You know this is going into the "America is Great Satan" round-up at Al-ja-sleeza.

Is this like when John Kerry shot that fleeing Viet Cong in the back?

Nah, probably not. Kerry was a war hero (three purple hearts! three!) and the Marines in Fallujah are just Halliburton's killing-machine minions.

(...Or innocent victims of Bush's oil war, duped into serving with the promise of free tuition. Take your pick. It really all depends on whether Michael Moore's dyspepsia is acting up that day or not.)

Cry me a river. The Marine thought the muj was dead, the muj twitched, the Marine blew his brains out. End of story. Checking the dead is an incredibly hazardous activity. And by being inside a mosque in the first place these terrorists were breaking the laws of war. I wouldn't be surprised if they hang this guy out to dry, though.

I saw one version of the video. My gut says it could really be over the line -- if only because I've spent 20+ years watching movies where the good guys tie up some unspeakably evil schmuck in a closet and end up with a big confrontation scene in the final reel......and thinking, "if it were me, I'd plug the SOB on general principles."

On the flip side, our soldiers are trained better than this candy-assed middle-aged Pillsbury escapee will ever be. I wouldn't second-guess one in a suburban crosswalk, and I surely don't think this guy deserves any cozy back-seat-driving from my armchair in California.

I hope -- I really, really hope -- that there's sufficient evidence around to indicate that it's a good shoot. I want the guy to get a medal, the press to get stuffed, and the world to marvel at the most perfect realization of controlled force ever put on the field. I want our soldiers to be better than I would be, and I want the facts around to back it up.

And if that's not meant to be, I hope the guy speaks the truth, takes his lumps, goes the remainder of his time in with distinction, and isn't crucified by the anti-American doom crew. And gets visited by the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa, while I'm at it.

Not sure how this will play out. I don't know what rules of engagement (ROE) were in the Marines orders. We don't know the details of another Marine squad that was there moments before the shooter's squad entered the Mosque, who evidently shot at the 5 insurgents as well, killing or further wounding 4 of the 5. 3 others of the 5 died from the wounds inflicted by the 1st squad.

On the CON side - The videotaped shooter's squad was evidently in there for 2 full minutes right next to the 5, a long time for determining whether or not the 5 were deadly threats - before the shot blowing one of the guy's brains out was taken. And perception is reality. The video of a US soldier spattering a prostrate and evidently unarmed man's brains all over a Mosque wall is not good PR.

On the PRO side - Insurgents had "faked" death before, pretended to surrender, booby trapped bodies, had explosives strapped to themselves, worn captured uniforms to lure Marines in, had retaken positions to the rear - and killed Marines those ways. When some insurgents employ those tactics, other insurgents pay by having far lower odds the Marines will risk taking them alive.The reporter was wrong - the 5 were NOT at that point prisoners under the Marine's control, and had NOT checked out for weapons. Also, another Marine, not the shooter, was shouting warnings of menace. The shooter hardly just casually shot the guy in cold blood.

Anybody who's been in deadly house to house combat for 12 to 24 continuous hours anticipating that bullet with your name on it, anybody who's lived in the fog of war dodging snipers, IED's, booby traps and sneak attacks, anybody with any concept of what these Marines have endured, would laugh at the silliness of this becoming an issue.
If this event becomes another MSM flap, I personally will slap the shit out of any newsperson I ever meet personally.

Heard a 2200 hours Pacific report on ABC radio news that was pretty clear. The Marine thought the guy was playing dead and moved.

Knowing anything about suicide attacks...what would you have done?

ROE? He's gone.

"booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent"

Then there is no way to know that the prostrate Iraqi is "unarmed" - right?

Personally, I am completely nonplussed by the soldiers action. Unfortunately, I don't make the rules. With the LLL/MSM spaz-tards smarting so much from the recent elections, I imagine it's a no-brainer that they will try to make hay out of the event. Given that, I'd expect the soldier to be made an example of. That's a shame, given that Jean Francois Kerrie got a pass for doing something similar if not worse (Um. Or so he claims). In a sane world, the soldier would simply be reprimanded, IMO.

