U.S. MARINES RALLY ROUND IRAQ PROBE COMRADE

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Marines rallied round a comrade under investigation for killing a wounded Iraqi during the offensive in Falluja, saying he was probably under combat stress in unpredictable, hair-trigger circumstances.

Marines interviewed on Tuesday said they didn't see the shooting as a scandal, rather the act of a comrade who faced intense pressure during the effort to quell the insurgency in the city.

"I can see why he would do it. He was probably running around being shot at for days on end in Falluja. There should be an investigation but they should look into the circumstances," said Lance Corporal Christopher Hanson.

"I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong."

The military command launched an investigation after video footage showed a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded and unarmed man in a mosque in the city on Saturday. The man was one of five wounded and left in the mosque after Marines fought their way through the area.

A pool report by NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the mosque had been used by insurgents to attack U.S. forces, who stormed it, killing 10 militants and wounding the five. Sites said the wounded had been left for others to pick up.

A second group of Marines entered the mosque on Saturday after reports it had been reoccupied. Footage from the embedded television crew showed the five still in the mosque, although several appeared to be close to death, Sites said.

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's fucking faking he's dead."

NBC said the Marine, who had reportedly been shot in the face himself the previous day, said immediately after the shooting: "Well, he's dead now."

The Marine commander in Falluja, Lieutenant General John Sattler, said his men followed the law of conflict and held themselves to a high standard of accountability.

"The facts of this case will be thoroughly pursued to make an informed decision and to protect the rights of all persons involved," he said.

Marines have repeatedly described the rebels they fought against in Falluja as ruthless fighters who didn't play by the rules. They say the investigation is politically motivated.

"It's all political. This Marine has been under attack for days. It has nothing to do with what he did," said Corporal Keith Hoy, 23.

Rights group Amnesty International said on Monday both sides in the Falluja fighting had broken the rules of war governing the protection of civilians and wounded combatants.

Gunnery Sergeant Christopher Garza, 30, favored an investigation but like other Marines said the Pentagon should weigh its decision carefully.

"He should have captured him. Maybe the insurgent had some valuable information. There may have been mitigating circumstances. Maybe his two buddies died in Falluja," he said.

Sites said: "I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least."

The U.S. military has been embarrassed by scandals in Iraq, most prominently the Abu Ghraib affair in which at least eight U.S. soldiers have been tried or face courts-martial over the abuse of prisoners at the jail outside Baghdad.

There have also been several cases in which soldiers have been charged with wrongfully killing Iraqis during operations.

Beating aside. . this reporter has been trying to "get
something" on the American troops all along; after all, the
military is EVIL, you know. .

When some of these "reporters" find themselves facing a
beheading at the hands of these "insurgents", they will be
happy to see the Marines crashing in the building guns
a blazing. Of course, the Marines have to wet nurse
these "enbedded reporters", so there's no chance they're
going to be captured. They hide behind the camoflage
skirts of the troops, and when the booby trapped
"insurgents" bodies blow up, they're well in the background
where they can film, but not be blown to bits.

This was all I could salvage from your post that didn't cause my stomach to churn, and I had to take it out of context to find anything palatable. If you and SittinYonder want to remain objective about the MSM, that's your right, but don't expect loyal Americans to sit passively and listen to your blue state bilge.

*Shrug*

Believe whatever you want. Given the fact that your MO appears to be nothing more than hurling insults, my guess is that you simply have no logical stance of your own. I guess liberals aren't the only ones driven solely by their feelings. If you'd like to discuss this with the rest of us adults, feel free to change your tactics and I'll be happy to reply.

SittinYonder said:
>>>My slant on this, if you've read my posts, is this: The Marine did nothing wrong, therefore, the reporter did nothing wrong. I've yet to see anywhere that the reporter made any accusation at all. <<<

the reporter doesn't need to make accusations - his video does that for him. i was to his web site before this incident ever happened.. about day 2 of Operation Phantom Fury, and what i read and saw there gave me great unease. Sikes seems pretty siked over Sikes. you (or your fellow poster with the same last name) said Sikes even seemed to show too much sympathy towards the terrorists. if that ain't a warning bell i don't know what is. how can someone travel, eat, sleep, watch the agony and heroism of our Marines in battle and still have one ounce of any sympathy for their enemies? by Sikes' web site, he is no green horn, he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he turned that video over to the AP - not even NBC who he works for. he knew the can of worms he was opening - he knew the pre-judgment the anti-military old media would heap upon the head of this Marine. you can give him the benifit of the doubt all you want - i don't. he is no young inocent fool.

>>>I've simply asked, repeatedly, for someone to show me some evidence that he did because I keep seeing posts where people are calling for him to be killed or beaten. Now, a couple of you have turned your (as yet unfounded) venom for this reporter on me rather than just answering my question. If I'm wrong, if the reporter did something wrong, I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong. I just want to see some evidence that supports the theory that the reporter is somehow at fault.<<

sorry - i don't have any "evidence". just that sinking feeling i had when i first visited his site before this incedent, and last night when i first saw this tape reported on ABC. you do know how gleefully this was latched unto by the old media right? and you mean to justify or defend Sikes in this - his behaviour... his responsibility? he got what he wanted - his name is now a house-hold word. that he got that at the expence of a Marine who was doing his job with this camera toting idiot tripping up his heals is shameful. shameful. that you can't put all that together on your own without this "evidence" you keep clamouring for is just ..... pathetic.

remember - a lot of Americans still think the Viet Cong won the Tet Battle - because some self-serving reporter named Walter Cronkite wanted to make a name for himself.. at the expense of our Military. stop being naive.

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.