NBC should be ashamed

[robinb]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DawnCt1
Because with liberals, Americans ARE the bad guys and the insurgents are poor, hapless, helpless unarmed victims defending their country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm finding this statement to be more and more true as I read this board. Why? I just don't get it.

In case you ladies haven't noticed, the liberals and the conservatives are on both sides of the issue of the Marine killing the unarmed man. Or were you just looking for an opportunity to give liberals another little jab?

 

[Mickey_loves_Minnie]

Originally posted by robinb
Or were you just looking for an opportunity to give liberals another little jab?

Oh no, they would never do that!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Viking
The coalition forces are in that country against the rules, so another trangression blends in just nicely.

What rules would those be? (he asked a citizen of a country with a long history or breaking rules and is currently a member of the country of the bribed)

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by LoraJ
Um, some of you keep referring to the Iraqi as a terrorist. Because he is a member of the Iraqi force who believes they are fighting for their country and their city, they are terrorists?

If he was fighting for his country he would be on our side. Do you understand the definition of "insurgent"?

 

[jgmklmhem]

First off I think all this judgement against an American soldier is unjust until he is proven guilty. People keep throwing around comments like unarmed or obviously neutralized...but as has been reported even dead fighters are killing our soldiers so how can any of us back here call the man neutralized. If the Marine felt he was a threat then if I read the marine code that someone posted earlier correctly then he was just in killing the man. If he just did it to have fun then not...but we don't know. According to the video the man was heard saying On the tape, the Marine is clearly heard saying, "He's faking he's dead. He's faking he's dead." before he shot so it makes me believe that the marine felt this man was a threat. War is tough....but if there is evidence that says the Marine committed a crime then punish him....but I don't think the video gives us an indication one way or the other. I will agree 4 shots is too much...but if the guy is dead at one...the other three don't really matter much do they.

 

[dmadman43]

Unfortunately, war isn't pretty and if it's to be covered it should be covered accurately.

I agree. When do you think that will start?

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by Mickey_loves_Minnie
Oh no, they would never do that!

I see a whole lot of people on BOTH sides of the fence having different viewpoints. That's really a good thing IMO.

 

[mtblujeans]

I started with the last page of this thread and had to go back to the first one just to find out what this thread is supposed to be about. **sigh**

We will all just have to wait for the investigation together to find out what really happened. I agree the media should not be allowed to walk around and film with the military. We don't need minute by minute pictures like that.....or only partial stories.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

I just wonder if all those people that feel sorry for the man that was killed have children or family fighting in Iraq. Those are the people I would give credit to for their opinion on this incident. Anyone else has no real clue except for what they see on tv. So I think we are in no real position to judge. I just tend to back the people of this country. We are their to finish and get out. We are not there to create more problems. They, meaning the people in Iraq who are not in favor of what America is doing are creating violence. Freeing their country is not spreading violence.

 

[mrsltg]

People keep throwing around comments like unarmed or obviously neutralized...but as has been reported even dead fighters are killing our soldiers so how can any of us back here call the man neutralized.

So what is the answer? Kill them again? Yes, neutralized is a man laying on the floor wounded with no weapon. Whether or not he was on top of a grenade set to go off when he was moved has no bearing on the issue. The grenade will go off whether he moves when he's dead or he moves when he's alive.

Erin

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by mrsltg
I am sure that they are terrified, sleep deprived, and pumped on continuous adreniline.

You left out "well trained"

None of that justifies shooting an unarmed man. You can't do that, no matter what. The man was lying on the ground, injured.

How did the soldier know he's was unarmed? How many of his buddies up to then had been killed by ****y-trapped soldiers?

It is a sad day when people can defend barbary simply because it happens under an American flag.

Erin

You seem to be jumping to the same conclusions you accuse others of.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by mrsltg
So what is the answer? Kill them again? Yes, neutralized is a man laying on the floor wounded with no weapon. Whether or not he was on top of a grenade set to go off when he was moved has no bearing on the issue. The grenade will go off whether he moves when he's dead or he moves when he's alive.

Erin

You realize there are other methods, right? These people are all to happy to stap bombs to themselves to kill other people. Because he may have been wounded doesn't mean he was incapacitated.

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by Planogirl


I see a whole lot of people on BOTH sides of the fence having different viewpoints. That's really a good thing IMO.

I would disagree with this. It is not a good thing that Americans have different viewpoints about an AMERICAN soldier having killed a TERRORIST.

What is wrong with you people? Whose side are you on anyway? Many of the responses on this thread are appalling to me. It is obvious that many of you do not understand the war on terror.

I think you peaceniks need a history lesson. Maybe then you would be thankful that our history books are not written in German.

