How very well put. About time someone said it in black and white.

This tape of the marine shooting the insurgent is hardly controversial. In the background, is another insurgent who is obviously alive, and who was not harmed. The marine yells out, in reference to the man he eventually shot, "He is not dead. He is faking." At that moment, the man makes a movement. He gets shot. It is a sad situaton. But if it was indescriminate killing, the other insurgent would be dead too. He is not.

Common Karol, it is not so matter of fact. The photo-journalist who captured the video of the Mosque incident, Kevin Sites (www.kevinsites.net), labored over releasing the film so that it would not be spun in an problematic way for our troops. Its notoriety, unfortunately, is more in the international media than in the United States. Yet, I don't believe that questioning the actions of certain troops is not patriotic or even necessarily against their effort. We have many men and women over there doing an excellent job liberating Iraq. Yet, when atrocities surface, and they will, we cannot just turn a blind eye saying lets not "condemn any move they make to insure their own safety." Should we not conemn Lyndi English? Whatever happened to "winning hearts and minds"? If our aim in all this is to be great liberators spreading freedom to Iraq, we must always have our best foot forward to the rest of the world. Do those living under tyrannical regimes look of Iraq and say "Well, that is worth it to be liberated and freed." I hope so. But, be humble, we are not always right. Thankfully, we are right most of the time. That is what counts.

I agree that we don't know the whole story. Thankfully, there seem to be many "mitigating factors" on his actions. I would like to see more about exactly what those mitigating factors are. I pray that they can shed light on the dark situation. However, until then, I'll keep an open mind no matter how disturbing this is. There is much going on in Iraq that is disturbing. Certainly, I just hope that one of the most disturbing part of this mess, the kidnappings, have ended.

Somebody out there put it beautifully:

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

These continued attempts to effeminize our army, to make them more "sensitive" in order to mollify the consciences of lefties back home is leaving American servicemen dead.

Get the cameras and newsmen out of the combat zone.

NOW.

"effeminize"? Sean, do you want the women who are fighting and dying out too?

I think you seriously discount the fact that some of us want our troops to act with honor, even when -- especially when -- the other side does not. That doesn't necessarily mean I think the soldier who shot the guy in the mosque did anything wrong -- I just think that soldiers should be held accountable for their actions just like everyone else, and it aggravates the hell out of me when people seem ok with removing accountability from the equation because "the ends justify the means".

Besides, it is not just an appropriate moral/ethical standpoint -- it is a strategic imperative. Our rules of engagement -- and how we are seen to follow them -- are critical to the perception of our presence in Iraq and in the Middle East, which is critical to our overall goal of countering the jihadists by spreading goodwill and freedom throughout the Middle East.

But what really gets me is the knee-jerk "you're either with us or you're against us" bullshit both Karol and Sean are spouting. The moral superiority you guys love to rain down upon liberals and the rest of the world only works if you actually hold yourself to a higher standard. U.S. Marines are better than terrorists only so long as they show more respect for innocent human life than the terrorists do. And it is essential both to our freedom and to our decency as a society that we allow dissemination of information and dissent, and that we keep our troops accountable.

So, Karol, just because someone suggests that the killing of an unarmed, prone civilian at close range might be unjustified, that does not mean they are "siding with the terrorists", and to suggest that it does is nothing more than ignorant demagoguery.

And, Sean, the cameras and newsmen are there because we, unlike the countries we are attempting to "liberate", are a free representative democracy: a society in which we the people are entitled to know what our representatives are doing on our behalf. If you think they are biased, or that their reporting is putting our troops in harms way, you haven't made a case for that. Instead, it sounds like you are suggesting that our troops should be allowed to do what they like, kill who and how they like, and no-one should need to know what happened. I can't agree with that.

I think it's insane that people are even questioning whether or not the killing was justified and/or "okay." It's war time- it was his life or the guy faking his death.

The marine made the right choice.

Rick, you cannot hold military operations in a combat zone to the same standard we hold our police to in Brooklyn. The job of law enforcement is to keep the public safe and deter crime. It often requires no force or violence. When it does, we investigate it. But the job of the military is not to "protect" the insurgents and terrorists or "deter" them from crime. It is to kill them. It is absurd--completely absurd--to expect a U.S. soldier in a gorilla combat zone to wait and see if his enemy has a weapon before firing at him.

Having reporters in the combat zone is one thing, and having elitist scumbags is quite another. Kevin Site's "I am not one of them (them=the troops)" attitude, combined with his arrogant comments equating his responsibility with that of the soldiers, tells me that he is indeed an elitist scumbag. People like him have no business working in Iraq, protected by the soldiers, while effectively helping the enemy. What he produced has little, if anything, to do with accountability, while being a great instrument for anti-American propaganda.

Imagine a situation like this happening in WWII: it would have been unthinkable. But these days, the media put their "professional" values before their country, and the country is fine with it.

