NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know whether you remember, but a while ago the Australian Current Affairs Program "Dateline (http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/)" reported about an incident in Afghanistan where US Soldiers burned the bodies of killed Taliban Fighters while laying them out such that they face towards Mecca.
They also left a message over their burned bodies saying something like "You (the other Taliban fighters) were too cowardly to come and save your comrade's bodies, and now see what happened to them."

Burning a body in a way such as this is apparently a bad thing in Islam (I'm not an expert), essentially these people's souls will not find rest now.

It is also a pretty clear case of people intentionally mutilating the bodies of the dead.

It was caught on camera, the reporter had afterall been embedded with the troops (the report was meant to simply tell the story about how things are going, but witnessing this changed the focus somewhat).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/film-rolls-as-troops-burn-dead/2005/10/18/1129401256154.html

So now the investigation of it was completed - and it found:
"No Crime", and
"Hygene Reasons".

Not what I saw on TV...but anyways, they decided to "punish" (likely meaning sending an angry letter) two of the soldiers for violating Afghan traditions.

Is this finally enough then to put aside the assertion that the US Military would actually condemn its own soldiers for the shit they do (in this case obviously because the military just forgot (cough, cough) to tell them how Islam and Afghani tradition works :rolleyes: )?

A Military Investigation has not, is not, and will not be enough to establish guilt and punish.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4473698.stm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/27/content_3840562.htm

I find myself saying this more often than usual...

...I'm not the least bit surprised.

The funny thing is...I'm surprised that an American soldier knew that doing that is insulting to Muslims...seriously...

The reason that Iraq (I know this is about Afghanistan) has become such a problem is largely because Americans as a whole don't really understand their culture.

(By the way, Dateline is not an exclusively Australian program, and if I had to guess, I'd say it originated in the states.)

You'd really have to look at the evidence. The media does not have a stellar record of accuracy. In fact, it has just the opposite. So, just because the media initially gave a certain account, we have to believe the preliminary media account rather than the results of an actual investigation? I don't think so.

Not surprised at all. The US is really good at annoying people.

As a person who strongly opposes the Iraq war, I have this to say:

I don't think this is so much an issue of US Military being unable to police itself but really a much broader truth.

Self-investigation rarely works. No matter who it is and where, the only way an investigation can bear fruit is if an outside agency conducts it.

You'd really have to look at the evidence. The media does not have a stellar record of accuracy. In fact, it has just the opposite. So, just because the media initially gave a certain account, we have to believe the preliminary media account rather than the results of an actual investigation? I don't think so.
Well, media bias this or media bias that...I watched the show.

The camera was on there, the soldiers were having a break, the bodies were lying in the foreground and one of the soldiers was just reading his note to the reporter - as if there wasn't anything wrong with it.

You can argue about the way it was reported, but you can't really argue about the video tape.

This Afghani News Source has a story about it - and it contains a little pic at the top. I believe it's small enough not to be considered outrageously graphic, but still, be warned, there is a picture of a body-shaped object in flames. I'm sure you can even find other pictures if you go looking (but seeing my previous run-in with the mods you'll understand if I don't post links).
http://www.afghanmania.com/en/news/0,news,4690,00.html

OK, so they were camping next to rotting corpse, and decided to burn them. They then figured "Hey, lets use this as an opportunity to flush out the enemy" So they broadcast insults to them over a speaker.

There was an investigation, and it showed that they didn't burn the bodies with the intent to desecrate them.

Your just pissed because you don't like the outcome. You WANT our soldiers to commit crimes so that you can use it as an excuse for your anti-Americanism.

Well guess what. They were found innocent. Deal with it!

-snip-
Generally one is supposed to make up your mind after seeing the facts, not the other way around. Get your hands on the video and watch it.

OK, so they were camping next to rotting corpse, and decided to burn them. They then figured "Hey, lets use this as an opportunity to flush out the enemy" So they broadcast insults to them over a speaker.

There was an investigation, and it showed that they didn't burn the bodies with the intent to desecrate them.

Your just pissed because you don't like the outcome. You WANT our soldiers to commit crimes so that you can use it as an excuse for your anti-Americanism.

Well guess what. They were found innocent. Deal with it!

Yeah, exactly. I'll take an investigation over a preliminary report from a news organization any day. Its possible the allegations are true, but without looking at the evidence I have to assume that an investigation is going to be much more reliable than a hot off the press news broadcast.

Generally one is supposed to make up your mind after seeing the facts, not the other way around. Get your hands on the video and watch it.
I did watch it. There are two bodies burning, and a Spec Ops soldier is reading from a peace of paper what they announced over the loudspeaker.

Something to the effect of "You cowardly dogs. You were too cowardly to save your brothers bodies from being burned. You are all cowards"

What's your point?

What's your point?
My point is that they were
a) mutilating bodies
b) moving them so that they faced Mecca, then burning them, knowing what that means to a Muslim
c) using that as a means of psychological warfare
d) came of scot-free.

It's the same deal as the injured insurgents in Faludja who were on the ground and pleading for help,unarmed and were then shot at point-blank range by US Troops. There are videos of that too.
The outcome of the investigation: Self-Defense, no charges.

The idea that a military could investigate itself is ridiculous. The same sort of bullshit happened with the Bundeswehr as well the time when Neo-Nazis bashed a number of fellow soldiers, or in Russia when it came out what kind of things they do to new recruits.

I know why you remember it.:p

My point is that they were
a) mutilating bodies

Not if there was a concern for disease, which is what was claimed.

b) moving them so that they faced Mecca, then burning them, knowing what that means to a Muslim

How do you know they moved them and how do you know they moved them with that purpose?

c) using that as a means of psychological warfare

That is what they are being disciplined for

d) came of scot-free.

