video: Marine killed wounded Iraqi and cheered

[dontaskme]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

or just download either of this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/2iraqiwar.rm

[ArmedPacifist]

****ing kids.

Marine Sniper is right.

[MarineSniper8541]

.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5369.htm

You need to make sure you read this before you pass judgement. This has already been discussed in length on another thread here. The video clip is edited and does not tell the entire story.

If you look closely at the video, it cuts from a point in which he is writhing on the ground to a point where he is up on all fours with his rifle right next to him.

Do not judge a situation when your only facts are based off of a 20 second edited video clip which has none of the details or circumstances in it that are extremely relevant to the situation.

In addition, here is my posted response from the other thread in which this was discussed. I am posting it here because those Marines do not deserve to be misjudged.


Has anyone noticed that when the clip starts, he laying flat on the ground, then, when he is shot, HE IS UP ON HIS HANDS AND KNEES AND APPEARS TO BE MOVING AGAIN???!!!! Geee, I wonder....

Bastardchild,

First off, you ALL need to read Major C's post above with special attention to the second paragraph. I can speak from personal experience on this issue. I was wounded in the right shoulder defending the US embassy in 1996. Even though I was wounded, after I regained control of my bodily reaction to the wound, I was still able to function and do my duty. DO NOT second guess a wounded man and judge him as combat ineffective just because he is wounded. THIS IS NOT A PAINTBALL GAME--ONE HIT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE OUT.

Secondly,

Until you have experienced combat...no offense, but you really need to just bite your tongue with your lengthy critiques of the situation.

As far as cheering goes, you have no idea what it is like to be in fear for your life every second of the day. If you would just pay attention, you will see a LOT of video footage of combat in which soldiers cheer. You will also see a lot of footage of them cheering DURING firefights. When you cheer in combat, you are not cheering at the death of someone. You are cheering that a threat has been eliminated, or that you have made an enemies attempt to kill one of your brothers backfire on him.

Trust me, those men are not cheering at the loss of a human life and until you are in that situation, you will never understand. The shooting of that Iraqi is no different in the eyes of a soldier engaged in combat than it is when a pinned down unit waits for an aircraft to deliver ordinance on an enemy position, then cheers when the bomb hits. You simply do not understand how different the human emotions are in combat and I do not expect you to.

I don't hold your lack of understanding against you, it's not your fault. But please, ease off on the tongue lashing you are giving those guys when you not only do not know the whole story, but you aslo do not and could not understand what it is like to exist in those conditions.

[dontaskme]

Partially quoted martial is not good. Let me quote the discussion from the other side.



Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the Marines.

Disgusting.

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties, sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

1SG Perry D. Jefferies <pjefferies@hot.rr.com>
Copperas Cove, TX

www.jeffzed.org
...information wants to be free...

[MarineSniper8541]

If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

Once again, as I have already said, the writer of the article you quoted above was not there, did not see the entire situation unfold, only saw a video which was not shown in its entirity. He is doing what you and others are doing, passing judgement without all of the facts. I don't care if he spent 20 years in the Army. Or if he was in Iraq. That does not mean he has actually seen true combat and has experienced a situation like that.

You armchair quarterbacks are fully expected to critizise the man on the ground fighting for his life so that he may return to his family with his still beating heart. You simply don't know any better. You have no personal experience to relate to these situations nor the proper training or education to render you the proper amount of cognizance to formulate a well formed and educated opinion on the issue.

Membership, however long in the armed forces does not mean that one has this experience by default. There are plenty of 20 and 30 year veterans who never saw a day much less a minute of true combat and though they were deployed into a combat environment, will comment on the issue as if they are hardened veterans of such. Anyone who expresses an opinion such as the person you have just quoted above, has obviously not seen true combat or he would not be second guessing men in battle.

As I stated in my post from the other thread which has been quoted above, I do not hold your lack of inexperience or knowledge against you. You have the right to free speech. I do, however resent your quickness of negative rhetoric toward those men since you know no more about the issue than what you have read or seen in a short edited video clip or news article.

You dont know what that Iraqi was doing, what he had been doing, or what he was about to do. All you see is a man on the ground being shot from a few meters away, then men cheering. You then formulate an uneducated opinion. How quaint and status quo.

[James]

If you look at the full transcript of what took place, the situation was a bit different than one might think after watching that video clip. The proper link is around here somewhere (MS8541 posted it?)

Here is a synopsis.

Marines conduct security patrol.
Marines see Fedayeen preparing IED/ambush.
Marines destroy Fedayeen.

If an American serviceman killed someone for sport, said American serviceman should burn... that is murder.

I don't have a problem with what I saw in this video. It would be good of many of you to consider MS8541's earlier statement - he got popped and stayed in the fight. A grunt engages the threat until the threat is not a threat. There is no thinking "Well, I know I hit him, but I should wait and see if he is still capable of picking up his rifle and shooting at me before I shoot him again."

End of rant.

[FallenAngel]

I agree with 'Sniper. Being as how I've not seen combat (yet- who knows what the future holds right?), I have no right to judge a situation such as this were I wilfully admit I do not know 90% of the facts of the incident, and an edited 15 second clip can not convince any court of Law (which the quoted Army soldier seemed so fond of) of the guilt of any of the Marines in that clip.

I might also add that personally, I do not think it's right to judge the actions of brave young men in combat who voluntarily go into harms way to either protect my individual freedom, or bestowing it upon others, as being "murderers." They are in the situation and have the responsibility to make an instantanious judgement on what course of action to take. If I start second-guessing those decisions weeks or months later from the safety of my room- what kind of faith does that show in my country's best?

Am I saying that there shouldn't be an investigation? No. I think that if the clip was shown in it's entirety, unedited, and was questionable- then by all means. But keep in mind that war, my friends, is just murder that's been politically justified. The assault on the road to Basra at the end of GW1 was systematically destroying every vehicle in a retreating convoy- I didn't see anyone call those Air Force pilots "murderers"- even though it was hailed as not being 'necessary' for victory.

Bottom line, none of us were there that day and don't know the circumstances surrounding the event- thus, none of us should judge the Marines. (Judging the video as edited propoganda, however, might be an option.)

[benny5405]

Damu....jeues christ......Is this a human being ??? wt the hell those ****ing Amercia marines doing.... did they think about that wound's feeling before they shoot???!!!!

[West]

cold blood killer

many people dead in the war.normal.

but did u heard that sound ? killers laughing .....

[Gringo]

I think it is pretty pathetic cheering and laughing after.

[spoonman]

there can be no objective judgement from this clip.

-soldiers are never seen on camera laughing.

-you do not know the circumstances of what happened. the man on the ground may not have been wounded, he may have had a rifle at his side, he may have had a switch to set off a 500lb IED, he may have been strapped with explosives, he may have been a civilian, he may have been seriously wounded, he may have been a non-threat. the point is that any intelligent individual will not jump to conclusions from such an obvious attempt to inflame people.

idiots. :slap:

[MaxPayne]

thats realy sad :( i mean im not saying **** americans or something but is it something nice / funny etc. to kill somebody? NO! and everybody who said nice shot should think if hes insane

[Fargin]

Seems to me like the target was incapacitated and that the soldiers "took no prisoners."

