Excecuted
-
Have a question. You're the platoon commander. Your platoon wounds an insurgent. He's on no man's land and you're moving to a new position. What do you order? 1) Kill him. 2) Let him there. Perhaps he'll be shooting at your soldiers the next day. 3) Send your soldiers to recover him, risking their life twice. Your men expect that you make a decision that might cost them lives. What is your decision? Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: 1) Kill him. 2) Let him there. Perhaps he'll be shooting at your soldiers the next day. 3) Send your soldiers to recover him, risking their life twice. You're kidding, right? Are those the only options you can come up with? As seen (edited), that old video is in violation of the UMCJ as well as military training doctrine. One last thought for you to ponder: A soldier's job is ultimately to save lives and prevent war. Best, Jerry
"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art of all."--Andy Warhol Toasty0.com
-
Judging from a distance is pretty easy, but when you would have to go to the guy risk that he detonates a bomb killing both or that his buddies shot at you from hidden position - you'd realize that street combat is not the cleanest thing and that is exactly the reason everyone is trying to avoid it. I can think of other ways. Maybe an animal tranquilizer. But how do you know it is safe? And what if your platoon does not have it? And what if you have to move on? What if he lies in the teritory you don't control? Tomaz
Tom, Maybe you're playing devil's advocate here, but please show a better understanding of the American military before you go around trying to "explain" what is correct and not correct as it pertains to the expected conduct of American soldiers in a hostile environment. Best, Jerry
"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art of all."--Andy Warhol Toasty0.com
-
All good questions but this is what soldiers are trained and paid to deal with. What happens in the video clip is illegal under international law, the Geneva Convention and American Military law. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
What exactly on the clip is illegal? I see a military situation in which an enemy soldier is wounded and then killed. What law prevents a soldier to shoot at wounded enemy soldier from the distance again? You really can't tell if he could be captured. It is not clear from the video. An investigation would answer this question but you judge as if an investigation already took place and all is already known about what was happening there. I know it is not nice, but in war, when you shoot and wound an enemy soldier you don't stop shooting because of it. And you have to separate the soldiers reaction (it feels good) from what he did, because it does not matter how he reacted to it but with what sort of military situation was he faced. And the fact is we simply can't see from the video. We can only guess. Tomaz
-
Tom, Maybe you're playing devil's advocate here, but please show a better understanding of the American military before you go around trying to "explain" what is correct and not correct as it pertains to the expected conduct of American soldiers in a hostile environment. Best, Jerry
"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art of all."--Andy Warhol Toasty0.com
I don't see an American soldier there but a soldier. And I don't see how can anyone judge from what they saw on the video - because they know nothing about the situation there. What they do is judge from the soldiers reaction, not from what alternatives were available. Tomaz
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: 1) Kill him. 2) Let him there. Perhaps he'll be shooting at your soldiers the next day. 3) Send your soldiers to recover him, risking their life twice. You're kidding, right? Are those the only options you can come up with? As seen (edited), that old video is in violation of the UMCJ as well as military training doctrine. One last thought for you to ponder: A soldier's job is ultimately to save lives and prevent war. Best, Jerry
"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art of all."--Andy Warhol Toasty0.com
Toasty0 wrote: You're kidding, right? Are those the only options you can come up with? Well, yes. Perhaps US army could do more. I was trained in a classical army and I know I would give and be given order to kill the guy. No questions about it. And it is not against any military law that I am aware of. If there are other options, can you describe them? Bear in mind that given unlimited resources and time everyone would be able to come with a better solution but often in war time situation these are not available. I agree with you that behaviour of soldier afterwards was weird (mildly put, I think he was in shock), but that does not tell anything about the military situation he was in before. Tomaz
-
I do have and answer to this: If this video is as it appears then those involved should be brought up on charges. Period. Best, Jerry
"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art of all."--Andy Warhol Toasty0.com
Toasty0 wrote: I do have and answer to this: If this video is as it appears then those involved should be brought up on charges. Period. Agreed. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
The following link is to a video that shows an Iraqi lying wounded on the ground being executed by American marines. It is clip taken from CNN not an Arab media station. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm[^] pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
Why is it so shocking that people get killed in war ? What did we think happens ? As others have said, it's easy to sit in our armchairs and judge the actions of others. It's a bit different when you're the guy being shot at, your adrenaline is pumping and you are quite literally fighting for your life. I wouldn't want to be in that situation. I'm happy to pass judgement on the reasons for going to war. I'm happy to comment on how prisoners, or other people in a non-combat situation should be judged. But I need a hell of a lot of impartial information before I'd pass judgement on a person acting in a combat situation. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
The following link is to a video that shows an Iraqi lying wounded on the ground being executed by American marines. It is clip taken from CNN not an Arab media station. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm[^] pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
I recognize this clip from the around a year and a half ago - it is not recent. It was shot during the brief period at the beginning of the invasion that the media was allowed free rein. It is difficult to judge for me based on the short clip. If the Iraqi was armed and shooting beforehand and then the soldiers were justified within the rules of engagement. If he was a civilian caught in the crossfire, then it was cold blooded murder. I suspect the former. That said the entire war is really the question mark for me. To justify this brutality, political lies were spread. We should not pass judgement in our safe homes on soldiers in Iraq. We should however be pressuring the politician to justify the invasion and use a more helpful approach to the occupation. This invasion of cities is difficult to understand. Most likely scenes like that were repeated hundreds of times recently within Falluja.
