All those burning Afghans...

[Dr Adequate]

Towers of silence are considered preferable (purity and all that), but cremation is considered acceptable in places where vultures picking people clean would raise eyebrows and legal problems like Britain.

Yeah, in Britain they wouldn't be allowed to carrion like that...



But the real problem would be finding a vulture.

 

[Tmy]

In the video the ops people also mentioned that he bodies were being burned while facing west. Which is another desecration I guess. Anyone know that origin?

 

[Art Vandelay]

That's one theory. And frankly, you're not a counterexample.

In case you missed the sarcasm (which apparently in your world, is a major crime), I was suggesting that you are wont to substitute personal attacks for reasoned discourse, and to consider your own point of view to be beyond question. There is indeed a deficit of counterexamples in this thread.

Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime.

Ah, so the reason that it's illegal is because it's a crime. Thank you so much for that piece of elucidation.

Do you have many pals in the Islamic world, or did you just make that up?

Hmm, I'd say that denying something is pretty much the opposite of making something up.

 

[Orwell]

Now that's what I call "winning" them hearts and minds!

 

[neutrino_cannon]

The verb you're looking for is "inflaming".

 

[Dr Adequate]

In case you missed the sarcasm (which apparently in your world, is a major crime), I was suggesting that you are wont to substitute personal attacks for reasoned discourse, and to consider your own point of view to be beyond question.

And you were, of course, wrong. You were also, need I point out, substituting a personal attack for reasoned discourse. If you have reasons for thinking that Ed's comment was not dumb, we have yet to hear them.

Ah, so the reason that it's illegal is because it's a crime. Thank you so much for that piece of elucidation.

Sure thing. Any time you have trouble understanding the bleedin' obvious, do ask for my help again. I enjoy a good laugh.

Hmm, I'd say that denying something is pretty much the opposite of making something up.

I wonder why you would say that? No, don't answer, I'm not terribly interested in your limited comprehension skills.

Instead, would you answer the question I asked previously? When you said "The Islamic world didn't seem to be too concerned about all those bodies that got burned in the WTC," is this based on any actual knowledge of the "Islamic world" of which you discourse so glibly, or did you just make it up?

 

[Beerina]

Probably less than that on mine. Although Al Jazeera is pumping it for all it's worth under the heading of U.S. probes torturing Afghan bodies.:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9893

Can you torture someone who's already dead? I thought we sub-contracted that stuff to Jordan and Egypt anyway.

Ironic that Al Jazeera readers cheered on videos of the burning and desecrating and draging around in the streets and hanging from bridges of US bodies.

 

[Orwell]

Ironic that Al Jazeera readers cheered on videos of the burning and desecrating and draging around in the streets and hanging from bridges of US bodies.

Nah-Ah-Ah! To quoque argument!

The US of A, "beacon of civilisation", "purveyor of democracy", "arsenal of freedom", "greatest thing since sliced bread", should know better, no?

 

[Art Vandelay]

You were also, need I point out, substituting a personal attack for reasoned discourse.

Interesting tactic: sling insults around, then when someone criticizes you for it, accuse them of engaging in personal attacks.

If you have reasons for thinking that Ed's comment was not dumb, we have yet to hear them.

If you have reasons for thinking it was dumb, we have yet to hear them. I don't see how I'm supposed to counter your argument, when you have no argument to counter.

Sure thing. Any time you have trouble understanding the bleedin' obvious, do ask for my help again. I enjoy a good laugh.

Did you miss my sarcasm, or are you simply ignoring it so as to avoid actually giving a legitimate answer to my question?

I wonder why you would say that? No, don't answer, I'm not terribly interested in your limited comprehension skills.

You don't understand my response, so that means that I have limited comprehension skills? To make something up is to introduce the concept of its existence. I, on the other hand, noted an absence. Therefore your question as to whether I was making it up is silly. For instance, if I say that I was attacked by a bear, it is possible that you might think I am making it up. If I say that I was not attacked by a bear, then the question "Are you making that up?" would be nonsensical. Do you get it now, or do you need an explanation including only monosyllabic words?

Instead, would you answer the question I asked previously? When you said "The Islamic world didn't seem to be too concerned about all those bodies that got burned in the WTC," is this based on any actual knowledge of the "Islamic world" of which you discourse so glibly, or did you just make it up?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Nah-Ah-Ah! To quoque argument!

The US of A, "beacon of civilisation", "purveyor of democracy", "arsenal of freedom", "greatest thing since sliced bread", should know better, no?

Tu quoque is only a fallacy if it is used to justify one side's actions, not if it used to make an accusation of hypocrisy.

There are also several other differences. For one thing, Muslims claim to be opposed to cremation, yet practice it anyway. Americans, however, are quite open about supporting cremation. Beerina alleges that the general Al Jazeera readership cheered the cremations, a charge which quite clearly does not apply to the American people. And finally, the objection to the treatment of American bodies was largely based on the belief that they did not deserve the treatment. Are you asserting that the objection to the treatment of Taliban bodies is partially based on a belief that they did not deserve such treatment?

 

[Orwell]

Ah, but dear Art, in this case, the Tu Quoque is this case being used to justify one side's actions (burning some Afghani corpses)! Remember, this happened in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And besides, I don't even know who or what the "Al-jazeera readers" are. How the heck am I supposed to determine their level of "hypocrisy"?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Ah, but dear Art, in this case, the Tu Quoque is this case being used to justify one side's actions (burning some Afghani corpses)!

The assertion was that it was ironic. I saw no claim that it justified the actions.

And besides, I don't even know who or what the "Al-jazeera readers" are. How the heck am I supposed to determine their level of "hypocrisy"?

