No matter WHAT - the marines look after their own

[leo9]

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]

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]

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

[MMI]

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]

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.

[MMI]

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]

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]

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.