News USA marines, war crimes, caught on video

Yep, they were dumb enough to actually smile for the camera while doing it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/iraqiwar.rm

[q] Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer. [/q]

There is no way any soldier in the world let's an enemy combatant with a gun within arms reach live. No war crime committed.

Njorl

Looks to me like he was trying to get up when he was killed.

Believe it or not, this scenario is debated extensively in military ethics classes. There is even a really good PBS debate on the subject. Essentially though, the rule is that if there is any chance at all he's capable of firing a gun at you, he's still a combatant you can shoot him. Trying to get up after being shot qualifies as still a combatant.

And the response from the Marine Captain is a good one.

And the response from the author of the site shows he doesn't know what he's talking about - or maybe that he knows he's wrong and is trying to distort the facts to make something from nothing.

Jeez, that was creepy. Granted, maybe they needed to kill him, but it looks more like fun and games, killing non-persons.

I thought it resembled a turkey shoot.
It’s impossible to know what was on the guys mind as he was moving. He may have only wanted to crawl out of harms way, but he may very likely have decided to grab his rifle and carry it off with him too, so as to continue fighting. I think the killing was justifiable. In the interview which followed I noticed breaks and splices, so I have to conclude that what the soldier said was being put together to make him look as inhumane as possible.
My philosophy is that if you’re going to take up arms you should expect the absolute worst from your opponent.

I didn't see any weapons beside the Iraqi and nothing was mentioned. However, there was also a noticeable break during the interview and this is not the complete footage. It's easy to distort the facts.

I'll keep an open mind

Originally posted by Njorl
[q] Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer. [/q]

There is no way any soldier in the world let's an enemy combatant with a gun within arms reach live. No war crime committed.

Njorl

You're out of your tree.

1) I was a soldier.

2) The victim was a wounded, fallen enemy, and thus comes under the particular law: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949. It can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument

russ_watters

Believe it or not, this scenario is debated extensively in military ethics classes.

No, it isn't. There is no debate. We rigidly follow the law.

There is even a really good PBS debate on the subject.

Oh, well, if there's a PBS debate about it...

Essentially though, the rule is that if there is any chance at all he's capable of firing a gun at you, he's still a combatant you can shoot him.

Essentially, you're wrong. The law in question is here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument

Trying to get up after being shot qualifies as still a combatant.

No, it doesn't.

And the response from the Marine Captain is a good one.

No, it wasn't. I have never been impressed by US officers.

And the response from the author of the site shows he doesn't know what he's talking about - or maybe that he knows he's wrong and is trying to distort the facts to make something from nothing.

I was just about to say that about you. Justifying murder. Ridiculous.

Originally posted by Zero
Jeez, that was creepy. Granted, maybe they needed to kill him, but it looks more like fun and games, killing non-persons.

Remember the "Highway to Hell" from outside Kuwait, during Desert Storm? I read an interview with one of the Apache pilots who was there. According to him, they treated it all like a video game, "blast the bad guys!", and so on. It took him a while to figure out what he had actually done. That's what these idiot kids were doing.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
My philosophy is that if you’re going to take up arms you should expect the absolute worst from your opponent.

So if you take up arms, you should expect the worst from others? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of others, only yourself.

Soldiers follow the law. Officers guide their men along a lawful and just path through a terrible but sometimes necessary situation.

Armed thugs make excuses and justifications.

I've never been in the military, so I may be talking out of my butt. However, If I'm in combat, it's kill or be killed. It's my life or his. I will shoot him if he APPEARS to be attempting to reach for that gun. A wounded soldier is still capable of firing a weapon at me, given enough opportunity. Those are my ethics, that is what I would do, and what I would expect ANY man to do.

The way those soldiers acted was immature and stupid, I'll venture that. There was nothing funny, or worth cheering about in that situation. they are morons who have never see the cold hard truth of a war they aren't winning.

You can just set those lawful quotes and UN regulations aside. This is war son, there are no rules. The only rule is to win and live.

Zantra

However, If I'm in combat, it's kill or be killed. It's my life or his. I will shoot him if he APPEARS to be attempting to reach for that gun. A wounded soldier is still capable of firing a weapon at me, given enough opportunity. Those are my ethics, that is what I would do, and what I would expect ANY man to do.

