Semper Fi Pissin' Idiots!

[loCAtek]

How could I be excusing it, when I've agreed they will be charged? I just don't think it's the international crisis some are making it out to be.


From a Taliban spokesperson, who saw the video;

"You guys love the spotlight, don't you?"

Source

[loCAtek]

The day will come when someone in a uniform will do something wrong, and loCA will make no attempt to defend or justify it in any way.

And everyone will drop dead from the shock.

LOL Already happened Scoot- you are aware I don't support Pfc Manning? While reports of everyone's death have been greatly exaggerated.



...which reminds me.

[Scooter]

So it takes a soldier to commit what you consider to be treason before you can bring yourself to criticize him/her. Sorry, no cigar.

[Sean]

How could I be excusing it, when I've agreed they will be charged?

What you actually wrote was:

Some say they should be charged, and I believe they will be...

Guess what? With that wording you are distancing yourself from the 'some' who say they should be charged. Do you believe that they should be charged?

Yea, I'll shut up now, until it's time to report the final sentence.

You didn't do that either...

[loCAtek]

So it takes a soldier to commit what you consider to be treason before you can bring yourself to criticize him/her. Sorry, no cigar.

Your original requirement was 'someone in uniform' with no further stipulations.

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what. Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly.

Do you believe that they should be charged?

Yes, I also said I believe in justice; charge them accordingly, and that may be by nonjudicial punishment, rather than court martial.

PS - I was addressed directly, as well as now, when that polite request was made to respond, I did.

[Sean]

Do you believe that they should be charged?

Yes, I also said I believe in justice; charge them accordingly, and that may be by nonjudicial punishment, rather than court martial.

That's a very evasive answer. With what offence(s) do you think they should be charged and why do you think that non-judicial punishment would be appropriate?

[Timster]

That's just great, but where were you all in a rush to the Emily Post flag wavers convention during the Falluja massacre? Seriously the outrage here seems to be misplaced at best. Hypocritical to the extreme at worst .

Wtf...

[Timster]

I remember that day and I wept for the enemy.

Do I condone that behavior, no . However, I, did not just kill those responsible for killing half my squad and brothers in arms. (Closer than most family will ever be.) And if I were to stand over those responsible for killing my family; would I urinate on their lifeless corpse? Let me think about it and get back to you. Damned easy for you and I to condemn from the comfort of our easy chairs.

[quaddriver]

I remember that day and I wept for the enemy.

Do I condone that behavior, no . However, I, did not just kill those responsible for killing half my squad and brothers in arms. (Closer than most family will ever be.) And if I were to stand over those responsible for killing my family; would I urinate on their lifeless corpse? Let me think about it and get back to you. Damned easy for you and I to condemn from the comfort of our easy chairs.

without addressing your position (which I happen to agree with) did you chime in o nthe 'dog video' thread?

[rubato]

I remember that day and I wept for the enemy.

Do I condone that behavior, no . However, I, did not just kill those responsible for killing half my squad and brothers in arms. (Closer than most family will ever be.) And if I were to stand over those responsible for killing my family; would I urinate on their lifeless corpse? Let me think about it and get back to you. Damned easy for you and I to condemn from the comfort of our easy chairs.

I have to agree. What they did was wrong by the rules, wrong morally, wrong in terms of being destructive to the overall effort over there, but perfectly understandable in human terms. In fact it was the same as the murder of Qaddafi* in all three respects.

yrs,
rubato

*For the sake of the establishment of a just society Qaddafi should have been tried and condemned by a judicial process governed by a legitimate state in Libya.

[rubato]

If a tree falls in a forest ( dead Taliban corpse is pissed on ) and no one hears it (sees it) does it make a sound (effect anything)?

The act is, of itself, harmless. It is only problematic as a communicative act. So in one sense it was only wrong because they publicised it. Or in another way of putting it, insensibility moots any possible outrage of sensibilities.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

The act is, of itself, harmless. It is only problematic as a communicative act. So in one sense it was only wrong because they publicised it.

I believe that's quite obvious. I don't think anyone here would have complained if they didn't know about it.

[Lord Jim]

I believe that's quite obvious. I don't think anyone here would have complained if they didn't know about it.

That's a good point.

Personally, I rarely complain about something I'm completely unaware of.

Very insightful of rube to be able to glean that.

[Rick]

At Abu Garib there were 2 counts of desecrating a corpse because of 2 PHOTOS.

During Gulf II there were calls for war crimes because PHOTOS of dead US soldiers were made public.

In neither situation were they pissed on.

Guess what...

[rubato]

The act is, of itself, harmless. It is only problematic as a communicative act. So in one sense it was only wrong because they publicised it.

I believe that's quite obvious. I don't think anyone here would have complained if they didn't know about it.

But most here condemned the act, not the fact that they published it. So perhaps it was obvious only when I pointed it out.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

At Abu Garib there were 2 counts of desecrating a corpse because of 2 PHOTOS.

During Gulf II there were calls for war crimes because PHOTOS of dead US soldiers were made public.

In neither situation were they pissed on.

Guess what...

It confirms the point.

But of course the photos of inmate abuse at Abu Ghraib are an entirely different thing.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Actually, Keld that is a very good point [I would also have mentioned that US Army 'kill team' that deliberately targeted civilians; took trophy photos and body parts]

A single act of desecration is more significant, if it is a red flag for other far more sinister behavior. The events of Abu Garib were bad enough, but they had to take trophy photos. The Kill Team was bad enough but they had to take souvenirs.

Sometimes the rebellious act of committing a crime is just an isolated event; buildings are tagged with American gang sign; troops smuggle out Saddam-era money, or captured Iraqi medals. There was a kind of a cute video of a young female US soldier being taught to speak the local language [subtitled], that soon turned mildly offensive because the Iraqi were teaching her the worst insult phrases, 'I will show you the sole of my shoe!'. I knew a Seabee who refused to eat at the zone mess hall, because he was sure the Iraqi servers were spitting in the food.

So far, there's nothing to indicate that this unit did more than commit an isolated act. In the video, they didn't seem angry or vengeful, and they knew it was wrong. This doesn't seem to be the mark of a band gone rogue, which would be the worst case scenario.
The one incident is all there is evidence for so, they can only be justifiably be charged with that.

[Rick]

From Here

1003If a Marine’s mission is to demolish a bridge, but he also destroys a church, what principle of the Law of War has that Marine violated?

Marines destroy no more than the mission requires.

With that I'm done with this...

[Timster]

Not quite yet. Because I need some clarification, please.

What exactly was so heinous about this act that excites the moral sensibilities so much?

What if they had simply just spit upon the corpse'? Would that have been acceptable? I'm guessing that would have got a pass.

So. Are we gauging our outrage upon which particular bodily fluid that was used? Or the duration of the administration of said bodily fluid?

Just saying....

[Timster]

And yes I am being obtuse. But think about it.