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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win.”
- Thomas Sowell

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.

&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;

KIS wrote:

so, you likey the tactic? you think-ah tha tactic is-ah goooood? very humane…very good guy thing to do.

Former Senator D’Amato, is that you?

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.

A strategy of offending Muslims and their religious beliefs is not in our interest.

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.

KIS:

carrick, the people on the street are more upset about the “tactic”.

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.

These people we’re fighting in Iraq have no qualms about using children as human shields and using cowardly suicide attacks targeting unarmed civilians.

Didn’t this happen in Afghanistan?

Mark Kraft:

Why would it be necessary to burn the bodies? &heellip; Teperatures [sic] in Afghanistan are in the moderate 70′s at this time of year, …

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.

Centcom seems to believe that this is a violation not only of hte Geneva Conventions

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.

If so, then the soldiers should be tried and convicted, not coddled.

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:

y “terrorism is bad.”

I thought it was “terrorism is bad, m’kay?”. Surely that will put a stop to it.

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.

ICallMasICM:

But let’s take a deep breath and try to find out if these allegations are true first.

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.

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.

&heellip; « Previous Post Home &heellip;

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, it did Mike. That was a goof on my part.

The point stands though.