Topic awaiting preservation: What exactly happened in that Mosque in Falluja? (Page 1 of 1) $Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=24249" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: What exactly happened in that Mosque in Falluja? (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: What exactly happened in that Mosque in Falluja? <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\$

WebShaman Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001	posted 12-01-2004 10:37 Well, here are the words from the cameraman himself - Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1 A pretty sobering account. According to him, those in the Mosque were detainees that had been wounded and were being "held" at the Mosque at the time - apparently from another squad.
Ramasax Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: PA, US Insane since: Feb 2002	posted 12-01-2004 18:00 edit: a lot of what I said was covered in Mr. Site's blog. I had not heard that these insurgents were detainees or being held (there was noone holding them). News to me. I had not seen the cameraman's account. Thanks for posting WS. A good summation of the events as I have heard them from the AP and other news orgs can be found here with a petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/as123/ In the end they will probably have to try him. I am guessing we won't know ALL the facts until then. I would also guess if he is found guilty that it can be said he suffered from severe mental distress. Ramasax (Edited by Ramasax on 12-01-2004 18:24)
WebShaman Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001	posted 12-01-2004 22:07 I would say that being shot in the face would put on under severe mental distress. quote: The Marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before. Sad is, that had it been under different circumstances, or in a "fire free" zone, or had the cameraman not have been witness, nothing would have happened. In other words, the soldiers in question are being called upon, to play a crazy "game" of when one is allowed, and not allowed, to kill. And there will be mistakes. In this case, lack of information turned a good soldier (my opinion) into a killer, a murderer, that will probably get tried. And this type of behavior has a way of spreading - especially with tours being involuntarily extended. It gets harder and harder to differentiate between when one is allowed to kill, and when one is not. And as the situation gets crazier and crazier...it spirals downwards into a morass.
Ramasax Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: PA, US Insane since: Feb 2002	posted 12-01-2004 23:14 Can't argue there WS and you would know better than I. I can only imagine how I would react in such a situation. Shot in the face and seeing a buddy blown up is enough to put anyone over the edge, couple that with being in combat for a few days straight. Extended tours of duty, yes. Not sure if that was the case here though. Doesn't sound like he would have gone home anyway though, considering he was back on the line a day after being shot. You have to admire that kind of loyalty and comradery. If not for this incident the guy probably would have been handed a medal. You are right, it is a game. A dangerous game that is going to cause our soldiers to have to second-guess themselves in combat. I read last week in an AP story, but cannot find the link, that a few days later a similar incident occured, only there was hesitation and a Marine was killed. I'll have to look around for that. Ramasax
UnknownComic Maniac (V) Inmate From: 2 steps away from a los angeles curb Insane since: Nov 2003	posted 12-02-2004 01:55 The soldier didn't do anything wrong. I cannot imagine what that soldier has been going through. Apparently 300,000 + signatures on the petition link that ramasax posted are in agreement with his actions. The reporter tries to assure us that he is troubled by having to release the video. That in itself is troubling... That implies that he believes what the soldier did was wrong. What I find curious is that his tone is apologetic, yet he writes of this tragedy as if the soldier did something wrong. It's a passive aggressive snipe. He is "pretending" to be supportive of the soldiers while he is backhandedly casting stones of pennance upon them. It smacks of arrogance and judgement. Fuck him! I havent seen any of the talking heads pontificate on this subject and dont really care to. The only people who really have anything to say on this matter are the members of his company. I am sure they felt safer before this second guessing arose. It's war. People will be killed. And apparently these insurgents are killing our soldiers under the white flag of surrender. So if a guy is on the ground pretending to be dead, it would make sense to kill him before he can spring into action. I really wish we could get numbers on how many of these "fighters" are Iraqi born citizens. But, that's another thread I guess... ______________ Is This Thing On? Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.
Emperor Maniac (V) Inmate From: Cell 53, East Wing Insane since: Jul 2001	posted 12-02-2004 19:26 It is certainl a tricky situation as a lot of bodies are boobytrapped or the living wounded could be hiding a grenade under a blanket and I know I'd have probably finished them off to be sure but the wounded there had been dealt witth and disarmed the day beofre and weirdly he only killed the most injured and not a far more mobile Iraqi elsewhere in the room. It does sound slightly like he cracked and I would imagine he shoul probably be getting treated for PTSD rather than being taken to court (although it should be investigated thoroughly - thats what separates us from whoever them is after all). -------- I am concerned about this suggestion that napalm was being used in Fallujah: http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html ___________________ Emps The Emperor dot org \| Justice for Pat Richard \| FAQs: Emperor \| Site Reviews \| Reception Room
Ramasax Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: PA, US Insane since: Feb 2002	posted 12-03-2004 05:34 Emps, is the Mirror not the same rag that said that asked the question of how 59million could be so dumb? Also, and correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the mirror the one who printed those fake pictures of British soldiers urinating on POWs? Didn't somebody get sacked over that. They are also claiming that Margaret Hassan is still alive somewhere in Iraq regardless of a video that was released showing her murder. A search on Google news shows no results that are even close to moderately unbiased and reading over a few of the articles shows no hard evidence of any sort. A suggestion is just that, a suggestion, nothing more. Suggestions do begin to take on a "truth" of their own if you repeat them enough though. Something known as propaganda. Give me a link to CNN, the liberal New York Times, or even a somewhat moderate and reliable foreign source and I may concede to the idea and consider its validity, but otherwise I will consider it nothing more than the same anti-US propaganda as usual. Don't get me wrong, I am concerned as well in hearing these types of things, and would definately have a problem there if it were proven to be true, but considering all the embedded reporters from both western and Arab medias with cameras and vidcams, if this were true I'm sure it would have hit the mainstream by now with all