Killing an Innocent or Executing an Insurgent?

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
7
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
The difference?
Maybe you die in a real life situation whearas the possiblitly of becoming a fatal mistake in training are minimized - sometimes to the point of being overly abstract and not entirely reproducing an accurate environment?

Or in other words in real life there are far more variable than a little training ever can reproduce. Training is done in a controlled environment- any training is. I have all sorts of examples in my job of things that are alleged to work one way - but -it never turns out that way... the stakes aren't nearly so high -if I screw up I am not going to die - well unless I pour coffee down the back of my monitor and it blows up on me or something.

Or in other other words - what stresses do they do to prepare people for these training sessions? Do they randomly kill a couple of people in the training program -- do they pyschologically prepare someone for this, do they keep you under live fire for a few days - with limited to no sleep? - or is it all one big Hogan's Alley - where you get up and just go to training one day?

Pretty easy to post about this ona board -- not so easy in real life -

Where those insurgents awaiting arraignment for war crimes though? No they were poor people merely defending their homeland from the faceless great Satan. :rolleyes:
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
So what you're saying is that all combat training is a waste of time? No point in showing soldiers the correct way to clear a room, just let them make it up as they go along because they will be too stressed out to remember anything those cranky old warrent officers told them.

And don't bother with exercises, just wait until the war starts and throw the troops out there, they'll get the hang of it.

Training has a purpose, if if that training is done correctly the trainees will have a much better chance of survival in the real thing. And even veterans should be undergoing routine refresher training to avoid any bad habits they may have picked up.
 

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
7
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
Since my post is readily available above - anyone that actually cares to not put words into my post can read it themself.

Did I say that?

I said training is no substitute for the real thing -and in fact that applies pretty much everywhere -from computer training, to sports practice - to military training.

I am also saying that the training more than likely did not come remotely close to replicating this environment. If I am wrong, I would like to know more about the training processes and be able to compare the actual conditions to what the training conditions are.

Don't believe me fine? Read these boards with a full night's rest - then do it going 24 hours without any sleep - see if you don't react differently.
 

last_cav1971

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
West Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Don't believe me fine? Read these boards with a full night's rest - then do it going 24 hours without any sleep - see if you don't react differentl


Love that reply...........

Mark
Deo Vindice
 

Ivan Rapkinov

Harpoon Forum Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
2
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
MajorH said:
The heavily armed bad guys would be the last to starve. In the meantime we would have to endure three to six months of videos of starving women and children - each ending with scenes of humanitarian convoys being turned back by US troops. That is not going to happen.
the whole point of the cordon is to have a steady stream of people being searched and moved on - suspected insurgents pulled aside and out into detention.

the Russians called them filtration camps, and they worked well enough for the short term vs the Israelis in Beirut

with the US's technology, and the fact there is a HUGE number of native Iraqis available as a rebuttal of the insurgents claims that americans will shoot civilians, or take every one prisoner (Al Gharib style), it doesn't seem too much of a difficulty in informing the populace of their intentions

1. Surround the city
2. checkpoints established
3. systematically turn off utilities to areas thus that civilians either flee, or cluster in smaller areas.
3. drop leaflets stating intentions
4. leading units accompanied by Iraqi NG counterparts
5. Clear sector by sector - shrinking cordon perimeter as each sector is cleared.
6. establish filtration camps (tent cities 10-20km beyond cordon) - allow humanitarian aid, and food to the camps, but not the city. Make sure that the civilians in the camps can see the city.
7. Offer amnesty for insurgents who disarm in a dedicated area. Offer cash incentive for further boost (reduces insurgent numbers by weeding out the greedy)
8. gradual change of msg in leaflets from one of compromise (to lure out the unsure/confused) to one of violent determination (weeds out those scared for their lives) - the gradual change avoids a polarisation of the disparate elements.
9. Issue final warnings
10. current style ops - BUT, over a reduced area, with less civilians, better foreign opinion, and more likely for a rapid return to normalcy for those displaced citizens once the fighting has stopped, and the insurgents pacified.

would this work? I honestly don't know - it's very manpower intensive, but the aim is maintain popular opinion both in Iraq and amongst the rest of the world in favour of the US - to be seen as liberators, rather than conquerors.
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
trauth116 said:
Since my post is readily available above - anyone that actually cares to not put words into my post can read it themself.

Did I say that?

I said training is no substitute for the real thing -and in fact that applies pretty much everywhere -from computer training, to sports practice - to military training.

I am also saying that the training more than likely did not come remotely close to replicating this environment. If I am wrong, I would like to know more about the training processes and be able to compare the actual conditions to what the training conditions are.

Don't believe me fine? Read these boards with a full night's rest - then do it going 24 hours without any sleep - see if you don't react differently.

