If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Pentagon investigating Marines who prevented insurgents from returning as White Walkers   (realclear.com) divider line 189
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

13836 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 5:05 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-15 03:31:36 PM  
How did TMZ end up with those pictures of all places? I don't see Justin Bieber in any of them.
 
2014-01-15 03:36:53 PM  
Fox News is sourcing TMZ to dredge up unconfirmed dirt on the U.S. Armed Forces?  And the TMZ's unconfirmed source photos are supposedly from 2004?

Let's take a look!


Gah!  Preposterous photos with watermarks!

Color me f*cking surprised.

No really, I am actually surprised.  I'm even surprised at my own surprisedness.
 
2014-01-15 03:38:49 PM  
I don't know if the White Walkers could survive in a desert environment like that.
 
2014-01-15 03:42:55 PM  

Shostie: I don't know if the White Walkers could survive in a desert environment like that.


Not yet, but winter is coming
 
2014-01-15 03:44:14 PM  

Langston: Shostie: I don't know if the White Walkers could survive in a desert environment like that.

Not yet, but winter is coming


And the night is full of terriers.
 
2014-01-15 03:46:01 PM  
Idiot reporter, you use diesel, not gas for your corpse burning.
Yes, the learning curve is steep.
 
2014-01-15 03:49:30 PM  

Confabulat: How did TMZ end up with those pictures of all places? I don't see Justin Bieber in any of them.


I could be wrong, but those bear a certain similarity to the "documentation" "proving" WMD in Xyzastanrak that was circulating a while back.
 
2014-01-15 03:50:07 PM  
"If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.
 
2014-01-15 03:51:51 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


Did you see the one with the cheap Halloween skull poorly shopped in?
 
2014-01-15 03:53:01 PM  
Wow. Graphic. *rolls eyes*
I guess no one alive ever saw picture from 'Nam, or WWII or WWI or what the US Calvary did with the "insurgents" here in the USA that "needed" to be executed, every man, woman, and child.
Every time you sen in the US Marines, for the last 200 years, this has happened, and every time people act surprised.
 
2014-01-15 03:56:26 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


That is why Marines don't have hair.
Politicians have hair.
 
2014-01-15 03:57:12 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.
 
2014-01-15 04:00:40 PM  

vudukungfu: Every time you sen in the US Marines, for the last 200 years, this has happened, and every time people act surprised.


"Before you leave here, Sir, you're going to learn that one of the most brutal things in the world is your average nineteen-year-old American boy."
 
2014-01-15 04:01:30 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


Bolded is the portion that should keep you from being outraged at anything but Fox News.
 
2014-01-15 04:03:10 PM  
Well it doesn't look like anyone was in any big hurry to bury the rotting bastard. Just saying.
 
2014-01-15 04:14:18 PM  

what_now: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.


I'm familiar with the principles of the COIN fight. But the Muslim rule is "in the ground in 24 hours". I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the insurgents' families weren't going to come out and grab the corpses to prepare for burial during the freakin' Battle of Fallujah.

So, if the Marines had left the bodies laying out for more than a day, they'd also be in violation of Islamic custom.

I don't even know if the photos are real, I'm not looking at those while I'm at work. I'm just saying that sometimes, in combat, there aren't a whole lot of good answers available.
 
2014-01-15 04:24:57 PM  

Gonz: I'm just saying that sometimes, in combat, there aren't a whole lot of good answers available.


I am absolutely sure that is accurate.
 
2014-01-15 05:09:07 PM  
Is there any stated reason why they were burning bodies?
(Not necessarily good reasons, mind you, just reasons)
 
2014-01-15 05:11:00 PM  
Not enough information. It's not hard to come up with a story that satisfies particulars in this case, though. If nothing else, "no one would claim them, no one would bury them in Islamic custom, hygiene issue."
 
2014-01-15 05:11:13 PM  
What's a few Hadithas between mortal enemies, huh?
 
2014-01-15 05:11:15 PM  

what_now: Gonz: I'm just saying that sometimes, in combat, there aren't a whole lot of good answers available.

I am absolutely sure that is accurate.



As much as I'd like to point and say, "See! B-b-but Bush endorsed this!", I cna't turn this into a partisan thing. If I were in a desert, surrounded by people who may or may not want to kill me, after witnessing the death of friends and fellow soldiers...not sure I'd be one of the guys following the rules. And I would feel totally justified in my actions.
 
2014-01-15 05:11:27 PM  
As long as no one was found in possession of a Kansas City rub...
 
2014-01-15 05:11:30 PM  
Meh
 
2014-01-15 05:13:37 PM  

thamike: Fox News is sourcing TMZ to dredge up unconfirmed dirt on the U.S. Armed Forces?  And the TMZ's unconfirmed source photos are supposedly from 2004?

Let's take a look!


Gah!  Preposterous photos with watermarks!

Color me f*cking surprised.

No really, I am actually surprised.  I'm even surprised at my own surprisedness.


That's because Obama invaded Iraq under false pretences. Only a true conservative like Cruz or Allan West can save us from the Iraq Quagmire!
 
2014-01-15 05:14:27 PM  
Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.
 
2014-01-15 05:16:01 PM  

mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.


I take you also approved of the guy that went and shot up a bunch of women and children in the middle of the night, then?
 
2014-01-15 05:16:10 PM  

what_now: Gonz: I'm just saying that sometimes, in combat, there aren't a whole lot of good answers available.

I am absolutely sure that is accurate.


I think this is more of a public relations thing than anything else. Im sure some low ranking noncom will get shafted, speeches get made, apologies issued and then it'll be forgotten in about a week.
 
2014-01-15 05:17:45 PM  

Felgraf: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

I take you also approved of the guy that went and shot up a bunch of women and children in the middle of the night, then?


Are we talking about Detroit or Iraq?
 
2014-01-15 05:19:32 PM  

Weaver95: Felgraf: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

I take you also approved of the guy that went and shot up a bunch of women and children in the middle of the night, then?

Are we talking about Detroit or Iraq?


Shoot, I think I was talking Afghanistan, actually.
 
2014-01-15 05:19:38 PM  
They were already dead when they burned them. Why is this a problem?

At least we don't go around cutting people's heads off.
 
2014-01-15 05:23:23 PM  
In the spirit of the headline, I should point out that ghilan are not to be trifled with. Not sure about Islam's current stance on them regarding reality vs. folklore, but it might make for a decent movie, if not a proper excuse in the international arena...
 
2014-01-15 05:23:25 PM  
Extra Krispy muslim or Original?
 
2014-01-15 05:26:45 PM  
mark 12A
 this

fighting for your life and seeing your friends die can sometimes make you bent at the enemy your country is busy sympathizing with
america wants it both ways, like calling in an exterminator who catches all the mice and frees them in the woods
clean, safe, out of sight
it doesn't work like that
 
2014-01-15 05:27:46 PM  

what_now: I am absolutely sure that is accurate.


Take 25 seconds out of your life to try to understand.

Thank  Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan  that I never experienced  through combat and because of this I can never fully understand those emotions....or lack thereof if you will...I did read Eugene Sledge's book though (3 times) and the quote in my Weeners in this thread (take that filter!) comes from the introduction. The book itself details what exactly that quote means.
 
2014-01-15 05:28:09 PM  
I don't see the problem with this because they couldn't leave the bodies out to rot as it would be a health hazard and they really couldn't take time to bury them because they were in the middle of an on going battle.

But what is disgusting is the attitude that some people have that because the Taliban desecrated American soldier's bodies it is all right for American's to do it to them. That attitude is just wrong because we are supposed to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level.
 
2014-01-15 05:28:50 PM  

what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.


What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.
 
2014-01-15 05:29:50 PM  
Goddamn! The filter is getting sneaky!
 
2014-01-15 05:30:18 PM  
Felgraf I take you also approved of the guy that went and shot up a bunch of women and children in the middle of the night, then?

