View Full Version : No matter WHAT - the marines look after their own
It seems to me that now you can get away with anything if you are a marine.
This is infinitly depressing.
US marine reaches plea deal over deaths of unarmed Iraqis
taff sergeant Frank Wuterich led the marine squad in 2005 that killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha after a roadside bomb exploded near a marine convoy, killing one marine and wounding two others.
"Wuterich faces a maximum of three months confinement, two-thirds forfeiture of pay, and a rank demotion to private when he is sentenced, likely to be Tuesday."
"The issue at the court martial was whether Wuterich reacted appropriately as a marine squad leader in protecting his troops in the midst of a chaotic war, or disregarded combat rules and ordered his men to shoot and blast indiscriminately at Iraqi civilians. Wuterich was charged with nine counts of manslaughter, among other charges, and is one of eight marines initially charged. None has been convicted.
Prosecutors said he lost control after seeing the body of his friend blown apart by the bomb and led his men on a rampage in which they stormed two nearby homes, blasting their way in with gunfire and grenades. Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.
Wuterich's former squad members testified that they did not take any gunfire during the 45-minute raid on the homes nor find any weapons, but several squad members testified that they do not believe they did anything wrong, fearing insurgents were inside hiding."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/us-marine-frank-wuterich-iraqi-deaths
William Calley led his platoon to kill around ten times as many unarmed civillians at My Lai, and got three years' house arrest. So I guess they used the tarif that established.
IAN 2411
01-24-2012, 02:51 AM
Marines like all Special Forces are highly trained with a mind that is one and a half times more alert than the average soldier. It has to be that way, because the situations that they are put in are normally above the normal call of duty. I have said this in another thread and I will say it again for those that never read and thought about it.
When in a combat situation and the fire fight is over, you realise your still alive but the adrenalin is still pushing through your body at a tremendous speed. The mind is not working properly because the adrenalin is pushing you on a high. There is no training that can compensate for the real thing it can only prepare you for the event. Neither can training predict the strength of mind in advance that everyone knows at its best is unstable in the strongest of people. At some stage in a person’s life it lets you down then stupidity will take over.
The militarily, train and expect their soldiers to go and kill while fighting for their country without a conscience. I do not think it right because of one stupid act for any soldier to be given a conscience for his actions on his return home.
Civilians should realise that the wars of today are not like they were in 1940s. It is not about we will fire at your lines and in half an hour you can fire you big guns back at us. Troops looking at the enemy from their trenches while waiting for the big push to attack. It is about insurgency and road side bombs and suicide bombers of both sexes and ages. It’s now a war of nerves, and who can hold theirs the longest. For any person that doesn’t think that atrocities take place in modern warfare had better get in the real world because it is an everyday occurrence.
Yes, I agree that this was over the top, but I don’t see the Americans complaining about the dead that were in that convoy. That road side bomb was set off most probably by someone quite close with a remote. They were justified in taking evasive and defensive action and for persons that have no idea what I am talking about; attack is the best form of defence. If you have not had a rush of adrenalin coupled with blind rage then you have never served in a front line situation in today’s army.
I don’t condone what took place but I understand why it took place. I am ex British SF and proud of it, and I cannot understand why the Americans have made this a show trial. The American Marines have a hard task. I think it disgraceful that the same people that expect them to go and throw their lives away, are the same people that started the war in the first place. They are also the same people that sit in their peaceful suburban house condemning the enemy atrocities while putting their own kin on trial for any charge that goes against their God fearing mind. It makes me sick to the stomach the way that the Americans treat their brave Marines.
It is a fact of life that Special Forces in most parts of the free world will never get the respect they deserve from the people they serve because of the bad publicity. Think on this though, they are doing only what their leaders did before them and what they have learned from them.
The trial is a disgrace and betrayal of the trust the Marines have in their commanders. It shows just what the courts think of the charge by awarding three months imprisonment. Three months is far too long and the whole case is a disgraceful exhibition of civilian and media power dictating how their army should conduct themselves in battle. I would also hazard a guess that those same civilians and media moguls have never seen the butt end of a military rifle let alone used one. Why is this news in the first place? The Americans must like making themselves look bad in the eyes of the world.
Special Forces are the Cream of the Cream in the UK, France and America. When are the American civil population going to start treating them as such? When are the rest of the world’s civilian population going to get from under their laurels and off the high pedestal they have placed themselves? They should either shut up or put up.
