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.

Obviously, because everyone, including non-ba'athists, loved Saddam. Screw freedom afterall, we want to be murdered!

Most of these guys are foriegn muslim radicals, al-qaida insurgents or disgruntled ba'ath party members. But anyways, if they are Iraqi citizens angry with the evil Americans who had the audacity to ensure their family members won't be raped, then that still doesn't matter. They're using bombs and guerilla tactics to attempt to make the U.S. politcally and militarily give up on Iraq. Terrorists.

Correct me if I am wrong as I have no military training, but during basic training, aren't most of these young men trained to dehumanize their opponent---to basically think of one thing, target acquistion and termination? Seems to me that this heavily edited tape and the link to the transcript that someone provided bears this out. Should any of you have the time or inclination, read about the "Rape of Nanking." Very sobering realizations. Personally, I couldn't finish the book.

As an Arab who's actually spent time in the Middle East, I can tell you you have no clue what the people of Iraq truly think.


SLM3

Good for you.

Lets put Saddam back in power then, how do you like those apples? (you don't.)

Again, telling me what I think.

I see you're a fan of the Bush black and white, with us or against us mentality. Either we take Saddam out this way, or he stays and continues exactly as things have been going.

Did it cross your mind at all that there were perhaps other ways of realizing the desired result? And when I say desired, I'm talking about the Iraqi people, not you.

The people who are angry do not miss Sadaam, but they do not welcome another occupation in his place, especially if it is selfish and hypocritical. Is that so hard to understand?

SLM3

Like what? Continuing to be a bunch of pussies by letting him walk all over us while we pump out another 20 or so resolutions? You had your way for 12 years buddy, it failed, miserably. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died while we were bitching to the U.N., sending in more inspectors and other general bullshit.

You think they prefer Saddam's regime over the Iraqi council backed by the U.S. military? Hell no, just because you're an arab and you've been to the middle east doesn't mean shit.

This is common sense, you're saying they enjoy being raped and murdered. But I'll tell you for a fact that they don't.

The only legitimate overthrow of a government occurs from within, by the people. Outside assistance is warranted as long as it isn't hypocritical and selfish. This could have been done after the first Gulf War. It wasn't, why? Because a bottom-up reformation cannot be controlled. However, a top-down change can indeed be controlled and that is what has happened.

I'm not defending Sadaam; get that out of your head. I'm arguing against the way his removal was done. It's not legitimate and it doesn't reflect the needs and wants of the people.


SLM3

Bullshit.

I know you've both got your blood up, but come on, guys, let's have a debate here, not a slagging match.

You argue agains a well organised attack that killed less than 5000 people ? Your revolution from within would have killed a hundred times that amount. You "empathetic" lefies always seem to offer solutions that leave a deeper trail of blood than what was actually done. And you pretend to care?

Less than 5,000? Where do you get your figures?

You question my compassion because you're too blind to see where I'm coming from. All you're doing is thinking short term. Saddam is gone, yes, but what is left for the people? Is it enough simply that he's gone? NO. He's been replaced by occupation. An occupation that is hypocritical and selfish and really has nothing to do with the actual people of the country.

A truly legitimate revolution would occur from within, as was attempted after the first Gulf War.

The path of least resistance isn't always the best way to go. Would this resentment of the US exist if they had helped the Iraqi people do the job themselves?

Two different paths and results so how can you compare likely casualties?

Remember, the struggle has just taken a different form now.

SLM3

Ok, the bombing of the UN HQ was a terrorist attack but an invading army can't verry well cry about being attacked.

What are we supposed to do. Give him medical attention and put a gun back in his hand? I think not. If the shoes were reversed they would be doing the same to our troops. It's war. People die. I'd much rather see their men die than ours.

A quick note to everyone.
Keep it civil for christ's sake!
It's fine to disagree, but keep it above the level of a four year old.
I didn't post in politics for a long time, and I now regret getting involded in these pissing matches again.

How do we know he wasnt crawling towards his weapon? We dont, do you know why? Because of a fine piece of editing.

How do we know the Marine was talking about that killing?
We dont.
Know why? Again because of a fine piece of editing.

What the hell do any of you detractors know what was going through these kids minds at that moment?

Quite possibly they just finished a fire fight and this Iraqi had killed one of their own.

To quote Jack Nicholson you people have some nerve to sleep under the blanket of freedom these people provide and then question the very way they provide it.

I bet alot of you play war games on ps2/pc pretending you are big bad combat Marines.

It is alittle different when your life is REALLY on the line.

And you do? Arabs might have a huge inferiority complex in the mideast that made them hope Saddam would put up a real fight, but I rather doubt you spent any time in Iraq or anywhere near someone who had his family killed, or daughter raped by the Bathists. Nice try on the race card though.

We didn't cry about it, we kicked some more ass. But that's not the point, the point is they're terrorists.

Anyone else find that a bit contradictory? :rolleyes:

Did you know then, that Hussain's uncle, the family member he was closest to as a child, was a Nazi and spent five years in prison for his part in a plot to install a pro Hitler leader in Iraq during WWII?

Saddam grew up admiring the Nazi's and Hitler.