That's a violation of ROE-poster was talking about How To Win A War. My neighbor who was in the newsroom of the LA Times put it thusly-just like in "Lone Survivor", the Iraqis didn't know they lost.  Back when my neighbor was in the Army, stationed in Germany back in the 1950's, he noted the locals were STILL afraid to look servicemen in the eyes-that's how badly we beat the Nazis. All my friends who were shipped to The Sandbox for Desert Shield/Storm wasted their time because we got no credit off of that-same with Sarajevo.  On the contrary, Desert Storm/Shield only begot us 9/11 & all that War On Terror stuff
 
2014-01-15 05:30:33 PM  
These photos are weeks old, funny how someone just drummed them up. If you notice the bodies, they are in a heavy state of decomposing, not uncommon to burn the bodies to prevent disease.
 
2014-01-15 05:30:50 PM  

Felgraf: I take you also approved of the guy that went and shot up a bunch of women and children in the middle of the night, then?


One thing has nothing to do with the other.  0/10.
 
2014-01-15 05:32:14 PM  
Chances are the guys involved with this are already out of the military.  It was a battle with sustained combat so they may have felt that disposing of the bodies was the least bad option.  However it is wonderful to give some PR tools to radical Islamic individuals out there to use as a recruitment tool for some minor offense that occurred almost 10 years ago.
 
2014-01-15 05:32:14 PM  

budrojr: what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.


History makes it pretty clear that that doesn't really work.
 
2014-01-15 05:32:16 PM  
I have to hang my head a little every time one of these things comes up.  Sure the photo evidence helps shine light on potentially sketchy things (dicking around with corpses is not cool, burning them is potentially okay if they had no access to a corpse detail nor local support), but what possesses them to photograph things they can't not know could be considered sketchy is beyond me.
 
2014-01-15 05:33:22 PM  

qorkfiend: budrojr: what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

History makes it pretty clear that that doesn't really work.


It's just not being done right.  It IS effective.
 
2014-01-15 05:33:41 PM  
So, you are telling me, that if we train people to have no respect for the "enemy", try and stay with me on this, that they will treat people they see as the "enemy" with no respect. That just sounds too crazy.
 
2014-01-15 05:35:07 PM  

what_now: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.


THIS.
 
2014-01-15 05:35:39 PM  
Blowing living people into hamburger sized chunks: A-Okay!
Burning dead bodies: Court martial offense!
Benghazi!
 
2014-01-15 05:36:19 PM  

budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.


Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.
 
2014-01-15 05:36:49 PM  

clyph: budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.


Then they should stay home and not riot.
 
2014-01-15 05:37:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Eugene Sledge's


Yeah, let's not compare Tarawa with Afghanistan. I get where you're going with this, and I agree, but the Pacific Theater in WWII was worse than you or I can possibly imagine. Probably worse than Ypers.
 
2014-01-15 05:39:45 PM  
s2.quickmeme.com
 
2014-01-15 05:41:20 PM  

vudukungfu: Wow. Graphic. *rolls eyes*
I guess no one alive ever saw picture from 'Nam, or WWII or WWI or what the US Calvary did with the "insurgents" here in the USA that "needed" to be executed, every man, woman, and child.
Every time you sen in the US Marines, for the last 200 years, this has happened, and every time people act surprised.


I know you meant Cavalry.  I'll let it pass this time.
 
2014-01-15 05:41:25 PM  

clyph: budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.


Somebody doesn't understand the importance of having the locals on your side during a war.
 
2014-01-15 05:43:15 PM  
This headline makes no sense.

The dead come back as wights, undead horrors raised by The Others.  It's The Others that are known as White Walkers.

Sheesh.

/Internet Know-It-All
 
2014-01-15 05:45:29 PM  
Those kebabs are way overcooked. Don't those Marines know how to cook Afghani? They didn't even use a tandoori.
 
2014-01-15 05:46:01 PM  

ongbok: I don't see the problem with this because they couldn't leave the bodies out to rot as it would be a health hazard and they really couldn't take time to bury them because they were in the middle of an on going battle.

But what is disgusting is the attitude that some people have that because the Taliban desecrated American soldier's bodies it is all right for American's to do it to them. That attitude is just wrong because we are supposed to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level.


Actually, health issues do not come in to play although that is an almost universal belief. Aid workers going to areas that have suffered a large death toll are frequently frustrated in identifying victims due to them being disposed of prematurely. If the corpse is not contaminating the waater supply, there is no pressing need for burial or cremation. Well...except for the sight and smell.
 
2014-01-15 05:50:06 PM  
But what is disgusting is the attitude that some people have that because the Taliban desecrated American soldier's bodies it is all right for American's to do it to them. That attitude is just wrong because we are supposed to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level.

You poor snowflakes know little of what went on in WWII, culminating in the nuclear strikes on Japan. We were brutal. And it got results. Ultimately saved more lives than it took.

Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.
 
2014-01-15 05:50:21 PM  

ongbok: clyph: budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.

Somebody doesn't understand the importance of having the locals on your side during a war.


If the locals are on our side why would they give a fark if we burned the bodies of their enemies?
If the locals are not on our side, who cares what they think?
 
2014-01-15 05:51:29 PM  
ain't war hell.

remember that & you will never be offended by it when you witness it for real rather than watch the edited version from the comfort of you home.

hey, at least the natural resources in the area are secured and ripe for the taking. or are they?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
 
2014-01-15 05:51:32 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


I was thinking that human remains rotting in the street is copacetic, but burning them = OUTRAGE!!!
 
2014-01-15 05:52:01 PM  
They should have hung them upside down from a bridge,
 
2014-01-15 05:53:26 PM  

mark12A: Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.


Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.

I know how easy it is to ITG from your fuzzy blanket and Cheeto stained laptop, but read some farking history before spouting off about how  you would have won an unwinable war, mkay?
 
2014-01-15 05:53:27 PM  

what_now: Yeah, let's not compare Tarawa with Afghanistan. I get where you're going with this, and I agree, but the Pacific Theater in WWII was worse than you or I can possibly imagine. Probably worse than Ypers.


Different battles to be sure but the desired outcome is the same. Kill your enemy before he kills you and do it with malice. The difficulty that has been placed on our troops today is that they don't have the (not sure if best word) freedom that Sledge or even Richard Winters had. It was "here is your objective, blow the ever loving shiat out of everything between here and there regardless of who gets the ever loving shiat blown out of them". They work within strict rules of engagement that hamstrings them and puts them in more danger than they should be in. It really farks with some of them.
 
2014-01-15 05:55:27 PM  

what_now: Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.


Ever heard of Dresden? Tokyo? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
 
2014-01-15 05:55:57 PM  

The Southern Dandy: ongbok: clyph: budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.

Somebody doesn't understand the importance of having the locals on your side during a war.

If the locals are on our side why would they give a fark if we burned the bodies of their enemies?
If the locals are not on our side, who cares what they think?


Another person who has the mentality of a 10 year old and doesn't realize that desecrating bodies can turn people against you or if they dislike you, cause them to decide to take action against you when they wouldn't have before. A big part of war in foreign countries is changing the attitudes of the locals towards you in a positive way, desecrating bodies doesn't do that. If you don't understand that you aren't very mature.
 
2014-01-15 05:56:01 PM  
You know, that gives me an idea. For as much as we've spent on these wars we probably could've just built a big-ass wall.
 
2014-01-15 05:57:31 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.

Ever heard of Dresden? Tokyo? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?


I don't listen to opera.
 
2014-01-15 05:58:38 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.

Ever heard of Dresden? Tokyo? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?


Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.
 
2014-01-15 06:00:33 PM  

what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.


Yes, and?
 
2014-01-15 06:00:36 PM  

ongbok: The Southern Dandy: ongbok: clyph: budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.

Somebody doesn't understand the importance of having the locals on your side during a war.

If the locals are on our side why would they give a fark if we burned the bodies of their enemies?
If the locals are not on our side, who cares what they think?