I think the marine who shot the Iraqi insurgent playing dead in the mosque did absolutely the right thing, as this latest article demonstrates.

Granted soldiers should act as humanely as possible, but not at the cost of getting killed, or having their fellow soldiers killed as well. Yes you want to set an example to the rest of the world -- to win hearts and minds. But you don't want to make sacrificial animals of our soldiers in the process.

Can we stop referring to these insane zealous devotees of a so-called "religion" as "insurgents?" They are TERRORISTS. They flew airplanes into our buildings and they must die. Does anyone really believe that some dude hanging around the combat zone in a so-called religious mosque is a "sleeping civilian?" Kill 'em all, and let GOD sort them out.

Let me guess Matt, Bush voter? Fox News watcher? Both?

Dorian, if is it "absurd" to expect our troops to be held to some standard of fairness and decency (again, I am not saying that the shooting in the mosque necessarily violated appropriate standards), then how can any American be justified in his or her outrage over the tactics of the Iraqi insurgents?

Hell, if the rule is simply that in a war there are no rules, al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists believe they are in a war, so why not apply the same logic to them? Doesn't the answer have to be that we respect human life, and human dignity, while they do not?

Ignorance like matt's is no different from the mindset of the al Qaeda terrorists, who probably said something very similar to "Kill 'em all, and let ALLAH sort them out" right before flying into the World Trade Center.

Not having seen the footage or read much on the background of the event I do think that some of you need to get a grip.

No matter what happens in a war zone there are rules of engagement which soldiers need to abide by. If it is proved that they did not then they suffer the consequences. Most media reporting is done by embedded journalists who are restricted in what they can report. Would you rather a journalist do his/her job or would you rather have this sort of thing covered up?

I was more surprised that the shooting of what was probably an injured insurgent earlier on in the week didn't attract any media comment.

Rick, while you make a good point, I would insist that our troops ARE held to standards of fairness and decency. For example, the marine in question killed this insurgent and we are debating the rightness of his actions. If he was held to no standards, this debate would not be happening. But the terrorists are fighting an asymmetrical war. They are not following conventional rules of engagement. If we stand there and wait to be shot, hoping they surrender, it will be like the British defeat in the American Revolution, when they marched toward us, lined up, with a big bullseye on their foreheads, and we hid behind trees and shot.

My point is that if it's always your reaction to criticize our soldiers, you may not want them to be successful. I'm not saying that criticism isn't allowed or is -gasp- unpatriotic, just that necessarily criticizing them and necessarily thinking they are always wrong almost certainly renders you on the enemy's side.

Also, we have to be careful about playing the role of "armchair soldier." Who can honestly say he/she would have acted differently, after seeing your fellow soldiers killed by terrorists pretending to be dead or surrendering?

I saw the video and I have a burning question. Who is the group of American Soldiers that the Marine in question and the embetted reporter find in front of the Mosque? The video shows them walking up to the Mosque finding some other US solderis already there. They talk to these soldiers "you guys were almost shot up by tanks". Then they go inside and shoot the Iraqi. What these other soldiers were doing there could easily vindicate or condemn the marine. If they were there maybe to take custody of they injured Iraqi's and did not consider the Iraqi's a threat then that is not good for our image.
If they were another group of soldiers that just happened to get to the mosque at the same time as our marine and had no clue about the Iraqis inside, then the Marine did the right thing.

My second question is: This mosque was stormed the day before by a different group of Marines. The marines Killed 10 insurgents and wounded five. They left the five wounded inside the Mosque.
Why?
1. To be picked up later? If this is the reason, were they tied up? if no, why not?
2. They were dying so they left them there to die?
3. They were stupid and made no arrangements to take them prisoner, did not tie them up and left them to possibly hurt other US troops?

It's a good thing I'm not president - I would just nuke the whole middle east, then I'd take every liberal moron in the USA, kill them - turn them into dog food, and redistribute their wealth to poor people who give a shit about this country.

I don't want my dog eating that. That won't do anything for his coat, and would probably give him gas. That, or he will start to question every decision I make: "Is fetching that stick part of your thuggishly elitist command structure?" C'mon Old Yeller, got something for you out back of the barn.

If you really are so patriotic make a choice in what you stand for. Or it is the moral values that the founding fathers wanted in your constitution or make it something else like the military protecting you. I say this because a lot of people here see things black and white. My view is that patriotism should favor Equality,Liberty and justice. This is not only for the citizens of your country but for everybody.

Another point is a quote by William Blackstone which your own supreme court agrees upon: "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." This is especially true when one wants to win the harts and minds of the people you are fighting. It is obvious that the marine in question did not stick to rules of engagement so he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Also I have heard that when people talk about terrorism they say "We have to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only once.". I think is also is the case with the war and moral impact. I find it very stupid to say that your not willing to risk the lives of service men that way. That's what they signed up for. They know they are not fighting an hounourable enemy, but that doesn't mean they must also fight without honour. But regarless of that isn't it obvious that a mistake like that would only infuriate more people putting not only the serviceman in question in more danger but also his comrads.

