US Marines Peeing on Dead Bodies

ParisNair wrote: 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?

Finally!!! 

{SATIRE ON} Yes, but these were US Marines so it's much worse when that happens {SATIRE OFF}

One man's satire is another man's strawman.  Apparently, you got nothin'.  ;) Oh well.  There's never a shortage of things I can find to babble in paragraphs about.

Editing to add:  Sorry!  You weren't done. :)

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

Ok.  Nazi Germany.  They had camps...  but compared to Guantanamo, they were summer camps.  Death penalty?  Well being cooked to death doesn't really count as a death penalty... more like a bonus.  And the German citizens who were Jewish didn't have to deal with something as idiotic as the Patriot Act...  they were just separated from their familes never to see them again... they weren't spied on!!!  Calm down, TQ... this is what we call "satire".

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.

Soon after a 2002 warrant was canceled (lack of physical evidence), Awlaki left the United States for good, settling in Yemen. Since his escape, Awlaki, now considered by intelligence officials to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, has been implicated as the spiritual inspiration for terror plots in Canada and the U.S., and was in e-mail contact with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with 13 counts of murder in the recent mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.

After 9/11, however, terror investigators took a fresh look at Awlaki. JTTF agents in San Diego were keenly interested in Awlaki's activities because of his close ties to hijackers Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar. Authorities say the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men, leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor and had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Alwaki moved to a Northern Virginia mosque in early 2001, Alhamzi had visited him there too, along with a third future hijacker, Hani Hanjour.

I don't have much compassion for Awlaki or his "son".  Do you?  He doesn't sound like a real nice man.

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.

Maybe for some...  but I think we would have had more 9/11 type attacks here and abroad if the United States did not take the steps that they have.  It has saved a lot of lives since.  Sure, I can tell you plenty of things wrong with the Patriot Act.  But I can tell you some good points, too!  There's always a price to pay for security.

Those soldiers DO serve their country.  Just  like your country's armed forces serve.  A few bad apples doesn't make the whole tree.  It's insulting to suggest that all US Soldiers (or any other armed services) are inhuman killers.  99% of the time, they follow orders.  Orders that you and I never see.  But when you sit in your air-conditioned home typing on your $3000 Apple computer eating bon-bons, just remember that some soldier has been living in mud for 13 months following orders.

Oh, and I guess you left out this little blurb...

"I have seen the footage, and I find the behavior depicted in it utterly deplorable," U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a statement. "I condemn it in the strongest possible terms."
Panetta said he has ordered the Marine Corps and International Security Assistance Force Commander Gen. John Allen "to immediately and fully investigate the incident."
"This conduct is entirely inappropriate for members of the United States military and does not reflect the standards of values our armed forces are sworn to uphold," Panetta's statement said. "Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent."
A senior Pentagon official said Panetta was "deeply troubled" after viewing the video.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos said in a statement the behavior is "wholly inconsistent with the high standards of conduct and warrior ethos that we have demonstrated throughout our history."
Lt. Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, deputy commander of ISAF, called the actions on the video "disgusting."
"Any acts which treat the dead, enemy or friendly, with disrespect are utterly unacceptable and do not represent the standards we expect of coalition forces," Bradshaw said in a video statement. He said he was speaking on behalf of Allen, who is out of the country.
"It is difficult to say what long-term impacts this might have, and I would hesitate to get into speculation, but obviously any sort of footage, any sort of activity of this kind that is grossly against all the moral values that the coalition forces are standing for are very much working against our cause and against everything that we are standing for and that we are here for," said Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a NATO ISAF spokesman. "We will find the ones who are responsible and hold them accountable."

UPDATE:
Two of the four Marines shown in a video urinating on dead bodies sprawled out on the ground have been identified by the Marine Corps, a Marine Corps official told CNN Thursday.
The names are not being made public, said the official, who did not want to be identified because the investigation is ongoing.

