Warning, tasteless video from iraq.
 

Here's a link to a video of US soldiers killing a wounded iraqi and then cheering.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....o_iraqiwar.wmv

I know it's war but these guys should know better than to shoot an incapacitated opponent on camera and then brag about it on CNN. Let's hope that the next time a US soldier gets into a situation simular to Jessica Lynchs the ones doing the capture haven't seen this flick (or if it's one of these guys lets hope they did).

What fucking morons, I hope they get 2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

Who was he? If he was an enemy (probably is by their reaction), then GOOD. I would have kicked him in the balls first though.

We're too easy on these terrorist assholes.

I with hold comment untill I am in a combat zone.

Is this a fake? Wounded enemy are non-combatants according to the Geneva Convention and the Laws of Armed Conflict. This marine could be in serious trouble...

I didn't think that the Iraqis where terrorists? Or is everyone that fights the us automaticly one? How convinient.

I'm an american citizen and i'm appauled by this video. I seriously hope that there is a full investigation.

Every atrocity like this breeds more people who will attack you. This is not the way to fight terrorism, it is the way to fuel it.

Terrorism doesn't solve terrorism.

One heavly edited piece of video does not a warcrime make.

Just ask the French about the Mohammed al-Dura tape. If you don't know what I'm taking about, go look it up.

Isn't that the point of war.... To kill the enemy..... I applaud them!! :thumbsup:

I thought you won the war and were now "rebuilding" Iraq?

We did, and we are, but fighting will continue. And your point is? Because I don't see one.

None of us even know how long ago this clip was shot.

Come on, Sixate, you know better than that. There are rules to war, and when they're disobeyed the seeds of the next war are planted.

This clip was aired in october and it's a selective clip from a special on the effects of fighting and killing on soldiers. Transcript from the whole thing: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/cp.00.html

And ask the Jews how well apathy left them in world war two.

Rekna, I would advise you to clarify, and to clarify carefully.

The Russian army killed a great many German civilians, did this help prevent Endsolung? I am not sure what point you are trying to make Rekna?

The Holocaust could have been lessened if either America or Russia had armed Poland, or if any European country had accepted more Jewish refugee's before 1941... shooting wounded conscripts just for the pleasure of killing them hardly seems to help anyone.

Excuse me, they're righteous freedom fighters that ambush the evil American aggressors with roadside bombs and small arms, and only ever drive bomb-laden trucks into the UN headquarters to protest American pig dog occupation.

Well, yeah, that's probably how they see themselves. I'm not saying that I AGREE with their perspective, mind you.

Prior to WW2 while Hitler was militerizing countries went along the peace lines to the not caring lines. Hell even Russia signed a non-agression pact with them. Did that work out for them in the end? Peoples apathy twoards Hitlers attrocities was disguisting during and prior to world war 2. Even the Catholic church denied that it was happening for a good deal of time.

Letting mad men do what they want doesn't solve the problem it only makes things worse.

But if we would have armed poland then we would have made some mad man that would have took over poland and then eventually we would have had to invade poland right?

I think you'll find that the mood wasn't apathy, it was horror of going back to war. The First World War traumatised Europe, and the people in power knew that the next war would be far worse. England in particular tried everything it could to placate Germany, but when diplomacy failed they fought like hell. That's not apathy, that's years of political work followed by six years of hard fighting.

As for Russia, they were well aware that they would eventually have to fight Germany, but in 1939 they were in no shape to do so. They signed the Non-Aggression Pact in order to gain time. Read Deighton's Blood, Tears and Folly or Kagan's On The Origins of War. They will tell you all you need to know.

Since the Allies won the Second World War, I would be tempted to say that it DID work out for them. But you are right, it certainly didn't help six million Jews, and everything I have read suggests that there was a great deal of awareness in the West that the Holocaust was taking place, particularly from 1943 onwards.

Russia did invade Poland anyway.

And sixate, the purpose of this war is supposed to be to liberate Iraq, wasn't it? Is that achieved by committing war crimes such as shooting wounded soldiers?

Phaenx - They are fighting because an invading Army is in their land and killing their people.

But would have happend if Hitler had been forcibly removed from power prior to reaching his pinacle of military power?

Let's not get TOO far off-topic here, people.

Saddam Hussain is not Adolf Hitler

of course he isn't but there are similarities between them.

You mean they both had moustaches? They both are horrible people?

I see hardly any similarities in the political situations.

They both had a tendancy of violence, they both used violence and fear to gain power, they both invaded a small nearby country, they both had a desire for ultimate power, they even had some good things in common for instance they both had great health care plans and made simalar socialist reforms.

I think a better word would have been appeasment. Well they wern't apathetic they didn't care enough to act.

I'm confused- what's the difference between apathy and not caring enough to act?

apathy is not caring at all (without emotion). Not caring enough means they still care but not enough to act on those emotions. You know just like those people who see starving childern on some donation comercial and think that is appauling but then don't do anything about it.

Now could you please relate that back to the case at hand? It seems to me that you are under the misapprehension that nobody tried to prevent the Second World War from starting, and that people weren't bothered by Hitler or his policies.

Perhaps I should summarise. Nobody wanted war in the thirties, and those who saw a need to stand up to Hitler and others like him were usually accused of warmongering.
This does not mean that the leaders of Europe were sitting on their hands and allowing Hitler to do whatever he wanted. They were attempting to use diplomatic channels to prevent armed conflict. It didn't work, and the rest is history.

None of which has very much to do with Iraqi troops being shot after capture. Could we perhaps work our way back to discussing that, rather than me delivering a Year 10 history lesson?

As to the topic at hand this is quiet a big tangent. The argument stemmed from a notion that war only breads more war (which may be true) but I wanted to make sure that one doesn't automatically assume that avoiding war prevents war. WW2 showed us how appeasment of an agressive dictator can bite us in the rear.

The video at hand is appauling although edited. Just remember that it is edited and micheal more has shown us how editing can make people say anything you want it to. People should never be happy after killing someone. Now was killing that man wrong? I have no idea i don't know the circumstances. From the editing it looks like it was wrong but again that is edited. Just a few minutes before that he could have been firing that gun at the same people who shot him. Maybe they were putting him out of his misery? Again the video there has no context and anything taken out of context needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

The marine in the video did not kill that man, his safety was on.

But the marine out of camera shot clearly did kill the man.

no...but by gosh by golly that their george bush will!!!!

I HATE WAR!!!!!

sorry long day at work.
mr b

I have watched that video about 20 times, here are my thoughts:

1. The Iraqi in question was wounded, not incapacitated.

2. He was within arms reach of a weapon. Not being there, and due to the cuts in the footage, I cannot tell if he was going for it or not, but I suspect the Marines still felt he was a threat given that they killed him at the particular time they did.

3. The cheering was inappropriate, but understandable given the circumstances.

I think that if we don't want them killing our wounded troops, it would be a good idea to start leading by example.

We certainly couldn't complain about it if we were doing the same thing.