US Marines Peeing on Dead Bodies

Nice try. The parallel for rape, torture and indiscriminate killing in historical military conflicts is not the modern day desecration of corpses.  It's rape, torture and indiscriminate killing  - all of which have occurred in conflicts western nations have been involved in the last  20 years.   The apparently overwhelming and widespread instinct to minimize this is understandable but wrong.  I read Lara Logan this morning summing it up as 'stupid' , the essential equivalent of drunken frat boys behaving badly . Lara Logan, who one would think might be able to speak with a little more clarity and urgency about unchecked dark human impulses in conflict situations, still apparently trying to prove she can man up.  Whatever.

I don't care how prosaic the full story turns out to be, it's going to be deceptively prosaic.  Group urination on the dead faces and bodies of war casualties, heads on sticks, ears and fingers and who knows what else kept for trophies, sadistic smiling poses with the dead and tortured - all these things harm nobody more than they've already been harmed - unless you want to count tearing a strip off the soul of the person doing it - but they are and always have been a symptom of the underlying and raging systemic illness of war.  I've made clear I hope that I don't think there is anything quintessentially American about this, and I actively deplore lazy and self serving anti-American rhetoric where it exists.  That said, I'm glad it's not me paying for the Gatorade or whatever that eventually ended up all over the faces and bodies of dead Afghan men, and I'm glad it's not me so eager to 'contextualize' that I'm whistling past such unambiguous horror. And it is horror.  It is.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
Yes it's horrible.[/QUOTE]

And that's where you should have stopped. By adding to that, you are effectively condoning the act (or at best, trivializing it) on the grounds that worse things happen in war.

Ok... so using your logic*  (taking my comments out of context), you're saying that worse things DON'T happen in war? 

You need to quit watching Fox News.

[QUOTE]Grateful wrote: Group urination on the dead faces and bodies of war casualties, heads on sticks, ears and fingers and who knows what else kept for trophies, sadistic smiling poses with the dead and tortured - all these things harm nobody more than they've already been harmed - unless you want to count tearing a strip off the soul of the person doing it - but they are and always have been a symptom of the underlying and raging systemic illness of war[/QUOTE]

So all those beheadings of military and civilian contractors by muslim fundamentalists was OK?  But urinating on a corpse is crossing the line?  You accused the "Western"world of atrocities, but you need to see the whole picture.

No, that's not me condoning desecration of corpses.

Remember Nick Berg?  Berg first arrived in Iraq on December 21, 2003, and made arrangements to secure contract work for his company. He also went to the northern city of Mosul, visiting an Iraqi man whose brother had been married to Berg's late aunt. Leaving on February 1, he returned to Iraq on March 14, 2004, only to find that the work he was promised was unavailable. Throughout his time in Iraq, he maintained frequent contact with his family in the United States by telephone and e-mail.

Berg's body was found decapitated on May 8, 2004 on a Baghdad overpass by a U.S. military patrol. Berg's family was informed of his death two days later. Military sources stated publicly at that time that Berg's body showed "signs of trauma", but did not disclose that he had been decapitated.

[QUOTE]

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]  So all those beheadings of military and civilian contractors by muslim fundamentalists was OK?  [/QUOTE]
Cooking device, I know you're smarter than this and I'm pretty sure you know I am as well.  Don't waste my time with nonsense.

When Western nations' justification for deploying combat or peacekeeping troops includes security through establishing or guarding systems of human rights, it's relevant to point out that there have been egregious violations of human rights.   I've never heard anybody credibly argue that it takes a good soaking in urine to stamp out beheading, but I'm willing to listen if you want to try.

I think urinating on a corpse is crossing the line, and leaving that line far behind in the desert dust.   I mean don't you?  Who wouldn't?

I can't understand what I'm saying makes you think I'm OK with urinating on corpses.  I'm just making the case that this is one of many outrageous acts the human race seems to occaisionally participate in.  To make a blanket statement about the entire military is absolutely ridiculous. 

