Marine cleared in shooting Iraqi

[Passions]

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

 

[impeachbush]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

Son, I live right next to three civil war battlefields. I was schooled about the civil war my entire education. You know nothing of the civil war.

 

[drewshin]

sorry heheh.

you know, it's people like passions that we have police corruption, government corruption, etc.

people like passions would like no one to stick out their necks and have the courage to speak up when they believe that something is wrong.

people like passions think that it's "AMERICAN" to put our heroes (like soldiers, police officers) up on pedestals and try to dissuade or threaten anyone who might try to point out the bad apples in the bunch. that's why i say people like passions are terrorist sympathizers because they believe in the same principles.
covet your heroes (to them, bin laden or zarqawi) and threaten anyone who says otherwise.

well, im sure the intelligent people in here know what happens when you let your standards slide. you let one bad apple do their thing, and pretty soon everyone else starts seeing it as OK. pretty soon you've got a whole police department, or whole platoon that's degenerated.

the fact that this reporter has been embedded with our soldiers for the last five years or so is a testament to the trust he has built with the soldiers he has been with. take a look at the other pictures/articles on his site.

im sorry, but people like passions would like you to believe it is treasonous to ever say anything that could harm our soldier's reputations, but dont believe a terrorist sympathizer like him. he'd like america to turn into a cesspool country where anything goes, just keep quiet and pretend like you didnt see anything.

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

Son, I live right next to three civil war battlefields. I was schooled about the civil war my entire education. You know nothing of the civil war.

Great comeback. Puff out your chest and ego, yet offer nothing in reply to my question. Classic comeback of a 5th grader. Knows he has nothing to reply with, so just try to make himself look good. LOL!!!

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: drewshin

people like passions think that it's "AMERICAN" to put our heroes (like soldiers, police officers) up on pedestals and try to dissuade or threaten anyone who might try to point out the bad apples in the bunch. that's why i say people like passions are terrorist sympathizers because they believe in the same principles.
covet your heroes (to them, bin laden or zarqawi) and threaten anyone who says otherwise.

Read the thread title again please.

You persist and continue to believe this honorable Marine was a "bad apple." You are the terrorist sympathizer, not me.

Imagine that.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

well, im sure the intelligent people in here know what happens when you let your standards slide. you let one bad apple do their thing, and pretty soon everyone else starts seeing it as OK. pretty soon you've got a whole police department, or whole platoon that's degenerated.

I don't believe that, IME you will find that you or another standup person will break their foot off in the "bad apple's" behind unless they start "toeing the line". It is called self-policing and it is a good thing IMHO. I don't like the idea of our soldiers having to overthink their actions in combat situations in order to fall in line with PC thinking. Through WWII civilians were collateral damage that was expected and there was a shat load off it. Now one injured bad guy who could have booby trapped himself gets sent to paradise because the kid is jacked up, in a very hostile situation, and acting in a self-preservation mode, and some want him treated as a murderer. :disgust:

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: drewshin

people like passions think that it's "AMERICAN" to put our heroes (like soldiers, police officers) up on pedestals and try to dissuade or threaten anyone who might try to point out the bad apples in the bunch. that's why i say people like passions are terrorist sympathizers because they believe in the same principles.
covet your heroes (to them, bin laden or zarqawi) and threaten anyone who says otherwise.

Read the thread title again please.

You persist and continue to believe this honorable Marine was a "bad apple." You are the terrorist sympathizer, not me.

Imagine that.

NICE REPLY...FOR A FIFTH GRADER

SYMPATHIZING WITH TERRORISTS IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU, PASSIONS. YOU'VE GOT TO BE BETTER THAN THAT.

 

[impeachbush]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

Son, I live right next to three civil war battlefields. I was schooled about the civil war my entire education. You know nothing of the civil war.

Great comeback. Puff out your chest and ego, yet offer nothing in reply to my question. Classic comeback of a 5th grader. Knows he has nothing to reply with, so just try to make himself look good. LOL!!!

"Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you."

And the answer to your question? You=tool. Get an education before spouting BS about the civil war.

 

[Proletariat]

Bush is playing this war smart. I bet this type of incident has happened hundreds of times, and most likely much worse things have happened.

I remember reading an article pretty much saying that US commanders had 'learned' from Vietnam and were not letting reporters see much of anything.

