See. This journalist gets it. Use military combat correspondents, not embeds. If the miltary doiesn't have enough to go around ,take 30 minutes and train a grunt to use the camera. Journalism simply isn't that hard. Look at who does it and ask yourself if you'd trust those goobers to do even a brake job right.
Just found this, and how very true!
Why marines shoot "dead" people
You won't see video of this played over and over again in the MSM:
In Fallujah, where U.S. Marines and soldiers are still battling pockets of resistance, insurgents waved a white flag of surrender before opening fire on U.S. troops and causing casualties, Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert said Saturday without elaborating.
Or this:
U.S. troops in the northern city of Mosul found the bodies of nine Iraqi soldiers Saturday, all shot in the back of the head. Seven of them were also decapitated, Lt. Col. Paul Hastings said. American and Iraqi forces detained 30 suspected guerrillas overnight in Mosul, the U.S. military said.
(Both quotes from this story.)
a defenceless, wounded man
Excuse me? This was a terrorist and needed to be shot, wounded or unarmed. That Marine just helped him on his way to his 72 virgins
He gets it.
excellent article.
If they are supposed to be dead, make sure they are dead.
I don't know whether this footage was vetted; if it was, then the commander who authorised it is an utter fool, and if it wasn't, then the cameraman responsible should congratulate himself on handing such a propaganda coup to the enemy.
And THIS is what we are facing. The maindream media are attempting to (with some success) tear down our own military, and in so doing, are aiding and abetting the enemy. They will lose in the long run, but in the process, they will inflict much pain on our Nation.
"It is simply fatuous to sit in high moral judgment on the split-second decision-making of some 20-year-old in the middle of such combat."
This is true, but these 20-year-old US Marines are showing a hell of a lot more restraint than 50-year-olds (like me) would. Once one hits middle age one becomes more risk averse ... I don't think there would be very many prisoners at all if the Marines were comprised of middle-aged men.
A double tap to the torso followed by a still head shot is far more humane than a live beheading with a butcher knife, which is how the terrorist prefer to process their prisoners. The terrorists need killing, and want to die anyway.
These 20-year-old Marines are men to be admired for their remarkable self-restraint and willingness to take prisoners.
Great article. The question is indeed what an independent camera was doing in that spot.The conceit of the Geneva Convention is that both sides have reason to abide by its terms for the benefit of its own people. But false surrender and the use of human shields are done not to help fellow humans get better treatment but to practice on the humanity of the other side and to prevent the other side from exercising that humanity freely.
Anyone who condemns the Marine in this case must have already been on record as condemning the use of mosques and hospitals and schools as military positions, and of the use of human shields and false surrenders. Those who have no voice to condemn egregious violations of the Geneva accords by one side have no standing to criticize people who, being on the receiving end of such barbarism, do not trouble overmuch with what the Geneva conventions would require if in fact they were in force.
I hope the president stands up to this issue, and calls out any who claim the accords bind one side only for the slanderers they are.
ping
The first article I've read questioning the idea of putting photo "journalists" with the troops. This is NOT WWII! Journalists don't give a damn about the troops...Only the "story". They aren't Americans first...They just whine about showing a "truth" devoid of significant context. The pentagon needs to UN-en-bed these dangerous creeps.
perspective bump