Then you would be an armed thug, not a soldier. And no, it is not what any man would do.

You can just set those lawful quotes and UN regulations aside. This is war son, there are no rules. The only rule is to win and live.

Pure bollocks. You've been watching too many Rambo movies.

Just standing there, waiting for a chance to kill someone, like it is a game...wow, that guy is such a hero to shoot a wonded man in the back while he tries to crawl away on his belly. And then, all his friends cheer his extreme bravery. What they didn't show is how they celebrate later. Later on in the day, these heroes kidnap and rape a couple of preteen Iraqi girls, since it is war and we can throw all those pesky rules of law aside.

Originally posted by Adam
So if you take up arms, you should expect the worst from others? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of others, only yourself.

Soldiers follow the law. Officers guide their men along a lawful and just path through a terrible but sometimes necessary situation.

Armed thugs make excuses and justifications.

Adam,
I actually agree with Zero that it was repulsive and looked like sport (which is why I called it a turkey shoot). You claim to have been a soldier but then you should know that worrying about "the law" is the last thing going through a soldier’s mind during a fire fight.
I’m not condoning their behavior; I was/am opposed to this invasion, but neither do I believe in the fallacy of ‘civilized’ warfare. I think it is nonsense for people to pretend they have a moral high ground while engaged in war, especially so if they are the one's who initiated the hostilities. I think this is just another way people rationalize away responsibility in order to continue believing they are somehow better than a murderer. My personal feelings are that the people who go along with and condone war are the dangerous ones in this world, and I don’t care which side they are on. They are, and have always been, the one’s who can be rallied by one means or another to kill their fellow man.

The way those soldiers acted was immature and stupid, I'll venture that. There was nothing funny, or worth cheering about in that situation. they are morons who have never see the cold hard truth of a war they aren't winning.

Absolutely, but this is to be expected when you put a rifle into the hands of a teenager and then send him out to kill. The older folks are to blame, too, as they are the ones that put him in such a position.

So if you take up arms, you should expect the worst from others? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of others, only yourself.

I really don’t understand you here. You have just said in effect that what goes on inside my mind has nothing to do with the intentions of others. Isn’t this obvious enough that it doesn’t need to be mentioned? I applied not knowing the intentions of others to the movements of the Iraqi soldier just prior to his being used for target practice by zealous youths; they couldn’t have known what he intended either, so better to kill him now then let him crawl behind the corner of that building where he might be able to kill one of them five minutes later.

Armed thugs make excuses and justifications.

Isn't that pretty much what the US has been doing from the start?

BoulderHead

You claim to have been a soldier but then you should know that worrying about "the law" is the last thing going through a soldier’s mind during a fire fight.

Australian F18 pilots were used in the invasion of Iraq. They even led bombing missions. At one point an Australian pilot led an attack against a moving ground target, which US intelligence had said was a valid target. However, the pilot, upon seeing the target himself, was unable to confirm that it was indeed a valid target. He thought it might have been a civilian transport. So against orders from his commanders, he called off the strike, and the planes went home.

One of the very first things we were taught when we started with rifles was to keep our fingers outside the trigger-guard until we were absolutely positive of our target. In other words, unless you know the target is valid, you don't even put your finger on the trigger.

I’m not condoning their behavior; I was/am opposed to this invasion, but neither do I believe in the fallacy of ‘civilized’ warfare.

Why call it a fallacy? Why not simply make certain your target is valid before you pull the trigger? There is a reason why the USA has something like 50% casualties from friendly fire, and why they just killed 15 little kids in Afghanistan this week. There is a reason why Australia does not have this problem. Some people accept the ridiculous idea that it is impossible to exercise caution in war. We don't.

I think it is nonsense for people to pretend they have a moral high ground while engaged in war, especially so if they are the one's who initiated the hostilities.

I agree that the invaders have no moral high ground. However, I think those involved in war can, in the right circumstances, have the moral high ground. For example, my granfather fought the NAZIs and the Japanese in WW2. I think his effort was absolutely necessary for the freedom of the world. They actually did face an aggressive nation which was out their conquering everyone.

Absolutely, but this is to be expected when you put a rifle into the hands of a teenager and then send him out to kill. The older folks are to blame, too, as they are the ones that put him in such a position.