Not at all. They are facing disciplinary actions. It simply isnt a legal matter, it can be handled internally. If I insult your religion at work, I am dealt with by my employer, not by a court.

It's the same deal as the injured insurgents in Faludja who were on the ground and pleading for help,unarmed and were then shot at point-blank range by US Troops. There are videos of that too.
The outcome of the investigation: Self-Defense, no charges.

It is not the same deal. In one case you had charges that if true would amount to murder. In the other case you had charges that if true would amount to harrassment. An independent investigation may have been warranted in the first case, not in the second.

Not if there was a concern for disease, which is what was claimed.
One is supposed to bury the dead, not burn them in Islam. There are only two possible choices here: either they did know and then it was a highly questionable move that has no place on the battlefield, or they didn't and then the quality of US Military training has sunk to new lows.

How do you know they moved them and how do you know they moved them with that purpose?
The reporter said: "facing towards Mecca". It would be a strange coincidence if they just happened to die that way. I have however no more than the reporters word for it, because I couldn't see Mecca anywhere on the screen...
That being said, this particular reporter I believe is trustworthy, he has been around the planet many times, sometimes even risking his life (like the time when he was kidnapped in Iraq for a few days).

If I insult your religion at work, I am dealt with by my employer, not by a court.
And you don't think this is just a little different?

It is not the same deal. In one case you had charges of what would amount to murder. In the other case you had charges that would amount to harrassment.
It's another example of the inability of a military to investigate itself. Gymoor is completely right on that.

I don't care if they shat in their mouths, then stitched them closed -- same goes for a hell of a lot of domestic criminals. If the Afghans want to have their traditions preserved, they'd better enlist and Afghanize the conflict.

I did watch it. There are two bodies burning, and a Spec Ops soldier is reading from a peace of paper what they announced over the loudspeaker.

Something to the effect of "You cowardly dogs. You were too cowardly to save your brothers bodies from being burned. You are all cowards"

What's your point?

You mean other than the fact that they were violating the Geneva Convention on camera and enjoying it :rolleyes:

Face it the US military's record when it comes to respecting the Geneva Convention or other rules of war (ie. the use of WP) they are more than happy to ignore it... but more than willing to demonize an enemy that ignores it as well. I find the hypocracy sadly amusing don't you?

edited to add:
Oh yeah one final thought - if burning the bodies of dead combatants is actually prohibited by the USMCJ then why did these guys not know it was wrong? Silly me that law has been on the books since the Civil War... so it's not like it snuck up on them.

You'd really have to look at the evidence. The media does not have a stellar record of accuracy. In fact, it has just the opposite. So, just because the media initially gave a certain account, we have to believe the preliminary media account rather than the results of an actual investigation? I don't think so.



And, of course, governments, especially governments of large, advanced, industrial nations, have a stellar record of always being right, especially concerning their own activities...

One is supposed to bury the dead, not burn them in Islam. There are only two possible choices here: either they did know and then it was a highly questionable move that has no place on the battlefield, or they didn't and then the quality of US Military training has sunk to new lows.

Its much less time and effort to burn than bury. There is no reason for US soldiers to respect the beliefs of terrorists, Islam is in this case totally irrelevant.

The reporter said: "facing towards Mecca". It would be a strange coincidence if they just happened to die that way. I have however no more than the reporters word for it, because I couldn't see Mecca anywhere on the screen...
That being said, this particular reporter I believe is trustworthy, he has been around the planet many times, sometimes even risking his life (like the time when he was kidnapped in Iraq for a few days).

No proof, and a lot of false shite goes out on the US Armed Forces, especially on "our" state-funded broadcasters.

You mean other than the fact that they were violating the Geneva Convention on camera and enjoying it

If you're going to make serious claims that the GC was violated (as opposed to invoking it in order to wrap yourself in stupid), then you must:


Prove that the GC is relevant in Operation Enduring Freedom
Cite the part violated, and
Show how their actions violated it.


As to the first, the Taliban was never a "High contracting party", nor even a recognised government. Since it never applied, its hard to see how it was violated.

Its much less time and effort to burn than bury. There is no reason for US soldiers to respect the beliefs of terrorists, Islam is in this case totally irrelevant.

Wasn't the main reason for the assault on Fallujah that insurgents there had killed some Americans and mutilated their bodies?

And, of course, governments, especially governments of large, advanced, industrial nations, have a stellar record of always being right, especially concerning their own activities...

Even so. You have two unreliable sources, one who only got preliminary information and the other who did a full investigation. The full investigation is still more reliable. Furthermore, the people responsible are being punished. They disrespected someone's religion, what kind of punishment do you expect, hanging? A letter of reprimand ruins their military career and could hurt their chances of maintaining a security clearance (which could seriously damage any career they mightve had in the private sector too). That is the type of punishment one would expect for an infraction such as this.

Wasn't the main reason for the assault on Fallujah that insurgents there had killed some Americans and mutilated their bodies?

Relevance?

Relevance?

Meaning that is the US regards mutilating dead bodies as a reasonable justification to attack an entire city surely it's a bit hypocritical to dismiss the mutilation of Iraqi bodies as unimportant?

Meaning that is the US regards mutilating dead bodies as a reasonable justification to attack an entire city surely it's a bit hypocritical to dismiss the mutilation of Iraqi bodies as unimportant?

Firstly, the events in the OP happened in Afghanistan, secondly, there is no evidence that "mutiliation" is US policy, thirdly, Fallujah was attacked because it was a terrorist stronghold.

The fact is that no one has proven that burning bodies is an act of mutiliation (at worst, it is simply an act of hygiene that "our" far-left state-funded broadcaster decided to run with).

Firstly, the events in the OP happened in Afghanistan, secondly, there is no evidence that "mutiliation" is US policy, thirdly, Fallujah was attacked because it was a terrorist stronghold.