Spoken like people who have NEVER served their country... like you, GratefulFan.  I'm fairly certain you have not.  I personally have not, but I doubt my father was urinating on North Vietnameese soldiers back in 1971.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
I can't understand what I'm saying makes you think I'm OK with urinating on corpses.  I'm just making the case that this is one of many outrageous acts the human race seems to occaisionally participate in.  To make a blanket statement about the entire military is absolutely ridiculous.  Spoken like people who have NEVER served their country... like you, GratefulFan.  I'm fairly certain you have not.  I personally have not, but I doubt my father was urinating on North Vietnameese soldiers back in 1971.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't even address what GF said. You're just lashing out like an idiot. Give it a rest ffs.

I completely agree re dehumanization, and I would also argue there is an intrinsic element of dehumanization to wars that might be regarded as just & necessary. If a war is regarded as just & necessary, it therefore becomes a battle between good and evil. Afterall, if you are fighting the good fight, then your enemy is thereby fighting the bad fight, so to speak, and terms like good and evil enter the picture. It makes it easier to kill if you regard the person as evil, and thereby deserving of death.
 
It's interesting as on another site, I read a comment by someone, which epitomes this dehumanization that impacts even some war supporters who have never picked up a weapon: 

"An enemy that suppresses the freedom of it's own people, who treat the weakest among them (women and children) with contempt and oppression in the name of their deity, deserves no respect, no compassion , no sympathy and no dignity."

BTW, one thing that I think is a massive, massive concern is the use of technology, such as drones. While such technology may be 'easier' to use, it also makes it easier to kill without recognising that those being killed are human beings as well (not to mention that drones often stuff up and are hated by the Pakistani people among others.)

I'm not going to continue this pointless discussion with Microwave. I'll just leave it at this:
Bob and GF are completely right - this is the inherent face of war. Everyone knows that. However, one of the primary tasks of an officer is to make sure that these things don't happen. Every time they do, it means someone has failed to do his (and more recently, also her) job. When you or I fail to do our jobs, we get told off, we get docked our pay, we might even get sued. When an officer fails to do his job, people die.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]Grateful wrote: Group urination on the dead faces and bodies of war casualties, heads on sticks, ears and fingers and who knows what else kept for trophies, sadistic smiling poses with the dead and tortured - all these things harm nobody more than they've already been harmed - unless you want to count tearing a strip off the soul of the person doing it - but they are and always have been a symptom of the underlying and raging systemic illness of war[/QUOTE] So all those beheadings of military and civilian contractors by muslim fundamentalists was OK?  But urinating on a corpse is crossing the line?  You accused the "Western"world of atrocities, but you need to see the whole picture.No, that's not me condoning desecration of corpses.Remember Nick Berg?  Berg first arrived in Iraq on December 21, 2003, and made arrangements to secure contract work for his company. He also went to the northern city of Mosul, visiting an Iraqi man whose brother had been married to Berg's late aunt. Leaving on February 1, he returned to Iraq on March 14, 2004, only to find that the work he was promised was unavailable. Throughout his time in Iraq, he maintained frequent contact with his family in the United States by telephone and e-mail.Berg's body was found decapitated on May 8, 2004 on a Baghdad overpass by a U.S. military patrol. Berg's family was informed of his death two days later. Military sources stated publicly at that time that Berg's body showed "signs of trauma", but did not disclose that he had been decapitated.[/QUOTE]


Yes, those men shouldn't have been beheaded. But in what context? Their country had been invaded in a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, which, it turns out were apparently not there. When a minority fundamentalist group performed an attack on the USA, the US responded by starting a war, killing over 100 million people. I am NOT justifying beheading people, i am not justifying any criminal/terrorist/evil activities, but i can kind of see how you would kill people who invaded your country. And one person's crime does not justify another person's crime... war is horrible and horrible things happen, and desecration of bodies has also always happened in war, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it is evil.

