Posted on 11/17/2004 3:54:24 AM PST by notkerry
A WOUNDED US soldier seen on TV shooting dead an Iraqi prisoner was defended last night by SAS hero Andy McNab.
The US marine — shot in the cheek earlier — machine-gunned the man in the head as he lay bleeding in a mosque in Fallujah.
The soldier feared the Iraqi was pretending to be dead to draw him into a trap.
Just before the killing, a fellow GI yells: “He’s f***ing faking he’s dead!”
Walking away ... victim is obscured by fellow captive after burst of gunfire
The marine faces a murder probe.
But McNab — who has stared death in the face — said: “It’s easy for people sitting comfortably in their armchairs in front of the TV to take the moral high ground.
“They are not there in Fallujah, in that killing environment.
“We don’t know what is going through that marine’s head. The Iraqi could have been hiding a weapon or explosives.
Grisly ... the shot prisoner - on the left - lies dead in Fallujah mosque
“Troops are fighting an enemy that doesn’t stick to any rules.
“The insurgents use mosques to launch attacks. They come out under cover of a white flag, then attack the Americans. They plant booby-trap bombs on dead bodies.
“Every soldier has a right to defend himself, and if that is a grey area — then so be it.”
You're using common sense. That is intensely disliked around here.
Myself, I don't understand why they're so hopped up about it. If the marine did nothing wrong as they say (and that's possible since the investigation isn't done yet) then why are they so mad that the reporter filmed it?
Of course the administration's idea in embedding reporters is the hope to co-opt them. In real life that's just not going to work because in a war zone things tend to happen too fast.
President Bush and our generals need to come out and tell the whiners to shut the he!! up. If these terrorists don't want to be shot under these conditions, then they need to obey the rules of war. It is that simple.
Yes, take tomorrow, November 18, 2004, for instance. On November 18, 2004, the MSM will fawn and get weak-kneed over the dedication of presidential library for a man whose administration murdered 80-some American citizens. They worship this man so much that they will endlessly jabber about his greatness and the astounding reservoir of love that the public has for him. They'll stop during the festivities to point out his former attorney general, the person who directly ordered the murder of those 80-some American citizens, characterizing her as a model of integrity. Then they will resume their worship at the altar of Clinton.
And amidst their revelry, they'll once again impugn and indict a man for bravely fighting against evil to defend himself and us.
They are a disgusting, sorry lot.
I would have liked to get into an intelligent discussion with you about this but apparently you not capable.
Okay, you are right about his turning over the authorities. However, the Bush admin. did let these guys out there. I am not blaming Bush for the actions of the marine. If Sites wasn't there this would never have become an issue.
Another rabid Ohioan who is incapable of having a discussion about this issue.
We brought her up right!
I dont know what kind of Chemist you are but indeed you are a geek
"Thats a good concept -but IMHO the phrase not catchy enough..."
Webster's latest addition?
" To Pull a Kerry "-
How about a "Special K" -I heard that during the campaign...
I've not been able to follow this story closely. Do you have a couple, or at least one good story that details the fact that the two prone men were not yet prisoners? I'd sure appreciate it. Thanks.
All of this would be moot if Bush said that he would grant a pardon of any prosecution against the soldier.
I think you can count on that from here on out.
It's fine to disagree with the whole situation of having reporters there. But by blaming the Bush administration for this renegade, you have confused two separate issues, and your conclusion is therefore, illogical..........(no matter how much mr. dogfood pats you on the back for it :o)
It was the reporter who did the wrong thing. Place the blame where it belongs.
What was the significance of the Battle of Agincourt, and what is it's meaning for us today?
Would it help to remember that the reporter filming the incident is a freelance reporter? Aren't they paid only for published news items? His incentive is to get it published. He sold non-exclusive rights to the Arabs and NBC, IMHO.
"I can just imagine the outcry if the "dead" terrorist was left there only to attack and kill some marines an hour later.
Then the same marine would be in trouble for not doing his job by making sure the enemy was dead."
Bingo.
You are correct.
If this marine had not done what he did, others and maybe he also would be dead or injured. That would be an issue. This act that is being promoted as a wrong is actually normal warfare.
The MSM is, again, trying to make an issue where there is no issue.
What bothers me about this is that so many people do not understand the way that wars are fought. There are always 2 sides and both sides try to kill each other. Some are more ruthless than others. We have repeatedly seen the ruthlessness of the other side, yet we are given the impression that that is no big deal and that what we are doing is.
I only heard a single shot, not a burst. An M16 is not a machine gun, it's an assault rifle.
These are hidden camera photos, taken by Kevin Sites; his "hideaway gun."
Photos allegedly by Reuters, in the Sun Online, recent article by Martin Phillips, "SAS Ace Defends Trooper."
Taking aim ... marine fixes his sights on one of two prisoners lying side by side:
Walking away ... victim is obscured by fellow captive after burst of gunfire:
Grisly ... the shot prisoner - on the left - lies dead in Fallujah mosque:
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.
