PDA

View Full Version : Marines kills wounded, unarmed resistance fighter


Volcana
Nov 17th, 2004, 01:39 AM
There are two articles here. One from Al-Jazeera, One from MSNBC. The MSNBC article also has the video footage from the ABCNews cameraman embedded with that marine unit. All three sources are in basic agreement about the events.

One thing that they all DON'T bring up is that the soldier in question was shot, in the face, the day before. I understand the marines are over-extended in Iraq, but I have to ask. Should he have even been on that patrol?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A800AA57-C2A4-47FB-9BB5-6D6E1B9C3C22.htm
Marines probed as Falluja fighting continues

Tuesday 16 November 2004, 23:59 Makka Time, 20:59 GMT







http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/A800AA57-C2A4-47FB-9BB5-6D6E1B9C3C22/54800/09561AD795074B65862D92586915FD56.jpg (http://<img%20src=/)The prisoner was shot dead in a Falluja mosque

The US military has launched an investigation after video footage showed a marine shooting a wounded and unarmed man in a mosque in the conflict-stricken city of Falluja.



The man was one of five wounded and left in the mosque after US marines fought their way through the area.

A second group of marines entered the mosque on Saturday after reports that fighters opposed to the US presence in Iraq had moved back into it.

Footage from the NBC television crew showed the five still in the mosque. Several appeared to be already close to death, NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said.

He said a marine noticed one prisoner was still breathing. "The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said.

Rights group Amnesty International said on Monday that both sides in the Falluja fighting had broken the rules governing the rules of war protecting civilians and wounded combatants.

Top UN human rights official Louise Arbour called on Tuesday for an investigation of alleged abuses in Falluja such as disproportionate use of force and the targeting of civilians.

'Top level of accountability'

In an interview with Aljazeera, US marine spokesperson 1st Lieutenant Lyle Gilbert responded to the killing of the wounded man in the Falluja mosque.

"I was not there and have no more information. The pictures were shown on TV but they did not reveal the circumstance that preceded the incidence. We will know after the investigation finishes.

"We the US forces abide by the combat laws and consider ourselves at the top level of accountability."

In response to reports by Falluja residents that US forces had executed injured Iraqis and dragged them behind US tanks Gilbert said: "I will not talk about this issue. The US together with Iraqi forces confronted the terrorists in Falluja. The forces are there to clean the city from rebels and terrorists, regain stability and security in Iraq, and to hold elections so the Iraqi children can play in playgrounds," he said.

'He did nothing wrong'

Marines interviewed in Falluja on Tuesday said they didn't see the shooting as a scandal, rather the act of a comrade who faced intense pressure during the assault on the city.



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/A800AA57-C2A4-47FB-9BB5-6D6E1B9C3C22/54805/49F381C40B674EEEA20CF140B0F29C71.jpgThe Falluja offensive sparked more unrest in Iraq

"I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong."


Meanwhile violence around Falluja continued as four US military boats were attacked and a number of soldiers aboard were wounded after an operation by armed men in the Nassaf district, west of Falluja city, Aljazeera has learned.

Earlier on Tuesday a marine was killed in a car-bomb attack in the south of the city, a marine officer said.

At least 39 US soldiers have been killed since the start of the Falluja offensive eight days ago and more than 250 injured according to the US military.

Crisis played down

Iraq's government has dismissed reports that civilians in Falluja are desperately short of supplies and lacked adequate medical care. Most civilians were reported to have fled the city of 300,000 ahead of the start of the offensive a week ago.

"The Iraqi government strongly rejects suggestions from some sources that there are shortages of supplies in Falluja," a statement from interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's office said.



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/A800AA57-C2A4-47FB-9BB5-6D6E1B9C3C22/54806/BA7E4DC6A62A4661B0265F8782388C8C.jpgA marine was killed by a car bombed in the month of Falluja

An Iraqi Health Ministry team had visited the city and Falluja hospital and found no shortages, the statement said, adding: "They have confirmed that they found no citizens in need of food or water. It is now clear there are very few citizens in Falluja. Most have already fled from the terrorists."


