Well, perhaps you could find a Marine that is "speaking out" intelligently and consistently. These two statements come early in the post and are only a few lines apart. each statement relates to the same story... >They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some >warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit >them up. >They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on >them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down >weapons." That's what they were doing, but we >were still lighting them up. Find the inconsistency? Probably not as I would be surprised if you even look for such things before posting crap. Here you go... I'll spoon feed it to you. He says that the vehicle in question "didn't slow down" and that is why it got "lit up". Then he goes on to say that people were told to "throw up your hands". We'll pause there for a moment before going on to the good part... Did the party in question "throw up their hands" as was the universal signal for a non-threatening position, or did they "not slow down" when approaching the checkpoint? So according to the Marines own account the occupants NOT DO WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO DO WHICH WOULD HAVE DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THEIR ODDS OF SURVIVAL. Now, on to the good part... I repeat the Marines statement: >They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on >them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down >weapons." That's what they were doing, but we >were still lighting them up. So we have shown above that this Marine is either delusional or a liar -- he can't keep his story straight about whether the occupants of the car in question were following instructions or not. HOWEVER, let's suppose the occupants DID follow instructions as he states the second time...THEN WHY THE HELL DID HE "LIGHT THEM UP"? The dude should be court marshalled for the equivalent of murder if he is lighting people up who have thrown up their hands. What a crock. JB PS. Go ahead and attempt to redirect this into a "I am nothing but a warmonger statement", but you'll be wrong. I hate war. I also hate people who tell obvious lies for propaganda purposes (and yes, that includes the current administration)
YES!!!! did you read the whole interview? UNFORTUNATELY this is a FRAUD for WAR, an unnecessary event instigated by a small cabal in office. Dudya and cabal has hijacked our party, our country and screwing up the world. Exactly why did we invade a defenseless sovereign nation? They did not attack us White house admits no links to Al-qaida and no links to 9/11 NO WMD's, fabricated evidence so the cabal can start the war, UN found nada, David Kay, a Bush appointed weapons hunter came back and reported nada. No imminent threat (unless you consider their balsa wood planes against our aircraft carriers lol) SH had them under control (Shites extreme fundamentalist fanatics as many call them here were not blowing up anyone) Now we have them both sunnis and shites united against us, and more Americans die. we can go on and on.... I think we need a thread on Iraq war, who benefits and who pays the price. Where is candle and his polls on this?
if you're going to impute the motives and intelligence of the occupants, then why stop there - illiteracy, panic, inattention, or failure to recieve the instructions could also be imputed. the point he's making is that from his point of view, it was unjust. in any case, using one incident is too narrow - even assuming this specific case was the fault of the occupants, this soldier is speaking because he sees a larger pattern. for ex. his reference to "genocide" - his point is not that the war is unjust because a single car was "lit up," but that he sees a pattern of unjust treatment.
Nuhhh you follow the proper steps, even Mav jumped right to the end, but you resorted to attacking the Marine. >They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some >warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit >them up. >They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on >them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down >weapons." That's what they were doing, but we >were still lighting them up. you assume that every Iraqi everywhere, has gotten AND was able to read the "pamphlets" (including the Iraqis in that "incident") C'mon man....... and how do you know if the Iraqis were not trying to be moving targets thus minimizing their chances to be killed anyway, so they chose to run in the confusion? JB (ole buddy ) your effort to assassinate the Marine's character is bellow contempt. "However; I do understand where you are coming from as far as my posts are concerned , regardless of their content. but I digress here"..
