An interesting column on the Marine shooting

[CaptainCrunch]

Ian Robinson

An interesting column by Ian Robinson that looks into the head of the Marine charged with shooting an unarmed sounded insurgent

[FlamesAddiction]

All he is really saying is that we shouldn't blame the marine because his experiences conditioned him to act how he did. But by that logic, we shouldn't blame anyone for anything they do as long as their experiences make them believe they are doing the right thing. For example, Saddam Hussein's experiences growing up and living in an extremely violent country are what taught him how to deal with insurgents and political dissidents. Timothy McVeigh's experiences as a marine made him think that blowing up a federal building was being a patiriot.

If that is really what is inside the head of a marine, I'm scared for when those guys go home.

A side question about that article: Is it true that the average IQ of a marine in below 90? I thought that the marines would be a little more picky than that.

[CaptainCrunch]

All he is really saying is that we shouldn't blame the marine because his experiences conditioned him to act how he did. But by that logic, we shouldn't blame anyone for anything they do as long as their experiences make them believe they are doing the right thing. For example, Saddam Hussein's experiences growing up and living in an extremely violent country are what taught him how to deal with insurgents and political dissidents. Timothy McVeigh's experiences as a marine made him think that blowing up a federal building was being a patiriot.

I think you need to revisit Husseins backgound, his training, and experience had very little to do with the type of person he was, he was a thug from the time that he could walk, in fact he was killing at the age of 12. He would almost fit into the profile of a pyschopath.

You also can't blame any part of the marine training on the results of McVeighs life, if the training caused that we would have a lot more buildings going down. McVeigh was nuts plain and simple. If you read the marine corp training manual and officer training guide, there's nowhere in there that talks about Patriotism, or super patriotism, but it does talk about fighting for your fellow marines and leaving no man behind.




If that is really what is inside the head of a marine, I'm scared for when those guys go home.

I'm absolutely not, in the marine corp history going back 200 years how many of these guys have turned into raving lunatics? You could probably count that on your fingers and toes, you also have to realize that a lot more outstanding marines have graduated onto civilian life.

Like I mentioned before, the fact that the insurgents have taken to booby trapping themselves, waving a white flag of surrender to setup an ambush, and other heinous acts I wouldn't be so inclined as to take a chance with my life. Its funny that people are so easily accusing the U.S. of breaking the Geneva convention which really dosen't apply to the insurgents, but very few are making any comments on the fact that the Insurgents are just as guilty.

A side question about that article: Is it true that the average IQ of a marine in below 90? I thought that the marines would be a little more picky than that.

It think thats a very misleading statement as those figures don't take into account the officer corp which would jump that figure. You also have to realize that the Marines have a very strict entry qualification level based around fitness, attitude, and basic intelligence.

I think Robinson is shooting from the hip as the marines that I've met and the marines that I worked with were very bright and very well trained

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Nov 21 2004, 08:53 PM
I think you need to revisit Husseins backgound, his training, and experience had very little to do with the type of person he was, he was a thug from the time that he could walk, in fact he was killing at the age of 12. He would almost fit into the profile of a pyschopath.

People's life experiences usually make them who they are. It doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein was 12 or 20. We are all products of our environment, whether that environment is 20th century Iraq or the marines. If you are going to forgive a marine for being a product of his environment, then extend it to everyone. If you are going to hold people accountable for their actions despite their environment, then do the same thing for the marine.

You also can't blame any part of the marine training on the results of McVeighs life, if the training caused that we would have a lot more buildings going down. McVeigh was nuts plain and simple. If you read the marine corp training manual and officer training guide, there's nowhere in there that talks about Patriotism, or super patriotism, but it does talk about fighting for your fellow marines and leaving no man behind.

Then why should we take into consideration this particular marine's training as part of his development if we can't do the same for a guy like McVeigh? Not all marines shoot unarmed and wounded prisoners who had recently surrendered.

Like I mentioned before, the fact that the insurgents have taken to booby trapping themselves, waving a white flag of surrender to setup an ambush, and other heinous acts I wouldn't be so inclined as to take a chance with my life. Its funny that people are so easily accusing the U.S. of breaking the Geneva convention which really dosen't apply to the insurgents, but very few are making any comments on the fact that the Insurgents are just as guilty.

I'll say it; the insurgents are just as guilty as the Americans. That should give you little comfort though.

[RougeUnderoos]

That IQ thing really stuck out with me as well so I poked around on the interweb and read somewhere that the average Yank (or maybe average person) IQ is between 90 and 100 and that the Marines don't take anyone lower than an 85. Basically that means that people of average intelligence are the Marines.

Re: the rest of the article -- that guy sounds like just another armchair tough guy.. Would he say the same thing is some insurgent pulled the same thing on an American soldier? No he wouldn't. That guy would be a terrorist.

[badnarik]

timothy mcveigh was not a marine. he was in the army.

i spent 6 years on active duty in the marines. marines are just a cross section of society. there are smart ones, and there are idiots.

how many times do you let the enemy fake injuries or booby trap bodies before you learn to kill them instead? from what i saw, these injured combatants were not yet secured. but then again i wasnt there.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by badnarik@Nov 22 2004, 03:31 AM
timothy mcveigh was not a marine. he was in the army.