Be well IAN 2411
So if I can sum this up: it's normal and natural for soldiers in action to run wild and slaughter everyone in sight, men, women, children and crippled oldsters, they are trained to do it and they do it very well, we should accept this and admire them because it takes so much courage to do it, and the other side are evil so that makes it OK.
I cannot offhand think of any comment that wouldn't breach Godwin's Law.
Marines like all Special Forces are highly trained with a mind that is one and a half times more alert than the average soldier. It has to be that way, because the situations that they are put in are normally above the normal call of duty. I have said this in another thread and I will say it again for those that never read and thought about it.
When in a combat situation and the fire fight is over, you realise your still alive but the adrenalin is still pushing through your body at a tremendous speed. The mind is not working properly because the adrenalin is pushing you on a high. There is no training that can compensate for the real thing it can only prepare you for the event. Neither can training predict the strength of mind in advance that everyone knows at its best is unstable in the strongest of people. At some stage in a person’s life it lets you down then stupidity will take over.
The militarily, train and expect their soldiers to go and kill while fighting for their country without a conscience. I do not think it right because of one stupid act for any soldier to be given a conscience for his actions on his return home.
Civilians should realise that the wars of today are not like they were in 1940s. It is not about we will fire at your lines and in half an hour you can fire you big guns back at us. Troops looking at the enemy from their trenches while waiting for the big push to attack. It is about insurgency and road side bombs and suicide bombers of both sexes and ages. It’s now a war of nerves, and who can hold theirs the longest. For any person that doesn’t think that atrocities take place in modern warfare had better get in the real world because it is an everyday occurrence.
Yes, I agree that this was over the top, but I don’t see the Americans complaining about the dead that were in that convoy. That road side bomb was set off most probably by someone quite close with a remote. They were justified in taking evasive and defensive action and for persons that have no idea what I am talking about; attack is the best form of defence. If you have not had a rush of adrenalin coupled with blind rage then you have never served in a front line situation in today’s army.
I don’t condone what took place but I understand why it took place. I am ex British SF and proud of it, and I cannot understand why the Americans have made this a show trial. The American Marines have a hard task. I think it disgraceful that the same people that expect them to go and throw their lives away, are the same people that started the war in the first place. They are also the same people that sit in their peaceful suburban house condemning the enemy atrocities while putting their own kin on trial for any charge that goes against their God fearing mind. It makes me sick to the stomach the way that the Americans treat their brave Marines.
It is a fact of life that Special Forces in most parts of the free world will never get the respect they deserve from the people they serve because of the bad publicity. Think on this though, they are doing only what their leaders did before them and what they have learned from them.
The trial is a disgrace and betrayal of the trust the Marines have in their commanders. It shows just what the courts think of the charge by awarding three months imprisonment. Three months is far too long and the whole case is a disgraceful exhibition of civilian and media power dictating how their army should conduct themselves in battle. I would also hazard a guess that those same civilians and media moguls have never seen the butt end of a military rifle let alone used one. Why is this news in the first place? The Americans must like making themselves look bad in the eyes of the world.
Special Forces are the Cream of the Cream in the UK, France and America. When are the American civil population going to start treating them as such? When are the rest of the world’s civilian population going to get from under their laurels and off the high pedestal they have placed themselves? They should either shut up or put up.
Be well IAN 2411
Dear Ian. There is a lot in what you say that I can understand. The situation seemed to be that a roadside bomb killed the friend of Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, and he just lost it, telling his men to shoot first and ask question afterwards, which is why women, children and a cripple was killed along with other unarmed civilians. As I understand it, this is not a question of a marine saying 'what the heck, let's kill some civilians'. It is a crime of passion, as I see rage as passion, and he lost control.
Does this excuse it? No. Why not? Because if you do not react very frimly to that kind of thing, you loose control, and more and more atrocities will happen.
You mention road bombs. I have been considering that for some time, and logically I cannot see any difference between sidebombs, mines, other bombs, or drones. Can you?
It is war, and the idea is to kill your enemies. And both sides do it any way they can.
The militarily, train and expect their soldiers to go and kill while fighting for their country without a conscience. I do not think it right because of one stupid act for any soldier to be given a conscience for his actions on his return home.
Civilians should realise that the wars of today are not like they were in 1940s. It is not about we will fire at your lines and in half an hour you can fire you big guns back at us. Troops looking at the enemy from their trenches while waiting for the big push to attack. It is about insurgency and road side bombs and suicide bombers of both sexes and ages. It’s now a war of nerves, and who can hold theirs the longest. For any person that doesn’t think that atrocities take place in modern warfare had better get in the real world because it is an everyday occurrence.