kinds of evidence. Also, Napalm, IMO, would hardly be the most effective weapon in an urban combat zone. A city built primarily from clay, which does not burn all that well. Is it not also possible that a leftist paper such as the Mirror would be hoping this accusation would hurt Blair, considering he is up for re-election in 6 months? Notice the tagline to the article. "US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?" He is also mentioned quite a few times in an article about the actions of the US making him, in this article, guilty by assosiation. BTW, welcome back from your sabbatical. Ok, back to the topic at hand. quote: Emps said: It is certainl a tricky situation as a lot of bodies are boobytrapped or the living wounded could be hiding a grenade under a blanket and I know I'd have probably finished them off to be sure but the wounded there had been dealt witth and disarmed the day beofre and weirdly he only killed the most injured and not a far more mobile Iraqi elsewhere in the room. Aye, but after the mosque was taken was it not then retaken by the insurgents and then retaken again by the Marines the following day? Well, there are conflicting reports here, so we need more info, which I am sure an investigation will bring out, but if there were fighters in that Mosque at any time after the original fight they had to be very cautious going in there the second time. Also, as far as I have seen other wounded men showed their hands. The one who was shot did not. He was under a blanket, all except his head. Even if he were incapable of doing so I don't believe that is a risk many would have taken. Especially if under the impression he was "fking faking dead." The soldier definately seemed rather alarmed when he said that. Surprised, fearful for his life, and drawing on his training as a soldier in dealing with those emotions in a combat zone. Kill or be killed. You can clearly see them pointing their weapons at the others after the shooting and they raised their arms in the air. They were also not covered when they entered, which is why attention was drawn to the biggest possible threat, the man under the blanket who appear to be faking dead. Here's a question that I have been asking myself. Why did Sites wait until after the shooting to tell the Marines that he was there the day before and what he knew about the Iraqis in the mosque? He might be an "impartial observer," but does he not also have a responsibility to convey anything he knew? This conversation wouldn't be happening right now if they had done what was common practive in WWII, toss a grenade in there before entering. Here is why I, if in Kevin Sites shoes, would have destroyed the video: quote: An unedited version of the videotape, which was distributed to other news agencies as part of a pool report, was being aired several times an hour on Arab satellite television stations on Wednesday, and US commanders have said it has already yielded a huge propaganda victory for the anti-American insurgency.** Some Arab commentators have even compared it to the scandal surrounding mistreatment of detainees earlier this year at Abu Ghraib prison. source No need to fuel the fire of hate. The Arab media does a dandy job with their twisting of the facts and outright fabrications as is, without giving them a piece of video to dismantle and show out of context with no perspective. It is irresponsible to have released this video, and the direct consequences of said irresponsibility may be the deaths of more Marines in the future. Sure, reporters have a responsibility, but should that responsibility outweigh their responsibility to the lives of their countrymen? When I think of it from that perspective it really pisses me off. While he is over there risking his life for fame and fortune, that marine he just condemned was over there risking his life fighting for him. The bastard! Ramasax (Edited by Ramasax on 12-03-2004 05:46)
WebShaman Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001	posted 12-03-2004 09:44 quote: It is irresponsible to have released this video, and the direct consequences of said irresponsibility may be the deaths of more Marines in the future. Sure, reporters have a responsibility, but should that responsibility outweigh their responsibility to the lives of their countrymen? When I think of it from that perspective it really pisses me off. No Ram, that is clearly wrong. In a case like this one, irregardless of the why, etc, such does need to get out, and aired. It is important that such happenings do get documented, so that factual evidence is at hand. Without such control measures, there is no way to prevent warcrimes. Without threat of being caught, an atmosphere for warcrimes is easily fostered (re: Vietnam). quote: While he is over there risking his life for fame and fortune, that marine he just condemned was over there risking his life fighting for him. The bastard! That is particularly repugnant from you. Note that the reporter in question is risking his life reporting this. The reporter in question did not create, or cause the situation - he just filmed it. Also, it is not clear if he found out after the fact or not, that the men in the mosque were detainees. You need to be more objective here. It is one thing to support the soldiers there. It is another, to protect any such doings that they do, irregardless of what it is. You need to keep in mind, that we wanted to "capture the hearts and minds" of the iraqi people, that this is important - otherwise, we will never succeed there. Falluja is proving that this may be impossible to do. With each "step" we take down that slippery slope of immorality (if you so will), we extend the distance between us and the iraqis and thus, our ultimate goal, of bringing "democracy" to them! Also, such comments as "he should have said something" are really out of place. The reporter is in a combat zone. You don't tell those who are doing the fighting, especially soldiers, what they are supposed to do, in a "threat" situation, where time is short and can be deciding. You keep your mouth shut, and try to stay out of the way. Remember, people are being killed here. You don't want to be considered an enemy. A reporter also doesn't have any rank type of functions. He/she can't give orders to soldiers, and should try to remain as little distraction as possible in combat areas. This cameraman did the right thing - he shouldn't be trying to "second guess" what the soldiers are doing, or trying to evaluate their actions - he should just film what there is to film, and do his job. And that is what he did. As for napalm...now that is a weird thing. I would suspect that they would be using Fuel-Air explosives (which are much more effective, and better) than napalm! Using such in a city area, however, is irresponsible, especially when there are civilians still in the area.
