It has always been drilled into every Marine that if you are attacked by some one that means to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force, that means you can kill them to prevent them from killing you.
and it doesn't matter if a single gunshot was ever fired back at the Marines after the IED went off, they had the right and duty to attack those that attacked them using deadly force.
Sounds kinda harsh doesn't it? Our Troops are fighting an enemy that refuses to wear uniforms, hides among the civilian populace, strikes at them from inside the homes of innocent iraqis and then runs away, and yet you worry about the legality of our actions.
When is it illegal for a Marine to fight back to prevent himself or other members of his unit from being killed during an attack on them?
Never.
This is the 13y/o girl that woke up when the bomb went off right? If you believe the part of the story you posted, why don't you believe the rest of "her" story? BTW, the Marines determined the houses contained no arms, not was there a connection to the bomb found.
"It has always been drilled into every Marine that if you are attacked by some one that means to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force,"
Got a scenario where these family members posed a threat?
"it doesn't matter if a single gunshot was ever fired back at the Marines after the IED went off, they had the right and duty to attack those that attacked them using deadly force."
I see apparently shooting up the neighborhood is justified.
When is it illegal for a Marine to fight back to prevent himself or other members of his unit from being killed during an attack on them?
When it goes beyond the parameters you described, which the guy I was responding to indicated was perfectly OK.
If you really want the Marines to be as bad as Saddam's thugs with no adverse consequences, then you'd best be ready to have yourself a fun and excitingly short life when they get out and become cops in your hometown.
"I read it, so what?
A Marine was killed by that IED and the source of that attack was determined to be inside those two buildings nearby.
A survivor of the Marine attack has stated that she knew the IED was there and when to cover her ears when it went off.
It has always been drilled into every Marine that if you are attacked by some one that means to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force, that means you can kill them to prevent them from killing you.
and it doesn't matter if a single gunshot was ever fired back at the Marines after the IED went off, they had the right and duty to attack those that attacked them using deadly force.
Sounds kinda harsh doesn't it? Our Troops are fighting an enemy that refuses to wear uniforms, hides among the civilian populace, strikes at them from inside the homes of innocent iraqis and then runs away, and yet you worry about the legality of our actions.
When is it illegal for a Marine to fight back to prevent himself or other members of his unit from being killed during an attack on them?
Never."
So you are saying that it is possible that the Marines knew that the IED was triggered from one of these two houses, and based on this reliable knowledge, they went into these two houses and killed everybody inside, and this is justifiable? This is stretching it, to say the least. Even granting every hypothetical assumption, a single IED would not be triggered by people two houses, just one. So on that basis alone, an attack of this nature wouldn't even theoretically be justified.