Yep. Bush is quite happy to send other peoples' kids to war.

I really don’t understand you here. You have just said in effect that what goes on inside my mind has nothing to do with the intentions of others. Isn’t this obvious enough that it doesn’t need to be mentioned?

It was mentioned earlier as a justification for shooting people. "I have a gun, and I don't know what that person is thinking, so it's okay for me to shoot him." I was merely pointing out that the excuse is entirely without reason.

I applied not knowing the intentions of others to the movements of the Iraqi soldier just prior to his being used for target practice by zealous youths; they couldn’t have known what he intended either, so better to kill him now then let him crawl behind the corner of that building where he might be able to kill one of them five minutes later.

He was an injured, fallen enemy soldier. The law is clear. He should have been taken into custody and sent to a hospital. He should not have been shot as though being prepared for Thanksgiving dinner.

Isn't that pretty much what the US has been doing from the start?

Unfortunately, yes.

I have a personal theory that people in the USA (no doubt people from that country will object before considering this) are not emotionally equipped to deal with violence. Their culture has kids sitting in front of TVs watching the good guys kill the bad guys without remorse, and Playstation games with more of the same. Their military training is all "Hoo-yah! Go Team!" Even rap music their sells itself with a fairytale image of street-gangs and playing with guns. I think the result of all this is a total misconception about violence and its consequences. It results in Apache pilots shooting at lines of cars and thinking of it as a game. And kids on Hummers shooting "the bad guys" and thinking it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Adam
No, it isn't. There is no debate. We rigidly follow the law.

Heh. Sorry, I took my military ethics classes at the Naval Academy (we actually watched the PBS special in one of our weekly ethics semiars). We most certainly did debate the issue because it as not as simple as you (and the website host) are trying to make it. After Mai Lai, ethics became a very important part of military training in the US. Perhaps Australia hasn't yet seen the need for it.

He was an injured, fallen enemy soldier. The law is clear. He should have been taken into custody and sent to a hospital.

Only if it was SAFE for the American soldiers to do that. If he was setting up a bomb like the report said, it was NOT safe to take him into custody.

I've never been in the military, so I may be talking out of my butt. However, If I'm in combat, it's kill or be killed. It's my life or his. I will shoot him if he APPEARS to be attempting to reach for that gun. A wounded soldier is still capable of firing a weapon at me, given enough opportunity. Those are my ethics, that is what I would do, and what I would expect ANY man to do.

That is EXACTLY how the laws Adam is citing work.

BTW, I do agree with you guys about the way these soldiers acted - cheering is despicable, but understandable. However the conduct relevant to the battle was in accordance with US and international law.

Originally posted by Adam
You're out of your tree.

1) I was a soldier.

2) The victim was a wounded, fallen enemy, and thus comes under the particular law: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949. It can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument

So, if a wounded enemy picked up his gun and started to point it at you, you would not shoot him? I think you would.

When can you shoot a wounded enemy? If he has a gun pointed at you, certainly. If he has a gun pointed at your fellow soldiers, or the charges you are defending, certainly. The man in question was concious, moving and had a gun right next to him. The soldiers who shot him had no reason to believe that the wounded man would not continue to fight. Any soldier in that situation must act with the realization that they might die any time. If the soldiers in question failed to shoot the wounded man, and were killed themselves by unseen enemies, the wounded man might very well have picked up his gun and shot either American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. They would have failed in their duty.

The rules of war you cite are to protect those wounded reduced to non-combatant status.

Njorl

So, if a wounded enemy picked up his gun and started to point it at you, you would not shoot him? I think you would.

That wounded man laying on the ground was not pointing a gun at anyone. He wasn't even armed.

The rules of war you cite are to protect those wounded reduced to non-combatant status.

Like a guy shot and rolling around on the ground, without a weapon?

Originally posted by Adam
That wounded man laying on the ground was not pointing a gun at anyone. He wasn't even armed.


Like a guy shot and rolling around on the ground, without a weapon?

The site to which you linked clearly states that his gun is right next to him. He is visibly able to move. He can grab his gun and shoot in less than a second. He is not surrendering. If his gun were not near him, if he surrendered, if he had been knocked unconscious it would have been wrong to shoot him. None of that happened.

