Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Security Rounds, Marines Killing Wounded/Fallujah
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 1 of 34 (172672)
01-01-2005 2:51 AM


Since it appears that I've prematurely doomed myself to debate combat vs values, allow me to start another topic from a perspective the readers of CvE probably haven't seen before. This discussion is specifically about shooting wounded insurgents in Fallujah. The tone of this marine's write up will undoubtedly upset some people, but try to look past that to situation he is writing about.
They're Called Security Rounds
In response to the news blurb about the Marine who put two rounds in a wounded insurgent's head in Fallujah, here's a response from a Marine:
It's a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to [TOS Violation] around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org.
Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.
By the way, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses.
UPDATE: Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers.
Here is your situation Marine. You just took fire from unlawful combatants shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there and find some tangos wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these kinds of idiots, and like taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what. What about the Geneva Conventions and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that in reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission. If you are a veteran then everything I have just written is self evident, if you are not a veteran than at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not easy, and if you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for war crimes. Be advised, I am not talking to my readers, but if this post gets linked up, I want regular folks to get this message loud and clear.
This message has been edited by Tal, 01-01-2005 02:52 AM

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 9:29 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-01-2005 1:14 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 12 by wj, posted 01-01-2005 4:25 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 15 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-01-2005 5:49 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 4 of 34 (172723)
01-01-2005 9:37 AM


Thus shooting enemies that may or may not already be dead or dying as one sweeps through on an offensive and one does not have corpsman or extra soldiers to deal with is an unfortunate but practical reality.
The reason they do it is because the badguys still present a threat, and have shown a willingness to use possum tactics. They don't do it simply because they don't want to deal with the casualty.
The rules of war cannot and should not be so easily discounted because a person is a coward, which is what this looks like to me.
The rules have not been discounted. The fact that he tried to kill you is NOT a reason to double tap him. The fact that they continualy try to kill you after they are wounded using various possum tactics as an operational standard...is.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:03 AM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 6 of 34 (172737)
01-01-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
01-01-2005 10:03 AM


Yes it is discounting the rules.
Quote me what rule you are referring to please.
The moral high ground is indeed important.
I just gave reasons why that second "fact" does not matter.
It matters as the individual is still actively engaging you, albiet through deception.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:03 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:27 AM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 8 of 34 (172747)
01-01-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
01-01-2005 10:27 AM


Are you kidding me? Let me put it this way, if there was not the assumption much less the rule, then that essay would not have been necessary would it?
This is NOT the angle to take. You and I both know that wounded are to be treated with respect and in a certain way.
There's a reason I want you to find and quote the rule. It is not because I'm not familiar with it.
However, one cannot make this a hard rule. This cannot become the rule of engagement. It prevents acquisition of intelligence as well as endangering our own troops.
We take prisoners everyday throughout Iraq. If we go into the hornet's nest though, that can most certainly be part of the ROE. During contacts throughout the country we capture and give aide to the wounded everyday. But the rules do change when the badguys are holed up at city X and intend on fighting to the death.
Would an enemy be right to kill US soldiers just to be safe, because US soldiers are likely to engage with the enemy even through deception? Whether they are more or less likely to do so than our current enemy is not relevant.
In a perfect world the badguys would take us as POWs, keep us until the war was over, then turn us over.
We would do the same to their POWs. However, it isn't a perfect world. But we still abide by the rules of capturing illegal enemy combatants (they are not a legal part of any military, thus not POWs), but we still give them food/water ect...

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 10:27 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by bob_gray, posted 01-01-2005 1:48 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2005 3:01 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 20 of 34 (173044)
01-02-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Syamsu
01-02-2005 12:52 PM


Re: Fallujah eye witness report
The Iraqi's view the Americans as the bad guys because the Iraqi's are morally depraved, depraved of free speech, and free thought for so long. The Iraq war is more similar to Americans "liberating" Nazi-Germany, not liberating France.
/sarcasm on
Wow, I see you have the pulse of the Iraqi populace. Did you poll some on the phone or did you personally talk to them?
/sarcasm off

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 01-02-2005 12:52 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 25 of 34 (173241)
01-03-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by LinearAq
01-03-2005 12:34 AM


