Army Investigates Burning Of Taliban Corpses In Afghanistan

[Kmack]

Army Investigates Burning Of Taliban Corpses In Afghanistan
10.20.2005 8:16 AM EDT

American troops set fire to two bodies as propaganda, according to claim.
U.S. Troops stationed in Afghanistan
Photo: John Moore/Getty Images
The Army has launched a criminal investigation following allegations that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan burned the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters and used the charred corpses in a propaganda campaign against insurgent forces.

"This command does not condone the mistreatment of enemy combatants or the desecration of their religious and cultural beliefs." — Maj. Gen. Jason K. Kamiya

According to The New York Times, video shown on the Australian TV show "Dateline" on Wednesday night depicts what is described as an American psychological operations team broadcasting taunts over a loudspeaker in the direction of a village thought to be sheltering Taliban fighters in an attempt to lure the fighters out into the open.

A transcript of the show posted on the Special Broadcasting Service Web site states that American troops set fire to the bodies of two Taliban fighters killed the night before and laid them out facing Mecca. Facing the bodies west appeared to be a deliberate mocking of Islamic requirements to face Mecca during prayers, while Islamic law prohibits cremation. One soldier is quoted as saying, "Wow, look at the blood coming out of the mouth on that one, f---ing straight death metal."

Then, PsyOps specialist Sergeant Jim Baker broadcast a series of taunts over the loudspeaker to bait the enemy. "Attention Taliban," Baker reportedly said in the local dialect, "you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."

A second, unidentified solder then taunted a number of mullahs by name and said, "Your time in Afghanistan is short. You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Talibs 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."

Once news outlets began reporting on the broadcast, the Pentagon said such acts were forbidden and opened the criminal investigation, according to the Times. Senior officials said preliminary indications are that the video is accurate, and the fear is that the incident could do further damage to the U.S. image in the Islamic world in the wake of the prison-abuse scandal at Abu Gharib.

The soldiers told a photojournalist who witnessed the scene — which the program said took place earlier this month in Gonbaz in southern Afghanistan — that they burned the bodies for hygienic reasons, but in the SBS program he said that claim made no sense since they were far away from the village. Freelance Australian photojournalist Stephen Dupont was embedded with the American unit to document its operations.

Human-rights organizations said the burning of the bodies was an act of desecration and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

"This command takes all allegations of misconduct or inappropriate behavior seriously," Maj. Gen. Jason K. Kamiya, the American commander of daily tactical operations in Afghanistan, said in a statement. "If the allegation is substantiated, the appropriate course of action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and corrective action will be taken. ... This command does not condone the mistreatment of enemy combatants or the desecration of their religious and cultural beliefs."

"Really bad news," an administration official who follows Afghan issues closely told the Times. "This is very serious," a senior military official said.

In a different interview on the SBS site, Dupont said soldiers from the unidentified airborne unit appeared to believe they were doing the right thing by laying the corpses out facing Mecca and setting them on fire. Dupont said the first group of soldiers told him, "We've been told to burn the bodies; the bodies have been here for 24 hours and they're starting to stink so, for hygiene reasons, this is what we've got to do."

But a second group of soldiers from a psychological operations unit told Dupont they intentionally used the burnt bodies as a propaganda tool. "They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them," Dupont told the Times.

24 hours....

hope it's not true, that's pretty disgraceful. A lot like seeing the American bodies in Somolia mutilated and burned, maybe the mobs in mogadishu just didnt want the corpses to "stink".

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I hope they did.

 

[Kmack]

I hope they did.

I just think that as a country who is attempting to restore peace, deliberate acts of instigation towards the people whose home country we have invaded are not what the U.S. should be condoning.

Not really good for our foreign policy... not really seperating ourselves as different in ANY way from the enemy.

If this is a war crime I hope every pathetic cowardly weak army puke involved is hung in Afghanistan and their bodies are never returned home.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I just think that as a country who is attempting to restore peace, deliberate acts of instigation towards the people whose home country we have invaded are not what the U.S. should be condoning.

If this is a war crime I hope every pathetic cowardly weak army puke involved is hung in Afghanistan and their bodies are never returned home.

It was an act of instigation to the Taliban, in hopes they WOULD come out so they COULD be shot dead. That was the entire point.

Too bad it didn't draw them out (as far as the article explains anyway.)

We need more pschological operations to help destroy the enemy.

 

[Kmack]

It was an act of instigation to the Taliban, in hopes they WOULD come out so they COULD be shot dead. That was the entire point.

Too bad it didn't draw them out (as far as the article explains anyway).

so you think that desecrating bodies as a means to draw out the enemy is an acceptable means of warfare for a country supposodly fighting for freedom, and the ideals of democracy?

why dont we just shoot civilians one by one until we either kill all the terrorists that way or draw them out to defend the lives of the innocent. thats a good plan too.

you are so sad. 14 yet? what a pathetic worldview, i assume your parents are ashamed, if not, ill be happy to tell them they should be. im done with this...

i make this topic and the first response is ""I hope they did" god now i know why bush is president, and why american is swiftly becoming a joke. Is the only effective way to argue against me just being an asshole until the mods close my topic? congrats... you win. im done here.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

so you think that desecrating bodies as a means to draw out the enemy is an acceptable means of warfare for a country supposodly fighting for freedom, and the ideals of democracy?

Yes. Burning them has nothing to do with democracy in the least.

why dont we just shoot civilians one by one until we either kill all the terrorists that way or draw them out to defend the lives of the innocent. thats a good plan too.

Because that's murder. Innocent, not guilty, not the enemy, not to be killed.

you are so sad. 14 yet? what a pathetic worldview, i assume your parents are ashamed, if not, ill be happy to tell them they should be. im done with this...

i make this topic and the first response is ""I hope they did" god now i know why bush is president, and why american is swiftly becoming a joke. Is the only effective way to argue against me just being an asshole until the mods close my topic? congrats... you win. im done here.

I wasn't arguing against anything in the first post. You posted an article, I gave my response to it. These people need to be killed. It's a sad fact, and you may feel the people who have to do it are monsters, but it needs to be done, because them being dead saves lives. If burning them is going to save more lives, do it. I'd have them buried with pigs and such if it would be even more effective.

 

[CptStern]

It was an act of instigation to the Taliban, in hopes they WOULD come out so they COULD be shot dead. That was the entire point.

Too bad it didn't draw them out (as far as the article explains anyway.)

We need more pschological operations to help destroy the enemy.

congradulations rakurai you've now officially gone off the deep end.

besides the obvious morally wrong aspect of your stance there's also the fact that the US is bound by international law. Unlawful combatants or not you have no right to conduct yourselves in that manner, you're the "liberator" after all. The hypocracy is overwhelming to the point of nausea. The US justified supporting the taliban during the soviet occupation because you claimed the soviets were doing the exact same thing. Reagan referred to the taliban as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."

Remember our little discussion on the justifications behind the war and how you were so adament that bringing freedom to the people of iraq was top priority? well how can you sit there and still cling to the ludicrous notion while supporting your nation's barbaric acts? What kind of message does this send to the people of iraq? Liberators my ass

 

[CptStern]

it needs to be done, because them being dead saves lives.

using that logic you need to walk into the white house and kill everyone there

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

congradulations rakurai you've now officially gone off the deep end.

besides the obvious morally wrong aspect of your stance there's also the fact that the US is bound by international law. Unlawful combatants or not you have no right to conduct yourselves in that manner, you're the "liberator" after all. The hypocracy is overwhelming to the point of nausea. The US justified supporting the taliban during the soviet occupation because you claimed the soviets were doing the exact same thing. Reagan referred to the taliban as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."

Remember our little discussion on the justifications behind the war and how you were so adament that bringing freedom to the people of iraq was top priority? well how can you sit there and still cling to the ludicrous notion while supporting your nation's barbaric acts? What kind of message does this send to the people of iraq? Liberators my ass

I'd be fully there with outrage if this was somehow barbaric and an abuse against any innocence. But the fact is, it is not. I cannot fathom how anyone believes that their bodies deserve to be shown some form of respect, in any way.