Njorl

The site to which you linked clearly states that his gun is right next to him.

Irrelevent.

He is visibly able to move.

He is visibly rolling around in pain. That is quite different to being able to pick up a gun and go Rambo on people.

He can grab his gun and shoot in less than a second.

If you had been shot, and were rolling around in agony, could you grab the gun, turn to face the other way, and shoot, in less than a second? Do you know the extent of his injuries?

He is not surrendering.

He's been shot. He's laying on the ground, squirming in pain, facing away from people who speak another language. What chance did he have to stand up and say in English "I surrender!"?

If his gun were not near him, if he surrendered, if he had been knocked unconscious it would have been wrong to shoot him. None of that happened.

No. What did happen was that he was shot, injured, squirming in pain, unarmed, being attacked by people who don't speak his language. And while laying there on the ground in pain, injured, some cowboys having a laugh decided to execute him.


Tell me this. If the marines had been standing right over the injured man, would it have been acceptable to put an M16 against his head and pull the trigger?

[q]If you had been shot, and were rolling around in agony, could you grab the gun, turn to face the other way, and shoot, in less than a second? [/q]

People do.

[q]
Do you know the extent of his injuries?
[/q]

No. Neither do you. Nor did the soldiers who shot him. He may have been stunned by pain from which he could quickly recover or he may have been crippled and mortally wounded. A soldier is not expected to make that judgement on the battlefield.

Njorl

People do.

Really? Outside of movies?

No. Neither do you. Nor did the soldiers who shot him. He may have been stunned by pain from which he could quickly recover or he may have been crippled and mortally wounded. A soldier is not expected to make that judgement on the battlefield.

That's why we have laws. You don't assume, you don't gamble, you don't play cowboy. You follow the rules.

ya outside of movies; it is called adrenaline.

but that doesn't change the fact that the group of solders standing behind cover with their guns pointed at the guy could have easly waited for a clear sign of hostility before fireing. by law, they should have waited as they could have done so without puting themselves in danger. but then they would have missed out on all cheering and that "good" feeling that comes to them when they shoot wonded men floundering on the ground.

First of all, I don't trust video cuttings.
Now, I am not completely denying the existence of this act, but i am weary of the complications around it.

Second,Adam, Can you describe the difference between a wounded man with no cruel intentions and a wounded man with the intention of killing thuroughly to all of us here. So, as he was lying on the ground, tell me the exact physical movements he was making that told you that he wasnt a threat. Think about the science here, the soldier took 3 shots to hit the guy, a wounded person with the intention of killing could easily have got a few shots off before he got pelted.

Third, I know someone who fought in Afghanistan. One day he was on patrol when a hostile native, who had an ak-47, took an 8 yr old hostage. My friend, with a few of his comrades, didnt fire. Then, the native shot the 8 yr old in the head, and my friend opened fire. They killed the guy, and almost got court marshalled for it because technically the native wasnt firing at the US troops. Now your going to tell me our current rules of war are too rigid?

Lastly, quit *****ing about cruel 'American ways' because we are all humans. All humans are vicious, ignorant, and petty. Please don't come in here with your bigotry against other peoples.

Originally posted by Adam
He wasn't even armed.

Originally posted by Njorl
The site to which you linked clearly states that his gun is right next to him.

Originally posted by Adam
Irrelevent.

Lol. Adam, when you say something that is not true, that's called a LIE. Njorl caught you in a lie. Please. Try to be less transparent with your lies. We're not stupid here.

Tell me this. If the marines had been standing right over the injured man, would it have been acceptable to put an M16 against his head and pull the trigger?

No. That would be murder. But that clearly was not the situation at hand.

That's why we have laws. You don't assume, you don't gamble, you don't play cowboy. You follow the rules.

The way the law works is that you can assume he is a combatant unless he clearly is not. The law requires you to look out for your own personal safety and the safety of your comrades and bystanders BEFORE that of your enemy.

Since you like hypotheticals, if the CO of that unit had told the troops to cease fire, sent them to take the man into custody, and he had killed any of them, the CO would be court martialed.

Adam, I'd like to think you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about here, but clearly there is more to it than that. When you lie about the facts, you are displaying your bigotry - your irrational (mean sounding word, but it simply means not based on facts and reason) hatred for Americans.