Islam is lucky the US does not play by their rules: All Arab capitals would be nuclear-fused glass parking lots if we did. Oil would be about $10.00 per barrel too.

I believe it was Paula Zahn that I heard say "First it was Abu Ghraib, now...". Man, I hate the Media.

I can't and won't judge. I wasn't there, and can't possibly imagine the stress and tension of the moment- but I do know that if your finger is on the trigger in a combat situation, you are more likely to shoot than not.

In a training exercise, I "shot" an individual that had "surrendered", because he was presumed armed and he made an aggressive move. Turned out he wasn't armed. The quote from my instructor was " you're in it now... but I'd have done the same thing".

I'll trust the Marines to investigate this, but I'll also guarantee the media won't shut-up about it for several days...

There seemed to be a communication breakdown. The wounded were apparently left for pick up by another group of Marines. The group that was there during the killing didn't know there were wounded left in the building. Also, the shooter was shot in the face just the day before, so he might have been a bit more jumpy than usual. I know I would be.

For the ten thousandth time: Why are we letting the media film this stuff? Don't we know who our enemies are?

John Kerry was in Vietnam? I wish I had known that before the election.

Another dead terrorist. Why are we debating this?

I posted my ten cent observations: http://garfieldridge.blogspot.com/2004/11/us-to-probe-shooting-of-wounded-iraqi.html

-- I'll let military justice sort the facts, not NBC (or Al Jazeerah)
-- We traded Simi Valley for the Sunni Triangle. Only no one in the media is going to attempt to understand that actions taken on the battlefield are not the same as highlighting police brutality. There can be a host of mitigating circumstances at play here (or, there could be none at all-- see my first point above).
-- Again, while America will investigate, indict, convict, and punish any potential war crimes by its men and women in uniform, we'll still be held up as horrible for the events occurrence in the first place. Meanwhile, the Jihadis will get a free pass for bombings and beheadings (hell, they'll even get celebrated for it by the same networks that will condemn Americans for doing far less).

Sigh. When did we stop learning about war? When did we stop paying attention to what happens in war?

Cheers,
Dave

Give him a medal.

Anyone who is paying attention to this should know that Sites' blog is being regularly purged of any comments supporting the Marine, but those of people from overseas excoriating him and the US in general are allowed to flow freely.

That should tell you a little something about Sites' take on the whole thing, and the viewpoint from which he looks at this.

A caller on Houston's KPRC Radio 950 stated that we shouldn't be putting our soldiers at risk. We should have the media reporter go and probe for hidden dynamite and/or weapons.

Being wounded the day before and having one of your fellow soldiers killed by an exploding enemy would make me play it extra safe.

Me, I think it goes deeper. Here we have an enemy fighter supposedly fighting in the name of 'holy' Allah, yet here he is with murderous intent in a Holy religious mosque with weapons readily apparent putting at jeopardy the very religious institution he professes as his end-all be-all.

A thinking Marine would say

"How dare him! How dare he claim to be a religious fighter when his actions beg for his very own temple to come down upon him. What a outright sickening lie!" Die you phony liar.

They don't play by any rules. I'll be damed if I would give it up to chance.

So, what was the "blacked out" portion of the film hiding -- the sight of the "wounded" man reaching for a grenade?

So I guess the downside is that now Michael Moore's Minutemen not only have to worry that female US military personnel are going to laugh at their gizmotchies, but also that they might be shot on the spot even if they are in a mosque. And playing dead won't save you.

Call me when we start beheading them for MTV.

Kevin Sites of NBC television should've been the one shot for turning this into another potential Abu-Graib Liberal/Media-Feeding-Frenzy. If I were in such a spot I'd outake that snippet no matter what it took, even if it meant losing an entire week of shooting. Journalists have an Absolute Responsibility to our troops and our country First! But in the end, this shall be as irrelevant as Abu-Graib.