This is not an opposing conventional army we are facing. These are not conscripts or men fighting against their will. These are people who would behead you the moment you denied submitting to Allah's will. The Taliban were burned, only. And done so in order to draw out more. There is no moral lapse here, and there is no 'abuse.' Hell, they're already dead for Christ's sake.

If the Taliban was just the same but Christian, I'd propose crucifiction of their bodies there, for the same religious effect. Whatever psychologically will disrupt the enemy, draw them out, cause them to conform to our will, that's what needs to be done. No abuse against any innocent person took place here.

 

[CptStern]

I'd be fully there with outrage if this was somehow barbaric and an abuse against any innocence. But the fact is, it is not. I cannot fathom how anyone believes that their bodies deserve to be shown some form of respect, in any way.

what you believe in is immaterial it's what is in accordance with international law that is important here. The 4th geneva convention provides protections for unlawful combatants that forbid the mutilation of the dead. The First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states that "the remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." The first Geneva Convention also requires that military personnel "shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged."


International law also forbids the mutilation of the dead, it is against christian teaching (of who bush professes to receive devine guidance in this war) and finally US law forbids the mutilation of bodies

This is not an opposing conventional army we are facing.

so that gives you carte blanche to do what ever you damn well please?

These are not conscripts or men fighting against their will.

you dont know that. If american soldiers wiped out my family the very first thing I'd do would be strap myself full of explosives and tackle the first soldier I saw. Does this make me a taliban or a member of al qaeda? or just a misguided grieving parent ...I'm sure there's a lot of those in iraq

These are people who would behead you the moment you denied submitting to Allah's will.

bullshit rakuari the people who mutilate westerners are no followers of islam:

"Islam has categorically prohibited its followers from mutilating the corpses of their enemies, as was practised in Arabia before the advent of Islam. It is said in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited us from mutilating the corpses of the enemies" (Bukhari, AbuDawood)."

dont try to to pin this on religious beliefs

The Taliban were burned, only. And done so in order to draw out more. There is no moral lapse here, and there is no 'abuse.' Hell, they're already dead for Christ's sake.

immaterial ..international law provides protection to unlawful combatants from acts of inhumanity

If the Taliban was just the same but Christian, I'd propose crucifiction of their bodies there, for the same religious effect.

you're not exactly playing with a full deck, thankfully your opinion carries no weight in government

Whatever psychologically will disrupt the enemy, draw them out, cause them to conform to our will, that's what needs to be done.

conform to your will? what ****ing bullshit is that? YOU ARE THERE TO BRING FREEDOM TO IRAQ NOT BEND THEM TO YOUR WILL ...isnt that what you argued the war in iraq was for?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

what you believe in is immaterial it's what is in accordance with international law that is important here. The 4th geneva convention provides protections for unlawful combatants that forbid the mutilation of the dead. The First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states that "the remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." The first Geneva Convention also requires that military personnel "shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged."

The Geneva conventions has a lot of stuff that I don't feel we should follow. A lot we should.

International law also forbids the mutilation of the dead, it is against christian teaching (of who bush professes to receive devine guidance in this war) and finally US law forbids the mutilation of bodies

Burnin is not mutilation, it can be pinned as a dual means of goading enemies and disposal.

so that gives you carte blanche to do what ever you damn well please?