Ramasax Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: PA, US Insane since: Feb 2002	posted 12-04-2004 08:45 quote: WebShaman said:No Ram, that is clearly wrong. In a case like this one, irregardless of the why, etc, such does need to get out, and aired. Even at the expense of the enemy using it to turn more Arabs against us westerners by, again, letting them dismantle it and and show it without perspective or in proper context? I'm not so sure about that, especially when it is sure to cause more bloodshed in the future. That would be like journalists in WWII photographing or filming allied soldiers commiting executions of German soldiers, which you must know happened, and then handing it over to Joseph Goebbels for him to spin to his will. He would not have shown it honestly or subjectively and neither did they. Is the life of one terrorist insurgent, even if shot unjustly, worth the lives of the many on both sides who could lose their lives in the future by the hate it, and other similar isolated incidents, generate? I don't know about you, but I believe we are fighting a war of information with words and pictures as well as a war on the ground with human lives, and that facet is just as important, if not moreso in some respects. The more conflicting propaganda that is created, the more irrational and widespread the hate grows, and the longer this thing will be drawn out. Whether you agree with us being in Iraq or not doesn't matter. The fact is that we are there and now must finish what has been started. We cannot bail out on the majority of Iraqis who want democracy and freedom, not now. Civil war which would surely arise if we left. Without any outside interaction at this point Iraq would probably in my guess end up as a terrorist state. Saddam had planned for this, he set them up in case he fell, and somebody just like him, if not worse would come to power. Another 10-15 years and we are at war again. The truth is one thing, but there must be discretion with small incidents such as this. Handle it internally and do not hand it over to the enemy so they can cause an uproar which incites more violence. The media, on both sides, is the main propagator of hate in modern wars, this I believe. The best way to get our soldiers home and let the Iraqis get on with rebuilding their nation and culturing their own unique version of democracy into prosperity, which after viewing 'Voices of Iraq,' reading over many of their blogs, and even chatting with a few of them, I believe they are very capable of doing, is to let the soldiers fight the war without demoralizing, judging and incriminating them at every turn. You must realize that as a whole, the majority of the men and women serving in the military are good people. We do not execute women, saw off heads and broadcast those videos to the Internet, use false surrenders for surprise attacks, booby trap our dead and injured, set car bombs which always kill more Iraqis than infidels, or fight from Mosques, and the fact that such a big outcry is made over one dead terrorist is wrong. One less threat to the future of Iraq in my opinion. One less potential car bomb being set. One less Iraqi child dying. I even heard that some in the Muslim world, mainly Sunnis, were outraged that our soldiers had the nerve to go into a Mosque armed and wearing dirty boots. Do they realize what those people fighting in their name are doing to their supposed sacred holy shrines, using them as battle positions, hideouts and weapons stashes, slaughterhouses, or do they not care? We have gone out of our way in many cases taking care in not damaging such structures, seems we have more respect for their Mosques than they do. Is it just the fact that we are infidels to them and not wothy of entrance? Could it be that they believe they are still fighting a war that happened centuries ago? A reiguous war of Mulims vs. Non-Muslims. Or do they just not know? If not then there is a major need for balance in their media sources if the hate is ever to stop. If they do know of all these things then in my opinion any outrage from them is sheer hypocrisy and only shows their true colors, that they believe we are inferior to them. War is a dirty business as I am sure you know, not a game as some in the media today seem to believe. A game to see if I can get the biggest scoop of the year without regard to the consequences. It is just not right. Don't get me wrong, scandals like Abu Graib need to come out because of the possible implications, and it was clearly wrong, however damaging that is the hit we take because we screwed up. This event concerning the Marine is not clear and his actions are that of a soldier in a war fearful for his safety and questionable at best. quote: Without threat of being caught, an atmosphere for warcrimes is easily fostered (re: Vietnam). re: Vietnam and every other war ever fought in the entire history of mankind. War is war and bad incidents will happen when humans are given guns and put in horribly stressful and dangerous circumstances. We must trust that we are morally capable of handling ourselves in a primarily just way. Mistakes will be made, scandals will occur, nobody ever said war brought out the best in people. In the end though, it is not for the media to be the judge. In any case, how far do you go with war crimes as far as Vietnam is concerned? Do you believe they were isolated incidents which were focused on intensely or do you believe to the extent of John Kerry who came home claiming all our soldiers were war criminals. Thus causing them to be called baby killers and spat on when they returned home from risking their lives in serving their nation? Not trying to be a smart ass, but just trying to see what perspective you are using that example from so I can sense to what degreee of impact your statement is supposed to make with me. Another thing about Vietnam is many soldiers were drafteees who didn't even want to be there, also a cause of misdeeds in Vietnam. If you are put in a warzone against your will you are damn well going to take out some of those negative feelings on sombody. quote: That is particularly repugnant from you. Aww, gee thanks. I thought everything coming from me was repugnant to you though. quote: Note that the reporter in question is risking his life reporting this. For his undying loyalty to the truth no doubt. So, what? Am I suppposed to "feel" for him. I acknowledged this fact anyway. Why is he reporting it though? For the chance to gain fame and fortune and a contract with Time magazine in the future? It is his job, he is an independent jounalist, and the better and more moving the footage the more he makes. That is the bottom line, if it were simply about the reporter's oath to the truth, which is laughable these days anyway, he might have a conscience inside which would make him consider the consequences of what he was about to unleash. quote: The reporter in question did not create, or cause the situation - he just filmed it. Also, it is not clear if he found out after the fact or not, that the men in the mosque were detainees. So far, his blog is the only place that mentions anything about these men being detainees. That one is still up for grabs IMO. You need to be more objective here. In his blog he also says that many of our men have died in this "protracted war of attrition" which only further makes me question his intentions. This war is young, so protracted does not apply just yet. And are we being worn down? I think not. How many died on D-Day? In operation Market-Garden? Hardly comparitive to this short and probably most sensitive and cautious wars ever fought. The only thing that has been worn down is the backnone of the media and those enslaved to it's constant negative reports demonizing the effort to free an enslaved people. quote: You need to be more objective here. This coming from a guy who posts articles from Alternet. Hmm. quote: You need to keep in mind, that we wanted to "capture the hearts and minds" of the iraqi people, that this is important - otherwise, we will never succeed there. Which proves my point as to why in some cases, especilly