MSNBC claims that the guy they shot in the mosque was a prisoner. How could he be considered a prisoner? The building had just been cleared and still potentially hostile. Moments after hearing gunfire the news agent came in to see one of them on the floor being shot for apparently faking his death. It was not one Marine that said this but two. That looks to be similar to the way a dead body was boobie trapped killing one Marine and injuring five more. The whole place is one big stinking booby trap! Was he supposed to ask someone first: "excuse me, have these insurgents been checked for booby-traps yet?"
For those that are just joining the "He's Breathing!" fray let me at least do better than many others are doing and give you a known lead up taken from the source found above:
The Marine battalion stormed an unidentified mosque Saturday in southern Fallujah after taking casualties from heavy sniper fire and attacks with rocket-propelled grenades. Ten insurgents were killed and five others were wounded in the mosque and an adjacent building.
The Marines displayed a cache of rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 assault rifles that they said the men were holding. They said the arms were conclusive evidence that insurgents had been using mosques as fighting positions in Fallujah, which they said made the use of force appropriate.
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact these insurgents were sniping us from a place of worship? Does anyone else have a problem with using a mosque as an arms cache? We are not fighting a conventional war against a conventional enemy. We are fighting a war against cowards and martyrs that will kill their own and themselves to ensure the disruption of Iraq. They honor no laws, even that of their own religion.
When the Marines left to advance farther south, the five wounded Iraqis, none of whose injuries appeared to be life-threatening, were left behind in the mosque for other Marines to evacuate for treatment.
Does anyone remember what happened in Saving Private Ryan to the guy they let go with instructions to surrender himself to the next passing unit? He ended up back with his unit to kill more allies. Apparently axis refortified the area before more Americans could backfill. Which brings us to the next paragraph:
Saturday, however, reports surfaced that mosques in the region had been reoccupied, including the mosque the Marine battalion had stormed the day before.
So the Mosque in question was considered to be refortified and everyone inside considered to be a hostile including the five left behind by the previous unit. A guy with a broken leg can still pull a trigger or set off an IED. The mosque on a whole was considered hostile.
Two units that were not involved in Friday’s fighting advanced on the mosque, one moving around the back and the second, accompanied by Sites, from the front. Sites said he could hear gunfire from inside.
So Sites heard gunfire. Who's gunfire? He was not there and the Marines outside did not know either. They heard gunfire and one would assume that there was fire in both directions. At least I would assume that there was mutual gunfire. This alerts me to the potential of a hostile environment, all insurgents to be treated as potentially hostile.
Now we enter the video clip. The unit coming in from the back enters a room in disarray and potentially at the tail end of a firefight. Was it over? Were those in the room confirmed prisoners? In the blink of an eye had the hostile insurgents become docile prisoners? Maybe a better question: did the unit coming in from the back know that those in the room were prisoners? They did not know they had been pacified. The Marine assumed that they had not been pacified and took what he felt was appropriate action. The same day this was happening this happened:
At the same time the incident was taking place in the mosque, a U.S. Marine was killed and five others were wounded when the booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent exploded. The judge advocate general heading the investigation of the mosque incident, Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude that the Marine was acting in self-defense.
“The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent,” he said.
It is very possible to believe that the Marine was acting in self defense. It was even probable that he felt he was acting in self defense. Seeing and understanding the real hazards that reside in Falujah and elsewhere readily mark someone feigning anything, peace, friendship, civilian even death is a potential explosive device. He did what he though was protecting himself and his unit. He did the perceived right thing.
I'm not saying there are not war crimes that take place. The happen and are unfortunate. War is unfortunate. Bad things happen. For example the pictures and video footage of beheaded insurgents on Al-Jazeera. They may be the results of Marines conducting rogue actions and should be investigated to the fullest. So what's my point in all of this? What am I driving at?
This is what I'm driving at:
For those of you out there crying about rules of war and atrocities you may want to go play with your Barbie or have a mocha-decaf-nonfat-soy-latte with a dash of cinnamon or whatever the heck you want to drink. I don't want to hear it. Every time I turn a corner on the web I'm stuck reading a Kos or Atrios puppet complaining about how Bush never trained the Marines to be peaceful, gentle creatures or Rumsfeld is the antichrist and they both need to go to prison for war crimes. Bush and Rumsfeld have absolutely no bearing as to the day-to-day operations that go on there but somehow they manage to point every word back at Bush and the American right. It's as if their blog children treat these two internet dictators as legitimate news sources by themselves. I've tried to read the crap that spews from their fingers. But it's just that: crap. Everything that is being reported holds an attack slant against the troops and against the current administration. And their blog children eat every single word they serve up.
Don't take what they say for granted. Don't limit yourself to the sources they hand you. Kos and Atrios are not gods. They are not even real news sources. With the exception of the left wing anti-war blog machine they've made for themselves they are no greater human beings, they are no more insightful, they are no more intelligent, they are no more knowledgeable than me, the average, everyday American Warmonger.
They are not better than you either. Make up your own minds about things. Find your own real news sources. Think of things objectively before you believe what someone else has to say. I know anyone on the left will be scrutinizing my words. Why not take the next step and stop being sheep. If I hear "Atrios said" one more time I may become physically ill and you don't want that. Oh, wait, you hate me because I think differently and you'd like to see me physically ill. Don't be lambs for the slaughter.