Yes

you dont know that. If american soldiers wiped out my family the very first thing I'd do would be strap myself full of explosives and tackle the first soldier I saw. Does this make me a taliban or a member of al qaeda? or just a misguided grieving parent ...I'm sure there's a lot of those in iraq

There were Taliban fighters, not random suicide bombers, these guys have been engaged and have sword loyalty to their leaders.

bullshit rakuari the people who mutilate westerners are no followers of islam:

"Islam has categorically prohibited its followers from mutilating the corpses of their enemies, as was practised in Arabia before the advent of Islam. It is said in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited us from mutilating the corpses of the enemies" (Bukhari, AbuDawood)."

dont try to to pin this on religious beliefs

Hey I'm not making logic of what they say or why they do it, but they will kill you for not comforming to THEIR will, they were doing it for decades there before we even arrived.

immaterial ..international law provides protection to unlawful combatants from acts of inhumanity

They are corpses. It is not torture.

you're not exactly playing with a full deck, thankfully your opinion carries no weight in government

Of course this is all me, I don't represent the US government or anything

conform to your will? what ****ing bullshit is that? YOU ARE THERE TO BRING FREEDOM TO IRAQ NOT BEND THEM TO YOUR WILL ...isnt that what you argued the war in iraq was for?

Um, no, we're there to obliterate the Al Qaeda network and destroy what remains of the Taliban. This is Afghanistan we're talking about not Iraq. I think that's what's causing such confusion. This wouldn't work in Iraq because the insurgency is not composed of the same type of enemies as the actual Taliban.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

so you think that desecrating bodies as a means to draw out the enemy is an acceptable means of warfare for a country supposodly fighting for freedom, and the ideals of democracy?

Fighting for freedom and the ideals of democracy is like raping virgins for virginity.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Fighting for freedom and the ideals of democracy is like raping virgins for virginity.

So what are unfree, oppressed people to do then? Shut up and take it?

Perhaps it'd be better that way? No WWII if they'd just gone with whatever. Anyone who'd rather be alive than free is a poor dumb bastard. Peace at the expense of freedom is despicable, I'll die free, no matter what. Be it fighting an oppressor or whittling away after retirement.

 

[CptStern]

The Geneva conventions has a lot of stuff that I don't feel we should follow. A lot we should.

you signed them therefore you must adhere to them

Burnin is not mutilation, it can be pinned as a dual means of goading enemies and disposal.

nope, it matters not what the method is, it is explicitedly covered under the 1st and 4th geneva conventions

Yes

no it does not, you have to abide by international law that covers occupation

There were Taliban fighters, not random suicide bombers, these guys have been engaged and have sword loyalty to their leaders.

again you dont know that, for all you know they could have been "suspected taliban"

Hey I'm not making logic of what they say or why they do it, but they will kill you for not comforming to THEIR will, they were doing it for decades there before we even arrived.

YOU are responsible for putting them into power in the first place:

"freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability." - Ronald Reagan

They are corpses. It is not torture.

nice to see you took the time to read my posts ..it is unlawful to mutilate corpses, the soldiers are duty bound to bury the dead according to the religious beliefs of the dead ...burning of a corpse is against muslim beliefs

Um, no, we're there to obliterate the Al Qaeda network and destroy what remains of the Taliban.

no you're there to find Osama ...hows that going?

This is Afghanistan we're talking about not Iraq. I think that's what's causing such confusion. This wouldn't work in Iraq because the insurgency is not composed of the same type of enemies as the actual Taliban.

immaterial ..unlawful combatant status applies to both conflicts

So what are unfree, oppressed people to do then? Shut up and take it?

Perhaps it'd be better that way? No WWII if they'd just gone with whatever. Anyone who'd rather be alive than free is a poor dumb bastard. Peace at the expense of freedom is despicable, I'll die free, no matter what. Be it fighting an oppressor or whittling away after retirement.

what are you talking about? afghanistan is worse since the fall of the taliban, women are more likely to be raped murdered and are treated as dogs

 

[Kmack]

no amount of reason or fact....

 

[VictimOfScience]

Wow, look at the blood coming out of the mouth on that one, f---ing straight death metal.

See? Its not this guy's fault that he did this horrible deed! Its the fault of the Death Metal bands out there! If it weren't for Death Metal's graphic depictions of violence this atrocity might have been avoided! Where's Tipper Gore when you need her???

Disclaimer: I am using an obscure form of "logic" recently made popular by Jack Thompson, Attorney At Law.

