Remember the Marine who shot the injured Iraqi?

[Ant]

A few months ago there was a story on the news about a Marine who shot an unarmed injured Iraqi for no apparent reason.  Unfortunately for that marine a journalist was there during the shooting and reported what actually happened.  Of course the right-wing media, and many of our fanatical pals here at dubcc immediately disagreed with the assessment of the journalist.  I heard all sorts of arguments about how the journalist was the one who was wrong on this issue, not the Marine.  I heard that the journalist should have kept his mouth shut and not try to embarass the American troops.  I heard we should have sympathy for our soldiers who some times panic in the heat of the battle  I heard about how difficult it is to be a soldier and how the marine probably shot this man out of fear and concern for his own safety. 

Well, now we know the truth.  The US marine shot and killled this man for the fun of it.  All the marines present knew this man was no threat to them.  The marine who shot him joked about killing him, and walked in with a desire to kill the injured.  How do we know this is the case?  Because the video is of it all is now available for all to see.  But what is unfortunate about all this, is how determined the American right is to be ignorant of the truth.  At all times they are determined to believe falsehoods, and dismiss reality when it challenges their world view.  When evidence challenges their opinions it is dismissed, yet when information confirms their bigotted opinions it is wholeheartedly accepted with no concerns for flaws or inaccuracies.  Only when the information is indisputable do they finally only partially accept reality.  And in such a case, people like woodrow will still run from the truth and selectively pay attention to only those facts which make him feel better about his bigotry. 

Either way... just a quick reminder to those of you who argued on the wrong side of this argument.  Click the link to see what really happened.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4646406

[Woodrow]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050505/ap_on_re_mi_ea/marine_iraq_shooting

No Court-Martial in Iraq Mosque Shooting

SAN DIEGO - A Marine corporal who was videotaped shooting an apparently injured and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque last year will not face a court-martial, the Marine Corps announced Wednesday.

A review of the evidence showed the Marine's actions were "consistent with the established rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict," Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said in a statement.

The corporal was not identified in the two-page statement issued by Camp Pendleton, the headquarters of the expeditionary force north of San Diego.

In sworn statements, the corporal said he shot three insurgents in self-defense in the mosque Nov. 13, believing they posed a threat to him and his fellow Marines, the statement said. Autopsy results showed that all three died of multiple wounds from gunshots fired from the corporal's M-16.

One of the shootings was recorded by Kevin Sites, an NBC cameraman embedded with the Marines, and the dramatic footage prompted outrage among Iraqis and an immediate investigation by the Marine Corps.

In the video, as the cameraman moved into the mosque, a Marine in the background could be heard shouting obscenities and yelling that one of the men was only pretending to be dead. The Marine then raised his rifle toward an Iraqi lying on the floor of the mosque and shot him.

The incident played out as the division's 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, returned to the unidentified Fallujah mosque. While Marines had secured the mosque complex on the previous day, intelligence reports indicated that the mosque had since been reoccupied by insurgents.

The Camp Pendleton statement said the corporal "could have reasonably believed that the AIF (anti-Iraq forces) shown in the videotape posed a hostile threat justifying his use of deadly force."

Before the opening of the Nov. 8 assault on rebel-held Fallujah, Marine commanders told infantrymen that the rules of engagement allowed the use of deadly force against men of military age deemed holding hostile intent, even if the enemy didn't fire on the Marines first.

According to the Marine Corps, an enhanced videotape of the shooting supports the corporal's claim that the wounded Iraqi was concealing his left arm behind his head. Although the Marines said it was unclear from the video whether the Iraqi made any overtly threatening gestures, enemy forces commonly feigned death.

The investigation consisted of 22 interviews with Marines, autopsy reports, ballistic tests and the videotape of the shooting. The Marine was brought back from Iraq following the shooting. He remains at Camp Pendleton, said Lt. Col. T.V. Johnson, a Marine spokesman.

A fourth Iraqi also was shot and killed in the mosque complex, but the bullets could not be traced to the corporal's weapon, according to the statement. The investigation is ongoing into the death of the fourth insurgent, Johnson said.

