Marines Urinating on Dead Guys?

[fuelair]

Bill - like you I have no respect for a dead body, as far as I am considered it's just pretty much inert material waiting to be recycled. However I know many folk do attach value to a dead body so to ignore that fact is irrational, especially when there is no cost to applying such respect and indeed respecting the body will actually have positive benefits for you.

I have respect for the relatives of the persons dead bodies belong to - as long as the dead bodies are not of terrorists , gang members, murderers, rapists, criminal (not caught criminal) bankers, investors, attorneys, politicians,religious leaders , fictional but believed in deities and related.

 

[fuelair]

CNN reports they were snipers. I guess you can't top being a pissing coward sniper.

I am guessing you do not know a lot about snipers. They go alone or with a spotter into the heart of the enemy and cut them down one at a time when the enemy is often present in large numbers. Sorry, not cowards - not even close to cowards.

 

[triforcharity]

"Taliban insurgents executed 15 security soldiers who had been recently kidnapped and dumped their bodies on a hilltop in northwestern Pakistan on Thursday, in retaliation for the killing of a militant commander by government forces, government"
https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/...apped-pakistani-soldiers.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31

The bodies were naked btw.

I don't think the Taliban has a history of treating dead bodies with respect, quite the opposite as a matter of fact.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Respectable, peaceful Muslims. Not Taliban asses.

My bad.....

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

How are snipers cowards?

It's because they're using a weapon with a thousand yard range to engage someone using a weapon with a hundred yard range, while 750 yards away. Might as well be gunning someone down for threatening verbally to slap you, while they're standing on the other side of a deep moat. They can't get to you, they can't harm you, but you can harm them, so you do. We do the same thing with drones. What risk is some guy behind a console in america taking when he launches a missile at a group of 'might be taliban'? None. He's eliminated all risk and all consequences of his actions.

 

[angrysoba]

It's because they're using a weapon with a thousand yard range to engage someone using a weapon with a hundred yard range, while 750 yards away. Might as well be gunning someone down for threatening verbally to slap you, while they're standing on the other side of a deep moat. They can't get to you, they can't harm you, but you can harm them, so you do. We do the same thing with drones. What risk is some guy behind a console in america taking when he launches a missile at a group of 'might be taliban'? None. He's eliminated all risk and all consequences of his actions.

Not necessarily. Someone might blow up the vending machine in the hallway when he goes to buy a Coke. A terrorist, for example.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Becuase snipers are "cowards" maybe warfare should go back to men lining up with musket volleys, or formatins of pikemen. Any ranged weapon is cowardice.

 

[Belz...]

I am guessing you do not know a lot about snipers. They go alone or with a spotter into the heart of the enemy and cut them down one at a time when the enemy is often present in large numbers. Sorry, not cowards - not even close to cowards.

I suppose people have an opinion of snipers based on their experience in video games. Yes, video games.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I suppose people have an opinion of snipers based on their experience in video games. Yes, video games.

Don't get me started on my experiences in TF2

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's a good thing we live in modern, democratic societies where this kind of idiotic acts are not tolerate--

These things happen in war, I am told.

Isn't it funny how these comments only follow acts "we" do to "others"? That when someone does something to the USA or Israel, or other Western countries, we're outraged and saddened (see 9/11, Utøya massacre, ), but when our people do something they shouldn't have, suddenly all you get out of certain people is a patronizing "oh, you see little Timmy, sometimes bad stuff happens in war".

I have been told Santa is real. I don't believe it anymore.

Anyway, it seems you are more concerned about them urinating on these people then them being blown away in the first place.

Personally, I would prefer the urination to the being blown away.

Would you like some pickles with that red herring?

I don't think the Taliban has a history of treating dead bodies with respect, quite the opposite as a matter of fact.

Oh lookie, another! Soon we can make herring salad!

Why should they get the book thrown at them?
Are you saying you would NOT urinate on dead Talaban?
What am I missing here?

why? WHy is it disgraceful?
How does it put anyone in danger?

Are you a troll, or do you honestly not understand the answers to these questions?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Indeed. The endgame is likely to be very violent.

Nope. The USA ain't finished. Not by a longshot, as they still have a strong industrial economy, strong inflence in international politics (frex, they helped mediate peace talks between ETA and Spain, and also partook in Libya). As well as that, the US is still a vital partner in global politics

Because Europeans occupied a resource-rich land mass, ethnically cleansed it, exploited it with slaves and used to have access to lots of cheap oil. US power is now fading and it's losing control of its energy supply

and this is relevant, how?