In all seriousness though, if this is indeed true, then describing this behavior as "Psychological Warfare" is true insofar as it was when the Mongol leader Tamerlane built a pyramid of 90,000 human heads before the walls of Delhi to convince them to surrender. This sort of thing is understandable in an uncivilized world, but not in the world today. There is no need whatsoever to stoop to these levels to get the job done. I would argue that these "soldiers" are just as cravenly as their Taliban counterparts since one doesn't want to come out and fight and the other doesn't want to go in and fight.

What I don't understand is why they don't just call in an airstrike if they know where these rebel fighters are hiding? Nothing has ever stopped them in the past....

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

you signed them therefore you must adhere to them

I don't think we should. I'm not the US Government though.

Even if we didn't, there's nothing that stops us anyway.

nope, it matters not what the method is, it is explicitedly covered under the 1st and 4th geneva conventions

See above

no it does not, you have to abide by international law that covers occupation

let me rephrase then- it should.

again you dont know that, for all you know they could have been "suspected taliban"

If they are, you know that it's wrong then. However, the article states Taliban Fighters. If you want to take the "for all you know could have been route" it could have been pregnant American mothers. But no. Given they're Taliban fighters, there was nothing wrong with this. If they weren't, there is something wrong.

YOU are responsible for putting them into power in the first place:

"freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability." - Ronald Reagan

Bad idea, didn't know what they'd morph into. Even so I wasn't even alive then, if I could go back with what we know now and have actual power to talk to people I'd have them take it back or find another more secular group to fund.

nice to see you took the time to read my posts ..it is unlawful to mutilate corpses, the soldiers are duty bound to bury the dead according to the religious beliefs of the dead ...burning of a corpse is against muslim beliefs

This is going on the fact that I disagree with such a regulation.

no you're there to find Osama ...hows that going?

Goes in obliterating the Al Qaeda network. No idea how it's going, but I hear we just killed and grilled a few Taliban.

immaterial ..unlawful combatant status applies to both conflicts

Well the point you were making of being there to liberate would've been more valid then. We aren't here primarily to liberate though. It is one of the things we're doing, but it is not objective one. If we were to in the snap of a finger destroy and kill every Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, capture Bin Laden, I'd have our guys pulled out of that region that instant. Our (or at least the reason for my support of the mission) venture into Iraq was to free the Iraqi people. You may not think that's why and such, but that's why I supported it in the first place. So until the Iraqi government is in place and secure, then we leave. It's priority.

 

[CptStern]

I don't think we should. I'm not the US Government though.

Even if we didn't, there's nothing that stops us anyway.

well dont cry me a river when more airplanes slam into the side of american buildings. Your conduct in iraq and afghanistan will have reprecussions for generations to come.

See above

see above

let me rephrase then- it should.

it cant, if you want to remain to be a player in the international scene you must learn to play ball ..this john wayne attitude is what's responsible for 9/11 and the destruction of iraq

If they are, you know that it's wrong then. However, the article states Taliban Fighters. If you want to take the "for all you know could have been route" it could have been pregnant American mothers. But no. Given they're Taliban fighters, there was nothing wrong with this. If they weren't, there is something wrong.

again I point to international law that says this is indeed a war crime. You signed the geneva conventions, YOU MUST ADHERE TO THEM

Bad idea, didn't know what they'd morph into.

yes you did, you knew full well they were a rogues gallery of fundamentalists, criminals, terrorists and "evil-doers" ..infact when a representative from the mujidheen arrived in washington to take part in Reagan's "Afghanistan day" remarked that "where you in my country I would show what we do to women who speak out of turn" to Leslie Stahl when she asked about the abuse of women's rights in afghanistan ...dont play the innocent victem here, you knew exactly what they were

This is going on the fact that I disagree with such a regulation.

what you agree with is of no consequence and has little to do on whether the US should adhere to laws they agreed to

Goes in obliterating the Al Qaeda network. No idea how it's going, but I hear we just killed and grilled a few Taliban.

your hypocritical moral ethics are appalling ..again if you were truely looking for Osama you wouldnt have taken a side trip to iraq

Well the point you were making of being there to liberate would've been more valid then. We aren't here primarily to liberate though. It is one of the things we're doing, but it is not objective one.

so if it wasnt priority one what was? ...wmd?