The fact is that no one has proven that burning bodies is an act of mutiliation (at worst, it is simply an act of hygiene that "our" far-left state-funded broadcaster decided to run with).

The location of the mutilation is irrlevant unless you plan to claim that mutilation is acceptable in some countries but not others. Tell me if this is what you want to argue and I'll respond to it.

Your second point is irrelevant, if the US considers mutilation of American bodies to be a justification for an attack then it should punish those in the US army who mutilate bodies, regardless of their nationality.

Thirdly, Fallujah became a terrorist stronghold after American troops attacked it in retaliation for the mutilation of American bodies. One of the ways the bodies were mutilated was by burning.

OK, so they were camping next to rotting corpse, and decided to burn them. They then figured "Hey, lets use this as an opportunity to flush out the enemy" So they broadcast insults to them over a speaker.

There was an investigation, and it showed that they didn't burn the bodies with the intent to desecrate them.

Your just pissed because you don't like the outcome. You WANT our soldiers to commit crimes so that you can use it as an excuse for your anti-Americanism.

Well guess what. They were found innocent. Deal with it!

Exactly my point. The media also has a thing for blowing small stories out of proportion. With all the anti-American feeling people will grab onto anything to make the USA look bad, even if they don't know the whole story.

To be honest, I dont see what was so bad about burning the corpses. It probably was a breach of the GC and it probably was done to annoy the enemy (though I doubt they knew that burning bodies was bad in Islam), but they were already dead, so i couldnt care.

Having said that it was probably a very stupid thing to do as well, no point in fuelling further anti americanism. And BTW this is coming from a guy who opposed the Iraq war, but not the Afghani one and has been called an anti american a few times on this forum.

The location of the mutilation is irrlevant unless you plan to claim that mutilation is acceptable in some countries but not others. Tell me if this is what you want to argue and I'll respond to it.

Nonsense, cremation for reasons of hygiene is not mutiliation. Over anxious anti-American hacks call it mutiliation, but the fact are not in agreement.

Thirdly, Fallujah became a terrorist stronghold after American troops attacked it in retaliation for the mutilation of American bodies. One of the ways the bodies were mutilated was by burning.

Fallujah had been a terrorist stronghold for months before that, and the mutiliation wasn't simply burning them, they hung them from a bridge, abused the bodies in various other ways, and burned them. They essentially did the same to them as the Italians did to Mussolini.

Having said that it was probably a very stupid thing to do as well

Nothing stupid about hygiene, and nothing stupid, or unusual about insulting the enemy.

Nothing stupid about hygiene, and nothing stupid, or unusual about insulting the enemy.

So when you're in a country in which you're still trying to persuade the occupants that you want to help them, and that you're not just an invading force who wants to subjugate them, disrespecting all that they beleive in is a good idea? Not to mention the international press who seem to constantly look for an opportunity to make the american forces look bad? Well ok, if you say so.

So when you're in a country in which you're still trying to persuade the occupants that you want to help them, and that you're not just an invading force who wants to subjugate them, disrespecting all that they beleive in is a good idea? Not to mention the international press who seem to constantly look for an opportunity to make the american forces look bad? Well ok, if you say so.

It was a stupid idea. That's what the report says and that's why they are facing disciplinary action.

The recent US foreign policy does seem to put American soldiers above the law, and not subject to the Geneva Convention.

If it's wrong for them, it's wrong for us. Desecrating bodies and taunting the enemy is shameful behavior. The US started out with the moral high ground after 9/11. It has squandered this high ground, as well as the international good will towards the US that surged after 9/11, by becoming as heathen as those it purports to fight.

As far as military investigations and congressional investigations being legitimate, one only needs to inform themselves on the many lies and misrepresentations in the 9/11 report.

Loose Change is a really wonderful video documenting the known facts of the 9/11 massacre, which are in stark contrast to the 'official story' contained in the 9/11 report.

Get your free copy of it here:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/loose_change_dvd.html

Since the military is now simply an extension of the NeoCon administration, I don't expect them to tell any story other than one that makes them look good.

"Proof that US Military Investigations are not worth the paper they are written on"

Nice try, but no cigar.

Loose Change is a really wonderful video documenting the known facts of the 9/11 massacre, which are in stark contrast to the 'official story' contained in the 9/11 report.

Get your free copy of it here:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/loose_change_dvd.html
Total, utter, unadulterated bullshit. You deeply disappoint me by giving any credence to such garbage. :(

apparently, the video is not free. they ask for a donation.

but in perusing the site, i also found a huge list of books and videos dedicated to exposing the truth about 9/11. Most require a donation. (I'm pretty sure the video Confronting the Evidence is free)

http://tvnewslies.org/cart/index.php?cat_id=8&catname=9%2F11+%28September+11th%29+Videos

Total, utter, unadulterated bullshit. You deeply disappoint me by giving any credence to such garbage. :(


thats what most people say before they have seen the video.

Like the OP'er said, please visit the evidence before you make your opinion on it. I am deeply disappointed (but not surprised) that you would have such an uninformed, knee-jerk reaction without confronting the evidence yourself.

To all Americans: love your country enough not to let the flag-waving obscure your view.

thats what most people say before they have seen the video.

Like the OP'er said, please visit the evidence before you make your opinion on it. I am deeply disappointed (but not surprised) that you would have such an uninformed, knee-jerk reaction without confronting the evidence yourself.

Ive confronted the evidence and still find it to be bullshit.

Desecrating bodies

Cremating them for reasons of hygiene os not desecration, it is disease prevention. Presumably you'd prefer that any people and around get diseases from rotting corpses.

taunting the enemy is shameful behavior.

Taunting people who wish to drag everyone into a 7th century tyranny is shameful behavior.

