This seems to have been drowned out by the election...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Listy, May 6, 2005.

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. "..consistant with.. rules of engagement.." :!:

    I'm stunned. Can somebody please explain to me how this can be correct?
    (Honest question, I really don't understand)
  2. You have go to give the bloke risking his neck the benifit of the doubt.
  3. Maybe their RoE include taking out anyone who may have at some stage in the past, may be presently, or might conceivably in the future, think that they might want to become an airline pilot?

    You're not really surprised by this result, are you?
  4. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Cheers Listy.

    If the cameraman really thought that the Marine was acting legitimately, why did he make the tape public instead of passing it to someone up the chain of command ?

    Not a case of selling copy was it ?
  5. Apparently they had been briefed that insurgents were concealing grenades or had booby trapped themselves for this very eventuality. I've seen the lead up to the shooting but US tv always freezes the tape before the shots are fired so I can't tell whether the guy was making a move or not.

    Apparently the Marine made a snap decision and the Investigation team didn't want to be in the business of second-guessing Marines in the field. That may be a fair point, but something smells fishy here and I'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble. The same guy has been implicated in other shootings (3 I think).

    Cuts, he was a civilian cameraman. He was doing his job and he (or his organization) can pass the tape on to anyone he wants. Be honest, what would probably have happened to that tape if he passed it up the chain?
  6. I hate second guessing, but I must admit that I did say something that sounds like "Oarlocks!" when I heard that story.

    One can almost not blame some Iraqi's for takeing potshots at the yanks, what with this and the rest of the stories.
  7. Exactly the same thing?
  8. The US Military set low standards. We should just be glad that he managed to hit a wounded enemy lying on the floor 3 foot away, as opposed to one of his allies.
  9. The usual mix of informed and cynical comment (I love this site!), thank you lads!
    To be honest the footage has always worried me, but having always been at home" tending the wounded", I have never wanted to second guess or pass judgement on the actions of those in the field.
    However, in this case... :?
  10. If you mean no further action taken, then yes. But without the bothersome adverse publicity.
    Wine coolers, medals and Annapolis fight songs all around at the O Club.
  11. Cynical?
  12. In fairness to Uncle Sam's Marching Clowns, they have brought murder charges against a 2Lt after two of his NCOs reported him for shooting a civilian. Trouble is that he had previously given them a bit of a rifting and they didn't actually see the event as they "had their backs turned".
  13. Blanket anti US sentiment and downtalking the skills of their soldiers is an easy option.

    If this guy had been in Basra and decided to put a round into the guy on a reflex in difficult circumstances there would be some sucking of teeth but if the guy had gone to court martial and got sentenced what would we think?

    The poll on the RRF 3 suggests that we like our transgressions done in slow time with deliberate thougt to be winked at or blamed on the boss.

    The board sided with the shooter making fast decisions and I'm all for that.
  14. Yes, (accusations of cynicism aside) that was what I meant. The negative publicity appears to have strengthened the insurgent cause (rather as the Mirror's 'authentic shots of downtown TA Centre' did) without having any other effect. Certainly the 'outrage' of the civilian news team has not been borne out. There is though, an alternative...

    Perhaps that ought to have the 'UK' taken out of it for a wider, but no less accurate, meaning...