I think you are going right to the core of the matter here. Even in 1940 it wasn't just one line shooting at another, the bombs from planes killed civilians as well as soldiers.
I know it is silly, but to me marines just should be better than that! And they aren't, and they are getting away with it so it will only get worse.
I know it is unbelievablly stupid, but this morning I lost the last of illusions, ones I did not even know I had: there is no honor and no rules in war anymore. None.
IAN 2411
01-24-2012, 05:23 AM
So if I can sum this up: it's normal and natural for soldiers in action to run wild and slaughter everyone in sight, men, women, children and crippled oldsters, they are trained to do it and they do it very well, we should accept this and admire them because it takes so much courage to do it, and the other side are evil so that makes it OK.
That attitude is the same as all the civilian population that I talked about in my post. Point for you leo9. Before you criticise the actions of others go and do their training, and then go over there and show them how to do it so that your conscience is clean in the eyes of your God.
I don’t give a damn what they do or how they carry out their orders. I don’t want to know how they went about their business, as it is they that have the rifle pointing at them and not me. You; must be a very naive person to think that killing people and winning wars can be done in a way that people with no idea are happy with.
I respect the Marines and any of the armed forces that are out there fighting a war that the Americans and English politicians started. If you feel that you have been offended by what you read in the papers then close your eyes, because the poor bastards over there getting killed in the name of peace do not get the chance.
Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever had a grenade or nail bomb thrown at you? Have you ever picked the guts of your comrade and friend off the pavement and put it on a stretcher? Have you ever had your nerves so much on edge that the smallest of sounds puts you on your knees in a defensive position? If you have never been in those situations, then don’t judge other because of your ignorance of the situation? The only respect you give the enemy is that they can kill you.
I cannot offhand think of any comment that wouldn't breach Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Law: prov.
[Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
And the connection is?
You can come on here and spout to me all the education you have learned from birth, and at times it goes above my head. I like most other people live in the real world, and not cocooned by a library full of useless information that will never get me any further forward in life than I already am. I talk to the man on the street without putting on airs and graces. I am who I am and will never conform to an ideal. I talk about what I know and not what others know or tell me or wish me to say. I have a mind and brain of my own, and I would use that before reading and quoting information that only 2% of my fellow man would know anything about.
Be well IAN 2411
You mention road bombs. I have been considering that for some time, and logically I cannot see any difference between sidebombs, mines, other bombs, or drones. Can you?
It is war, and the idea is to kill your enemies. And both sides do it any way they can.
Historically, regular troops have always been sensitive about guerillas: it's like they're not playing fair. Soldiers take casualties from guerilla traps much harder than the same losses to the other side's regular forces. And one of their common responses is to start slaughtering the locals, on the basis that some of them have probably been supporting the guerillas, so let's just kill them all and let God sort it out.
From the guerillas' point of view, this is an ideal response, since it greatly increases the general hostility to the invaders. Which is one reason, leaving aside all moral considerations, why intelligent commanders try to prevent abuse of civillians. Stupid commanders imagine that terrorising the locals will make them more co-operative. Historically, this rarely works.
IAN 2411
01-24-2012, 10:56 AM
Historically, regular troops have always been sensitive about guerillas: it's like they're not playing fair. Soldiers take casualties from guerilla traps much harder than the same losses to the other side's regular forces. And one of their common responses is to start slaughtering the locals, on the basis that some of them have probably been supporting the guerillas, so let's just kill them all and let God sort it out.
Cyprus was an annex of the United Kingdom following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It was made a Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 the EOKA was created and Grivas was their leader, they were a type of Freedom Fighter/Terrorists. The UK had forces over there in three Sovereign Base areas, Akrotiri, Apiskopi, and Larnaka. The UKSF stepped between the EOKA fighters and the Turks. I cannot remember the above highlighted ever taking place. The UN never arrived until most of the fighting was over in 1964.
Then there is Northern Ireland again, please tell me when it took place there.
What about Aden in the 1960s the only atrocities were done by the Arabs...but I forgot that in the eyes of the civilians now, that doesn’t count for shit.
If it is so common, then surely there would be more talk about it. I think your statement is there for you to prove, because in two of those three countries I was a UKSF and kept on a very tight leash.
Be well IAN 2411
You can come on here and spout to me all the education you have learned from birth, and at times it goes above my head. I like most other people live in the real world, and not cocooned by a library full of useless information that will never get me any further forward in life than I already am. I talk to the man on the street without putting on airs and graces. Well, yes, I do see your point. Having spent most of my time in intellectual ghettos and ivory towers like farms and markets and building sites, and having been coddled and protected by living most of my life on less than the minimum wage, I'm obviously out touch with the common man and the realities of life. I'm sorry if my la-di-da ways and egghead talk offend your salt of the earth virtues.
Originally Posted by leo9
Historically, regular troops have always been sensitive about guerillas: it's like they're not playing fair. Soldiers take casualties from guerilla traps much harder than the same losses to the other side's regular forces. And one of their common responses is to start slaughtering the locals, on the basis that some of them have probably been supporting the guerillas, so let's just kill them all and let God sort it out.
Cyprus was an annex of the United Kingdom following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It was made a Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 the EOKA was created and Grivas was their leader, they were a type of Freedom Fighter/Terrorists. The UK had forces over there in three Sovereign Base areas, Akrotiri, Apiskopi, and Larnaka. The UKSF stepped between the EOKA fighters and the Turks. I cannot remember the above highlighted ever taking place. The UN never arrived until most of the fighting was over in 1964.
Then there is Northern Ireland again, please tell me when it took place there.
What about Aden in the 1960s the only atrocities were done by the Arabs...but I forgot that in the eyes of the civilians now, that doesn’t count for shit.
If it is so common, then surely there would be more talk about it. I think your statement is there for you to prove, because in two of those three countries I was a UKSF and kept on a very tight leash.
Be well IAN 2411Selective quotation isn't smart when the lines you leave out are right there above your post for everyone to see. In this case, where I wrote "From the guerillas' point of view, this is an ideal response, since it greatly increases the general hostility to the invaders. Which is one reason, leaving aside all moral considerations, why intelligent commanders try to prevent abuse of civillians. " I would have added, if it hadn't sounded too much like bragging about my own country, that the British Army have a good many intelligent commanders by that test. But since you raise Northern Ireland, I take it you don't believe that Bloody Sunday ever happened.
IAN 2411
01-24-2012, 03:21 PM
Soldiers take casualties from guerilla traps much harder than the same losses to the other side's regular forces. And one of their common responses is to start slaughtering the locals, on the basis that some of them have probably been supporting the guerillas, so let's just kill them all and let God sort it out.
QUOTE]
That quote is a statement, and how do you know all this? Thinking like that would not get you on the passing out parade.
[QUOTE=leo9;961341]I take it you don't believe that Bloody Sunday ever happened.
I was there, and by the way, you only know what you have read about. Most of that was press fiction and IRA lies. Before you ask it’s none of my business. The strangest thing about your reply was that I knew you would quote Bloody Sunday, because the civilians in the UK know damn all about a province that we have had in the British Iles for all of their life. Ask anyone about Northern Ireland in the UK and the first words that come from their mouth would be Bloody Sunday, unless they have served in the Army. Ask them how many brave men of the UK Forces lost their lives serving in the province, and watch their mouths shut in shame. Both Protestants and Catholics were throwing fire bombs and shooting at the British Soldier, did you read about that in the paper? No. I think not, because it would not make the front page.
Well, yes, I do see your point. Having spent most of my time in intellectual ghettos and ivory towers like farms and markets and building sites, and having been coddled and protected by living most of my life on less than the minimum wage, I'm obviously out touch with the common man and the realities of life. I'm sorry if my la-di-da ways and egghead talk offend your salt of the earth virtues.
I never said that, I said in layman’s terms, tat if you quote something then do us all the honours of giving an explanation to your quote. Your talk does not offend me at all, and as for the rest, let’s see. I had no education as such in 1947. I have worked in factories, driven trucks across Europe, served in the SF, worked on demolition sites, laboured on a building site. In fact the only difference between you and I is that you might be younger, and you have quoted me something that I know damn all about. It would take up too much of my valuable time to work out what the connection is, so as you know please tell me so I can be as enlightened as you.
Be well IAN 2411
denuseri
01-24-2012, 04:33 PM
Sneaks in on tip toes and peeks around the corner.
<< wants to test the theory:
What about the conduct of the "Nazi's" in territory they occupied as compared to areas occupied by the allies?
ooo and thir dont loose all hope, we conduct ourselves much better than they did in the past.
IAN 2411
01-24-2012, 04:44 PM
Sneaks in on tip toes and peeks around the corner.
<< wants to test the theory:
What about the conduct of the "Nazi's" in territory they occupied as compared to areas occupied by the allies?
ooo and thir dont loose all hope, we conduct ourselves much better than they did in the past.
That a very good test denu.
There was a hell of a difference between the allies ocupation and the Nazi's and what is taking place now. We give the country we occupied back its respect, but the Nazi's took away the countries respect and anything else that was of value.
Be well IAN 2411
Ozme52
01-24-2012, 06:35 PM
So if I can sum this up: it's normal and natural for soldiers in action to run wild and slaughter everyone in sight, men, women, children and crippled oldsters, they are trained to do it and they do it very well, we should accept this and admire them because it takes so much courage to do it, and the other side are evil so that makes it OK.
I cannot offhand think of any comment that wouldn't breach Godwin's Law.
Why do you believe that a modern soldier might be any different than soldiers of virtually every ken in every era that went before? We just have modern media to "horrify" civilians who never understand the realities of war. And, as Ian points out, if you want them to do this level of dirty work, you should be prepared for the consequences of training them to react to threats that can come from any direction at any time. When you can't tell the combatants from the civilians, civilians will get hurt.
And why do we villify the individual soldier when our leaders, and leaders throughout the ages, make decisions that have vast amounts of collateral damage. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Berline, Dresden, Coventry, London, Verdun, are all modern era horror shows. The list goes on and on going back through the ages.
Don't think any of this is new. Just ask any Carthaginian. Wait. You can't find one.
Don't think any of this is new.
Indeed, it's not. As a matter of fact it's gotten much worse and the percentage of civilians being killed in war has continuously increased over the centuries.
ooo and thir dont loose all hope, we conduct ourselves much better than they did in the past. [/QUOTE]
God I hope you are right denuseri! I really really hope so.
Historically, regular troops have always been sensitive about guerillas: it's like they're not playing fair. Soldiers take casualties from guerilla traps much harder than the same losses to the other side's regular forces. And one of their common responses is to start slaughtering the locals, on the basis that some of them have probably been supporting the guerillas, so let's just kill them all and let God sort it out.
I see the problem/
From the guerillas' point of view, this is an ideal response, since it greatly increases the general hostility to the invaders. Which is one reason, leaving aside all moral considerations, why intelligent commanders try to prevent abuse of civillians. Stupid commanders imagine that terrorising the locals will make them more co-operative. Historically, this rarely works.
No, the civilians only end up in the middle, as always.
[quote=leo9;961308] soldiers take casualties from guerilla traps much harder than the same losses to the other side's regular forces. And one of their common responses is to start slaughtering the locals, on the basis that some of them have probably been supporting the guerillas, so let's just kill them all and let god sort it out.
Quote]
that quote is a statement, and how do you know all this? Thinking like that would not get you on the passing out parade.
I was there, and by the way, you only know what you have read about. Most of that was press fiction and ira lies. Before you ask it’s none of my business. The strangest thing about your reply was that i knew you would quote bloody sunday, because the civilians in the uk know damn all about a province that we have had in the british iles for all of their life. Ask anyone about northern ireland in the uk and the first words that come from their mouth would be bloody sunday, unless they have served in the army. Ask them how many brave men of the uk forces lost their lives serving in the province, and watch their mouths shut in shame. Both protestants and catholics were throwing fire bombs and shooting at the british soldier, did you read about that in the paper? No. I think not, because it would not make the front page.
I never said that, i said in layman’s terms, tat if you quote something then do us all the honours of giving an explanation to your quote. Your talk does not offend me at all, and as for the rest, let’s see. I had no education as such in 1947. I have worked in factories, driven trucks across europe, served in the sf, worked on demolition sites, laboured on a building site. In fact the only difference between you and i is that you might be younger, and you have quoted me something that i know damn all about. It would take up too much of my valuable time to work out what the connection is, so as you know please tell me so i can be as enlightened as you.
Be well ian 2411
Please guys, do not get personal! Go after the ball, not the man.
This issue is important, at least I think so. Very important! So please do not wreck it.
Thank you in advance.
IAN 2411
01-25-2012, 05:32 AM
Please guys, do not get personal! Go after the ball, not the man.
This issue is important, at least I think so. Very important! So please do not wreck it.
Thank you in advance.
You are so right, point taken
Be well Ian
Indeed, it's not. As a matter of fact it's gotten much worse and the percentage of civilians being killed in war has continuously increased over the centuries.It's not quite that simple. There was a time when invasion, by definition, meant devastating a country, killing anything that didn't run away fast enough and burning anything you couldn't loot.