Fear, anger, adrenaline and relief. OFcause you cheer when you face death and live, but it looked more like an execution too me. War will do this to people, even Americans.

[Marmot1]

f... underage bastard look at this iraqi rifle he is mowing away from it and that damn marine kids had fun shooting wounded for me it is a murder and i have seen many murders since I study criminalistic. For me he should be put in front of military court for that....and that wont help your effoet to stabilise IRAQ

[Fargin]

What can you expect... war dehumanize folks.

[Saranof]

Yeah, I still find it funny that some people think, because they are americans, they of course can't do wrong and therefor this video is edited to make them look like cold-blooded killers
Little children shouln't be given big guns

[George W. Bush]

Heh, you guys are so clueless it's amazing.

They are at war, they're not there to play in a sandbox, ok? The video has shock value that's the only reason it was posted on that leftist site.

Last time I checked in war you engage the enemy and shoot him until he's no longer able to move.

[DPGLAW]

I for one think he was 100% correct and if I had the oppertunity to kill someone that was trying to kill me...I think I would be cheering too

[spoonman]

because they are americans, they of course can't do wrong and therefor this video is edited to make them look like cold-blooded killers.

no. i think you cannot tell what is happening in this video, those who attempt to judge these soldiers based on such a lack of information are absolute **** ing morons.

[Seoulstriker]

because they are americans, they of course can't do wrong and therefor this video is edited to make them look like cold-blooded killers.

no. i think you cannot tell what is happening in this video, those who attempt to judge these soldiers based on such a lack of information are absolute f*** ing morons.


exactly. :hug: woot woot

people like to edit videos to make propaganda. :|

[TriggerPuller]

Good hunting! It's just too bad he didnt suffer more before he was killed!

TP

[Jack Mehoff]

Did I mention how bad of a job they edited and cut out that video? Are they trying to hide something? :bash:

[Macs.]

It's war, it's a bloody thing.

[ArmedPacifist]

Your right about the video, not enough of the situation to know what really happened.

My comment about it being "****ing kids" was because of how the young marine described killing someone and wanting to do it again.

[spoonman]

My comment about it being "f*** kids" was because of how the young marine described killing someone and wanting to do it again.

this may incite controversy but i feel that if soldiers are in combat i want them to have this attitude. fighting a war suspends what is acceptable in normal society, as such i want the boys on our side to be as ruthless and dangerous to the enemy as possible.

[Jack Mehoff]

all political correctness bull**** throw out the window when bullets start flying above your head

[Javehn]

First of all , nice quote from "Black hock down" , Jack.Second , you guys unbellivable in here . Don't you allready had something like 8 pages of open disscustion about this exactly same subject ??

[Jack Mehoff]

My hands must have hurt after 8 pages? :| I don't think i typed 8 pages worth of discussion bro

[Javehn]

I am not talking about you personnaly. :D

[Jack Mehoff]

This one?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6268

[Javehn]

Aight , that one ...
So it have 10 pages instead of 8 ...

[Vance]

I agree with James and MarineSniper.

Oh and to the guy from China: You curse the Marines, yet you have no idea what kind of stress they were under nor do you understand the nervrackingness of a firefight. Until you do, shut the **** up.

[Midav]

It's war. What happened before the guy was shot?

He tried to shoot the Marines, didn't he?

[spoonman]

It's war. What happened before the guy was shot?

He tried to shoot the Marines, didn't he?

no ones knows unless they were there, that's why you shouldn't pass judgement from such a short clip.

[Maj C]

I wasn't going to say anything but here was my previous discussion again because I just can't stand some of these comments....I think I've said it before but you people remind of kids watching ****. You know it's bad for you and the people participating but you just want to keep watching it and know more about it. You read this forum and like to look at pictures of military weapons and uniforms but when it comes to the actual application you get all gooey...suck it up that's what all the high speed low drag gear is for - killing people.

There's probably no point in discussing this further but I feel obligated to say a couple things since I hate for people to think Marines are anything less than the professionals they are. (not that they don't make mistakes - they do) There's two issues that seem to cause people concern here - the shooting of a wounded man and the cheering.

I've talked to two friends who were in OIF. They looked at it and felt it was a clean kill (it's petty that people are making smart ass comments that it took three or more shots - remember these Marines are using iron sights in a firefight - let's see you do it). If he was armed and acted aggressively and continues to move he's a legitimate target. The enemy doesn't become a non-combatant just because he's wounded. How many soldiers through history are considered heroes because they continued to fight despite mortal or life threatening wounds? 1stLt Bobo had a leg blown off, stuck the stump in the mud and continued to kill Vietnamese. 1st Lt Inouye had his right arm blown off by a rifle grenade, pried a grenade out of his dead right hand - threw it with his left and continued to kill Germans firing his tommy gun left handed. A wounded soldier is still a soldier. If the Iraqi had thrown his hands up or lay still - maybe he would have survived..maybe. One only needs to consult history to know that in the middle of a battle there's no guarantees of safety - if that Iraqi wanted to surrender he should have done so before the shooting started. Suggest you consult John Keegan's "Face of Battle" or Richard Holmes "Acts of War" As a British Para said about Tumbledown, " What was I meant to do? Creep around their bunkers and ask if they'd decided to jack in, and would they mind coming out? Of course not. You've got to go in hard, and you can't afford to f*** about." I hate to use a movie as an example, but did anyone think the Germans were wrong to continue shooting at Capt Miller or Sgt Horvath? They were wounded too, but they were still moving and not shouting Kamerad!

Now as to the cheering - maybe our European friends just have a cultural difference but Americans like to cheer - they cheer watching football on TV, they cheer for anything...so when these young men are engaged in the most extreme situation any human can engage in - funny things will happen. An officer of the Fort Garry Horse wrote "This was the first time we'd actually hit German soldiers and the exhilaration, after all the years of training, the tremendous feeling of lift, of excitement, of exhilaration, it was like the first time you go deer hunting." I know people will say war is not a game - but it is - just a pretty frickin' deadly one. For example, British officers at the Somme kicked a football towards the German lines and urged their men to follow it - written on the ball was ""The Great European Cup, The Final, East Surreys v. Bavarians, Kick-off at zero." I know Brits seem to feel that professionals will be all calm and cool during battle but we can't all be like Lord Lovat strolling along with McMillan playing Blue Bonnet. Officers tend to be more this way then enlisted - it's just a matter of maturity and training though. And like I say - I think there's some cultural differences there.

I'm just trying to explain what I think is war...my first gut reaction was oh maybe that was a rather bad thing to do - but on second thought c'est la guerre.

[Midav]

It's war. What happened before the guy was shot?

He tried to shoot the Marines, didn't he?

no ones knows unless they were there, that's why you shouldn't pass judgement from such a short clip.