But the acting manager of Falluja hospital, Salah Issawi, told Aljazeera that the humanitarian situation in the city was still "a disaster".

"We expect there is a disaster in the city. A woman called us pleading us; she said that she is alone with no water, electricity or food and she was scared.

"I plead with the Iraqi ministry of health to pressure the government and US troops to allow relief teams and medical staff to enter the city," he said.

Surge of unrest

The Falluja offensive has sparked a surge in unrest in other areas. In Baquba, north-east of Baghdad, five policemen and 26 fighters were killed in fighting on Monday.

Renewed clashes erupted in the town on Tuesday, residents said.

US troops were also engaging fighters on Tuesday in the northern oil refining town of Baiji, witnesses said. They said fighters had taken to the streets and were waging gun battles with American and Iraqi forces.

***********************************

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502452/

getCSS("3088867");http://www.msnbc.msn.com/images/icons/video.gifFREE VIDEO
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/041116/nn_mik_soldiershoot_041116.275w.jpg (http://javascript<img%20src=&quot;http://cache.wtaworld.com/wtaworld/ubb/redface.gif&quot;%20border=&quot;0&quot;%20alt=&quot;&quot;%20title=&quot;Embarr assment&quot;%20smilieid=&quot;3&quot;%20class=&quot;inlineimg&quot;%20/>MvsLink('00','effcff99-ec83-452f-a21e-d32faab2a7e3','','','','','',false,false,'Source_N ightly%20News')) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/images/buttons/launch/buttonsLaunch_02-sel.gif (http://javascript<img%20src=&quot;http://cache.wtaworld.com/wtaworld/ubb/redface.gif&quot;%20border=&quot;0&quot;%20alt=&quot;&quot;%20title=&quot;Embarr assment&quot;%20smilieid=&quot;3&quot;%20class=&quot;inlineimg&quot;%20/>MvsLink('00','effcff99-ec83-452f-a21e-d32faab2a7e3','','','','','',false,false,'Source_N ightly%20News'))

• Marine shooting probe under way (http://javascript<img%20src=&quot;http://cache.wtaworld.com/wtaworld/ubb/redface.gif&quot;%20border=&quot;0&quot;%20alt=&quot;&quot;%20title=&quot;Embarr assment&quot;%20smilieid=&quot;3&quot;%20class=&quot;inlineimg&quot;%20/>MvsLink('00','effcff99-ec83-452f-a21e-d32faab2a7e3','','','','','',false,false,'Source_N ightly%20News'))
Nov. 16: An investigation is under way into the shooting by a Marine of a wounded and apparently unarmed man on camera in a Fallujah mosque. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.
Nightly News


Taped killing could be PR nightmare for U.S., Iraqi allies
Investigation to explore whether Marine acted in self-defense

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:15 p.m. ET Nov. 16, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The fatal shooting of a wounded and apparently unarmed man in a Fallujah mosque by a U.S. Marine angered Sunni Muslims in Iraq on Tuesday and raised questions about the protection of insurgents once they are out of action.

advertisement
International legal experts said the Marine may have acted in self-defense because of a danger that a wounded combatant might try to blow up a hidden weapon; a key issue was whether the injured man was a prisoner at the time.

The shooting happened Saturday, one day after the Marine, who has not been identified, was wounded in the face and after another man in his unit was killed by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent.

In a statement Tuesday, the 1st Marine Division said it launched its investigation “to determine whether the Marine acted in self-defense, violated military law or failed to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict.”

It was unclear from the statement whether the incident was reported through the chain of command Saturday or only when the pool footage became generally available two days later.

Political fallout
The incident could cause major political problems for the government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and his U.S. backers at a time when Iraqi authorities are seeking to contain a backlash among Sunnis to the invasion of the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

American and Iraqi authorities tried to prevent rage from spreading among Sunnis, many of whom watched dramatic footage of the shooting that aired throughout the day on Al-Jazeera television, a Qatar-based satellite station.

CLICK FOR RELATED COVERAGE
Latest on fighting in Fallujah, Mosul (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6403689/)

“Look at this old man who was slain by them,” said Ahmed Khalil, 40, as he watched the video in his Baghdad shop. “Was he a fighter? Was anybody who was killed inside this mosque a fighter? Where are their weapons? I don’t know what to say.”