This is almost Orwellian 1984 logic. The Iraqi people are terrorists because they try to defend themselves against an invading army?

Where the American colonialists who though the British army terrorists, during the War of American Independance?

I've spent a lot of time with people in the Middle East who've been injured or lost family and friends to US aggression or aggression fully supported and funded by the US. Again the standard argument I'm getting is that the US alternative to Saddam was the only choice in the world.

The problem is no one even thought to play the race card. No one thought to ask the IRAQIS what they might like to see as an end to Hussein's rule. Perhaps that's not the best way to look at it though. No one in the US cared enough to even think to ask them or consider the results for them of this war. Remember, the lead up to this war was all about you, not the Iraqis. Don't tell me you suddenly care now about daughters being raped and families being murdered.

It's a lot easier to live in a bubble in the US and dictate policy for a nation you have no clue about. You refuse to understand the mentality of a people currently under occupation, regardless of what they had before. You must be very comfortable.


SLM3

I won't get to deep into your post because personally I don't think there is any point.

I can't say we asked to many Iraqi's in Iraq in large numbers, it wouldn't have been allowed, but one thing we do have in the US is a lot of Iraqi citizens who fled from Saddam when they could. They have been VERY vocal in support of the war, and it was always amusing when some Iraq refugee and some protestor got into a debate on the war. I'm sure they don't matter to you.

Non sequitur, infuriating, and a few other things.

Just like you would be a terrorist if you took up weapons against anybody who invaded the US. Or does it only work one way? :rolleyes:

We offer them no reason to defend themselves, the average Iraqi citizen is not being attacked. The ones that are attacking us are terrorists because of their tactics; Driving buses into the UN headquarters, roadside bombs, ambushes with small arms, these are common tactics used by terrorists.

Furthermore, their objectives make them terrorists as well. They are first and foremost out to kill westerners, convert them to Islam, and throw them out of the middle-east. They have a political objective which they push with tactics that insight terror. Terrorists.

You could possibly define the colonialists as terrorists, but don't do it in the U.S. someone's likely to pop you one. They did indeed have political goals, but they used more traditional ways to push them forward. Like engaging in battles, instead of using bombs and hit and run tactics, we got the French to help us out and even did the Naval fighting deal for a while I believe. So while we were an army of people with a political goal, we did not use tactics commonly attributed to terrorists.

Like I said above, a terrorist is defined by 2 things, tactics and objectives (this is according to the dictionary by the way, so if you disagree, call websters).

I assume if someone actually succeeded in invading the U.S. that I would most likely end up joining a militia of some sort (if the military was gone), and beat the hell out of them. Are you assuming I disagree with their tactics Nad Adam? That's not why I dislike terrorists, I dislike them because they're attacking our troops.

The use of ambushes is not consistant with terrorist activity at all. I think you need to discriminate between legitimate resistance and terrorist acts.
Again, only certain groups. Others are just pissed that an invading army is on their soil. If the roles were reversed, I know I would be, regardless of the good that came of it...

Any use or threat of force aimed at intimidating a government or society is terrorism. Ambushes are clearly a use of force, but it's certainly not restricted to terrorists. I don't believe these people believe they can defeat our army in this fashion, so logically their aim must be to intimidate us until we leave.

I think that would depend on the circumstances. If a President is in power that changes the American way of life, takes away all of our rights, puts hundreds of thousands to death, takes all of our money, and bullies us, then I would have been pissed a long time ago, and would welcome foreign troops to help us out.

No, they feel that by killing our troops they can make us withdraw. It is not intimidation or terror. By that standard any armed resistance by a significantly weaker force could be called terrorism.

That's the dictionaries standard.

What a load. In that case there is no denying that the revolutionaries of 1776 were terrorists. Of course they are in good company with the Vietcong, Argentina, Britain (remember those terrorists who fought under Wellington and Nelson), the Native American tribes, and everyone else who has every been an underdog in a conflict.

Look mate, there are terrorists in Iraq. There are also insurgents. I have been shot at by them. Why is that so hard to understand?

I know that, but if people are going to be giving me shit over my choice of words then they'd better know what the word means.

Because you are trying to widen the use of the word. If you succed then the meaning of it will be lost and you will have to come up with a new one to distinguish what used to be a terrorist from someone that forcefully opposes the US-invasion.

The word you guys have been looking for the last 20 or so posts is Guerrilla. As in Guerrilla Insurgency.

Air Force Doctorine.

WAR "an act of force to compel an enemy to do our will."

Link to entire (very lengthy) arcticle.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a.../fabyanic.html

This is what was taught in the AF. I think it fits.

I don't like the tape as viewed. However, I was not there and second guessing a wartime situation can lead to mistakes.

You DO know that Britain invaded Iraq during the Second World War to secure an oil supply, right? Siding with your invader's enemy doesn't necessarily make you a sick freak.

Allow me to pre-emptively mention that I despise Nazism. I just want to fill out Strange Famous' odd comment.

Good thing for jessica lynch that the "terrorists" who took her captive were feeling more merciful than the chaps on that video. Not that any of you would take any prisoners if the us was being invaded. You'd be too busy devising your "terrorist'" plans to defend your homeland.