Posted on 11/16/2004 4:34:34 AM PST by Atlanta
That's quite a conclusion. You must be a mind-reader. You are assuming that he knew that this current group of Marines didn't know the situation in the mosque and that he also knew how the Marines would react. Sites must be an evil genius.
PLUS, if he thought a war crime was in the process of taking place, HE should have intervened, NOT stood there to record it on film, then LATER posture how UNFORTUNATE it was!!
The shooting took about two seconds. Even if he had lightning-fast reflexes, what do you propose that he should have done to stop a battle-hardened, armed Marine?
He needs to be charged.
With what?
You equate a guy who films an event with Nazis marching Jews off to death camps? I invoke Goodwin's Rule- whoever invokes Hitler in an internet discussion loses.
Your a friggen idiot and I am sick if idiots like you armchair quarterbacking our Boys. This reporter is a known military hater and leftist.
You do know that FR rules forbid personal attacks, dont't you? You've been here less than two months, so you might want to read up on the rules before you get zotted.
Releasing this video is aiding the enemy inspiring them to fight on pure and simple especially in light of the fact this scum reporter has not released one report of any acts of heroism proving he has an anti-American military agenda. That is treason!
Nonsense. Go look up the requirements for convicting somebody of treason. They're in the Constitution. I can assure you that they do not consist of "Releasing a video that some FR Newbie doesn't like."
Go back to DU scum where you belong!
I've been here quite a bit longer than you. With your love of personal attacks, trust me, I'll be here well after I've been zotted. But please, feel free to go complain to the Moderators.
I heard the part of "these are the wounded who were left behind" quite clearly. I didn't interpret it as "whispering into the mike," personally, but I will listen to it again with that interpretation in mind. I had taken it that the Marines had just not listened to the cameraman.
This goes to my other point, which is, why should our forces have to rely on an embedded reporter to tell them that information? Why were these wounded not evacuated earlier? I think we just don't know enough about why this Marine didn't have enough information to make a proper response to the situation (since as you point out, after the shooting, I don't think that even his officer thought what he'd done was a "good thing"tm).
Because there were Marines in there already who had already shot wounded who had been previously captured!:
Sites was present when a lieutenant from one of the units asked a Marine what had happened inside the mosque. The Marine replied that there were people inside.I think many people are missing something...look at what happened...
“Did you shoot them?” the lieutenant asked.
“Roger that, sir,” the second Marine replied.
“Were they armed?” the lieutenant asked.
The second Marine shrugged in reply.
Sites saw the five wounded men left behind on Friday still in the mosque. Four of them had been shot again, apparently by members of the squad that entered the mosque moments earlier. One appeared to be dead, and the three others were severely wounded. The fifth man was lying under a blanket, apparently not having been shot a second time.
Speculation: Is it that these wounded prisoners were encountered by the Marines entering the mosque on Saturday figured they'd already surrendered (so there was no need to surrender again), while the Marines thought they were active combatants and shot them again? That seems likely.
I hope the investigation clears things up and that we make a reasonable response, admitting a mistake if we made one, and not just giving excuses or justifications. There are questions beyond this Marine, who was likely acting on incorrect information.
You persist in calling them wounded prisoners. They were not. They had not been taken into custody. Their names had not been noted on any report. They had not been reported to the MPs for prisoner collection. They had only been disarmed and treated for wounds. That does NOT make them prisoners.
While you persist in repeating lies, the troops are still out there dying so you can sit behind your computer screen spouting propaganda. Which are you: Sites or Moore?
Trying to make FReepers look bad, eh? Well, sorry...we're not all ad hominem strawman-builders like you. :-)
Yawn. Then go ahead and report me to the Mods, if you think I'm a DU sleeper.
You claim that this was just an innocent video and your failure to acknowledge the context and obvious setup and agenda by the reporter outs you quit easily. As I said go back to DU scum!
This video is what it is. Whatever the agenda of the reporter, all he did was record events as they happened.
I won't sit back anymore and let scum like you and the leftist media castigate heroic Marines doing their job and duty in tough circumstances!
Nobody is castigating the Marines. All that is happening is that a video is being shown of events as they happened. Like I said, if you really think this Marine did nothing wrong, you should not be objecting to this video.