And I ask again, if training is no substitute for the real thing as a learning tool, why bother with the training?
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Location
Cruising the Old Man River
Country
llUnited States
The Purist said:
"These people are so filled with hate that they feel our very existence is enough justification to shoot unarmed hostages..."

It would be wrong to lump all Iraqis in with the insurgents or the foreign terrorists. Most Iraqis will support the US and coalition if they can see that they represent a force for change and not just another group who will oppress them.

"These people", as you call them are dying in very large numbers at the hands of the terrorist and most have never done anything to interfere with the coalition and its goals. Iraqis are no different in their nationalism than any other country. The hate being occupied as much as we would and are waiting to see if the coalition will fulfill their promises.

The cultural differences and the lack of understanding of them have led to some very big miscalculations on the part of the coalition and the price is being paid today in the lives of coalition troops and Iraqi civilians.
The "these people" I was referring to were the terrorists specifically, not all Iraqis, Muslims, or Arabs in general. I have high hopes for the Iraqis and pity the time they spent under Saddam Hussein.
 

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
7
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
"And I ask again, if training is no substitute for the real thing as a learning tool, why bother with the training?"

How come it is easier to hit in batting practice than a game? In fact is a batting cage a substitute for live pitching in a game environment?
 
Last edited:

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
trauth116 said:
"And I ask again, if training is no substitute for the real thing as a learning tool, why bother with the training?"

How come it is easier to hit in batting practice than a game? In fact is a batting cage a substitute for live pitching in a game environment?
Baseball? I have no idea nor do I really care. What is important is that training for combat is not a game.

Instead of following your logic it would seem that most good armies instead choose to invest a lot of money and time in training their soldiers. Why would this be the case if what you say is correct and training has no use? I really think you have no idea what military training programs and courses are meant to achive if you can only equate it to a game.
 

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
7
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
I could have used Social Security computer program training as well as an example - the point is that training is only as good as the training package - in my job I have come across some really optimistic training packages - that don't at all replicate a real thing - but do replicate the trainer's presumption of the real thing.

But really Prester, I guess what I am being cynical in a way about is govt training of any sort; and I have been having a bad week - I might be an opinionated jerk, but I don't like being labelled a religiously inspired opinionted jerk.

At any rate, I apologize for keeping on this subject for so long; it isn't why I visit these boards. I have been having a rough week elswheres.


Steve
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
trauth116 said:
I could have used Social Security computer program training as well as an example - the point is that training is only as good as the training package - in my job I have come across some really optimistic training packages - that don't at all replicate a real thing - but do replicate the trainer's presumption of the real thing.

But really Prester, I guess what I am being cynical in a way about is govt training of any sort; and I have been having a bad week - I might be an opinionated jerk, but I don't like being labelled a religiously inspired opinionted jerk.

At any rate, I apologize for keeping on this subject for so long; it isn't why I visit these boards. I have been having a rough week elswheres.


Steve

Well maybe that's how your army's training works but the thing I most remember about the attitude of the instructors I had in our army, and the message they had for us was to learn the lessons that experience said was the right way of doing things, and if you didn't do it right when the time came more people would die than was necessary. Maybe they couldn't shoot you if you stuffed up in training but there were other ways to gain your attention.
 

Kraut

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
1
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
From the New York Times

Cameraman Details Marine's Role in Mosque Shooting

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 21 - A marine who appears to shoot and kill an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in an NBC News video was not aware that the incident was being recorded, and moments later approached the cameraman with seemingly remorseful words - "I didn't know, sir, I didn't know" - according to the first public description of the events by the cameraman, Kevin Sites, since his brief and somewhat ambiguous initial report.

No weapons were visible inside the Falluja mosque where the shooting took place, on Nov. 13, and the wounded Iraqi made no sudden or threatening moves before the marine shot him, Mr. Sites writes on his Web site, kevinsites.net, in an entry posted Sunday night.

Mr. Sites, a freelance photojournalist who had been hired by NBC News, made it clear that as a veteran of covering wars around the globe, he understood the ugliness and complexity of battle. Nevertheless, he said of the incident in the mosque, "it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right."

His account also raises new questions about another group of marines who entered the mosque just before Mr. Sites and fired on the prisoners - they had been left there, already wounded, after a battle the day before. Mr. Sites was so surprised that the prisoners he had seen there the day before had been attacked again that he informed a Marine lieutenant of the fact before the final shooting - the one he captured on tape - took place.

The video obtained by Mr. Sites has received sensational play around the world, particularly in the Arab news media.

Mr. Sites calls the posting on his Web log an "Open Letter to the Devil Dogs of the 3.1," or the Third Battalion, First Marines. "Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw," he wrote, "or explain the process by which the world came to see them as well."

He begins by writing, "I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat." Despite his attempt to be fair, he said, since the Falluja video was broadcast on Nov. 15, he has been "shocked to see myself painted as some kind of antiwar activist." Mr. Sites has received abuse and death threats on some Web sites, and has shut down the discussion section of his own.

He said the marines he was embedded with arrived at the mosque on Nov. 13, and after a series of other events, he heard shooting inside. The other set of marines emerged and were asked by a lieutenant, "Did you shoot them?"

"Roger that, sir," a marine responded. But when the lieutenant asked, "Were they armed?" the marine just shrugged, Mr. Sites wrote.

Inside, Mr. Sites said he was was surprised to see the wounded men from the battle the day before, now shot again. "There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere," he wrote.

He was videotaping some of the wounded men when, in the background, a marine yelled that one of the others was "faking he's dead."

"Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of the his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi," Mr. Sites wrote. "There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging."

Then the marine fired. "There is a small spatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down," Mr. Sites wrote, in what was apparently a suggestion that the man had been alive.

"Well," another marine said, "he's dead now."

Mr. Sites wrote that he could feel "the deep pit of my stomach." The marine who fired, who had been angrily shouting, suddenly changed his tone.

"The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread," Mr. Sites wrote.

"I can't know what was in the mind of the marine," he wrote. "He is the only one who does."
 

The Purist

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
97
Location
In my castle by the sea, Calgary, AB
Country
llCanada
Balance, Balance, Balance!!!!

Last_Cav,

Again you are refering to a website that simply disagrees with your point of view. On a previous post (Nov 17, 20:57) you all but stated that Mr. Sites was little more than a ranting peacenik who does nothing but rave against the US and the war in Iraq.

This is patently untrue.

Sites has been involved with combat journalism more than just a few years. He has been embedded with the US Marines on more operation than just the Fullujah battle and, as with many other journalists, has been up front with the troops, being shot at each and every day. Marines have shown no animosity towards him (and others) while he was with them in the past and I am not aware of present changes to this attitude.

You cannot fault Sites for taking these pictures, that is why he was there.

You cannot fault Sites for releasing the footage, that was the decision made by the military in order to ensure there was no appearance of a coverup.

You can try to bring some balance to your arguments,...otherwise you simply look, at best, immature and gullible, at worst, a thoughtless fanatic. Wrapping yourself in the flag and cooing over combat footage lends nothing to your arguments. Quite the contrary, in fact.
 
Last edited:

last_cav1971

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
West Virginia
Country
llUnited States
The Purist said:
Last_Cav,

Again you are refering to a website that simply disagrees with your point of view. On a previous post (Nov 17, 20:57) you all but stated that Mr. Sites was little more than a ranting peacenik who does nothing but rave against the US and the war in Iraq.

This is patently untrue.

Sites has been involved with combat journalism more than just a few years. He has been embedded with the US Marines on more operation than just the Fullujah battle and, as with many other journalists, has been up front with the troops, being shot at each and every day. Marines have shown no animosity towards him (and others) while he was with them in the past and I am not aware of present changes to this attitude.

You cannot fault Sites for taking these pictures, that is why he was there.

You cannot fault Sites for releasing the footage, that was the decision made by the military in order to ensure there was no appearance of a coverup.

You can try to bring some balance to your arguments,...otherwise you simply look, at best, immature and gullible, at worst, a thoughtless fanatic. Wrapping yourself in the flag and cooing over combat footage lends nothing to your arguments. Quite the contrary, in fact.
You may consider me what you want, but I am far from immature and gullible or a thoughtless fanatic. What you think of me; I really dont give a rats a#$.
I will stand up for the men and women serving the US, regardless of what YOU want to say.
Dont attack me by calling me such things as you have above.
I have a very sharp tongue myself........I just have enough common sense not to use it the way that you use yours.
You, being a Canadian, may be use to using the words gullible and immature in your conversations...........I dont know......but youre stepping over the line.

Mark
Deo Vindice
 

last_cav1971

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
West Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Richa333 said:
Please, let's not go down into the name - calling if we can help it...
Exactly.........I've never called anyone by names.......whats the sense in it? That falls under immature in my book.

Mark
Deo Vindice
 

The Purist

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
97
Location
In my castle by the sea, Calgary, AB
Country
llCanada
"You may consider me what you want, but I am far from immature and gullible or a thoughtless fanatic. What you think of me; I really dont give a rats a#$."

I would like, very much in fact, to believe everything you say but you follow your statement above with,...

"I will stand up for the men and women serving the US, regardless of what YOU want to say."

Even if they are proven to be in the wrong?

I have said before that I have a world of respect and admiration for the US and its institutions and ideals. I have served in uniform, along side US Army troops in my time and consider the US military to be, probably, the finest on the planet. However, no country, anywhere, is faultless. For an argument, any argument, to hold wieght, it must be based on verifiable facts.