Correct. Looks like they have something to hide, otherwise it wouldn't have been so short ie they could have shown the whole thing from start to finish.

This is from the same site that shows the footage.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5369.htm

If indeed true, they had every right to shoot him.

[ArmedPacifist]

My comment about it being "f*** kids" was because of how the young marine described killing someone and wanting to do it again.

this may incite controversy but i feel that if soldiers are in combat i want them to have this attitude. fighting a war suspends what is acceptable in normal society, as such i want the boys on our side to be as ruthless and dangerous to the enemy as possible.

There's a difference between being capable of killing and doing your job as a soldier and enjoying killing.

[spoonman]

My comment about it being "f*** kids" was because of how the young marine described killing someone and wanting to do it again.

this may incite controversy but i feel that if soldiers are in combat i want them to have this attitude. fighting a war suspends what is acceptable in normal society, as such i want the boys on our side to be as ruthless and dangerous to the enemy as possible.

There's a difference between being capable of killing and doing your job as a soldier and enjoying killing.

the young marine actually never says he enjoys killing, we do not know what question was asked, he could have been answering that the rush he felt was from being in combat where bullets are flying hard and heavy and your life is on the line.

[George W. Bush]

In a war it's ok to enjoy killing the enemy.

[TALOS]

wow... this is amazing... so much discussion over a video that doesnt accurately show anything

[Maj C]

My comment about it being "f*** kids" was because of how the young marine described killing someone and wanting to do it again.

this may incite controversy but i feel that if soldiers are in combat i want them to have this attitude. fighting a war suspends what is acceptable in normal society, as such i want the boys on our side to be as ruthless and dangerous to the enemy as possible.

There's a difference between being capable of killing and doing your job as a soldier and enjoying killing.

I will paraphrase Col Wes Fox (Medal of Honor, Vietnam) The Marines used to use a recruiting slogan that said "Nobody likes to fight but somebody has to know how". I disagree with that because you can't really be any good at something you don't like doing.

[Salty Dog]

My comment about it being "f*** kids" was because of how the young marine described killing someone and wanting to do it again.

this may incite controversy but i feel that if soldiers are in combat i want them to have this attitude. fighting a war suspends what is acceptable in normal society, as such i want the boys on our side to be as ruthless and dangerous to the enemy as possible.

There's a difference between being capable of killing and doing your job as a soldier and enjoying killing.

I will paraphrase Col Wes Fox (Medal of Honor, Vietnam) The Marines used to use a recruiting slogan that said "Nobody likes to fight but somebody has to know how". I disagree with that because you can't really be any good at something you don't like doing.

sure you can. my friend is a good bmx rider, and he used to like it but i don't think he does anymore.

[TriggerPuller]

[quote="ArmedPacifist"][quote="spoonman"][quote=ArmedPacifist]My comment about it being
I will paraphrase Col Wes Fox (Medal of Honor, Vietnam) The Marines used to use a recruiting slogan that said "Nobody likes to fight but somebody has to know how". I disagree with that because you can't really be any good at something you don't like doing. Thats BS!

TP

[Nochmal]

I have been reading this website for quite some time and never have posted. The debate about this video is too hard not to comment on, so here are a couple of points...

First off...many of the people commenting on this video have clearly not read the entire transcript of the show that video is extracted (and further edited) from.

This brings up my 2nd point. I showed this video to my wife. I told her nothing about it in advance, I just downloaded it and showed it to her. She is currently writing her dissertation for PhD on Composition and Rhetoric and her undergraduate degree was in Communication. Part of what she studies is how to understand media. Her first, and only, reaction to this heavily edited video was, "Wow, someone really wants to paint war and Americans in a very bad light."

This started a short discussion between the two of us. We have lived in a number of places in the world and have found that in many places in the world that are not as heavily inundated with various forms of media, the people are less media savy. What I mean by "media savy" is an ability to critically analyze what media shows you. You will notice, in this thread as well, that people from countries that have tons of media tend to be more critical of things like this piece of heavily edited video while people from countries where they are less often overwhealmed by the media are more willing to accept this video at face value. Go back and look at the locations of people posting in this thread (and other threads discussing this video) and you'll see what I mean.

There are acceptions, of course, but I think the general trend is interesting.

Thirdly, to the posters saying things like "didn't they think about the poor Iraqi's feelings" I'd like to point out that the "poor Iraqi" was doing his best to kill them. I have been facinated by military history since I was a small child and have read anything I can get my hands on about the personal nature of war. From what I can tell by reading, war is not really about generals moving units around...it is about people killing people. Its intense, its personal, its VERY ugly. Most of my hobbies center on things that are very intense and personal (though, thankfully, not nearly as ugly as what goes on in war) that really get your adrenaline going. The most intense of those hobbies are rock climbing and car racing. Now, in both hobbies, the stress hits incredible levels...you literally are doing your best not to die an ugly splattery death. I have had some moments where the relief from that stress when you survive causes me to do things I would not otherwise do. I've never been in combat, but I would think that combat would be much more stressful than anything I have ever experienced.

So, even if those soldiers really were cheering after removing the threat to their lives (if indeed the editing of that video didn't just add it) I will not say they did wrong by cheering. They had just survived people doing their active best to KILL them...the relief of surviving that can make you do funny things.

Anyway, my two cents,

N

[TriggerPuller]

I have been reading this website for quite some time and never have posted. The debate about this video is too hard not to comment on, so here are a couple of points...

First off...many of the people commenting on this video have clearly not read the entire transcript of the show that video is extracted (and further edited) from.

This brings up my 2nd point. I showed this video to my wife. I told her nothing about it in advance, I just downloaded it and showed it to her. She is currently writing her dissertation for PhD on Composition and Rhetoric and her undergraduate degree was in Communication. Part of what she studies is how to understand media. Her first, and only, reaction to this heavily edited video was, "Wow, someone really wants to paint war and Americans in a very bad light."

This started a short discussion between the two of us. We have lived in a number of places in the world and have found that in many places in the world that are not as heavily inundated with various forms of media, the people are less media savy. What I mean by "media savy" is an ability to critically analyze what media shows you. You will notice, in this thread as well, that people from countries that have tons of media tend to be more critical of things like this piece of heavily edited video while people from countries where they are less often overwhealmed by the media are more willing to accept this video at face value. Go back and look at the locations of people posting in this thread (and other threads discussing this video) and you'll see what I mean.

There are acceptions, of course, but I think the general trend is interesting.

Thirdly, to the posters saying things like "didn't they think about the poor Iraqi's feelings" I'd like to point out that the "poor Iraqi" was doing his best to kill them. I have been facinated by military history since I was a small child and have read anything I can get my hands on about the personal nature of war. From what I can tell by reading, war is not really about generals moving units around...it is about people killing people. Its intense, its personal, its VERY ugly. Most of my hobbies center on things that are very intense and personal (though, thankfully, not nearly as ugly as what goes on in war) that really get your adrenaline going. The most intense of those hobbies are rock climbing and car racing. Now, in both hobbies, the stress hits incredible levels...you literally are doing your best not to die an ugly splattery death. I have had some moments where the relief from that stress when you survive causes me to do things I would not otherwise do. I've never been in combat, but I would think that combat would be much more stressful than anything I have ever experienced.