And your the only one here threatening with moderators which is typical of liberal bed wetters.
If I hit the abuse button, I could have several of your post pulled. I prefer to leave them as they are, so people can see just how juvenile a debater you are.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Sigh. I was wondering when you would get to that. To save you the trouble of doing research- aid and comfort applies to material aid or sheltering the enemy, not reporting on something that may have a negative impact on the war effort.
Try again.
and ignore that the definition encompasses ANYTHING that gives aid to the enemy
Sigh. No, it doesn't.
From the reports I have read, and from the video, it certainly seems they were taken into custody or at least disarmed and under the power of the Marines. At the end of the video clip, it sounds to me as if the Marine is being told that these were not targets to be shot, and that is clearly stated before the shooting we see.
They had only been disarmed and treated for wounds.
At least you're admitting that they had been disarmed. (Personally, I believe the Marine doing the shooting didn't know that for sure.)
All depends on definitions. Detainee, POW, etc. Heck, the Geneva Conventions don't designate MIA/Captured, but we use it. And as far as what the Protocols define, it would seem that "...from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation." gives us some guidance. But that's all semantics and a strawman... It's also not "in accordance with the laws and customs of war" to blow away wounded and disarmed persons whom you have treated for wounds, nor to just hold them without processing and then shoot them, even if you don't call them "prisoners."
I despise Moore, and I know little about Sites, but I am an American who believes in acting honorably, protecting our liberties and rights, not making excuses for errors, winning this war both militarily AND politically, etc.
"Why were these wounded not evacuated earlier? " etc. . .
When I first heard of this incident, I thought that the Marines were aware of the fact that a previous squad had cleared the bldg. and treated and disarmed the wounded. Sites was present at that time. So he knew that -- As he made clear in his recording.
It would seem that status information would come from the other Marines, not a reporter. BUT the fact is, that the reporter HAD that information BECAUSE he had been with that other squad -- NOT information he received independently, from an unnamed source, etc. So he had a duty to pass on information, if he could.
I assume that, if indeed this second squad did not know as it now seems, it was because: first, the medics would have been informed about evac'ing the wounded, not another squad. Otherwise, chaos and tempo of the battle. That is understantable.
When Sites spoke into the recorder, "these are the wounded left behind", it was an aside, to the camera/recorder. He was not addressing it to the Marines. I don't see that they heard that at all. He was right next to the mike. He did not have to speak up to get it on the tape. The other guys were shouting. He did NOT shout that information to THEM: "hey those are the wounded xxx's squad treated yest!"
The time for him to have told them, was before they entered the building, not knowing what to expect inside. By the tactics you heard on the early part of the tape (the complete one Hannity played, not the part on TV), it sounds as if the Marines had no knowledge of what to expect in the building. Yet Sites let them go on, without telling them that wounded might be encountered.
Alright, could we allow that he didn't know that they didn't know? Possibly. But you read his other statement, about how his violation of the comradeship with the unit hosting him may seem like betrayal, but that cannot prevent him from questioning the authority of those who run the war, and the way the soldiers on the ground have to deal with it . . . and you see a guy with an agenda to capitalize on a situation just such as this . . . who may have the mentailty that it is ethical to withhold contextual battlefield information from the Marines, and to stand back and allow this to happen so that he could film it.
IOW -- the DRAMA of the scene is BECAUSE HE KNEW these were wounded and unarmed AND STATED SO ON THE TAPE BEFORE THE MARINE SHOT. It is THIS contemporaneous statement on the tape which makes it seem as if the Marine knowingly shot a wounded man. Try to remember the FIRST time you heard the tape, and see if the implication is not that the Marine also knew he was shooting a wounded who had been left behind by the other squad?
If Sites had been uninformed, HE ALSO would not have known the likely condition of the men encountered on the floor, and could not have played it up as a possibly criminal shooting of unarmed wounded TO BEGIN WITH.
SO his (Sites') knowledge about them being wounded left-behind is the KEY to the tape's DRAMA: US Marine killing unarmed wounded man. I.E. it would not be a STORY otherwise: if he and the Marines happened upon a bunch of guys on the floor with NO ONE having any idea of what was going to happen, he could not have said that on the tape, and that statement is WHAT sets the scene for the implication. Intended or unintended.
Just a Pulizer Prize coincidence? You tell me . . .
BTW I am basing this on Hannity's tape, which I heard only once. I haven't been able to get it to play online. If you have seen a complete transcript of the whole thing, which Hannity played, I would love to read that, in light of this theory.
The "others" did not ever come, and the terrorists started killing Coalition Forces again from the mosque the next day.
So this was a new situation with people inside shooting at Marines and other forces on our side.
Soon after this in the same offensive another Marine WAS KILLED by a guy that was playing possum (and) jumped up and shot him; a quote from the Murdered Marine's Father.
Sites and the MSM are RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY MARINE OR SOLDIER THAT IS KILLED BY A FAKING DEAD TERRORIST IN IRAQ now that they have supported the terrorists (their isurgents-freedomfighters-comrades.)
"You are assuming that he knew that this current group of Marines didn't know the situation in the mosque and that he also knew how the Marines would react. "
See my recent post also.
Yes I am "assuming" it, but it is a rational possibility based upon the complete tape that Hannity played yest. -- in combination with what Sites has said before and after.
I would like to see a transcript and timeline. It is possible that he was as flumoxed as the Marine . . .
However, he should be investigated.
That is what I meant by "charged." When you contemplate charging someone with something, you investigate to see what specific charges, if any, are warranted. The Marine is being investigated. Sites should be, too. Maybe he will be in the context of that investigation. Do not know.
That is one reason I posted this. Tin foil hat in place. To get reactions about this.
"Charge with what?"
Well: HE knew that these were possibly disarmed wounded. He may have been the only one who knew that. Yet, he did nothing to stop it.
Look at the indignation in the world wide reaction to this film. It is all predicated on what the MARINE did. But he was right there, WITH more knowledge. Could it not be inferred that HE had information which could have saved the life of that terrorist on the ground? Shouldn't HE be considered as being an active or passive agent in the chain of events which led to that guy's demise?
IOW: look at the PR aspect of it. If the Marine is being "blamed", shouldn't Sites share in the "blame"?
Let the international press -- or at least the honest domestic ones -- give HIM and HIS motives the going over?
At the very least, he should be "charged" by the Marines with endangering the lives of Marines and wounded terrorists, by not sharing important battlefield information that he had privy to by virtue of his position as an embedded. I.E. investigated, and certainly not ever allowed in a position to endanger anyone's life in the future, friend or foe.
IMO ;) Subject to further information on time-line, etc.
"this Marine, who was likely acting on incorrect information."
Roger that. My take, anyway.
You must be a mind-reader. Seeing as this reporter was along for the ride, following different squads around, how exactly would he have orchestrated what happened here?
The line; if the Marine did nothing wrong they they need not worry is BS because the reporter has an agenda to harm and obstruct our military that is not objective innocent reporting as you scum try to make it out to be
That still doesn't change the fact that if the Marine's actions were justified, he'll be cleared.
Oh and only an idiot judges a person by how long they have been on a BBS...
No, I'm judging you by the fact tha you are unable to follow FR's posting rules. To whit:
NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
I see a zot in your future.
"So this was a new situation "
BUT the squad did not know there could be wounded there, and Sites did, which is the statement on his tape which sets the stage for the impact which the tape makes. . .
Again, we would have to see an integrated time-line of the whole encounter.
Gee, some poor Major is prob. going to be the Article 32 investigating officer on all this. I would like to see the entire pkt containing the conclusions and recommendations . . . too, too soon, though.
I disagree with you. Further I question if you have ever been is such a situation. This soldier was in the fray, not you, the reporter was biased, and has a history of bias. Example after example of enemy tactics have been drilled into these guys, the warfare books we have gotten our hands on for the taliban, the Al Zawquari groups and the Al Sadr groups clearly define this as a tactic. To question a soldier while on assignment or patrol is shortsighted unless you have first hand experience, or you were there in the group. Shame on you.
Looks like I was right. If you've just been suspended and not zotted, maybe you'll learn something from this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.