"Why are these people animals?

Isn't this the same as question #3?

"Were they animals before the US invasion?"

Yes. They were behaving in the same manner. People in Iraq were beheaded, tortured, had their limbs amputated, were shoved off buildings, etc., etc. Throughout the Arab world people are at least familiar and at worst comfortable with this kind of "punishment". Apparently, given their reaction to these acts being perpetrated against innocent hostages they are comfortable with them as tactics in war.

What has turned them into animals?

Centuries of Middle East culture, frankly. What is being perpetrated to hostages is not that different than what happens to criminals in Saudi Arabia, or throughout Islamic nations for centuries. IF they are blase' about it, it isn't our violence that taught them to behead and torture.

They will never stop being animals. They're terrorists. That's the point. You cannot however treat them as animals or else they've won. Others will see your actions and judge you as animals as well. If you can't be better than terrorists then you'll never win the war.

If I have to choose between American soldiers being on par with the terrorists (which they'll never be unless they resort to hurting innocent or truly defenseless people) and American soldiers dying because the rules of war place them at a big disadvantage, then I'm going to choose the former. One can argue that either way, the terrorists win, except in the former, it's a short-lived victory as they end up dead.

I watched the film 'The Seige' again last night and it really brings across the dangers in allowing yourselves to lower your standards and morals for the greater good. This 1998 film staring Denzel Washington and Bruce WIllis is so on the point that it's hard to remember it was written pre 9/11 are pre second gulf war. Of particular point to this debate is the pen-ultimate scene where the FBI attempts to arrest the general for the torture and death of a terrorist. With a stand off of the matines pointing guns and the FBI and vice versa Bruce Willis says that he would order his soldiers to fire if he believes it's in the best interest of his country. Denzels response of 'order them to fire and make murderers out of them' hits the nail on the head.

No amount of rightousness of good intentions or greater good changes justifies murder.

We have seen already what American soldiers can do to defenseless inamtes in Abu Gharib. Do people really believe that allowing US soldiers to go about shooting without consequences would be any better? No there must be laws and moral standards for these brave men to live within. When these standards and laws appear broken then an investigation must take place. That's what makes America great and if you let go of that then you let go of the memories of all the men and women who have died for those ideals.

Please do take the time to re-watch the above film. It's American film making at it's best. Patriotic while dealing with relevant and tough issues,

Paul.

but there is a BIG difference between Abu Gharib and Fallujah.....

Abu Gharib was a prison camp....Fallujah was a battleground.

The marine THOUGHT he was being threatened....therefore....he eliminated that threat....on a BATTLEFIELD.....

And, these same nice, human beings (perhaps nobody on this site has called them that, BUT, i have seen and heard others refer to these terrorists in that way....nice, gentle human beings being forced to violence.....whatever).....these same terrorists tortured and used those tactics to there own country-ppl in Fallujah.....how anyone can defend them is beyond me....it truly is....it literally makes me sick to my stomach and damn near depresses me when I hear and read of other Americans demanding that this marine is charged with WAR CRIMES....while defending the freaking so-called Freedom Fighters.....Freedom Fighters my @$$....that so pisses me off.....

No amount of rightousness of good intentions or greater good changes justifies murder.

What justifies it is we'd rather have the American soldier alive than the terrorist. If another country's army wants to sacrifice its own soldiers to appear more humane, then that's their choice, but I'd rather America didn't sacrifice dozens of American lives just to make sure that one terrorist playing dead to kill more American soldiers is treated humanely.

We have seen already what American soldiers can do to defenseless inamtes in Abu Gharib. Do people really believe that allowing US soldiers to go about shooting without consequences would be any better? No there must be laws and moral standards for these brave men to live within. When these standards and laws appear broken then an investigation must take place. That's what makes America great and if you let go of that then you let go of the memories of all the men and women who have died for those ideals.

If American soldiers go around killing people without justification or torture people who are truly defenseless, then I'll agree that they shouldn't do that. However, if a soldier is in a battlefield and the enemy is known to feign death or injury, then I'll have no problem with the soldier making sure the enemy is dead rather than going: "Well, the rule book says if he looks dead or injured, he must be, and I must approach the enemy with open arms or turn my back on him and completely forget that he might kill me when my back's turned."

Actually, Messy....it would be more like this: "Well, the rule book says if he looks dead or injured, he must be, and I must approach the enemy with open arms or turn my----" BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another liberal who hasn't a clue about war: "Well, damn that Bush!!!! He has killed yet another one of our Americans!!!!!!!"

liberal

Why must you use labels like that? I am a liberal who very much supports the war on terror (my husband's overseas fighting it right now in fact) and wants to see our military have the freedom to defend themselves as necessary. Liberal does not = anti-military.

First off, the question as to whether the marine in this incident acted correctly or not is an issue for the US military.

The suggestion that Americans should shoot first and ask questions later under the justification of rather them dead than is dead is a bigger issue. Sure you may manage to save a few extra American lives in the short term but you will never win a war as you would sow the seeds of future destruction behind you. The damage you do to all that previous American soldiers stood for is tremendous. Do you realyl want your troops to be looked on with contempt and hatred where ever they go in the world and to be feared as barbarians who murder innoncents?

Mistakes do happen, but they need to be seen as mistakes not as the standard US rules of engagement.

Paul.

note to Soltair: uh, they already are hated......I know I was in S. Korea 10 years ago, and the South Koreans generally HATE us....


Note to Tex: read what it said, "Liberal who hasn't a clue about war"......you may be a liberal, but you also understand something about the war....in other words, you are not that liberal saying that

The suggestion that Americans should shoot first and ask questions later under the justification of rather them dead than is dead is a bigger issue. Sure you may manage to save a few extra American lives in the short term but you will never win a war as you would sow the seeds of future destruction behind you. The damage you do to all that previous American soldiers stood for is tremendous. Do you realyl want your troops to be looked on with contempt and hatred where ever they go in the world and to be feared as barbarians who murder innoncents?

Wasn't the enemy the marine killed shooting at them in the first place? That's not shooting first and asking questions later. If we want to keep comparing shooting an insurgent who was trying to kill them and might be feigning injury as they are known to do in battlefield to killing innocent children and beheading civilians, then perhaps all civilized countries should take a vow not to ever fight in a war, even if it kills them. After all, wars involve killing, and killing is one of the things terrorists do.
As for being hated by other nations, I'm sure if you asked the soldiers: "Would you rather die a horrible death or be hated by pompous foreigners who already hate you?" I'm sure they'd choose the latter. What would you rather happen to one of your loved ones? To be killed or to be looked down upon by Americans?