I guess it's a good move. A few pictures of some mutilated young boys or girls and things could get out of hand.

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

Son, I live right next to three civil war battlefields. I was schooled about the civil war my entire education. You know nothing of the civil war.

Great comeback. Puff out your chest and ego, yet offer nothing in reply to my question. Classic comeback of a 5th grader. Knows he has nothing to reply with, so just try to make himself look good. LOL!!!

"Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you."

And the answer to your question? You=tool. Get an education before spouting BS about the civil war.

Lol, just continue digging into a hole and making yourself look like a fool. That's twice now you duck and avoid the question. Mature. Very mature.

Please do educate me about the Civil War and where I was wrong. Please, Mr. I live next to three battlefields.

 

[impeachbush]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

Son, I live right next to three civil war battlefields. I was schooled about the civil war my entire education. You know nothing of the civil war.

Great comeback. Puff out your chest and ego, yet offer nothing in reply to my question. Classic comeback of a 5th grader. Knows he has nothing to reply with, so just try to make himself look good. LOL!!!

"Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you."

And the answer to your question? You=tool. Get an education before spouting BS about the civil war.

Lol, just continue digging into a hole and making yourself look like a fool. That's twice now you duck and avoid the question. Mature. Very mature.

Please do educate me about the Civil War and where I was wrong. Please, Mr. I live next to three battlefields.

What am I to gain trying to educate you about the civil war when you refuse to be honest about the Iraq war. Why should I waste my time with you? Are you going to take my bait a third time?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Why do you P&Ners always keep quoting so long? Is it that much trouble to copy&paste the pertinent part?

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Bush is playing this war smart. I bet this type of incident has happened hundreds of times, and most likely much worse things have happened.

I remember reading an article pretty much saying that US commanders had 'learned' from Vietnam and were not letting reporters see much of anything.

I guess it's a good move. A few pictures of some mutilated young boys or girls and things could get out of hand.

I HOPE THIS ISN'T TRUE, BUT IF IT IS, IT'S A RESULT OF 'PASSIONS' TERRORIST PHILOSOPHY OF 'HEAR/SEE/SPEAK NO EVIL' AND NO RESPONSIBILITY BLAME GAME. NOT SURPRISING FOR A 35 YEAR OLD IN FIFTH GRADE. HE PROBABLY BLAMES IT ON JIMMY CARTER.

WHY IS PASSIONS A TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER? HE BELIEVES THAT THE SOLDIERS AND FAMILIES WHO SPOKE UP AND CRITICIZED THE PENTAGON AND RUMSFELD ABOUT ARMOR SHORTAGES ARE 'TRAITORS' TO COUNTRY FOR EVEN TRYING TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT. TO PASSIONS, ANYONE IN A POSITION THAT HIGH MUST NOT BE PUT DOWN IN ANY WAY. HE WOULD LIKE SOLDIERS TO STAY QUIET EVEN WHEN SOMETHING IS WRONG, SO THAT THEY KEEP DYING BECAUSE OF A LACK OF ARMOR.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nation...76492.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld

THE ABOVE MARINES WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO BREAK THEIR CODE OF SILENCE TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO MAKE DO WITH WHAT THEY HAD. PASSIONS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM TRIED AS TRAITORS.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

Son, I live right next to three civil war battlefields. I was schooled about the civil war my entire education. You know nothing of the civil war.

Great comeback. Puff out your chest and ego, yet offer nothing in reply to my question. Classic comeback of a 5th grader. Knows he has nothing to reply with, so just try to make himself look good. LOL!!!

"Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you."

And the answer to your question? You=tool. Get an education before spouting BS about the civil war.

Lol, just continue digging into a hole and making yourself look like a fool. That's twice now you duck and avoid the question. Mature. Very mature.

Please do educate me about the Civil War and where I was wrong. Please, Mr. I live next to three battlefields.

Why don't you just STFU you righteous ass? You're obviously not interesting in discussion. You come in and post some sh!tty poll with no purpose and then you start mouthing off.

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Media + Military do not mix. Anytime the media gets involved, it makes liberal yuppies cry and whine about the horrors of combat. War is dirty and normal civilian rules do not apply. The media killed a victory in Vietnam and it is doing the same thing in Iraq.

NO TO PULITIZER PRIZE HUNGRY JOURNALISTS OUT TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES!!!! NO TO MEDIA!!!