If you're discussing fallacies, then what is at issue is not the accuracy of the premises, but the validity of the argument, given the premises. And one of the premises is that the Al-Jazeera readers, whoever they are, cheered the desecration of US bodies.

 

[Orwell]

Art, I'm questioning the validity of both the argument (the argument was implicit) and the premises.

 

[Mycroft]

Ah, but dear Art, in this case, the Tu Quoque is this case being used to justify one side's actions (burning some Afghani corpses)! Remember, this happened in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And besides, I don't even know who or what the "Al-jazeera readers" are. How the heck am I supposed to determine their level of "hypocrisy"?

Except Beerina neither said nor implied that the desecration of US bodies justified anything. She pointed out that it was ironic, which it was.

 

[Orwell]

Except Beerina neither said nor implied that the desecration of US bodies justified anything. She pointed out that it was ironic, which it was.

The justification was implicit.

 

[Mycroft]

The justification was implicit.

I don't think it was. I think that's a product of your own preconceptions.

 

[Orwell]

I don't think it was. I think that's a product of your own preconceptions.

I think it was. Maybe it's a product of my own preconceptions, but it seems to me that it is pretty obvious that the justification was implicit.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Interesting tactic: sling insults around, then when someone criticizes you for it, accuse them of engaging in personal attacks.

You are clearly either lying or halfwitted. I was identifying your hypocrisy, as anyone reading this thread can see: you may be as ill-mannered as you choose for all I care.

If you have reasons for thinking it was dumb, we have yet to hear them. I don't see how I'm supposed to counter your argument, when you have no argument to counter.

You are a liar. I explained why it was dumb in my first post on this thread, as anyone reading the thread can see.

Did you miss my sarcasm, or are you simply ignoring it so as to avoid actually giving a legitimate answer to my question?

You are an incredibly stupid liar. I was not replying to any question, but to your halfwitted remark: "Ah, so the reason that it's illegal is because it's a crime. Thank you so much for that piece of elucidation." And anyone reading this thread can see that too.

You don't understand my response, so that means that I have limited comprehension skills?

You are a stupid and petulant liar. That bears no resemblance to what I wrote, as anyone reading this thread can see.

To make something up is to introduce the concept of its existence. I, on the other hand, noted an absence. Therefore your question as to whether I was making it up is silly. For instance, if I say that I was attacked by a bear, it is possible that you might think I am making it up. If I say that I was not attacked by a bear, then the question "Are you making that up?" would be nonsensical. Do you get it now, or do you need an explanation including only monosyllabic words?

Try not to talk gibberish and be patronizing simultaneously. It spoils the effect.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Your question is based on a bizarre false dichotomy. I am not married. Would you now answer my question: do you have any actual knowledge of the "Islamic world" of which you speak, or are you just making it up?

Could I point out that if you repeat your latest little performance, and invent the content of my posts, you will look twice the liar and three times the fool that you do now. Confine yourself to those pesky facts.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You are clearly either lying or halfwitted.

Do you deny posting insults? Or do you deny accusing me of engaging in personal attacks?

You are a liar. I explained why it was dumb in my first post on this thread, as anyone reading the thread can see.

You presented a reason why the Army might care. Presenting a reason why someone might feel differently is quite different from showing idiocy.

You are an incredibly stupid liar. I was not replying to any question, but to your halfwitted remark: "Ah, so the reason that it's illegal is because it's a crime. Thank you so much for that piece of elucidation." And anyone reading this thread can see that too.

Which was in response to your "answer" to my question "Illegal? How are they illegal?" Is your long term memory really so bad that you can't remember something that happened three days ago? Anyone of reasonable intelligence who has been paying attention should be able to figure out that my remark "Ah, so the reason that it's illegal is because it's a crime. Thank you so much for that piece of elucidation." was a sarcastic reference to the uselessness of your response, and an invitation for you to actually give a real answer, an invitation which you declined. When I posted that remark, I did so with the belief that even you would be able to figure this out. Apparently I was mistaken.

You are a stupid and petulant liar. That bears no resemblance to what I wrote, as anyone reading this thread can see.

Your accusation of poor comprehension skills on my part immediately followed your expression of confusion regarding my post. That you can claim that there is no implication of a logical connection simply shows your own dishonesty.

Your question is based on a bizarre false dichotomy. I am not married.

If my question assumes something which is not true, then the proper term is "loaded question", not "false dichotomy". A "false dichotomy" is when two choices are presented as if they are the only two possibilities, even though they are not. Such as when you asked me whether I had Islamic friends or I made "it" up. The purpose of my asking a loaded question was to point out how, as your question referred to my discourse as "glib", it was itself a loaded question. Did you really not get that, or are you just pretending to be obtuse?

Would you now answer my question: do you have any actual knowledge of the "Islamic world" of which you speak, or are you just making it up?

Well, that's not the same as either of the two questions that you have previously asked, but I do have actual knowledge of the Islamic world.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Are you still whining on?

Do you have any actual arguments against the following propositions:

(1) Desecrating Afghan bodies and then boasting about it is stupid.
(2) Not caring about the problems this will cause in Afghanistan is dumb.
(3) Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime.
(4) War crimes are illegal.
(5) The "Islamic world" was not indifferent to 9/11.

Or do you prefer to repeat your pitiable exhibition of gibberish, lies, hypocrisy, and distortion?

Or then again, you could decide that you've made enough of a clown of yourself, and keep your stupid mouth shut.

Me, I'm betting on the second possibility. But do feel free to surprise us all.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I see you have now abandoned trying to refute my points, and have moved on to simply making up new ones for me. I have never said that those five statements are false. Meanwhile, the statement that you actually made, that this is illegal, remains completely unsupported.