So, even if those soldiers really were cheering after removing the threat to their lives (if indeed the editing of that video didn't just add it) I will not say they did wrong by cheering. They had just survived people doing their active best to KILL them...the relief of surviving that can make you do funny things.

Anyway, my two cents,

NYou train to hopefully react a certain way when the **** hits the fan but no one really knows what their reaction to combat will be like till the bullets start to fly. SOF type units go through more of a stressful pipeline then lets say the infantry does cause the chances are a little higher that they will see very intense short bursts of violence and when that fog of war hits you need men who will react to the overwhelming stress of reality that you may get killed! After my first firefight in the Phillipines in 86 we had a debrief as always, and i couldnt remember hardly anything for days and then we would talk amongst ourselves and the pieces started coming together. Each time therafter it's gets a little better but the pucker factor is always in high effect!

TP

[Salty Dog]

sir, thank you for your insight, sir!

[el_kab0ng]

Drop the high horse routine, guys (referring to the folks who are pissed about the cheering). When was the last time you were faced with a life or death situation, then came out ahead without being harmed, and instantly felt a sense of joy? Anyone who survives something as close as a major car accident has felt that feeling.

This is a self preservation release of stress and emotion. You can't fault the kids who serve for such a natural reaction. I'm sure down the road each Marine who participated in that action will eventually feel some sort of remorse for taking a human being's life. But neither you nor I will ever see that in a 15 second CNN clip.

I agree that until each and every one of you face being shot at or blown up, you have no right to tell those who are that they are wrong. Freedom of speech, yes, slander of a guy who might be dead tomorrow from some "CNN-labelled-poor-wounded-Iraqi", never.

:bash:

[usa320]

wow... this is amazing... so much discussion over a video that doesnt accurately show anything

EXACTLY.

It has already been concluded a few times that this "video" is edited as ****. I really think this thread should die, here, now. And this freakin video yanked off the internet so i dont have to keep reading about it.

[stateofequilibrium]

You're right, in war ****ty things happen and a lot worse things probably happen off-camera as well. I've heard some especially nasty things from Vietnam-vets about what they did over there..

The only difference is, as stated above.. this was caught on camera.

Yes, more than likely it's been severely edited.. but there are two points that bother me about this video. The first is the SEEMING (I can't judge) non-immediancy of the situation. There doesn't seem to be any immediate threat from the downed Iraqi or I would imagine more than one marine would quickly open up rather then let him take three shots at the guy. Also, judging by the picture it looks like the Iraqi's weapon is not immediately accessible to the man and would require several seconds to grab, aim and fire.

But that's not the part that really bothers me either, as stated.. this stuff probably happens all the time, the "finishing" off of wounded soldiers on the battlefield. It's the cheering and non-chalant behavior of the soldiers to the situation. This scene reminds me of a passage straight from All Quiet on the Western Front, where people would gather around a trench sniper and cheer a kill.

Then again, I would IMAGINE the soldiers would probably know best that they're on camera and they better damn well give quarters to whoever they can. It just disturbs me the positioning of the american soldier and lack of volume of fire and the number of aimed shots it took.

[[AFSOC]]

Here's my take on this...

Im embarrassed for those ppl who wrote NICE KILL. Cuz it wasnt....

But in my opinion, its fukkin WAR....who are we to judge what those MARINES did there when we werent even there.

That MARINE who said that on the interview prolly feels stupid that he said that **** infront of the camera.

[tthiel]

As a 12-year Marine veteran medically discharged from combat injuries I have my doubts about this one. You can't assume what the laughing and cheering are because you can't see who's doing it but it is likley they were laughing and cheering at this guy getting shot. What people who haven't been in combat don't know is that this is what combat turns you into. Your laughing and cheering because he's dead not you. It's not like laughing and cheering at a football game. Also taking prisoners is not nearly as automatic as people think. In the adrenalin of someone trying to kill you it takes alot to back off and stop shooting no matter what postion the enemy is in. Also the Fedayeen have conducted really despicable forms of combat so some might say they deserve whatever they get. Having said all that I have a feeling this killing may have not been necessary. Just a gut reaction and believe me I've seen many situations like this. But since I wasn't there I can't reach a definitive conclusion.

[Johnnyringo]

Seriously... who's the admin that put up "Nice kill!" maybe it's just me but there's never such a thing as a "nice kill". Killing is as ugly as we can get... Granted we like to glorify those who are good at it on this forum, but we just can't bare to watch it when the ugly truth of how it happens is shown.
Maybe I'm naive but I have a hard time believing that the Brits can conduct war in a more "civilized" or "professional" way. Cheering your side winning is as basic as shaking your **** when your done pissing.

[Jack Mehoff]

i'll put that in my quote :lol:


Maybe I'm naive but I have a hard time believing that the Brits can conduct war in a more "civilized" or "professional" way. Cheering your side winning is as basic as shaking your **** when your done pissing.

[Ballistic]

If the Iraqi man was indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

Once again, as I have already said, the writer of the article you quoted above was not there, did not see the entire situation unfold, only saw a video which was not shown in its entirity. He is doing what you and others are doing, passing judgement without all of the facts. I don't care if he spent 20 years in the Army. Or if he was in Iraq. That does not mean he has actually seen true combat and has experienced a situation like that.

You armchair quarterbacks are fully expected to critizise the man on the ground fighting for his life so that he may return to his family with his still beating heart. You simply don't know any better. You have no personal experience to relate to these situations nor the proper training or education to render you the proper amount of cognizance to formulate a well formed and educated opinion on the issue.

Membership, however long in the armed forces does not mean that one has this experience by default. There are plenty of 20 and 30 year veterans who never saw a day much less a minute of true combat and though they were deployed into a combat environment, will comment on the issue as if they are hardened veterans of such. Anyone who expresses an opinion such as the person you have just quoted above, has obviously not seen true combat or he would not be second guessing men in battle.

As I stated in my post from the other thread which has been quoted above, I do not hold your lack of inexperience or knowledge against you. You have the right to free speech. I do, however resent your quickness of negative rhetoric toward those men since you know no more about the issue than what you have read or seen in a short edited video clip or news article.

You dont know what that Iraqi was doing, what he had been doing, or what he was about to do. All you see is a man on the ground being shot from a few meters away, then men cheering. You then formulate an uneducated opinion. How quaint and status quo.

I cant believe people are still passing judgement on the Marines involved in this video. Most who are passing judgement have no combat experience, never have and never will, so to be quite blunt and direct "STFU". What MS8451 posted here is absolutely correct.

