Why are Marines sleeping in captured houses, disrespecting the owners? How do we know the Iraqui's they show are all "insurgents"? Why do the photos look like screenshots out of Rainbow Six or some other video game? I don't know why the gas hasn't been reported, god knows I'm looking for any bit of good news to come out of this shit.

Theres a lot of news that doesnt get reported, and I just don't buy the "liberal media" rap that's been laid down over the last 15 years or so. The major news organazations are simply asleep at the wheel and not covering all the issues that need to be covered.

Disrespecting the owners??? Are you serious??? Did you see the guy sleeping on the concrete floor, while sitting up against a wall? This is WAR. Thank God the guys who have been fighting for over a week straight can find a mattress to crash on. I'd give up my bed in a heartbeat for these guys. They have been going house to house, searching and fighting. If they can actually sleep, I'm glad. I'm sorry but this just strikes a major nerve with me.

I'm guessing that the imbedded reporter who snapped the pictures saw the guy shooting at our soldiers and then saw him get killed, right before he took his mugshot.

I stand by the disrespect comment. How would you feel if an invading army decided to camp out in your bedroom after running you out of town?

As far as the "insurgents" go, I didn't see any weapons or anything. I saw a man in handcuffs bleeding and a dead body. One was suspected, the other was called an insurgent, but the photos don't prove anything. Do I think the soldiers want to kill everyone, of course not, that's insane. Do I think their orders don't necessarily provide adequatesupport for the protection of civilians, possibly but I've never been a soldier so I wouldn't know. But just to assume that every dead Iraqui caught on camera was an insurgent is a dangerous and unrealistic way of looking at things.

Speaking of which, what do you guys think about the soldier who was filmed shooting a wounded man in cold blood in a mosque in Fallujah. Who hasn't heard about this yet? Is this just one soldier losing it, or is this a more symptomatic problem that always follows soldiers in combat?

everything in the media has nothing to do with sides - shock value seems to be the main agenda item - keeps the rating up... but I'm sure you already knew that.



how can i possilbly think anything about that accept sadness (well not really - more like disregard)... i have no idea about the facts of the incident or what the incident may have felt like - ive made weird decisions on just general stress situation, cant imagine what mind set the soldiers are in under their stressful moments.

Either way if killing is going on over their how can anyone be shocked over killing regardless of the circumstances.

Well heres what I've read in the small amount of info I can find on the background of the situation. There were five or six people found in that mosque who had been wounded during the combat. No weapons were found on them and they were left ther eby marines and todl that aid was coming. The next day the marines in question arrived to survey the situation. Upon looknig over the wounded one marine commented about the man in question that, "He aint dead for real, he's just playing dead." Another marine raised his rifle and fired, concluding with the comment, "He is now."

Now you can beleive or disbelieve me on this because the article I read this from has been archived on the site and I can't find it. Whatever the specifics of it are these facts remain clear,

1 The man was not armed
2 The man had already been wounded
3 This marine took it upon himself to do what he did
4 The marine in question had been wounded in combat the day before

Was it fear, stress, revenge, I don't know and I don't pretend to know. All I do know is that it sounds really bad and just serves to make our soldiers and our country look worse on the world stage.

Here some stuff I dont think the news wil show. Warning, these pictures contain graphic images. If you're bothered by that kind of thing then don't look. If you're not, you're probably fucked in the head like me and should seek help.

http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

I watched the entire tape, from the time they were outside the mosque until they walked in, saw the body twitch and the marine pull the trigger.

The "fog of war" was thick, as about three marines approaching the mosque said a tank almost blew away two other marines that were already inside. The couple inside came out and said said everyone inside was dead. When one of two bodies leaned up against a wall moved slightly, the Marines, clearly cautious and scared, said "That one is f-ing faking dead". Not seeing any movement, another said "Is he dead?" There was another slight movement and the first marine said "he's f-ing faking dead" and shot the body. To which the second marine responded "he's dead now."

I have since learned that the marine who pulled the trigger had been fighting several days straight. The day before, that marine was shot in the face, treated and returned to the fight. Also the day before, one of his friends was killed in a similar situation when the body of an "unarmed" dead insurgent was booby trapped. Considering the situation, this guy was completely justified in believing that the "unarmed, wounded" Iraqi was a threat. Having seen the video, I'm not convinced the "wounded" Iraqi was even alive. The movement was so slight, it could have been post-mortem.