Quite apart from my personal indifference to the how,why,where,and when,of 'insurgent'destruction,I strongly feel that 'our'media is composed of defeatist if not seditious clowns.
Nobody wants to authorise execution of prisoners,but this is at worst a marginal situation that will now be used by our enemies to harm us.
The media constantly gives'aid and comfort' to the enemy and frankly I am sick of it.To be frank I am not qualified to judge a man who is putting his life on the line 24-7. I hate to say it but I find myself hoping that 'reporters'start having serious accidents on a recurring basis.They are all like a 'fifth column'working ceaselessly to ensure defeat of the 'good guys'.
They sicken me.

Killing these maniacs one at a time is going to take waaay too long

Bottom line is that the enemy soldier was neither dead nor actively surrendering. He was still a combatant and a legitimate target. Just like JF'nK's fleeing teenage 'Cong, shot in the back. That was a righteous kill and this is a righteous kill (from what we know from the reports)

Sites could've informed the military about it first and given them time to investigate the incident before giving it to the AP and all the other MSM jerks.

But no! They just can't wait to prove to the world how evil our troops are. This marine should be able to count on all of the MSM's votes if he decides to run for president in the future.

After all they endorsed Kerry even though he did the same thing.

Okay, here's my two cents.

NY Times and AP report it was a "prisoner" that was shot. How do they know the guy was a prisoner? Did the reporter say that? No. Did the International Red Cross say that? No. In fact, the IRC said all they knew was that it seemed to be a wounded man.

Does wounded equal surrendering? No. Does wounded equal prisoner? No. Does playing dead equal surrendering? No. Did a Marine in the same unit die the day before from a booby-trapped body? Yes.

Was this Marine justified in reacting with deadly force to a guy that had tried, along with his insurgent brethren, to kill every American they saw? You bet your ass he was.

Lefties will spin away on this one, but try as they might, I fail to see how a group of five unguarded people in a mosque are prisoners by any definition, regardless of their physical condition.

I say bravo. The young Marine sliced like a fuckin’ hammer. More power to him!

How many Marines are the terrorist holding as prisnors? None because they do not take military prisoners. They excute any resistance and take political hostages and cut off their heads to promote fear. I would like to put Kerry, Rather,
Zahn, Sites, and a few other reporters in Marine uniforms and sit them in a Mosque or Iraq police station where they could be found by terrorist. I wonder if their point of veiw would change as they were being killed, drug through the street, and mutulated, while hundreds of terrorist screamed with glee. When you are fighting for your life and the lives of others you have to make a decision at that moment, no second thoughts and no round table discussion. Hesitation will get you and your Buddies Killed!!
A wrong desision may get a unarmed, wounded, terrorist (who has sworn to fight to the death) killed. A Wrong decision can also get the Marine and his whole squad killed. This is a wartime imminate threat decision and should be treated as such. He didn't shoot a group of the enemy but only the one he deemed a threat. He has all my support and may he be blessed!!!

Let us all also praise hindsight, without which, most of us in that situation would have also made the SPLIT SECOND DECISION to shoot.

Armchair Marines need to STFU, forever.

Beat me to is, screaming eagle!

Ace,
Not only were insurgents "playing dead", the marine in question had been wounded earlier by an insurgent who was "playing dead". This would be a non-issue if the Marine was serving for any other country in the world. The idea of this incident being a war crime is absurd.

Maybe the Marines should do us all a favor and have some "media involved friendly fire" "tragedies".
"I thought that Sony HD Camera was an RPG launcher. Oops."

I don't have a final conclusion about the shooting, just a collection of points that I'm not reading in the discussions buzzing around today:

The clip shows that the soldiers had just been told they had all nearly died from friendly fire by tanks moments before. Not good for the nerves.