If we were to in the snap of a finger destroy and kill every Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, capture Bin Laden, I'd have our guys pulled out of that region that instant. Our (or at least the reason for my support of the mission) venture into Iraq was to free the Iraqi people.

oh come on dont give that bullshit, how can you claim to be there to free them when you wont even respect their customs their laws or their religion ..it's just an outright fabrication meant to appease the american public.

You may not think that's why and such, but that's why I supported it in the first place. So until the Iraqi government is in place and secure, then we leave. It's priority.

I thought the priority was to find those responsible for 9/11? any idiot can see that's not the case ...18,000 troops in afghanistan versus 150,000 in iraq illustrates that point very clearly

 

[Lemonking]

Fighting for freedom and the ideals of democracy is like raping virgins for virginity.

ever heard of WWII ?:|

 

[No Limit]

ever heard of WWII ?:|

You guys are the lowest forms of slime that exists. You are trying to compare a necessary against a man that wanted to take over the world and kill billions to the Iraq war and a man who couldn't do anything to anybody in this world. As Bush would say, shame on you.

 

[Lemonking]

I was responding 2 frenzys post not didnt have 2 do anything with Iraq there are times when you must go 2 war for freedom.




"You guys are the lowest forms of slime that exists."



Is that a joke or do you mean that?

 

[Krynn72]

Im with cptstern on this one. RakuraiTenjin is sounding more and more like these terrorists he hates so much with every post he makes here. You have no sence of what is right or wrong.

 

[Kmack]

Im with cptstern on this one. RakuraiTenjin is sounding more and more like these terrorists he hates so much with every post he makes here. You have no sence of what is right or wrong.

ahh reason.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Im with cptstern on this one. RakuraiTenjin is sounding more and more like these terrorists he hates so much with every post he makes here. You have no sence of what is right or wrong.

I'm sorry, but put boots on the ground there, you're telling me if psychological operations told you you had the chance to draw out remaining Taliban fighters by burning the corpses of already dead terrorists, that you would not do it?

I can't fathom why you would NOT.

And yeah, because I'd burn dead bodies I've got a terrorist mindset, let me tell you.

 

[Kmack]

I'm sorry, but put boots on the ground there, you're telling me if psychological operations told you you had the chance to draw out remaining Taliban fighters by burning the corpses of already dead terrorists, that you would not do it?

I can't fathom why you would NOT.

um, because the pentagon DOES NOT condone such acts. they've made that pretty clear and are launching an investigation.

So, no, no i wouldnt go against the wishes of my countries DoD and desecrate bodies.

And yeah, because I'd burn dead bodies I've got a terrorist mindset, let me tell you.

actually, i think that burning the bodies of your enemies is a tactic that would be better suited for a terrorist, rather than a member of a democratic nations army.

if the terrorists were burning american troops bodies to draw out more americans (and im not saying if they are or are not) you would sit there and call it grounds for war. you would consider it barbaric. lol you are so naive.

also, i dont think i would ever burn the body of someones father/son/brother just to kill more people. i wouldnt fight that kind of war....id leave that type of war to the..... Terrorists lol

 

[DEATH eVADER]

That is 'ucking disgraceful, I'm done with this world. Where the 'uck is Jesus when you need him

 

[Kmack]

That is 'ucking disgraceful, I'm done with this world. Where the 'uck is Jesus when you need him

actually, george dubya decided that a bearded, religious fanatic, who was dwelling inside a cave could be trouble, so he sent in a bunker buster. goodbye jesus... best thing he's done all presidency if you ask me.

but, yes, burning corpses is pretty hardcore barbaric. id personally be ashamed to do something that horrible. they are dead, let them lay in peace. perhaps their families (who are presumably innocent, and are ttherefore the people we are there to help) would have like to bury their loved ones.