It was unclear to what extent other Iraqis, particularly the majority Shiite Muslims, cared about the shooting.

Maysoun Hirmiz, 36, a Christian merchant in Baghdad, said she was not satisfied by an announcement by the U.S. military that it had removed the Marine from the battlefield and will investigate whether he acted in self-defense.

Abu Ghraib revisited
“They will say or do the same thing they did with the soldiers who committed the abuses against Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison, and they are still free, enjoying their lives while they destroyed other peoples’ lives,” Hirmiz said.

The central figures who allegedly carried out the physical abuse and sexual humiliation of inmates at the notorious prison west of Baghdad are currently on trial, facing trial or have already been sentenced.

The Abu Ghraib scandal, which erupted last spring when photos of the abuse became public, generated a worldwide wave of revulsion that raised questions about the treatment of Muslim prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as part of the Bush administration’s war on terror.

The shooting in the Fallujah mosque became public Monday with the airing of the footage taken Saturday by pool correspondent Kevin Sites of NBC News. In his report, Sites said the man who was killed didn’t appear to be armed or threatening in any way, with no weapons visible in the mosque.

Sites said three other insurgents wounded Friday in the mosque were also shot again Saturday by the Marines.

Basic rule of warfare
International legal experts said protection of injured combatants once they are out of action is a basic rule in warfare but that the Marine shown in the video may have acted in self-defense.

Charles Heyman, a British infantry veteran and senior defense analyst with Jane’s Consultancy Group in London, defended the Marine, saying soldiers are taught that the enemy “is at his most dangerous when he is severely injured.”

Other experts contacted by The Associated Press were careful to avoid a public judgment because of the dangerous and uncertain situation in Fallujah, where U.S. troops were still fighting insurgents.

“It’s clearly recognized that people in combat situations are under enormous strain,” International Red Cross spokesman Florian Westphal said in Geneva. “Obviously, we were not on the spot, so we cannot judge the precise circumstances of what was being shown here.”

Westphal said the Geneva Conventions are clear: Protection of wounded combatants once they are out of action is an absolute requirement.

Status unclear
However, the status of the wounded man was unclear. A different Marine unit had come under fire from the mosque on Friday. Those Marines stormed the building, killing 10 men and wounding five, according to Sites. He said Marines treated the wounded and left them.

The same five men were in the mosque Saturday when Marines from another unit arrived. Westphal said he couldn’t say for sure from NBC’s account whether the man was a prisoner.

Heyman said there is a danger that a wounded enemy may try to detonate a hidden firearm or a grenade, and if the man made the slightest move “in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him.”

However, legal distinctions are unlikely to carry much weight among many Iraqis, especially Sunnis already angry over the Fallujah offensive. Allawi said he ordered the assault after Fallujah’s leaders refused to hand over Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other foreign fighters.

‘I wanted to scream’
But Sunni militants saw the invasion of the city 40 miles west of Baghdad as a plot by the Americans and the Shiites, such as Allawi, against religious Sunnis — an allegation both governments deny.

“The troops not only violated our mosques with their sins and their boots, but they stepped on our brothers’ blood,” said Khalil, the shop owner. “They are criminals and mercenaries. I feel guilty standing here and not doing anything.”

At a news conference Tuesday, Iraqi Interior Minister Falah Hassan al-Naqib, himself a Sunni, said that although “killing a wounded person is rejected by us,” Fallujah militants were “killers and criminals” who committed brutal acts.

That meant little to Hameed Farhan, 51, who works for the Transportation Ministry in Baghdad.

“I did not see it because there was no electricity at home, but my wife was at her parents’ and she described it for me,” Farhan said. “She was crying. Tears welled up in my eyes. I wanted to scream.”

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Philbo
Nov 17th, 2004, 03:34 AM
What I found pretty interesting about this is that the footage of the shooting came from an embedded journalist.

The embedded journalists have been criticised for not showign the 'real' story of war and presenting both sides - because they are travelling and living etc with whatever platoon they are assigned to, they generally regurgitate whatever the government/military wants them to - their independance is compromised because they are part of the army unit they are embedded with..

