US sniper guilty of Iraqi murder

Yeah I gotta say 9XP's post was out of line. That's by far the dumbest and most offensive thing I've ever read on this board.
 
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

I'm shocked no one has posted this yet.

This specific situation doesn’t look good. They shouldn’t have placed the gun on the guy but these things aren’t as simple as you keep stating. I’m sure it’s easy to sit behind a computer and write about what should be done. In reality these guys are in a ****** situation trying to make the best of it while not getting themselves killed.
 
To that marine, his life is probably more important than anything else. There are criminal civilians too. The guy was wearing black, maybe he was a ninja?
 
rolling
"Problem is, you're operating under the premise that the life of a marine is worth more than the life of a foreign civilian and that is simply not a premise I'm willing to grant. "

Is that just for this situation or an encompassing statement?
 
Not to get too in-depth but, soldiers are trained from day one, to act in a specific way to certain stimuli.

They are trained to respond to those situations and the directives of their leaders without question.

To the uninitiated this may seem unreasonable but, it is a proven fact that in times of extreme stress, reflex will take over and training will assert itself.

When it is raining big metal bombs, that is not the time to have a meeting and discuss what your decision making process looks like. When you stumble across an enemy position and they start laying down a barrage of .308 rounds at a high rate of fire, there is no time to crack open a reference book and start efforting a probable course of action. You hope everyone has trained and payed attention in the chalk talks, practice runs, training scenarios and all the mock-ups.

Now with that in mind, this training is done with the understanding of a distinct deliniation between friend, foe and non-combatant.

This is why the Geneva Convention and the rules of war are so important.

You are training some of the most dangerour weapons known, the human mind, to the Nth degree of readiness. You are then sending them out to do their work, which is to close with and destroy enemy personnel and equipment.

Now, back to friend, foe, and non-combatant. All this training has had the supposition that the enemy will wear one uniform, friendlies another and all non-combatants will wear neither and will be easily distinguishable from the two former.

This has generally been the case with the advent of the professional army and modern warfare.

This training and regimen has been in place for hundreds of years and is based on experience and what has been proven effective on the field of battle.

After taking all that in, go ahead and place one side in the same “uniform” as the non-combatants. Now take the side that dresses like non-combatants and let them do whatever they please and NOT have to adhere to any type of civilized behavior. Just for fun have the side that is easily distinguishable, because they are still wearing uniforms, adhere to a semi-strict code/standard when waging this war. These poor guys are starting off with one hand tied behind their back.

So when something bad happens in this instance, it may not be as easy to judge, as some armchair generals believe. I know terms such as “collateral damage” and “acceptable casualty ratios” are anathema to most people but, they are true and realistic results of the modern battlefield. Wishing it was different and analyzing each event, like it was a case review for your L3 classes, will not make warfare more “fair” and understandable to the general public.

That being said, this particular case doesn’t pass the common sense test and there seems to be a whole lot of info we are not getting. Being ordered to shoot an unarmed “civilian” after restraining him, then being punished while not hearing of any punishment for the command structure, smells fishy.




And to the guy that wants to judge whose life is more worthy, you are talking like an idealistic 12 year old kid.

When me and mine were on patrol and getting ready to do some horrible things to some very bad people, the ONLY lives that mattered were ours. We would detroy any obstacles that would keep us from accomplishing our goals. Being on a field of battle is a very unique situation and requires alot of mental fortitude and total dedication to your goals. Anyone who thinks otherwise would just end up killed and probably get anyone who is counting on him killed as well.
 
Thanks, TexasDan, that's the best post I've seen on here in a while...
flag.gif
 
rolling
Your post:
"The lives of Americans are not more valuable to me than the lives of non-Americans and the lives of soldiers are not more valuable to me than the lives of civilians. "

fair enough
can you envision yourself in the military and on a mission with your " brothers? This is an area where people really want to kill you
You end up with people near you that may or may not be civilians, there is no way of knowing
but if you don't act immediately( as in split second) and they are NOT civilians your brothers could be killed.

do YOU err on the side of MAYBE these are civilians and do nothing ?
 
Well put. These guys are out there putting their lives on the line. Are the civilian lives important. Of course the are but if we have soldiers out there trying to complete a mission and someone threatens that then there will be consequences. I'm not saying that the soldiers are more important than the civilians but our soldiers must make some choices. They have to decide. In this case his decision maybe in correct but sometimes that is not true.
 
rolling
you :"Yes, if I have no reason to believe that somebody poses a threat to myself or my 'brothers', I would err on the side of not killing them. "
That is the issue, YOU do not know whether they are a threat or notbut you are in an area full of people wanting to kill you and everyone could pose a threat.
I am having a hard time understanding how in the split second allowed for a decision to protect you brothers you would do nothing.

I think it is also safe to say you would never put yourself in a situation where such a nano second decision would be required . That I understand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top