Another person who has the mentality of a 10 year old and doesn't realize that desecrating bodies can turn people against you or if they dislike you, cause them to decide to take action against you when they wouldn't have before. A big part of war in foreign countries is changing the attitudes of the locals towards you in a positive way, desecrating bodies doesn't do that. If you don't understand that you aren't very mature.


First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.  Secondly, do you honestly think that muslims give a shiat if you desecrate the body of their enemy?  They'd happily desecrate the body of their enemy themselves.  The only way a muslim might be upset that you burned the body of a corpse is if the body was NOT their enemy, then see my second question.
 
2014-01-15 06:01:19 PM  
So how long until this is blamed on Obama?
 
2014-01-15 06:03:37 PM  

ongbok: clyph: budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.

Somebody doesn't understand the importance of having the locals on your side during a war.


It's not a war if you have to worry what the locals think of you, it's a police action with narrow and specified goals . The reality is, we haven't fought a war since Korea, which started out as a war and ended as a police action.
Somehow it has become out of favor to truly defeat an enemy, thus ensuring decades of instability.
 
2014-01-15 06:06:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?


AND you completely different objectives. The fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, the Atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to try to get the governments to surrender. Furthermore, the army carrying out the bombings didn't have troops on the ground.

In France and Italy in the 1940s, and Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s, you're dealing with territory that is already occupied. You have soldiers, supply routes, personnel and equipment on the ground.  The Nazis tried the "10 dead villagers for every dead Nazi" bullshiat, and it did not weaken resistance, it strengthen it and drove it further underground.

Luckily, the US Armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan learned that lesson, and Mark12A had nothing do with our strategy there.
 
2014-01-15 06:09:01 PM  
If the troops have since left the military, they would have to be ordered back to duty to face charges, which is extremely rare, he added.

"You know what? I'm cool with my desk job, so I'll uh... not come back to duty."
 
2014-01-15 06:10:37 PM  
Wait, we should have bombed the fark out of Iraqi civilians?

I thought we went in to "liberate" them...
 
2014-01-15 06:11:24 PM  

what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.


These photos look to be from the Battle of Fallujah.  I don't think we were too concerned with local opinions at that moment.

The bodies also look like they were dead a while.

Would people have preferred the Marines leave them there for the packs of feral dogs to snack on?
 
2014-01-15 06:12:37 PM  

what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

So you are saying that knowledge of this incident could be *takes off glasses* incendiary.

 
2014-01-15 06:13:48 PM  

impaler: Wait, we should have bombed the fark out of Iraqi civilians?

I thought we went in to "liberate" them...


we liberated the hell out of 'em!
 
2014-01-15 06:17:26 PM  
I hope those aren't real. But if they are, I hope those supposed soldiers D'dIAF. Otherwise, they are or may become cops back home.
 
2014-01-15 06:18:10 PM  
HeWhoHasNoName

Would people have preferred the Marines leave them there for the packs of feral dogs to snack on?

That would be easily as insulting, given that many Muslims think dogs to be unclean animals. Not in the lick-your-balls sense, but in the "disgusting creatures that have occasionally been subject to death for being dogs" sense.
 
2014-01-15 06:24:36 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If the troops have since left the military, they would have to be ordered back to duty to face charges, which is extremely rare, he added.

"You know what? I'm cool with my desk job, so I'll uh... not come back to duty."


"You know what, Ft Lavenworth sucks at this time of year, and all times of year.  Let me give you a tour of it..."
 
2014-01-15 06:26:47 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: HeWhoHasNoName

Would people have preferred the Marines leave them there for the packs of feral dogs to snack on?

That would be easily as insulting, given that many Muslims think dogs to be unclean animals. Not in the lick-your-balls sense, but in the "disgusting creatures that have occasionally been subject to death for being dogs" sense.


here's the thing, even if the marines had a reason to dispose of the bodies, they shouldn't have been taking pictures like these. you kind of fark up the "things are so terrible that we need to burn the bodies" excuse when you pose with the corpses
 
2014-01-15 06:30:20 PM  

violentsalvation: Well it doesn't look like anyone was in any big hurry to bury the rotting bastard. Just saying.


This.  I'd probably burn a stinking, rotting corpse instead of touching it, too.
 
2014-01-15 06:31:44 PM  
Well done America, well done!
 
2014-01-15 06:32:05 PM  

budrojr: qorkfiend: budrojr: what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

History makes it pretty clear that that doesn't really work.

It's just not being done right.  It IS effective.


Yeah, that's why the horrors inflicted by the Soviets was so effective at ending the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Short of full-out genocide, there is nothing America can do that is scarier than what has been done (in living memory!) to the locals in that part of the world.

Anyways, corpse disposal might not matter to most of us, but for a lotta religious folks (including American Christians) dead body disposition is religiously important.  And let's be honest, it's a lot cheaper to let the survivors claim their dead than fight (in a very literal sense) for your right to waste time and fuel halfway burning them.

I mean I looked at the photos they had up, a proper clean&char it was definitely not.
 
2014-01-15 06:34:22 PM  
Gonz:

I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

To me it's a damn shame to waste good meat. Give it a dog or cat if you're too squeamish to eat it yourself.

By the way, the ex's cat eats better than I do: he gets venison. Is there anybody around Lexington, KY who has or might have a little venison for sale?

Keep in mind too that war is a great way for out of shape old men to get rid of the younger competition. It should tell you something that most of the Republican "leaders" who were hawkish about the Middle Eastern wars of the past couple decades were careful to avoid going to Vietnam when they were young men. It's also incredibly dysgenic to take the best breeding stock, dress it funny, and ship 'em overseas to have their balls blown off.

And a lot of those "troops" who do manage to have families and come back to rejoin them reasonably intact know the entire time that their families are having a hard time getting by while they're gone and that when they get back they'll have to fight the VA tooth & nail to get the health care etc., they were promised, which is bound to effect the quality of their service while shipped out and the quality of care their offspring get.

How about instead we find people who are in good physical, mental & genetic shape and give them special treatment in peacetime so they can reproduce and rear offspring effectively? You know, turn the whole paradigm around. Give the genetic winners and their families whatever help they need to produce & rear 3 or 4 exemplary kids.

And the flip side of that: "Sorry son, but we don't let healthy people under 25 join the Marines unless they can prove their genes are broken.The armed forces are a way to make use of slightly defective citizens, not to splatter America's future all over Kandahar."

But anyway. According to Wikipedia most of the nasal decongestant drugs are actually stimulants: we take SUDAFED® for its side-effect of congestion relief, like people often take BENADRYL® for its side-effect of drowsiness. This is why I have to careful to avoid ingesting a lot of other stimulants when I'm eating "pseudo" like candy, so I don't sit here and post senseless drivel before I've had a single drink. We Farkers owe the Net all the brilliance we can give it.
 
2014-01-15 06:34:56 PM  

NkThrasher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If the troops have since left the military, they would have to be ordered back to duty to face charges, which is extremely rare, he added.

"You know what? I'm cool with my desk job, so I'll uh... not come back to duty."

"You know what, Ft Lavenworth sucks at this time of year, and all times of year.  Let me give you a tour of it..."


If they were enlisted or NCOs and have left the IRR, I'm not sure that's even possible.  I'm not a UCMJ expert, though.  If your contract is up and your IRR obligation is up, it's a civilian matter.
 
2014-01-15 06:37:13 PM  

Felgraf: I take you also approved of the guy that went and shot up a bunch of women and children in the middle of the night, then?


No. That's not what you're supposed to do to women & children. Haven't you ever been to /b/ ?
 
2014-01-15 06:37:39 PM  
*Insert Butters' "George Arr Arr Martin" rant here*
 
2014-01-15 06:40:02 PM  

MechaPyx: They were already dead when they burned them. Why is this a problem?

At least we don't go around cutting people's heads off.


With a hunting knife while they're alive and screaming yet. Gack. I still haven't been able to watch any of that footage: I can't even finish watching Martyrs.
 
