American Soldiers Burn Terrorist Bodies, Taunt Taliban Fighters
Sydney Morning Herald – US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions.
An investigation by SBS’s Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies.
It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.
According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being “cowardly dogs”. “You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be,” the message reportedly said.
“You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are.”
The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours.
Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead “should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged”.
Well goodness gracious. We wouldn’t want to offend the head-choppers now would we? Forget that goading them into a full-on, frontal assault (and thus pretty much assuring their death or capture) is a pretty effective way to defeat them.
These people we’re fighting in Afghanistan have no qualms about using children as human shields and using cowardly suicide attacks targeting unarmed civilians. If we can coax them out from underneath their rocks (and thus probably save the lives of a few of our troops) by burning a few of their already dead comrades then I’m all for it.
This is about winning, not seeing who can be the most sensitive.
(via The Flickertail Journal)
Update:
Interesting:
The television report said U.S. soldiers burned the bodies for hygienic reasons but then a U.S. psychological operations unit broadcast a propaganda message on loudspeakers to Taliban fighters, taunting them to retrieve their dead and fight.
Could the psy-ops people have been taking advantage of a neccessary burning of bodies to draw out the enemy?
It makes sense, but I’m not well versed on the procedures for the disposing of the enemy’s dead on the battlefield.
The military has also launched an investigation:
A U.S. military statement released in Afghanistan said Army criminal investigators had launched a probe “into alleged misconduct by U.S. service members, including the burning of dead enemy combatant bodies under inappropriate circumstances.”
“This command does not condone the mistreatment of enemy combatants or the desecration of their religious and cultural beliefs,” U.S. Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya said in the statement.
“This alleged action is repugnant to our common values, is contrary to our commands approved tactical operating procedures, and is not sanctioned by this command.”
In Washington, the Pentagon expressed concern. “These are very serious allegations and, if true, very troublesome,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told Reuters.
“It is the policy of the United States, as well as the Defense Department, to treat all remains consistent with the Geneva Convention and with the utmost respect. These allegations will be aggressively investigated and, if proven to be true, the individuals will be held appropriately accountable,” Whitman said.
I still don’t see what the big deal is. If we can draw some head-choppers out into the open so that our troops can dispose of them easily by burning a few corpses then so be it, Geneva conventions be damned.
Which isn’t to say that I think that all the Geneva conventions should be tossed to the wind, but its not like our enemies are following them. And this is a fairly minor violation in the grand scheme of things.
War isn’t pretty. We’d be able to prosecute this war a lot more effectively if some of the bleeding hearts got that.
Update:
Pictures available here.
Hey, Dave? What happend to you? Did you drink the whole can of Instant Jackass?
I started off my day thinking you were merely immoral, now I thnk you’re just needlessly antagonistic.
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. That is not to say that many of its provisions couldn’t apply for today’s fighting. I doubt that any organized force which the U.S. would fight in today’s world would have ever acknowledged it.
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.
Why would it be necessary to burn the bodies? Certainly, the American and Afghani friendly who died in the same ambush weren’t burned. If you pay attention to the timeline, you’ll see that the burning took place less than 24 hours later, and took place just a few weeks ago. Teperatures in Afghanistan are in the moderate 70’s at this time of year, so where is there a need to burn the bodies as opposed to notifying hte locals during the review of the village the next day and letting them bury the dead.
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.
We are fighting ruthless killers who will use any means necessary to kill those who don’t think like them. If we have to fight a war, using legal conventions over half a century old, against people who follow no rules, we will lose. Besides, the Geneva Convention rules only apply to soldiers fighting under a national banner. Terrorists have never been considered soldiers, that is until the enemies of America muddled the rules to include them.
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?
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. Try and explain to them and YOURSELF why someone would dislike you for it. You are …ACTUALLY SUPPORTING…barbarism and human attrocities at their worst. Congradulations, you’re not human anymore.
I’m with WOOF.
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.
On thing you have to understand about fighting fanatic Islam is that humiliation is the ultimate defeat.
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.
‘I still don’t see what the big deal is.’??????
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 mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan have been at it for 20 years. Afghanistan has repelled invaders for centuries. Junior High name calling and descrating corpses is not about to lure them into defeat.
We need our own “terrorist” organization. Let show them what Western terrorist organization can do with our full technical know how to the problem…We can always say we can’t control our people righous anger. We do have a couple of atom bombs we can misplace.
Concerning creating more enemy, is that a good thing? Time we ferret out and kill all our enemies anyway.
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.
carrick, the people on the street are more upset about the “tactic”. Talk with anybody in your neighborhood? Talk with other bloggers and see what they have to say in comparison? they say what the other blogs say which say what the media wants them to say…the people on the street say it’s fucked up because it’s fucked up. Sorry for including your accordance, I just assumed you agree with some aspect of the “operation” to start serious shit and maybe kill people.