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: 1) Kill him. 2) Let him there. Perhaps he'll be shooting at your soldiers the next day. 3) Send your soldiers to recover him, risking their life twice. You're kidding, right? Are those the only options you can come up with? As seen (edited), that old video is in violation of the UMCJ as well as military training doctrine. One last thought for you to ponder: A soldier's job is ultimately to save lives and prevent war. Best, Jerry
"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art of all."--Andy Warhol Toasty0.com
Toasty0 wrote: A soldier's job is ultimately to save lives and prevent war. Never been a soldier have you ? Thats kinda like saying that a birds ultimate job is to poop on windshields. A soldier has only ONE ultimate job - to keep alive . And if he does this then all the other so called "goals" will be achieved. Remember the words of the late great GS Patton - "Its not your job to die for your country. Its your job to make some other poor sonofabitch die for his" Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: 1) Kill him. 2) Let him there. Perhaps he'll be shooting at your soldiers the next day. 3) Send your soldiers to recover him, risking their life twice. You're kidding, right? Are those the only options you can come up with? As seen (edited), that old video is in violation of the UMCJ as well as military training doctrine. One last thought for you to ponder: A soldier's job is ultimately to save lives and prevent war. Best, Jerry
"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art of all."--Andy Warhol Toasty0.com
Toasty0 wrote: One last thought for you to ponder: A soldier's job is ultimately to save lives and prevent war. Not really, a soldier's jobduty is to fight the war that was unavoidable. Its the politician's duty to prevent the war, the soldiers suty to fight and win it. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Toasty0 wrote: A soldier's job is ultimately to save lives and prevent war. Never been a soldier have you ? Thats kinda like saying that a birds ultimate job is to poop on windshields. A soldier has only ONE ultimate job - to keep alive . And if he does this then all the other so called "goals" will be achieved. Remember the words of the late great GS Patton - "Its not your job to die for your country. Its your job to make some other poor sonofabitch die for his" Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
It's interesting that you mention Patton - he was known for glorious campaigns that got a lot of his own troops killed, hence 'Blood and Gust Patton'. Their blood, his guts. That is why he was in charge of the D day diversion. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
All good questions but this is what soldiers are trained and paid to deal with. What happens in the video clip is illegal under international law, the Geneva Convention and American Military law. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
There are too many unkowns in this. Was he actually disabled or could he still have shot at the US soldiers ? Was there any other access to the space which would not have exposed the US soldiers to risk ? I am not comfortable with what happened but neither of us was there. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
It's interesting that you mention Patton - he was known for glorious campaigns that got a lot of his own troops killed, hence 'Blood and Gust Patton'. Their blood, his guts. That is why he was in charge of the D day diversion. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: It's interesting that you mention Patton - he was known for glorious campaigns that got a lot of his own troops killed, hence 'Blood and Gust Patton'. Their blood, his guts. That is why he was in charge of the D day diversion. You saw the movie. Now go read the real history. Pattons casuality rate was almost 35% below any comparable front line unit. He was a military genius - no politican - no statesman. He fell into the first vestiges of PC when the US was trying to appease the French and English during the final stages of WWII. Hell Montgomery got more people killed thru sheer stupidity than Patton ever did and Patton was always attacking. Movies are good enternainment but attributing the G. C. Scott interpertation of GS Patton to reality is like saying "Blazing Saddles" is a good representaion of the early west. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
The following link is to a video that shows an Iraqi lying wounded on the ground being executed by American marines. It is clip taken from CNN not an Arab media station. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm[^] pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
When anyone here has served at the safe end of a M16 in a shooting war, then - and only then - will anyone here be qualified to comment. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
I rated you 1 because 1) with my question I did not set up a strawman (I accused no one of making statements that they weren't making), 2) I think my question is reasonable. It reminds people what war means. 3) I created one possible context (scenario) to provide what is called benefit of a doubt to which (so I belive) every man is entitled. 4) You have written a radical reply but have not used your own username. [edit] And, btw, the thing with "brown people" is a straw man. Par excellence. [/edit] Tomaž
-
What exactly on the clip is illegal? I see a military situation in which an enemy soldier is wounded and then killed. What law prevents a soldier to shoot at wounded enemy soldier from the distance again? You really can't tell if he could be captured. It is not clear from the video. An investigation would answer this question but you judge as if an investigation already took place and all is already known about what was happening there. I know it is not nice, but in war, when you shoot and wound an enemy soldier you don't stop shooting because of it. And you have to separate the soldiers reaction (it feels good) from what he did, because it does not matter how he reacted to it but with what sort of military situation was he faced. And the fact is we simply can't see from the video. We can only guess. Tomaz
Just to further inflame the argument... Tomaž Štih wrote: I see a military situation in which an enemy soldier is wounded and then killed. Yes, he is wounded. He is writhing on the ground clearly in great pain and unable to do anything to defend himself, let alone perform an offensive action. I suppose they were just putting him out of his misery, like a deseased farm animal. Tomaž Štih wrote: but in war, when you shoot and wound an enemy soldier you don't stop shooting because of it. Why not? It costs the other side more to care for their wounded than it does for them to bury their dead.