2014-01-15 06:46:37 PM  
Robin Hoodie

here's the thing, even if the marines had a reason to dispose of the bodies, they shouldn't have been taking pictures like these.

No argument there.
 
2014-01-15 06:49:49 PM  

violentsalvation: Well it doesn't look like anyone was in any big hurry to bury the rotting bastard. Just saying.


Next time throw a grenade , or do some demo practice. After seeing fallujah fuqs hanging burned and still alive americans from a bridge, seeing contractors beheaded with dull table knives, seeing people jump out of a burning bldg to their deaths in NYC, seeing ... oh wait we arent supposed to care, its all pretend...
 
2014-01-15 06:51:53 PM  

mark12A: But what is disgusting is the attitude that some people have that because the Taliban desecrated American soldier's bodies it is all right for American's to do it to them. That attitude is just wrong because we are supposed to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level.

You poor snowflakes know little of what went on in WWII, culminating in the nuclear strikes on Japan. We were brutal. And it got results. Ultimately saved more lives than it took.

Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.


Is that you, Kurtz?
 
2014-01-15 06:54:38 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Robin Hoodie

here's the thing, even if the marines had a reason to dispose of the bodies, they shouldn't have been taking pictures like these.

No argument there.


Just like the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal.  Everyone got outraged over the things happening in the photos, but the soldiers pretty much got in trouble for taking the photos.
 
2014-01-15 06:55:21 PM  

DVDave: vudukungfu: Wow. Graphic. *rolls eyes*
I guess no one alive ever saw picture from 'Nam, or WWII or WWI or what the US Calvary did with the "insurgents" here in the USA that "needed" to be executed, every man, woman, and child.
Every time you sen in the US Marines, for the last 200 years, this has happened, and every time people act surprised.

I know you meant Cavalry.  I'll let it pass this time.


I was in the corpse.
Simmer pie.
 
2014-01-15 07:00:53 PM  

vudukungfu: DVDave: vudukungfu: Wow. Graphic. *rolls eyes*
I guess no one alive ever saw picture from 'Nam, or WWII or WWI or what the US Calvary did with the "insurgents" here in the USA that "needed" to be executed, every man, woman, and child.
Every time you sen in the US Marines, for the last 200 years, this has happened, and every time people act surprised.

I know you meant Cavalry.  I'll let it pass this time.

I was in the corpse.
Simmer pie.


Simply Fried
 
2014-01-15 07:01:15 PM  
I looked at the pics. Nothing inappropriate there. People sometimes catch fire during war.
 
2014-01-15 07:02:17 PM  

vudukungfu: Wow. Graphic. *rolls eyes*
I guess no one alive ever saw picture from 'Nam, or WWII or WWI or what the US Calvary did with the "insurgents" here in the USA that "needed" to be executed, every man, woman, and child.
Every time you sen in the US Marines, for the last 200 years, this has happened, and every time people act surprised.


~www.michaeltotten.com
 
2014-01-15 07:02:47 PM  
The comments. Oh boy the comments.
 
2014-01-15 07:04:20 PM  

what_now: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.


Faluja circa 2004? Rioting locals would have been a considerable improvement.
 
2014-01-15 07:06:29 PM  

what_now: Dancin_In_Anson: Eugene Sledge's

Yeah, let's not compare Tarawa with Afghanistan. I get where you're going with this, and I agree, but the Pacific Theater in WWII was worse than you or I can possibly imagine. Probably worse than Ypers.


My uncle was in the USMC, in the Pacific, during WW2. He operated his unit's flame thrower. He took pictures. I've seen them.

So, believe me when I say - you're not wrong
 
2014-01-15 07:13:35 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


Anything to get outraged about.  Everybody's selling something.
 
2014-01-15 07:14:27 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: NkThrasher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If the troops have since left the military, they would have to be ordered back to duty to face charges, which is extremely rare, he added.

"You know what? I'm cool with my desk job, so I'll uh... not come back to duty."

"You know what, Ft Lavenworth sucks at this time of year, and all times of year.  Let me give you a tour of it..."

If they were enlisted or NCOs and have left the IRR, I'm not sure that's even possible.  I'm not a UCMJ expert, though.  If your contract is up and your IRR obligation is up, it's a civilian matter.



NCOs are enlisted.


I vaguely remember a JAG brief I got a decade or so ago where we were told that under certain ridiculous circumstances we could get pulled back even though we were enlisted.  Although that very well could have been a lie and that we'd be charged in civilian court for a military related offence, not put back in uniform.

But even so, it's not as simple as "Nope, not coming back.  Haha, can't charge me!"
 
2014-01-15 07:17:59 PM  
Beware of entrance to a quarrel,
But being in it,
Bear it,
That the oppos'd
May beware of thee
 
2014-01-15 07:19:47 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?


You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?
 
2014-01-15 07:21:16 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


I think the idea behind this policy is to avoid offending the surviving members of the group that we're killing.
 
2014-01-15 07:29:23 PM  
I'm having a hard time believing this. US soldiers are heroes and saints; they would never do anything bad. And if they did, well it's not their fault anyways because they wouldnt have done it if those brown people didnt put them in those positions. Why did brown people make our soldiers commit war crimes? Leave our heroes ALONE.
 
2014-01-15 07:33:50 PM  
the only thing I gotta say about any of this is that a couple of years ago I had an apprentice come through the brewery for a couple of months.

young guy, vet, he had used his bonus money to put himself through brewing school..

smart, nice guy.. eager and capable worker despite all the gruelling shiat work that apprentices tend to get.

He was also a fairly quite with a slight smell of hauntedness about him.. I asked him what he had done while in country, as in duties,. jobs what have you .

he simply said, : "I was a sharpshooter in Fallujah".

I left it at that.
 
2014-01-15 07:35:49 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: what_now: Gonz: I'm just saying that sometimes, in combat, there aren't a whole lot of good answers available.

I am absolutely sure that is accurate.


As much as I'd like to point and say, "See! B-b-but Bush endorsed this!", I cna't turn this into a partisan thing. If I were in a desert, surrounded by people who may or may not want to kill me, after witnessing the death of friends and fellow soldiers...not sure I'd be one of the guys following the rules. And I would feel totally justified in my actions.


Even though you volunteered to be there?
 
2014-01-15 07:35:57 PM  
So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?
 
2014-01-15 07:36:03 PM  

what_now: mark12A: Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.

Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.

I know how easy it is to ITG from your fuzzy blanket and Cheeto stained laptop, but read some farking history before spouting off about how  you would have won an unwinable war, mkay?


The Romans disagree with you. In fact, most of history disagrees with you. Naked savagery and brutality work extremely well, and if you have to go kill everyone, then do so, because this isn't a fantasy world where corpses get back up. The dead will not oppose you.

Mind you, I don't endorse that position, but you are absolutely wrong with your assertion.
 
2014-01-15 07:37:10 PM  

gas giant: Well done America, well done!


I see what you did there.

www.smokegrillbbq.com
 
2014-01-15 07:37:27 PM  
Too many too quote...
Those rioting locals just to your body count.
In WWII & Vietnam We did do much worse, resulting in coining the phrase a "Screaming Alpha" at least these jarheads waited until they were dead before lighting them up.
Moral of the story, when you may be committing terrible acts that may be construed as war crimes, DON'T TAKE PICTURES
 
2014-01-15 07:42:17 PM  

Carousel Beast: what_now: mark12A: Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.

Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.

I know how easy it is to ITG from your fuzzy blanket and Cheeto stained laptop, but read some farking history before spouting off about how  you would have won an unwinable war, mkay?

The Romans disagree with you. In fact, most of history disagrees with you. Naked savagery and brutality work extremely well, and if you have to go kill everyone, then do so, because this isn't a fantasy world where corpses get back up. The dead will not oppose you.

Mind you, I don't endorse that position, but you are absolutely wrong with your assertion.


Native Americans don't seem to be stealing our cattle or raiding our settlements lately.
 
2014-01-15 07:42:58 PM  

mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.


Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.
 