I suppose my greatest complaint with your viewpoint is your unfair treatment of Mr. Kevin Sites and other journalist since the incident in questions:

"This is what happens when the media is allowed places they shouldnt be" (Nov 15 20:57) and comments by others in this thread leave one with the imprerssion that the defenders of the action are not interested in justice, the truth or examining the details, even for the sake of argument, of what happened.

Do you really support censorship? Can you not see that perhaps, just perhaps, the young man who raised his rifle and pulled the trigger, is wrong in his actions. Had the camera not been there none of us would be having this discussion. But the camera was there, the film was rolling, the marine pulled the trigger, the film was released and... here we all are.

"I will stand up for the men and women serving the US, regardless of what YOU want to say"

Would it not be better to "stand up for the men and women serving the US" because they represent that which is best about America, not because of what I, you or others say.

I have still not heard a cogent argument from your "side" (for want of a better word) of the argument. I have heard:

"Does anyone else here get really tired of these stupid embedded reporters?"
"Exactly.........where is the 'Ernie Pyle' from WWII? Thats the media type we need."
"Attrocities are being committed against us, regardless of what convention we are following. So why in the hell should we handicap ourselves if we know the enemy isn't playing by the same rules?"

And so on, and so on. It is as if you only want the sanitized version of the war presented so that it might fit your ideal of what the war represents.

Last_Cav, if I offended you, I apologize. It was not my intent. My comments were of an academic nature simply urging you to leave behind emotions in your debate and present the facts, as much as they can be known.

The very site you point readers to is full of absolutely stunning photos of the "face of war". I spent more than two hours at the site viewing hundreds of photos. It was not overtly or even covertly anti-American, it is simply anti-war,...in any form, anywhere, at any time.

Winston Churchill once said,

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

I try to remember this whenever I debate contentious issues.

Peace to you.
 

last_cav1971

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
West Virginia
Country
llUnited States
The Purist said:
"You may consider me what you want, but I am far from immature and gullible or a thoughtless fanatic. What you think of me; I really dont give a rats a#$."

I would like, very much in fact, to believe everything you say but you follow your statement above with,...

"I will stand up for the men and women serving the US, regardless of what YOU want to say."

Even if they are proven to be in the wrong?

I have said before that I have a world of respect and admiration for the US and its institutions and ideals. I have served in uniform, along side US Army troops in my time and consider the US military to be, probably, the finest on the planet. However, no country, anywhere, is faultless. For an argument, any argument, to hold wieght, it must be based on verifiable facts.

I suppose my greatest complaint with your viewpoint is your unfair treatment of Mr. Kevin Sites and other journalist since the incident in questions:

"This is what happens when the media is allowed places they shouldnt be" (Nov 15 20:57) and comments by others in this thread leave one with the imprerssion that the defenders of the action are not interested in justice, the truth or examining the details, even for the sake of argument, of what happened.

Do you really support censorship? Can you not see that perhaps, just perhaps, the young man who raised his rifle and pulled the trigger, is wrong in his actions. Had the camera not been there none of us would be having this discussion. But the camera was there, the film was rolling, the marine pulled the trigger, the film was released and... here we all are.

"I will stand up for the men and women serving the US, regardless of what YOU want to say"

Would it not be better to "stand up for the men and women serving the US" because they represent that which is best about America, not because of what I, you or others say.

I have still not heard a cogent argument from your "side" (for want of a better word) of the argument. I have heard:

"Does anyone else here get really tired of these stupid embedded reporters?"
"Exactly.........where is the 'Ernie Pyle' from WWII? Thats the media type we need."
"Attrocities are being committed against us, regardless of what convention we are following. So why in the hell should we handicap ourselves if we know the enemy isn't playing by the same rules?"

And so on, and so on. It is as if you only want the sanitized version of the war presented so that it might fit your ideal of what the war represents.

Last_Cav, if I offended you, I apologize. It was not my intent. My comments were of an academic nature simply urging you to leave behind emotions in your debate and present the facts, as much as they can be known.

The very site you point readers to is full of absolutely stunning photos of the "face of war". I spent more than two hours at the site viewing hundreds of photos. It was not overtly or even covertly anti-American, it is simply anti-war,...in any form, anywhere, at any time.

Winston Churchill once said,

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

I try to remember this whenever I debate contentious issues.

Peace to you.
The only 'quote' that I had used that you have posted is "Where are the Ernie Pyles of WWII"...........

There are far worse quotes used than what I have used.

I dont believe that the media should use embedded reporters, but that is my opinion.

I dont hold grudges...........(and I have never used the word 'peacenik' as you said before) :hush:

Peace..........ahh, to have it for just a short period of time.

Respectfully..............no hard feelings....just dont call me immature and such...........deal?

Mark
Deo Vindice
 
Top