Perhaps you'd rather that before a battle, the US Officer in Charge walked up to the head Islamist terrorist, slapped him with a glove, agreed a location, and had the fight.

"I challenge thee to a duel, sir!"

"To the field of honour, sir!"

"Swords, or pistols, sir?"

"Why, pistols, old chap!"

So when you're in a country in which you're still trying to persuade the occupants that you want to help them, and that you're not just an invading force who wants to subjugate them, disrespecting all that they beleive in is a good idea?

Are you saying that taliban and al qaeda terrorists are representative of the people of Afghanistan?! Are you saying that the Afghans will take respect for their oppressors as a good sign?

They way the US showed they wanted to help the Afghans was removing the oppressive terrorist bastards who had been torturing and killing them for years.

thats what most people say before they have seen the video.

Like the OP'er said, please visit the evidence before you make your opinion on it. I am deeply disappointed (but not surprised) that you would have such an uninformed, knee-jerk reaction without confronting the evidence yourself.

To all Americans: love your country enough not to let the flag-waving obscure your view.
I DID visit the "evidence!" It's still total, unadulterated bullshit!

MORAL: If you tell a big enough lie, someone, somewhere will believe it.

Ive confronted the evidence and still find it to be bullshit.

What part? the way they ADMITTED that WTC 7 was 'pulled'? The fact that the debris found at the Pentagon could not possibly be from a 757? (the most convincing part of the Pentagon evidence is the fact that the windows around the 16-foot hole WERENT EVEN BROKEN.)

Tell me how a 757 fits into a 16 foot hole without leaving any pieces on the outside of the building or breaking the windows where the tail and wings would have hit!

What part? the way they ADMITTED that WTC 7 was 'pulled'? The fact that the debris found at the Pentagon could not possibly be from a 757? (the most convincing part of the Pentagon evidence is the fact that the windows around the 16-foot hole WERENT EVEN BROKEN.)

Tell me how a 757 fits into a 16 foot hole without leaving any pieces on the outside of the building or breaking the windows where the tail and wings would have hit!

It's all been easily and conclusively debunked. Here is one good article on the topic:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Have fun, Im going home to get some sleep.

Are you saying that taliban and al qaeda terrorists are representative of the people of Afghanistan?! Are you saying that the Afghans will take respect for their oppressors as a good sign?

The taleban and the average Afghan are both Moslem. In Islam a body must be buried, not cremated.

Is that getting through to you yet?

What part? the way they ADMITTED that WTC 7 was 'pulled'? The fact that the debris found at the Pentagon could not possibly be from a 757? (the most convincing part of the Pentagon evidence is the fact that the windows around the 16-foot hole WERENT EVEN BROKEN.)

Tell me how a 757 fits into a 16 foot hole without leaving any pieces on the outside of the building or breaking the windows where the tail and wings would have hit!
Read it and weep, ye reality-challenged: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Now, I want to hear NOTHING else about this total bullshit! :mad:

Firstly, I addressed the idea of burying them, it would take far too much time which should be spent hunting and killing the enemy, and I'll add that just digging a pit and dropping a body in is hardly a hygienic solution.

Secondly, you've not acutally refuted my point, which is that the average Afghan isn't going to get broken up about "mistreating" a terrorist who was for years his oppressor.

The recent US foreign policy does seem to put American soldiers above the law, and not subject to the Geneva Convention.

Shame on the U.S. military for giving in to the fever of political correctness. If this is true, I'm glad I'm not still serving.

KABUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhuanet) --The US military denied US soldiers who burned the bodies of Taliban militants have violated war law, but decided to punish them for violating Afghan tradition, according to the US military on Saturday.

In a press conference held in Afghan southern Kandahar province to release the final investigation result of the burning affair, commander for US troops in Afghanistan Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya said the behavior of the two US officers who burned the bodies of Taliban militants is not against war law and Geneva Pact, but it is against Afghan culture and tradition that they are not familiar with.

I don't see any evidence of criminal intent, nor even negligence. Burning bodies that have started to decompose in 33 degree heat is a pretty reasonable solution to a hygiene problem. We used to burn the shit in our outhouses regularly.

Calling your enemy names is just that. Makes the soldiers feel better and the bad guys probably don't even understand.

What a sad day if these guys are penalized. I hope they get a good lawyer and win their appeal.

Read it and weep, ye reality-challenged: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Now, I want to hear NOTHING else about this total bullshit! :mad:
Neat link. I had used a couple of those arguments against a colleague, who is disposed to believe silly things. Now, I have the rest of the ammo.

Nonsense, cremation for reasons of hygiene is not mutiliation. Over anxious anti-American hacks call it mutiliation, but the fact are not in agreement.

"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 they were reportedly broadcast seems to show that even if they didn't realise how insulting it would be they did intend it to be insulting, therefore: mutilation. The comment about 'facing west' implies that they knew what they were doing but I'm prepared to let that point drop for the moment.

Nothing stupid about hygiene, and nothing stupid, or unusual about insulting the enemy.

If it was done to insult the enemy then it is mutilation, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Also, as somebody else has already pointed out, insulting the entire population of a country that you're trying to 'win the hearts and minds' of could be seen as being just a little bit silly.

What? I don't really care about mutilating dead bodies. The army has better stuff to do than investigate people cremating Taliban members.

The debunking in Popular Mechanics was further debunked. What they claimed to be a part of the 757 was shown in Loose Change NOT to be the part they claimed it was. They went to the source--the company that built the part.

And then the scopes thing...

Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall.

anyone who knows the construction of the nose of a 757 would realize immediately that such a plane would NOT be able to penetrate 5 rings of reinforced concrete. That all by itself should send off alarm bells in your heads.

If it was done to insult the enemy then it is mutilation, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Also, as somebody else has already pointed out, insulting the entire population of a country that you're trying to 'win the hearts and minds' of could be seen as being just a little bit silly.

Stick to the known facts, i.e., that bodies were burned, said bodies had been left out in 33 degree heat, and were starting to decompose, presenting a health risk. The troops also shouted some messages to terrorists which they probably didn't understand.

Where did you get the idea that insulting terrorists who had for years oppressed, tortured, and murdered the Afghans was insulting the entire population?

The debunking in Popular Mechanics was further debunked. What they claimed to be a part of the 757 was shown in Loose Change NOT to be the part they claimed it was. They went to the source--the company that built the part.

And then the scopes thing...

anyone who knows the construction of the nose of a 757 would realize immediately that such a plane would NOT be able to penetrate 5 rings of reinforced concrete. That all by itself should send off alarm bells in your heads.
You obviously prefer to believe a lie than the truth. The fact that those claims have been disproved by several legitimate, widely- respected Websites doesn't seem to faze you. Fine. Believe any lie you choose to believe. It's no skin off my nose. But don't expect me to respect anything you have to say or to respond to any post you make ... ever again. Goodbye!

Stick to the known facts, i.e., that bodies were burned, said bodies had been left out in 33 degree heat, and were starting to decompose, presenting a health risk. The troops also shouted some messages to terrorists which they probably didn't understand.

Where did you get the idea that insulting terrorists who had for years oppressed, tortured, and murdered the Afghans was insulting the entire population?

And the 'facing west' part?

By insult you mean ridicule the religous beliefs that most Afghans share? Work it out for yourself.

Saudi Arabia is not to the west of Afghanistan. Syria is. Saudi Arabia is south-west.

As to the insult point, firstly, you've not refuted my point, I can't see any reason for Afghans to care about what happens to their former oppressors, who were hardly good muslims themselves. Secondly, the "insult" was alleged to have been shouted at the enemy, the suggestion they were cowards for leaving their dead on the battlefield. Exactly how suggestions of cowardice relate to Islam is a mystery.

I'm tired of people saying "American soldier suck and always do this" or "American people just hate Muslims".

Really, get that bullshit out of your head and THINK. Just because SOME Americans soldiers do this doesn't mean all do. Just because SOME Americans think this is right and/or funny doesn't mean ALL do.

Really, it makes me angry when people stereotype a whole nationality and Military just because some people did something wrong.


PS: I'm not talking to people who post these things, I'm talking about the people who responded with the "All Americans do this" type of response. I could easily say to you "All (whatever your nationality/race/religion is) do this" and I'm pretty sure you won't like it, because it's an 85% chance that it's not true.

You obviously prefer to believe a lie than the truth.


Apparently, the same can be said for you. I will leave out the insults though. Im bigger than that.

To be fair to the solidiers, they did ask the village people to dispose of the dead talibanis.

The villagers won't go near the bodies and it was becoming a health hazard and the soldiers did what they thought was prudent and pragmatic, i.e., burning the bodies.

I would have done the same.

Saudi Arabia is not to the west of Afghanistan. Syria is. Saudi Arabia is south-west.

As to the insult point, firstly, you've not refuted my point, I can't see any reason for Afghans to care about what happens to their former oppressors, who were hardly good muslims themselves. Secondly, the "insult" was alleged to have been shouted at the enemy, the suggestion they were cowards for leaving their dead on the battlefield. Exactly how suggestions of cowardice relate to Islam is a mystery.

The intent of their action was clear and that is the important point.

You're starting to frantically backpedal here: first you say it wasn't an insult, now you say that it was an insult but it doesn't really count. Mutilating the bodies would be unacceptable even if it didn't offend the Afghan people.

And yes, I did refute your point, I explained that burning the bodies would be seen as an insult to Islam, because:
Burning a body in a way such as this is apparently a bad thing in Islam (I'm not an expert), essentially these people's souls will not find rest now.
And the insult wasn't that they were cowards, rather that they had deliberately turned the bodies to face Mecca.

Burning dead bodies is not the huge issue that everyone makes it out to be, as far as I'm concerned. If you sit around with rotting corpses you'll start contracting some freaky-ass diseases. Burning the bodies is probably along the lines of standard procedure.

How can something be an insult if no one is insulted?

And the insult wasn't that they were cowards, rather that they had deliberately turned the bodies to face Mecca.

No, it was clear that the bodies faced west, therefore they were facing Damascus, in Syria. Mecca is south west (being in Saudi Arabia).

people's souls will not find rest now.

Allah gives rest to the souls of terrorists? Surely not!

As Aryavartha, the villagers asked that it be done.

I'm tired of people saying "American soldier suck and always do this" or "American people just hate Muslims".

Really, get that bullshit out of your head and THINK. Just because SOME Americans soldiers do this doesn't mean all do. Just because SOME Americans think this is right and/or funny doesn't mean ALL do.

Really, it makes me angry when people stereotype a whole nationality and Military just because some people did something wrong.


PS: I'm not talking to people who post these things, I'm talking about the people who responded with the "All Americans do this" type of response. I could easily say to you "All (whatever your nationality/race/religion is) do this" and I'm pretty sure you won't like it, because it's an 85% chance that it's not true.
You're trying to be too rational for some on here.

It don't matter to me, besides muslims suck!!!

If you're going to make serious claims that the GC was violated (as opposed to invoking it in order to wrap yourself in stupid), then you must:


Well the GC was good enough for me when I served... and I was happy to enforce it too. I gues it was that whole holding yourself to a higher or honourable standard - one you still I believe swear an oath too?


Prove that the GC is relevant in Operation Enduring Freedom
Cite the part violated, and
Show how their actions violated it.


As to the first, the Taliban was never a "High contracting party", nor even a recognised government. Since it never applied, its hard to see how it was violated.

... well the last part is only applicable to the US forces there so you score a point on that one - however all of the other international forces are signatories to the 1st and 2nd Protocols that do grant full status protection to the enemy combatants (constituted or guerrilla)... which is I'm sure were some of the contention and critizism lies - the other nations simply hold themselves to a higher legal status.

Applicable to Afghanistan (kinda a silly question considering the Geneva Convention isn't well it applies in this conflict but not in this one - it applies in all conflict):
Laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They include the rights listed in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Convention I, Article 3) and the basics of human rights law – freedom from torture, mutilation and rape, slavery, and willful killing. Customary law also forbids genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Cite parts violated (you'll note I haven't referenced violations of Protocol I or Protocol II of which the US is not a signatory - ironically along with Iraq and Afghanistan):
Cremation can take place only for imperative reasons of hygiene or if required by the religion of the deceased. Ashes must be kept until proper disposal is possible. ( Convention I, Art. 17 )
These guidelines also apply to dead prisoners of war ( Convention III, Art. 120) and internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 130)
Burial of the dead must be carried out individually if possible and must be preceded by a careful examination in order to confirm death and establish identity. The burials should be honorable and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged. Graves must be properly maintained, with adequate record keeping, so that they may be found later. (Convention I, Art. 17)
The above guidelines also apply to dead prisoners of war (Convention III, Art. 120) and dead internees. (Convention IV, 130)

Show how actions violated it:
Well looking at the above the did choose to cremate not bury, which does contravene the respect of religion - but even if they did argue that they had to be burnt for hygenic reasons... well then the mocking and use of the bodies for psychological warfare speaks volumes as to the feelings and intentions of the parties involved - unless of course you care to argue that the troops involved were woefully ignorant of the beliefs regarding the treatment of the dead... of course that would mean that the US isn't training it soldiers, and is skipping out on the training that the other nations are required to take...

No, it was clear that the bodies faced west, therefore they were facing Damascus, in Syria. Mecca is south west (being in Saudi Arabia).

Don't be obtuse, why would they be making a big deal of the bodies facing Damascus? It is obvious that they were intended to point to Mecca but the soldiers got it wrong. That doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Allah gives rest to the souls of terrorists? Surely not!

That is exactly the attitude that makes so many arabs view americans as crusaders. Don't many Christains say that the only factor for entering the afterlife is belief in Jesus?

Show how actions violated it:
Well looking at the above the did choose to cremate not bury, which does contravene the respect of religion - but even if they did argue that they had to be burnt for hygenic reasons... well then the mocking and use of the bodies for psychological warfare speaks volumes as to the feelings and intentions of the parties involved - unless of course you care to argue that the troops involved were woefully ignorant of the beliefs regarding the treatment of the dead... of course that would mean that the US isn't training it soldiers, and is skipping out on the training that the other nations are required to take...

Seconded

I don't know whether you remember, but a while ago the Australian Current Affairs Program "Dateline (http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/)" reported about an incident in Afghanistan where US Soldiers burned the bodies of killed Taliban Fighters while laying them out such that they face towards Mecca.
They also left a message over their burned bodies saying something like "You (the other Taliban fighters) were too cowardly to come and save your comrade's bodies, and now see what happened to them."

Burning a body in a way such as this is apparently a bad thing in Islam (I'm not an expert), essentially these people's souls will not find rest now.

It is also a pretty clear case of people intentionally mutilating the bodies of the dead.

It was caught on camera, the reporter had afterall been embedded with the troops (the report was meant to simply tell the story about how things are going, but witnessing this changed the focus somewhat).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/film-rolls-as-troops-burn-dead/2005/10/18/1129401256154.html

So now the investigation of it was completed - and it found:
"No Crime", and
"Hygene Reasons".

Not what I saw on TV...but anyways, they decided to "punish" (likely meaning sending an angry letter) two of the soldiers for violating Afghan traditions.

Is this finally enough then to put aside the assertion that the US Military would actually condemn its own soldiers for the shit they do (in this case obviously because the military just forgot (cough, cough) to tell them how Islam and Afghani tradition works :rolleyes: )?

A Military Investigation has not, is not, and will not be enough to establish guilt and punish.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4473698.stm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/27/content_3840562.htm

Hmmm lets see..we train our young fellows to destroy human life in multiple and imaginative ways . We train them well and they get very good at it . Then we send them off to fight against a group that has been at war for generations ...and has taught us some new and imaginative ways to kill muder and mutilate...These fellows go at it killing each other in all these new and novel ways.

On the other hand you get a bunch of dweebs moaning about bodies being burnt AFTER they have been killed . Not only do they moan and cry and bitch like princess with her card cancelled at Christmas...but they want these fellows who are out getting shot at ...killed ...maimed....etc. Well they think they should be punished for burning these bodies and taunting the freinds of the burned up dudes .

So to keep it short .
Kill them and kill them good.
But dont make fun of them or burn dead bodies ...you can get in trouble for it .

KILL all the fuckers you can find......but if you fuck with them after they are dead...
Well you WILL be sent to the principle...

And stop making faces at them before and after you slaughter the lot of them .....its frowned upon.

KILL them with the utmost respect and efficiency .


Strange fuckin rules . I say fuck it and fuck anyone who would send me out to do the dirtiest most foul thing a man can do and then decide to break my balls .

Strange fuckin rules . I say fuck it and fuck anyone who would send me out to do the dirtiest most foul thing a man can do and then break my balls .
Exactly. Good exposition. :)

This my Friends is WAR WAR isnt some videogame you play like Call of duty or socom WAR IS UGLY
The enemies we fight Are willing to do what we will not do
Use children as walking bombs toward our troops
Put poison into the local water and food supply and blame us and brit troops
use women as sucide bombers
We are not fighting some horde of stupid criminals
we are fighting very intelligent fighters who use tactics that are EVIL
attach a bomb to a child and shoot her but leave her alive so when troops rush over to help her BOOOM! its sad but true
we need to fight fire with fire
do more damage to these scumbags
we cant be held back the military is a dictatorship that protects a democracy
since the begining of time Every military has operated with the idea
Destroy your enemy at all cost!