So i found it interesting that this potentially damaging story came from one of the US Media...

Volcana
Nov 17th, 2004, 04:07 AM
So i found it interesting that this potentially damaging story came from one of the US Media...The embedded reporters are in a nasty situation, just like the soldiers. You notice no one tried to stop him from filming (which I expect to change now). That was normal for the current situation. Our troops have been handed a shit job, with insufficient resources. Not that they won't eventually complete conquering Iraq. But most of them know there was no need, and that they were sent without protective equipment that COULD have been made available. In the spring, there were reports of bullet shortages (http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/21194.php).

And casualty counts (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1096150208191) are running far ahead of what was anticipated.

It's a shit job, and nobody NEEDED to do it. But thousands aof Americans, and literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are paying the price for a conflict that has nothing to do with defending the United States.

vogus
Nov 17th, 2004, 04:25 AM
the people of the United States voted in favor of the Iraq war, 51 percent to 48. The votes of the 56 million people in this country who voted against the Republicans don't mean a god damn thing. I guess that's just democracy in action.

pav
Nov 17th, 2004, 07:02 AM
It certainly is very easy for the Worlds media to jump on something like this, Al-Jezeera and the like never criticise the militants of Their persuasion for indiscriminately blowing up children etc. but let a U.S. soldier do one thing wrong and they start howling,backed up by sad looking liberal news readers like We have over here. Not many people have been in a situation such as was faced by that soldier,go into a building and some militant who was supposedly dead starts wriggling about ,with those bastards track record ,I'd shoot the bugger too,better to be sure than sorry,those sort of maniac Moslems think it's great to die anyway,so He was doing Him a favour!

If every bugger realised any sort of religion is a load of bullshit the World would be a better place, all that killing over fairy tales

Volcana
Nov 17th, 2004, 11:25 PM
the people of the United States voted in favor of the Iraq war, 51 percent to 48. The votes of the 56 million people in this country who voted against the Republicans don't mean a god damn thing. I guess that's just democracy in action.The people of the United States didn't voted in favor of the Iraq war. They didn't get any say in it all.

The two choices they were offerred for President offered almost identical plans for dealing with it. If you're calling the last Presidential election a referendum continuing to fight the Iraq war, the American people voted to continue fighting it 99% to 1%.

Fingon
Nov 18th, 2004, 12:47 AM
well, I don't feel sorry for terrorists that behead harmless civilians, don't they want to die to go to paradise? he got his wish.

Hulet
Nov 18th, 2004, 12:57 AM
well, I don't feel sorry for terrorists that behead harmless civilians, don't they want to die to go to paradise? he got his wish.
This person who was shot while wounded - do we know if he killed a civilian? Do we know if beheaded one? Do we know if he wanted to go to paradise? Or are we just working on assumptions and generalizations here?

jbone_0307
Nov 18th, 2004, 01:01 AM
US convoy bombed and 10 die.

Fingon
Nov 18th, 2004, 01:48 AM
This person who was shot while wounded - do we know if he killed a civilian? Do we know if beheaded one? Do we know if he wanted to go to paradise? Or are we just working on assumptions and generalizations here?
no, we don't, but if he was a terrorist and was fighthing with and for them, he should have known the risks.

The terrorists have tried everything to keep the marines out of fallujah, simply because they are not as brave as they want us to believe, they are against innocent civilians but not against well armed soldiers

Hulet
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:03 AM
I still don't get this. Are you saying everybody who fought the Americans in Fallujah is a terrorist?

Volcana
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:17 AM
This person who was shot while wounded - do we know if he killed a civilian? Do we know if beheaded one? Do we know if he wanted to go to paradise? Or are we just working on assumptions and generalizations here?We don't know anything about him except he's dead. Well, I'm sure Fingon knows. And I'm sure he's shared he's thought with Rumsfeld.

Something Bush said a couple months back come to mind. The exact quote escapes me, but it was something to the effect of "The people who are fighting us because they're country's been invaded, they aren't terrorists." I remember being shocked he'd make that distinction. But fortunately, we have Fingon to tell us who's just fighting to repel foreign invaders, and who's beheading civilians.