US power may be fading, but only reative to other powers, such as the BRIC countries. It is not going to go Fallout on the rest of the world

The EU is also weak and breaking down.

Arguably, but it still has a lot of tricks left, and I wouldn't count it out yet.

Yes, it is. (e.g. Yellow Cake). US media is thoroughly controlled by the same corporate power than controls the US State.

If that were the case, then why did the US send Madoff to prison, and why was Enron's CEO tried? And why have the media been politically fierce whenever scandals broke out?

If they were't under the impression that it's OK for US soldiers to piss on corpses they wouldn't have done it.

You forget that before a court martial can go ahead, they have to have enough evidence on hand before making a move.

Don't you think The Great Pisser is a more accurate label than The Great Satan?

Given that most of the left seem to think that the US is equivalent to Apokolips, I'd say neither is accurate.

 

[angrysoba]

It's a good thing we live in modern, democratic societies where this kind of idiotic acts are not tolerate--Isn't it funny how these comments only follow acts "we" do to "others"? That when someone does something to the USA or Israel, or other Western countries, we're outraged and saddened (see 9/11, Utøya massacre, ), but when our people do something they shouldn't have, suddenly all you get out of certain people is a patronizing "oh, you see little Timmy, sometimes bad stuff happens in war".

Would you like some pickles with that red herring?

In my opinion, which you may not share, it is outrageous if these guys, who were pissed on, were killed when they shouldn't have been. If you want to make a case for saying this is an unjust war and that the Afghans who were killed were simply defending their country from occupiers then the outrageous/saddening thing is the fact that they were killed in the first place.

The only thing that most people care about is the fact that their corpses were pissed on and frankly that is the very least of it.

If, on the other hand, you believe that these were card-carrying Taliban who are enslaving the Afghan population, beating the women, behaving in any and every bestial fashion then I think the behaviour of the US marines to be uncouth, vulgar and unpleasant. Not much more.

Instead of this sanctimonious show of outrage (and demands that others join you in it) why not ask whether or not these people actually are Taliban? By now I have to wonder if there is anything left of what were called Taliban and I have to wonder what the Hell is going on with the mission in Afghanistan.

By now, the US and the ISAF are in their eleventh year of occupying a country with no apparent goal. All possible goals that have been given have either been completed or else they are pipedreams. Osama bin Laden has finally been killed, al Qaeda and the Taliban have been broken up and now there are all kinds of other groups roaming the country. Opium production is up. There is absolutely no chance of a stable country being left behind let alone anything that resembles a respectable democracy, millions of dollars pissed to the wind or in the hands of "friendly" warlords, drones blasting away at the Af-Pak border regions sometimes killing people we are told are really bad guys and sometimes, alas, blowing away some unfortunate civilians or "collateral damage" (just an accident so they shouldn't complain, we're there to liberate those ingrates) and yet apparently I am supposed to be outraged by these marines pissing on some corpses.

It's really quite low down on my list of things to be upset about.

And by the way, I think you meant strawman, not red herring. But I was replying to a jibe from Liszt who asked:

Well of course that makes it perfectly acceptable.

What else have you been told? Santa is real?

I never said it was "perfectly acceptable". I am pointing out that the wider context of the war itself should really put the behaviour in perspective.

 

[Morrigan]

Can't you apply this sort of thinking to all projectile weapons?

You'd make a good berserker.

That's not coward, that's called being smart and using covert tactics.

Don't you know? If you use any sort of "unfair" advantage in war to stay alive, or even WIN (gasp), you're some sort of morally bankrupt coward. I mean, reminds me of those Romans using phalanxes and shield-walls against the Celtic and Germanic tribes... bunch of cowards turtling behind their shields, safely poking with their spears at the charging tribesmen like the cowards that they are.

And don't get me started on the archers sending a volley of arrows at charging cavalry or infantry while remaining at a safe distance! The nerve of them, using such cowardly tactics in real-life war!

 

[crimresearch]

Don't you know? If you use any sort of "unfair" advantage in war to stay alive, or even WIN (gasp), you're some sort of morally bankrupt coward. I mean, reminds me of those Romans using phalanxes and shield-walls against the Celtic and Germanic tribes... bunch of cowards turtling behind their shields, safely poking with their spears at the charging tribesmen like the cowards that they are.