one like this, discretion must be used in what we release to the enemy propagandists and rabid anti-war activists. I don't want to see these guys come home to anything even remotely close to what they had to go through on returning from Vietnam. You've been in a war. How would it have felt to come home and have some idiot spit on you because they believed ignorant lies and generalizations? quote: Falluja is proving that this may be impossible to do. With each "step" we take down that slippery slope of immorality (if you so will), we extend the distance between us and the iraqis and thus, our ultimate goal, of bringing "democracy" to them! Ah yes, the old slippery slope of immorality and quotes around democracy, once again showing your true opinion of our intentions. You obviously want the US to be the bad guys in this making statments like that. I believe that many Iraqis are just like you and I, they want to live their lives in peace. Many of them don't like us being there, and who can blame them. Nobody wants to be occupied, regardless of the fact that we toppled their dicator, but they are not going to take up arms against us because they also realize that without us there at this point their future chances at democracy and freedom to be an individual would be very bleak. The majority of the fighters are Saddam era loyalists, Islamofacists who are hanging on to a distorted view of their religion, with a few foreigners thrown in for good measure. The common folk just want peace, security and future prosperity. They are learning what democracy means, and if these idiots who do not speak for the majority of Iraqis yet fight in their name would stop resisting, the sooner they can have that democracy; peace, security and prosperity included. And what about Fallujah is proving anything but that we kicked the insurgents asses, aquired a very large stockpile of their weaponry from the many Mosques and other weapons caches, bomb making labs, uncovered houses where people had been tortured, and a chemical lab. Oh, because some left Fallujah while we twiddled our thumbs for 5 months and set off a few car bombs in Baghdad and took over a couple police stations in Mosul? Come on, Zarqawi released an Internet video just last week pleading for more fighters to come help with his cause, obviously a sign that the insurgency is weakening. quote: Also, such comments as "he should have said something" are really out of place. The reporter is in a combat zone. You don't tell those who are doing the fighting, especially soldiers, what they are supposed to do, in a "threat" situation, where time is short and can be deciding. I never said anything about him telling them what to do, just telling them what he knew. quote: You don't want to be considered an enemy. Unfortunately for him he is now. Not from me, I chalk it up as poor judgment. But I am sure there are many out there who feel quite a bit differently. I know you think I am right wing, and you are primarily correct, but I am hardly comparitive to the likes of some of the talking heads out there calling for this guy's head. He has already recieved numerous death threats, unfortunate but expected in todays climate. quote: A reporter also doesn't have any rank type of functions. He/she can't give orders to soldiers, and should try to remain as little distraction as possible in combat areas. Orders again. Who said anything about him giving orders? Just tell them what he knew to help expedite the situation. quote: This cameraman did the right thing - he shouldn't be trying to "second guess" what the soldiers are doing, or trying to evaluate their actions - he should just film what there is to film, and do his job. And that is what he did. In his blog he clearly second-guesses, evaluates and even takes on a rather judgmental tone. Ramasax (Edited by Ramasax on 12-04-2004 08:48) (Edited by Ramasax on 12-04-2004 09:00)
WebShaman Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001	posted 12-04-2004 14:14 More news on Falluja - Rebels return to 'cleared' areas quote: But the original problem persists: US forces sweep through one neighborhood after another, only to find insurgents popping up in "cleared" areas. The battle Monday killed one marine and wounded three others - a high cost against three insurgents, who had moved into a house 50 feet across the street from a newly established marine position at a Fallujah fire station. That house and several others nearby had been cleared just two days earlier. The ensuing fight revealed an enemy that has hardly given up and is making US forces learn the lesson of the warning taped up on the inside gate of the Marine fire station base: "Complacency kills." It would seem that the battle is far from over.
MW Bipolar (III) Inmate From: 48°00´N 7°51´E Insane since: Jan 2003	posted 12-05-2004 05:02 quote: Unfortunately for him he is now. Not from me, I chalk it up as poor judgment. But I am sure there are many out there who feel quite a bit differently. I know you think I am right wing, and you are primarily correct, but I am hardly comparitive to the likes of some of the talking heads out there calling for this guy's head. He has already recieved numerous death threats, unfortunate but expected in todays climate. Climate created by whom? With what intentions? As you said before, it´s a war of information and propaganda - so who is to blame if a reporter who does what a democracy is expecting a reporter to do (reporting, in this case filming, what happens, if it fits your favored world view or not) recieves death threats - Whose fault is it when americans threaten other americans because they exercise one of the basic rights you are claiming to defend against the forces of militant islam? As you said: quote: The media, on both sides, is the main propagator of hate in modern wars, this I believe. Do you think this spreading of hatred is unavoidable, even necessary? quote: They are learning what democracy means, At the moment they are learning what it means to have a superior military power with permanently decreasing respect for individual lives occupy their country - and it seems that many have a hard time seeing it as an improvement of their situation. Democracy? Maybe some Iraqis can see that on TV, provided they still have a home to put a TV into, or electricity to power it... quote: and if these idiots who do not speak for the majority of Iraqis yet fight in their name would stop resisting, the sooner they can have that democracy; peace, security and prosperity included. Just a thought, since no one seems to have hard facts about who those insurgents actually are (they seem reluctant to fill out surveys for some reason) - What if the US actually managed to piss the Iraqi people off to the extent that there´s actually a large number of them who are fighting against the occupating forces, just because Saddam, while a cruel and much hated dictator, never even came close to making the average Iraqi´s life so much more dangerous and miserable in such a short period of time? That´s just as hypothetical as claiming they are all foreign terrorists - is it less plausible? quote: Come on, Zarqawi released an Internet video just last week pleading for more fighters to come help with his cause, obviously a sign that the insurgency is weakening. So, every army/navy/air force recruiting commercial on US television/internet/newspapers is obviously a sign that the US war on terror/insurgents/Iraq is coming closer to a loss? Questionable logic.

