# U.S: Inside a mosque

1. Nov 17, 2004

### Moses

Well,
Everyone might heard the last news about killing of an Iraqi inside a Mosque [Holy place for Muslims..as Chruch to Christians]....This was sad, vey sad. We claim that we make them get red out of Saddam and we do = or worse...

What even shocked me more is: after 7 days of fight in Fallujah, they did not burry ANY human died from the Iraqis..they are rotting now in the streets....

Enemy..may be, but the still humans at least in the biological shape..
Bush calims he is a Christian and beleive that "Love your enemy"
If the man called Christ was here..I am wondering what he say about dat...

2. Nov 17, 2004

### Gonzolo

Wars can be quite shocking. I don't understand perfectly why Bush decided to go. It is quite remarkable that the military allows cameramen to follow them. Can anyone confirm who the cameraman/company was? I suspect he was American too.

3. Nov 17, 2004

### The_Professional

Sure an Iraqi was killed inside a Mosque, but we really don't know the whole story. I didn't see any specifics, could it be the enemy was carrying a gun? could it be that the soldier was shocked that he accidentally shot him? was he perceived a possible threat during that 2 second time frame when the soldier shot him?

This is war and a split second decision could cost somebody his life.

4. Nov 17, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
If someone fires at you and then ducks into a mosque, sure you shoot him there. I don't see any problem with something like that.

5. Nov 17, 2004

### jcsd

The specifics were the man was unarmed and lying injured on the ground inside the mosque and was shot at point blank range.

The soldier committed a war crime (unless tyere's some miraculous new evidnece that has not yet been seen, but that seems unlikely) and he should receive the due punishment for that. You should not forget that the actions of this one soldier as severly damaged the US's reputation in Iraq and has also increased the danger that other US soldiers and whitewashing the incident would no much, much more damage.

6. Nov 17, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Okay, then this does look like a violation of the rules of war...and I believe an investigation is underway. But only because the person shot was not a threat, and not because he was in a mosque.

7. Nov 17, 2004

### jcsd

Clearly if you are firing from a mosque then don't be too suprised if fire is returned.

The problem is that the US were actually breaking sevral rules of war systematically during Fallujah vis-a-vis hospitals ambulances, aid and firing at civilians for leaving their houses, but the Iraqi reaction was still quite muted to this, but this one action capture don TV has turned Fallujah into a PR diaster in Iraq for the US.

8. Nov 17, 2004

### Dooga Blackrazor

I see your perspective but I disagree with it. Being an extreme-secularist Agnostic I don't think religious places should be haven for individuals who did wrong. If this person did nothing wrong, then their death was unjust. The place of the death has no extra signifigance for me.

Concerning the burying(sp) issue I'm quite indifferent. I never really understood the signifigance of burials. Also, I think it's much more important that American soldiers (if they have to be in Iraq) work on stabilizing the country and diplomacy rather than burying enemy victims.

9. Nov 17, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Dooga, being insensitive and ignorant of other cultures is what resulted in much of this mess.

10. Nov 17, 2004

### BobG

I don't think it's clear yet whether or not the soldier committed a war crime. In an actual battle, it's pretty much acknowledged that the combatants will be in a pretty unstable emotional state (at least in the context of the civilian world at home). Almost all the participants are in a survival mode type attitude and their decisions are always heavily tilted towards 'better that the other guy die than me'. Actions in a battle are seldom considered war crimes - it has to be proven the wounded had been screened and were under complete control.

The soldier is much more likely to be punished for something that falls a little short of either a war crime or murder. The Rules of Engagement for US forces are usually stricter than those normally applied for war crimes. In fact, a few of these have been in the news here, locally, as soldiers from the local Army post have returned.

Whatever the final result, this situation is nothing like Abu Graib, which I think probably would qualify as a war crime. One is premeditated in a relatively secure environment. The other is made in an environment where the rest of your life may only be a few seconds.

11. Nov 17, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

One of the unfortunate problems in this war is that the enemy are not clearly defined. They are not wearing uniforms and in combat units. They are indistinguishable from the civilian populace and fighting within the civilian populace, purposefully placing innocent civilians in harms way. How can you protect yourself when you cannot identify the enemy? This is a very frightening and dangerous situation for our military.

Our military, however, are easy targets.

12. Nov 18, 2004

### DaVinci

And you beleive what you see on CNN?

One thing I learned from being in Afghanistan (my unit was the first in besides CIA), is that the news media is full of dung. When I got out of the ARR and was able to watch the news, were talking about stories coming from the place I had just left, they were so far off the mark it was rediculous. I also have friends who are still serving in the Corps and have been to Iraq and thay have told me the same thing.... load of crap on the news.