And thats what we should do

Kill our enemy before he tries to kill us

do i cry at night at the thought some
ignorant foreigner died due to us and brit troops?
NO
i Weep every time i hear another american or Brit troop died

These men and women are fighting for our country
Show some respect and honor for your country
You may not agree with the war but these men and women are there
In hell Fighting
so you can sit on ur butt on a computer everyday
Remember that next time u play a War sim like call of duty or Socom
War is ugly
And we need to make the world FEAR US

Well the GC was good enough for me when I served... and I was happy to enforce it too. I gues it was that whole holding yourself to a higher or honourable standard - one you still I believe swear an oath too?


... well the last part is only applicable to the US forces there so you score a point on that one - however all of the other international forces are signatories to the 1st and 2nd Protocols that do grant full status protection to the enemy combatants (constituted or guerrilla)... which is I'm sure were some of the contention and critizism lies - the other nations simply hold themselves to a higher legal status.

Applicable to Afghanistan (kinda a silly question considering the Geneva Convention isn't well it applies in this conflict but not in this one - it applies in all conflict):
Laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They include the rights listed in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Convention I, Article 3) and the basics of human rights law – freedom from torture, mutilation and rape, slavery, and willful killing. Customary law also forbids genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Cite parts violated (you'll note I haven't referenced violations of Protocol I or Protocol II of which the US is not a signatory - ironically along with Iraq and Afghanistan):
Cremation can take place only for imperative reasons of hygiene or if required by the religion of the deceased. Ashes must be kept until proper disposal is possible. ( Convention I, Art. 17 )
These guidelines also apply to dead prisoners of war ( Convention III, Art. 120) and internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 130)
Burial of the dead must be carried out individually if possible and must be preceded by a careful examination in order to confirm death and establish identity. The burials should be honorable and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged. Graves must be properly maintained, with adequate record keeping, so that they may be found later. (Convention I, Art. 17)
The above guidelines also apply to dead prisoners of war (Convention III, Art. 120) and dead internees. (Convention IV, 130)

Show how actions violated it:
Well looking at the above the did choose to cremate not bury, which does contravene the respect of religion - but even if they did argue that they had to be burnt for hygenic reasons... well then the mocking and use of the bodies for psychological warfare speaks volumes as to the feelings and intentions of the parties involved - unless of course you care to argue that the troops involved were woefully ignorant of the beliefs regarding the treatment of the dead... of course that would mean that the US isn't training it soldiers, and is skipping out on the training that the other nations are required to take...

Good post.

It seems odd that people don't realise the effect that actions such as this have on the Afghani population. Regardless of the facts, it looks like the US soldiers were mocking the tenets of Islam, which will undoubetdly make the Afghani people less happy and less supportive of the US presence in the Middle East.

The US is losing the war for the hearts and minds of the people they are supposedly liberating,

Don't be obtuse, why would they be making a big deal of the bodies facing Damascus? It is obvious that they were intended to point to Mecca but the soldiers got it wrong. That doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Nothing of the kind is obvious. The reason anyone makes a big deal of something like this is the intense desire to find some excuse to criticise America.

That is exactly the attitude that makes so many arabs view americans as crusaders. Don't many Christains say that the only factor for entering the afterlife is belief in Jesus?

What Christians believe is irrelevant. Why would terrorists find rest in the Muslim afterlife, since they do things which (so I'm told) violate important precepts of the religion?

Burial of the dead must be carried out individually if possible and must be preceded by a careful examination in order to confirm death and establish identity. The burials should be honorable and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged. Graves must be properly maintained, with adequate record keeping, so that they may be found later.

As I pointed out, there was a time problem (the enemy were close enough to shout at), and a health problem (bodies left out in the sun). A full muslim burial wouldn't have been safe.

well then the mocking and use of the bodies for psychological warfare speaks volumes as to the feelings and intentions of the parties involved

But it does not show that they broke the law, that's the point.

This my Friends is WAR WAR isnt some videogame you play like Call of duty or socom WAR IS UGLY
The enemies we fight Are willing to do what we will not do
Use children as walking bombs toward our troops
Put poison into the local water and food supply and blame us and brit troops
use women as sucide bombers
We are not fighting some horde of stupid criminals
we are fighting very intelligent fighters who use tactics that are EVIL
attach a bomb to a child and shoot her but leave her alive so when troops rush over to help her BOOOM! its sad but true
we need to fight fire with fire
do more damage to these scumbags
we cant be held back the military is a dictatorship that protects a democracy
since the begining of time Every military has operated with the idea
Destroy your enemy at all cost!

And thats what we should do


Ah the old arguement that me must destroy our principles to save them :rolleyes:

So since the terrorists are "evil" US troops must be "evil" as well? I thought the whole line the Bush keeps spoon feeding people is that they (the terrorists) must be defeated because they hate freedom, and other 'good ol'American values'... so if that is the case then shouldn't the US troops adhere to the values they purport to uphold and protect? not as you suggest adopt the ideology of the "evil" enemy?


Kill our enemy before he tries to kill us

do i cry at night at the thought some
ignorant foreigner died due to us and brit troops?
NO
i Weep every time i hear another american or Brit troop died


Do you do the same for the other countries over in Afghanistan?


These men and women are fighting for our country
Show some respect and honor for your country


Your country not mine (thank God) - as far as I know there hasn't been any dishonouring committed by the troops of my country... okay except for the snipers attached to the US forces that were charged for participating in the mutilation of dead Taliban fighters about 2 years ago... hmmm a pattern perhaps?