 

[Kmack]

I should let everyone know

Cremating bodies is banned under Islam

making this even more volitile.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm sorry, but put boots on the ground there, you're telling me if psychological operations told you you had the chance to draw out remaining Taliban fighters by burning the corpses of already dead terrorists, that you would not do it?

I can't fathom why you would NOT.

And yeah, because I'd burn dead bodies I've got a terrorist mindset, let me tell you.

First off no I would NOT do that even if I had the chance. I have more honor than that. I would wait them out, or grow a pair and go after them myself.

Secondly, yeah you do have a terrorist mindset. Not because you would burn bodies, but because you would burn bodies of people for whom that is banned. You would mock the dead just for a chance to get a cheap hit in on the rest of them. If you would recall, some terrorists decapitated an American in order to piss us off, since what they did is an unspeakable act in our society. You would commit an unspeakable act just to piss them off. Seeing the similarities yet??

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

First off no I would NOT do that even if I had the chance. I have more honor than that. I would wait them out, or grow a pair and go after them myself.

Secondly, yeah you do have a terrorist mindset. Not because you would burn bodies, but because you would burn bodies of people for whom that is banned. You would mock the dead just for a chance to get a cheap hit in on the rest of them. If you would recall, some terrorists decapitated an American in order to piss us off, since what they did is an unspeakable act in our society. You would commit an unspeakable act just to piss them off. Seeing the similarities yet??

It's not the fact that it's an 'unspeakable act.' It's the fact that they murdered a civillian. Are you saying that somehow it would be less angering if they'd just shot the captives in the head and buried them? No. That has -nothing- to do with it, it has to do with the fact they killed them.

I'm sorry but if I'm the CO I'm not going to risk my guys lives out there trying to uphold "honor and chivalry" because the terrorists that just tried to kill every one of us would be offended if their bodies were burned. Good riddance, they should all be smeared with swine.

 

[<RJMC>]

something sure is that everytime there is a news about irakis or afgans being tortured or something like that,there will be someone from the USA suporting it,not saying that all USA people are like that is just that allways there is someone who come whit the "DONT **** WHIT US!" mentality

and seriously is they are going to liberate afganistan I think burning corpses to lure the enemys is not a way to show that there is hope for a better future,and all the morals and religious things

still sure if you are a soldier in the batlefield you allways will hav the desire to kill the enemy that is shooting you but I think the dead is the maximun punishment

and I am sure if americans soldiers corpse where burned for the same reasons ,the ones who suports this will be using the moral things and stuff to call the ones who di it as barbarics and stuff

 

[Kmack]

they made a POINT of facing the bodies west, as well as cremating them. this was a DIRECT affront to Islam as a whole. its going to increase stress in ALL Islamic countries, increase terror recruitment, increase bad press for the US worldwide.

its ****ing cowardice. that is NO better than the "enemy". freedom and democracy my ass. this was gross violation of human rights. have a shred of decency

 

[CptStern]

It's not the fact that it's an 'unspeakable act.' It's the fact that they murdered a civillian. Are you saying that somehow it would be less angering if they'd just shot the captives in the head and buried them? No. That has -nothing- to do with it, it has to do with the fact they killed them.

I'm sorry but if I'm the CO I'm not going to risk my guys lives out there trying to uphold "honor and chivalry" because the terrorists that just tried to kill every one of us would be offended if their bodies were burned. Good riddance, they should all be smeared with swine.

yet your reaction is the exact opposite if an american soldier is mutilated/beheaded/tortured ...I didnt think it was possible but I believe the irony is lost on you ..or ...I dont even think that this has to do with iraq or afghanistan rakurai, I'm starting to believe you dont have sympathy for anyone who isnt american ...you see them as less than human

you do realise by condoning such acts of barbarism that you're no better than the terrorists themselves ...excepting of course that they have the balls to do something about their beliefs, you however .....