2014-01-15 07:50:51 PM  

Robin Hoodie: here's the thing, even if the marines had a reason to dispose of the bodies, they shouldn't have been taking pictures like these. you kind of fark up the "things are so terrible that we need to burn the bodies" excuse when you pose with the corpses


They're Americans. Americans have posted photos of themselves shiatting on the sidewalk before. Just to prove they were there, like when Oriental tourists hand you their cameras on front of the Lincoln idol.
 
2014-01-15 07:51:17 PM  

big pig peaches: So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?


Because we *claim* to be better than that. THAT'S why. Are people so obtuse not to understand this concept?

/I know. Stupid question is stupid.
 
2014-01-15 07:56:31 PM  

WTFDYW: big pig peaches: So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?

Because we *claim* to be better than that. THAT'S why. Are people so obtuse not to understand this concept?

/I know. Stupid question is stupid.


Not only that, but it can make others in the area mad and violent, people who might have otherwise not given two shiats.
 
2014-01-15 08:01:00 PM  

dropdfun: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.


Against religious fanatics with a mix of nationalism? You'll sooner run out of bullets.
 
2014-01-15 08:02:32 PM  

WTFDYW: big pig peaches: So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?

Because we *claim* to be better than that. THAT'S why. Are people so obtuse not to understand this concept?

/I know. Stupid question is stupid.



We are better.  After all these were corpses and not captured soldiers who were doused fuel and burned still alive.  Frankly, what happens to a corpse shouldn't be a huge concern regardless of individuals personal feelings.  You want to handle a body in the manner your religion prescribes, then don't lose the battle and you can manage the battlefield recovery efforts. That's not to say what happened wasn't bad, but this is more along the lines of running a stop sign level of misconduct that is a slap on the wrist and move on.  Anyone expending time and effort to try and severely punish these soldier for conduct that happened in a major battle to a couple of biohazard objects nearly 10 years after the fact has some seriously misplaced priorities.
 
2014-01-15 08:03:08 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


Well, intentionally desecrating bodies is a war crime.  Cremation's usually fine, since it's how all civilized cultures dispose of their dead and is generally motivated by hygenic rather than religious concerns.

They'd only be in trouble if someone could prove that they cremated the bodies  because they were from a muslim sect that requires burial.  If they can't prove the second point beyond a reasonable doubt, this falls under "shiat happens, we'd rather take a boot from Allah in the next world than start a plague in this one".

//There's also a policy violation, but they'd have to actually call these people back to service to enforce it, and with the photos being from 2004 that might not even be legally possible since their 10-year contract might be up.
 
2014-01-15 08:13:18 PM  

The One True TheDavid: How about instead we find people who are in good physical, mental & genetic shape and give them special treatment in peacetime so they can reproduce and rear offspring effectively? You know, turn the whole paradigm around. Give the genetic winners and their families whatever help they need to produce & rear 3 or 4 exemplary kids.

And the flip side of that: "Sorry son, but we don't let healthy people under 25 join the Marines unless they can prove their genes are broken.The armed forces are a way to make use of slightly defective citizens, not to splatter America's future all over Kandahar."


There's a recent short story that explored a dystopian alternate history in which World War III is raging on, and the U.S. has done more or less exactly that.  If your sperm count was too low, you were pretty much guaranteed to die on some radioactive battlefield.  If you had a high sperm count and showed a proper respect for women (by 1950's standards), you could have up to three wives, although you'd have to share each wife with two other husbands on a rotating schedule.

I think it was titled "Fade to White", but I don't remember the name of the author.  It was nominated for a Hugo Award last year but didn't win.
 
2014-01-15 08:17:06 PM  

rattchett: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?

You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?


That's how wars are decisively finished. After the US+UK burned Dresden and the Soviets leveled Berlin WW2 in Europe was sho nuff over and the Allies sho nuff won. It took 45 years for Germany to fully recover after that. You've got to slaughter a large fraction of the enemy's population base, make living there damn near impossible, and destroy the survivors' will to resist or even hold their heads up.

If you're all about respecting human rights you don't start wounding, maiming and killing people. They're mutually exclusive.

First you beat them down so hard they'll be mentally, socially & economically crippled for 2 or 3 generations, then you send in the NGOs to address their hearts & minds. Being all namby-pamby is just a stupid & immoral waste.

 
2014-01-15 08:20:57 PM  

Jim_Callahan: They'd only be in trouble if someone could prove that they cremated the bodies because they were from a muslim sect that requires burial.


Intent follows the crime. Proving intent here might be a bit hard to do considering the decomposed nature of the corpses and the known health hazards they they presented to the living. Cremation may be a crime against the Muslim religion however the U.S. military is not bound to those laws nor should they be. They violate religious practices for their own people all of the time when those practices get in the way of the mission at hand. Sure they try to respect them whenever possible but just like not holding Sunday services in the middle of an ongoing battle they will be ignored when expediency dictates it.

The other side did much worse or have we forgotten the desecration of bodies and hanging burned corpses from bridges so soon? Compare that to burning rotting corpses for health reasons and we are friggin' saints.
 
2014-01-15 08:29:08 PM  
friggin' saints
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-01-15 08:34:26 PM  

Fallout Boy: dropdfun: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.

Against religious fanatics with a mix of nationalism? You'll sooner run out of bullets.


I'd say Japan fit the bill for both those requirements, took firebombing and two nukes for good measure but worked out in the end.
 
2014-01-15 08:37:15 PM  

Daedalus27: We are better.


Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.
 
2014-01-15 08:39:56 PM  

Omahawg: friggin' saints
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x510]


Did you notice where I was comparing desecration of bodies? The people behind Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and punished for what they did. But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released. Compare that to Abu Ghraib then yes, still saints. Especially seeing as we condemned the actions in that image above  and the terrorists celebrated the action in Pearlmans video.
 
2014-01-15 08:42:10 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.


Welcome to the history of war. To paraphrase Patton "Our duty is not to die for our country but to make the other bastards die for theirs".
 
2014-01-15 08:43:02 PM  

The One True TheDavid: rattchett: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?

You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?

That's how wars are decisively finished. After the US+UK burned Dresden and the Soviets leveled Berlin WW2 in Europe was sho nuff over and the Allies sho nuff won. It took 45 years for Germany to fully recover after that. You've got to slaughter a large fraction of the enemy's population base, make living there damn near impossible, and destroy the survivors' will to resist or even hold their heads up.

If you're all about respecting human rights you don't start wounding, maiming and killing people. They're mutually exclusive.

First you beat them down so hard they'll be mentally, socially & economically crippled for 2 or 3 generations, then you send in the NGOs to address their hearts & minds. Being all namby-pamby is just a stupid & immoral waste.


Pure falsehood. WWII was won with the destruction of industrial facilities and armies. The large civilian casualties were the result of an era before high precision strikes, and the purposeful killing of civilians was never the main intention (and it wasnt even in significant amounts to make a difference); even Dresden and the two nuked cities were chosen because they were major industrial centres. Total war works when you are fighting nation states who will capitulate when their factories and armies are destroyed, but it doesnt work against terrorism and guys with AKs and bombs in civilian clothing.
 
2014-01-15 08:43:52 PM  
Radioactive Ass

But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released.

I laughed so hard I kinda got a stitch.
 
2014-01-15 08:47:43 PM  

Daedalus27: We are better.  After all these were corpses and not captured soldiers who were doused fuel and burned still alive.  Frankly, what happens to a corpse shouldn't be a huge concern regardless of individuals personal feelings.  You want to handle a body in the manner your religion prescribes, then don't lose the battle and you can manage the battlefield recovery efforts.


Keep your religion out of my war. This is about oil!
 