Then - in Europe, at least - a concensus developed that soldiers should fight soldiers and try to leave the infrastructure intact and the peasants alive, if only so that a conquered country could pay more tribute. In "Henry V" Shakespeare has a character protest that killing the camp-followers is "contrary to the laws and principles of war." That concensus only really broke down with the Spanish resistance to Napoleon, from which we get the term "guerilla" (Spanish "little war," as distinct from the big one going on between the armies.) The theory generally remains that troops should treat civillians as non-combatants unless proved otherwise: on the grounds that it's a lot easier to subdue a country if you can persuade the locals that your quarrel is not with them personally, and the quickest way to make that impossible is to make it personal by killing their neighbours. To take a recent example, it is often said that the relative success of the British Army in pacifying Helmand Province was due less to their defeat of the Taliban in the field, and more to their humane treatment of Afghan civilians.
The enormous increase in civillian deaths in warfare is not due to troops on the ground, who in the main have become better behaved, but to the predominance of mass slaughter weapons. Whether the same principle should be applied to those is still hotly argued, and not just by armchair generals but by experienced warriors. For example, it is still being fiercely debated whether the RAF's mass bombing of German cities was (quite apart from the moral issues) less effective, in the end, than the pinpoint bombing of strategic targets with minimal collateral damage.
Ozme52
01-25-2012, 11:46 AM
Indeed, it's not. As a matter of fact it's gotten much worse and the percentage of civilians being killed in war has continuously increased over the centuries.
Now you have to define "civilian". My gut says the percentage has gone down. The sheer number is up, but so is the total population. In the past, citizen soldiers, with no training in combative arts, were killed wholesale by being put into the fray as fodder. In the past, when a city was captured, it was sacked and any civilian who attempted to resist was beaten down and/or killed, unless they were female, then they were also raped. (First, second, and even sometimes third in that list.) In the past, survivors later starved or fell ill because their livelihood and homes were destroyed. They have to be counted too.
But that's all picking nits because the main point is spot on.
Ozme52
01-25-2012, 11:56 AM
Please guys, do not get personal! Go after the ball, not the man.
This issue is important, at least I think so. Very important! So please do not wreck it.
Thank you in advance.
Well, to the point, while I abhor civilian casualites, I recognize they are inevitable. And if you wish to try the marines who participated, I say do that, but only after you try all the Iraqii soldiers who perpetrated far worse against their neighbors' and their own civilians, after you try all the insurgents who use car bombs in civilian areas in order to harm said marines, and after you try all the leaders of all the representative parti, including religious leaders, for being beligerent and causing these conflicts.
Even then, I'd be hard pressed to naysay those who are doing there best to protect themselves as they carry out the wishes of said leaders.
Well, to the point, while I abhor civilian casualites, I recognize they are inevitable. And if you wish to try the marines who participated, I say do that, but only after you try all the Iraqii soldiers who perpetrated far worse against their neighbors' and their own civilians, after you try all the insurgents who use car bombs in civilian areas in order to harm said marines, and after you try all the leaders of all the representative parti, including religious leaders, for being beligerent and causing these conflicts.
Considering how our parents told us that "someone else was doing it" is no excuse, it's amazing how many adults use it.
Ozme52
01-25-2012, 09:18 PM
That's not what I said leo. What I said was hold everyone to task. Not just those who we ask to do our dirty work.
The problem would so easily be solved if those who ruled were forced to stand in the front lines of each and every fight in which they engage.
IAN 2411
01-25-2012, 11:56 PM
The problem would so easily be solved if those who ruled were forced to stand in the front lines of each and every fight in which they engage.
They used to Ozme52 a thousand + years ago, but then again if I had a few elephants either side of me and I was riding on one, even I would feel safe. I didn’t have to look that up, because I have the Carthaginians in the middle of one of the books I have written.
You were also correct in one of your earlier posts, as they never gave a damn about anyone. They trampled upon men women and children as they walked, smashed , pillaged and raped their way through towns, villages and country side.
Did you know that the enemy destroyed the elephants by climbing trees, and overhanging rocks to fall on the elephants from above. Then if they could kill the archer or spearmen that it was carrying, the assailant would stick a spear in the nape of the elephant’s neck between the head and body. It was the only way they could be killed, the very first anti tank weapon I would presume.
