-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/american_soldiers_burn_terrorist_bodies_taunt_tali -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
So no harm, no foul here.
that's fucked up. That's US soldiers behaving like terrorists. If you think otherwise, check yourself right now.
I disagree Seth. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved tens of thousands of American lives. Not to mention, ultimately, a likely equal number of Japanese lives.
Using that reasoning, if we can engage the enemy in a safer manner by drawing them out into the open with taunts and a few charred corpses, so be it.
I started off my day thinking you were merely immoral, now I thnk you're just needlessly antagonistic.
We all make emotional appeals sometimes, emotions matter. But is that the only arrow in your quiver?
Using that reasoning, if we can engage the enemy in a safer manner by drawing them out into the open with taunts and a few charred corpses, so be it.
christ you're a cold idiot. How am I supposed to present a down to earth debate style response to that dehumanizing crap? You really ARE stupid. I can't take this shit sober, it's unreal. You're talking about how dropping nuclear bombs on japan was a good thing, and how it's alright to be barbaric against "the enemy". You're lost in a haze of political bullshit. Come back to earth, fellow human.
Was it necessary to get that dig in? It's not just that one either, you've been sniping at Rob more and more. Seems that way to me anyway.
We all do it sometimes, we're only human. But there's no need for it all the time.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't really comparable. The atomic bomb was horrifying enough to break the enemy's will, and egalitarian in it's destruction: all things, military and civilian, in its path were destroyed. It was rather impersonal--designed for fear, not offense
The desecration of bodies is offensive, yet so minimally uninspiring of fear as to be almost banal, and not terribly effectively focused at a particular target. It's more likely to inspire rage, and while enraging your enemy can be useful, enraging a more or less neutral populace is not.
What's more, I hope that we, as a nation, find the idea of desecrating dead bodies distasteful, even offensive--regardless of whose body it is.
In short: I find it both distasteful and probably an uneffective strategy, if not outright counterproductive. I question the wisdom of such a strategy, although I don't rise to the level of outraged.
Seeing as I agreed with everything you wrote, I don't know how you found me "antagonistic"; but, if so, I apologize.
So, as long as we don't cut off the heads of Muslims, our actions will be justified?
What would our soldiers have to do for you to criticize them, Rob? And remember... you're apparently the moral one in this debate. :roll:
I question the efficacy of this strategy, and I don't wish my country, as a matter of policy, to engage in acts that tarnishes our image to questionable, if not negative, effect.
If we don't fight them as brutally and ruthlessly as they do us, we cannot win. Right now, those who hate America use any tool to prevent us from defending ourselves. Anytime we do, legal or not, we are criticized.
Waging a war with 'emotions' and political considerations is a sure way to lose. The enemy will show no mercy if victorious..do you want them to dictate your future?
It simply strikes me as a less than deft strategy that compromises our values to no great effect. I'd consider the wisdom of compromising our values if it helped to end the war, but this likely won't.
I know I'd fly 10,000 miles and behead an infidel for just one more bag of honey-roasted goodness.
It reminds me of the satiric headline from The Onion: "U.S. loses Vietnam War; entire country bows to our glorious Communist Leader". It's patently absurd.
Really???? I'm thinking the Golden Rule applies here.
But let's take a deep breath and try to find out if these allegations are true first. I seem to remember someone making some unfounded accusations about cutting ears off and rape that turned out to be unsubstantiated. Who was it again? Oyh, yeah I think I remember.
The day the very first one of the terrorist retards/Taliban/"Freedom Fighters" starts "playing by the rules," then I will start worrying about what our soldiers are doing to win.
That being said, remember that continuing operations in Afghanistan are being accomplished with small units and special operators in rough terrain. Caring for dead bodies of opposition forces is not high on their agenda. Maybe burning of bodies was the most expedient method of disposal given the prevailing conditions. There is not enough info to make a judgement. And until one has experienced like conditions, judgement would certainly be armchair quarterbacking.