[rafsta]

the man was un-armed, he was on the ground, he didnt have to kill him.

[rafsta]

the journalist was paid off, or forced to talk shit.

[Woodrow]

the man was un-armed, he was on the ground, he didnt have to kill him.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

The AP article that I posted talks about how the terrorists FAKED injury and then attacked marines. I remember reading articles talking about how these terrorists would hold up a white flag, then open fire on the marines. It's a simple case of mercy vs. self preservation... The marines had prior history to back up their actions.

Here's a transcription from Iraqi TV that explains how a terrorist killed an Iraqi police office, cut his insides out, placed TNT inside of his body cavity, and used his body for a bomb. If they are willing to do this to their own police force, why should they have a problem doing this to people they view as "occupiers"?

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=650

'Adnan Elias: Yes, sir. He opened him up, took stuff out, and put TNT and explosives inside. Then he sewed up his stomach with thick thread.

Interviewer: With thread?

'Adnan Elias: Yes. And a needle. He put the buttons back in place...

Interviewer: He buttoned him up.

'Adnan Elias: Yes, he buttoned him up. We were told to take him in the car near the square in Tel A'far. We threw him there and placed his head back on his shoulders.

Interviewer: My God!

'Adnan Elias: 15 to 30 minutes later they told his family to come and get their son. His father came with two policemen. They picked up the body and made no more than two steps – we were standing far away – Ahmad Sinjar pressed the button.

Interviewer: By remote control.

'Adnan Elias: The body exploded on them, and they died.

Interviewer: So his father and the two policemen died.

'Adnan Elias: Yes sir, and we took off.

Here's the section of the Geneva Conventions that you should be interested in.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Art 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary or resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy.

The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

[Woodrow]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1122/p06s01-woiq.html

Marines face threats from fake surrenders even as they shift to rebuilding and handing out aid to civilians.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

FALLUJAH, IRAQ – The white flag may be an international symbol of surrender, but in Fallujah it has become another tool of guerrilla war.
US marines on a foot patrol this weekend paid little attention to a man walking along the road and holding a white flag - a common sight as the conflict dies down and civilians pop up to scavenge for food and water.
 
But this time, US officers say, as the marines came by, the man dipped into an alley, returned with an AK-47 assault rifle, and sprayed the marines with bullets. Two Americans died, and others were wounded.

In a separate incident, marines were lured into an well-coordinated ambush by men with white flags who appeared to signal that they needed help. When marines got close, gunmen began firing from buildings high above.

The attacks expose the new risks in Fallujah as US forces begin shifting in coming days from combat search-and-destroy missions against insurgents, to fighting an enemy that can easily blend into an increasing number of civilians.

"I've been telling my marines: We are entering the most dangerous period now - even more dangerous than the breach [into Fallujah] itself," says Capt. Jer Garcia, commander of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion 3rd Marines. "It's too easy to think, 'We're not getting shot at all the time,' and take off flak jackets and [helmets]. Then, 'Wham!' "

So far, the gates of the city have yet to reopen to those who fled before the US assault. Even now, civilians are only permitted onto the streets from 8 a.m. to noon, and then only to collect food and water at distribution points or to take part in a nascent jobs program.

Some 300 men visited the Hadra Mohamadiya Mosque Sunday to get supplies - the largest number in a week. During the 20-hour-a-day curfew - an effort to prevent insurgents from coordinating with each other to mount attacks - anyone on the street is arrested.

Now US forces are viewing white flags with far more suspicion. "We're going to see these bogus surrender tactics. We're going to see more IEDs (improvised explosive devices). We've found many suicide vests, but I'm sure we have not found them all," says Lt. Col. Michael Ramos, commander of the 1-3 Marines, who control northeast Fallujah.

"They want a spectacular media event - they want a high number of civilian Iraqi or US military deaths," says Lt. Col. Ramos. "We're trying to deny them that opportunity."

The presence of civilians will "absolutely" change tactics, Ramos says. "There is a sense of urgency now to do as much as possible, and to do this right."