&heellip; American Soldiers Burn Terrorist Bodies, Taunt Taliban Fighters By Rob on October 19, 2005 at 11:14 pm Sydney Morning Herald – US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions. &heellip;
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.
KIS wrote:
Former Senator D’Amato, is that you?
&heellip; Previous posts on the burnt corpses story here, here and here. &heellip;
Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple said, 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’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.
The AP had a pretty accurate report on what the psyops guys said:
The bold faced comment is the part that has incited the media riot.
Rob:
Hm. You’re original quote was “about these people”. I just assumed you mean al Qaeda.
A strategy of offending Muslims and their religious beliefs is not in our interest.
KIS: The story that has been running to day has been about the supposed desecration of the bodies, not the fact that our psyops are going around calling the poor little Taliban bad names. The bold faced text is what started that firestorm.
KIS:
I never said any such thing, tacitly or otherwise. I think you need to learn to read.
The bold faced comment is the part that has incited the media riot.
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.
There’s also the issue that the Taliban doesn’t get to enjoy Geneva Convention protections..
So no harm, no foul here.
KIS:
Which “people in the street”? What you are reporting on is anecdotal evidence. Using anecdotal evidence to fix belief is a type of logical fallacy.
Amazingly, I agree with WOOF on this one. It’s one thing to taunt the enemy out, but desecrating bodies is a whole different ball of wax. We are better than that as a people.
Didn’t this happen in Afghanistan?
It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.
that’s fucked up. That’s US soldiers behaving like terrorists. If you think otherwise, check yourself right now.
Mark Kraft:
According to the people on the ground, including the photographer/journalist, the bodies were beginning to smell. It’s not air temperature, it’s ground temperature that matters. If you leave something on your kitchen counter, the counter temperatures are usually cooler than the air temperature, so you can leave food sitting out for longer periods of time without it spoiling. The opposition happens when the surface is exposed to direct sunlight. With an air temperature of 70 degrees, the temperature at the surface of the ground can easily be 20 degrees warmer… plenty warm enough to initiate putrefaction within 24 hours.
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.
I’d like someone to tell me which part of which Geneva Convention is supposedly being violated here, exactly.
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?)
It seems all the world had plenty of folks willing to kill over ideology and religion. And lots of public figures and religious leaders on both sides of the water are willing to speak evil of their opposition.
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.
MH: I see the issue of whether the Taliban follow/are protected by the Geneva Conventions as utterly irrelevant to this particular issue.
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.
ICallMasICM:
The first part—the burning of bodies—is definitely true. There is some question about the other part.
I would say the biggest problem is that this strategy would create more enemies than you started with.
I pride myself on my imagination (it’s what attracted me to literature in the first place) but I can not come up with an even remotely possible situation in which a group of poor camel owners in Iraq could dictate my future. How would that even happen?
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.
The basic responses to this post have been along the following lines:
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.
Keep it Simple has it right, people—we have to find a way to defeat the monsters without becoming monsters ourselves, else what’s the point?
&heellip; « Previous Post Home &heellip;
Ryan I think you missed part of this story. The act of burning the bodies is unrelated to the psyops people trying to use it for propaganda purposes.
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.
You know the first thing that came to my mind was people being lined up and shot publicly to send a message to an enemy that would not fight out in the open, to draw them out.
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.
KIS: amuse me, and back up all that rough language with a reason. Or just be an asshole, your choice.
We all make emotional appeals sometimes, emotions matter. But is that the only arrow in your quiver?
I was agreeing with you, bud. Things that appear morally opprobrious to Americans in time of peace suddenly appear acceptable when war break out–especially against an enemy as demonized as Muslims and Arabic men.
Seeing as I agreed with everything you wrote, I don’t know how you found me “antagonistic”; but, if so, I apologize.
Sluggo: my objection is that I don’t see the wisdom of the tactic. I question it’s efficacy–my fear is that the achieved end will probably not be the desired end. Our desired objective is not to further sully the international image of America. Politics matter because the genesis of war is in politics.
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.
That’d be true Dave, if we could only convince them to stay out of our country. Unfortunately, Islamists seem to want to come here. Must be the free peanuts on the ride over.
I know I’d fly 10,000 miles and behead an infidel for just one more bag of honey-roasted goodness.
…and Dave, in case the genesis of that last post of mine wasn’t clear, I’m refering to this post of yours:
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.
Rob: Let me see if I can explain myself better.
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.
Seth wrote:
I’m afraid all the hope in the world won’t make that true, sadly. The concept of morality just goes out the window when war comes through.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe we should round up Country Joe and Jane Fonda and go over there and hold signs that say “terrorism is bad.”
That would sure show ‘em.
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?
Yes, it did Mike. That was a goof on my part.
The point stands though.