Skip to comments.
FIRST HAND REPORT; MARINE UNDER INVESTIGATION
Posted on 11/17/2004 5:28:42 PM PST by lt.america
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-175 last
To: Shannon
To: TexasTaysor
Here is what I would like to know...what was the mission of this unit? Were these men and women not told to go in there and kill insurgents (God I hate to use that word...they are terrorists!) or were they told to go in there and wound them and bring their poor pitiful bodies out to a medic???? I think the mission was kill! Sorry to those who disagree, but the Marines are over their saving my a$$ every second of every day and I am one damn glad and proud American!
My support is with this soldier and his family and his buddies 100 million percent!!!
162
posted on
11/18/2004 5:19:31 AM PST
by
4everontheRight
( "I'm learning to dread one day at a time" --- Charlie Brown)
To: 4everontheRight
I totally agree with you. My understanding is that another group of Marines had been there the day before and did the fighting, this group was there to "mop up", I take that to mean to clean up that area. When they entered the building this was what they found. I would guess they expected to find only dead there but to look for others who may have moved back in over night. What I don't understand was why any wounded were left there, but if Marines weren't close behind to move out the wounded the first fighting group can't take time to do that. Do we leave wounded terrorists behind to just die, or other terrorists to get them to maybe heal and fight another day, or do we send troops in to somehow "Mop up" and what exactly does that mean?
To: TexasTaysor
"do we send troops in to somehow "Mop up" and what exactly does that mean?..........
Good question. To me, that means take out the trash!
I am not in this Marines boots nor the boots of his command so I do not second guess them in any way. I think they know what they are doing. 99% of us would have probably done the same as this Marine did. It is a lot easier for the Old Media to second guess this guy then acknowledge the fact that he more then likely saved not just the lives of other soldiers but the lives of their embedded reporters!
164
posted on
11/18/2004 5:35:16 AM PST
by
4everontheRight
( "I'm learning to dread one day at a time" --- Charlie Brown)
To: 4everontheRight
165
posted on
11/18/2004 6:35:14 AM PST
by
hobson
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
Marine Hero ~ Bump!
Semper Fi!
166
posted on
11/18/2004 6:54:25 AM PST
by
blackie
(Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
167
posted on
11/18/2004 8:11:48 AM PST
by
windchime
(Won't it be great watching President Bush spend political capital?)
To: windchime
168
posted on
11/18/2004 8:13:56 AM PST
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
To: lt.america
169
posted on
11/18/2004 11:56:32 AM PST
by
Mr. Silverback
(I used to be a lumberjack, but I just couldn't hack it. They gave me the axe.)
To: lt.america
Thanks for this post. I will make it more readable when I send it on to everybody. After reading it I am even angrier than I was when I first heard the MSM's story. I knew in my heart that young Marine had made a good judgement call. I sincerely hope and pray that he is heard my an impartial board and then given a medal for doing his duty. And may that embed have nightmares and bad luck the rest of his days.
To: lt.america
It is to bad the reporter did not thank the Marines who's care he is in. Their bravery and training are keeping him alive, yet, he sends unexplained images out to the world.
This is so sad; It is the reporter's freedom that is at stake, as well as our own.
To: lt.america
172
posted on
11/19/2004 1:09:46 AM PST
by
FBD
(U.S. Marines: travel agents to the 72 virgins)
To: FBD
173
posted on
11/19/2004 2:54:18 AM PST
by
yoe
To: huac
The "prisoners" were left unattended for a period of time.
I have seen theses insurgents described as prisoners in several posts on several threads.
Please freepers, stop referring to these people as prisoners. They were not prisoners of war. They were wounded insurgents.
Please also stop citing the Geneva Convention. "Geneva Convention rules only apply to nonsignatory parties if they observe them themselves.
We are not bound by the GC in this conflict. Any rules of engagement we choose can be applied - for example, as the terrorists have been caught driving Red Cross ambulances to ferry troops and munitions, we can destroy them when we see fit. The same applies to Mosques, schools, hospitals. We do not have to respect truce or surrender as the terrorists have used the same to ambush our troops. Nor do we have to care for the wounded or dead as both have been misused by the terrorists.
The Geneva Conventions are not a suicide pact. At this point, the only laws that constrain us are our own."
(Note: from a posting on another thread.)
174
posted on
11/19/2004 3:04:17 AM PST
by
Beckwith
(John Kerry is now a kept man . . .)
To: Beckwith
I agree. Hence, the quotes. I'd take it a step further. Insurgents? How about terrorists?
175
posted on
11/19/2004 3:06:50 PM PST
by
huac
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-175 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson