Replies

Shrapnel is easily explained (I've posted this several times) if the Marines threw a grenade in the kitchen upon entering under fire, it explodes the propane tank in the kitchen (and therefore consititues the definition of an IED, which means they DIDN'T lie) then return fire or the insurgents had already killed the Iraqis.

The bullet hole shown in the video on the little boy's back has already been commented on that it could very well NOT cause paralysis, by several vets. However, something that's been mulling in my mind is ...where was the exit wound, and didn't it sure look more like a cigarette burn.

The bullet hole shown in the video on the little boy's back has already been commented on that it could very well NOT cause paralysis, by several vets.

I'm not questioning this in a hostile way, but I'd really be interested in seeing these comments so that I can evaluate them. I was an EMT and drove ambulances for a living in and around NY City in the mid 70s. I also have extensive knowledge of this topic from my involvement with my friend (the brother of my brother's first wife, who are both still members of our family) and his injuries and I want to know how this would be possible.

This injury clearly looked to be in the C5 to T1 region, which is described in the literature as:

C5 to T1. These dermatomes are all situated in the arms. C5 covers the lateral arm at and above the elbow. C6 covers the forearm and the radial (thumb) side of the hand. C7 is the middle finger, C8 is the lateral aspects of the hand, and T1 covers the medial side of the forearm.

So if my view of the location of the "bullet wound" is accurate this kid would be a quad, at best. I agree with your assessment, this looks more like a burn than a bullet wound and the exit wound question just cannot be ignored. If he'd been shot in the back within the confines of a room within a house by a US Marine carrying an M16 variant at the site indicated there would be not only the entry wound shown in the video but an exit wound in the front of the chest and one very dead child.

Now, a ricochet or some other indirect injury is something else, but that gets back to the description of the incident by these "witnesses" and the total lack of evidence of bullet holes on the exterior of the structures in question.

The "evidence" doesn't pass the smell test.

Opps, sorry did not see the person Phsstpok was quoting when I responded. I see you made the original statement. I see you have a personal interest in this story.

They can "What if this" to death. It does not change the basic point.

Even if one of the "What If's" being thrown is true, the story being sold by "Iraqi Civil Rights" group is still prove a lie.

Remember, the accusation is a deliberate shot by a Marine in the same room as the child. Deliberate, point blank aimed shot. Since the sole source for the accusations against the Marines is this "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" who made this video for CNN, and the physical evidence presented contradicts their claims of how the supposed wound occurred, ALL their "Evidence" is tainted. They are proven to be liars. The direct, deliberate aimed shot they claim "wounded" this child could not of happened. If they are lying about this, what else are they lying about? Their ties to the terrorists who detonated the IED and killed a Marine maybe?