2014-01-15 08:48:51 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Omahawg: friggin' saints
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x510]

Did you notice where I was comparing desecration of bodies? The people behind Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and punished for what they did. But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released. Compare that to Abu Ghraib then yes, still saints. Especially seeing as we condemned the actions in that image above  and the terrorists celebrated the action in Pearlmans video.


how about war is just bad and turns everyone on all sides into evil murderers because that is what you do in war? what was that old line about colonel kurtz and handing out speeding tickets at the indy 500? I don't remember. still, the colorado militia under chivington decorated their saddles with the vaginas cut out of cheyenne women so you know......war is just bad and makes otherwise normal people do very bad things.

I'll say it again: war is just bad, folks.
 
2014-01-15 08:48:55 PM  

The One True TheDavid: rattchett: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?

You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?

That's how wars are decisively finished. After the US+UK burned Dresden and the Soviets leveled Berlin WW2 in Europe was sho nuff over and the Allies sho nuff won. It took 45 years for Germany to fully recover after that. You've got to slaughter a large fraction of the enemy's population base, make living there damn near impossible, and destroy the survivors' will to resist or even hold their heads up.

If you're all about respecting human rights you don't start wounding, maiming and killing people. They're mutually exclusive.

First you beat them down so hard they'll be mentally, socially & economically crippled for 2 or 3 generations, then you send in the NGOs to address their hearts & minds. Being all namby-pamby is just a stupid & immoral waste.


Intentionally targeting non-combatants is  not moral and it is not efficient.  The bombing of Dresden or Tokyo did not win WWII.  The Germans lost because their armies were ground up and the resources were expended, not because their population was brutalized.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly won the war in the Pacific- but we cannot nuke every enemy.  There are many of examples of brutality that did not win the war - Stalingrad, the Japanese atrocities in China, the bombing campaign against Germany or Britain.

Where do you draw the line?  Was Mai Lai an avoidance of namby-pamby thinking?  Was it intelligent and moral?  I think you're factually wrong and it is not because I am soft.  It is because I believe that morality has to be sought, even in war.
 
2014-01-15 08:50:20 PM  

mark12A: But what is disgusting is the attitude that some people have that because the Taliban desecrated American soldier's bodies it is all right for American's to do it to them. That attitude is just wrong because we are supposed to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level.

You poor snowflakes know little of what went on in WWII, culminating in the nuclear strikes on Japan. We were brutal. And it got results. Ultimately saved more lives than it took.

Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.


And when the entire northern hemisphere predictably teamed up to smash  us into submission, it would have been totally justified, since, in your scenario, we would have begun a war illegally and conducted war with a strategy consisting of 'war crimes FTW!'.

/Protip: We are not the only nation on Earth with an army
//Even if you can't fathom the moral reasons for playing nice, that's a nice concrete one.
 
2014-01-15 08:52:37 PM  

dropdfun: Fallout Boy: dropdfun: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.

Against religious fanatics with a mix of nationalism? You'll sooner run out of bullets.

I'd say Japan fit the bill for both those requirements, took firebombing and two nukes for good measure but worked out in the end.


Against a Middle East brand of religious fanatics and nationalism? The Soviets tried it, the British tried it. And why is it that people always equate fighting nation states with fighting terrorist and guerilla organizations? You drop a nuke on Japan or occupy it with troops, it surrenders. You drop a nuke in Afghanistan or occupy it with troops, and millions will line up to strap bombs across their chests.
 
2014-01-15 08:54:58 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.


Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.
 
2014-01-15 09:05:15 PM  

Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.


If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.
 
2014-01-15 09:06:05 PM  
This story must be a joke!
 
2014-01-15 09:23:43 PM  

LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.


Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.
 
2014-01-15 09:33:21 PM  

Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.


Yep. Sure worked for the Japanese and Germans
 
2014-01-15 09:42:04 PM  
I keep waiting to hear some news channel talk about the fact that we still have an American P.O.W. there.

It doesn't appear that he is even getting enough to eat.

I guess we are ok with that.

we must be, since they wont talk about it.
 
2014-01-15 09:43:51 PM  
A_Glass_Of_Pink

CNN ran a story about it today.
 
2014-01-15 09:43:53 PM  

ongbok: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

Yep. Sure worked for the Japanese and Germans


I thought that was more due to the fact that they didn't have enough minerals and gas.
 
2014-01-15 09:52:26 PM  

ongbok: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

Yep. Sure worked for the Japanese and Germans


Worked for Genghis Khan. Submit and here's what we can trade. Fight back and you all die. Whether or not brutality works in terms of winning wars depends on the strength of the aggressor and the perceived chance that you can in any way defend yourselves against them. Germany and Japan were barbarous for sure, but they left most people alive. Had Germany simply executed the entire population of France and kicked their bodies into the Loire, a lot of countries would have probably surrendered outright rather than fight back. It's the reason why the Empire wanted a Death Star to make the other systems fall in line.
 
2014-01-15 09:59:07 PM  

Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.


And how many of those excessively-brutal civilizations/regimes are around today? Oh, they all got their shiat kicked in when the world got sick of them? Funny, that.
 
2014-01-15 10:01:23 PM  

Shostie: I don't know if the White Walkers could survive in a desert environment like that.


Wouldn't they be Brown Walkers?
 
2014-01-15 10:06:21 PM  
I'm the with the people saying you can't really blame the children you send over there for acting crazy when their friends are being killed around them.
 
2014-01-15 10:24:02 PM  

what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.


That battle was already lost ten years ago (NSFW).
 
2014-01-15 10:28:06 PM  

LordJiro: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

And how many of those excessively-brutal civilizations/regimes are around today? Oh, they all got their shiat kicked in when the world got sick of them? Funny, that.


You do realize that the United States is one of the oldest governments in existence, right?
 
2014-01-15 10:30:23 PM  

ongbok: clyph: budrojr: What should protect the military from rioting locals is the fact that the military can and will freaking shoot you dead.

Throwing gas on a fire is not a good way to put it out.

Somebody doesn't understand the importance of having the locals on your side during a war.


I was told that putting out fire with gasoline is just dandy, if you are a cat person.

/obscure?
 
2014-01-15 10:33:21 PM  

The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.


Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?
 
2014-01-15 10:42:00 PM  

Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

And how many of those excessively-brutal civilizations/regimes are around today? Oh, they all got their shiat kicked in when the world got sick of them? Funny, that.

You do realize that the United States is one of the oldest governments in existence, right?


Funny, I don't remember America ordering every citizen of an enemy nation killed for shock value. And the few times we DID try anything like that level of brutality-for-the-sake-of-brutality (Vietnam, 'Shock and Awe' in Iraq), we LOST.

Dresden is arguable (although it wasn't a deciding factor in the victory; the Soviets were a far, FAR bigger factor in winning the war), but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were manufacturing centers; destroying them SERIOUSLY farked up the Japanese supply line, and the alternative was a full-scale invasion that undoubtedly would have killed more people, innocent and otherwise. Not to mention that, again, Japan was worried about the USSR turning their sights on them.
 
2014-01-15 11:01:13 PM  
Carol did it. She even confessed to Rick.
 
2014-01-15 11:29:38 PM  

dropdfun: I'd say Japan fit the bill for both those requirements, took firebombing and two nukes for good measure but worked out in the end.


Yeah, and the policy worked out great for Japan in China.
 
2014-01-15 11:29:53 PM  
Definitely need to query John Kerry on this issue of atrocity.
 
2014-01-15 11:31:47 PM  
Double tap.  Best solution to any zombie variation.....
 
2014-01-15 11:41:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: I am absolutely sure that is accurate.

Take 25 seconds out of your life to try to understand.

Thank  Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan  that I never experienced  through combat and because of this I can never fully understand those emotions....or lack thereof if you will...I did read Eugene Sledge's book though (3 times) and the quote in my Weeners in this thread (take that filter!) comes from the introduction. The book itself details what exactly that quote means.


Bookmark. /thank you
 
2014-01-16 12:04:55 AM  

ongbok: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

Yep. Sure worked for the Japanese and Germans


They weren't playing games either.

This isn't freaking Call of Duty. This is real life. The real world. Other people exist in it.
 
2014-01-16 12:33:10 AM  

ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?


Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....
 