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by mrsltg
Whether or not he was on top of a grenade set to go off when he was moved has no bearing on the issue. The grenade will go off whether he moves when he's dead or he moves when he's alive.

Erin

It is absolutely relevant and does have bearing. If a reasonable person could believe that the terrorist posed a threat, then the shooting would be justifiable. And seeing as the terrorists had begun using ****y trapped bodies, I don't think it would be unreasonable to to believe that the terrorist on the floor could be ****y trapped and could set off the grenade. I'm not saying this is what happened because I don't know, but it does mean that a possible ****y trap was relevant to the situation.

 

[Mickey_loves_Minnie]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
I would disagree with this. It is not a good thing that Americans have different viewpoints about an AMERICAN soldier having killed a TERRORIST.

Legally, he was a prisoner of war who posed no apparent threat to the marine in question. If it weren't for the fact that corpses in the area were rigged with bombs, I think people would not be sticking up for the marine at all. Except perhaps an extremist such as you.

Originally posted by Pugdog007
What is wrong with you people? Whose side are you on anyway? Many of the responses on this thread are appalling to me. It is obvious that many of you do not understand the war on terror.

It's quite obvious that you don't.

Originally posted by Pugdog007
I think you peaceniks need a history lesson. Maybe then you would be thankful that our history books are not written in German.

I'm no peacenik. If we allow our troops to ignore the rules of war, then why should other countries obey them when we're fighting them? The rules are in place to protect our own troops, you know.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
I would disagree with this. It is not a good thing that Americans have different viewpoints about an AMERICAN soldier having killed a TERRORIST.

What is wrong with you people? Whose side are you on anyway? Many of the responses on this thread are appalling to me. It is obvious that many of you do not understand the war on terror.

I think you peaceniks need a history lesson. Maybe then you would be thankful that our history books are not written in German.

They also need to go to Iraq and see first hand whats going on. I wonder how many would change their opinions then. I am also amazed at some of the responses on this post. I will not feel sorry for any man in Fallujah. They are to be considered armed and dangerous. If they meant no harm ,they wouldn't be there. Thankfully some of you people are not part of our military!!!!!!!!

 

[BuckNaked]

Legally, he was a prisoner of war who posed no apparent threat to the marine in question.

No, he was not a prisoner of war. That's not to condone an unjustified shooting (if that's what this was, and I'm not convinced that's true), but he was not a POW.

If we allow our troops to ignore the rules of war, then why should other countries obey them when we're fighting them?

I've not seen that anyone has been allowed to ignore the rules of war. Except for the terrorists in the mosque, that is.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Mickey_loves_Minnie
Legally, he was a prisoner of war who posed no apparent threat to the marine in question.


.

He represents NO COUNTRY. He was an enemy combatant, a terrorist, a "bad guy". Not a POW.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Originally posted by Mickey_loves_Minnie
Legally, he was a prisoner of war who posed no apparent threat to the marine in question. If it weren't for the fact that corpses in the area were rigged with bombs, I think people would not be sticking up for the marine at all. Except perhaps an extremist such as you.



It's quite obvious that you don't.



I'm no peacenik. If we allow our troops to ignore the rules of war, then why should other countries obey them when we're fighting them? The rules are in place to protect our own troops, you know.

Who plays by rules when killing is involved? What rule sheet do they pass out before the fighting begins? Do each side get copies? If one side follows and the other side dosen't who should be penalized? Let me think? The American's because they should no better. When my life is on the line that rule book goes out the window. Their lives are more important to their families then a "rule." Like I said before unless your their engaged in battle, no one has the right to judge! When your life is threated I'll let that person be the judge.

 

[mrsltg]

I think you peaceniks need a history lesson. Maybe then you would be thankful that our history books are not written in German.

Perhaps you are unaware, but we have things called "war crimes" for a reason. One of the things that we saw first hand in WWII was was atrocities. They are not tolerable no matter who commits them.

I will not feel sorry for any man in Fallujah. They are to be considered armed and dangerous.

You don't have to feel sorry for anyone. We have laws and they are to be followed. If not, the transgressor meets an appropriate punishment.

I'm not saying this is what happened because I don't know, but it does mean that a possible ****y trap was relevant to the situation.

ANd again, even if his body was rigged, what difference does it make whether he was alive or dead? When he gets moved it's likely the device will go off. He's getting moved one way or the other.

QUOTE]What is wrong with you people? Whose side are you on anyway? Many of the responses on this thread are appalling to me. It is obvious that many of you do not understand the war on terror. [/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? "Whose side are you on anyway?" I am on the side of humanity. I am on the side of "don't execute people in my name." It is appalling to me that apparently there are quite a few people who have no regard for human life. Clearly you do not understand the war on terror. The point is not to drag ourselves down to their level - that would be easy. The point is to maintain our way of life while controlling a threat.

Erin