So what happens when we start a war without justification? Doesn't that make us the guilty party? Personally, I think the media needs to be there for evidence gathering, because I have a gut feeling one hell of a trial is going to commence soon involving Bushco. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html I'd jump off the bush wagon guys. Things are gonna get ugly.

What more justification do you need than liberating a nation under a tyrannical dictator?

Millions of Iraqi's are free now and their nation is on a rough but steady course towards democracy. So the war started out for the search of WMDs and failed, yeah, so what???

Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you. The Civil War started out to preserve the Union. As the war went along, the Union was losing popularity and the battle was swinging towards the Davis' South. Lincoln had to change the tone for the war and issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The war was now over freeing the slaves, which ultimately led to Union victory.

So let me put it into easier form for you.

Civil war:

Originally: Save the Union.
Changed: Free the slaves.

Iraq war:

Originally: Find WMDs.
Changed: Liberate Iraqi's.


Do you see the connection or no?

Son, I live right next to three civil war battlefields. I was schooled about the civil war my entire education. You know nothing of the civil war.

Great comeback. Puff out your chest and ego, yet offer nothing in reply to my question. Classic comeback of a 5th grader. Knows he has nothing to reply with, so just try to make himself look good. LOL!!!

"Answer me this, why did the Civil War start? Well, you probably don't know enough US history, so allow me to answer for you."

And the answer to your question? You=tool. Get an education before spouting BS about the civil war.

Lol, just continue digging into a hole and making yourself look like a fool. That's twice now you duck and avoid the question. Mature. Very mature.

Please do educate me about the Civil War and where I was wrong. Please, Mr. I live next to three battlefields.

Why don't you just STFU you righteous ass? You're obviously not interesting in discussion. You come in and post some sh!tty poll with no purpose and then you start mouthing off.

You obviously need to cut down on the Zoloft. I am asking him to show what incorrect information I posted about the Civil War and he refuses to answer me, THREE TIMES. So who is not interested in discussion? Do you even know how to read? Now before you continue spewing bile from your mouth in a incoherent babble, I suggest reducing Zoloft intake from today on.

Thank you.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Without knowing too much about the situation, I would say that it's OK if the marine was cleared. It's a tough decision though.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Watch the videotape. The insurgent posed no threat. It was manslaughter.

He was if he is playing dead, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.

The reporter doesnt understand the concept of hostile intent...playing dead is a hostile act, even if it seems barbaric to shoot someone who isn't moving...quite easy for someone playing dead to hide a grenade with the pin already pulled, or other such forms of trickery.

He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man

The circumstances of this situation make it clear the thought processes of the Marines...the insurgents laying dead, or perhaps playing dead, poses a threat because insurgents had used such trickery in the past...which AGAIN is against the Geneva Convention.

The Iraqi cowering behind the blanket is possibly wounded, obviously afraid and the Marine had direct eye contact on him...any sudden move, and they could easily take him out...but this Iraqi attempted to communicate with the Marines...and based on their interpretation of the situation, this Iraqi apparently had a will to live and therefore they did not expect him to do something stupid.

Had the Marines simply fired upon this Iraqi soldier cowering behind the blanket, that would be a war crime, as the Iraqi's actions communicated an intent to surrender.

The journalist's interpretation is one who that although is embedded with the soldiers, does not have their training or ability to differentiate credible threats from neutralized threats.

 

[drewshin]

Why don't you just STFU you righteous ass? You're obviously not interesting in discussion. You come in and post some sh!tty poll with no purpose and then you start mouthing off.

EXACTLY. THIS GUY HAS TAKEN A SERIOUS SUBJECT AND MADE IT INTO A MOCKERY FOR HIS OWN LITTLE KICKS.

BECAUSE OF THAT HIS LITTLE JOKE OF A FLAME THREAD (WHICH IS WHAT HE INTENDED IT TO BE) IS HIS TO OWN, NOW THAT THE JOKE'S TURNED ON HIM.

AS SOON AS I SAW HIS 'I ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH' BS, THEN I KNEW THAT THIS GUY CANT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: drewshin

Why don't you just STFU you righteous ass? You're obviously not interesting in discussion. You come in and post some sh!tty poll with no purpose and then you start mouthing off.