Be well IAN 2411
IAN 2411
01-26-2012, 12:24 AM
On the original post, in truth it is water under the bridge, because tomorrow there will be another incident that will outrage the public. Then this minor infraction of what the press and the politically correct think is a breach of fair play will be forgotten. There is no such thing as fair play in war or battle because a fire fight is all about survival and damn all else. If a few civilians are caught up in the crossfire or counter attack, tough. It’s morally wrong, it’s unfortunate, but it has been the way wars are fought since time began. The innocent along with the guilty and the troops on the ground are classed as expendable by the leaders of both sides. Don’t blame the men on the ground for the minor atrocities, blame the commanders that send them out with a mind to kill or be killed.
Be well IAN 2411
Stealth694
01-27-2012, 07:46 AM
Goodpoints IAN:
In a battle a soldiers only concern is to survive!
js207
01-29-2012, 07:57 AM
Thir, the main reason the cases against these marines largely collapsed is that the prosecution witnesses were telling a very different story to the one the prosecution wanted. In a sense, it's a miracle they pinned any charges on at all, given the facts.
The main problem seems to be that the late Congressman John Murtha leapt to conclusions unsupported by facts, claiming "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell." Nobody knows why he claimed this; he was even sued for defamation, but escaped on a technicality.
I find it interesting that anyone thinks civilian fatalities are up. This so-called "massacre" involved 24 non-combatant fatalities. It was likened to the Vietnam War's My Lai, which involved between 15 and 20 times as many. Go back a few decades more, we find the bombing of Dresden, with a current estimate of 25,000 (versus 50,000 in Hamburg and 18,000 in Pforzheim during the same war). In terms of total bloodshed, the Civil War was the worst the US has fought, even before adjusting for the much lower population in those days (almost as many fatalities from that conflict alone as in the second century of America's existence, which encompasses their part in both WWI and WWII). Far from increasing, I would say fatalities have reduced enormously - they just get much more attention now than they ever could have in the past.
Ozme52
01-29-2012, 11:47 AM
They used to Ozme52 a thousand + years ago, but then again if I had a few elephants either side of me and I was riding on one, even I would feel safe. I didn’t have to look that up, because I have the Carthaginians in the middle of one of the books I have written.
You were also correct in one of your earlier posts, as they never gave a damn about anyone. They trampled upon men women and children as they walked, smashed , pillaged and raped their way through towns, villages and country side.
Did you know that the enemy destroyed the elephants by climbing trees, and overhanging rocks to fall on the elephants from above. Then if they could kill the archer or spearmen that it was carrying, the assailant would stick a spear in the nape of the elephant’s neck between the head and body. It was the only way they could be killed, the very first anti tank weapon I would presume.
Be well IAN 2411
The Carthiginians probably used this smaller, now extinct, species. I believe this Wiki article to be accurate... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Elephant
You're correct, the leaders of the past who did actually fight were better armed and armoured, had better mounts, whether equine or elephant, and were often spared for the ransom they could bring. But they could take an errant arrow to the eye (ala Harold at Hastings.) And at least they led. Now they send.
On the original post, in truth it is water under the bridge, because tomorrow there will be another incident that will outrage the public. Then this minor infraction of what the press and the politically correct think is a breach of fair play will be forgotten.
As a thought experiment, suppose that one of these men had come home from his tour of duty, had a PTSD flashback (as has been known to happen) and started mowing down US civilians with the same indiscriminate enthusiasm? Would you continue to argue that fighting men cannot be held to the same standards as lesser mortals, and it should be dismissed as a breach of fair play?
Or, given your argument that it's the heat of battle that excuses everything, suppose he got caught up in an armed robbery, drew his piece, and then after shooting the gunmen carried on to shoot down a dozen or so innocent bystanders? Do you suppose the police would agree that anything can happen in a firefight?
Would it be more excusable if they were only Muslim immigrants, and he'd flashed back to "kill all ragheads" mode?
Ozme52
02-01-2012, 11:28 AM
An interesting "experiment" to consider.
I think that if he'd been found to be suffering PTSD, the answer is NO. Instead hold him to the same standard that we hold those who have suffered a mental breakdown and incarcerate him in a mental health detention facility. But let's be sure it's not just the defense attourney's ploy.
Your last question is somewhat insulting as it presumes we feel the way we do because of where this took place. Sorry but I don't necessarily see anyone using the "ragheads deserve whatever they get" arguement and it is therefore provocative for you to imply it.