Re: An Apology
One thing that is not mentioned is the tendancy of our military personel to characterize the enemy as something less than human.
However, the general foot soldier uses the term "raghead" and stories are circulated that indicate the Arabs are nasty, dirty, stupid and backward. All Arabs, not just our enemies.
To the first quote let me say that yes, I do look at ANYONE, Arab or otherwise, that saws people's heads off with a knife (films it and puts it on the internet no less, as less than human. I've seen beheading videos where these animals are beheading some poor Iraqi guy because they accuse him of being CIA.
As to your 2d quote, I'll call BS on that one. That's a pretty cynical view of the average US Trooper. You make it seem like we are drooling idiots that all think at the 70IQ level. Duhhhhhhh...all arabs are ragheads...*wipe drool off mouth*.
We're a wee sharper than that my friend. You don't have to give much credit, but please extend a little. Most of us here work with, or at least see, the Average Iraqi everyday. We employ them to do work around the bases and palaces. They are just Joe Schmo who is trying to provide a living for their families and are very nice people.
If you don't stereotype me, I won't stereotype you.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LinearAq, posted 01-03-2005 12:34 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 4:57 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 31 by LinearAq, posted 01-04-2005 12:27 AM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 27 of 34 (173311)
01-03-2005 5:17 AM


I forgot that the terrorists in question NEVER use women and children in combat situations or to harm their enemy. Do we know anything besides this author's uninformed observation?
I can't talk about the sniping in Fallujah, but I can tell you that people I know have shot women and children.
Example 1: PVT Snuffy was watching his sector with an M-240B (Machine Gun). 2 insurgents run across his sector carrying AKs/RPGs. Snuffy shoots them. 2 kids run up to the cropses and proceed to pick the weapons up. Snuffy shoots the kids.
PVT Snuffy had to be shipped back to the states a couple of days later. He couldn't handle the fact that he had shot kids, even though he was supposed to and was right in doing so.
Example 2: PVT Schmo is pulling guard at the entrance to an FOB (Forward Operating Base). An Iraqi woman starts walking up to him. He tells her in Arabin to stop. She doesn't. He raises his weapon and repeats the command. She doesn't. He shoots her.
He calls his chain of command and tells them what happened. His CO comes out and Schmo is very upset because the woman wouldn't stop. Upon inspecting the body, it is found that she has 20 grenades and many nails strapped to her body that were hidden by her cloak.
So yes, we do shoot women and children if the circumstance warrants.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 5:31 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 29 of 34 (173323)
01-03-2005 7:23 AM


You and I both know there are plenty of cases of unwarranted shootings of civilians.
Source?
Please stop the apologetics.
Who said I was apologizing for anything? Both of the examples I listed warranted the shooting of those individuals.
Now, I do know of cases where civillians have been shot that were not supposed to be. The individuals that did the shooting are being tried in courts martial.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 11:05 AM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 32 of 34 (173648)
01-04-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Silent H
01-03-2005 11:05 AM


This is a game that I do not play. After being here for a while I have run out of any patience running and getting sources for 1) things that pretty obviously we both know, 2) are easy enough to get online using simple searches, and/or 3) for people that are likely to disappear or dismiss the evidence provided.
Yes, there are instances of soldiers shooting civilians when they were not supposed to.
Those individuals will face the music for their actions. I guess to me your comments make it sound like innocents are being killed by the US and we are not being held accountable. If your point is simply that we have killed innocent civillians, then you are correct.
The context of your examples was to create an excuse for what happens.
The context was to cite examples where we kill women and children, not to make any excuse for it.
You addressed this with examples of how heartbroken a specific soldier was when killing someone they did not want to, and a person taking out someone as they should though having doubts and it turned out for the best.
I simply stated what happened. Read into it what you wish.
I will ask again, did you read the sniper account (the one by the snipers) and was it not terribly upsetting from the view point of a moral soldier?
Sniping people? That's not upseting.
Wounding them and letting them wriggle about for a bit?
I would have to know more details to make a judgement but my initial impression is that when they take their initial shot, they are aiming to kill and not wound. This is for their safety, as they don't want to sit in the same spot and fire repeatedly.
That being said, it takes a second to reload and it takes time to reaquire the target and set up another shot. It's not like in video games where you simply place the crosshairs over something and mash a button.
If they take an extra second or two to let the guy scream a bit, that doesn't upset me. If they sit there for 5 mins and keep intentionally wounding the target (Full Metal Jacket), then yes, that is wrong.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 11:05 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2005 5:33 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 33 of 34 (173649)
01-04-2005 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by LinearAq
01-04-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Much Ado
You're in Iraq? Armed Forces?
Yes, I'm in Baghdad in the IZ. US Army.
BTW, I HAVE been in the military and I know what kind of bigotry exists and is tolerated by most. So, don't think you can blow smoke that easily. It doesn't mean that everyone agrees or likes it. However, not saying anything can be construed as accepting.
Elaborate?
Do we call the badguys names? Yes.
Do we call the average Iraqi names? There may a few that do, but generally no. I have heard NCOs correct soldiers for calling the workers that come into the palace "camel jockeys."
And do you know what we call the badguys?
Haji. That's Arab for....bad guy.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LinearAq, posted 01-04-2005 12:27 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024