Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

When they start beheading people, cutting off limbs and legs and have slaughterhouses, then you have a point.

But what's yours? So only when they match, or come closer to, Iraqi violence, then they've crossed a line? You really have to consider the fact that you live in a much more 'civilized' region, the Western world, and expectations are completely different.

Btw, I'm not addressing your defense of the Iraqis pulling tricks. Just your comparison.

Buuuut for the former, this is why an investigation is necessary. It doesn't sound like killing him was necessary, faking death or not.

 

[Ripclawe]

But what's yours? So only when they match, or come closer to, Iraqi violence, then they've crossed a line? You really have to consider the fact that you live in a much more 'civilized' region, the Western world, and expectations are completely different.

If marines are just walking around shooting random people that are clearly not a threat, then you have a line. This is not that line.

 

[Socreges]

I edited my post just before/after you posted that. So:

Btw, I'm not addressing your defense of the Iraqis pulling tricks. Just your comparison.

Buuuut for the former, this is why an investigation is needed. It doesn't sound like killing him was at all necessary, faking death or not.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

'erring on the side of caution' requires you to kill a wounded man?

In war? Yes. Listen I'm not saying this is all good because he is an American. I'm looking at this situation pragmatically. First off this is war atrocities happen all the time not to be blaze about it but that's what it is. The Marines' jobs are to kill people.

See taken to a certain point that would require you to kill every wounded Iraqi in Falluja. So is there any limit to the amount of errors that can be excused by caution?

This is true. I really don't have a rational response to this question. Obviously you don't want to kill everyone (like Caesar or some Biblical leaders would have done to their enemies) but, we have to look at the situation for what it is. They are using the dead and injured as booby traps. The guy made a split second decision based on what he thought was the right thing to do. If he committed a crime then he should be punished.

Since these men had been checked by other U.S soldiers and were left in the mosque to be moved to the back it would seem that the executioner in this case didn't do anything more than note the guy wasn't dead and shot him.

Well I don't know if the first group of Marines had contact with the second group of Marines. We are analyzing it with beauty of 20/20 hindsight something that he didn't have.
Again this is war and this is what happens in war sometime. That's why I am a proponent of diplomacy, peaceful methods, and when war is necessary proper planning. When that isn't done problems like these will be bound to come up.


Of course the military could just start snatching suspected insurgents and start cutting heads off till someone gets the point.

 

[Azih]

When they start beheading people, cutting off limbs and legs and have slaughterhouses, then you have a point

how DARE you seek to justify American atrocities by citing greater insurgent brutality?

.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Well here's the cold hard reality. The side that commits the most atrocities wins. Think about the outrage that would happen if the US did Fallujah like they did Nagasaki. And in the end Nagasaki ended the war Pacific side of the war.

 

[Socreges]

Well here's the cold hard reality. The side that commits the most atrocities wins. Think about the outrage that would happen if the US did Fallujah like they did Nagasaki. And in the end Nagasaki ended the war Pacific side of the war.

Could you elaborate on that more? Not so sure I understand.

 

[Azih]

You are missing the point. You can NOT justify one crime by citing another. So stop. And really that was a reply to Ripclawe because you and I agree on most points here Tommy, the dude will be tried, if he didn't excercise proper caution in shooting an unarmed wounded man in the head then he should be punished.


As for

First off this is war atrocities happen all the time not to be blaze about it but that's what it is.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."----Friedrich Nietzsche

It may be that the Marines are not seeing to it with enough dilligence.

 

[Azih]

Reposted for the benefit of Ripclawe as he's ignored the question once before

When they start beheading people, cutting off limbs and legs and have slaughterhouses, then you have a point

how DARE you seek to justify American atrocities by citing greater insurgent brutality?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

In Nagasaki the US dropped a bomb that killed almost totally civilians with no warning. Today I can't envision a situation like that (maybe in the case of another catastrophic terrorist attack but even that is far fetched). But that attack was so horrendous that it stopped the JPN war machine.

What I am saying is that the only time people lose the will to fight is when something so catastrophic happens that it makes it feel futile to resist. I think that is what will ultimately happen in Iraq.

You are missing the point. You can NOT justify one crime by citing another. So stop. And really that was a reply to Ripclawe because you and I agree on most points here Tommy, the dude will be tried, if he didn't excercise proper caution in shooting an unarmed wounded man in the head then he should be punished.

I figured as much. I can not and will not justify doing comparing one wrong to another wrong to make right. It makes for damn good movies but, not for good reality. I was just expanding my point from earlier because I was in a rush. I hate to post and run.

 

[Azih]

You're not looking at history with enough care than Tommy, you're looking at one situation of a completely homogenous society that was controlled completely by the king-god diety of the Japanese emperor. If the Emperor hadn't surrendered to the Allies then the Japanese were willing to fight to the death (as evidenced by not only the Kamikaze attacks but also japanese mass civillian suicides before the bomb)


If people could be cowed into not resisiting, then it would have happened in Chechnya ages ago, but it hasn't. The only sure way to cause a people to lose the will to fight via force is to kill them all.