Fingon
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:19 AM
I still don't get this. Are you saying everybody who fought the Americans in Fallujah is a terrorist?
pretty much, it's not the iraqui army is it?

Fingon
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:22 AM
We don't know anything about him except he's dead. Well, I'm sure Fingon knows. And I'm sure he's shared he's thought with Rumsfeld.

Something Bush said a couple months back come to mind. The exact quote escapes me, but it was something to the effect of "The people who are fighting us because they're country's been invaded, they aren't terrorists." I remember being shocked he'd make that distinction. But fortunately, we have Fingon to tell us who's just fighting to repel foreign invaders, and who's beheading civilians.
for sure there are a lot of people in Iraq fighting against foreign invaders. The marines are fighting against Jordanians, Syrians, Chechens.

The leader of the "iraqui" resistance is Jordan, and they fight by killing iraquis recruit with a shot in the head.

And, if I had talked to Rumsfeld and he had listened, believe me, it wouldn't be pretty for the terrorists.

Justeenium
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:38 AM
the people of the United States voted in favor of the Iraq war, 51 percent to 48. The votes of the 56 million people in this country who voted against the Republicans don't mean a god damn thing. I guess that's just democracy in action.
wow. what an idiot. If you would actually read, you would know in surveys that slightly more people now say we should not have gone into Iraq.

And a vote for Kerry is not a vote agains the Iraq war dumbass. :rolleyes: :retard:

Volcana
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:56 AM
for sure there are a lot of people in Iraq fighting against foreign invaders.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-23.htm 2nd graph
CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq — The battle for the city of Fallujah is giving U.S. military commanders an increasingly clear picture of this country's insurgency, and it is the portrait of a homegrown uprising overwhelmingly dominated by Iraqis, not by foreign fighters.

Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said Monday.http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dillon200311250916.asp 4th graph
The Pentagon has identified the overwhelming majority of insurgents as former Baath-party officials and other Saddam loyalists. Most of these people come from the Sunni Arab minority (about 20 percent of Iraq's population). During Saddam's regime, the Sunni Arabs oppressed the majority Shia Arabs in the south (65 percent) and Kurds in the north (15 percent). As a consequence, guerrilla activity in the north and south is almost nonexistent, and cooperation with the occupation forces is high. Even in Baghdad and the Baathist/Sunni triangle, American generals frequently state that their best intelligence source is tip-offs from Iraqis.http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2230425 3rd graph
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, said the number of U.S. soldiers in Anbar province, bordering Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, has been tripled in the past two months to 20,000. That, he said, has curbed infiltrations.
"We are not fighting foreign fighters coming across the border in significant numbers," Swannack said. "We are fighting mostly ... locals" loyal to Saddam Hussein's ousted regime.Get a fucking clue.

Philbo
Nov 18th, 2004, 03:02 AM
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-23.htm 2nd graph
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dillon200311250916.asp 4th graph
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2230425 3rd graph
Get a fucking clue.
:lol: :worship:

Hulet
Nov 18th, 2004, 03:04 AM
pretty much, it's not the iraqui army is it?
Um...between a "army" and "terrorist" there are numerous catagories of militants. In other words, just because you didn't wear uniform and given rank and helmet doesn't mean you are a terrorist.

If some outside force invaded your country and routed the army, and if you joined some militant independence movement that fought the foreign invaders, how in the world are you a terrorist? Were the Polish/French/Czech resistance movements during WWII terrorist organizations because they fought the Nazi invaders? How about George Washington and his followers? They didn't have the U.S. army when they fought the British for independence, does that mean they were terrorists? Is July the 4th a celebration of terrorist victory? :eek:

It seems your definition of terrorist is so general that the word doesn't even mean anything anymore.

Philbo
Nov 18th, 2004, 03:06 AM
Um...between a "army" and "terrorist" there are numerous catagories of militants. In other words, just because you didn't wear uniform and given rank and helmet doesn't mean you are a terrorist.

