Walker Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Check out this article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...e_shooting_dc_5 1.) If the soldier who killed the terrorist is charged for "war crimes," it will be a grave injustice perpetrated by "just-war theory." Based on the story above, it's easy to understand what probably happened: The marine unit enters a mosque they have been told is occupied. They see a pile of dead terrorists. One of the marines notices one is breathing slightly. After hearing of or witnessing hundreds of American soldiers being killed by suicide bombers, he thinks the terrorist is faking being dead, waiting for the marines to approach so he blow himself up. So, he puts a bullet in the terrorist's skull to eliminate this potential threat. If I was in the same position, I would have done the exact same thing. 2.) The article really reaks of typical anti-America, anti-military views. Notice how at the title refers to the terrorist as a "wounded Iraqi." Not only is this a blatant evasion of the fact that the executed man was a terrorist, but it implies that the terrorists in Iraq are Iraqis, which they most certainly are not. It reminds me of the press's earlier attempts to make the terrorists in Iraq look like the "Iraqi resistance." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 I heard about it on Hannity & Colmes. Hannity and Oliver North were tip-toeing the whole way through. They kept stressing that the tape is only one side of the story, but reaffirmed that if indeed this turns out to be what they think it is, the man should be punished. The coverage of Abu Ghraib, though right to expose wrongdoing, wasn't worth the gigabytes it was stored on. This time, however, the neo-cons and liberals have gone too far: In their zeal to defend the rights of the enemy, they've shown it does not matter if the uncertainty and urgency of self-defense required it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Kufr Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 man, i hope the american people defend these soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramKatori Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 If the marine reacted to a perceived threat or if he reacted "instinctively" in the middle of a battle zone, he deserves credit, not blame. Rumsfeld needs to come out and defend him publically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 They punnish people for defending themselves, force them to go into needlessly dangerous situations, and then they wonder why they have a retension problem in the US Military! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 That Marine should be exonerated, and then the Marines should move on. It's yet another attempt of the media to vilify the War on Terror. My attitude regarding this enemy- surrender or die! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 That Marine should be exonerated, and then the Marines should move on. I think he should be given the Medal of Honor for having the courage to protect his own life and the lives of those around him. If it's true (I haven't seen the video) that the enemy he shot looked like he was faking death, then our troops were in danger of being ambushed by a suicide bomber. It was an emergency life or death situation. That soldier had the moral courage to do what needed to be done to protect American lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadfly Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 2.) The article really reaks[sic] of typical anti-America, anti-military views. Notice how at the title refers to the terrorist as a "wounded Iraqi." Maybe because he was a wounded Iraqi? It's a literal description. My understanding is that the policy of our armed forces is to not harm unarmed enemy combatants. The issue is whether the soldier was acting in self-defense or not, because if not, then the man should have been taken prisoner. The purpose of the inquiry is to find that out. However, personally, I think it is irresponsible of the journalist to even release the footage, because it can only have a negative impact. From what I saw on the video, it's just not worth the trouble. A far more worthwhile story if you are looking for a moral issue would be showing how the Iraqi insurgents were sniping from minarets, booby-trapping dead bodies, and building slaughterhouses for kidnap victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.