Overall I think that the U.S. should abandon the Geneva Conventions and come up with a new code of conduct for U.S. soldiers who encounter current day conditions of combat with a variety of enemy. Otherwise this kind of issue will arise again and again and provide fodder for news outlets to bash the U.S. over and over again.
Statements like in order to win there hearts you must first rule their minds.
I am very torn here.
I feel very deeply that these tactics are wrong and most importantly ineffective in the long run. OTOH I know that until we started fighting like the enemy in Vietnem we were less than effective.
OTOH and the OTOH of we are going to go to these lengths why not drag their religious leaders out in the street and kill them after all they are the ones doing the rallying.
Concerning creating more enemy, is that a good thing? Time we ferret out and kill all our enemies anyway.
I would say the biggest problem is that this strategy would create more enemies than you started with.
Remember when American soldiers helped the Iraqis tear down that statue of Saddam and a soldier draped an American flag over the head, but then took it down? He should have left the flag. In fact, our flag should have flown over every city we cleared, if only for a short time.
In fanatic Islam, the people believe that their god is greatest. Any sign of weakness on our part fuels the belief that Allah will be victorious. To defeat them, you need to humiliate them and their god. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Playing nice and trying to appease them will ultimately lead to failure.
This is a religious war, whether or not anyone on our side wants to acknowledge it. That is certainly how the enemy sees it. Humiliating and defeating them, thus proving that their god is not greatest, is the only way to defeat them.
They'd have to do more than burning a few bodies and taunting the enemy. Though, really, the kid who advocates the killing of down syndrome kids as a way to make society a better place really shouldn't be bringing "morals" into any debate.
I'm willing to listen to arguments about burning bodies not being a good thing from a tractical perspective. After all, the point is winning. But don't tell me that this is "blind hatred" and "despicable." They were dead bodies. Is shooting a live terrorist in the head any worse than burning his dead body?
According to the embedded cameraman/journalist who filmed the incident for the Australian network that broke the story, the bodies were located in a mountainous region where they could not be buried (ever try digging a hole in rock?) or easily removed and were burned for sanitary reasons. If true, this isn't desecration per se, but just common sense.
The only real issue for me is with the psyops people using this to attempt to enflame the Taliban into attacking the US troops, whether it aligns with our national morals and ethics, and whether or not it ends up being counterproductive on an operational level. I'll predict---facts unseen---that the psyops people responsible are disciplined over this act, which everything else not-withstanding is likely in violation of military law.
1) Desecrating bodies makes us no better than the terrorists and Americans should be better than that.
2) Desecrating bodies is not bad, per se, but does not help us accomplish the stated mission.
3) Desecrating bodies is bad because the locals, who at best are neutral, will turn against us.
4) Desecrating bodies is perfectly alright because they would do it to us.
5) Desecrating bodies is perfectly alright because in war, anything goes, and the Geneva Conventions don't apply and are stupid anyways.
Blind hatred of an enemy has always been a good way for political powers to control the populace. It seems to be working very well in this case - people are excusing atrocities in the name of "freedom." Another extremely disappointing post from Rob.
Those soldiers should be discharged. Desecrating corpses is despicable. I really hope the attitude Rob expresses above is not shared by many North Dakotans. If the burning of bodies - especially when done by American soldiers - does not make your stomach churn even a little bit, you have problems.
That would sure show 'em.
Centcom seems to believe that this is a violation not only of hte Geneva Conventions, but also of the Law of Land Warfare. If so, then the soldiers should be tried and convicted, not coddled.
Pictures available here.
Didn't this happen in Afghanistan?
As to removing the bodies... there is a risk element involved in this when you are on rough terrain in the presence of hostile forces. The pictures, for example, lend credence to the supposition that a helicopter could not have been used to remove the bodies. Personally, I can't blame people for not wanting to lug the dead enemy combatants out of the back country. It could have been a bad decision to burn the bodies, but I think I'll let CENTCOM decide.
I'd like you to point me to where burning dead bodies that present a biohazard is a violation of the Geneva Convention, or where CENTCOM said such a thing. All I've heard them say is that they are investigating whether the bodies were handled appropriately and that they acknowledged that desecration of the bodies would constitute a violation of military law.