2014-01-16 12:43:05 AM  
But did it smell like pork?
 
m00
2014-01-16 12:50:08 AM  
War is cruelty...
 
2014-01-16 01:37:11 AM  
white walkers?  the reference escapes me.
 
2014-01-16 02:10:09 AM  
IF the photos are authentic...(so they might not be)
IF the Marines can be identified...(which they might not be)
IF they are still in the service...(which they likely aren't)
IF there was no valid reason for cremating the bodies... (which there very well could have been)

...the pictures are over ten years old, the chances of anyone even in Afghanistan knowing or caring who the dead men are is remote. The odds are that since the bodies are dead, there was a good reason for burning them (probably because they'd been laying around for 48 hours and were starting to rot). So we're left with an old picture of some Marines cremating some bodies and we know nothing beyond that.

Is there ANY reason TMZ was dredging this up except to piss a lot of people off? Any thing? Bueller?
 
2014-01-16 02:54:26 AM  

Ex-Texan: But did it smell like pork?


I went as a volunteer firefighter when I was 17 and someone died/burned up in the house. It was one of the attending firefighter's daughters; she was going to college and the house where she rented a bedroom went up like a torch shortly after midnight.

That was 35 years ago and if I close my eyes and think about it, the memory/smell is right there. I'd prefer not to do that again; not enough money in the world to work at a job that lets me re-experience that night over and over.

I'm not belittling the corpse burning, but you realize: this is Fallujah right? Where forces surrounded the city for weeks waiting for the go call that somehow was delayed until after US elections? The same Fallujah where Italian TV videotaped footage after the battle of several bodies of civilians/women/children - and yes, civilians were 'encouraged' to leave before the attack but, kind of like Katrina, if you're poor and have no place to go... you don't go.

The disturbing thing about the video images weren't the dead civilians (war sucks), it was the fact that their clothes had tiny pinholes everywhere and their bodies melted like candles.

You see the US signed the Geneva Agreements on chemical weapons, but it doesn't include 'Willy Pete' - white phosphorus. Canisters for 'illumination' were launched over the city...

Fallujah sucked. Talk to anyone who was freaking there.

And for those above talking about WWII, talk to someone who walked into one of the concentration camps in Germany. (My father-in-law was one). They were so outraged, they went to the local town - people there knew - Freaking KNEW - what was going on but were either afraid/indifferent to do anything about it. So the US Army marched them at gunpoint to the camp, made them dig the graves and care for the poor bastards still alive. They were the ones that didn't look the US soldiers in the eye - mostly for fear the soldier would put a bullet in their brain.

I remember my Father-in-law said that it appeared some felt shame, but a large number were really really angry - not by what had happened - but because they made them look at it.

/The Roman/Mongol/Sherman way 'works' for a while; but you create a hate that lasts generations. For a more recent example take a look at Yugoslavia/Tito. That bastard made everyone live together and like it. Soon as he died however - Atrocities. Genocides. Horrors... it was awful - the full meaning of that word.
//No more Rwandas...  Figure the odds.
 
2014-01-16 03:05:30 AM  

cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....


And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.
 
2014-01-16 03:10:34 AM  

The Southern Dandy: cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....

And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.


If they haven't chosen a side, it might very well push them. On the other hand, if those that are undecided see that we treat even our enemies with some degree of respect, they might support us against al Qaeda, insurgents, or any other opposition.
 
2014-01-16 03:21:31 AM  

LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....

And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.

If they haven't chosen a side, it might very well push them. On the other hand, if those that are undecided see that we treat even our enemies with some degree of respect, they might support us against al Qaeda, insurgents, or any other opposition.


The really aren't that many swing voters in a combat zone to make a difference.
 
2014-01-16 03:41:56 AM  

The Southern Dandy: LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....

And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.

If they haven't chosen a side, it might very well push them. On the other hand, if those that are undecided see that we treat even our enemies with some degree of respect, they might support us against al Qaeda, insurgents, or any other opposition.

The really aren't that many swing voters in a combat zone to make a difference.


The point is, fighting an insurgency is not like fighting a military. There's no real leader to order a surrender. You just have anyone who feels threatened enough to pick up a gun or make a nailbomb. The more brutal and callous you are, the more people feel that threatened, and even the most oppressive, brutal dictators had resistances. And the more you crack down on resistance, the more YOU start to look like the bad (or worse) guy to outside viewers.
 
2014-01-16 03:55:55 AM  

LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....

And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.

If they haven't chosen a side, it might very well push them. On the other hand, if those that are undecided see that we treat even our enemies with some degree of respect, they might support us against al Qaeda, insurgents, or any other opposition.

The really aren't that many swing voters in a combat zone to make a difference.

The point is, fighting an insurgency is not like fighting a military. There's no real leader to order a surrender. You just have anyone who feels threatened enough to pick up a gun or make a nailbomb. The more brutal and callous you are, the more people feel that threatened, and even the most oppressive, brutal dictators had resistances. And the more you crack down on resistance, the more YOU start to look like the bad (or worse) guy to outside viewers.


The point is, fighting is not diplomacy.  A military, whether fighting a conventional military, or an insurgency, is there to fight, not to make friends. There to fight against the enemy, and to fight for friends. No worse enemy, no better friend. The US Marines are not the State Department, and they're not the Peace Corps.
 
2014-01-16 04:12:07 AM  

The Southern Dandy: LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....

And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.

If they haven't chosen a side, it might very well push them. On the other hand, if those that are undecided see that we treat even our enemies with some degree of respect, they might support us against al Qaeda, insurgents, or any other opposition.

The really aren't that many swing voters in a combat zone to make a difference.

The point is, fighting an insurgency is not like fighting a military. There's no real leader to order a surrender. You just have anyone who feels threatened enough to pick up a gun or make a nailbomb. The more brutal and callous you are, the more people feel that threatened, and even the most oppressive, brutal dictators had resistances. And the more you crack down on resistance, the more YOU start to look like the bad (or worse) guy to outside viewers.

The point is, fighting is not diplomacy.  A military, whether fighting a conventional military, or an insurgency, is there to fight, not to make friends. There to fight against the enemy, ...


And if they're excessively brutal and disrespectful, they'll be fighting forever.
 
2014-01-16 05:01:40 AM  

LordJiro: And if they're excessively brutal and disrespectful, they'll be fighting forever.


No they won't.  Luckily for us, the people of the US still have some say about when and where our military fights, and even though those controls are sluggish, Americans won't tolerate futility for too long.
 
2014-01-16 06:42:12 AM  

Omahawg: friggin' saints
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x510]


See, we're obviously the good guys.

If we were bad guys, we'd use guard boars instead of guard dogs in dealing with our mooselem enemies.
 
2014-01-16 07:19:05 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Omahawg: friggin' saints
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x510]

Did you notice where I was comparing desecration of bodies? The people behind Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and punished for what they did. But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released. Compare that to Abu Ghraib then yes, still saints. Especially seeing as we condemned the actions in that image above  and the terrorists celebrated the action in Pearlmans video.



content8.flixster.com
 
2014-01-16 07:26:37 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Omahawg: friggin' saints
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x510]

Did you notice where I was comparing desecration of bodies? The people behind Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and punished for what they did. But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released. Compare that to Abu Ghraib then yes, still saints. Especially seeing as we condemned the actions in that image above  and the terrorists celebrated the action in Pearlmans video.


Daniel Pearl you dolt.
 
2014-01-16 07:29:10 AM  
Yeah. I guess I shouldn't have binge watched season 6 last weekend. Daniel Pearl is who I meant. I blame coffee or something.
 
2014-01-16 07:30:10 AM  

thamike: Fox News is sourcing TMZ to dredge up unconfirmed dirt on the U.S. Armed Forces?  And the TMZ's unconfirmed source photos are supposedly from 2004?

Let's take a look!


Gah!  Preposterous photos with watermarks!

Color me f*cking surprised.

No really, I am actually surprised.  I'm even surprised at my own surprisedness.