These men just averted possible ambush and the death of fellow comrades, if they had not had acted or seen them then, more Americans would be dead. They took out a group of TERRORISTS planting more IED's and setting ambush for more unsuspecting GI's, they take out the targets and they cheer. So bloody what !? I've seen combat footage from WW2 of Allied soldiers doing exactly the same thing. Why ? Because they defeated the enemy and survived. I dont know what combat is like, I hope to God I never find out, but these men did nothing wrong in cheering and laughing. Laughter is a potent distraction from terrible situations, these men just obviously faced a potentially deadly scenario and came out unscathed. That is reason in itself for jubilation.

Add to the fact the video was heavily edited to get a reaction, which is exactly what those people at "information clearing house" were after. In the end, the dead are terrorists, and frankly, I just dont care about their side of the story, which is as bitter and twisted as it gets.

Thats how I feel about this situation. I'm as clueless about combat and it's effects as the next civilian, but what those Marines demonstrated in my eyes was human, it was relief that they got through a tough situation. :|

[UoUo]

Just a minute !! the iraqi in the video....he is a terrorist ? or a member in the iraqi army ? or what ?

[Ballistic]

Just a minute !! the iraqi in the video....he is a terrorist ? or a member in the iraqi army ? or what ?

By planting roadside bombs and putting the civilian population of Iraq at risk they essentially are terrorists. Car bomb attacks on UN and various other buildings were more than likely carried out by the same group or groups responsible for the many attacks on US soldiers/convoys. Terrorists, pretty good description of them.

[UoUo]

So....**** with him....terrorist sholuld die....if he was a member in the army....hm...that whould called a murder or somthing like that....but terroists....no remorse/...

[[AFSOC]]

So....f*** with him....terrorist sholuld die....if he was a member in the army....hm...that whould called a murder or somthing like that....but terroists....no remorse/...


I pity you

[Adri]

since I can't see if he pulls a gun or any thing, I will not judge that.

the cheering maybe edited, but if tru then someone desirves penalty.

the fact that this stupied ass soldier talks to the reporter is mad !
he makes it sound like a pc game !
he is mad and sould never have been in the army.
it's peace you want and dumbasses like him is not working for peace.

I would hit him if I was his commander...



EDIT:
and for you who voted "Nice kill!" go and see a doctor.....
it's maby not a coldblood kill, but it is NOT a "nice" kill, then man is on the ground, wonded, he may have a gun under his body but he is NOT aiming at any one! at least he sould have screamed "hold" or any thing to warn the man.

[UoUo]

[JTF-2][]
So....f*** with him....terrorist sholuld die....if he was a member in the army....hm...that whould called a murder or somthing like that....but terroists....no remorse/...


I pity you

When was the last time you face terrorizim ?

[Argyll]

Ballistic yer talkin ****e mate!!

By planting a claymore at the side of a road as part of an Ambush does NOT make you a terrorist,the intended target was MILITARY,the guy was wearing a UNIFORM,............Jesus H,you armchair Generals are so far out of touch it's pathetic!

If you've ever been in the Military and practiced setting up ambushes then you know what I mean

Your definition of what is a terrorist is short of hilarious,coz the other BTDT's here may well have taken aprt in a Terrorist act!!

[UoUo]

Ballistic yer talkin ****e mate!!

By planting a claymore at the side of a road as part of an Ambush does NOT make you a terrorist,the intended target was MILITARY,the guy was wearing a UNIFORM,............Jesus H,you armchair Generals are so far out of touch it's pathetic!

If you've ever been in the Military and practiced setting up ambushes then you know what I mean

Your definition of what is a terrorist is short of hilarious,coz the other BTDT's here may well have taken aprt in a Terrorist act!!

FFS...i asked in my last reply who is that man the they shoot....and someone said he is a terroist....so....

[Argyll]

UoUo
No need to get stroppy,where do you draw the line between the actions of the regular/irregular Infantryman in the way he dresses to that of the terrorist?

There is NO proof whatsoever that the Iraqi was a terrorist ,so using that as an excuse was wrong to start of with.

Ballistic made a statement that anybody planting a roadside bomb is a terrorist,and I said bollox,as regular infantrymen and SF will plant demo charges and claymoers at roadsides to achieve maximum efficiency,does that make them terrorists?

[UoUo]

UoUo
No need to get stroppy,where do you draw the line between the actions of the regular/irregular Infantryman in the way he dresses to that of the terrorist?

There is NO proof whatsoever that the Iraqi was a terrorist ,so using that as an excuse was wrong to start of with.

Ballistic made a statement that anybody planting a roadside bomb is a terrorist,and I said bollox,as regular infantrymen and SF will plant demo charges and claymoers at roadsides to achieve maximum efficiency,does that make them terrorists?

A terroist is a man that killing Unarmed people Just cuz they don't think like him....

[Argyll]

So this Iraqi who's intended target was his enemy,the invaders of his country,whom he believes he is defending his homeland,then is not a terrorist then is he?
So Ballistics statement holds no merit as I pointed out!

I also think you need to look at the definition of a terrorist too! ;)

[Javehn]

Are you still debating it ??
Terrorist is someone that try to acheave his gole ( whatever it will be , legitimite or not ) , but in order to acheave it , he uses non - legitimic and drastic means that disrupt the correct life of law and order , and poses a threat to it .

[Argyll]

I don't think there ever was anything to debate in the 1st place,there are what appears to be somewhat different interpretations of the words and usage of the word terrorist that is all!

So using your basis how do these figure out?
EG 1
Special Forces team places demo charges on power lines to disrupt the power supply to a local town plunging it into darkness,therfore causing panic and confusion and fear?
EG 2
An enemy soldier places a demo charge in a culvert with the intention of killing as many enemy soldiers in a convoy that is moving along the axis that he's responsible for?

[Javehn]

If they part of army , and there is a fight between two army's ,While there is a Law country behind each Army, and that action is essential to war effort , and as long as it doesn't go against the rules of war (Not talking about Jeneva convention ) .
The first one - i am not so realize why would SpecOps would do that , unless it's essential war effort , but still i personnaly disagree to that kinda action .
Second - I agree. As long he is all mentioned above - part of lawfull army and so on ...
All those actions are terror when it's done by group of people with they own geo-political-religios view , that aren't part of no army .
And third , UN consial did sometimes get to conclusions what is terror groups (even if they considered Sionizm as form of Rasizm )...

[stateofequilibrium]

Actually, under the definition of terrorism, depending on how broad you take it.. a lot of military action can be considered terrorism. Napoleon was a terrorist. Julius Caesar was a terrorist, but that's just playing with semantics.

The point is, when do you say a member of a vanquished military continuing gureilla action against the conquerors is a terrorist? If the Iraqi soldier WAS planting a roadside bomb in wait for an American military convoy, does that make him a terrorist because he's not facing the Americans face to face?

That's kind of a dip-dunk mentality. Actually, I laughed when one commander made a comment that the Iraqi's weren't fighting like men and were hiding and ambushing. That's what the British said about the Americans almost word for word during the American Revolution.

And if you want to look at the word "terrorism" and how closely it fits with "independence" look back at the same time period where Whigs and Tories were at each other's throats.