If some outside force invaded your country and routed the army, and if you joined some militant independence movement that fought the foreign invaders, how in the world are you a terrorist? Were the Polish/French/Czech resistance movements during WWII terrorist organizations because they fought the Nazi invaders? How about George Washington and his followers? They didn't have the U.S. army when they fought the British for independence, does that mean they were terrorists? Is July the 4th a celebration of terrorist victory? :eek:

It seems your definition of terrorist is so general that the word doesn't even mean anything.
well said!

Volcana
Nov 18th, 2004, 09:42 PM
http://www.juancole.com/ (At the time I post this, it's the 2nd posting from the top.)

Juan Cole makes quite a sharp distinction here between the US Marines and some, not all, of the resistance fighters. It's a distinction well worth noting.


More on Marine Mosque Killing

Iraqis continued to be furious (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/18/content_2232837.htm) Wednesday over the shooting by a US marine of a wounded Iraqi fighter in a mosque in Fallujah. Indeed, the Arab press in general (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6514451/) expressed horror and outrage. Unlike US news outlets, al-Jazeera and other Arab satellite news stations actually showed the prisoner being shot, which made the footage more powerful. Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that both the Iraqi interim government and the Arab League have condemned the mosque shooting and demanded the perpetrator be tried.

US veterans (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041117/REPOSITORY/411170356/1031) and military justice experts were less willing to jump to judgment. They point out that the full context is not apparent from the snippet of film. This second team of Marines had not known that a previous team had left these wounded guerrillas in the mosque for subsequent medical pick-up, and appear to have assumed that they were active combatants and that one of them was a suicide bomber only pretending to be dead. Such contextualization and nuance were not part of the debate in the Arab press.

Readers have written me on all sides of this issue. Some have insisted that the wounded guerrillas were not technically prisoners of war, as I had termed them, and that the US marine's action cannot be judged until we have all the facts.

Others expressed surprise that I declined to accept any comparison between the US Marine Corps and the guerrillas who beheaded aid worker Margaret Hassan. (!) I kid you not. They actually wanted to put them on the same plane.

Let me just clarify my comments. First of all, I did not say that the Iraq war was a legitimate war. It was not. It violated the charter of the United Nations.



What I said was that the role of the US military and other multinational forces in Iraq is now legitimate because it was explicitly sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This is true. Many readers appear to have forgotten all about UN SC Resolution 1546 (2004) (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8117.doc.htm), which was adopted unanimously. Here is what the Security Council said about the issue at hand:“9. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming Interim Government of Iraq and therefore reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force under unified command established under resolution 1511 (2003), having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution;


“10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;

“11. Welcomes, in this regard, the letters annexed to this resolution stating, inter alia, that arrangements are being put in place to establish a security partnership between the sovereign Government of Iraq and the multinational force and to ensure coordination between the two, and notes also in this regard that Iraqi security forces are responsible to appropriate Iraqi ministers, that the Government of Iraq has authority to commit Iraqi security forces to the multinational force to engage in operations with it, and that the security structures described in the letters will serve as the fora for the Government of Iraq and the multinational force to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, and will ensure full partnership between Iraqi security forces and the multinational force, through close coordination and consultation;



So, the Marines at Fallujah are operating in accordance with a UNSC Resolution and have all the legitimacy in international law that flows from that. The Allawi government asked them to undertake this Fallujah mission.

To compare them to the murderous thugs who kidnapped CARE worker Margaret Hassan, held her hostage, terrified her, and then killed her is frankly monstrous. The multinational forces are soldiers fighting a war in which they are targetting combatants and sometimes accidentally killing innocents. The hostage-takers are terrorists deliberately killing innocents. It is simply not the same thing.

Now, I don't like the timing of the Fallujah mission. I don't like all the mistakes made along the way, which produced this operation. I don't like its tactics. I don't like the way it put so many civilians in harm's way. I don't like the violations of international law (targetting the hospital, turning away the Red Crescent, killing wounded and disarmed combatants), etc. I protest the latter. I don't know enough about military affairs to offer an alternative on the former issues, and don't mind admitting my technical ignorance. You can't do everything.