IAN 2411
02-01-2012, 04:36 PM
On the original post, in truth it is water under the bridge, because tomorrow there will be another incident that will outrage the public. Then this minor infraction of what the press and the politically correct think is a breach of fair play will be forgotten.
IAN 2411
As a thought experiment, suppose that one of these men had come home from his tour of duty, had a PTSD flashback (as has been known to happen) and started mowing down US civilians with the same indiscriminate enthusiasm? Would you continue to argue that fighting men cannot be held to the same standards as lesser mortals, and it should be dismissed as a breach of fair play?
I don’t know where you are going with this thread leo9, but I am not going with you, because now you are deviating from the OP. Don’t be shy start a new thread.
Or, given your argument that it's the heat of battle that excuses everything, suppose he got caught up in an armed robbery, drew his piece, and then after shooting the gunmen carried on to shoot down a dozen or so innocent bystanders? Do you suppose the police would agree that anything can happen in a fire fight?
For a start he is not in the police, and you are trying you best to goad me into a answering a question that has damn all to do with the OP or for that matter the thread. My argument has nothing to do with what he does in peace time, and neither is the OP. “I repeat,” don’t be shy start a new thread.
Would it be more excusable if they were only Muslim immigrants, and he'd flashed back to "kill all ragheads" mode?
I am in full agreement with Ozme52 but I will add though that they are not called rag heads any more....they are called [little sheet heads].
Be well IAN 2411
I admit to having only skimmed the surface of this thread, so I expect to be shot down in flames for this post, but I do get a distinct impression that there is a strong body of opinion that, because war is war, anything goes, and if you want proof, just look at every war that has ever taken place. Atrocities are inevitable and unavoidable: they are, perhaps, the essence of war.
Justification for the Holocaust at last!
Ozme52
02-01-2012, 11:52 PM
Comparing the acts of individuals in the heat of battle to a governmental policy that was carried out by decree is way off base.
You too obviously have nothing thoughtful to add so have chosen to derail the conversation by being insultingly provocative.
Nothing wrong with being provocative. And in any case, isn't it provocative to suggest individuals committing criminal acts are exonerated by virtue of their being at war? I think it is. If you feel insulted by my comment, then that's your problem - I note you have found other people's points of view personally objectionable before, e.g., post 32 above. I intended you no offence, I simply pointed out that if you can forgive one criminal act because it was committed in wartime, then why not all wartime crimes?
Furthermore, I reject your assertion that the Holocaust was committed by a government policy while other atrocities were committed by individuals in the heat of battle. The pissing on dead bodies by US marines recently was done shortly after the battle, not during it. The Srebrenica massacre was pre-planned. Carthage was razed to the ground as an act of cold-blooded genocidal revenge. But it would be pleaded afterwards by those participating that they did it "while their blood was up". It was individual Nazis who killed the communists, homosexuals and Jews during WWII, not a decree.
Emptying a machine-gun into one individual, or stabbing him a hundred times are the sort of acts one would see "in the heat of battle", but they are not justifiable because they were frenzied or for any other reason.
I think my comment was valid.
thirteen
02-02-2012, 09:40 PM
Your last question is somewhat insulting as it presumes we feel the way we do because of where this took place. Sorry but I don't necessarily see anyone using the "ragheads deserve whatever they get" arguement and it is therefore provocative for you to imply it.
Isn't that one of the underlying assumptions though? When trying to survive in a hostile, alien landscape people may do things that we might not like, but we can accept due to the nature of their environment?
That said, is the question we are asking: "who do we hold accountable for this loss of life?" If so, I don't think the individual soldiers are the only people who should be judged.
Ozme52
02-03-2012, 01:03 AM
No. They're just trying to play the race/religion/ethnicity card because without it can't point to those of us defending the individual soldiers as being unreasonable (imo). And to MMI's point, THAT is what I find insulting. Further, in answer to MMI's comment
isn't it provocative to suggest individuals committing criminal acts are exonerated by virtue of their being at war? that's the whole point of the conversation. They haven't been found guilty of criminal acts... and THAT's the question thir is trying to address. Are they being protected and are they criminals.
Even if they're being protected, we aren't privy to anything but what's reported in the press. I've personally seen how the press can decide an issue without fact, just opinion, later not hear or respond to facts, assuming they even cared in the first place, and get their reporting wrong. So I'm not even sure this particular case matters nor will we likely get to know the real facts unless there appears an impartial third party. Yeah, right. Where are you gonna get one of those.