soldiers had come upon a group of men who appeared to be setting a roadside bomb.

[ 11 December 2003: Message edited by: DownTheRoad ]


From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 12 December 2003 12:01 PM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Context?

None necessary refer to Geneva Convention!

Murder!

War Crime!


From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 12 December 2003 02:16 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looked like he posed a real threat to the soldiers.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 12 December 2003 10:16 PM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
Looked like he posed a real threat to the soldiers.

Sarcasm right? Because he wasn't reaching for his weapon. In fact he had his back to both his weapon and the US Marines that killed him. It was murder.

[ 12 December 2003: Message edited by: Mick ]


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kimura
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4490

posted 13 December 2003 01:15 AM      Profile for Kimura     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Murder in a warzone? Sounds like something from Apocalypse Now.

Was that Iraqi a combatant? Isn't this just the face of war?

If you are a combatant, the enemy will shoot at you. They will try to shoot you DEAD. Even if you make explicit signs of surrender - which I didn't see in that too short clip - they will probably shoot you dead. Even if you're helpless, they'll probably shoot you dead.

You are, after all, a combatant. You're trying to do the same to the enemy. You're not about to give them any quarter either.

Whoever ends up dead, the other side will cheer their asses off.

It's ugly as all hell. I don't like seeing it no matter who's getting shot. But it's not unusual - it's war. And yes, there's something incredibly shitty about the fact that it isn't unusual.

Is it illegal? By the edicts of the Geneva Convention, yes. But like Willard said: "Charging a man for murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500."

Finally: Context is always necessary.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 13 December 2003 01:43 AM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what this clip shows more than anything else is the psyche of these soldiers. I mean, they're cheering because they shot someone dead. I know, I know, they're in the middle of a war. But how fucked up are these people when they CHEER and CONGRATULATE each other because they KILLED someone? These are the people who are "liberating" Iraq? If we saw a videoclip of police officers in Canada shooting an immobilized criminal until he was dead, and then CHEERING about it, there would be outrage! Why should we hold soldiers in foreign territory to any lesser standard?
From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 13 December 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I disagree. Let's say we're in a platoon together and we're pinned down by a machine-gunner. One of the platoon sneaks up around the side and throws a grenade into the machinegun nest. Whew, we're saved! I'd cheer, or, I could see myself cheering.

In this case it's hard to know the exact context of what's going on, but if the conditions were similar, then I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest by the soldiers' reactions. Sure, it looks bad, but it's what, 5-10 seconds with no context of what's gone one before and after.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 December 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The other important thing is that the military is not the police. Officers in the military are not trained with the purpose of being able to arrest a live suspect. They are trained to do one thing: kill people efficiently, or failing that, do maximum harm in a combat situation.

Police officers are trained with a different skill set, and that is to use negotiating skills, cognitive psychology, and the careful, considered use of force to capture a suspect alive for arrest. (The militarization of police, in this respect, means that these concepts are being eroded away in favor of a maximal use of force concept)

That having been said, I think it was in bad taste for the soldiers to be cheering what looks like the killing of a man who didn't have his gun at ready access.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 13 December 2003 09:26 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are, after all, a combatant. You're trying to do the same to the enemy. You're not about to give them any quarter either.


Understandable. The thing is, the US has built up an image of themselves as being far more humane than their enemy. Are they, in fact, the same as those they fight? If yes, they should come out and say so. If no, then your argument doesn't hold up.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 13 December 2003 09:53 PM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of the "more humane than the enemy" image the U.S. is trying to promote, (sorry for the thread drift) whatever happened to the whole Jessica Lynch thing? It seems to me that all of America seems to have just ignored all the allegations, and they believe everything their government tells them about those evil Iraqis -- despite the claims that she was treated VERY humanely.
From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 December 2003 10:48 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Considering how the Yanks treat their wounded, Lynch is lucky that the Iraqis found her first.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 13 December 2003 11:36 PM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post
This letter was on the webpage that had the video footage, but I think it's worth quoting in its entirety.

quote:

Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the Marines.

Disgusting.

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties, sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

1SG Perry D. Jefferies
Copperas Cove, TX


[ 13 December 2003: Message edited by: Mick ]


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 15 December 2003 01:54 AM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iraqi Turkey Shoot?

quote:
On the Information Clearinghouse page there are some angry rebuttals to the video from a Capt. James Kimber and a Cargo Combat Officer Bryan M Simon, USMC.

Capt. Kimber writes:

The current policy in Iraq is to SHOOT ON SIGHT ANYBODY emplacing IEDs....yes, those nasty little roadside bombs that have killed almost 200 of our service personnel. But of course, given the very OBVIOUS leftist slant of your website, it is apparent that you wouldn't see fit to report all the facts, choosing instead to attempt to use such media
to advance your faltering liberal agenda, rather than condemn a terrorist agenda. Where on your website do you report the assassinations by terrorists who only hope to get their country back up and running, or the indiscriminate bombings that kill innocent, non-combatant Iraqis?

Unfortunately no where in the transcript or on the CNN site could I find any evidence that the person being shot was doing as Capt. Kimber claims.

Similarly, Warrant Officer Simon claims:

I cannot believe you want us to believe that the video you show of the US Marines killing that man is anything but a propaganda issue? Why didn't you include the part where this character was laying in ambush for the Marine patrol to wlak by? Why didn't you show the part where he is rigging an improvised explosive device to go off the next convoy that drives by it?

Again, I'm not sure where he's getting this from.



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca