November 17, 2004
More Fallout from Fallujah-gate
Bill Dauterieve sends this e-mail along with a report on how the Arab media uses the Marine killing of an Iraqi in Fallujah as a propaganda tool for anti-Americanism. Since he didn't call patent pending, I decided to share it with you. You'll have to scroll to the end to see the article. It's just as bad as I predicted:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
This should have been the week of a great propaganda
victory for us. Now, the Marine might have violated rules of
engagement, but as I recall, the Geneva Convention also allows for the
summary execution of partisans (no uniforms, dressed as civilians,
carrying arms). So no violation of international law there. He may
have violated US and military law.
But come on. What is the matter with the marines who didn't pay
attention to the fucking camera in the room. Shoot the fu**ing
reporter and be done with it. Oops. Rebels got him. From a legal
point I can understand the marine's actions. But just from plain old
practical sense they should have never let this video out.
The whole point of the folks in the red states, who are generally
pro-military and pro-Bush, is that that have tons of common sense.
Common sense demands that you never let that video out. There were a
bunch of marines there and not a single one of them stopped to think
that maybe, just maybe someone should watch out for the camera.
That is inexcusable.
Then the fact that the Jawas know nothing about Hassan, the biggest
bleeding heart friend that they ever had, makes it even worse. This
should have been a tremendous propaganda victory. Hands down.
Instead, some marines forget to cover their asses and ruin the
reputation of all Americans.
F**K!!!!!
The chilling video of a U.S. Marine shooting and killing a wounded and apparently unarmed man in Iraq dominated the Arab world's media Wednesday, overshadowing the slaying of a British aid worker who had been kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents.The Marine shooting in a mosque in Fallujah was played and replayed, debated and portrayed as "evidence" of what many Arabs believe: that the United States is destroying Iraq and Iraqis.
Frames of the Fallujah shooting appeared on many newspaper front pages Wednesday and Arab satellite stations repeatedly aired the footage taken by an American television crew.
Al-Jazeera was among the stations airing the Marine shooting. The station said Tuesday it also had received a videotape showing a blindfolded woman believed to be Margaret Hassan being shot in the head at close range, but had chosen not to broadcast it.
"We don't show acts of killing," Jihad Ballout, Al-Jazeera spokesman, said of the decision not to show the slaying of the longtime director of CARE in Iraq. "We've never done it before, outside war."
Adnan Abdul-Rahman, a 34-year-old Syrian government employee, was one of those loosely linking the two killings and placing blame for both at the feet of the United States. He said Hassan's death was "a normal response to the crimes which the Americans are committing in Iraq."
"Violence breeds violence," he said.
The U.S. military said Tuesday it was investigating the shooting in the mosque to determine whether the Marine acted in self-defense.
Some Arabs portrayed the shooting by the Marine as a war crime committed by trigger-happy Americans, and the video as revealing the true face of the U.S. invasion. Others saw it as another debacle in the Iraq war that hurts America's image and efforts to restore stability in Iraq.
One Lebanese newspaper, As-Safir, called the shooting a "cold-blooded" killing. A Saudi pan-Arab daily, Asharq al-Awsat, warned of "another Abu Ghraib," a reference to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by some of their American jailers.
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who is an expert on Arab media, noted that at one point an anchor on Al-Jazeera "was almost having a heart attack, he was so angry," about the video showing the shooting by the Marine.
"He said, "Where are the Arabs? Where are the Arab states, why is nobody complaining about this?" Cole noted, speaking on the Public Broadcasting Service.
The pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat cited both killings as images of what is happening in Iraq now, Cole noted, calling it unfair for the Marine, whose case remains under investigation, to be compared to those who killed Hassan.
Amman car rental clerk Youssef al-Atoum was so disgusted by the pictures of the Marine shooting that "I switched off the TV."
"The Americans are criminals, they don't distinguish between a mosque and their places of battle, they want to exterminate Arabs and erase Iraq and its people from the map," the 29-year-old said.
Jordanian businessman Isa Samawi, 42, said: "Exterminating the Americans is the way to combat international terrorism."
Both declined to comment on Hassan, saying they had neither seen nor heard news of the killing of the 59-year-old aid worker who had been an opponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. She was abducted in Baghdad on Oct. 19 on her way to work, the most prominent of more than 170 foreigners kidnapped in Iraq this year.
A Lebanese Shiite Muslim cleric, Sheik Afif Nabulsi, said both the killing in the mosque and the shooting of Hassan were "barbaric acts that cannot be condoned.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:25 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
Post contains 892 words, total size 5 kb.
1
"Instead, some marines forget to cover their asses and ruin the reputation of all Americans."
What reputation was that, again? Come on, you want to make an arguement the Marines made a mistake, fine, but to don't it by using our "reputation" as motivation. That's just pussy, Mr. Dauterieve. Yep. Dang, that Peggy Hill is one fine piece of...
Posted by: Editor at November 17, 2004 05:21 PM (adpJH)
2
Not to plug my blog, really, I promise! But I posted an entry about the news article mentioned. I find it extremely hypocritical of Al-Jazeera to post the images of the Marine shooting and not those of Margaret's execution. This is a blatant attempt to fuel contempt. Bad form!
Posted by: Ricky V at November 17, 2004 05:41 PM (AHaCg)
3
What I want to know is, what does Cotton Hill think?
Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at November 17, 2004 07:08 PM (2l8QE)
4
Not to plug my blog either... it sucks, really...
I just posted the pic of the controversial "insurgent". It looks to me as if he is holding a gun. In which case, the marine should be in the clear. The guy is faking his death, his weapon still in hand... it's not like this guy was unarmed. I'm glad he's dead now.
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at November 17, 2004 09:51 PM (0xMIM)
5
Uh PK, not to burst your bubble, but that's not the one he shot. That's the one they left alone because he was clearly surrendering... to the camera crew. You've GOT to see the video
Posted by: Editor at November 17, 2004 10:35 PM (uurD1)
6
did you people even hear/see the video? you can hear an american say "....look he's still breathing..." and then the report of the gun. the soldiers were standing over the bodies and watching them for signs of life; they weren't engaged in combat. thats cold blooded murder, performed by an american hero, in my american name.
now i don't believe everything i hear or see, and of course that clip is wildly out of context as i watch it in my living room, but when you are a virtuous person, and/or sworn into a code of conduct, the fighting stops at the moment your enemy is neutralized. you don't walk around the victims SS style and methodically kill them.
were these people resisting before they were wounded? probably. were they murderous islamic radicals? good bet. but an atrocity is an atrocity, and now that killing video is one more piece of ordnance for jihadis to lob back at us.
thanks for making the world a safer place, Dubya. you're my hero.
Posted by: jack at November 17, 2004 11:20 PM (+7VNs)
7
Jack heard him say (look he's still breathing).
PK says (he was holding a gun).
I heard someone say (he's faking).
Let us be honest and say we don't know.
International law (Geneva Convention) backs the Marine.
Common sense backs the Marine.
The so called victim was shooting and trying to kill Marines and Iraqi Soldiers before he was wounded. (if he was in fact wounded).
Americans are never given quarter. Always killed when wounded.
Enemy combatants out of uniform deserve to be killed on site.
If a Marine behaved like the terrorists/insurgents what is the difference?
The difference is people like JACK. Always searching for a reason to blame America/Bush.
JACK: Watch some of the beheading videos. Thats were you will find
the methodical SS style killing. In particular watch the ones showing all the unarmed, hog tied Iraqi recruits being shot.
DIDN'T HEAR FROM YOU THEN. You are nothing.
Thank you Dubya. Thank you for allowing our Marines to kill terrorists before they kill more innocents.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 17, 2004 11:55 PM (7yovg)
8
Oh yea: Thanks again Kevin Sites. The terrorists need more just like you.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2004 12:01 AM (7yovg)
9
The Geneva Convention also allows for the
summary execution of partisans (no uniforms, dressed as civilians, carrying arms).
But was he armed? Thank goodness Bush rejected the ICC. This guy would never get a fair trial.
Posted by: Jane at November 18, 2004 07:41 AM (ywZa8)
10
I'm still agnostic, although 'legally' it looks like he did nothing wrong. Jack actually makes a good point, that is the morality of actions in war--jus en bellio. Killing can only be justified, even in war, as an act of self-defense. This seems not to be that. On the other hand, the Marines state of mind should taken into account as a mitigating circumstance. That is, the Marine (as many have alleged) might have had experiences of terrorists feigning death and then hurling a grenade (or some similar situation). Still, it doesn't look good.
The stupid part of Jack's statement was the crack at Bush. It would be like blaming FDR for the thousands of German soldiers killed in a similar fashion in WWII. Crimes happen in war. What was different about WWII was the media knew which side they were on and the left was on board with the war (mostly because the Soviets were on our side).
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 18, 2004 08:10 AM (JQjhA)
11
This is the stupidist and the most ignorant argument I have every heard. This is WAR. You live, you win......you die, you lose. That marine had every right to do what he did. There should be NO rules in war. Sure it would suck if that happened to an American, but you know what, that is what war is. It is an all out battle, a fight to the death. That marine should be given a medal for ridding the earth of a piece of scum insurgent. I would have done the same thing. And I would have popped the one that surrendered too.
Have you seen the movie "Saving Private Ryan"? Remember the scene where the Americans take pity on the German soldier and let him go free. Then the soldier comes back and kills a ton more Americans. Tat is the moral to this story. Let me tell you what would have happened. We would have captured the insurgent, put him in prison for a few years. Waste money on his room and board, meals, etc etc. Then we would release him because he is "not considered a threat any longer". Then he would kill innocent civilians in a suicide mission. Trust me, that is a VERY likely scenario.
What these stupid people don't understand is that we are not there. So he was caught on camera killing some camel jockey, big deal. What about all of the footage we HAVEN'T seen of Americans being executed and drug through the streets and maimed? This whole argument makes me sick because the killing was JUSTIFIED....end of story. You want to bitch and whine about it then I suggest you pick up a weapon and see for yourself what our soldiers are going through. See how you would have reacted.
I'm done.
Posted by: roger at November 18, 2004 08:58 AM (g8ZKo)
12
Ok, OK, if you're gonna fight, lets get this right. There was a time line in the video. Two days, I understand. the first part of the whole video shows the Marines taking the building, part of a Mosque, I believe. And it shows the Marines going in and making a sweep inside, picking up and stacking the individual's weapons. While it didn't show disposal, I'm sure they didn't just leave them there.
The second part is apparently a second platoon the next day with the same cameraman, or that's the first explanation I heard when the tape was shown on Fox the first ime. The Marines came in, discovering the wounded that had been there from the first day or incident, and having been exposed to exploding dead and injured the day before, took no chances.
Lessee, did the cameraman play any part here? He obviously knew from the first taping, that these people had been disarmed, he took pictures of it, so why didn't he say something? He also took it (the tape) first to Al Jazeera, so what's happening here?
And then one more thing for all of you Monday Morning Quarterbacks, have you ever known the fear and anger of Combat? Not a Fucking Chance! Or you wouldn't be saying shit or commenting either way about this incident. These are young men, 18 to 25 years old, sent to Iraq on their Senior Trip, getting to make life or death decisions in seconds. They can''t always be 100% right, it ain't humanly possible. And the way the game is played over there, well it ain't all fair on either side, so unless you have been there, shut the fuck up and cease the debate!
Posted by: large at November 18, 2004 09:47 AM (VRK2g)
13
I am in full agreement of the above two posters' comments.
"nuff said.
Posted by: Laura at November 18, 2004 10:49 AM (ptOpl)
14
Back in Desert Storm my squad was on a mission and lost radio comms while under sporadic and inaccurate sniper fire. I sent one team back to get some help. Within 10 minutes of them leaving a car filled with armed Iraqis stopped near our position and 5 armed men exited the car and proceeded towards us. We were probably unseen but after cautioning my men to hold their fire until I fired. I ordered the Iraqis to drop their weapons. Two did immediatly, two hesitated and the one with the RPG ran back to the car. I saw movement in the car as the Iraqi reached inside and someone sat up and passed him a bundle through the open window. In a split second I had to decide whether to shoot and kill someone who may not have understood my order or to risk the lives of the 4 men with me who had trained with me for 8 months. The decision I made then is on my mind everyday since then. I saw an armed man take an unidentified bundle from a car. I made the wrong decision then and I would never second guess someonelse's. These are the things you live with. Killing is a hell of a way to make a living.
Posted by: Bullshark at November 18, 2004 11:40 AM (O+Txs)
15
Look. I don't care that the Marine shot that guy. Shoot them all. Just don't let the camera capture all of it on video tape. The shooter was himself wounded. So that is a pass for him.
His buddies should have noticed the large TV camera in the corner and thought, "Gee, this might not look right to some people not here". Grab the tape and move on. No one will care about one reporters' claim of 'crimes'.
This is both a shooting war and a propaganda war. It is not just important to do good, but we must also be seen as doing good.
Posted by: Bill Dautrive at November 18, 2004 11:52 AM (G95Uf)
16
"This is both a shooting war and a propaganda war. It is not just important to do good, but we must also be seen as doing good."
Amen, brotha!
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 18, 2004 01:56 PM (JQjhA)
17
Considering the Defense Department is investigating the shooting, it's not as cut and dry as you might think. Also, while you might be citing the Geneva Convention as proof the soldier was in the right, the fact is that the U.S.'s own rules of engagement state that soldiers are authorized to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent (i.e. self-defense -And when, in all of this GWOT, did the U.S decide it was going to follow the Geneva Convention anyways?) The fact that the insurgent was not armed would imply that the Marines were not in any immediate threat at that point. In other words, he violated the rules of engagment by killing an unarmed man. (frankly, why not capture him and interrogate him?)
Secondly, attempting to find blame in Sites is pretty pathetic. I mean, you can't defend the Marine by saying he did nothing wrong, and then turn around and say that Sites is at fault. If the Marine did nothing wrong, then Sites didn't do anything wrong by capturing it on video. Of course, you're probably agitated that the video portrays what actually happened: that a Marine stooped to the level of the kidnappers and killed someone in cold blood. And why be pissed off at a journalist for doing his job? In war, you have to be prepared to show the good with the bad.
Anyways, the government of GWB has taken the proactive step in launching an investigation to determine whether or not a court martial will be warranted. It looks like the Defense Department will determine what punishment is needed for this Marine's cowardly act.
Posted by: Venom at November 18, 2004 01:57 PM (dbxVM)
18
IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.
cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at November 18, 2004 02:16 PM (D39Vm)
19
It IS cut and dry! The Marine shot the enemy.
Case closed.
Posted by: Laura at November 18, 2004 03:16 PM (ptOpl)
20
GEYROOSTER is 'bang on',plain and simple.Tell it like it is,cut to the chase,this is real,time to pull heads out of the sand,get with it, open up your mind.
Posted by: sopotamia at November 18, 2004 04:31 PM (s6TbO)
21
"It IS cut and dry! The Marine shot the enemy.
Case closed."
So, why is the Defense Department investigating?
Posted by: Venom at November 18, 2004 04:35 PM (dbxVM)
22
Because they don't wanna be blamed for NOT investigating. I haven't met or heard anyone that doesn't agree with the Marine, except maybe on THIS blog, which is usually comments from foreigners who stick their noses in where they don't belong.
The others are just anti-American, anti-war, bleeding heart lib's who'd rather stick up for the ragheads than our brothers.
Posted by: Laura at November 18, 2004 05:52 PM (ptOpl)
23
"Because they don't wanna be blamed for NOT investigating."
That's your speculation, something you can't back up. All reports have stated that the Defense Department is investigating whether or not a crime was committed. Not to cover their asses.
It's funny that as soon as holes are poked in your fabrications, you immediately start foaming at the mouth and start talking about "bleeding heart libs." Is Donald Rumsfeld a "bleeding heart lib" because his department is opening an investigation? You ought to be proud that GWB's administration is trying to do the right thing here.
Posted by: Venom at November 18, 2004 05:59 PM (dbxVM)
24
Venom: Have you ever served your country? If so, I doubt you would be spewing such bullshit. What would you have done? Let the fucker go so he could kill our soldiers another day or possibly when that Marine's back was turned?
Trouble today, is that so much of this shit is recorded and shown through various media sources. Then everyone and their mother is quick to point the finger and blame someone.
Had this been WW2 and we let everyone go like that, we'd all be dead.
Posted by: Laura at November 18, 2004 07:15 PM (ptOpl)
25
An email from a Marine that is "there". Exactly what you have been saying. However, I haven't heard any explanation re the NBC tape getting into Arab hands?
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:34 AM
Subject: Incident in Iraq
FYI, helps to understand the environment.
John
I got this from a friend on base, it's worth reading.
Good Morning Everybody.
The following is an email from my son regarding the NBC report (with embedded reporter Kevin Sites), concerning the Marine who is being investigated for "murdering" the insurgent in Fallaja. I will be sending his mail to every news program's email I can find. I find it sickening that this Kevin Sites is even allowed to be embedded with our Marines, as this isn't the first report I've heard from him that took on a decidely unfriendly tone. My son also gave me permission to release it to anyone that wants to pass it on, as long as it remains unedited.
-- Darlene
PMM LCPL Gus
TS DET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:27:55 -0800 (PST)
From: old tymer
Subject: The stories you don't hear...
This is one story of many that people normally don't hear, and one that everyone does.
This is just one most don't hear:
A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with Ak-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded, lying in a pool of his own blood. The Marine and his cover man slowly walk toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from behind. In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the blast is heard. Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as the dust gradually settles. The result is a room filled with the barely recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting off several pounds of explosives.
The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone who hid behind a white flag. But no one hears these stories, except those who have lived to carry remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears this, so no one cares.
This is the story everyone hears:
A young Marine and his fire team cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insugent can be heard saying, "Mister,mister! Diktoor, diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded.Suddenly, he pulls from under his bloody clothes a grenade, without the pin. The explosion rocks the room, killing one Marine, wounding the others. The young Marine catches shrapnel in the face.
The next day, same Marine, same type of situation, a different story. The young Marine and his cover man enter a room with two wounded insurgents. One lies on the floor in puddle of blood, another against the wall. A reporter and his camera survey the wreckage inside, and in the background can be heard the voice of a Marine, "He's moving, he's moving!" The pop of a rifle is heard, and the insurgent against the wall is now dead.
Minutes, hours later, the scene is aired on national television, and the Marine is being held for commiting a war crime. Unlawful killing.
And now, another Marine has the possibility of being burned at the stake for protecting the life of his brethren. His family now wrings their hands in grief, tears streaming down their face. Brother, should I have been in your boots, i too would have done the same.
For those of you who don't know, we Marines, Band of Brothers, Jarheads, Leathernecks, etc., do not fight because we think it is right, or think it is wrong. We are here for the man to our left, and the man to our right. We choose to give our lives so that the man or woman next to us can go home and see their husbands, wives, children, friends and families.
For those of you who sit on your couches in front of your television, and choose to condemn this man's actions, I have but one thing to say to you. Get out of you recliner, lace up my boots, pick up a rifle, leave your family behind and join me. See what I've seen, walk where I have walked. To those of you who support us, my sincerest gratitude. You keep us alive.
I am a Marine currently doing his second tour in Iraq. These are my opinions and mine alone. They do not represent those of the Marine Corps or of the US military, or any other.
Sincerely,
LCPL Schmidt
USMC
Posted by: expat at November 19, 2004 07:31 AM (2+AnM)
26
Anyone who condemns this Marine for doing his duty, along with the other anti-war lib's, can go the fuck to Canada. Or, if they think they can do a better job, strap up your boot laces, tote a gun, and go to Iraq. Then, let's see what you'd do with death staring you in the face.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Laura at November 19, 2004 09:06 AM (ptOpl)
27
Let the words ring true. GOD BLESS
Posted by: owoju at November 19, 2004 09:25 AM (N4SKL)
28
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS AND THE USA.
Posted by: owoju at November 19, 2004 09:28 AM (N4SKL)
29
Laura:
What the fuck are you talking about? Can you not read? Where did I suggest that the right course of action would be to "let him go." In my original post, I said "(frankly, why not capture him and interrogate him?)"
And please, tell me what's bullshit about what I'm writing? The U.S. has its rules of engagement. If a soldier violates them, an investigation is required. What is so fucking hard to understand about this? GWB and Rumsfeld understand this. Are you saying they're in the wrong?
Posted by: Venom at November 19, 2004 09:34 AM (dbxVM)
30
Venom, there are no rules in war! These soldiers are there in some of the worst and most dangerous situations that go beyond a "normal" war. These guys will dress up as civilians, Iraqi soldiers that are friendly to the US, they violate the rules by fighting inside the mosques.
The Marine saw the body movement. Yesterday, that same Marine let someone go and thea bastard had an explosive. He wasn't taking any chances the 2nd time. These are sneaky motherfuckers we're talking about. If the boot were on the other foot, the Marine would have been shot, no benefit of the doubt would be given.
After careful consideration, after hearing the shouts of the other soldiers that they guy was faking and may be armed, when the Marine indeed saw the movement, he did what he was trained to do, protect himself and the others.
I support Bush, but I don't agree with any investigation whatsoever. What benefit of the doubt was given to Armstrong, Bigley, Hensley and Hassan?
If this Marine is prosecuted, I have a bad feeling about all the backlash that's gonna be happening from media sources such as Bill O'Reilly, who promises to use whatever clout he's got to see to it that this Marine is not prosecuted.
This has taken away so much attention from the real issue: the war itself. To question the actions of soldiers that are there for US is ludicrous to me.
Sites should have been told to go fuck off by the Marines, once they knew he was filming. As a matter of fact, I think reporters should be banned from the war zone, period. Unless they want to pick up a gun and join in.
Posted by: Laura at November 19, 2004 01:51 PM (ptOpl)
31
Laura:
There are rules in war. When you start ignoring them, you lower yourself to the level of those criminals who kidnap and murder civilians. And the U.S. HAS rules of engagement. YOU might not think there OUGHT to be rules in war, but that doesn't change the fact that there ARE.
Seriously, what was so difficult or jarring for the soldier to just capture this insurgent? The guy is fucking wounded! He's just lying there! Surround him and take him away! This insurgent might have provided some valuable info. Instead, he's dead, the Marine might do jail time, and it gives the whole campaign another black eye it doesn't need.
And what's with all the fucking nonsense in somehow trying to pin the blame onto the reporter? He was there doing his job, something the Marine wasn't. And if there's no reporters around, what makes you think shit like this won't surface anyways? Abu Ghraib ring a bell? No reporters there, and everyone knows about it.
I think (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) YOU're pissed off at the fact that the Marine did something wrong and the whole world knows about it. I mean, for people who have been trying to justify this war for months, saying that we are fighting criminals and an enemy who don't value human life the same way we do, an incident like this is pretty fucking sobering, don't you think?
Posted by: Venom at November 19, 2004 02:24 PM (dbxVM)
32
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit again. It's WAR man. Do the terrorists bastids follow any rules? Like how you're not supposed to hide in a place of worship?
I would think the soldiers are taught to use their best judgement with a situation such as this. This is not an episode of "Cops", where the officer would have to do everything necessary NOT to shoot the criminal.
As I've stated this same Marine was faced with the same situation just the day before and those same people waving white flags, dressed as civilians or Iraqi soldiers on the side of the Americans, are the very terrorists that would blow them all to smitherenes if they had half a chance. They would not give the same consideration we would. Shoot first, ask no questions later.
If the damned thing wasn't videotaped in the first place, we wouldn't even be arguing about it. I'm sure shit like this went on day in and day out in other wars.
Oh, and the marine should get a Silver Star. After all, John Kerry received one for doing the same thing the Marine did. In Viet Nam, he chased an enemy soldier around a hut, caught him, and shot him. No one investigated HIM.
Posted by: Laura at November 19, 2004 05:18 PM (ptOpl)
33
Hey, if Kerry did the same thing, I'm surprised that GWB et al haven't opened an investigation.
Look, you can cry in your cornflakes all you want, but the fact is that if this was as you wish it was, the Defense Department wouldn't be investigating. In fact, you practically imply that the soldier did something wrong when you say: "If the damned thing wasn't videotaped in the first place, we wouldn't even be arguing about it. I'm sure shit like this went on day in and day out in other wars."
Answer me this question: if the Marine did nothing wrong, WHY is he being investigated? You can't answer this can you, not with any proof anyways. Sure, you can come up with unsubstantiated THEORIES, but at the end of the day, it's your OPINION versus the RULES and LAWS that American soldiers are REQUIRED to follow in war.
Sure, soldiers are taught to use their best judgement. But, that doesn't mean that they're completely absolved if they're fucking idiots do something wrong. I use my best judgement when I walk into a bank - should I be forgiven if I decide on a whim to hold it up? Of course not. Sure, the situations are incredibly different, but we all have rules and laws governing ourselves. The army is one of the most regimented and disciplined organizations in the world. It's not some fucking circus where people have carte blanche to do what they want. There's rules, and you follow them - and if you don't, there's hell to pay. Which is what this poor Marine is realizing now. Hey, if the investigation decides that he's done nothing wrong, fine. BUT, the point here is that clearly he did something that was WAY out of the ordinary (with proof), so they're going to look into it.
AND, you can't call the terrorists animals claiming that they don't follow rules, and then in the next breath say that it's ok for coalition soldiers to go ahead and do the same thing. If the insurgents are animals for doing this, wouldn't the soldiers be, too? It's pretty hypocritical to try and say both.
Posted by: Venom at November 19, 2004 06:11 PM (dbxVM)
34
Yeah, but how come a video wasn't shown of this SAME Marine, who was hit with shit from an explosive another dirtbag threw his way, when he thought the bastid was unarmed? Same situation, different day. He "used his better judgement" that day and almost lost his life because he gave the shithead the benefit of the doubt.
No, but you don't see THAT video because there wasn't one. Why are you so hellbent on sticking up for the enemy? Could you be one?
Are you also one of the dopes that thinks this invasion of Iraq is an illegal one and that the soldiers deserve it because it's Bush's fault they were sent there?
You're just one of the bloggers on here that has nothing better to do than to try to argue their point, until it's a dead horse issue.
Case in point: I was slandered on another blog in here, and the idiot that couldn't win the debate finally resorted to sexist, vulgar and vile names and rantings because he couldn't get anyone to agree with him.
Don't turn into another COOQarUK from Bigley's blog. Better yet, hook up with him and you can both cry over how it's Bush's and Blair's fault this is all happening.
Nite.
Posted by: Laura at November 19, 2004 06:37 PM (ptOpl)
35
VENOM: I would rather be wrong just like them than see American soldiers die to keep from being like them. They are relying on more people thinking as you do. Gives them an advantage and costs American lives. I do not put much value on the lives of terrorists and insurgents that torture, bomb and behead innocent people. They are not worthy of equality in my mind. Just rabid animals that need destroying. Nothing more.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2004 08:07 PM (ydtpC)
36
Laura:
Could I be the enemy? Um, could you be a little more paranoid than you already are (I don't think so)? I see, if I disagree with your (misguided) opinion, I must be the enemy. I guess if anyone ever disagrees with you, they must be the enemy. Why do you equate this with support for troops in Iraq? We're talking about what might be an illegal killing. Of course it's getting a lot of attention, because it's been recorded what might be a VIOLATION of U.S. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. This is why the Defense Department is investigating. I'm sorry if you don't understand this, despite my repeated attempts to explain.
"You're just one of the bloggers on here that has nothing better to do than to try to argue their point, until it's a dead horse issue."
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: Venom at November 22, 2004 10:09 AM (dbxVM)
37
VEMON: KERRY LOST. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ACCEPT IT?
Posted by: greyrooster at November 22, 2004 04:31 PM (BFaxF)
38
greyrooster:
I accepted it on election night. In case you've forgotten already, I was never a Kerry supporter. I was also never a Bush supporter. My position the entire election campaign was of complete incredulity - as in, are these two best that America could come up with? If so, we're all in deep trouble.
Stop trying to draw the wrong conclusions.
Posted by: Venom at November 22, 2004 06:09 PM (dbxVM)
39
Venom=traitor
Posted by: Laura at November 22, 2004 08:08 PM (ptOpl)
40
Then why do you find fault with everything that America does? Everything Bush does? Everything pro American policy does.
No candidate, no stand, everything wrong. Shit man, call that living? What do you stand for besides and everybody wrong about every thing.
I usually can see what a poster stands for after reading one paragraph. I can't find anything you believe in or stand for except conplaining and taking the opposite side of everything.
As I said before, if someone says shit tastes bad you will take the other side.
Go back and read your past posts. Everything against. Nothing for. Is there anything you believe in besides retoric. Bored? in Jail? What is the problem?
I believe in America. I believe in my family. I believe in fishing. I believe in conservatism. I believe in the Marine Corps. In chocolate chip cookies. In beer. In chili. In Hooter's. Is there anything you believe in besides taking the opposite side of every fucking issue brought up? You've obviously got brains. But that doesn't mean you're not a nutcase. What a waste.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 22, 2004 10:32 PM (BFaxF)
41
Meh, Laura just hates me because I shoot down all her theories and she can't back up shit. Laura, please tell me how I'm a traitor. Because you said so? Ok, umm....you're a traitor! Yeah, um...because *I* said so! Pretty rational argument, huh? Maybe you shouldn't drink when you're on the computer?
greyrooster: lol, you know, I think we actually have a lot of similar interests, but that's besides the point. This is a forum which appears to be about debating the GWOT, whatever that's become. I fully supported the war in Afghanistan, because it made sense. America is attacked, so the country harboring those terrorists gets attacked. I see nothing wrong with that.
This war...I'm still trying to find a validity to it. And, so I have to question it. It's not unpatriotic to sometimes question the decisions that are being made. This isn't a police state. When you have a war, whose pretense was ridding a threatening country (who weren't threatening, btw) of its WMDs (which didn't exist, despite all the detailed testimony by Rice, Cheney, Powell about types, sizes, numbers), and then there aren't any, I have to question the motives. When a president presides over one of the most stagnant economies in recent memory, and then claims the economy is "just fine," I have to question his sincerity. When a president has 9/11 happen on his watch, and then initally refuses to establish the Department of Homeland Security, I have to question his ability to keep America safe. Frankly, it's been one of the most disappointing presidencies that I can recall. And, when I hear this bullshit about some kind of Muslim conspiracy that they all want to kill us and blah blah blah, when evidence basically proves it's not true, then I have to voice my opinion. I think, grey, that you're using the correct terminology now: they're Islamofascists. It's not all Muslims, just those that want to impose their religion on the rest of the world. And it's being done by a pretty small fraction of those who practice the religion. In fact, they're acting more like criminals than Muslims. The fact that so many Muslim clerics have actually come out AGAINST the kidnappings and killings seems to get lost in all of this.
Anyhow, there are a LOT of things I do support, but these threads don't seem to be about talking about anything positive. It's all a bunch of bullshit rhetoric lambasting anything remotely critical of the Bush administration. Admit it, if ALL of the things I listed above happened during a Democrat's presidency, everyone here would be having a field day picking it apart. But, instead, everyone swallows this shit, smiles, and asks for more. Again, it's NOT UNPATRIOTIC to occasionally question what happens around you - and if it happens more frequently than occasionally, then so be it.
Posted by: Venom at November 23, 2004 09:41 AM (dbxVM)
42
Venom, this is NOT an open forum or free speech zone. It is a personal blog set up by an individual. If you don't agree with the blogmaster's material or the bloggers that are posting, you don't have to come on here. Simple as that.
