Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

13844 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 5:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report