A serious, non sarcastic question for everyone: Does that, in your estimation, justify what the marine did? It's clear that, whether he was still alive or not, he didn't need to shoot him. So do all the circumstances add up to a justifiable action?

I disagree. It is not clear that he didn't need to shoot him. The way he was slumped over, he could have been reaching for a grenade or some other weapon. I have a friend headed to Iraq next week who has been training soldiers for the past three months. He said the enemy is using coke cans, MRE meal packets and anything else they can get their hands on to make bombs. If this guy had been wounded, but still had a grenade, or other device, he could have killed all five marines in the room. I feel that all of the circumstances add up to a justifiable action, especially in the heat of battle.

I think that's why their doing an investigation. I don't believe the marine should be held personally accountable for what he did, after all it's not like he walked up and shot someone in Central Park. But from many accounts it is more of a systemic action of shooting first and investigating later. Of course there is no way to know who is who for sure, I know that, but there have been many reports of soldier topping off wounded people in the streets. Since we don't know whose a fighter and who's not, is it better to err on the side of caution and kill them all or capture and try to determine who is who? Me, I don't like the idea of killing anyone, it's bad karma, but that's why I know I'd make a rotten soldier and I never bothered.

what the heck are you talking about - its war over there nothing civilized about it.

True, it's a war, and there are rules of engagement that are supposed to be followed. Also, the Geneva convention, of which we still adhere to, has guidelines for how enemy prisoners and wounded are supposed to be treated.

My government is trying to have it both ways, declaring a state of war, but saying that since we are not fighting a country or conventional army that teh rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply. we're going to end up chasing the spectre of terrorism all over the middle east. You can't beat terrorists, their like rats, when you take out one nest it just opens the door for you to find ten more. In my limited opinion, everytime we screw up over there we just create more of the sentiment that creates terrorists in this regard. It creates sympathy for those countries by other nations of the world and begins to stack the globe against us. It's already starting to happen. Now what are we going to do when we need help, and we will need it. No empire lasts forever.

Just read this about responses on a right wing message board concerning the journalist who reported the Fallujah shooting.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411170001

if you are refering to me then you my friend are the one that is not sane... I am not for any war - not even spiritual ones.

Here here.

I tend to agree with Tony. We keep repeating the same things. Now that I've heard everyone's opinion on the marine, I'm pretty sure that all relevant political topics have been discussed ad nauseum. Until the next sensational story needs discussion...

I know you wanted to see thsi thread die, but the world keeps going and I keep on drumming up controversy. There is a report in the Washington Post saying that Republicans in the house have set in place a rule that says the house will not pass any bills unless it has a majority Republican support, no matter how many Democrats support it. They have already passed motions that keep the democrats out of the discussion process when drafting bills. This to me sounds like the Republicans are pretty much locking out the Democrats and, in effect, locking out the POV of roughly half the country. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that' the way you're supposed to run a country like America. I have read some comments from people that heartily support this and want to reduce the nations second party to the level of secretaries while the REpublicans "go about the business of running the country". I personally think you need the ideas of everyone to make a country this large and diverse work, but maybe one party making all the decisions for everyone is the better way to go. What are the thoughts here?

Ya know, I've been reading a lot on a lot of different websites and I keep hearing this liber vs conservative media thing all the time and I just don't get it. What are the earmarks of a liberal media bias? Is ti that they are critical of the government? Is it that they seem to support homosexuality by having shows that feature gay charecters? What are conservative issues that the media SHOULD be reporting? I don't watch much regualt television (just Cartoon Network, Comedy Central and Star Trek(which by far and away HAS To be a liberal show, I'll say that one out loud)) so I don't really know what's going on that shows a bias.

Now I can say that while I was watching the election coverage I would rifle through al the cable news channels and I most certainly did not encounter a liberal bias. I can't say what I saw was a bias towards conservatives, but I did see a strong pro-Bush/anti-Kerry thing hapening. I don't know if that represents conservative ideals or not, but I'd like to think that it doesnt.