Interesting, if you wanted to get "anal", like the topic starter and all other US bashers....  then I guess I could argue:

EVERY BRITISH CITIZEN THINKS MALE RAPE IS OK SOMETIMES.

Buggery Act of 1533
According to the Act:

...the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realm. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy...”

This meant that a convicted sodomite’s possessions could be confiscated by the government, rather than going to their next of kin, and that even priests and monks could be executed for the offence — even though they could not be executed for murder.[4] Henry later used the law to execute monks and nuns (thanks to information his spies had gathered) and take their monastery lands — the same tactics had been used 200 years before by Philip IV of France against the Knights Templar. It is likely that Henry had this in mind when he drafted the Act.[4]

In July 1540, contravention of the Act, along with treason, resulted in the first conviction: Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury became the first person executed under the statute, although it was probably the treason that cost him his life. Nicholas Udall, a cleric, playwright, and Headmaster of Eton College, was the first to be charged with violation of the Act alone in 1541, for sexually abusing his pupils. In his case, the sentence was commuted to imprisonment and he was released in less than a year.

The Act was repealed in 1553 on the accession of Queen Mary. However, it was re-enacted by Queen Elizabeth I in 1563. Although "homosexual prosecutions throughout the sixteenth century [were] sparse" and "fewer than a dozen prosecutions are recorded up through 1660 . . . this may reflect inadequate research into the subject, and a scarcity of extant legal records."[5] Numerous prosecutions that resulted in a sentence of hanging are recorded in the 18th and early 19th centuries.[6]
Even if the charge of sodomy was reduced for lack of evidence to a charge of attempted buggery, the penalty was severe: imprisonment and some time on the pillory. "The lesser punishment – to be stood in the pillory – was by no means a lenient one, for the victims often had to fear for their lives at the hands of an enraged multitude armed with brickbats as well as filth and curses. . . . the victims in the pillory, male or female, found themselves at the centre of an orgy of brutality and mass hysteria, especially if the victim were a molly."[7][8]
The Act was repealed by section 1 of the Offences against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo.4 c.31) and by section 125 of the Criminal Law (India) Act 1828 (c.74). It was replaced by section 15 of the Offences against the Person Act 1828, and section 63 of the Criminal Law (India) Act 1828, which provided that buggery would continue to be a capital offence.
Buggery remained a capital offence in England and Wales until the enactment of the Offences against the Person Act 1861;[9] the last execution for the crime took place in 1836.[10]
The United Kingdom Parliament repealed buggery laws for England and Wales in 1967 (in so far as they related to consensual homosexual acts in private), ten years after the Wolfenden report. Legal statutes in many former colonies have retained them, such as in the Anglophone Caribbean.

Micrówave wrote:

ParisNair wrote: 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?

Finally!!!  {SATIRE ON} Yes, but these were US Marines so it's much worse when that happens {SATIRE OFF}

It is no worse when US Marines do it -- i didn't see anyone suggesting that it was. However, the USA is a western democracy, and extremely powerful. What the US does tends to be held up as the benchmark for 'acceptable,' (obviously foreign policy aside) or at least the western norm. It is no worse but also no better when US Marines carry out atrocities. Although, the US army is highly trained, and very powerful, so one could think that they should be at least somewhat ethical in their combat.
Just wondered - what news station do you get your info from? Might i guess its fox news?

Micrówave wrote:

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

Ok.  Nazi Germany.  They had camps...  but compared to Guantanamo, they were summer camps.  Death penalty?  Well being cooked to death doesn't really count as a death penalty... more like a bonus.  And the German citizens who were Jewish didn't have to deal with something as idiotic as the Patriot Act...  they were just separated from their familes never to see them again... they weren't spied on!!!  Calm down, TQ... this is what we call "satire".

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.