But the basic idea of attacking the guerrillas holding up in that city is not in and of itself criminal or irresponsible. A significant proportion of the absolutely horrible car bombings (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040330.htm) that have killed hundreds and thousands of innocent Iraqis, especially Shiites, were planned and executed from Fallujah. There were serious and heavily armed forces in Fallujah planning out ways of killing hundreds to prevent elections from being held in January. These are mass murderers, serial murderers. If they were fighting only to defend Fallujah, that would be one thing; even the Marines would respect them for that. They aren't, or at least, a significant proportion of them aren't. They are killing civilians elsewhere in order to throw Iraq into chaos and avoid the enfranchisement of the Kurds and Shiites.

Some of my readers still want good guys and bad guys, white hats and black hats. That's not the way the world is. It is often grey, and very bleak.



posted by Juan @ 11/18/2004 06:14:12 AM (http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/more-on-marine-mosque-killing-iraqis.html) [/url][url="http://www.blogger.com/app/post.pyra?blogID=3463907&postID=110076233364725464&quickEdit=true"] (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=3463907&postID=110076233364725464)

Jeleno Benesovo
Nov 18th, 2004, 10:04 PM
Um...between a "army" and "terrorist" there are numerous catagories of militants. In other words, just because you didn't wear uniform and given rank and helmet doesn't mean you are a terrorist.

If some outside force invaded your country and routed the army, and if you joined some militant independence movement that fought the foreign invaders, how in the world are you a terrorist? Were the Polish/French/Czech resistance movements during WWII terrorist organizations because they fought the Nazi invaders? How about George Washington and his followers? They didn't have the U.S. army when they fought the British for independence, does that mean they were terrorists? Is July the 4th a celebration of terrorist victory? :eek:

It seems your definition of terrorist is so general that the word doesn't even mean anything anymore. You are right, Psychon. For Fingon anybody who fights against intruders/invaders are terrorists, surely for him Gandhi was a bloody terrorist as well :rolleyes:

IMO Fingon is a terrorist... really terrifies me to read all his nazi crap :scared:

Volcana
Nov 18th, 2004, 11:04 PM
IMO Fingon is a terrorist... really terrifies me to read all his nazi crap :scared:I may not care much for Fingon's political, let's call them 'random brain farts'. ('Opinions' implying a certain higher order of thought.) However, let us reserve the use of the term 'terrorist' for people who plan and/or commit the murder of non-combatants in the pursuit of political aims.

To my knowledge, Fingon has killed no one, unless conversing with him online leaves us vulnerable to contagion of, and then death by, stupidity-poisoning.

Jeleno Benesovo
Nov 18th, 2004, 11:33 PM
I may not care much for Fingon's political, let's call them 'random barain farts'. ('Opinions' implying a certain higher order of thought.) However, let us reserve the use of the term 'terrorist' for people who plan and/or commit the murder of non-combatants in the pursuit of political aims.

To my knowledge, Fingon has killed no one, unless conversing with him online leaves us vulnerable to contagion of, and then death by, stupidity-poisoning.
err It was supposed to be a sarcastic comment, didn't you get it?

Hulet
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Sarcasm aside, I agree with Jeleno Benesovo in this respect. Yes, Fingon might not be a terrorist but his original comment in this thread is really scary. You know, I will forgive and might have a slight understanding of the soldier who committed this murder of the wounded Iraqi fighter b/c it occured in the heat of the battle, during fog of war, etc. But, I will never understand a person, who sits really far away from the conflict and has the chance of slowly analysing this particular incident, throws comments casually that justify murder. "He got his wish," is really an inhumane comment and is unforgivable - especially from a person who otherwise appears to be bright.

Volcana
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:17 AM
err It was supposed to be a sarcastic comment, didn't you get it?The retiring Secretary of Education called the National Educators Association 'terrorists'. HE wasn't being sarcastic. I've had people call ME a terrorist, in complete anger and sincerity. I missed the emoticon, if it was there. Everyone DOESN'T use the term sarcastically, anymore than the people who call others 'Nazis'.

I'm please it was meant sarcastically, rather than sincerely. Unfortunately that usage isn't universal. Or, maybe I'm just real slow.