You know nothing Jon Snow.
 
2014-01-16 07:59:00 AM  
News flash: Young men brutalizing each other in something they call "War".
 
2014-01-16 09:00:49 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: thamike: Fox News is sourcing TMZ to dredge up unconfirmed dirt on the U.S. Armed Forces?  And the TMZ's unconfirmed source photos are supposedly from 2004?

Let's take a look!


Gah!  Preposterous photos with watermarks!

Color me f*cking surprised.

No really, I am actually surprised.  I'm even surprised at my own surprisedness.

You know nothing Jon Snow.


Except that thing I do with me tongue.  Where's the look?

media.tumblr.com

There it is.  I'll be in me bunk.
 
2014-01-16 10:08:38 AM  

TheBigJerk: Yeah, that's why the horrors inflicted by the Soviets was so effective at ending the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Short of full-out genocide, there is nothing America can do that is scarier than what has been done (in living memory!) to the locals in that part of the world.

Anyways, corpse disposal might not matter to most of us, but for a lotta religious folks (including American Christians) dead body disposition is religiously important.  And let's be honest, it's a lot cheaper to let the survivors claim their dead than fight (in a very literal sense) for your right to waste time and fuel halfway burning them.

I mean I looked at the photos they had up, a proper clean&char it was definitely not.


The Russians didn't go far enough.  We aren't even remotely close to going far enough with what we should be doing to effectively shut down the Taliban and their supporters.  I don't think we're trying to be scarier than what they are used to.  You're right in that we could never do that.  We just need to be consistent in what we do.  You don't have to commit a genocide to have an effective outcome.  Disarm the populace and kill all opposition.  It's war time, so no guns for anyone who is not on our side.  Anyone riots?  Dead.  Anyone caught doing something pro-resistance?  Dead.  If you're not gonna do that, you're not gonna win the war.  When you withdraw, do so with an eye to kill the people who come out and riot and protest after the withdrawal.  All that crap with the Taliban dancing in Fallujah?  Looks like they should just be really easy targets to me.  Let them know that even if we are not right there in their midst we are still watching and can still kill them where they stand.  Then we should send them a message thanking them for being stupid enough to go out in public acting like that.  Eventually they'll run out of people with the will to fight.

As far as dead body disposition goes, I don't care about their religious customs or whatever.  In fact, I think barbecuing their remains and feeding them to pigs is a pretty good idea.  If they can't be concerned with the lives of women and children, or random innocent civilians and will indiscriminately bomb people, behead people, force women and kids to wear bombs, throw acid in their faces or whatever, I'm not going to care what our soldiers do to their corpses after they've been killed.  You can't play by rules with people who don't give a shiat about your rules.
 
2014-01-16 10:47:28 AM  
It's nice to see all the farkers I have flagged as "Sad little bigot" making their predictable showing.  Bunch of armchair dictators, talking about how big and bad they think we are and how brutal we should be overseas.  Theoretically to prevent war from breaking onto our shores.

It comforts me to know that if any of these little twits were in a position of power to actually do these things, they wouldn't be here spewing their bile.
 
2014-01-16 11:08:34 AM  

rattchett: Intentionally targeting non-combatants is not moral and it is not efficient


And is not the point.
 
2014-01-16 11:59:28 AM  
War is diplomacy.

Waging a war, via a government is inherently an action with goals on the world stage.

No war exists in a vacuum. We don't just decide to exterminate people for the hell of it.

To everyone here thinking we should have simply dug mass graves and murdered any Iraqi who dared step out of line, that only works if our ONLY goal was "kill every Iraqi who can fight"

Which is a stupid goal because when push comes to shove it really just morphs into "genocide Iraqis"

There are more efficient ways to do something like that. Thankfully that wasn't the goal in Iraq. The goal was to depose saddam.

Then the goal was.... Something. It will come to me.
 
2014-01-16 01:04:01 PM  

LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....

And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.

If they haven't chosen a side, it might very well push them. On the other hand, if those that are undecided see that we treat even our enemies with some degree of respect, they might support us against al Qaeda, insurgents, or any other opposition.


No, you're not listening. Once people have chosen a side, they're on that side FOREVER, and the actions they take would have been the same actions regardless of what choices you make in dealing with them/the bodies of other people who share their religion if not their values.

If I keep repeating this over and over, it will magically become true and I'll no longer be an ignoramus. Then maybe my parents will love me!
 
2014-01-16 01:06:04 PM  

The Southern Dandy: LordJiro: And if they're excessively brutal and disrespectful, they'll be fighting forever.

No they won't.  Luckily for us, the people of the US still have some say about when and where our military fights, and even though those controls are sluggish, Americans won't tolerate futility for too long.


You think armies can be moved around like pieces on a Risk board. Your way of thinking would be hilarious to me if it weren't actually so damn dangerous to our men and women overseas.
 
2014-01-16 01:19:56 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The Southern Dandy: LordJiro: And if they're excessively brutal and disrespectful, they'll be fighting forever.

No they won't.  Luckily for us, the people of the US still have some say about when and where our military fights, and even though those controls are sluggish, Americans won't tolerate futility for too long.

You think armies can be moved around like pieces on a Risk board. Your way of thinking would be hilarious to me if it weren't actually so damn dangerous to our men and women overseas.


Christmas on a stick, the American Public can't/won't even move their politicians around.
Past 60 years of the War For War and you even mention "futility for too long"?
 
2014-01-16 01:22:27 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: LordJiro: The Southern Dandy: cryinoutloud: ciberido: The Southern Dandy: First of all, burning a body is not desecrating it.
Is Dandy being disingenuous here or is he an idiot?  Any theories?

Desecrating? People pay good money for that. They probably pay too much for the urns, but still....

And they've spread the ashes on the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo.

Yes, I was serious. Burning a body is only desecration in certain belief systems. Not mine. But the point is...the locals that you're so worried about offending would not be offended if the body was that of their enemy, and if it was not their enemy, then they are our enemy, so who gives a shiat if they're offended? If they're already working to kill you, or supporting those trying to kill you, desecrating their buddies body isn't going to make things any more difficult for you, and treating their buddies body with respect isn't going to make anything easier for you.

If they haven't chosen a side, it might very well push them. On the other hand, if those that are undecided see that we treat even our enemies with some degree of respect, they might support us against al Qaeda, insurgents, or any other opposition.

No, you're not listening. Once people have chosen a side, they're on that side FOREVER, and the actions they take would have been the same actions regardless of what choices you make in dealing with them/the bodies of other people who share their religion if not their values.

If I keep repeating this over and over, it will magically become true and I'll no longer be an ignoramus. Then maybe my parents will love me!


Well, actually, in most of the world, all you do is swear allegiance to the New Boss and yer good.
It's all about networking new believers.
 
2014-01-16 05:34:34 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: If they were enlisted or NCOs and have left the IRR, I'm not sure that's even possible. I'm not a UCMJ expert, though. If your contract is up and your IRR obligation is up, it's a civilian matter.


That's how I understand it.
 
2014-01-16 05:49:00 PM  

The Southern Dandy: The point is, fighting is not diplomacy. A military, whether fighting a conventional military, or an insurgency, is there to fight, not to make friends. There to fight against the enemy, and to fight for friends. No worse enemy, no better friend. The US Marines are not the State Department, and they're not the Peace Corps.


Actually, that's completely wrong.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means".  Diplomacy is the carrot and war is the stick.   They are both means by which nations achieve their political goals, two sides of the same coin.

A military fights to support the decisions of the nation's leadership and accomplish the mission they're assigned.   Individual soldiers fight for a variety of reasons - for their friends, for their beliefs, because they're following orders, or whatever.

The Marines, like the State Department, are instruments of foreign policy.   They have different missions and use different tools to achieve that mission, but their ultimate end goal is the same: to influence the behavior of other countries in a way that benefits our national interests, as directed by the elected leadership.

Either you never served or you slept through leadership school.
 
Displayed 189 of 189 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report