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 45
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

13833 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 5:05 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-15 04:14:18 PM
6 votes:

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 03:57:12 PM
6 votes:

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 05:11:15 PM
5 votes:

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 03:50:07 PM
5 votes:
"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 05:53:26 PM
4 votes:

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 05:28:09 PM
4 votes:
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 04:24:57 PM
4 votes:

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 06:26:47 PM
3 votes:

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 05:55:57 PM
3 votes:

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 05:33:41 PM
3 votes:
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 05:32:16 PM
3 votes:
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 05:32:14 PM
3 votes:

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 05:14:27 PM
3 votes:
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 03:53:01 PM
3 votes:
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.
2014-01-16 11:59:28 AM
2 votes:
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.
2014-01-15 08:50:20 PM
2 votes:

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 07:56:31 PM
2 votes:

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 06:06:27 PM
2 votes:

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 05:58:38 PM
2 votes:

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 05:50:06 PM
2 votes:
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 04:00:40 PM
2 votes:

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 03:31:36 PM
2 votes:
How did TMZ end up with those pictures of all places? I don't see Justin Bieber in any of them.
2014-01-16 10:47:28 AM
1 votes:
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 04:12:07 AM
1 votes:

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 03:41:56 AM
1 votes:

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 03:10:34 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-15 10:42:00 PM
1 votes:

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 10:33:21 PM
1 votes:

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 09:59:07 PM
1 votes:

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 09:52:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:48:55 PM
1 votes:

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 07:19:47 PM
1 votes:

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 06:18:10 PM
1 votes:
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 06:10:37 PM
1 votes:
Wait, we should have bombed the fark out of Iraqi civilians?

I thought we went in to "liberate" them...
2014-01-15 05:41:25 PM
1 votes:

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 05:36:19 PM
1 votes:

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 05:35:39 PM
1 votes:
Blowing living people into hamburger sized chunks: A-Okay!
Burning dead bodies: Court martial offense!
Benghazi!
2014-01-15 05:35:07 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:33 PM
1 votes:
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 05:30:18 PM
1 votes:
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 05:17:45 PM
1 votes:

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 05:16:10 PM
1 votes:

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 05:16:01 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:00 PM
1 votes:
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 04:03:10 PM
1 votes:
Well it doesn't look like anyone was in any big hurry to bury the rotting bastard. Just saying.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report