 

[Kmack]

yet your reaction is the exact opposite if an american soldier is mutilated/beheaded/tortured ...I didnt think it was possible but I believe the irony is lost on you ..or ...I dont even think that this has to do with iraq or afghanistan rakurai, I'm starting to believe you dont have sympathy for anyone who isnt american ...you see them as less than human

you do realise by condoning such acts of barbarism that you're no better than the terrorists themselves ...excepting of course that they have the balls to do something about their beliefs, you however .....

that is the problem with conservative in america. its the reason i just laugh at their opinions.

they are the truest of cowards.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Just one more example of the USA's failire to learn the lessons of Malaya, Kenya, Veitnam, The Soviet campaign in Afghanisitan, etc about how to counteract terrorists and gurrilla fighters.

You would have thought that the world's only super power would have observed confilcts such as these and worked out which stratergies work and whcih dont. And it has been proven again and again that offending not only the enemy, but the civilians that you are supposedly trying to protect, does not work. It would seem, from past experince that the only reliable way to do this is to "win hearts and minds". And, while I'm not a military psycological warfare expert, I dont think that acts such as this premote a very positive image of the occupires.

Scare tactics dont work. They didnt work in WWII, they didnt work in 'nam, they didnt work in countless other conflicts and still the US forces insist on using them.

Anyway, Personally I find this sickening. To kill terrorists is one thing, but to mutilate their bodies in an affrount to their religion, International law and, in my opinion, moral standards it entirely an other, and considerubly more sickening, thing.

Think about it. If you've just seen somthing like this what are you likly to do? Assist the perpetrators in finding the terrorists they seek or would you be more inclined to join thier cause agaisnt these abuses?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

yet your reaction is the exact opposite if an american soldier is mutilated/beheaded/tortured ...I didnt think it was possible but I believe the irony is lost on you ..or ...I dont even think that this has to do with iraq or afghanistan rakurai, I'm starting to believe you dont have sympathy for anyone who isnt american ...you see them as less than human

you do realise by condoning such acts of barbarism that you're no better than the terrorists themselves ...excepting of course that they have the balls to do something about their beliefs, you however .....

I don't have sympathy for any of the enemies, at all. They chose their fate, you sign up for the wrong outfit and you get what's coming to you, tenfold. They are less than human.

If you can't see the fundamental difference between a terrorist killing scores of innocent people, and the burning of two enemy corpses in order to attract their comrades, you have some real issues.

 

[Kmack]

If you can't see the fundamental difference between a terrorist killing scores of innocent people, and the burning of two enemy corpses in order to attract their comrades, you have some real issues.

they are both horrible acts.

 

[CptStern]

I don't have sympathy for any of the enemies, at all. They chose their fate, you sign up for the wrong outfit and you get what's coming to you, tenfold. They are less than human.

I'm willing to bet those words are being uttered in arabic at this very moment in some foreign battleground that's occupied by a nation that touts freedom but practices oppression

If you can't see the fundamental difference between a terrorist killing scores of innocent people, and the burning of two enemy corpses in order to attract their comrades, you have some real issues.

and when the coalition does the same? 7000 civilians died during the initial invasion of coalition bombing ...scores of innocent civilians have been directly killed/murdered by american troops, torture of civilians and combatants ..and you try to tell me that's there's a difference in circumstances because you wear a little flag on your shoulder whereas the terrorists call no nation home? Hypocracy in it's purest form

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

and when the coalition does the same? 7000 civilians died during the initial invasion of coalition bombing ...scores of innocent civilians have been directly killed/murdered by american troops, torture of civilians and combatants ..and you try to tell me that's there's a difference in circumstances because you wear a little flag on your shoulder whereas the terrorists call no nation home? Hypocracy in it's purest form

I never condoned murder in the first place. Intentional killing of innocent people needs immediate punishment. That's just murder.

It is different when in once case it's to burn two dead enemy bodies as part of a battle plan to draw out more Taliban, and the other is to walk into a crowded coffee shop and kill as many innocent people as possible with a suicide bomb.

To imply, in any way, that they're the same is despicable.

they are both horrible acts.

Anything involving death is. To imply that the burning is an abuse, atrocity, or immoral, though, is wrong.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Warcrimes are good when they make me very happy.
Warcrimes are evil when they make me very sad.

-Rakurai, age 5

'Nuff said.