This seems SOOO WRONG

[hlbly]

You can't argue with AquaShrimp. He knows all there is to know about the military from all the reading he's done in college, just ask him.  Been down this road before with Shrimp and every time I asked him if he EVER served, the response was along the lines of, I don't need to, I can read unlike you dumb military guys that can't make a real living in the real world. I have a college education so I'm smarter than you are.

He is the type that will beat on the military with everything he's got, yet will NEVER understand that he's only allowed to do so because the military is there to protect his right to do so.

I bet Shrimp the the prosecuter in this case would get along great.

Had an XO who had the perfect quote ...never confuse a superior education with a superior mind .

[Hornet33]

Nazario, of Riverside, is charged with one count of voluntary manslaughter on suspicion of killing or causing others to kill four unarmed detainees in November 2004 in Fallujah, during some of the fiercest fighting of the war. He also faces one count of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.



What kills me about this are the charges. OK the manslaughter charges I can understand. (The fact tht it's being brought up in a civilian court is a load of crap but that's beside the point)

BUT.......assault with a deadly weapon??? Hello he was a Marine in COMBAT. OF COURSE he had a deadly weapon. It was ISSUED to him by the Marine Corp. It was his JOB to carry that weapon and USE it.

Discharging a firearm during a crime of violence??? See my statement above.

Next thing you know they'll try and use the Komifornia assault weapons ban laws against him too since he used a black gun that's scarry looking and had a 30 round high cap magazine.

What makes me sick is this kid is getting dragged through the ringer for someones personal political agenda.

[Angus]

No place in a civilian court for this at all.
As I see it, no place in a court of any kind.
If you are taking fire from someone in any situation, they bought their ticket.

That may be true, but since there was no other trial, this puts some rather dirty deals from within the military under the spotlight.
A CO who orders captives to be shot/executed deserves a court marshal. And any bloody soldier should know that.
You don't shoot captives and play the good guy at the same time....

[CAP1]

That may be true, but since there was no other trial, this puts some rather dirty deals from within the military under the spotlight.
A CO who orders captives to be shot/executed deserves a court marshal. And any bloody soldier should know that.
You don't shoot captives and play the good guy at the same time....

this is the kind of bs that the insurgents, enemy combatents, bad guys see. this is why the keep fighting us. because we have to follow rules, and they don't.

 well, ya know what?  even if those guys that they shot weren't the shooters, they were STILL GUILTY of firing on our troops through association. they allowed the enemy combatants into their house. they allowed them to fire on our troops. they themselves bacame enemy combatants by doing so.

 so what if they were disarmed? they brought this all on themselves by firing on us. period.

what if he hadn't done anything, and the troops went to leave, and one of them knifed another soldier? i guess you people would think that was ok though, wouldn't yas?????

 you all that think it's right that he's being tried in a civilian court, gather yourselves together, and go over there. spend a week with one of the patrols in combat. then come bck here and tell us what you think

[wrag]

Civilians have no jurisdiction do they ?

That would a YES and a NO.

Not easy to explain.

If the U.S. civilians wanted certain things looked into YES.

[wrag]

You can't argue with AquaShrimp. He knows all there is to know about the military from all the reading he's done in college, just ask him.  Been down this road before with Shrimp and every time I asked him if he EVER served, the response was along the lines of, I don't need to, I can read unlike you dumb military guys that can't make a real living in the real world. I have a college education so I'm smarter than you are.

He is the type that will beat on the military with everything he's got, yet will NEVER understand that he's only allowed to do so because the military is there to protect his right to do so.

I bet Shrimp the the prosecuter in this case would get along great.

You know I think that is the nicest way I've ever seen someone call another person arrogant......

[Angus]

this is the kind of bs that the insurgents, enemy combatents, bad guys see. this is why the keep fighting us. because we have to follow rules, and they don't.

 well, ya know what?  even if those guys that they shot weren't the shooters, they were STILL GUILTY of firing on our troops through association. they allowed the enemy combatants into their house. they allowed them to fire on our troops. they themselves bacame enemy combatants by doing so.

 so what if they were disarmed? they brought this all on themselves by firing on us. period.

what if he hadn't done anything, and the troops went to leave, and one of them knifed another soldier? i guess you people would think that was ok though, wouldn't yas?????

 you all that think it's right that he's being tried in a civilian court, gather yourselves together, and go over there. spend a week with one of the patrols in combat. then come bck here and tell us what you think

Is the USA a member of the Geneva convention or not?
You simply do not EXECUTE those who have surrender and claim being non-barbaric at the same time. This doing puts you in the exacts same camp as the Talibans. Period.