Topic awaiting preservation: What exactly happened in that Mosque in Falluja? (Page 1 of 1) $Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=24249" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: What exactly happened in that Mosque in Falluja? (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: What exactly happened in that Mosque in Falluja? <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\$

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted 12-01-2004 10:37

Well, here are the words from the cameraman himself - Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1

A pretty sobering account. According to him, those in the Mosque were detainees that had been wounded and were being "held" at the Mosque at the time - apparently from another squad.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted 12-01-2004 18:00

edit: a lot of what I said was covered in Mr. Site's blog.

I had not heard that these insurgents were detainees or being held (there was noone holding them). News to me. I had not seen the cameraman's account. Thanks for posting WS.

A good summation of the events as I have heard them from the AP and other news orgs can be found here
with a petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/as123/

In the end they will probably have to try him. I am guessing we won't know ALL the facts until then. I would also guess if he is found guilty that it can be said he suffered from severe mental distress.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-01-2004 18:24)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted 12-01-2004 22:07

I would say that being shot in the face would put on under severe mental distress.

quote:
The Marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.

Sad is, that had it been under different circumstances, or in a "fire free" zone, or had the cameraman not have been witness, nothing would have happened. In other words, the soldiers in question are being called upon, to play a crazy "game" of when one is allowed, and not allowed, to kill. And there will be mistakes. In this case, lack of information turned a good soldier (my opinion) into a killer, a murderer, that will probably get tried.

And this type of behavior has a way of spreading - especially with tours being involuntarily extended. It gets harder and harder to differentiate between when one is allowed to kill, and when one is not. And as the situation gets crazier and crazier...it spirals downwards into a morass.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted 12-01-2004 23:14

Can't argue there WS and you would know better than I. I can only imagine how I would react in such a situation.

Shot in the face and seeing a buddy blown up is enough to put anyone over the edge, couple that with being in combat for a few days straight. Extended tours of duty, yes. Not sure if that was the case here though. Doesn't sound like he would have gone home anyway though, considering he was back on the line a day after being shot. You have to admire that kind of loyalty and comradery. If not for this incident the guy probably would have been handed a medal.

You are right, it is a game. A dangerous game that is going to cause our soldiers to have to second-guess themselves in combat. I read last week in an AP story, but cannot find the link, that a few days later a similar incident occured, only there was hesitation and a Marine was killed. I'll have to look around for that.

Ramasax

UnknownComic
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: 2 steps away from a los angeles curb
Insane since: Nov 2003

posted 12-02-2004 01:55

The soldier didn't do anything wrong.

I cannot imagine what that soldier has been going through. Apparently 300,000 + signatures on the petition link that ramasax posted are in agreement with his actions. The reporter tries to assure us that he is troubled by having to release the video. That in itself is troubling... That implies that he believes what the soldier did was wrong.

What I find curious is that his tone is apologetic, yet he writes of this tragedy as if the soldier did something wrong. It's a passive aggressive snipe. He is "pretending" to be supportive of the soldiers while he is backhandedly casting stones of pennance upon them. It smacks of arrogance and judgement. Fuck him! I havent seen any of the talking heads pontificate on this subject and dont really care to.

The only people who really have anything to say on this matter are the members of his company. I am sure they felt safer before this second guessing arose.

It's war. People will be killed. And apparently these insurgents are killing our soldiers under the white flag of surrender. So if a guy is on the ground pretending to be dead, it would make sense to kill him before he can spring into action.

I really wish we could get numbers on how many of these "fighters" are Iraqi born citizens. But, that's another thread I guess...

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Emperor
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted 12-02-2004 19:26

It is certainl a tricky situation as a lot of bodies are boobytrapped or the living wounded could be hiding a grenade under a blanket and I know I'd have probably finished them off to be sure but the wounded there had been dealt witth and disarmed the day beofre and weirdly he only killed the most injured and not a far more mobile Iraqi elsewhere in the room. It does sound slightly like he cracked and I would imagine he shoul probably be getting treated for PTSD rather than being taken to court (although it should be investigated thoroughly - thats what separates us from whoever them is after all).

--------
I am concerned about this suggestion that napalm was being used in Fallujah:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted 12-03-2004 05:34

Emps, is the Mirror not the same rag that said that asked the question of how 59million could be so dumb?

Also, and correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the mirror the one who printed those fake pictures of British soldiers urinating on POWs? Didn't somebody get sacked over that. They are also claiming that Margaret Hassan is still alive somewhere in Iraq regardless of a video that was released showing her murder.

A search on Google news shows no results that are even close to moderately unbiased and reading over a few of the articles shows no hard evidence of any sort. A suggestion is just that, a suggestion, nothing more. Suggestions do begin to take on a "truth" of their own if you repeat them enough though. Something known as propaganda.

Give me a link to CNN, the liberal New York Times, or even a somewhat moderate and reliable foreign source and I may concede to the idea and consider its validity, but otherwise I will consider it nothing more than the same anti-US propaganda as usual.

Don't get me wrong, I am concerned as well in hearing these types of things, and would definately have a problem there if it were proven to be true, but considering all the embedded reporters from both western and Arab medias with cameras and vidcams, if this were true I'm sure it would have hit the mainstream by now with all kinds of evidence. Also, Napalm, IMO, would hardly be the most effective weapon in an urban combat zone. A city built primarily from clay, which does not burn all that well.