In my book, gureilla action is not terrorism. Only when it's purposefully aimed at creating "terror" and carnage amongst the civilian population. But then again, legitimate militaries do that too (look at WWII and the carpet bombing of Europe and Japan. There was no military significance to the fire-bombing of Tokyo but merely to cow the populace in a dastardly way. Set fire to the city, and what.. about 100,000 people burned up?).

[Javehn]

That's what i am mostly saying (and been taught ) . Terrorists are people , that may even had a legitimite goal ( like freedom fighters ) , they using for it methods that ruins the peacefull existance of people , and law +order , that are not directly linked with acheaving they goals .

[IDFM203]

My opinion is simply that terrorism or a terrorist is when one individual or a group purposely and intentionally targets with harmful intentions to kill civilians as the main target!!

Shalom :D

[stateofequilibrium]

My opinion is simply that terrorism or a terrorist is when one individual or a group purposely and intentionally targets with harmful intentions to kill civilians as the main target!!

Shalom :D

So the United States?

[Ratamacue]

:cantbeli:

[IDFM203]

My opinion is simply that terrorism or a terrorist is when one individual or a group purposely and intentionally targets with harmful intentions to kill civilians as the main target!!

Shalom :D

So the United States? so the United states, what exactly?? :roll:

Where or when has the U.S. purposely and intentionally targeted innocent civilians with the harmful intention to kill said civilians??

Shalom :D

[Ballistic]

UoUo
No need to get stroppy,where do you draw the line between the actions of the regular/irregular Infantryman in the way he dresses to that of the terrorist?

There is NO proof whatsoever that the Iraqi was a terrorist ,so using that as an excuse was wrong to start of with.

Ballistic made a statement that anybody planting a roadside bomb is a terrorist,and I said bollox,as regular infantrymen and SF will plant demo charges and claymoers at roadsides to achieve maximum efficiency,does that make them terrorists?

So...if he's not a terrorist, which Army is he fighting for exactly ? Please tell me that. He is not fighting for his country, he is no longer, if he ever was an infantryman. I dont care about the way he dresses, his actions speak loud enough. These men, who probably arent even Iraqi's (Im more than sure you've heard that plenty of young men are coming across the border to fight their little Jihad against the Yanks) hit the UN building killing civilians, detonated a car bomb near a hotel in downtown busy Baghdad on a Sunday morning putting civilians at risk, attempted an ambush of US vehicles near schools not long ago and used the children as cover. The attack on the civilian DHL aircraft, the attacks on Iraqi police stations killing not only the police but many civilians aswell. I dont know how many civilians have been killed in these actions, but Im pretty sure if it's not the hundreds, it's getting close.


Ballistic made a statement that anybody planting a roadside bomb is a terrorist

I never said that at all. I said that by planting the bombs and at the same time putting civilians purposefully at risk by their actions, not too mention the other actions (stated above) they are ESSENTIALLY terrorists. It's the combined actions of these men that I put them under the label of terrorists..


ter·ror·ism ( P ) ****unciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

That sounds pretty close to what is happening in Iraq right now. I dont care what banner these insurgents are fighting under, in MY book, they are classed as terrorists. You may not agree with my terminology, that doesnt mean you have to say what Im talking is ****e. It's my perspective, I dont ever recall saying your point of view is bullsh!t. I'll leave it at that.

[Marmot1]

come on guys there are certainly some terrorists in iraq but mayority of people there who fight with US are freedom fighters and their target is legitime... The same in israel don't put all militant in the same bag some are crazy islamist but mayorii fight for their country and i can bet $ against nuts that they want just to live in THEIR country nothing more and as for me this guy on video was a militant so under geneva convention he was protected by law and US signed this convention....

do you remember how crazy washington was when iraq shown US POWs??? they were shouting that it is agains geneva convention and what they did with Saddam who was commander of IRAQi army??? they did exactly the same so dont tell me that US are ok since they have 2 standards one for them and 2nd for other... many ppl here are saying that rusians did war crimes in chechenya and i would ask who executed 500 civilians in My Lay in 1968? only one soldier out of whole company was sentenced for that genocide and was released after 6 or 8 years... IS THAT OK? IS THAT THE GREATEST NATION AND HOW THE GREATEST ARMY WORK??? for me it is just army like other there is no crystal clear army... without innocent blood on hands...

[ArmedPacifist]

ter·ror·ism ( P ) ****unciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Not trying to start any **** here, but the US would fall under that definition too.

[Jack Mehoff]

My definintion terrorism is the INTENT and PURPOSE of killing and terrorize INNOCENT civilians to achieve a political/ideology gain

[ArmedPacifist]

My definintion terrorism is the INTENT and PURPOSE of killing and terrorize INNOCENT civilians to achieve a political/ideology gain

That is a much better definition than the one above.

[Jack Mehoff]

thanks babe

[ArmedPacifist]

thanks babe

Anytime ;)

[One?]

Why doesn't the US set a definition for terrorism once and for all.


Oh wait then they can accuse people of beeing terrorists randomly. Sorry I forgot, please forgive me.


Lets see:

If an Iraqi soldeir shot an american marine and cheered he would a low life mother ****er, terrorist pig, deserves to die, hanged, executed, and then burn his body after he dies.

[Pojo]

If an Iraqi soldeir shot an american marine and cheered he would a low life mother f***, terrorist pig, deserves to die, hanged, executed, and then burn his body after he dies.

Good now you getting into the right state of thinking... :D

[Argyll]

Jack's description is spot on!

Ballistic

This happened during the ground WAR,whenthey were fighting the IRAQI ARMY the target was the MARINES.
If I recall the Iraqi Army has never surrendered,they simply melted away,along with the 10's of 1000's of Iraqi Special Forces,whose remit would be to carry out Guerrilla warfare,much the same as the US/UK and no doubt the SASR,Spec Ops units would do had the roles been reversed.

What I agree with is Jacks summation,and to yours in a way.
Terrorists will attack civililian targets and infrastructures,with no care to the loss of civilian life,their intent is to strike fear and as much damage as possible and will use any means neccesarry!
Insurgents/Guerrila's strike at Miliatary targets and infrastructures,also using any means neccesary.
It is the INTENT that is the key word
Many Spec Ops missions carried out in recsent conflicts have resulted in civilian deaths,this was not the intent,otherwise it would be classed as an act of terrorism would it not?

You stated it was your opinion and as this is the internet are rightly to do so,considering this thread and my response was about this clip,and not about the whole Iraq conflict,I stand by my original posts here and in the other thread pertaining to this video,it is totally inconclusive!!

[Ballistic]

Jack's description is spot on!

Ballistic

This happened during the ground WAR,whenthey were fighting the IRAQI ARMY the target was the MARINES.
If I recall the Iraqi Army has never surrendered,they simply melted away,along with the 10's of 1000's of Iraqi Special Forces,whose remit would be to carry out Guerrilla warfare,much the same as the US/UK and no doubt the SASR,Spec Ops units would do had the roles been reversed.