I'm drunk. Well, on my moral compass, the taking of a life is a bigger deal than pissing on a corpse.

The counterbalance to this would be that A) they were combatants, so to at least some people the killing was justified in a moral sense. And B), if someone shoots someone else in the name of some cause, that the shooter would at least appreciate the gravity of said killing. Clearly, these lads do not, but as I said that's the ideal scenario. Consider a hunter who doesn't put the animal through undue stress or pain, and uses as much of the body as possible. With that logic, you'd hope that combatants would (as much as is practicable) afford some respect to vanquished bad guys. For every corpse pissing in history, there's been at least one respectful burial in wartime - go ahead and read about it.

Anyway, I don't really give two shits about the video. This stuff has been going on forever, but more to the point it's been happening rather visibly in that part of the world ever since the war started. Woe betide anyone who comes to me looking for some kind of reaction (a couple of e-friends have asked me what I think of this thing). My reaction?? I said the war was fubar and shouldn't have been started in the first place.

Am I desensitised? You bet! The world is too big and there's too many people dying each day for me to really expend energy. On a rational level, I think what they did is totally wrong and I hope they cop some sort of penalty. Aside from that though, I'm still left with my first thought. Without trying to justify post mortem humiliation, I will stand by the idea that killing (even if it is state sanctioned) *is* a bigger deal. I don't support either. But that's just me.

I can totally relate to your point of view, Zebonka. As I already said in my previous post - the question why these people where killed in the first place is not even asked anymore. We hear about unbelievable atrocities each days - a woman in Saudi Arabia beheaded for wicth craft, a man in Austria held his daughter captive in his house for decades and had 7 children with her, the list goes on and on. You come to a point where you simply cannot process it anymore. However, we the people must uphold the basic human values or else there is no hope for mankind.

I do understand Microwave when he says that these soldiers are not the only ones committing horrible crimes but a U.S. citizen should not compare his country with criminals in the Middle East - he should compare the actions of the US government and US army with other Western democracies like Europe or Australia and ask himself if these states have camps like Gunatanamo with no citizen rights, if they have the death penalty, deprive their citizens of basic rights with laws like the Patriot Act, send drones into other countries to kill people - among them a 16 year old American citizen like recently happened to the son of (also murdered) Anwar al-Awlaki. Acts like these totally remove the the feeling for decency and legality in a "war" that does not respect any international law at all. To even claim that these soldiers "serve their country" is a language that would make George Orwell jealous.

As a citizen I do not want to be blamed for the actions of my government but I have a duty to speak up against illegal or inhuman actions or else I do support them. If half as many citizens would stand up against the so-called "war on terror" as did against the Vietnam war, it would stop pretty quickly. I do not see much resistance against the war in Afghanistan in Europe, either.

[QUOTE]

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b] I can't understand what I'm saying makes you think I'm OK with urinating on corpses.  I'm just making the case that this is one of many outrageous acts the human race seems to occaisionally participate in.  To make a blanket statement about the entire military is absolutely ridiculous. 

Spoken like people who have NEVER served their country... like you, GratefulFan.  I'm fairly certain you have not.  I personally have not, but I doubt my father was urinating on North Vietnameese soldiers back in 1971.[/QUOTE]
There are several smart Americans that post on QZ about political or social issues,but the difference with you is that you are, I think, comparatively conservative.  From a completely selfish standpoint I'd love to have a substantial discussion with that perspective represented in a thought provoking and challenging way, I am 1000% interested in what you have to say. I would think you're certainly sharp enough to be able to contribute to something like that.  But instead it's 'So all those Jihadi beheadings are OK' and, God help me,  'My Dad was in 'Nam'.  I mean, are you kidding me with this?  And as Holly pointed out, who and what are you even addressing? It seems to me that the average person has lost the instinct and perhaps even in some ways the ability to discuss the public interest without some version of Fox/MSNBC talking points dragging down the IQ of the entire room.   Surely the best conversations are actually conversations rather than loosely associated parallel opportunities for Tourette like outbursts of completely exhausted and exhausting rhetoric?  'Have YOU ever served your country GratefulFan?' Jesus Christ Microwave.  How about I keep trying to serve it by working very hard to not to pour another drop of stupidity into it's public spaces when I could be using my brains and my experience and my perspective to participate in a real exchange.