You may not agree with the war but these men and women are there
In hell Fighting
so you can sit on ur butt on a computer everyday
Remember that next time u play a War sim like call of duty or Socom
War is ugly
And we need to make the world FEAR US

The world does fear you jackass - that's mainly why most of the world hates you...

But if you think that this policy of yours is the way to go - well then don't be surprised if more attacks on US citizens and property happen... afterall you reap what you sow - and if as you suggest you sow violence, hatred, and intolerance don't be suprised at the bountiful harvest you reap.

This my Friends is WAR WAR isnt some videogame you play like Call of duty or socom WAR IS UGLY
The enemies we fight Are willing to do what we will not do
Use children as walking bombs toward our troops
Put poison into the local water and food supply and blame us and brit troops
use women as sucide bombers
We are not fighting some horde of stupid criminals
we are fighting very intelligent fighters who use tactics that are EVIL
attach a bomb to a child and shoot her but leave her alive so when troops rush over to help her BOOOM! its sad but true
we need to fight fire with fire
do more damage to these scumbags
we cant be held back the military is a dictatorship that protects a democracy
since the begining of time Every military has operated with the idea
Destroy your enemy at all cost!

And thats what we should do

Kill our enemy before he tries to kill us

You're saying we should use children as suicide bombers?

I doubt this is what you mean but it's so poorly written it could well be.

I am personally not bothered in the least by the thought of my countrymen burning the dead bodies of our enemies. They would likely do the same thing if they were given the chance. Indeed, it may be said that many times our enemies have done a lot worse, so I do not feel bad at all.

~ Romandeos.

Here's the bottom line. There was an investigation. It concluded that no laws had been broken. That's it. End of story. You lose. Thanks for playing. Run along now. :D

Here's the bottom line. There was an investigation. It concluded that no laws had been broken. That's it. End of story. You lose. Thanks for playing. Run along now. :D

Actually I think America loses when it compromises it own ideals and legal standards...

Actually I think America loses when it compromises it own ideals and legal standards...
Loses what? The "war of hearts and minds" against murders of innocent people? Fuck them. All we need to do is win the war of "who's left standing"

If someone wants an excuse to kill us, they will find one. We aren't gonna walk on glass because Europeans think we're being "too mean."

Loses what? The "war of hearts and minds" against murders of innocent people? Fuck them. All we need to do is win the war of "who's left standing"

If someone wants an excuse to kill us, they will find one. We aren't gonna walk on glass because Europeans think we're being "too mean."

I could open up a can of Godwin on your ass, but I shall refrain.

I don't know whether you remember, but a while ago the Australian Current Affairs Program "Dateline (http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/)" reported about an incident in Afghanistan where US Soldiers burned the bodies of killed Taliban Fighters while laying them out such that they face towards Mecca.
They also left a message over their burned bodies saying something like "You (the other Taliban fighters) were too cowardly to come and save your comrade's bodies, and now see what happened to them."

Burning a body in a way such as this is apparently a bad thing in Islam (I'm not an expert), essentially these people's souls will not find rest now.

It is also a pretty clear case of people intentionally mutilating the bodies of the dead.

It was caught on camera, the reporter had afterall been embedded with the troops (the report was meant to simply tell the story about how things are going, but witnessing this changed the focus somewhat).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/film-rolls-as-troops-burn-dead/2005/10/18/1129401256154.html

So now the investigation of it was completed - and it found:
"No Crime", and
"Hygene Reasons".

Not what I saw on TV...but anyways, they decided to "punish" (likely meaning sending an angry letter) two of the soldiers for violating Afghan traditions.

Is this finally enough then to put aside the assertion that the US Military would actually condemn its own soldiers for the shit they do (in this case obviously because the military just forgot (cough, cough) to tell them how Islam and Afghani tradition works :rolleyes: )?

A Military Investigation has not, is not, and will not be enough to establish guilt and punish.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4473698.stm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/27/content_3840562.htm

Maybe you should have heard the reporter himself, who on several news networks here, including NPR, said that everyone was blowing the story WAAAAY out of proportion.

The reporter himself said that the soldiers who did the actual burning were doing so for hygenic reasons, and had no idea that it would be offensive. What was offensive was the psy ops people (from another military unit) who came up during the burning and broadcast inflammatory statements while it was occurring - broadcasting in Arabic, which the soldiers doing the burning did not understand.

Go ahead and punish the psy ops guys, but the guys doing the burning had no idea that what they were doing was wrong - and according to the reporter, had no feelings of ill will.

Maybe you should have heard the reporter himself, who on several news networks here, including NPR, said that everyone was blowing the story WAAAAY out of proportion.

The reporter himself said that the soldiers who did the actual burning were doing so for hygenic reasons, and had no idea that it would be offensive. What was offensive was the psy ops people (from another military unit) who came up during the burning and broadcast inflammatory statements while it was occurring - broadcasting in Arabic, which the soldiers doing the burning did not understand.

Go ahead and punish the psy ops guys, but the guys doing the burning had no idea that what they were doing was wrong - and according to the reporter, had no feelings of ill will.


But you see thats not a " story " Evil american infidel invaders and desceraters of islamic customs " is ....hence you get what was reported as the " TRUTH " ...and the resulting bullshit crybaby festival ...like wars supposed to be fuckin sane anyway ....Can you believe this bullshit ?

Maybe if war was so fucking terrible and didnt have so many stupid fucking rules that no one pays much attention to while they are being ripped limb from limb and shot - stabbed - burned and or atomised...people wouldnt want to wage it so often .
Keep reading off the rules of civilised murder and mayhem ...it makes sense to me . Someone has to rationalise it ...otherwise we would all have to admit being basic barbarians not far from the cave...ooooga boooga .