[Hornet33]

The people that want to see this kid tried would NEVER go over there and walk in his boots for 5 minutes let alone 2 weeks because that would be below their high moral standards. That's what they would tell you anyway.

The reality is the people that want to see him convicted lack the moral courage to actualy physicaly fight for anything they believe in. These are the same folks that will tell you if someone is mugging you it's better to just hand them everything and do nothing so no one gets hurt. To call the police because they are there to "protect" you. The criminals only do what they do because of social injustices committed against them. That by resisting your adding to the problem.

They are after their own agenda. The war is bad, what he did is bad, so lets make an excample of him for killing people in combat.

It's all a total load of crap. If he popped those guys, well maybe they shouldn't have been in that house shooting at him and his fellow Marines. War is hell and people get killed.

[Hornet33]

Is the USA a member of the Geneva convention or not?
You simply do not EXECUTE those who have surrender and claim being non-barbaric at the same time. This doing puts you in the exacts same camp as the Talibans. Period.

Yes we are, and it's stupid. Having rules in warfare is the dumbest thing I can possibly think of. Again it was a bunch of panty waists politicians that came up with the "rules" of warfare. Not warriors. A warriors take on things is real simple. We just got shot at from that house over there. Response=level the freaking house with everyone in it. Problem solved. Panty waist politicians, and metrosexuals......uh uh what if there are women and children in there? What if there is only one bad guy in there? What if, what if, what if? So a bunch of stupid rules were written down and we got suckered into following them.

Can't use hollow point ammo because it's inhumane. WHAT?????? I always thought the idea was to kill the enemy as quickly as possible, not as humanely as possible.

Can't shoot at personal with a .50 round or larger, only their equipment. OK let me take a shot at his helmet

Maybe.....just maybe if warfare was conducted in as barbaric a manner as possible instead of all the hand holding, second guessing, try to be as nice as possible and not kill too many people bull that we have to do now, people might actually think twice before starting a war.

[midnight Target]

Just so you know, Riverside, California may be one of the most republican cities in the State. They have a republican congressman. Hardly the land of 'fruits and nuts' except for the kind you actually grow.

[CAP1]

Is the USA a member of the Geneva convention or not?
You simply do not EXECUTE those who have surrender and claim being non-barbaric at the same time. This doing puts you in the exacts same camp as the Talibans. Period.

no,it doesn't but it DOES put us in a camp that the taliban will think twice about messing with.....which they don't right now.

[Angus]

These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you. They'll think twice before offering any surrender to you, since they're as good as dead if they do.
The US army should pretty well know that, for it has quite some roots in military history.
When the Germans were spotted mass-executing US captives in the fall of 1944, there were US soldiers after that surrendering. This may have fused the perhaps finest dig-in in US army history in the bocage. Surrender? NUTS! Vot? GO TO HELL!
In short, conducts like this provoke very strong resistance. And then: play like this, you are at the same level as the enemy, so who is the bad guy?

[Speed55]

These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you. They'll think twice before offering any surrender to you, since they're as good as dead if they do.
 

If your talking about the opposition laying down there weapons "without" firing a shot, and surrendering that's one thing.

I can't understand this logic though: 

The enemy is in a holed up position firing at our soldiers with the intent of killing as many as possible. He runs out of bullets, or his position is over run, and he says, ok... i give up now.  Come on, that's b.s. 

Edit: i can understand that happening to an extent during the world wars, where the enemy was defined, but even then it was up to the discretion of the soldier as to what course to take. 

[Elfie]

These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you.

They already do...only its like this....HATE   

[Cthulhu]

Having rules in warfare is the dumbest thing I can possibly think of.

Maybe.....just maybe if warfare was conducted in as barbaric a manner as possible instead of all the hand holding, second guessing, try to be as nice as possible and not kill too many people bull that we have to do now, people might actually think twice before starting a war.

Absolutely   I remember when Paveway's were first used in Viet Nam. We didn't do so to minimize casualties. We did it to hit the target. Today that increased accuracy has been perverted to the point where getting broken glass in some reporter's latte who's standing 50 ft from the target is unacceptable. And if we somehow found a way to kill the enemy inside without having to destroy the building, it would be considered "assassination". Moronic. War is supposed to be Hell. That's why you don't go there lightly.