If Bush gets elected (not reelected), I see chances that we'll see the reintroduction of concentration camps in the US within the next presidential period. I'm not kidding. I'm from a european country that was at war during the nineties, and it all started with an economic crisis and then continued with the broadcast of fear and lies throughout the media by the political leadership. Them against us, all day long, everywhere. Newspapers, Radio, Television. If Bush gets another term, the American democracy and everything it stands for will have died for me, the similarities between these days and the days of Caesar who destroyed the Roman republic are too striking. Caesar and Augustus both also believed they were sent by the gods, just like your 'President' does BTW. Let's hope for the american public will recover from the current political unconsciousness in november.
no i didnt read the whole thing sorry...didnt have time ( will try to later )....Im refering to a situation when you order someone to stop and they dont ( wether we went to WAR illegaly or not doesnt make any difference )...when you order someone to stop and only have a fraction of a split second to think ...I for one would shoot and ask questions later...
>JB (ole buddy ) your effort to assassinate >the Marine's character is bellow contempt. No effort to assassinate his character is required...he does himself with his conflicting statement regarding the specific incident AND even more so by the following general statement... >They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on >them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down >weapons." That's what they were doing, but we >were still lighting them up. So, people were getting the instructions, understanding the instructions, following the instructions AND YET "we were still lighting them up". How are you going to squirm out of accepting that this Marine by *his own account* is a inconsistent murderous thug? (I'll be waiting). JB
nuhhh I'm nice I won't keep you waiting today: Soooooo now you changed it, from him being a "either delusional or a liar" your words earlier, to an inconsistent murderous thug? How about him following his superior's instructions? He already admitted, "A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government." HE WAS FOLLOWING ORDERS chain of command all the way from the CHIEF IN THIEF errr COMMAND. (yeah yeah...I know...dudya and cabal had nothing to do with all this mess and directives how to handle the "enemy" etc..., it's all our bravest's fault now....right! I hope you don't imply as such) Sooooo please cut the crap ok? Take your pill open your eyes (mind), c'mon man show some intelligence..... Now, if you don't like the tone of my posts to you on a personal level, let me know, pm if you want, and I will stand down on that issue with you. assuming ofc you behave the same
>Soooooo now you changed it, from him being a >"either delusional or a liar" your words earlier, >to an inconsistent murderous thug? What's confusing? Are those terms mutually exclusive in some way? "murdurous thug" is established WITH our WITHOUT orders and the term "inconsistent" is very consistent with "either delusional or liar". Unless you can explain how there is any "change" in those two descriptions I will simply chalk it up to more squirming. (I'll be waiting) >How about him following his superior's >instructions? >He already admitted, "A: Yes. I killed >innocent people for our government." The above admission in no way marks someone as a murdurous thug. I can make all sorts of honest mistakes and kill innocent people in a time of war and not be murdurous (remember intent). However, he describes intentionally killing surrendered, weaponless persons and that is individually murdurous even if GWB has directed you to do it. >(yeah yeah...I know...dudya and cabal had nothing >to do with all this mess and directives how to handle >the "enemy" etc..., it's all our bravest's fault now.... >right! I hope you don't imply as such) You can place those words in someones mouth if you wish, but I won't allow you to put them in mine...Our current leaders lied to sell this war just as past leaders have lied to sell other wars. I make no excuses for their lies or directives. As far as my point goes...I have great respect for the vast majority of our troops. I have however NO respect for an admitted murdurous thug of a Marine who admits to killing surrendered civilians, orders or not. Frankly, I don't believe he actually killed surrendered civilians. I think he's fabricating the story to make is sound better to folks like you that won't bring him to task for the inconsistencies in his stories. HOWEVER, if it is telling the truth he should be hung at sunrise along with ANY superior who gave order to shoot surrendered civilians. JB
Nolan would of course NOT fire at a vehicle full of dudes rushing his check point, without showing any signs of surrender. Because he is suicidal Dude... any rational person would "lite up" a car in that situation and there would be nothing wrong or immoral about it, even if the car ended up being full of innocent civilians. Its no different than a civilian running out of a bank that just got robbed, charging straight at a cop that is yelling STOP and does not listen, and continues to ACT like an aggressive bank robber. His ass is gonna get SHOT. Period. End of story. And NO, we would not book the police officer on murder charges. peace axeman