I'm Confused: It's Okay to Kill Afghanis, But Not Okay to Urinate on the Bodies?

[kpete]

I'm Confused: It's Okay to Kill Afghanis, But Not Okay to Urinate on the Bodies?

JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Hmm, is there something wrong with this picture?

.................................

True, it's a disgusting thing to do, but I can't help asking: what exactly are our core values these days, Mr. Panetta? It's kind of confusing. You give the orders to invade and occupy their country, Afghanistan, and that it's perfectly fine to drop bombs from drones and massacre these people who are attempting to defend themselves in their own country, (a little wee fact that we tend to forget), you give the orders to slaughter them on sight, which have turned our U.S. soldiers into ruthless killers, and then you scold them for urinating on their dead bodies-because, it's just not "consistent with our core values".

So let's get this straight: It's okay for the U.S. Marines to kill Afghans in their own country, but they must never urinate on the slain men after the Marines made a bloody pulp out of their bodies with hundreds of bullets. Keep killing, no urinating.

I'm confused. Again, I must ask: What exactly are our core values, Mr. Panetta? I really would like to know.

the rest:
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13261

[treestar]

1. It is an interesting question

Once a person is already dead the urinating surely doesn't mean much.

But there is a lot of sensitivity regarding recently dead bodies. Desecration of corpses and so forth. So it is some matter of honor.

Native Americans for instance don't have tolerance for digging up bodies for archaeological purposes.

[Adsos Letter]

3. Sounds akin to a saying going around in my military days.

"They can kill you, but they can't eat you."

[socialindependocrat]

4. One view..

Here's the deffinition:

Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual.

What I get from this is - while a soldier is alive they are considered "combatants / enemies" and can be shot, killed,
blown up, etc.

Once the soldier is killed, then, the body becomes sacred and
any further tampering with the corpse would be considered
"depriving something of its sacred character".

I always thought that burying each insurgent with a bit of Oscar Mayer would make them think twice about whether they would actually make it to nirvana and stop them from volunteering for
suicide missions.

I guess that's too simple a solution because it would be considered
desicrating the body. Oh well, keep on thinking...

[riverwalker]

5. while you have your dictionary out

look up "Nirvana", it's a Buddhist term, not Muslim.
I hardly think everyone we kill in Afghanistan is an "insurgent" on a "suicide mission".

[socialindependocrat]

9. Oh, ye of little humor.. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. So they can wiz on them unless and until they die?

[socialindependocrat]

12. LOOKS THAT WAY, BECAUSE...

if they are alive, it's just considered a personal insult and not
abuse of desicration.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

6. Modern video technology has revealed the realities of war that have existed since the

first time men engaged on the battlefield.

The medias obsession with this urination video irritates the hell out of me. Obviously, the behavior displayed by these Marines is unacceptable. And I understand that military and state officials must publicly condemn it.

However, the comments and statements by sanctimonious, no-nothing media types and politicians, is far more disgusting to me. These people are so far beyond unqualified to render judgment, that it is...I can't say that here.

These young people are ordered off to fight an unconstitutional war and then, when the inevitable and predictable dehumanizing of the enemy results, people sitting at a desk in front of a television camera, have the nerve to look us in the eye and express their outrage.

You have to ask yourself: How would it be possible for you to kill someone if you see them as a human being?

[enlightenment]

7. While I appreciate the core thought of that editorial

- that the base issue is the killing part of the equation - it doesn't lessen the repulsiveness of the actions taken by those soldiers.

War sucks, but there are some rules and some standards that have stayed pretty consistent over the years. Treating the dead with some measure of civility is one of them, because yes, we do have some 'core values'.

Remember the dead Marines in Mogadishu? How did Americans react to seeing the images of their naked bodies being dragged through the streets? It made a bad situation that much worse, and I doubt too many Americans were sitting around saying, 'but they were dead, so it really isn't that bad'. The action and the photos of the action reduced the Somali's to animals in many minds - not because they had shot down the helicopters and/or killed the Marines in a firefight - but because they treated their corpses with contempt.


Ms Marcus isn't wrong to remark on the fundamental question of why we continue to send soldiers into the ME to kill and die - but she's off-target on minimizing what those four soldiers did to the corpses of the men they killed.

[Cleita]

8. Our culture has always said that killing in self-defense is okay.

You may argue whether those Afghanis were killed in self-defense or not, but assuming that those marines believed that was what they were doing, then the act of desecrating their bodies was worse than killing them in the minds of those who believe that the war in Afghanistan is a just one. I think the author of that article needs to step back a little farther and argue if we really should have invaded Afghanistan at all. It seems that we could have gotten Osama bin Laden with special OPs, or we could have taken Mullah Omar's offer to hand him over to another muslim country for trial. I believe that they had agreed that Turkey, one of our allies, would have been a suitable country.

It seems that going after Al Queda and Osama bin Laden did not warrant an invasion of a third world country. It could have been done differently, but then we had white collar criminals in charge of our government then, who committed treason right under our noses, and who are still running free. They are presently running the Republican Party and are very active in influencing the out come, not only of the Obamas's Presidency, but of the coming Presidential and Congressional elections. Personally, I would have no problem pissing on their graves. They are the reason for this outcome and many others regarding these unjustified current wars.

I weep for my country. I really do.

[zbdent]

10. wonder what the reaction would be if they were Afghani rebels or al Qaeda

and they were doing same on American soldiers ... either way ...

would we be so "nice" about the Americans being killed? Being urinated upon? How about being dragged, naked, through the streets (oh, wait ... that was under Clinton, right? Cue the outrage). How about having their heads sawed off on video (I never watched that one)?

Seems that the outrage is, after all, depending on who it's being done to.

[Bucky]

13. war is not a pissing contest

[Igel]

14. Yes and no.

I honestly don't think that most Americans care. Piss on a dead enemy's body? Eh. Not my tribe.

A lot of people consider American soldiers only "in their tribe" if it's useful. They kill Afghans, they're bad little fascist Neandertals. After all, they volunteered to join the military almost certainly *after* 9/11/01 or even 3/03 at this point.

The sensitivity is assumed. While an Afghan man is a warrior, he's a fighter. To kill him is a bad thing, but we're not about to say that we have to consider all Afghans inviolate even if they try to kill Americans. That's a bridge too far.

But by pissing on them the American soldiers allowed the inference--certainly not the implication--that this is intended to humiliate everybody in those Afghans' "tribe". "Tribe" is variously the actual clan, the actual tribe, all Pakhtuns, all Pakhtuns+Pakistanis, or all Muslims. Since it's vitally important that this not be perceived as an anti-Muslim war-let, well, we have to take great pains to respect the bearers of those particular cultures.

I still think that few Americans would give it a moments' notice--including DUers--if there wasn't some political skin in the game.

[Lil Missy]

15. Yes, it is. It is conduct unbecoming and in very poor taste.

[DeSwiss]

16. K&R