Indeed the hope is that progress in rebuilding Fallujah will lessen support for insurgents and help boost the standing of the interim Iraqi government, which announced Sunday that national elections would be held Jan. 30, 2005. The US has committed about $90 million to rebuilding Fallujah, and the interim Iraqi government has pledged $50 million toward the effort, according to military officials.

But over the weekend, insurgents in Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle stepped up bloody attacks. To the north, in Mosul, where the city was tense after a spike in violence a week ago, nine Iraqi soldiers were shot execution-style on Saturday. Sunday, US forces found two more bodies, one of an Iraqi soldier.

In Fallujah, commanders say that, so far, their tactics appear to be having some effect. The number of gun battles and mortar attacks has dropped in recent days, and over the weekend, troops here uncovered more weapons.

Marines found an IED factory over the weekend, laid out like an assembly line. Mortar and artillery bombs were lined up, then treated with solvent and their detonators taken out. Explosives could then be scooped out with scales to weigh the replacement blast.

Also included were what US officers said appeared to be materials for producing homemade napalm - a recipe that could have been drawn from the "Terrorist Cookbook," a favored text for Al Qaeda affiliates like the networks in Fallujah.

But the recent surge of violence across Iraq raises questions about the vitality of the guerrillas. Some houses used by the insurgents here have been smashed by airstrikes, and Sunday the trenches and spider holes dug for rebel defense remained empty.

But aggressive US searches - which have left some houses on fire as marines used grenades and even rockets to clear them, thus avoiding US casualties from hidden machine gunners - are yielding fewer guerrillas. As of today, marines will use mostly nonlethal means of breaching and clearing rooms and houses.

"It is still possible that the current wave of attacks is a 'one shot' effort that will burn out many insurgent resources," writes Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, in a recent analysis.

"It is still unclear how many of those killed and detained in Fallujah were really hard-core cadres, and how many were recruited and trained only to stay and fight," he adds. "If most cadres left or escaped, and Fallujah and the other fighting acts as a major recruiting base, the military impact of Fallujah and tactical victories elsewhere could be limited."

Even in Fallujah, flushing out insurgents is no easy task, despite overwhelming US firepower. The Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) company launched two concerted attacks over the weekend, clearing blocks of suspect houses in conjunction with other units across the city.

Some weapons and a few people were found. In one case, four gunmen engaged a marine fire team and then escaped, marines believe. Another gunman popped his head over a rooftop twice and was engaged by marines.

The building was marked with smoke and rifle fire, and a Maverick rocket fired from a jet fighter crashed into the house. But a delay in approval for the air strike meant that, when the team returned to the site, the gunman had vanished.

Still, every raid and attack yield more weapons caches and intelligence about how this insurgency gripped Fallujah.

While US tactics will become more limited when civilians return, some aspects of the conflict may improve.

"The white flag is a big incident, a big security risk," says a US intelligence officer. "The risk will multiply [when civilians return], but so will the gains. That's when we can talk to people, and they can identify [insurgents]."

"It's going to be hard to get people to come forward, to cooperate," he adds. "But they will, because people do not want foreign fighters, and also they don't want Americans here. They are going to choose the strongest side - whoever has the power at the time, is who they are going to side with."

[Fuck Your Existence]

call me crazy but i dont think id trust people that are known to blow themselves and thier own people to hell just to kill me.

[Woodrow]

It's funny how Ant tries to vilify a marine doing his job, but gives a pass to the terrorists who that marine was fighting.

Here's a slideshow that shows some of the war crimes commited by terrorists:

The real Fallujah story

[Ant]

I give a pass to terrorists? I don't really give a shit about this guy one way or the other.  My point is that people like you just can't accept reality.  This whole thing was caught on video. You can check the link and watch it yourself. They didnt kill the guy out of fear or concern for personal safety. Anyone that watches the video can clearly see that, but even with a video in front of you.. you are still trying to argue that white is black... this is why your party is embarassing itself now that it finally has power.  it cares more about its own ego than national well-being. 

so long as republicans, like yourself, continue to fit the stereotype of being willingly bigotted and ignorant of reality they will continue to embarass themselves like they have so impressively done during the past few months.