Nobody, at least me, is talking about coddling the soldiers. An investigation is completely appropriate. I'm just not going to get all hysterical over this before I know all of the facts.
Rob: I thought it was "terrorism is bad, m'kay?". Surely that will put a stop to it.
The point stands though.
And those who are telling me that burning an already dead body is "being just like them" should please make it clear to me exactly how disposing of a corpse in a common and sanitary way is in any way "being just like them", or "being terrorists ourselves". I'm not seeing the connection between burning a corpse and, say, blowing up a bus full of civilians or other acts normal, sane people consider terrorist. "Terrorism" and "anything the other side gets angry about" are not the same thing.
(And yes, this means you, Keep It Simple. Mocking enemy combatants is not terrorism. It's not very nice, but I fail to see any way it meets any normal definition of terrorism. Likewise, burning a corpse doesn't seem to be terrorist either, even if you summarily reject the argument about terrain and stinking, rotting bodies.
Is it more offensive to muslims to leave out a rotting corpse? If so, I guess that means that fighting Muslims at all is a terrorist war crime, by that light. If not, what's the difference? Islamic practice wants a quick burial, which is perfectly respectable, but in war that simply is not always possible. When faced with a rotting corpse, Muslim sensibilities are already offended. By what standard is burning worse than continued rotting, exactly?)
According to one report I heard, they were calling the enemy cowards and girlymen. In this country radio bigmouths and religious leaders say this of the political opposition as well as our nation's enemies on a daily basis. And of course muslim leaders have a lot to say to infidels.
What was done and said in Afghanistan may or may not be productive, might or not be disgusting, but it has become a way of life for americans in all discourse. If we're going to talk about what our soldiers say about, and to, muslims, we need to look at what our leaders and opinion makers say as well.
um, no...the reason people think it's fucked up is because it's fucked up. To blast into a town "hey we killed your people, shit on their bodies and now we're gonna tell the world you're all fags" with actual intent to bring forth violence is fucked up no matter how you look at it. It's outright psychotic that a government is in charge that would promote and execute such a thing. They're telling you it's okay and you agree.
KIS: I never said any such thing, tacitly or otherwise. I think you need to learn to read.
Rob: Hm. You're original quote was "about these people". I just assumed you mean al Qaeda.
Former Senator D'Amato, is that you?
I'm willing to bet that a "down to earth debate style" doesn't take Christ's name in vain or uses the words "crap" and "stupid". Just a hunch.
You're talking about how dropping nuclear bombs on japan was a good thing, and how it's alright to be barbaric against "the enemy". You're lost in a haze of political bullshit. Come back to earth, fellow human.
It ended the war and saved lives. Those are good things. War is barbaric. What did you expect? You're lost in a haze of political bullshit. Visit earth fellow traveler.
Wear a friggin t-shirt that says "nuking japan was good" and on the back "desecration wins wars" and see what kind of conversations you strike with everyday people on the street anywhere in the world.
Wear a friggin t-shirt that says, "war is bad, man" and on the back, "love not bombs" and see what kind of conversations you strike with terrorists on the street anywhere in the world.
Congradulations, you're not human anymore.
Congratulations. You're not alive anymore.
I speak from experience. so, you likey the tactic? you think-ah tha tactic is-ah goooood? very humane...very good guy thing to do. Barf on blogger, you think like a true intellectual should.
Ahhh...must be that "down to earth debate style" you were talking about earlier. I must say that it makes no sense.
You can get off of your high horse now.
sammy small said, Lets remember that the Geneva Conventions were written and signed onto by nations that used standing armies to fight conventional wars. It was the rules of war written for a bygone era.
I don't think that era ever existed. It was wishful thinking.
Ryan G said, Blind hatred of an enemy has always been a good way for political powers to control the populace. It seems to be working very well in this case - people are excusing atrocities in the name of "freedom." Another extremely disappointing post from Rob.
Describe the "blind hatred" you believe you see. Maybe you just have blind acceptance of the blame America first sort.