Military Investigates Shooting


Looks like the press is at it again ------

I say give that Marine a Medal for sending another terrorist to his maker !

 

Hope the marine is NOT in hot water... after watching one of you buddies get it by tending to one of the little "fellas" would make you think twice. Sounds like the 'prisioner' did not respond, playing dead, now he is, so what.

DuaneWKKC

 

It's too early to tell exactly what happened and there is going to be lots of speculation on both sides. What people need to keep in mind is that our troops aren't over there simply for the fun of it. Combat is serious business, especially when you're fighting an enemy that isn't afraid of blowing themselves up just to take you out too. This story is going to get ugly before it's over...

 

How can this terrorist be considered a prisoner? He had not surrendered, he had not been searched, he was not being watched by coalition forces, he was not in custody, he was not shakled or handcuffed, he was playing dead, he did not have his hands in the air, he did not wave a white flag. He was ready to do who knows what. With 5 suicide bombers just this morning why would the Marine take a chance with his life, the life of his buddies, or the life of the "reporter" that shot the video?

Shoot first, ask questions later.

Yes, the press is at it again. The video is now being shown on Al Gazera TV. This means some of our soldiers will die needlessly because they will use this as proaganda against us for the fighters to fight to the death, that we don't take prisoners.

When are we going to learn to keep reporters away from the battle field? War is hell.

 

I saw this story on the news last night and it really bothered me. They were making it sound like the Marine murdered this terrorist in cold blood. However, I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that there is another side to the story that they are not reporting.

Stupid media.

 

This is ridiculous... Get the press OUT of the country and let the boys do their jobs.

I read that Marine was just returned to duty too after being shot in the face the day before!



Tony

 

Justifiable homicide.................NOT GUILTY!

 

Media will turn it around to make it sound like we are the aggressors. Stupid!


Rick

 

Open season on reporters, that should solve these issues

 

There has been a record number killed this year already! Over a hundred...

 

Actually I think it's good that incidents like these are investigated. I don't want to judge anyway in that particular case, but if incidents like this one are brushed under the carpet the whole morals the US stand for will be voided. I feel that there are several possible outcomes of this situation:
A:- Evidence is found that the man that was shot acted hostile in a way that couldn't be seen by the cam.
B:- Evidence is found that the marine shot an unarmed, wounded man who didn't pose a threat.
C:- No evidence is found in either way.

But the fact that the incident is investigated is positive by itself.
I'm curious about the result of the investigation, I feel that any judgement from far away without more info than a grainy video would be premature
.
AlpineRAM

 

I agree that it should be investigated...but it should be investigated by the U.S. military and not the liberal media. Unfortunately, our media is VERY bad about spouting off their big mouths before they have the facts straight. I find it VERY hard to believe that one of our Marines would intentionally kill an unarmed man who posed absolutely no threat whatsoever....ESPECIALLY since he had a camera following him around. We are not being told the full story here.

That said...this man was a TERRORIST. "Live and let live" is incomprehensible to them. He would kill any one of us dead without even thinking twice about it...and he'd do his best to kill our wives and children at the same time. You won't see me crying crocodile tears over this "man".

 

Well, Hoss, I must say that I do disagree with you in several points.
First of all it should be investigated by not only the US military, but also by others, like the press or the red cross. In no legal system I know of the suspect is the one that leads the investigation about his guilt... In that case the suspect is one soldier of the US military, so an investigation should not be conducted by people who are prejudiced towards him. (It would amount to the same absurdity if Osama bin Laden was called to preside the investigation group)
The other point IMHO is that you call this man a terrorist- based on what? The only fact you have is that he's been shot. As to what I read it's not even established yet that this man was one of the wounded from the previous action by the marines..
I do find it very hard to believe that a soldier who has been wounded the day before this incident is sent back to the bettlefield. Especially since one guy from his platoon had been killed by a booby trapped body some days before (according to fox news)- I would think that it's rather plausible for this man to be shaken beyond reason in that situation. Quite understandable that a man in that situation can overreact.

AlpineRAM

 

I figured you would...but that's okay (as long as you don't mind being wrong).

Investigated by the press?? I don't think so. MAYBE by an unbiased press, but we do not have that here in the U.S. (except for FOX News). The Red Cross?? I don't think so. The military is not the "suspect" here. The "suspect" (using that term loosely) is a single soldier. The military has the means and the methods to investigate war crimes...if indeed one has occurred (I think we will learn that one has not). Speaking of absurdity...comparing Osama bin Laden to the U.S. military?? THAT is absurd.

The report I read stated that the man was an "insurgent". Insurgent is the liberal way of saying terrorist. This man was a terrorist...otherwise we would not have been after him.

I see what you're getting at....but we still have written in our Constitution that a person shall be considered innocent until proven guilty. The liberal media is trying to crucify this Marine before they have gathered all of the facts. That's not right. IF indeed the Marine DID shoot a harmless, unarmed man...then I think there should be consequences. However, until it is proven that the Marine did something wrong the media needs to keep their mouths shut.

At this point, I still maintain that we are not being told the full story.

 

I never mind being wrong
Do you mean unbiased or maybe only biased to your liking when you talk about fox? The only source of information about the JAG I have is a soap opera on TV- And not even a good one. The military will have to investigate internally, but for anybody outside of the US it will shurely look funny if the US military finds the soldier innocent. It will be like, well jeah, what a surprise they find that one of their own is innocent - Only an investigation by an acknowledged international unbiased organisation can potentially reduce the impact this incident had on the way the US troops are seen by other nations. Not necessarily only nations the US is at war with at the moment.
Well, what you write here is contradictory to your next point- or is the principle of being regarded innocent etc in the constitution only valid for folks who do have an US passport?
And the "non-liberal" media is assuming that the shot person was at least an insurgent- (liberal word for terrorist- I don't think so- will add to that later)

I do also feel that the full story ain't out yet- so it's much too early to judge in either direction. My previous post was intended to line out some other possible alternatives to as what could have happened based on the material at my hands.
insurgent:
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
n.
One who is insurgent.

terrorist:
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.

So an insurgent can be anybody who is counteracting a regime in word and deed- a terrorist must fulfill some more criteria, but is not limited to opposing a regime. One of the criteria the terrrorist has to fulfill is that he's doing his activities in a covert manner- otherwise he'd be a combattant. Another point that's got to be fulfilled is that a terrorist is per definition committing acts that shall instill terror (fear) in the objective target. (Not to be mistaken with the victim!)

Jut my 2c

AlpineRAM

PS- I like a spirited discussion, but I don't condone the actions of terrorists, murderers etc....