You find a blog where similar, terrorist loving, bleeding heart liberals post.
Theories, you say? What theories? I call it as I see it. I have people I lost on 9/11, and know some young soldiers over in Iraq fighting for the freedom for YOU to post your SHIT.
Right, wrong indifferent, we support our leader, or he wouldn't have been voted for another term, if so many people supposedly hate him. Thank God people like you are in the minority.
Reporters have no business in a war zone. They should have had their cameras smashed to the ground by the Marines.
Posted by: Laura at November 23, 2004 12:23 PM (ptOpl)
43
Laura, I get the feeling that you don't consider any forum you participate in a "free speech zone." Sure, it's Rusty's blog, but you're grasping at straws here. If you don't like my opinion, then fuck you. I'm not doing it for your approval. Frankly, you're without a doubt one of the most dimwitted people I've ever met, either in cyberspace or real life. You have no fucking grasp on reality and no ability to engage in a debate. You make these wild accusations with no evidence to back up shit, and when you're called on it you accuse the other person of being a "terrorist loving, bleeding heart liberal." Tell me how I'm "terrorist loving," you ignorant halfwit. Because I have a different opinion than you? Because when things don't look right, I inquire rather than eat shit, smile, and ask for more? You may like the taste of shit, but I don't.
Posted by: Venom at November 23, 2004 01:25 PM (dbxVM)
44
Oh, and tell me how I'm a "bleeding heart liberal" while you're at it. Show me once where I've ever demonstrated this characteristic, outside of your own fantasy world, that is. Again, anyone who doesn't share your identical, fanatical viewpoint is "bleeding heart liberal." Give me a break. Being against a feeble-minded wannabe fascist like yourself doesn't make a person "liberal," only rational.
Posted by: Venom at November 23, 2004 01:51 PM (dbxVM)
45
Anyone that thinks an investigation is called for regarding the Marine who shot the enemy is truly anti-American.
Why won't you give the soldier the benefit of the doubt? These savages we were fighting don't deserve just treatment because they would just as soon shoot us and not ask any questions later. This war is like no other. The insurgents don't follow any Geneva convention rules.
The only reason there IS an investigation is because journalists like Sites stick their noses in where they don't belong. If they want to enter a war zone, they should be prepared to fight as well.
OUr government now is "forced" to do an investigation to "do the right thing" and not piss off any more insurgents or enemies who have seen the video on Al Jazeera and are even more riled up than before. I have seen Al Jazeera's site, and it it totally biased toward their own country. What else would explain why they continued to show the Marine footage over and over, while Hassan's video wasn't given a mention or shown at all?!
I can't understand these bloggers on here who continue to call me and others stupid, dimwitted, misinformed, ignorant, whatever, yet continue to argue right along.
If we weren't intelligent enough for you, why continue the discussions with us?
Posted by: Laura at November 24, 2004 06:44 PM (ptOpl)
46
"Anyone that thinks an investigation is called for regarding the Marine who shot the enemy is truly anti-American."
So, you're saying the Defense Department is anti-American, huh? Interesting.
"The insurgents don't follow any Geneva convention rules."
That's probably because they never signed it and aren't bound to follow the Geneva Convention. Actually, can you name me any Geneva Convention rules without having to use an Internet search engine?
"The only reason there IS an investigation is because journalists like Sites stick their noses in where they don't belong."
You mean because he was there doing his job? It was the army who allowed journalists to be embedded with U.S. troops. How is it that he's not supposed to be there when the military itself created the rules?
"I have seen Al Jazeera's site, and it it totally biased toward their own country."
What country is that?
"What else would explain why they continued to show the Marine footage over and over, while Hassan's video wasn't given a mention or shown at all?!"
Al-Jazeera has shown numerous captures of other hostages being killed. Have you forgotten this already? Also, if you actually HAD been on Al-Jazeera's site in the past, you'd probably know this. But, like everything else you write, you're just making shit up.
"If we weren't intelligent enough for you, why continue the discussions with us?"
I dunno. Partly out of my own amusement, partly because it's so easy to shoot down everything you write. And I call 'em like I see 'em, unlike you who would never question anything. Seriously, passing off opinions as if they were fact isn't exactly the best way to get someone to believe you, and makes it that much harder when questioned about it.
Posted by: Venom at November 30, 2004 01:00 PM (dbxVM)
47
kick a baby vole
Posted by: pilot at June 01, 2005 07:21 AM (GiTkz)
66kb generated in CPU 0.1665, elapsed 0.2548 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.2422 seconds, 296 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.2422 seconds, 296 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
