I don't wish to win hearts and minds in Iraq. I want dead Islamonazis. That is all. Over.
Posted on 11/18/2004 3:34:57 PM PST by writer33
You are wrong.
The US Marine did exactly what he was supposed to do.
That you might find it repugnant is of no concern to me, the much touted and little read Geneva Conventions,or to the DOD.
You have a right to your opinion.
You will be proven wrong in a short period of time.
Consider it signed, TexKat.
Sorry, ladies and gents. If you've signed it ignore it, if you haven't, could you sign it and pass it on, please:
If you have not, please sign this petition now.
www.PetitionOnline.com
25933 Total Signatures
Umph!!!
"25933 Total Signatures"
27495 when I signed at 8;15 pm EST.
Yes, keep um coming.
I don't wish to win hearts and minds in Iraq. I want dead Islamonazis. That is all. Over.
Wrong.
1. These folks aren't even covered as combatants, nor as civilians under the GC.
2. Before this incident the terrorists made a bad habit of falsely offering a white flag and then opening up when our guys exposed themselves. They also blew themselves up and their dead up with explosives. So even if you want to give them GC protection, they loose its protection when they break its rules.
3. Based on the above this Marine had every reason to shoot that terrorist. If you want to blame someone, blame the terrorists, they are responsible for forcing us to shoot first, ask questions later.
4. Had that terrorist had an explosive vest or grenade, like many have, and killed that fire team of Marines, what would you be saying now, "That's life." I suppose.
5. This happened in WWII in the Pacific on a regular basis. Like these terrorists, the Japanese were bent on suicide and would fake death, booby trap their dead, and feign surrender, just to kill one more Marine. It became common practice to shoot all Japanese that appeared dead before approaching them.
6. How about trying out your own theory. Go to the worst part of town at two in the morning and ask the first person you see on the street if they have change for a $100 bill. Keep trying that until you find someone kind enough to help you out. After all you don't want to assume the worst of people, you might hurt their feelings.
Signed, thanks for the ping.
Kevin Sites needs to have his butt kicked........up between his shoulder blades. He had some choices; bury the tape, never to be seen again, pass a copy of the video along to Marine brass or make a name for himself. Not being there, it's difficult in good conscience to know whether the first choice was a real option. And the second option would not have precluded at some point the third option. He made a hasty decision without considering his options down the road.
If he would have quietly passed a copy of the tape along to the brass and he felt strongly the young Marine committed a war crime, he would have had a huge hammer with which to work with. Particularly if the Marine brass tried to cover it up. As it is now, he's saddled with the label of anti-war activist who jumped the gun in his own selfish interests.
May God protect the young Marine.
FGS
FGS
Atta Boy, Girl!!! You're right on the money, honey!!!
That there "Writer33" can sure write 'em up, can't he? Shazzam!!! Once he gits done tellin 'em... They know they done been told!!!
My reply was based on paraphrasing the position taken by a West Point professor who teaches this stuff for a living. I'll take his expert opinion over yours any day. My position is that our soldiers should abide by UCMJ: do you take a different position?
I'm agnostic about whether this particular individual was guilty or not: I never claimed he either should be court martialed or convicted. I was merely stating the odds are not in his favor based on the tape. But if you read carefully, I also raised the possibility that in a fair hearing, this individual might conceivably offer a credible defense of his actions. That defense, assuming those making the decision followed the letter and spirit of UCMJ, could not rest on the claim that the wounded soldier "might have done X, Y or Z." It would have to be based on demonstrating a tangible threat.
If this were "no big deal" the military would not waste its time investigating it right now. As with Abu Graib, I believe the investigation will ultimately culminate in a court martial. Whether it results in a conviction remains to be seen. Even though we all had our priors, Scott Peterson wasn't guilty until a jury convicted him. Same's true here.
Did the Abu Graib convictions "harm every soldier who defends this country and portray us as pathetic and hapless jackasses to anyone we should respect?" The fact is IF this soldier crossed the line and we convict him, we actually will garner more respect. Conversely, if this guy crossed the line and we fail to hold him accountable, we will be sending a message to all US military personnel that UCMJ is a crock and we have no plans to enforce it. I think it's fantasy to believe that the latter world is preferable to the former.
I forget how the lyrics goes, but what that loonie
said reminds me of that old Pink Floyd line about:The Lunatics are in your head .....
Or something like that. haha!
Is there really a plot afoot amongst the Dems to impeach President Clinton over Iraq?
__________________________________________________
You're talkin' about the U.S. Marine kills wounded insurgent
petition? I signed it already, thanks.bump!
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.