Murderer Marine

Remove all ads!

http://www.thenausea.com/updates.html


I saw a video this morning...
That is the "freedom" they bring?

 

I expect that the persons in question will be 'punished' with a few years in military jail.

"Mohammed Abboud (9 year old), bleeded to death wounded by sharpnel in Fallujah after his parents could not find a hospital (american forces have destroyed it).Nov'04"

 

If anyone is actually interested in some reputable news reporting regarding this event, here is a link:

Military probes other deaths in Falluja incident

First off, this is not a war crime. The Geneva Conventions do not cover combatants out of uniform attempting to blend in with the populace. He was fair game.

Secondly, knowing that these insurgents are known to fake being dead, only to have a gun or bomb hidden on them that they arise a use to kill soldiers, it is not an unexpected event.

If it is proven that he knew or should have reasonably known that these people had been disarmed and given first aid by US troops, and he went ahead and shot this guy, then the Marine should be hung from the nearest flagpole. However, if in the haste of war no sign was left behind to indicate that these insurgents were neutralized, then give the Marine back his rifle and let him get back to work.

Now, I have one word for anyone who expresses their outrage at this event who hasn't already expressed outrage at the beheading of people who are working in Iraq to help the Iraqi people...

HYPOCRITE!

 

and vice-versa

 

Darkwolf, have you ever read the conventions or the protocols? From the Article 44 paragraph 3 of the Protocols:

 

BOC:

Exactly the point, they don't carry their arms openly.

Nothing I said in my post contradicts the text you have copied out of the Geneva Conventions. If you are out of uniform, and attempting to blend in (ie you are not openly carrying your weapons) then you are not covered in the Geneva conventions.

This of course creates another problem that the Geneval Conventions did not forsee. The Iraqi populace, especially in rural areas carry around AKs for their own protection. In combat, how do you differentiate a hostile combatant from a civilian when they look exactly alike???

 

Are you certain that they didn't carry their arms openly? Also, the guy was wounded because he had participated in a battle against marines, had he fought with his weapon hidden?

And the text, that I copied, contradicts your claim about the uniform.

EDIT:

Also, even if we accept that his has lost his compatant status, he is still under the protection of the protocols according to Article 44 paragraph 4:

[ November 17, 2004, 16:55: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

Name me ONE nation that lives up to the rules according to the Geneva convention... just one.

Gues what...you can't, because noone really cares about them. In a time of war, there simply are no rules.

 

@Pac Man

Exactly everybody violetes the rules, perhaps I would do the same or even worse if I was in the place of this marine but this doesn't mean that this execution was not a war crime. Furthermore, since the commanding officer of the marines claims that his men are fighting according to the rules (see Darkwolf's link) then there is one more reason to punish this marine.

 

Then the commanding officer in question is lying his ass off. It's probably because they have been tricked by virtually unarmed men one time too many.

It's bad, but most people would probably do the same thing. Better safe than sorry and all that.

 

Maybe so, but the guy did it in front of a TV camera. For that stupidity alone he should be tried, me thinks.

 

The vast majority of professional soldiers follow the Geneva convention. They are trained in what is and is not acceptable conduct during war when they first enter the military. There will always be a few who do not follow the convention and a few that get carried away "in the heat of the moment." Violating the Geneva convention is wrong and individuals responsible should be tried for those actions.

Other extinuating circumstances, i.e., a soldier was killed the previous day by someone faking to be dead and the soldier in question was shot the previous day, are things that should only be considered by a judge and jury. The marine violated the convention and needs to be tried.

I'm inclined to agree with Takara, but if stupidity were a crime we all be in prison (maybe we are, we just think we're not...).

 

If one idiot does something like that in front of a camera how many instances do you think there are when there were no cameras around? Or is it just as in Abu Ghraib that US soldiers only misbehave when on camera?

 

I seen the video and there was no panic that I could see. It seemed that he just wanted to shoot the guy dead in front of the other wounded. It was not like the building was stormed and they were caught up in 'the fog of war'.

I also seen the video of a guy getting beheaded (from the link at the top) and it was the most disgusting thing that I have ever seen. I hope I never have to see anything like that again. As far as I am concerned the rapists and abusers are just as evil as the militants that think its ok to kidnap people and execute them.

 

I wouldn't say it is a question wether the guy was wearing a uniform or not - slowly: S-h-o-o-t-i-n-g u-n-a-r-m-e-d w-o-u-n-d-e-d p-e-r-s-o-n-s i-s w-r-o-n-g. This was cold blooded murder.