I have to agree adam, you are sounding pretty biggoted. It is war, not happy go lucky play time. The nice enemy soldier doesn't get a "timeout" because he's wounded. You talk about civilized war. That's a contradiction in terms. War is not civilized, no matter how you sugar coat it. The fact we can agree on is that they are at war, and that solidier would no doubt kill them, if he was able to. Just because he is wounded doesn't mean he isn't capable. When you know you're about to die, you can do some pretty extreme things. Weather or not he was able to do so, you can't make that assumption that he's safe, or you will die fast and hard on the battlefield. That isthe reality of war. There's no "second chances" or "be nice". If that were an actual option, there would be no war in the first place, because we could all just sit down and talk this out.

This reminds me of Saving Private Ryan. Remember the german they caught, and then they let him go because he was an inconvenience? What happened? He found his way back to the germans, got recirculated and ended up killing the captain at another fight. All because they were trying to be "civillzized" and not just kill him. That is the reality of war, that is the scenario that frequently plays itsself out.

Originally posted by Adam

I have a personal theory that people in the USA (no doubt people from that country will object before considering this) are not emotionally equipped to deal with violence. Their culture has kids sitting in front of TVs watching the good guys kill the bad guys without remorse, and Playstation games with more of the same. Their military training is all "Hoo-yah! Go Team!" Even rap music their sells itself with a fairytale image of street-gangs and playing with guns. I think the result of all this is a total misconception about violence and its consequences. It results in Apache pilots shooting at lines of cars and thinking of it as a game. And kids on Hummers shooting "the bad guys" and thinking it doesn't matter.

Wow, another amazingly unwarrented statement. Have you ever even been to America? Surely someone like myself for instance, who has been in the country for his entire life, may be more able to make an assesment of American people. The idea that we are all gung ho is a stereotype every bit as wrong as thinking that everybody from austrialia looks like the crocodile hunter.

Also, I have a friend of mine who was ambushed in Iraq by insurgents about two months ago, he was lucky to escape with only hearing loss and some small cuts and such, but the officer he was driving was killed. Are you trying to say that U.S. troops who have been going through situations like that for 6 months should be held responsible for shooting an Iraqi who looked to be reaching for his gun? Your analysis that a moving soldier who may be moving for a gun falls under the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field is not only completely wrong, it is also a ridiculously high standard to put on soldiers who are forced to make split-second life and death decisions. This peace loving philosophy cannot be applied to the world of split second decisions, you do not have the time to decide whether the action is moral or not, you only have time to do something.

Lastly the assumption that war can be pretty and honorable only masks the horror of war and allows the bloodshed to continue. War isn't pretty, nobody I've ever talked to who has been through the hell of combat has ever said that war can be governed by rules. What would happen if every time an enemy soldier fell to the ground, everybody instantly stopped shooting at them? The enemy would start to fall to the ground intentionally and then pull another weapon and start firing again. Don't try to cover up war and pretend that it can be made sterile, and don't bring your self-rightousness into a debate about an issue so ugly.

Mattius_

Second,Adam, Can you describe the difference between a wounded man with no cruel intentions and a wounded man with the intention of killing thuroughly to all of us here.

The difference is not between the two possible intentions the wounded man may have had. The difference is between the soldiers obeying the law, and being redneck cowboys. As I have explained, what real soldiers do is approach the target with guns ready, secure the weapon, make sure the target is not a threat, and then start first aid. What thugs do is shoot and cheer.

So, as he was lying on the ground, tell me the exact physical movements he was making that told you that he wasnt a threat.

1) He was in the open.

2) His weapon was not in his hands.

3) He was wounded.

4) He was well covered by US troops.

Now, anyone of those four conditions could apply to any Iraqi civilian at any time. Oh yeah. 8000+ of those died too. That says something, doesn't it?

Think about the science here, the soldier took 3 shots to hit the guy, a wounded person with the intention of killing could easily have got a few shots off before he got pelted.

1) The marine was a crappy shot. Given his clear intention to kill, he should have been able to get an instant kill at that short range.