Remember that you can take a story and footage and spin it so well that the actual event has completely changed. Nor have I seen any footage of the actual event. The only one I have seen is a Marine walking through a room.

To go even further, these 'combatants' have been known to fake being injured and then start shooting G.I.'s when they turn their back. They have also been known to give their wounded grenades so when a GI walks in the room, they pull the pin and sacrifice themself to kill a few Americans.

If you walked into the room knowing this, and thought that the bad guy, armed or not, had a grenade and was about to use it, would you shot him? Or if one of them made a sudden move that you, being a combat experiance veteran, perceived as a direct threat against your and your friends life, would you shot him?

You, nor I, know the whole story here. This is another case of the media being the bunch of ^$##^$#^#\$^% that they are.

13. Nov 18, 2004

### Polly

Hello DaVinci, would you tell us a bit more about the war in Iraq? Many thanks.

14. Nov 18, 2004

### jcsd

Delibrately killing a wounded unarmed person is a war crime full stop, howvere anyone tries to excuse it (I'm sorry but there's always an excuse for everything, don't make it right) and 'heat of the moment' defence does not excuse war crimes (even in national law such a defnce in general could only be used in mitigation)
The relvenat passage is here:

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

15. Nov 18, 2004

### BobG

But it would have been legal to shoot the wounded Iraqi with the hidden grenade that the group had encountered the day before?

I think this is an example of the types of atrocities Kerry talked about back when he first got out of the service. They happen every war where you routinely push people beyond what the average person can handle.

The incredibly disciplined warrior that books glamorize (the kind who can slay 10 men with one swing of his samurai sword and gently provide a safe resting place for a passing butterfly on his backswing) may not be an unattainable state of mind, but it's certainly not the norm (otherwise, why would it be considered a trait of a truly great hero).

16. Nov 18, 2004

### jcsd

Such incidents does not give anyone a carte blanche to shoot wounded unarmed people or systematically disreagrd the rules of war.

I can even accept that it may of been a mistake, but it is a mistake that cost someone their life so it is not one that can be easily excused or swept under the rug.

17. Nov 18, 2004

### BobG

I haven't watched enough stations to really have a representative cross section, but I haven't seen any reporters that have jumped to conclusions on this. The reporters I've seen have seemed to feel you have to suspend judgement on this until all the facts are in.

Most of the discussion is about how this could be perceived. One tiny slice of info completely removed from the overall context. It's the new information age. Raw, unfiltered information available to the masses vs. info screened by experienced media to decide if it's info the masses could understand and handle.

Obviously, the masses will have problems handling unfilitered info for quite awhile. Just surf through the Internet. You can find info twisted to support any view you want. People having to evaluate the validity of the information available on their own instead of having someone screen their info is something that will take time to learn.

18. Nov 18, 2004

### Moses

Well, the enemy is not defined cuz simply there is a tiny..tiny amount of Iraqis are with our soldiers ..and among the "enemy" who can carry guns [fighter] or not [hoping to have a gun..or he/she is not "skilled enough" to fight] they are the bare-foot Vitnamese...

I feel really sorry for the soldiers..since the moral task in killing here is not easy...and the War in total fail in the moral test..and our soldiers are swimming in this torenado

Yeah...every single Iraqi U.S killed after we enter Baghdad "victory?" is a citizen...and carrying a gun. This how sadly i see it now..

Last edited: Nov 18, 2004
19. Nov 18, 2004

### Moses

The new news insure that new resistance people entered fallujah...
I am not sure with which side should i stand now: With our Army who attacking the city and are "trangressors" and violate the Human basic laws in wars..or with those guys who is fighting us and did not violate it yet...still the have a point..yes they have a point..in why they are fighting us inside there houses....and mosques..and may be churches later...

20. Nov 18, 2004

### jimmy p

Urban fighting is not pretty. I have had training in urban fighting and it is a horrible business. I'm not siding with the soldier, but if the Iraqi had a grenade, then no-one in that room would have survived. Radicals are very much noted for their suicide bombing tendencies and an injured man writhing on the ground could still be trying to loose a grenade pin.

I think that the SAS would have done very much the same in that situation. There was a quite famous story that the SAS were evacuating hostages from a building, and one came towards then slightly hunched up, so three soldiers that were there emptied their magazines into hostage. It appeared that the hostage was actually a terrorist with a grenade. Had that snap decision not been made, then a lot of people could have been killed or injured. As it were, the terrorist ended up with 90+ bullets inside him before the pathologists gave up counting.

Would that have been considered a war-crime? Firing on an apparently unarmed man/hostage?