What I agree with is Jacks summation,and to yours in a way.
Terrorists will attack civililian targets and infrastructures,with no care to the loss of civilian life,their intent is to strike fear and as much damage as possible and will use any means neccesarry!
Insurgents/Guerrila's strike at Miliatary targets and infrastructures,also using any means neccesary.
It is the INTENT that is the key word
Many Spec Ops missions carried out in recsent conflicts have resulted in civilian deaths,this was not the intent,otherwise it would be classed as an act of terrorism would it not?

You stated it was your opinion and as this is the internet are rightly to do so,considering this thread and my response was about this clip,and not about the whole Iraq conflict,I stand by my original posts here and in the other thread pertaining to this video,it is totally inconclusive!!

I do see your point now, and I do agree. But I think the line between insurgents/guerrilla's and terrorists is blurred, atleast as far as Iraq is concerned right now.

Still, I point out again, we were'nt there, we dont know the circumstances. It's very easy to pass judgement on something we werent involved in. But if these Marines are proven to have done the wrong thing, then I would support any measure to bring them to justice.

[Maj C]

My comment about it being
I will paraphrase Col Wes Fox (Medal of Honor, Vietnam) The Marines used to use a recruiting slogan that said "Nobody likes to fight but somebody has to know how". I disagree with that because you can't really be any good at something you don't like doing.[/quote] Thats BS!

TP[/quote]

I don't know why you would say that...it's kind of in line with your sig quote...Suggest you go tell Col Fox he's full of it. ; )

[Argyll]

Yes I agree ther Ballistic..........and I said in the other thread over this it is impossible to get any story from that clip,other than an Iraqi got Killed!!

[stateofequilibrium]

I still think the definition needs to be refined.. perhaps add in the words unlawful, and/or unsanctioned?

Otherwise, what were the purposes of the US carpet-bombing of Europe and Japan? I mean, you're just definately not targeting industrial/military complexes when you're dropping incendiary bombs on wooden houses.. you want that fire to spread and the city to burn.

[Maj C]

This reminds me of a very similar clip from WW2 the liberation of Paris. It's at the end of one of the World at War (the documentary narrated by Laurence Olivier) chapters. A truck load of Germans is trying to get out of town. The Maquis drop molotov cocktails in it and start shooting it up. One German trys running away and is wounded...he lies struggling in the middle of an intersection as bullets richochet all around him...finally a Frenchman kills him. A woman runs up to take the German's K98 off his body and hands it to another Maquis. Does anybody think - oh that poor soldier why didn't the French stop shooting at him and offer him aid? I doubt it...and why didn't anyone complain then? Probably because people were more experienced and knew what war was really about back then as opposed to the people posting here. Maybe because many of the Maquis were communists and the type of people who post things about US Marines being murdering thugs are more sympathetic to communist murdering thugs rather than capitalististic imperialist running dogs. Anyway, just venting...Semper Fi and have a great day!

[Ayura]

i think that guy is just stupid. it was as almost as if he treated the iraqi as a fox or something, and not as a human being.

[Javehn]

well , at the end , soldier don't give a **** wether this guy that stands infront of him is terrorist by the book or not . He cares only to save life of his friends on arm and his life . And he also cares to do his mission , and follow the engagement rules . I know what is like to be accused on something that you haven't even thought about . I bellieve that U.S. soldier act the way soldier should act . I don't understand where from you get those occusations . I didn't wanted to be involved in any way on this thread, but some things said here redicolous .
And do you really bellieve that someone would act this way infront of cameras , and specially CNN that like to twist everything around ?

[One?]

well , at the end , soldier don't give a **** wether this guy that stands infront of him is terrorist by the book or not . He cares only to save life of his friends on arm and his life . And he also cares to do his mission , and follow the engagement rules . I know what is like to be accused on something that you haven't even thought about . I bellieve that U.S. soldier act the way soldier should act . I don't understand where from you get those occusations . I didn't wanted to be involved in any way on this thread, but some things said here redicolous .
And do you really bellieve that someone would act this way infront of cameras , and specially CNN that like to twist everything around ?


Why would he cheer then? And that wasn't the only time US soldeirs cheered on tv. In Um Qasr they fired a javelin (or I mighr be wrong) they all started cheering. So they weren't happy killing those iraqis?

[Javehn]

Hell , i knew that was a mistake to post...
They aren't chearing to kill Iraqies . There is certain type of relief and happyness after a short battle . Different people will show this on different ways , but they show it . He can even regret this later (he probably will regret for it ) , but at that point that what he feels .

[ArmedPacifist]

[quote=ArmedPacifist][quote=spoonman][quote=ArmedPacifist]My comment about it being
I will paraphrase Col Wes Fox (Medal of Honor, Vietnam) The Marines used to use a recruiting slogan that said "Nobody likes to fight but somebody has to know how". I disagree with that because you can't really be any good at something you don't like doing. Thats BS!

TP

I don't know why you would say that...it's kind of in line with your sig quote...Suggest you go tell Col Fox he's full of it. ; )

Can you fix the UBB code? Because I didn't write that comment.

[Jack Mehoff]

well , at the end , soldier don't give a **** wether this guy that stands infront of him is terrorist by the book or not . He cares only to save life of his friends on arm and his life . And he also cares to do his mission , and follow the engagement rules . I know what is like to be accused on something that you haven't even thought about . I bellieve that U.S. soldier act the way soldier should act . I don't understand where from you get those occusations . I didn't wanted to be involved in any way on this thread, but some things said here redicolous .
And do you really bellieve that someone would act this way infront of cameras , and specially CNN that like to twist everything around ?


Why would he cheer then? And that wasn't the only time US soldeirs cheered on tv. In Um Qasr they fired a javelin (or I mighr be wrong) they all started cheering. So they weren't happy killing those iraqis?

Read my sig

[Argyll]

Yer sig is bollocks Jack!! ;)

I wonder if johnnyringo can actualy provide us Brits with a nice clip of us being jingoistic in combat?
Coz I've seen plenty to support the way the US troops do,when calling in CAS etc,a lot of "euphoria".
In all my contacts I never once heard any of my section whoop for Joy,most of them were screaming Fire Control Orders,and even at that the shouts were short and concise!

[Johnnyringo]

I wonder if johnnyringo can actualy provide us Brits with a nice clip of us being jingoistic in combat?
Coz I've seen plenty to support the way the US troops do,when calling in CAS etc,a lot of "euphoria".
In all my contacts I never once heard any of my section whoop for Joy,most of them were screaming Fire Control Orders,and even at that the shouts were short and concise!

No I can't provide you with any clips... nor would I want to waste my time looking. I was making that comment in reponse to what you and your fellow Brits said about not cheering during combat.

If in all your "contacts" you've never heard any "euphoria" or fellow rock huggers being "jingoistic" then I guess you are all "true professionals" the likes of which all wannabe meat eaters should look up to and try to emulate.

But I'm still saying that's B.S.