Is it not also possible that a leftist paper such as the Mirror would be hoping this accusation would hurt Blair, considering he is up for re-election in 6 months? Notice the tagline to the article. "US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?" He is also mentioned quite a few times in an article about the actions of the US making him, in this article, guilty by assosiation.

BTW, welcome back from your sabbatical.

Ok, back to the topic at hand.

quote:
Emps said: It is certainl a tricky situation as a lot of bodies are boobytrapped or the living wounded could be hiding a grenade under a blanket and I know I'd have probably finished them off to be sure but the wounded there had been dealt witth and disarmed the day beofre and weirdly he only killed the most injured and not a far more mobile Iraqi elsewhere in the room.

Aye, but after the mosque was taken was it not then retaken by the insurgents and then retaken again by the Marines the following day? Well, there are conflicting reports here, so we need more info, which I am sure an investigation will bring out, but if there were fighters in that Mosque at any time after the original fight they had to be very cautious going in there the second time. Also, as far as I have seen other wounded men showed their hands. The one who was shot did not. He was under a blanket, all except his head. Even if he were incapable of doing so I don't believe that is a risk many would have taken. Especially if under the impression he was "f**king faking dead." The soldier definately seemed rather alarmed when he said that. Surprised, fearful for his life, and drawing on his training as a soldier in dealing with those emotions in a combat zone. Kill or be killed.

You can clearly see them pointing their weapons at the others after the shooting and they raised their arms in the air. They were also not covered when they entered, which is why attention was drawn to the biggest possible threat, the man under the blanket who appear to be faking dead.

Here's a question that I have been asking myself. Why did Sites wait until after the shooting to tell the Marines that he was there the day before and what he knew about the Iraqis in the mosque? He might be an "impartial observer," but does he not also have a responsibility to convey anything he knew?

This conversation wouldn't be happening right now if they had done what was common practive in WWII, toss a grenade in there before entering.

Here is why I, if in Kevin Sites shoes, would have destroyed the video:

quote:
An unedited version of the videotape, which was distributed to other news agencies as part of a pool report, was being aired several times an hour on Arab satellite television stations on Wednesday, and US commanders have said it has already yielded a huge propaganda victory for the anti-American insurgency. Some Arab commentators have even compared it to the scandal surrounding mistreatment of detainees earlier this year at Abu Ghraib prison. source

No need to fuel the fire of hate. The Arab media does a dandy job with their twisting of the facts and outright fabrications as is, without giving them a piece of video to dismantle and show out of context with no perspective. It is irresponsible to have released this video, and the direct consequences of said irresponsibility may be the deaths of more Marines in the future. Sure, reporters have a responsibility, but should that responsibility outweigh their responsibility to the lives of their countrymen? When I think of it from that perspective it really pisses me off.

While he is over there risking his life for fame and fortune, that marine he just condemned was over there risking his life fighting for him. The bastard!

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-03-2004 05:46)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted 12-03-2004 09:44

quote:
It is irresponsible to have released this video, and the direct consequences of said irresponsibility may be the deaths of more Marines in the future. Sure, reporters have a responsibility, but should that responsibility outweigh their responsibility to the lives of their countrymen? When I think of it from that perspective it really pisses me off.

No Ram, that is clearly wrong. In a case like this one, irregardless of the why, etc, such does need to get out, and aired. It is important that such happenings do get documented, so that factual evidence is at hand. Without such control measures, there is no way to prevent warcrimes. Without threat of being caught, an atmosphere for warcrimes is easily fostered (re: Vietnam).

quote:
While he is over there risking his life for fame and fortune, that marine he just condemned was over there risking his life fighting for him. The bastard!

That is particularly repugnant from you. Note that the reporter in question is risking his life reporting this. The reporter in question did not create, or cause the situation - he just filmed it. Also, it is not clear if he found out after the fact or not, that the men in the mosque were detainees. You need to be more objective here. It is one thing to support the soldiers there. It is another, to protect any such doings that they do, irregardless of what it is. You need to keep in mind, that we wanted to "capture the hearts and minds" of the iraqi people, that this is important - otherwise, we will never succeed there. Falluja is proving that this may be impossible to do. With each "step" we take down that slippery slope of immorality (if you so will), we extend the distance between us and the iraqis and thus, our ultimate goal, of bringing "democracy" to them!

Also, such comments as "he should have said something" are really out of place. The reporter is in a combat zone. You don't tell those who are doing the fighting, especially soldiers, what they are supposed to do, in a "threat" situation, where time is short and can be deciding. You keep your mouth shut, and try to stay out of the way. Remember, people are being killed here. You don't want to be considered an enemy. A reporter also doesn't have any rank type of functions. He/she can't give orders to soldiers, and should try to remain as little distraction as possible in combat areas. This cameraman did the right thing - he shouldn't be trying to "second guess" what the soldiers are doing, or trying to evaluate their actions - he should just film what there is to film, and do his job. And that is what he did.

As for napalm...now that is a weird thing. I would suspect that they would be using Fuel-Air explosives (which are much more effective, and better) than napalm! Using such in a city area, however, is irresponsible, especially when there are civilians still in the area.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted 12-04-2004 08:45

quote:
WebShaman said:No Ram, that is clearly wrong. In a case like this one, irregardless of
the why, etc, such does need to get out, and aired.

Even at the expense of the enemy using it to turn more Arabs against us westerners by, again, letting them dismantle it and and show it without perspective or in proper context? I'm not so sure about that, especially when it is sure to cause more bloodshed in the future.

That would be like journalists in WWII photographing or filming allied soldiers commiting executions of German soldiers, which you must know happened, and then handing it over to Joseph Goebbels for him to spin to his will. He would not have shown it honestly or subjectively and neither did they. Is the life of one terrorist insurgent, even if shot unjustly, worth the lives of the many on both sides who could lose their lives in the future by the hate it, and other similar isolated incidents, generate?