Yes I do like the US but I really do think the US military is very incompetent. With the frontline not capable of doing anything else than destroy and kill. All you have to do is go down south to see how the gentlemans army is doing.

Vincent, I will make you a deal: If you are ever personally in a combat zone, and you are still able to stand by that argument that it's actually better for ten guilty people to go free, than for one innocent person to suffer, I will buy you a big, big drink.

Dorian, you hold up the fact that we are debating the rightness of this insurgent's actions as an example of the fact that we have higher standards. And I agree. But then Karol and Shean say that we are wrong for even debating the marine's actions. Others here say reporters should not be allowed to report on war. Others say that objective standards can't be applied to the actions of soldiers in war.

I find that to be a call to adopt the standards of the terrorists. At that point, we're fighting for nothing more than raw power. And if you're for that, fine, but you don't get to fight on a raw power basis, and claim the moral high ground. You have to choose.

And if you choose raw power, don't call me unpatriotic for criticizing you.

But then Karol and Shean say that we are wrong for even debating the marine's actions.

Pearatty, can you read?

I write 'If you immediately side with our opposition, if you immediately imagine the marine to be in the wrong, I think it's time for you to wonder whose side you are actually on.' Then, I say AGAIN: 'My point is that if it's always your reaction to criticize our soldiers, you may not want them to be successful. I'm not saying that criticism isn't allowed or is -gasp- unpatriotic, just that necessarily criticizing them and necessarily thinking they are always wrong almost certainly renders you on the enemy's side.'

The fact that you drew from this that I'm not ok with debate is exactly why your side lost and will continue to lose. You love playing the victim, 'waaaaaaah, they won't let me speak my mind' and setting up a strawman for your arguments. I wrote the exact opposite of what you attribute to me but you either, again, can't read or choose to force an argument that just isn't there.

Yeah, pearatty, be more objective and realistic, like Karol "they'd be called murderers and criminals" Shineywhiney.

Bottom line is this: it's war. Insurgents have been known to play possum and ambush unsuspecting soldiers. Given that, the Marine acted well within reason. It sucks that he shot an unarmed, wounded man, but that's how things play out.

why is everyone, including the media ignoring the most important questions that would decide if what happened was right or wrong?
See my questions a few comments ago.

Everyone has the right to question everything in our system. I am fine with this, even though it can lead to paralyzingly long debates. Question whatever you like, but back it up! If you consistently side with one group over another, you are probably "in" that group... check K's comments... then, check yourself and see.

In a warzone, even with the most communication minded army in the world, lots of stuff is fluid and rapid in its changing details. There are dozens of reasons for the answers to Paul's questions, from the incompetent ("oops, we forgot they were there") to the mundane ("next group through will take care of that - Marines, let's move on"). The Marine, for whatever reason, was probably morally wrong to shoot an unarmed wounded man. However, he was pragmatically correct (see ambulance-using enemy, white-flag using enemy, booby-trapped enemy, mosque-using enemy, suicide-bomb enemy etc.). Soldier's job is not a policeman's job. One needs a burden of proof to use deadly force... guess which one shouldn't be using those rules. Shooting one extra enemy, or beheading hostages. I know which side I choose. I want my army to eliminate the enemy, take and hold ground, and give it to whomever will not spawn more enemies. Anything less than that is a problem, because more of my army (read men and women from my home) will have to go and fix that too.

Paul, you might find the answers here.

From what i have heard about the incident it sounds like the marine was absolutely right. If the man was moving quickly and the marine thought or had reason to believe a weapon was being reached for he had no option but to shoot.

however a point that keeps coming back on this thread is the questioning of patriotism. Karol has not in my view actually called anyone unpatriotic because they question. A lot of conservatives have though. Anyone who questions Bush and his admin are labelled unpatriotic. look at John McCain 4 and a half years ago. Bill O'Reilly saying "We all have a DUTY as loyal americans to shut the hell up"

patriotism IS questioning your leaders if you don't approve of what they do.

in the case of the marine to recap he was absolutely right.

Thanks Shawn, those were the exact answers I was looking for. Everyone should read it and then re-start this discussion.

Karol says, "if you immediately side with our opposition, if you immediately imagine the marine to be in the wrong"

And

Panic says, "If you consistently side with one group over another, you are probably "in" that group... check K's comments... then, check yourself and see."

This can also be said in reverse, if you consistently and automatically side with the Marine. If you immediatly imagine the marine to be in the right. Then you are being blind.

Even the Pentagon isn't that blind and are investigating the incident.

wanna some stuff for weight loss?
here some links for U:
buy cheap phentermine online http://www.order-phentermine-now.com , buy phentermine online order phentermine online