[Argyll]

Well all ya need to do is ask around Johnny,but I can assure you that if we we were jumpin for joy and shouting a n screaming with delight ,then the Platoon Sgts would do their nuts in!
Same as the Platoon Commanders,and I can even recall a story that one such Lt berated his men and said don't behave like the bloody yanks,keep it civil!!
You may laugh but you got to remember that our officers are pompus assholes,no offence Royal,and that they are taoght in sandhurst to behave like gentleman and that means in war too.

Now does it happen,I never heard it happen in my unit in 2 tours of duty,and I can't speak about other units ,but some of them have done so,to more or less say that it is a cultural thing,and that showing open jubilation regardless of the situation is frowned upon from on high.

I also think that the more proffesional the outfit the less you will see that jingoism happen in the UKLF,for sure after the contact there will be jokes and the likes ,but during the firefight I seriously doubt you will hear calls of "Go get him","Way to go" or "Hooah" ,and having been there and done that all I can do is offer a view on the way it happened with my unit!

[Johnnyringo]

Before this turns into some kind of "you suck....", "no YOU suck!" type argument I do think that as a whole the infantry arm of the british forces are quite good (tough, well trained, disciplined) and comparing the average British grunt to the average American grunt the scale might tip in your favor. As much as I cringe typing that. But there are some things that don't make sense in your post.

Well all ya need to do is ask around Johnny,but I can assure you that if we we were jumpin for joy and shouting a n screaming with delight ,then the Platoon Sgts would do their nuts in!
Same as the Platoon Commanders,and I can even recall a story that one such Lt berated his men and said don't behave like the bloody yanks,keep it civil!!

Keep it civil??? What are we back in the days of walking on line with muskets and long red coats??? What the hell is so civil about a .50 cal with a scope??


You may laugh but you got to remember that our officers are pompus assholes,no offence Royal,and that they are taoght in sandhurst to behave like gentleman and that means in war too.

Well there goes some of my respect... When you believe your officers are "pompous assholes" that just means there is no respect between ranks. Thus where's the professionalism.

Now does it happen,I never heard it happen in my unit in 2 tours of duty,and I can't speak about other units ,but some of them have done so,to more or less say that it is a cultural thing,and that showing open jubilation regardless of the situation is frowned upon from on high.

Somebodys signature on this board is from Winston Churchill, something like this... "War is a game best played with a smile..." Did the whole "Jubilation" memo get passed after he left??

I also think that the more proffesional the outfit the less you will see that jingoism happen in the UKLF,for sure after the contact there will be jokes and the likes ,but during the firefight I seriously doubt you will hear calls of "Go get him","Way to go" or "Hooah" ,and having been there and done that all I can do is offer a view on the way it happened with my unit!

I definitely agree it's a cultural thing. As long as the when the shooting starts I don't see a limey with a bull pup taking pot shots at me, we're cool.

[Maj C]

yes yes we've discussed the cheering ad nauseum - I got it already. Brits = calm cool imperturbable reserved. Yanks=noisy, obnoxious, boisterous. So what? We're still better allies than any of the EU will ever be.

Although I can find no videos of Brits cheering...didn't they give a cheer when the Bismark went down at least? ; ) I think we can all agree that even if it's not expressed there's a certain satisfaction with defeating the enemy...Field Marshal Slim wrote "I suppose it is brutal, but I had a feeling of the most intense satisfaction as the wretched Turk went spinning down."

As for this shooting there are plenty of examples - my examples happen to be Brits because the book I'm quoting is British of doing just the same thing if not worse...

Sergeant Taylor of the 9th Lancers wrote "I remembered seeing Corporal Bolte run his lance right through a dismounted German who had his hands up and thinking that this was rather a bad thing to do."

Brit soldier wrote to his mother "When we jumped into their trench, mother, they all held up their hands and shouted 'Camerad, Camerad' and that means 'I give in' in their language. But they had to have it, mother. I think that is all from your loving Albert."

British GHQ order 1916: It is the duty of troops to use their weapons against the enemy until it is beyond all doubt that these have not only ceased all resistance, but that they have definitely and finally abandoned all hope or intention of resisting further. In the case of apparent surrender, it lies with the enemy to prove his intention beyond the possibility of misunderstanding, before the surrender can be accepted as genuine.

Brit Commando Raid, Vaagso, 1941: A German sailor threw a hand grenade at LtCol J. F. Durnford-Slater, missed, and raised his hands. A sergeant advanced upon the sailor, rifle at the hip. "Nein, nein," cried the sailor. "Ja, ja!" replied Sergeant Mills, and shot him. "Yeah, well, Mills, you shouldn't have done that," said Durnford-Slater

[Argyll]

Maj C
100% correct pertaining to the better Allies,and I've always felt there was more respect shown for the US troops than what there was for the other Nations!
Interesting that your quotes all came from a period when the World was at War,but these quotes,apart from the Bismark being sunk,where yes I believe there is video footage of the Royal Navy ratings cheering,however I think a lot of that was related to what Happened to HMS Hood at the hands of the Bismark.
My replies also stated in my service years I never heard the jocks be celebratary during contacts! Royal a serving Officer also stated that during his career he has also never seen or heard it,and if a Marine did get euphoric he was berated for it.
Like I said it seems a pure cultural thing,of the countless engagements caught on camera involving the US/UK forces,the Brits never sounded off the way some US troops did,I don't think I've ever said that it was wrong to do so,whether it be the elation of the kill,or the "buzz" of combat,guys will all behave differently,and to be frank I don't really care ,it seems acceptable in the US Forces,and frowned upon in the UKLF.

Ok Johnny
What part of being to to keep it civil doesn't make sense to you?
Having guys leaping and holloring and being euphoric ,instead of maintaining arcs of fire,and being vigilant,and not caught up in the moment,that lapse of concentration that means being off guard?
civil/proffesional same thing!

Just because some Officers all speak with Marbles in their mouths,and behave in a pompus manner does not mean that there is no respect mate!
There are clear differences between OR's and Officers in the UKLF,they do not mix like the US Forces do,they tend to keep a distance,not socialising,it something that gets drilled into them at Sandhurst,that "familiarity breed contempt"I've had Plt Commanders who were great leaders and loved the Jocks,who took the time to listen to their NCO's,and forever asked for their input!,and on the other hand we''ve had the "rupert" right out of the Academy who wanted to it all their way,never earned respect,and never heeded advice from the SNCO's and NCO's.

And I'm willing to bet there are a lot of Similarities there with US officers.........so where is the proffesionalism?

Nobody was turning this into a who sux most thread,it was about the Iraqi getting killed,and the question as to whether it was justified or not based on the video,someone commented about the cheering,and as I said on the other thread about that ,it seemed to be a cultural thing in the showing of Jubilation during firefights,as to it being the thing to do,my take is that depends on the circumstances,but as an ex NCO if my Jocks were to act like it,My arse would be kicked!

[Maj C]

all right lads - enough of this - let's all be quiet before ze Germans get here!