I wonder what happened to these guys?

Falstaff

there are rules of engagement if your bringing this issue to bear. if the enemy has the ability to run away, pursuit or destruction are a normal course of action. I submit that this is not extraordinary in the course of combat within urban areas.And for the record, Americans have been killed under similiar circumstances in close combat and ambush. War is hell

BluntmaN

What do you see in the video jeff? He didnt have the ability to stand let alone fight. These troops shot and killed a wounded man while they enjoyed supperior fire-power, a good defensive position and outnumbered the person. Now how much more do you want to cry out bloody murder? As bluelight said this is no anti american rant it is a warcrime debate and you guys are trying to defend murderers not soldiers. Now you can stuff the rules of engagement up a general's butt this is downright murder. As for the mercy killing is conserned in order to use this aproach a victim must have been visited by a doctor to see if he could survive or not. I am not saying that a soldier should put his life at risk to get him to a doctor all I am saying is that with no medical appraisal this is not a mercy killing it is murder.

Falstaff

I know it is difficult to believe that this is acceptable in wartime, and the emotional impact is very dramatic. I wont attempt to minimize it by trying to get you to embrace it. All I am saying is that within the scope of what a combat soldier is supposed to do in limited engagements, this is normal. The swift execution of wounded and fleeing enemy by a sniper would have been even more horrible I know. In wartime, dismiss the normal conventions of right and wrong. when an enemy flees, whether they are wounded or not, they are targets.

BluntmaN

Ok I know it is dificult to accept that what these boys did was wrong but let me point out that HE WAS NOT RUNNING. He was lying on the floor trying to get up but he couldnt get up. This is were the point is HE WAS NOT RUNNING, HE WAS NOT FIGHTING. HE WAS DISSABLED AND WOUNDED.

Falstaff

I saw the same piece of camera work by CNN, and he was attempting to flee, albiet wounded, if he managed to get away, he could have posed a threat during an advance by Marine combat units. He should have been killed outright, but he was wounded, a head shot would have been better, these marines wasted ammunition by not aiming accurately, but they achieved their goal. Eliminating enemy that are concealed or running, wounded or dying reduces the overall threat when combat units need to secure an area. the slow lingering near death of a mortal wound is more inhumane than a well placed head shot. Based on the video, the distance was well within range of M-16s so these riflemen could have been more accurate.