[kellynla]

I couldn't care less what O'Reilly(who dodged the Viet Nam war) or any of the other moron from the MSM "thinks" about what this Marine did.

I, unlike most, am a combat Marine and what this Marine did was not only correct, it would have been a dereliction of duty had he not protected himself and his fellow Marines by not killing this enemy.

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[Sprite518]

Amen Devil Dog! I did not see what this Marine did wrong either. The way I see it he had three choices.

1) Just walk away, and allow the terrorist another chance to kill his fellow Marines. just as this Terrorist was doing before he was shot. I wonder how many Americans this terrorist killed?

2) Risk treating this injured Terrorist, and hope that the terrorist does not have a grenade or bomb to take him out (like what happened to his buddy two days before).

3) Shoot him, and the incident is over.


To me its a very simple choice. This is normal procedure, and the MSM does not understand this. Boy are they naive.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

I, unlike most, am a combat Marine and what this Marine did was not only correct, it would have been a dereliction of duty had he not protected himself and his fellow Marines by not killing this enemy.

This incident has been represented by the press as "Marine shoots and kills unarmed, wounded prisoner". The reporter did a minimal job to put a "war" context on the report, but he knew how it would be received, devoid of contect.

The facts as we know them from published sources are:

• These guys were captured earlier after a firefight with about 20 of his buddies, operating out of that Mosque. The seriously wounded were treated there, and left for later medivac. Marines died in that assault.
• This patrol was the second patrol fired on by insurgents from that same Mosque. Don't know if casualties resulted. However, these guys had just entered that building hot on the trail of the sniper.
• Enter this young Marine. He walks through the door, and he finds no other insurgents than the five wounded on the floor. One of them makes a furtive movement. Was he armed? Who knows? SOMEONE was firing from that Mosque moments before. The other four were obviously incompassitatated, and this one evidentally was kicking. Hence, the Marine's frantic statements, and rapid decision to fire on the insurgent, before the guy was fired upon.

That is the missing context, and it's omitted by the NBC reporter (already exposed on FR as a Kerry peace activist, based on his own web site) intentionally, to shape the political debate about the war.

Was that insurgent an innocent civilian? No. He was obviously (clothing, etc.) a bad guy. Was he wounded? How was the young Marine to know either way? Was he armed? If he wasn't laying on his weapon, he could have stashed it somewhere in the Mosque after snipping at the Marines.

Was this Marine in a "hot combat, hot pursuit" situation? Was his action reasonable in that context? The answer is obvious to any objective person, without an anti-US, anti-Military, anti-Bush agenda.

Finally, if this Marine blew a cog, went Postal, and started "killin' 'em all", to let God sort it out, why did he leave the other four wounded insurgents alive?

Article 32 hearing. 15 minutes tops. Immediately followed by an awards ceremony. It should all be on National TV.

This NBC guy Sheets should be escorted to the nearest desert border, given half a canteen of tainted water, and allowed to walk home. No way does he walk in combat in the presense of honorable Marines anymore.

SFS (USNR, Ret.)

[johnb838]

No matter what happens, he will always know he did the right thing. Small consolation, but something.

As soon as the first fake dead booby trap went off, all bets regarding corpses should have been off. I still don't see how we can win a war where only one side recognizes rules.

BTW, I'm not going to use the term Politically Correct any more. I shall call it what it is -- leftist orthodoxy, and it may be political but it is most certainly not "correct."