Soon after a 2002 warrant was canceled (lack of physical evidence), Awlaki left the United States for good, settling in Yemen. Since his escape, Awlaki, now considered by intelligence officials to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, has been implicated as the spiritual inspiration for terror plots in Canada and the U.S., and was in e-mail contact with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with 13 counts of murder in the recent mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. After 9/11, however, terror investigators took a fresh look at Awlaki. JTTF agents in San Diego were keenly interested in Awlaki's activities because of his close ties to hijackers Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar. Authorities say the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men, leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor and had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Alwaki moved to a Northern Virginia mosque in early 2001, Alhamzi had visited him there too, along with a third future hijacker, Hani Hanjour. I don't have much compassion for Awlaki or his "son".  Do you?  He doesn't sound like a real nice man.

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.

Maybe for some...  but I think we would have had more 9/11 type attacks here and abroad if the United States did not take the steps that they have.  It has saved a lot of lives since.  Sure, I can tell you plenty of things wrong with the Patriot Act.  But I can tell you some good points, too!  There's always a price to pay for security.Those soldiers DO serve their country.  Just  like your country's armed forces serve.  A few bad apples doesn't make the whole tree.  It's insulting to suggest that all US Soldiers (or any other armed services) are inhuman killers.  99% of the time, they follow orders.  Orders that you and I never see.  But when you sit in your air-conditioned home typing on your $3000 Apple computer eating bon-bons, just remember that some soldier has been living in mud for 13 months following orders.

Microwave -- don't you sit typing on a computer too? And imo, soldiers go into a role of 'inhuman killer' - how else would they manage to carry out their job? Or are you suggesting that they look at the people they are about to kill with compassion and a full recognition of the impact of the death they are about to cause? That they recognise that this random guy they are shooting has a family, that his wife may now starve because the family breadwinner is dead, that he will be in severe pain and die. And will never come back. I don't think they want soldiers to think like that. Thats why they train extensively. So that they can kill.
But that wasn't why i started to reply -- you are comparing contemporary USA with Nazi Germany. Were you trying to suggest that it is ok for contemporary democracies to carry out genocide? Or that if a dictator in Europe initiated something 70 years ago that it was or is ok to do it? People rape and kill every day in non-wartime situations too, does that make it justified? (Well, so-and-so did it, so i can too, its no worse for me to do it then for him to do it.) That seems to be your argument. Also, have you done ANY research on human rights? The UN Convention on Human Rights was AFTER WW2. The whole contemporary human rights movement was AFTER WW2. WW2 started off the whole discourse around human rights. The atrocities were so horrific that it got to where a group of nations decided to formally ratify something that was supposed to help prevent similar things from happening.
I asked what news you watch -- i now have no doubt that it is Fox. Did you know that research carried out by the Program on International Policy in 2003 demonstrated that FoxNews viewers had far higher rates of misconceptions regarding various world issues (eg war in iraq, etc). There is also a higher level of resistance to the UN among FoxNews viewers then among viewers of other news channels. I know that no station is completely unbiased, all news is someone's perspective on news, but it seems to have a much stronger twist on information then other news reports.
Please understand though -- people are not just 'US bashers.' You can disagree with a country's foreign policy without bashing the country. I have a lot of american friends, and american family, but i strongly disagree with american foreign policy. I disagree with Pakistani policy too, but i'm also not a 'Pakistani basher.' Just because someone disagrees, or because someone makes an ethical judgement doesn't mean they are attacking your nation. And it isn't a personal attack. Your dad was in Vietnam -- a lot of people INCLUDING a lot of Vietnam soldiers, and a lot of US citizens did not agree with the Vietnam war. It is not a disrespect to the individuals in that war, even tho atrocities were committed (as, i'm sure you will point out, there were in all wars). The individual soldiers were acting as they were expected to act, they were products of their culture and training, and that's what happens. But people hope -- perhaps naively -- that we will one day learn to respect the humanity of others, and at least respect the bodies, not celebrating killing.
Ok rant over :)

I see the Tuscany cruise ship disaster has lesser importance on Queenzone than 4 US Marines pissing on a few already dead husks.
I find it absolutely shocking that European men on board (more than four?) pushed past terrified women and children to get to the lifeboats first.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/16/costa-concordia-retired-british-cop-tells-how-men-pushed-their-way-past-women-and-children-to-reach-lifeboats-115875-23701453/

... After 9/11, however, terror investigators took a fresh look at Awlaki. JTTF agents in San Diego were keenly interested in Awlaki's activities because of his close ties to hijackers Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar. Authorities say the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men, leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor and had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Alwaki moved to a Northern Virginia mosque in early 2001, Alhamzi had visited him there too, along with a third future hijacker, Hani Hanjour. I don't have much compassion for Awlaki or his "son".  Do you?  He doesn't sound like a real nice man.

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.

Maybe for some...  but I think we would have had more 9/11 type attacks here and abroad if the United States did not take the steps that they have.  It has saved a lot of lives since.  Sure, I can tell you plenty of things wrong with the Patriot Act.  But I can tell you some good points, too!  There's always a price to pay for security.Those soldiers DO serve their country.  Just  like your country's armed forces serve.  


Oh -- and terrorist acts are not really 'war' as such -- it was not politically sanctioned by a nation. Maybe my definition of war is off, but i would think to be a 'war' it would have to be politically sanctioned, right? No matter what a small group of fundamentalists call it. It was an attack, not a war. There were bombings in Britain and in Spain, terrorist attacks - yet neither of them was considered 'war,' they were considered terrorist attacks.
And while we are talking about prior knowledge of 9/11, there are those who argue that the US had prior knowledge which was ignored.

Panchgani wrote: "I see the Tuscany cruise ship disaster has lesser importance on Queenzone than 4 US Marines pissing on a few already dead husks."

Oh, please. If it shocks you so much, then start a new topic. This topic is about the US Marines pissing on dead bodies.

Panchgani, a great thing about QZ is that you can start new topics. Why don't you do that instead of criticizing others for not talking about what you think should be talked about?

Just in: 67% of Fox News viewers believe Afghans were on fire. Hail Marines as heroes. :P

Only 67%?

The cruise ship 'disaster' is the most hilarious thing to happen at sea in decades. I'm still reeling from the amusement value. The latest rib-tickler would have to be the audio tape of Captain "I'll Co-ordinate From Over Here" Duce.

The cruise ship industry is a joke, and the punchline is your safety and wellbeing. Anyone who gets on one of these ships should anticipate that misadventure is just part of the ticket price. As for the suckers who died - I think we should be pissing on them, too.

I wonder will these American troops be able to turn off all that aggression when they return to the USA?

Studies of the war in the Pacific (1942-45) suggest there's a correlation between intensity of combat and the propensity to commit war crimes. Like it or not, every human being has the capacity to do things like this in extreme circumstances. However, there are cultural differences between countries that make some armies more likely to do these things than others. And, frankly, the US is a violent nation and it's unsurprising that US troops feature here. (Warning to idiots: read that carefully before replying!) The nature and behaviour of the enemies is also a factor: the more they differ from eachother (race, religion etc) the easier it is to dehumanise them and more likely there is to be war crimes. But, I repeat, in certain circumstances ALL armies are capable of war crimes.

Except maybe the Danes: too many hippies in their military ...

Amazon wrote: Only 67%?

There was ANOTHER survey released late year that purported to show that Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed than people who didn't watch any news at all. However, unsurprisingly, MSNBC viewers were not far behind and in fact fared worse on the area of the survey about the Occupy movement. It's less right wing news that is the problem than it is ideological news in general I think. The format frequently devolves into yelling and talking over each other, reductio ad absurdum and snark and moral outrage as device. In fact, of the two I think I dislike MSNBC more. Fox I just shake my head at, but there's an inherent smugness on MSNBC that actively irritates me.