I'll admit, I don't really know what the difference is. They seem like basically the same thing to me. They are all trained to be soldiers and they all witness similar events.

how many times do you let the enemy fake injuries or booby trap bodies before you learn to kill them instead?# from what i saw, these injured combatants were not yet secured.# but then again i wasnt there.

The reports say that the wounded had already surrendered to another group of Americans. You would think that they would have made sure they were disarmed.

And even if he was booby trapped, what good would shooting him at a relatively close range do? At best, he would be dead and booby trapped, and at worst, he could have detonated the booby trap and killed everybody. It is for that reason the "booby trap" excuse doesn't work for me.

Like I said in another thread about this, I honestly can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing if I was there. But knowing this about myself, I would never join the armed forces. I just don't like the excuses being made to try and justify it. Most of them are hypocritical. Why can't we just admit that some of these soldiers make bad decisions and break the rules from time to time?

[Looger]

yep, here we go again, blaming soldiers for the actions taken from up on high.

frontline combat soldiers, such as marines, our own airborne regiment, black watch (uk), you name it, are trained to be killers. they're trained to look at every situation as potentially lethal and deal with it.

and in a crapstorm like fallujah, that means killing unarmed combatants, and unarmed civilians that may be a threat.

that 'kill switch' is a little tough to turn off. also among marines there is kind of a status between those with kills and those without. yes, it is a factor.

don't like it, then don't send them in.

this coming from a guy that does _not_ agree with the US being there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by badnarik@Nov 22 2004, 03:31 AM
timothy mcveigh was not a marine. he was in the army.

i spent 6 years on active duty in the marines. marines are just a cross section of society. there are smart ones, and there are idiots.

how many times do you let the enemy fake injuries or booby trap bodies before you learn to kill them instead? from what i saw, these injured combatants were not yet secured. but then again i wasnt there.

Your right about Mcveigh but it really dosen't matter much, his training had nothing to really do with the results of Oklahoma, he was infrantry not demolitions, and his raining didn't put the concepts into his mind that the ATF and the government were enemies that needed to be destroyed, that was in his head already. the army didn't teach him how to jury rig a truck full of diesel and fertilizer either.

I agree with you on the cross section comment, I met a lot of guys in my unit that weren't the best and the brightest, of course I created the upper part of that whole curve

I've been stating for the last little while that the environment over there dosen't let you really trust the enemy anymore, why risk your life with an enemy that booby traps his body or the body of his fellow troops, why trust an enemy that choses to wave the white flag of surrender, then opens fire when you approach to process.

Warfare has changed a great deal since the closing days of WWII, we're fighting a war against an unconventional enemy with little or no boundries, and little or no respect for the opponent. In WWII we hated the Germans, but my grandfather and great uncles had respect for them (Not the SS bas**rds but the army), when your fighting an unconventional enemy who will do anything to kill you, why take a chance unless your absolutely sure?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'll admit, I don't really know what the difference is. They seem like basically the same thing to me. They are all trained to be soldiers and they all witness similar events.

It might seem like its unimportant, but there are a lot of differences between the Army and the Marines, from training to attitude. The Marines are front line assault troops, first to go in, last to leave, thier attitude reflects this.

The reports say that the wounded had already surrendered to another group of Americans. You would think that they would have made sure they were disarmed.

There were also reports that they hadn't clearly surrendered, there are also reports of fake surrenders followed by ambushes. There are also reports of the use of wounded insurgents to draw troops into sniper zones

And even if he was booby trapped, what good would shooting him at a relatively close range do? At best, he would be dead and booby trapped, and at worst, he could have detonated the booby trap and killed everybody. It is for that reason the "booby trap" excuse doesn't work for me.

Because if he's dead you don't need to bother approaching him, he can't arm and fire his explosives or pull the pin from a grenade when you get close enough, because a dead man can't pull a concealed weapon and pop you when you get close enough when your trying to render aid. A dead insurgent can't get another shot at you down the road.



Like I said in another thread about this, I honestly can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing if I was there. But knowing this about myself, I would never join the armed forces. I just don't like the excuses being made to try and justify it. Most of them are hypocritical. Why can't we just admit that some of these soldiers make bad decisions and break the rules from time to time?

Sure some soldiers make bad decisions, nobody hasen't admitted that, I'm still not happy about the prisoner treatments. And its great that you didn't join the armed forces because you didn't think you could do it. Thats why this is hard to argue unless you've been in a situation like that. But I know that when I was out on deployment I came to the decision with some help from a experienced officer that I wasn't to take undue risk that would put myself or other soldiers in a precarious situation.

[HOZ]

Another article inthe LA times. You may have to register to read

Blood on My Hands

[Cowperson]

A first person account of what he saw and his impressions from the videographer who shot the scene of the Marine killing the wounded insurgent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/

Cowperson