I don't know about you, but I believe we are fighting a war of information with words and pictures as well as a war on the ground with human lives, and that facet is just as important, if not moreso in some respects. The more conflicting propaganda that is created, the more irrational and widespread the hate grows, and the longer this thing will be drawn out. Whether you agree with us being in Iraq or not doesn't matter. The fact is that we are there and now must finish what has been started. We cannot bail out on the majority of Iraqis who want democracy and freedom, not now. Civil war which would surely arise if we left. Without any outside interaction at this point Iraq would probably in my guess end up as a terrorist state.

Saddam had planned for this, he set them up in case he fell, and somebody just like him, if not worse would come to power. Another 10-15 years and we are at war again.

The truth is one thing, but there must be discretion with small incidents such as this. Handle it internally and do not hand it over to the enemy so they can cause an uproar which incites more violence.

The media, on both sides, is the main propagator of hate in modern wars, this I believe.

The best way to get our soldiers home and let the Iraqis get on with rebuilding their nation and culturing their own unique version of democracy into prosperity, which after viewing 'Voices of Iraq,' reading over many of their blogs, and even chatting with a few of them, I believe they are very capable of doing, is to let the soldiers fight the war without demoralizing, judging and incriminating them at every turn. You must realize that as a whole, the majority of the men and women serving in the military are good people. We do not execute women, saw off heads and broadcast those videos to the Internet, use false surrenders for surprise attacks, booby trap our dead and injured, set car bombs which always kill more Iraqis than infidels, or fight from Mosques, and the fact that such a big outcry is made over one dead terrorist is wrong. One less threat to the future of Iraq in my opinion. One less potential car bomb being set. One less Iraqi child dying.

I even heard that some in the Muslim world, mainly Sunnis, were outraged that our soldiers had the nerve to go into a Mosque armed and wearing dirty boots. Do they realize what those people fighting in their name are doing to their supposed sacred holy shrines, using them as battle positions, hideouts and weapons stashes, slaughterhouses, or do they not care? We have gone out of our way in many cases taking care in not damaging such structures, seems we have more respect for their Mosques than they do.

Is it just the fact that we are infidels to them and not wothy of entrance? Could it be that they believe they are still fighting a war that happened centuries ago? A reiguous war of Mulims vs. Non-Muslims. Or do they just not know? If not then there is a major need for balance in their media sources if the hate is ever to stop. If they do know of all these things then in my opinion any outrage from them is sheer hypocrisy and only shows their true colors, that they believe we are inferior to them.

War is a dirty business as I am sure you know, not a game as some in the media today seem to believe. A game to see if I can get the biggest scoop of the year without regard to the consequences. It is just not right.

Don't get me wrong, scandals like Abu Graib need to come out because of the possible implications, and it was clearly wrong, however damaging that is the hit we take because we screwed up. This event concerning the Marine is not clear and his actions are that of a soldier in a war fearful for his safety and questionable at best.

quote:
Without threat of being caught, an atmosphere for warcrimes is easily fostered (re: Vietnam).

re: Vietnam and every other war ever fought in the entire history of mankind. War is war and bad incidents will happen when humans are given guns and put in horribly stressful and dangerous circumstances. We must trust that we are morally capable of handling ourselves in a primarily just way. Mistakes will be made, scandals will occur, nobody ever said war brought out the best in people. In the end though, it is not for the media to be the judge.

In any case, how far do you go with war crimes as far as Vietnam is concerned? Do you believe they were isolated incidents which were focused on intensely or do you believe to the extent of John Kerry who came home claiming all our soldiers were war criminals. Thus causing them to be called baby killers and spat on when they returned home from risking their lives in serving their nation? Not trying to be a smart ass, but just trying to see what perspective you are using that example from so I can sense to what degreee of impact your statement is supposed to make with me.

Another thing about Vietnam is many soldiers were drafteees who didn't even want to be there, also a cause of misdeeds in Vietnam. If you are put in a warzone against your will you are damn well going to take out some of those negative feelings on sombody.

quote:
That is particularly repugnant from you.

Aww, gee thanks. I thought everything coming from me was repugnant to you though.

quote:
Note that the reporter in question is risking his life reporting this.

For his undying loyalty to the truth no doubt. So, what? Am I suppposed to "feel" for him. I acknowledged this fact anyway. Why is he reporting it though? For the chance to gain fame and fortune and a contract with Time magazine in the future? It is his job, he is an independent jounalist, and the better and more moving the footage the more he makes. That is the bottom line, if it were simply about the reporter's oath to the truth, which is laughable these days anyway, he might have a conscience inside which would make him consider the consequences of what he was about to unleash.

quote:
The reporter in question did not create, or cause the situation - he just filmed it. Also, it is not clear if he found out after the fact or not, that the men in the mosque were detainees.

So far, his blog is the only place that mentions anything about these men being detainees. That one is still up for grabs IMO. You need to be more objective here.

In his blog he also says that many of our men have died in this "protracted war of attrition" which only further makes me question his intentions. This war is young, so protracted does not apply just yet. And are we being worn down? I think not. How many died on D-Day? In operation Market-Garden? Hardly comparitive to this short and probably most sensitive and cautious wars ever fought. The only thing that has been worn down is the backnone of the media and those enslaved to it's constant negative reports demonizing the effort to free an enslaved people.

quote:
You need to be more objective here.

This coming from a guy who posts articles from Alternet. Hmm.

quote:
You need to keep in mind, that we wanted to "capture the hearts and minds" of the iraqi people, that this is important - otherwise, we will never succeed there.