 

[Socreges]

In Nagasaki the US dropped a bomb that killed almost totally civilians with no warning. Today I can't envision a situation like that (maybe in the case of another catastrophic terrorist attack but even that is far fetched). But that attack was so horrendous that it stopped the JPN war machine.

It's actually argued that the nuclear bombs weren't necessary and served as more of a demonstration of American will, at that time, than anything else. But you're only trying to illustrate a true point. Just a poor illustration, I think.

What I am saying is that the only time people lose the will to fight is when something so catastrophic happens that it makes it feel futile to resist. I think that is what will ultimately happen in Iraq.

Sure, but where does this catastrophe fit in to what we're discussing? Are you condoning arbitrary war to dampen Iraqi spirits? Because, believe me, that would only encourage them. There are still many, many Iraqis, I suspect, that are on the wall as to whether they should wait for peace or try and force the US out, and would not tolerate frequent complacency. If it's not obvious by now, this is not the type of people that are easily distraught.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

...

 

[Fusebox]

Soldier death in war is not an atrocity - torture and post-mortem dismemberings are atrocities.

Azih - seems to me you're the kind of guy who'd rather argue about the colour of an oncoming car instead of getting out of its way.

 

[Azih]

Eh. I'm not putting my life in jeopardy by posting on a gaming message board. Even if I was, there're some things worth standing up for.

 

[Fusebox]

.. there're some things worth standing up for.

And you feel that criticising a US soldier for killing a willing enemy combatant is worth standing up for, whereas not many other people do.

Now that all our opinions are out there, god bless the internet.

 

[Saturnman]

Because criminals don't play by the rules, we don't expect cops to have similar disregards. Being in the police, putting your life on the line so many times, we still have standards for them otherwise they shouldn't be in the force.

 

[Fusebox]

It's like, you're saying something, but like, you aren't, y'know?

 

[Socreges]

And you feel that criticising a US soldier for killing a willing enemy combatant is worth standing up for, whereas not many other people do.

If you word it in such a way - "willing enemy combatant" and not "unarmed, injured soldier" - then I suppose he WOULD have a hard time finding agreement.

It's like, you're saying something, but like, you aren't, y'know?

You're making some awesome contributions here, Fusebox. Keep it up.

 

[Saturnman]

Like that last reply of yours? Hardly.

The US portrays itself as the good guy, preach other countries on human rights even in times of war, and when it's their turn, some of you argue we turn a blind eye? No way.

Your country is not a war for survival, a desperate fight, but in an invasion for lofty goals to liberate a people. You have more than the luxury to practice what you preach to others.

 

[Fusebox]

You're making some awesome contributions here, Fusebox. Keep it up.

Hey you agreed with me so no probs.

 

[Socreges]

Hey you agreed with me so no probs.

Oh? On what point? When I mentioned that you manipulated the context in order to misconstrue the argument into your favour?

 

[Fresh Prince]

Your country is not a war for survival, a desperate fight, but in an invasion for lofty goals to liberate a people. You have more than the luxury to practice what you preach to others.

Fusebox is Australian.
Anyway the soldier shot to kill, atleast he should of tried to shoot to maim, if he thought he was at some risk of a trap etc.

 

[Fusebox]

Yay, lets all spend a few more wasted hours on debating exactly what we can and can't discuss while still maintaining our political correctness instead of just standing up and having the guts to say, "Hey, I'm noticing a pattern here, a lot of these guys really DO seem pretty intent on fucking up our way of life, well lets do something about it".

Seriously, you can spend your time continuing to make excuses and justifications and allowances for the radical Muslim insurgents, in the meantime I'm getting ready to line them up and start firing.

 

[FoneBone]

Fortunately, the heroic denizens of Free Republic have come up with a bold solution to this crisis.

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2004/11/freepers-promote-new-american-values.html

 

[Xenon]

If the Iraqi was playing dead and then suddenly moved, his ass deserved to be shot. He can blame his fellow Iraqis for using these tactics to kill US soldiers for his actions getting misconstrued. But if he was just wounded and the marine just finished him off then they need to address it and punish said soldier.

 

[Socreges]

Seriously, you can spend your time continuing to make excuses and justifications and allowances for the radical Muslim insurgents, in the meantime I'm getting ready to line them up and start firing.

And what about that military! Investigating the matter! Boy, they'll do ANYTHING to go easy on those insurgents!

Or... maybe there's an important argument here that people have been making throughout the thread.

Haha, nah. It's all about those insurgents! Free Iraq! Bring back Saddam! Praise Allah! Mah haladiq qutar! Mah haladiq qutar!

 

[Fusebox]

And what about that military! Investigating the matter! Boy, they'll do ANYTHING to go easy on those insurgents!

Or... maybe there's an important argument here that people have been making throughout the thread.

Haha, nah. It's all about those insurgents! Free Iraq! Bring back Saddam! Praise Allah! Mah haladiq qutar! Mah haladiq qutar!

Honestly, I'd love to respond but I have no idea what you're getting at.