2) I suggest you re-evaluate your idea of the science of the situation. The man was wounded and laying face-down, head pointed away, much of his weight on his elbows. Do me a favour. Get down on the ground, resting on your elbows. Tie your feet together to help simulate the effects of a gut wound and the inability to move the lower parts properly. Put a stick on the ground out of arm's reach, off to the side. Now see how long it takes you to get the gun pointed at something about a hundred yards behind you.

Third, I know someone who fought in Afghanistan. One day he was on patrol when a hostile native, who had an ak-47, took an 8 yr old hostage. My friend, with a few of his comrades, didnt fire. Then, the native shot the 8 yr old in the head, and my friend opened fire. They killed the guy, and almost got court marshalled for it because technically the native wasnt firing at the US troops. Now your going to tell me our current rules of war are too rigid?

I think you'll find that the laws of war count that guy as a valid target.

Lastly, quit *****ing about cruel 'American ways' because we are all humans. All humans are vicious, ignorant, and petty. Please don't come in here with your bigotry against other peoples.

How many innocent civilians were killed by Australians in that little war? Zero reported. How many friendly fire incidents were caused by Austrailans? Zero reported. It's not a matter of bigotry. American training is just not good enough. In particular, the psychological preparation.

russ_watters

Lol. Adam, when you say something that is not true, that's called a LIE. Njorl caught you in a lie.

Nice to say, but show me. Quote the lie for me.

The law requires you to look out for your own personal safety and the safety of your comrades and bystanders BEFORE that of your enemy.

It does? Show me this law.

Since you like hypotheticals, if the CO of that unit had told the troops to cease fire, sent them to take the man into custody, and he had killed any of them, the CO would be court martialed.

No, he wouldn't.

Adam, I'd like to think you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about here, but clearly there is more to it than that. When you lie about the facts, you are displaying your bigotry - your irrational (mean sounding word, but it simply means not based on facts and reason) hatred for Americans.

Wow. I've heard this before. Criticise anything about the USA or its government or people or Hollywood or anything, and some twist starts yelling "Bigot!" Grow up. Forget the ad hominems and focus on the words I have actually typed.

Zantra

I have to agree adam, you are sounding pretty biggoted.

DO you know how pathetic it is when all people can do is yell "Bigot!" any time they feel the slightest bit uneasy about their state? Give it up. Cease the ad hominems and focus on the actual content.

It is war, not happy go lucky play time. The nice enemy soldier doesn't get a "timeout" because he's wounded. You talk about civilized war. That's a contradiction in terms. War is not civilized, no matter how you sugar coat it.

How many reports of civilians killed by Ausrtalians in that little war? Zero. How many friendly fire incidents caused by Australians? Zero. The "War is hell, and innocents die" line is basically just a way to make yourself feel better about the crappy standards involved in the USA military.

The fact we can agree on is that they are at war, and that solidier would no doubt kill them, if he was able to.

That is an assumption which leads to war crimes tribunals. More likely the man would surrender in the hopes of receiving medical treatment.

Just because he is wounded doesn't mean he isn't capable. When you know you're about to die, you can do some pretty extreme things.

That depends entirely on: 1) how you are wounded; 2) which Hollywood movies you like.

Weather or not he was able to do so, you can't make that assumption that he's safe, or you will die fast and hard on the battlefield.

Tell me something. When the police in your town pull someone over, do they shoot tehm immediately, just in case, and have a laugh about it? Or do they keep their weapons prepared and try to secure the subject? Remember, before you answer, that a cop will die as fast from a crmiinal's bullet as a soldier will from an enemy soldier's bullet.

That isthe reality of war. There's no "second chances" or "be nice".

There are, however, My Lai massacres and such. And the fact that Australians caused no civilian deaths or friendly fire incidents in that invasion. Think about it.

This reminds me of Saving Private Ryan. Remember the german they caught, and then they let him go because he was an inconvenience? What happened? He found his way back to the germans, got recirculated and ended up killing the captain at another fight. All because they were trying to be "civillzized" and not just kill him. That is the reality of war, that is the scenario that frequently plays itsself out.

Absolutely. Those who escape a battle may indeed run off and rejoin their comrades, and come at you again. However, the laws of war specifically state that you can not kill them. If they are unarmed, defeated, and running away, you can not shoot them. And no, I do not recall the specific law; it was years ago when I read it.