US Marines Peeing on Dead Bodies

[QUOTE]

[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b] 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 ...[/QUOTE]
Oddly coincident to your initial point is a 23 year old ex marine and Iraq vet who was just arrested in California for a string of serial killings involving the stabbing deaths of homeless men. Extreme example and of course unknown what if any effect his Military service may have had, but thought I would mention it.  There is some indication that he was kicked out of the Military, which may men that he was a screwball to begin with, but I wondered as well if a sudden and ignominious exit would undermine normal transition back to civilian life and civilian expectations.

I found your point about the nature and behaviour of the enemy, differences etc. interesting. In the video of the Marine incident there is a brief view of one of the dead men's long, narrow bare feet.  I had what I thought was an odd gut response to that small and seemingly irrelevant thing - I thought there was something about that man's foreign and exotic feet, bare rather than shod in something suitable for fighting, that would enrage or disgust those Marines. I dismissed it as kind of a silly and perhaps melodramatic thought, but maybe not.

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Soon after a 2002 [b]warrant was canceled (lack of physical evidence),[/b] Awlaki left the United States for good, settling in Yemen. Since his escape, Awlaki, [b]now considered by intelligence officials[/b] to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, [b]has been[/b] [b]implicated as the spiritual inspiration[/b] 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. [b]Authorities say[/b] the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men,[b] leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor[/b] 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 [b]"son"[/b].  Do you?  He doesn't sound like a real nice man.

[/QUOTE]

I can only hope for you or your "son" that no "investigators" or "authorities" ever "believe", "implicate" or consider" that you can be connected to people who committed crimes. Let alone you  emailed such people or visited the same church. Because if they ever consider, implicate or believe such a thing they have every right - according to your logic - to kill you with a remote-controlled weapon. Yes - exactly such things happened in Nazi-Germany (except for the remote-controlled waepon), I hope that makes you feel more justified.

"stabbing deaths of homeless men"

Victimless crime.

Holy crap Zebonka.  Which US service member intervened with your cornflakes this morning?

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b] 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.[/QUOTE] Oh.  My.  I, uh, hope you're bolted to something because there's reeling and then there's reeling.

The man is actually my hero.

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
"stabbing deaths of homeless men"
Victimless crime.[/QUOTE]

So I guess that by your standards, if I massacre a whole bunch of marginal people, I'm only guilty of littering?

I think that a lot of public art qualifies as either tasteless vandalism or outright garbage. So, if you could organise your homeless corpses into some kind of thematic configuration, you might get away with just saying it's a work of art. Hell, you might even get a grant!

[QUOTE]I can only hope for you or your "son" that no "investigators" or "authorities" ever "believe", "implicate" or consider" that you can be connected to people who committed crimes. Let alone you  emailed such people or visited the same church. Because if they ever consider, implicate or believe such a thing they have every right - according to your logic - to kill you with a remote-controlled weapon.[/QUOTE]

Ok... this is getting out of hand.  My logic says they have the right?  I approve of urinating on corpses?  Did you even read my posts? Just where did I say this?  Because I am fond of having both points-of-view before asserting my opinion  (WHICH SOME OF YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT!!! TQ, YV, etc) 

Are you sure that you guys don't work for FOX NEWS?

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]I can only hope for you or your "son" that no "investigators" or "authorities" ever "believe", "implicate" or consider" that you can be connected to people who committed crimes. Let alone you  emailed such people or visited the same church. Because if they ever consider, implicate or believe such a thing they have every right - according to your logic - to kill you with a remote-controlled weapon.[/QUOTE]Ok... this is getting out of hand.  My logic says they have the right?  I approve of urinating on corpses?  Did you even read my posts? Just where did I say this?  Because I am fond of having both points-of-view before asserting my opinion  (WHICH SOME OF YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT!!! TQ, YV, etc)  Are you sure that you guys don't work for FOX NEWS?[/QUOTE]

Microwave, if you reread your original message from which this was quoted you might be able to see how people got this impression. It may not have been what you intended to say, but there was a strong implication that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son was justified on the basis that there was some unproven suspicion surrounding them. If it is justified to kill one US citizen on suspicion, it is therefore logical that ANY US citizen (and their sons) may be killed on unproven suspicion. Your Valentine was simply pointing out that that logic must apply to ALL US citizens if it applies to one. Therefore, she simply was saying that you believe that if the US government 'believes' that you might be involved in something (by your logic in justifying the officially sanctioned killing of Anwar al-Awlaki), they would be justified in officially killing you and your son. It wasn't meant as an attack on you, from what i could see, it was just taking your argument to its logical end.
(If you can't find the post, its the same one where you ('satirically') compared the actions of the US army to acts of torture and genocide in the 1940s. Somehow that isn't the way the US army generally likes to be portrayed. And for pete's sake -- compare how many US soldiers and citizens have been killed in the 'War on Terror' with how many Iraqi, Afgan, etc soldiers and citizens have been killed. I know invading armies tend to be brutal. But invading armies also don't typically put themselves forth as saviours of the world either.)

Are you sure that you guys don't work for FOX NEWS?[/QUOTE]


Actually, that kind of attack is typical of FoxNews reporters, at least from the little i have seen of it. If you can't answer the argument ATTACK THE PERSON!

What was that about bum rape being legal in the UK?

fatty.

[QUOTE] [b]-fatty- 2850 wrote:[/b]
What was that about bum rape being legal in the UK?
fatty.[/QUOTE]


I finally read that post -- it seems to be an act from the 1500s, when homosexuality was illegal... it was then repealed... it actually says nothing about rape, so i don't really get the connection between legalising consensual sex between people of the same sex and saying 'rape is ok.' I tried to understand the connection, but i can't make it...
What i finally figured out (on my third reading of his post) is that maybe Microwave thinks that the term 'buggery' means male rape? Not sure, but that's the only way that that post makes any sense.

No, catqueen, I was employing a commonly used theme used quite frequently in this thread.  Buggery means Male Rape just the same as I was all for peeing on corpses.  You've got to read into the threads, not take them at their literal word.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
No, catqueen, I was employing a commonly used theme used quite frequently in this thread.  Buggery means Male Rape just the same as I was all for peeing on corpses.  You've got to read into the threads, not take them at their literal word.[/QUOTE]


Buggery does *not* mean male rape in the UK. It is often used synonymously with the term male rape, but it means anal sex. It is also sometimes used to mean sex with animals also. At least, when working with sex offenders came up in college, my class was told that that is what that term means here when it is used in legal documents. PPl use the term colloquially for rape, but it actually isn't just referring to rape. Maybe in the US the word is used differently tho.
Sorry, idk why i'm getting so worked up about it tho lol.