It shows a conversation before both groups of marines enter the mosque that indicates that the resident group of marines had just killed two of the five wounded enemy in the mosque before the taping begins - if so, it isn't clear whether this was because the two were hostile, or as a precaution. My guess from the rather flat vocal tones of the marines who killed them is that the marines had not been fired on by the two just killed, and that the soldiers were already wary of being accused of at least excessive force, even before the famous incident. This may also indicate that on the previous pass through the mosque, just earlier, all the passive wounded were prodded or similarly tested for conciousness.

The shooter doesn't step back, as one might perhaps expect if he were convinced a booby trap might go off; but then again, he may have decided that speed was of the essence. True, he wastes time shouting, but that may have been to give the enemy a last chance to give up the game as well as keep his buddies informed, since his directed shouting didn't need a whole lot of translation.

We can't see from our camera angle whether the enemy slightly moved his right hand, say under his back as if to trigger a booby trap. I highly doubt it, but we can only see one arm in the shot. We don't know. If the soldier claims he did see that, even falsely, it may be all but impossible to convict even if the shooter didn't think a booby trap or attack was possible, and killed just to save time or from stored anger.

Was the enemy conscious? Does it matter since there's no way for the working soldier to practically determine that? If the enemy was conscious and not surrendering then especially given the general enemy tactics, he's dead, very justifiably. That's not to say another decision wouldn't have been possible, or better, at the soldier's risk and discretion, but it's a justifiable shooting. Many bad and tragic decisions in war are well within the necessary limits of the laws of war.

Some Americans took extarordinary risks at Okinawa to facilitate both civilian and military surrenders in WW II despite very similar common tactics of false surrender and booby-trapping by the Japanese. Those American soldiers have my immense respect, and gratitude. They give me hope for all humanity. Other soldiers were very cautious, most understandably, but not always kindly. Mercy at personal risk can't be demanded of soldiers, who have a lot to think of, and have usually been up for a while.

Lastly, looking at the maze of logic that already surrounds this discussion in the media, let's remember that what's forbidden has to be very simple and not put soldiers at risk. Given how much careful logic you can expect from the well-rested, unthreatened bagboy at your supermarket who put your eggs underneath the cans, and the fact that these guys aren't that much older, it's unreasonable to expect a lot of ratiocination or numerical probablility assessment while their asses are hanging out; and you have to leave a lot of room for soldiers to use their gut reactions and act promptly if they're to have the best chance of getting home.

I don't know what the judicial decision will be in this case - it's even possible that the court will decide (if charges are brought) that the filmed shooting was justified, but the previous two shootings were war crimes. (Not likely, possible.) I do suspect that Army training will change, and that tasers or other disabling weapons may be issued to some soldiers in the future to give them more options.

Although it may now seem a very far out possibility, if the enemy adopts still more effective kinds of booby-traps and false surrender tactics, say including powerful swallowed bombs that could be caused to go off even an hour after surrender, the Americans may have no choice but to refuse prisoners in most circumstances. Given the extremely poor performance of the rebels as regular soldiers, there is every incentive for the enemy to devise such tactics. I don't expect this and hope not to see it, but it's possible.

It's war. He's the enemy. Kill him. No excuses necessary.

NBC/CNBC/MSNBC hired Sites and aired and distributed gotcha video.

The chairman and CEO of NBC is Bob Wright.
The Board of Directors of GE, NBC's parent, includes one man you'd think would be able to explain the facts of war coverage to NBC's Parent: Sam Nunn. NBC is at 50 ROckefeller Plaza in NYC. Maybe you could drop them a note.

You might also tell them that GE sells appliances - but so does Sears, Viking, FIsher-Paykel, and many others who manage not to demoralize troops or provide our enemies with recruiting video.I would sell my stock but I did that after Peter Arnett.

Quote: "I would sell my stock but I did that after Peter Arnett. "

Hell, sell it again - SHORT! and collect twice! Send GE down to the commies

Everybody, Support Our Troops HERE