Which proves my point as to why in some cases, especilly one like this, discretion must be used in what we release to the enemy propagandists and rabid anti-war activists. I don't want to see these guys come home to anything even remotely close to what they had to go through on returning from Vietnam. You've been in a war. How would it have felt to come home and have some idiot spit on you because they believed ignorant lies and generalizations?

quote:
Falluja is proving that this may be impossible to do. With each "step" we take down that slippery slope of
immorality (if you so will), we extend the distance between us and the iraqis and thus, our ultimate goal, of bringing "democracy" to them!

Ah yes, the old slippery slope of immorality and quotes around democracy, once again showing your true opinion of our intentions. You obviously want the US to be the bad guys in this making statments like that.

I believe that many Iraqis are just like you and I, they want to live their lives in peace. Many of them don't like us being there, and who can blame them. Nobody wants to be occupied, regardless of the fact that we toppled their dicator, but they are not going to take up arms against us because they also realize that without us there at this point their future chances at democracy and freedom to be an individual would be very bleak. The majority of the fighters are Saddam era loyalists, Islamofacists who are hanging on to a distorted view of their religion, with a few foreigners thrown in for good measure. The common folk just want peace, security and future prosperity. They are learning what democracy means, and if these idiots who do not speak for the majority of Iraqis yet fight in their name would stop resisting, the sooner they can have that democracy; peace, security and prosperity included.

And what about Fallujah is proving anything but that we kicked the insurgents asses, aquired a very large stockpile of their weaponry from the many Mosques and other weapons caches, bomb making labs, uncovered houses where people had been tortured, and a chemical lab. Oh, because some left Fallujah while we twiddled our thumbs for 5 months and set off a few car bombs in Baghdad and took over a couple police stations in Mosul? Come on, Zarqawi released an Internet video just last week pleading for more fighters to come help with his cause, obviously a sign that the insurgency is weakening.

quote:
Also, such comments as "he should have said something" are really out of place. The reporter is in a combat zone. You don't tell those who are doing the fighting, especially soldiers, what they are supposed to do, in a "threat" situation, where time is short and can be deciding.

I never said anything about him telling them what to do, just telling them what he knew.

quote:
You don't want to be considered an enemy.

Unfortunately for him he is now. Not from me, I chalk it up as poor judgment. But I am sure there are many out there who feel quite a bit differently. I know you think I am right wing, and you are primarily correct, but I am hardly comparitive to the likes of some of the talking heads out there calling for this guy's head. He has already recieved numerous death threats, unfortunate but expected in todays climate.

quote:
A reporter also doesn't have any rank type of functions. He/she can't give orders to soldiers, and should try to remain as little distraction as possible in combat areas.

Orders again. Who said anything about him giving orders? Just tell them what he knew to help expedite the situation.

quote:
This cameraman did the right thing - he shouldn't be trying to "second guess" what the soldiers are doing, or
trying to evaluate their actions - he should just film what there is to film, and do his job. And that is what he did.

In his blog he clearly second-guesses, evaluates and even takes on a rather judgmental tone.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-04-2004 08:48)

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-04-2004 09:00)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted 12-04-2004 14:14

More news on Falluja - Rebels return to 'cleared' areas

quote:
But the original problem persists: US forces sweep through one neighborhood after another, only to find insurgents popping up in "cleared" areas.

The battle Monday killed one marine and wounded three others - a high cost against three insurgents, who had moved into a house 50 feet across the street from a newly established marine position at a Fallujah fire station. That house and several others nearby had been cleared just two days earlier.

The ensuing fight revealed an enemy that has hardly given up and is making US forces learn the lesson of the warning taped up on the inside gate of the Marine fire station base: "Complacency kills."

It would seem that the battle is far from over.

MW
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: 48°00´N 7°51´E
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted 12-05-2004 05:02

quote:
Unfortunately for him he is now. Not from me, I chalk it up as poor judgment. But I am sure there are many out there who feel quite a bit differently. I know you think I am right wing, and you are primarily correct, but I am hardly comparitive to the likes of some of the talking heads out there calling for this guy's head. He has already recieved numerous death threats, unfortunate but expected in todays climate.

Climate created by whom? With what intentions? As you said before, it´s a war of information and propaganda - so who is to blame if a reporter who does what a democracy is expecting a reporter to do (reporting, in this case filming, what happens, if it fits your favored world view or not) recieves death threats - Whose fault is it when americans threaten other americans because they exercise one of the basic rights you are claiming to defend against the forces of militant islam?

As you said:

quote:
The media, on both sides, is the main propagator of hate in modern wars, this I believe.

Do you think this spreading of hatred is unavoidable, even necessary?

quote:
They are learning what democracy means,

At the moment they are learning what it means to have a superior military power with permanently decreasing respect for individual lives occupy their country - and it seems that many have a hard time seeing it as an improvement of their situation. Democracy? Maybe some Iraqis can see that on TV, provided they still have a home to put a TV into, or electricity to power it...

quote:
and if these idiots who do not speak for the majority of Iraqis yet fight in their name would stop resisting, the sooner they can have that democracy; peace, security and prosperity included.

Just a thought, since no one seems to have hard facts about who those insurgents actually are (they seem reluctant to fill out surveys for some reason) - What if the US actually managed to piss the Iraqi people off to the extent that there´s actually a large number of them who are fighting against the occupating forces, just because Saddam, while a cruel and much hated dictator, never even came close to making the average Iraqi´s life so much more dangerous and miserable in such a short period of time? That´s just as hypothetical as claiming they are all foreign terrorists - is it less plausible?

quote:
Come on, Zarqawi released an Internet video just last week pleading for more fighters to come help with his cause, obviously a sign that the insurgency is weakening.

So, every army/navy/air force recruiting commercial on US television/internet/newspapers is obviously a sign that the US war on terror/insurgents/Iraq is coming closer to a loss? Questionable logic.