...here is yet another reminder of your ignorance. I jokingly called your party the American Taliban and you flipped shit and stuck your head in the sand.  My analogy had to do with the fact that both the Taliban and the GOP oppose the seperation of Church and State.  You disagreed, and once again reality proved me correct and you wrong.  Let's hear Tom Delay on record:

"I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them."

____

None of these issues are of great signficance here.  All that really matters is that over and over again you find yourself detached from reality and trying to argue things when clearly you stand on the wrong side.  If you had any integrity or self-esteem you'd be man enough to criticize the obvious weaknesses of the current republican party.  In the process you'd actually help your party and in doing so help the country you claim to stand behind.

[Woodrow]

Yes. You do give the terrorists a pass. When you say dribble like: "The US marine shot and killled this man for the fun of it.  All the marines present knew this man was no threat to them."

How do you know this? I've shown you many instances of terrorists who played themselves off as "no threat" and then killed marines.

It's funny to me that the Military investigated this, and didn't press charges. Somehow, from the limited video you've seen, you can come to the conclusion that this guy is a cold blooded killer who kills "for fun"

I'm the one who can't accept reality? LOL

[Ant]

Yes. You do give the terrorists a pass. When you say dribble like: "The US marine shot and killled this man for the fun of it.  All the marines present knew this man was no threat to them."

How do you know this?

Have you even bothered to watch the video?  How do I know this? Anyone that watches the tape realizes that guy was no threat and the marine killed him for the hell of it. 
Speaking the truth has nothing to do with giving terrorists a pass.  Your reliance on republican talking points is pathetic. 

I've shown you many instances of terrorists who played themselves off as "no threat" and then killed marines.

Those other situations have nothing to do with this one.  If you watch the video you can clearly see the marine killed the man for the hell of it.  That was why this reporter made a big deal about it in the first place. He was shocked and appalled and rightly so.  These type of actions do nothing to advance our cause or help us win the war on terror.  They do exactly the opposite.  They enrage the enemy and endanger the welfare of our troops and of the American public. 

It's funny to me that the Military investigated this, and didn't press charges. Somehow, from the limited video you've seen, you can come to the conclusion that this guy is a cold blooded killer who kills "for fun"

And we all know we always end up with honest conclusions when one group is both judge, jury, and defendent.

[Woodrow]

Have you even bothered to watch the video?  How do I know this? Anyone that watches the tape realizes that guy was no threat and the marine killed him for the hell of it. 
Speaking the truth has nothing to do with giving terrorists a pass.  Your reliance on republican talking points is pathetic. 

I've seen the whole video. It is a war zone. There were marines killed by terrorists faking injury. It's clear that’s what the marine thought was happening.

Those other situations have nothing to do with this one.  If you watch the video you can clearly see the marine killed the man for the hell of it.  That was why this reporter made a big deal about it in the first place. He was shocked and appalled and rightly so.  These type of actions do nothing to advance our cause or help us win the war on terror.  They do exactly the opposite.  They enrage the enemy and endanger the welfare of our troops and of the American public. 

How fucking stupid are you? These other situations have nothing to do with this one? I really can't begin to even comprehend how you can think something like that.

THE MARINE WHO SHOT THE TERRORIST HAD A FELLOW MARINE DIE THE DAY BEFORE FROM A BOOBY TRAPPED CORPSE.

Yeah. Sure... The other situations had NOOTTTHIIINNGGG To do with this one. You're a fucking clown.

Please don't talk about the "Welfare" of the troops when you slander the entire military with posts like your first one.

And we all know we always end up with honest conclusions when one group is both judge, jury, and defendent.

My God you're a moron. Do you really think that a military tribunal would let him go if it was shown what he did was wrong? Do you think the military would be better off with people that didn't follow orders and killed innocent civilians? Thats what you're implying with your post.

[Thirteen]

damn you really shouldn't own ant that much woodrow, it's not really worth it

[Rampant]

it's not really worth it

i think it is

[King Tech Quadafi]

Woodrow you stupid cunt...why do u quote "occupiers"??