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

#2
"..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)
 
C

cloudbuster

Guest
#4
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?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#5
Cheers Listy.

the BBC said:
Marine cleared over Falluja death

Residents pick through the rubble of a house destroyed in Falluja
The US operation in Falluja reduced much of the city to rubble
A US marine filmed shooting an injured Iraqi in Falluja acted in self-defence and will not face a court martial, a Marine Corps investigation has found.

The five-month investigation found that the shooting had been "pretty much consistent with the established rules of engagement", a spokesman said.

Video of the killing last November, which was taken by a US cameraman, was flashed around the world.

It came during a bloody operation to recapture the rebel-held city.

In sworn statements, the unnamed marine corporal said he had shot three insurgents in self-defence in the mosque on 13 November, believing they posed a threat to him and his fellow marines.

Cameraman Kevin Sites said in his weblog account of the shooting that the marine could have legitimately believed the man posed a danger but he asked whether standards had been lowered.
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 ?
 
#6
MamaSmurf said:
"..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)
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?
 
#7
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.
 
#9
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.
 
#10
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... :?
 
#11
fas_et_gloria said:
crabtastic said:
Be honest, what would probably have happened to that tape if he passed it up the chain?
Exactly the same thing?
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.
 
#12
MamaSmurf said:
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... :?
Cynical?
 
#13
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".
 
#14
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.
 
#15
crabtastic said:
fas_et_gloria said:
crabtastic said:
Be honest, what would probably have happened to that tape if he passed it up the chain?
Exactly the same thing?
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.
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...

Enlightened_One said:
Never forget that the purpose of the UK media is to make money for their share holders and not to inform the UK public.
Perhaps that ought to have the 'UK' taken out of it for a wider, but no less accurate, meaning...
 
#16
fas_et_gloria said:
Enlightened_One said:
Never forget that the purpose of the UK media is to make money for their share holders and not to inform the UK public.
Perhaps that ought to have the 'UK' taken out of it for a wider, but no less accurate, meaning...
And the motives for the war in the first place was to spread freedom and democracy and not to secure ME oil for the West before the Chinese start buying it all? :wink:

Lads. Like it or not the media has a place and a vital function in a democracy. How else would people be informed? Rely on their government to tell them what's going on? Sure there is financial pressure and quite frankly the sources of tv news here in the US is dire, you will not get a straight story out of any source of TV news. Most news networks are filled with either vacuous harpies who look pretty or grisled blowhard pundits with their mouths stuck in transmit mode.

As an aside, those of you that berate the BBC please take note- they are not responsible to shareholders. Frequently on this site they are accused of left-wing bias, but you only need to see the hard time they've been giving our Dear Leader over the war to realize that this assertion is ill-founded. By the same token it is unreasonable to presume that just because they have BRITISH in their title that they should necessarily present the "facts" as you see them.

For literally hundreds of millions of people the BBC is respected and seen as the main source of impartial news, both in the developing world and elsewhere. Indeed, the BBC news is shown nightly on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and frequently on CSPAN (kind of like BBC Parliament) and is frequently featured on National Public Radio. Many "brighter" members of American society frequently tune in because the BBC tends to cover items of consequence rather than, to use last weekend as an example, filling the entire news cycle with a non-story about a woman in Georgia who did a runner from her wedding.

Come over to this side of the pond guys. Trust me, it can make you weep.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top