And don't get me started on the archers sending a volley of arrows at charging cavalry or infantry while remaining at a safe distance! The nerve of them, using such cowardly tactics in real-life war!

Yeah, who knew we had Papists here?

 

[Poison Oak]

Some of the previous posts made me shake my head. What the US troops did was wrong. It's wrong when the enemy does it, and it's wrong when we do it.

I have no problem with shooting the enemy, and it's fine with me if a sniper takes them out. With a head shot. From a mile away. Firing a bazooka or rocket into a cave or building they are hiding in is perfectly acceptable. Not even an issue if they use flame throwers or napalm. No qualms about using drones or bombs. And I would have no questions if the enemy is killed with a knife or bayonet, or even if his eyes are gouged out and he's choked to death in hand to hand. I don't even have a problem with their bodies greasing the treads of tanks. That's combat. You do what you have to do to eliminate the enemy. You do what you have to do to survive. Once the enemy is down, meaning dead and no longer a threat, there is no reason to go out of your way to abuse the corpse. If the enemy jumps in front of a tank and the tank runs him over.... cool. If there are bodies of the enemy in a field that the tank is crossing, DON'T stop to move the bodies. But you don't line the streets with the corpses of the enemy to drive tanks over them.

Regardless of whether or not you think it was acceptable to whizz on the bodies, if you honestly can't admit what a propaganda coup this is for the enemy (both foreign and domestic) you are naive, blind or a troll trying to be funny.

 

[Morrigan]

Yeah, who knew we had Papists here?

...Wot?

 

[crimresearch]

...Wot?

Only sinners use crossbows to kill nobility in their expensive armor from a cowardly distance... the Pope said so. ;-}

 

[Robrob]

I'm not sure about the people arguing it's somehow "cowardly" to engage enemy if you are out of their range.

Do you imagine soldiers should sidle up to the enemy and shout, "Draw you yellow bellied cattle rustlers!"

 

[BStrong]

Some of the previous posts made me shake my head. What the US troops did was wrong. It's wrong when the enemy does it, and it's wrong when we do it.

I have no problem with shooting the enemy, and it's fine with me if a sniper takes them out. With a head shot. From a mile away. Firing a bazooka or rocket into a cave or building they are hiding in is perfectly acceptable. Not even an issue if they use flame throwers or napalm. No qualms about using drones or bombs. And I would have no questions if the enemy is killed with a knife or bayonet, or even if his eyes are gouged out and he's choked to death in hand to hand. I don't even have a problem with their bodies greasing the treads of tanks. That's combat. You do what you have to do to eliminate the enemy. You do what you have to do to survive. Once the enemy is down, meaning dead and no longer a threat, there is no reason to go out of your way to abuse the corpse. If the enemy jumps in front of a tank and the tank runs him over.... cool. If there are bodies of the enemy in a field that the tank is crossing, DON'T stop to move the bodies. But you don't line the streets with the corpses of the enemy to drive tanks over them.

Regardless of whether or not you think it was acceptable to whizz on the bodies, if you honestly can't admit what a propaganda coup this is for the enemy (both foreign and domestic) you are naive, blind or a troll trying to be funny.

Good man.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Becuase snipers are "cowards" maybe warfare should go back to men lining up with musket volleys, or formatins of pikemen. Any ranged weapon is cowardice.

Weapons come in various ranges. The longer the range, the farther it puts the killer from the killed, and the easier it makes for people who would otherwise be too cowardly to kill to do so. I don't believe killing a human should be easy.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I'm not sure about the people arguing it's somehow "cowardly" to engage enemy if you are out of their range.

Do you imagine soldiers should sidle up to the enemy and shout, "Draw you yellow bellied cattle rustlers!"

Nice straw man.

I think we're over there killing them because we have a conflicting ideology. We're long past killing anyone for revenge for 9/11. We lost a couple thousand. We've killed hundreds of them for each one we lost. We've had our revenge. We're not even fighting the same people anymore, just people we think have similar ideology and similar racial characteristics. We've made killing too easy and we're being bloodthirsty. A general phones in an order from his office. A soldier sees a target on a drone's camera from thousands of miles away and pushes a button from the safety of an office chair. We value our lives too highly to risk but we don't value anyone else's life at all. We've become a nation of bloodthirsty little chickenhawks.