To address your point, you aren't saying anything that makes me think you're OK with urinating on corpses.  I don't think you are.  I do think though that the 'line' you keep referencing is not between urinating on corpses and rape, torture or murder.  I think there's things like warm mitts and hot chocolate and great music and hockey and looking at Robert Downey Jr and courage and kindness and decency and restraint - and then there's a line - and then there's indiscriminate death, destruction, rape, mayhem, beheading and urinating on the faces and bodies of bloodied and dead human beings lying at your feet.   What a red herring all these attempts at atrocity ranking are.  We're not officers in some court trying to figure out the right level of outrage and  a suitable punishment, we're citizens of countries at war trying to understand what this really means. Who knows where this fits into the process of moral breakdown in a soldier.  Who knows what came before this, or went after. It's all related to rage and numbing out and the objectification of things that are not objects.

The worst thing about the war is hell but it could be hellier line is the utter passivity.  These troops didn't sprout like mushrooms in the middle of the desert and fall into uniforms.  They are only there because of political will of the countries that sent them.  Political will maintained by the shaping of a narrative that works to suppress these realities, and gravely casts them as outliers when they cannot.  There is a clearer line than some would have us believe - a clearer line between government and media sanitization of war that protects missions to which we have committed and protects the psychological well being of returning soldiers (a big problem with the VIetnam protest movement)-  and denialism that protects the big dumb machine of war indiscriminately.  For those of us safe in our comfortable homes desensitization is a choice, not an inevitability, and not a kind of solidarity that serves anything or anyone well.

Abuse of enemy soldiers, no matter whether caught dead or alive, is definitely not happening for the first time. Like someone pointed out, what makes the difference now is that every body has a camera phone to capture the visual spectacle and then upload it straight away for the whole world to see. This wouldn't have been so easy even 4-5 years ago, right?
India and its neighbours Pakistan have exchaged fire along the borders for the last 60 years, and on 3 occasions we have had full blown wars. It has been reported in the papers many times that when the bodies of the Indian dead soldiers is brought back home from Pak custody, they are often mutilated - fingers, eyes, genitals missing. A lot of times post mortem proves it was done after the person was dead. Who would do such a thing?

this WOULD have been easy 6-7 yrs ago. Digital cameras... xmas presents.

As for Vietnam etc... people participating in UNDECLARED WARS (look it up) are frequent to have taken "trophies" (ears, cock and balls - tobacco pouches, skulls, hands etc)

what the next generations kinda are starting to realize is it's dehumanizing, and it's usually big rich bastards and companies trying to furnish a new economic platform, because INTERNALLY (through treaties like NAFTA that deregulate) the economic system is collapsing and there's little along the lines of production going on. All the jobs and even the freaking MIDWIFING and CHILDBIRTH are even being considered to get passed out to India.

Its a pretty disgusting time to be living in... but unlike other people's selective stories, i doubt that very much has changed.


After nearly being led into the service with a former friend of mine i'd already KNOWticed that they were merely going to use me as fodder and a testing ground for new shit.

It doesn't appeal to me, and there is NOTHING "UNAMERICAN" about suggesting that the children of Senators etc should be made to serve.

They've worked their way to make things clean and easy for themselves; and the rest of the trades behind scenes are all to keep the thing functioning.

Peeing on dead bodies is nothing new. They do far worse.

Usually the aggressor is more concerned with the "kicks" of the trade.