And sadly, that is unsurprising considering how the administration hawks look at the Iraq insurgency. They fight a war of attrittion in Fallujah, America's preferred way of war.
In Fallujah it is no more about hearts and minds, it is only about minds. With that I mean the Pentagon politicos are applying "shock and awe" again. The message of Fallujah is: Submit or die.

With that in mind, the murder of that wounded Iraqi is not surprising, it is a logical consequence of the neo-con idea of counter-insurgency. You can expect more of that.

From their point of view that Marine made everything right - except for getting filmed.

The neo-con armchair generals think when they have killed all the evil insurgents (whose number they seem to consider static) and terrorised the Iraqi people to sufficiently fear the US, then miraculously calm and peace will descend on the graveyard they made of Iraq and the Iraqis will suddenly realise that they love the US, get devoted to democracy - and become anti-French and republican. Or so.

As I see it, the flattening of Grozny a couple of years ago didn't exactly solve Russia's problem in Chechnya.

Whoever is in Fallujah is considered a suspect insurgent. In Fallujah the US are on a penal expedition and deal out collective punishment.
It probably won't work, but maybe the slaughter buys them a period of relative calm (while the insurgents re-organise) till after the election in Iraq - and then we have a political success for George Bush! Well, sort-of, but we can spin that away just like the number of civillian casualties, can't we?

 

Interesting arguement, but I cannot agree with a couple of the premises you use. First, no sane or reasonable person would ever believe killing an unarmed man is acceptable -- that includes politicians and military. Second, no one believes all the insurgents were eliminated (I've never met an armchair General). In fact, the allied leaders believe most escaped Fallujah. Putting the terrorists on the run hinders their ability to plan and carry out attacks.

 

You got me wrong. I do think and I think I did stress that the murder of an unarmed civilian IS unacceptable.

As for sane persons and the neo-con think on counterinsurgency:

Clearer than the rest of the right-leaning punditocracy, (I mean the Krauthammers, Safires, Boots ..) commentator and columnist Ralph Peters IMO summarised it best in his aptly titled article where he jubilates: Bush has won! The time is now: SEND THE MARINES IN TO DESTROY FALLUJAH!!! (I've never thought of Fallujah as an election party) - more detailed:

Hmm, as I see it's the Iraqis who will pay the price for his so much desired show of force, not so much the US - so it is somewhat brazen to generously say that ... unsurprising, the man writes for Murdoch's New York Post and appears on FOX O'Reilly Factor, another Murdoch outlet.

[ November 18, 2004, 19:22: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Your first line is not addressing anything I said -- I have not questioned your ability to think. Nor have I questioned how offended you were by the killing (that was obvious, I'm also offended by the killing).

Finding an opinion and classifying it as doctrine for conservatives (even neo-conservatives) is blatently unfair. One opinion does not reflect policy.

Did you even read the article or did you just read the portions you thought were the most offensive to you? He states quite clearly that rules of warfare must be followed (even though they are not followed by the enemy). That seems to poke a hole more in your arguements than mine.

 

BOC

This assumes he is under the control of the US. However until he is confirmed to be disarmed he is not under control, and given the fact that the insurgents have booby-trapped themselves and hidden weapons upon their person only to pull them out and use them even though they are committing suicide, determination of incapacitation becomes problematic.

The Geneva Convention was not written with these circumstances in mind. IMO it was assumed that under the control meant surrendered or incapacitated, and these people often times choose not to surrender and fake their incapacitation. If the soldier believed that the insurgent was faking his death the shooting would be reasonable in this circumstance. If the insurgents weren't making suicide attacks after faking their death or incapacitation, it would be outrageous.

 

Darkwolf why do you want to make me to post the entire text of the conventions and the protocols in this thread? A man laying down wounded and surrounded by three or four marines is under the control of US. If, however, we accept that he isn't under the control of US, he is still considered to be hors de combat and therefore protected by the conventions and the protocols. According to Article 41 paragraphs 1 and 2:

You have watched the video. Have you seen this man trying to escape or trying to attack the marines? The fact that this marine was afraid to confirm that the guerilla was incapicated and prefered to be safe than sorry, as Pac Man put it, is understandable but is still a war crime acording to the conventions and the protocols.

Also, the Geneva conventions were written with these circumstaces in mind since they were written after the war with the most urban warfare in military history and situations like this were happening all the time.