Marine Corps Needs to Investigate Young Marine in Fallu...

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by PTCrusader, Nov 17, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. ...to see what decorations he qualifies for and how quick they can award him the Bronze Star.

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/11/15/716108-ap.html


    Damn, I'd like to shake that young leatherneck's hand. C'mon, isn't he the kind of headsup Marine that makes the squad accomplish the mission and do it safe? Wouldn't you want his kind to be next to you in combat situation? I don't even understand why they sent him to the rear like he was some kind of shitebird. Like the man said

    http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_fight_111604,00.html

    there are no civilians in Fallujah. These are sons o bitches in doo rags who have no fukcin conscience, who don't surrender and a guy in this Marine's own squad had been killed by a boobytrap the day before. Where were these pious Muslim fighters? In a mosque using it to fire from which if you want to talk about Geneva Conventions is an absolute violation. We sent him there to kill Islamic terrorists (this wasnt some bozo sitting in a lawn chair with a brew in his front yard) in the context of the rules of land warfare, there's just no violation of any ROE that I have heard about. Correct me where I am wrong.He's like all our boots over there, an American Hero. These ragheads DO NOT surrender. This was combat fer Chrissake. A SWAT team in any US city would have been justified, much less in this theater. Didn't he protect his brothers and do what was "actually necessary for military purposes?" 90% of Americans would say your gd right he did.

    As an American citizen who saw this fine young government employee do what our taxes pay him to do, I want nothing less than the Pentagon to say we reviewed the video and hell no there's going to be no investigation, he did his job and his Bronze Star is on the way.

    And then drop a big one on Al jazeera's transmitters and also NBC's and CNN's while they're at it.

    Don't demoralize and disarm our Marines.

    Sorry but I really needed to get this off my chest cos I am p*ssed (American style, that is, not Brit style. Sober as a judge, word of honor.)


    SEMPER FI
     
  2. I tend to agree with PTC,

    This young man had been in a battle ground situation for some days, had even been wounded and had seen his comrades killed. the stress factor must have been incredible!!

    Who investigates when the Iraqis break the Geneva Convention?? To win a war like this one you need to fight fire with fire!!
     
  3. the Iraqis havent signed up to the Geneva Convention, we and the septics have, so we are the ones who have to abide by those laws and also the laws laid down in the Rules of Engagement.

    His crazy 'bravado' in front of the camera along with the actions of the other marine who killed the wounded man in an alleyway in front of a film crew may ultimatley soil the good and brave work of others, not to mention how the rest of the world will view things. Will it make other insurgants fight to the death rather than surrender?
     
  4. F#ck me Filbert, never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you, but there it is, it's done now. Whatever happened, I wasn't there, all I've seen is the images on TV. It's these images, same as the prison one's, that the world see's and judges on. I guess there's a few more recruits every time Al Jazeera show the clip.
     
  5. As has been pointed out already they are not worried about death and do not tend to surrender. They already fight to the death and use any method they can to take service personnel with them including false surrender and planting explosives on the dead. As a result this bloke may very well have been protecting himself and his friends however, I don't think the cocky nature of the way it appears on camera will help his case.
     
  6. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Having not walked in the man’s boots I am loath to criticize him. I do think however the world and his dog from the safety of his armchair who will judge him will only see the fact a person was shot and killed. Sadly too few in our society (from an understanding point of view) have no idea beyond video games and dumbed down TV what war really means. To most it is black and white documentaries on the history channel and no real people get hurt.
     
  7. He made 2 mistakes
    1. Was to do it on camera
    2. Letting the cameraman live
     
  8. I see no reason why our lads should abide by the Geneva Convention when the disgusting filth that are the enemy don't.
     
  9. Because we are a liberal democracy?
     
  10. and because we are civilised and better than them.
     
  11. When we fight against a liberal democracy that abides by the Convention then as a liberal democracy we apply the same rules.

    In this case in Iraq the enemy are not abiding by the convention and have lost any right to be treated under the convention.
     
  12. "It is something forbidden in Islam, an American killed an unarmed Iraqi prisoner inside a mosque,"

    I didn't know the Islamic Holy book made any reference to the americans in any way. maybe my education has been lacking!!! :? :?
     
  13. the enemy havent signed up to the convention, we have, do you actually attend you ITD on the Law of Armed Conflict?

    Just because they havent doesnt mean that we dont.

    The bloke messed up, if it was a 'life or death split second decision' then fair enough, but it wasnt, it was deliberate and calculated.
     
  14. The enemy iraqi muslims behead unarmed civilians that loses them the right to be treated under any convention in my book.

    The enemy iraqi muslims defile and mutilate bodies that loses them the right to be treated under any convention in my book.

    The enemy iraqi muslims deliberately target civiliansthat loses them the right to be treated under any convention in my book.
     
  15. the Americans shoot unarmed civilians running towards checkpoints away from the bombings, in your book does that lose them the right to be treated under the laws of the convention?
    The Americans kill unarmed and wounded combatants, in your book does that lose them the right to be treated under the laws of the convention?
    The Americans drop cluster bombs on residential areas, killing civilians, in your book does that lose them the right to be treated under the laws of the convention?
    Then of course theres the treatment of prisoners by the Americans, in your book does that lose them the right to be treated under the laws of the convention?

    or is it 'in your book' one rule for one and another for someone else?