EXACTLY. THIS GUY HAS TAKEN A SERIOUS SUBJECT AND MADE IT INTO A MOCKERY FOR HIS OWN LITTLE KICKS.

BECAUSE OF THAT HIS LITTLE JOKE OF A FLAME THREAD (WHICH IS WHAT HE INTENDED IT TO BE) IS HIS TO OWN, NOW THAT THE JOKE'S TURNED ON HIM.

AS SOON AS I SAW HIS 'I ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH' BS, THEN I KNEW THAT THIS GUY CANT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Funny how the fanning of flames seem to be coming from a person writing in bold and caps quite often.

Do I have radical and outlandish views? Yes I do. And?

 

[drewshin]

The circumstances of this situation make it clear the thought processes of the Marines...the insurgents laying dead, or perhaps playing dead, poses a threat because insurgents had used such trickery in the past...which AGAIN is against the Geneva Convention.

The Iraqi cowering behind the blanket is possibly wounded, obviously afraid and the Marine had direct eye contact on him...any sudden move, and they could easily take him out...but this Iraqi attempted to communicate with the Marines...and based on their interpretation of the situation, this Iraqi apparently had a will to live and therefore they did not expect him to do something stupid.

Had the Marines simply fired upon this Iraqi soldier cowering behind the blanket, that would be a war crime, as the Iraqi's actions communicated an intent to surrender.

The journalist's interpretation is one who that although is embedded with the soldiers, does not have their training or ability to differentiate credible threats from neutralized threats.

i agree with you, a journalist does not usually have the ability to differentiate the two. however, this journalist was very responsbile with notifying the soldier's commanding officers and securing their cooperation first and even holding the tape while they investigated the incident.

passions' would like to lable this reporter as a 'traitor' or 'betrayer' because he reported something that he thought was not right. as he specifies in his letter to the soldiers, the tape he had would be fed into a tape pool shared with other news organizations. better he explain what happened, than some other less savory news organization finding it and exploiting it for their own use, and then making it look like a coverup.

if anything, releasing the tape made the reporter look honorable, as well as the military for not attempting a coverup and initiating an investigation into the matter.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: drewshin

Why don't you just STFU you righteous ass? You're obviously not interesting in discussion. You come in and post some sh!tty poll with no purpose and then you start mouthing off.

EXACTLY. THIS GUY HAS TAKEN A SERIOUS SUBJECT AND MADE IT INTO A MOCKERY FOR HIS OWN LITTLE KICKS.

BECAUSE OF THAT HIS LITTLE JOKE OF A FLAME THREAD (WHICH IS WHAT HE INTENDED IT TO BE) IS HIS TO OWN, NOW THAT THE JOKE'S TURNED ON HIM.

AS SOON AS I SAW HIS 'I ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH' BS, THEN I KNEW THAT THIS GUY CANT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Funny how the fanning of flames seem to be coming from a person writing in bold and caps quite often.

Do I have radical and outlandish views? Yes I do. And?

OK SPEAKER OF TRUTH. I DONT MIND RADICAL OR OUTLANDISH TERRORIST SYMPATHIZING VIEWS LIKE YOURS.

 

[Starbuck1975]

In this case I don't hold the Marines or the reporter at fault, and if anything, this incident demonstrates that the military and the media can have a positive working relationship without infringing on the soldier's mission or the reporter's objectivity.

 

[CaptnKirk]

He was if he is playing dead, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention.


Let me see here . . . you're laying there wounded, and it's not a good idea to play dead ?

Do you think that if he was less incapacitated he should have jumped up and given a demonstration of breakdancing ?

Christ - do you know how many Soldiers from the Vietnam War are alive today because they 'played dead' when cut-off from their main group,
and weren't executed in a wipe-up, only because they chose not to 'play by the rules'.

 

[jjzelinski]

Considering the anture of the warfare over there, attrition, bombs strapped to the chest, IED's, etc., the guy did pose a viable risk to the soldiers. I'm not a fan of the war but I don't think the solider was wrong for what he did.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Why do you P&Ners always keep quoting so long? Is it that much trouble to copy&paste the pertinent part?

Sigh... well, this is a worthless thread (as are all started by Passions), so I'm not that concerned about it here.

Also, am I the only one here who would just love to read some of Passions' poetry? Quoted from his sig:

"Passions: Fighter, Lover, Poet. All-American Hero."