Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: GovernmentShrinker
"No I wasn't, but the Marine commander that was there agreed that he was a wounded prisoner, and everyone who was there seems clear on the point that he was not booby-trapped."

And we also know that Saddam did not have nukes...but we only know that because we invaded Iraq.

The man who did the shooting saw a terrorist move, and had a split second to make a decision.

War sucks, but we didn't start it.

64 posted on 11/17/2004 4:41:42 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez

I agree with you whole-heartedly. How could the Marine possibly know what that terrorist might have been hiding under his robes? Especially given the circumstances (knowing that in other instances, terrorists has posed as wounded in order to lure soldiers forward only to kill them). He made the correct, split second decision.

Here is something I am borrowing from another website that I found extremely interesting and also very accurate. It's long, so bear with me:

How would the D-Day Invasion be Reported today?

This is what you would hear if Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw reported on D-Day at Normandy.

June 6, 1944. - NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to big beer," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon, a so-called "atomic bomb."

Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion and French officials are concerned that uncollected corpses pose a public health risk.

"The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess and we don't intend to clean it up.


65 posted on 11/17/2004 4:49:18 PM PST by serpentineshel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez

I fully support the Marine. I just don't think that requires vilifying the reporter, who has not publicly contradicted the Marine's version of events or of his reasonable beliefs at the time (and in fact has publicly said he can understand how the Marine could have reasonably believed that the man posed a threat, under the circumstances). Personally, I find that my understanding of the very difficult situation our troops are facing has been enhanced by this video and the information and discussion surrounding it. It's not clear that this wasn't the reporter's intention.


72 posted on 11/17/2004 6:09:05 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson