Asymmetrical Information

Their...?

Oh, it isn't any worse than frat hazing. The boys are just blowing off steam.

One bad apple spoils the bushel. The thing to keep in mind is that this is the exception, not the rule.

On the other hand, when someone's shooting at you 24/7/365, it's kinda hard not to want some payback when you finally bag their nasty cans.

It's not excusable, but it is understandable.

So who gets the sympathy?

Jane - I've seen the video (or the excerpts from it shown on TV) and it does not show that the military burned the bodies nor is it even clear that there are bodies in the fire. (It looks like human remains are burning, but it could be something else.)

There have been several occasions over the conduct of this war where the media got it wrong. Members of the US military were accused of doing x only to later learn that x never happened or was done by someone else. There have also been times when members of the military have done things that were clearly wrong. In such cases, the military has a very good record of punishing those who did wrong. Does the media have a similar history of correcting the record when they get the story wrong? No, the media does not. From the stories in the main stream media, one would think the military routinely abuses prisoners and routinely flushes the Koran down the toilet. Those "facts" were trumpeted for weeks by the media. When we learned that the abuses were the exception, not the rule, and that it was the military itself that had discovered and was already starting to punish the offenders, that part of the story was mentioned in a whisper. The same was true of the Koran flushing story -- it was the prisoners who were intentionally abusing the scriptures far more than it was their guards.

Given all of this context, wouldn't it make sense to reserve judgment until we know what happened in this case?

"173rd Airborne Brigade". That's my old unit. I served with them 1967-68. For a society that cuts the heads off of people, stones women to death, I find it laughable when they get their knickers in a bunch. Maybe we should have just nuked Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and Osama.

Since my parents grew up under Nazi oppression, let's put this into perspective.

Would anyone give a rat's ass if there was a story about the Green Berets torching up a couple of dead SS in the street, if they thought it would bring out some other SS who were hiding and sniping? If the American soldiers were being picked off like in Saving Private Ryan?

I thought not.

Has the American press lost touch with who the Taliban was? What it did? I'll answer my own question: yes. Funny thing, though, before Bush was elected, the press was publishing stories about the horrors committed by the Taliban -- stories that they must have known would bolster US support for, and participation in, aggression to oust the regime.

We might as well be reading the Soviet rag Pravda as much of the American press.

BTW methinks "non-despotic occupation" is a humorous non-sequitur.

An occupation, even when it happens in, say, Los Angeles, to quell rampant rioting, is by nature despotic. It might be "benevolently" despotic, in that it intends to save lives and protect the civil liberties of the innocent, but an occupation is never the same as liberty.

I'll second the post stating that the media frequently gets it wrong, and fails to report in accuratly when it does. I'll take the entire report with a grain of salt until an internal investigation is released. Despite what others might believe, having spent considerable time in DoD I'll take straight facts over spun soundbites any day.

My take, the Australian correspondent who shot this came across an operation in which US troops were using a little psychological pressure to draw out dug-in combatants. Who knows what was in that fire: animals, wood, recently desposed of Taliban. Until the facts are in it's just another media windstorm. If it is human remains, then those responsible should and will be dealt with in accordance to the UCMJ. And it will have serious repercussions in the Muslim world (more opportunistic then any true feelings about two dead Taliban). I for one am interested to know if the cowards in the hills did come out of hiding and fight.

Is there any evidence that "all the clerics in the land" (or more importantly all the ones that aren't Taliban-aligned anyway, since I assume that religious types in Afghanistan, like anywhere else, have political leanings) are likely to denounce the US because of this?

Comments from others (see the Samizdata story on this) indicate that Taliban fighters are left to rot in the sun, rather than given a proper Islamic burial.

If this is true (and certainly there's a lot of anti-Taliban feeling in Afghanistan, by all accounts, at least as much as there is pro-), then I fail to see the grounds of any proposed denunciation.

Islam calls for burial; if the locals deny it to the Taliban, I fail to see why US troops doing the same thing in a more hygienic way is going to be more offensive (indeed, it may just as well harm the Taliban by showing that we share the disgust of the locals for them). After all, touching rotting corpses is defiling in Islam as well! Won't US troops be denounced as extra-unclean super-infidels if they carry the bodies off for burial?

Can't win, can we?

It's important to remember that "winning hearts and minds" is not the primary issue in every military action, and defeating a shared enemy is far more effective at doing so, when it is primary, than showing more and more exaggerated respect for a dead enemy than the local population does.

(This does not address the issue of mocking the living Taliban, just the burning the corpses part. Though I don't have a problem with that, either, and I see no reason to believe that anyone who isn't already on the side of the Taliban will either, in Afghanistan.)

The military is trained daily to put bullets through hearts and minds, not win them over.

If there were genuine hope for persuasion, we wouldn't be sending cruise missiles.

It is good to debate the necessity of war in any given case, but our collective denial about what war actually means could be our undoing.

Funny how the Islamic world goes stark raving mad when US soldiers allegedly burn bodies of muslim terrorists. The outrage is somehow not there when a bunch of people string up civilian contractors and burn them.

I guess it's ok to do it to civilians but not ok to do it to terrorists.

" . . .five troops in light-colored military fatigues, which did not have any distinguishing marks . . ."

No distinguishing marks? No nametags, no rank insignia, no unit designations? That seems . . . unlikely. So, did the AP get this wrong, or does the video actually show no distinguishing marks?

If the latter, is there any actual way to tell the burning was done by U.S. forces, and not, say, a propaganda stunt by Taliban in U.S.-alike fatigues? After the faked atrocities in the Jenin "massacre" and the staged pornsite images that were taken and redistributed as evidence of U.S. soldiers committing rape, I'd like to see some actual evidence.

Penut gallery, our standards are set by us and by what's right and just. Not by the Taliban, the SS, or any other savages we have fought.
Take care when you set out to fight monsters... lest you become one.

Burning LIVE people makes you a monster.

Burning the mutilated bodies of dead people who fought for the cause of unbridled brutality, to draw out those who are killing your comrades makes you what, exactly? Impolite?

The same American soldiers who used flamethrowers against those who were trying to kill them in the name of Nazism, gave a little girl and boy their first chocolate bars. The girl became my mother. Did they lack compassion? Were they monsters? Not to me. I wouldn't be on earth without their willingness to do whatever it took to win. Reality isn't pretty, but denial is the most dangerous river to swim in.

From an interesting site:

"Supporters may evoke the sliding scale that Michael Walzer describes in Just and Unjust Wars, in which graver threats to the body politic may permit the gradual weakening of moral constraints. Curiously, considering his strong emphasis on social virtues, David Hume accepts the abandonment of all notions of justice in war or when the agent's plight is so dire that recourse to any action becomes permissible (cf. Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, sect.3). Others merely state that war and morality do not mix."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/war.htm

Bah! We speak here of men who believe that their "religion" -- yes, those are "sneer quotes -- licenses them to cut off the heads of "infidels" and execute women for learning to read. Burning was too good for them. They should have been buried in mounds of pig offal -- and the Islamic world should learn to keep its trap shut about it, unless it wants the world to conclude that these murdering monsters really were and are practicing "true Islam."

So if they get to start violence against american soldiers because a few soldiers purportedly violated islam, can we use this as a precedent, and if any Afghans anywhere violate Islam, we get to kill them all?

I mean, fair's fair, right?

Money talks. PR walks.

>>>"A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm

Now, juxtapose this to the reaction to THIS "burning story".

>>>"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Top U.S. officials in Baghdad Thursday decried the killings of four U.S. security contractors in Fallujah, vowed to hunt down the perpetrators and promised to pacify the restive anti-U.S. hotbed.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said "we will be back in Fallujah. It will be at the time and place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals."

"Quite simply, we will respond," Kimmitt said...

..."Top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer, speaking at a police cadet graduation ceremony, said, "Yesterday's events in Fallujah are a dramatic example of the ongoing struggle between human dignity and barbarism."

The four -- employees of a security company that has provided security for Bremer -- "were attacked and their bodies subjected to barbarous maltreatment," Bremer said. "The acts we have seen were despicable and inexcusable. They violate the tenets of all religions including Islam as well as the foundations of civilized society.

"Their deaths will not go unpunished."

The contractors were killed in a grenade attack by suspected insurgents.

Afterward, residents cheered and pulled charred bodies from burning vehicles and hung them from a Euphrates River bridge.

Crowds gathered around the vehicles and dragged at least one of the bodies through the streets, witnesses said...."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/01/iraq.main/

Now...were General Kimmit and Ambassador Bremmer WRONG for reacting in this way, and making retaliatory statements in light of the killing, burning and mistreatment of the bodies of these four mercenaries (contractors)?
If they weren't, why should we be surprised by reaction in the Muslim world to this incident?

--Cobra

Given the number of unanswered questions (were there really bodies in the fire, were those really U.S. soldiers) this makes you wonder whose side this media source is on. Throwing out allegations like this have consequences.
That they don't trust us enough to identify terrorists as terrorists (and to indicate there religion) really makes me wonder if they even hope we win.
In spite of any of these abuses, I hope we win. I have much more trust in my culture's ability in correcting itself than I do in their's.

I can't believe someone is still peddling the Unocal Afghan pipeline story. Especially since even if it were true, would that mean that Unocal would have opposed overthrowing the Taleban, especially since they aren't building the pipeline there? I don't understand what you're trying to say about that.

If you have a pile of bodies that have been there for a while, they start becoming a disease vector. If you can't bury them, burning them is reasonable.

It is a war going on. And in love and war all is fair. The US soilders will do anything and everything to win this battle. And if it means trying to put some terror in the minds of the terrorists by burning a few corpses or doing a little bit of torture here and there then so be it. Hey it is civilization that is at stake and soft measures are never going to work in this battle.

I think George Bush is doing a mighty fine job in conducting this war but it is hightime he launched an attack on Iran and Syria.

I seem to recall about 3000 people (including 300 Bengalis: yes, Muslims) being burned and/or crushed to death back in September 2001. Where were the condemnations from Muslim clerics then?

Stench Prompted U.S. Troops to Burn Corpses

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1121939,00.html

AV, I believe we should launch an attack on Iran, but I do not trust GWB to do it. We are trying to fight a limited conflict against enemies engaging in total war. We need to go to a scorched earth policy in a place like Iran.

Many would say this is immoral and it would ruin our national reputation. How exactly has engaging in limited war, trying to fight a "nice" war, helped? Those against the war have used every minor incident, and yes Abu Graibh is a minor compared to incidents in almost any other war throughout history, to claim that we are immoral in our conduct of the war. Sadly, they are winning the PR campaign, even though we are more compassionate to our enemies than anyone in history.

A scorched earth policy would win the war quickly, and it would only hurt our reputation badly for a short amount of time. Is anyone still holding Japan or Germany hostage for their immoral conduct in WWII? In fact, within five years most people had forgiven these countries. Now, they have the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world. The one key in all of this is that you have to have some kind of "scapegoat" to sacrifice at the altar of the Geneva Conventions.

Just one example was the recent story in Time (I believe) about the interview with a Sunni insurgent who coordinated for roadside bombs and suicide bombers. The talked about how he was in Abu Graibh and was released. How many other terrorists and enemy soldiers have we had in our possession and released? You start implementing a total war mentality, and these guys are gone. Call me heartless if you will, but as long as we are killing people, we might as well do it right.

The upshot in all of this is that you get all of our "sins" out in the open very quickly, and you don't get this coordinated media campaign to ruin our long-term efforts, as they have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our on-demand society with media attempts to discredit our own country combined with the international attempt to bring morality into war through the Geneva Conventions makes winning a war in the way we are conducting very, very tenuous. The terrorists have recognized this, and have done a pretty good job and running peripheral interference with our own media.

Does America have the guts to fight a real war and win? Most of the soldiers do, I know first hand. If the politicians would get out of our way, these two wars could have been over a long time ago.

One bad apple spoils the bushel. The thing to keep in mind is that this is the exception, not the rule.

That's what we're being told anyway.

Odd how this stuff keeps coming out over and over again, though.

That's a helluva lot of bad apples.

"173rd Airborne Brigade". That's my old unit. I served with them 1967-68. For a society that cuts the heads off of people, stones women to death, I find it laughable when they get their knickers in a bunch. Maybe we should have just nuked Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and Osama.

Shorter AllenS:

"As long as we do heinous stuff that it's quite as bad as their heinous stuff..we're fine and they've got nothing to bitch about."

Niiiiice.

AV, I believe we should launch an attack on Iran, but I do not trust GWB to do it. We are trying to fight a limited conflict against enemies engaging in total war. We need to go to a scorched earth policy in a place like Iran.

Many would say this is immoral and it would ruin our national reputation. How exactly has engaging in limited war, trying to fight a "nice" war, helped? Those against the war have used every minor incident, and yes Abu Graibh is minor compared to incidents in almost any other war throughout history, to claim that we are immoral in our conduct of the war. Sadly, they are winning the PR campaign, even though we are more compassionate to our enemies than anyone in history.

A scorched earth policy would win the war quickly, and it would only hurt our reputation badly for a short amount of time. Is anyone still holding Japan or Germany hostage for their immoral conduct in WWII? In fact, within five years most people had forgiven these countries. Now, they have the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world. The one key in all of this is that you have to have some kind of "scapegoat" to sacrifice at the altar of the Geneva Conventions.

Just one example was the recent story in Time (I believe) about the interview with a Sunni insurgent who coordinated for roadside bombs and suicide bombers. The talked about how he was in Abu Graibh and was released. How many other terrorists and enemy soldiers have we had in our possession and released? You start implementing a total war mentality, and these guys are gone. Call me heartless if you will, but as long as we are killing people, we might as well do it right.

The upshot in all of this is that you get all of our "sins" out in the open very quickly, and you don't get this coordinated media campaign to ruin our long-term efforts, as they have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our on-demand society with media attempts to discredit our own country combined with the international attempt to bring morality into war through the Geneva Conventions makes winning a war in the way we are conducting very, very tenuous. The terrorists have recognized this, and have done a pretty good job and running peripheral interference with our own media.

Does America have the guts to fight a real war and win? Most of the soldiers do, I know first hand. If the politicians would get out of our way, these two wars could have been over a long time ago.

I like how burning dead bodies is now morally equivalent to torturing infidels and sawing their heads off, or stoning women after they get raped by their fathers and brothers, or, hell, blowing up crowds of civilians. Anyone who suggests this, and yes, some of you here are suggesting this, is not only a fool, but a craven, evil fool.

I'm sure our dear Australian "journalist" had an alternative story prepared: "Disease decimates Afghan village after American troops refuse to dispose of dead."

If we run around pre-emptively invading countries, killing innocent civillians, deposing their leaders and installing our own puppets, from exactly what position can we make the argument that other nations should not? What was our argument against Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait? What is our argument against China possibly invading Taiwan? What was our argument against Soviet expansion during the Cold War?

Could it all be as simple as some here seem to suggest? That "we're Americans" and that fact justifies any aggression, no matter how unwarranted?

--Cobra

> Would anyone give a rat's ass if there was a story about the Green Berets torching up a couple of dead SS in the street

Since the Green Berets were formed in the early 60s, I'd wonder where they found the dead SS.

> from exactly what position can we make the argument that other nations should not?

Ooh - precedent. Except that there's absolutely no evidence that things work that way. Countries generally behave in their perceived self-interest, regardless of what the US has done. It is generally acknowledged that this is okay, except that the US is supposed to act in others' self-interest.

Andy Freeman --"Since the Green Berets were formed in the early 60s, I'd wonder where they found the dead SS."

And butter wouldn't melt in your mouth!

thedaddy

Cobra "Could it all be as simple as some here seem to suggest? That "we're Americans" and that fact justifies any aggression, no matter how unwarranted?"

Yes Cobra it is as simple as that -- we are the good guys and you are an idiot.

thedaddy

the daddy writes:

>>>"Yes Cobra it is as simple as that -- we are the good guys and you are an idiot."

It's always refreshing to see intelligent discourse about geo-politics.

--Cobra

Well it certainly dosent come from you cobra.

thedaddy

>>>Well it certainly dosent come from you cobra.

You are bitter because I recognize the United States as the root of all evil. I see through the US, why don't you?

Brainwashed?

You are bitter because I recognize the United States as the root of all evil. I see through the US, why don't you?

Brainwashed?

If he continues reading your posts for any length of time, brainwashing will be inevitable. The excessive reliance on ideology, the intermingling of actual facts with prolonged repetition of unverifiable or even discredited claims...it reads like you wrote the handbook: if not on brainwashing, than at least on propaganda.

Now, if you really want to improve the state of intelligent discourse on geopolitics, how about clamming up for a spell? It's a one-step procedure with guaranteed results!

Cobra -- I am not bitter but I am astounded that someone as clueless as you even knows how to read let alone type.

Why do you continue to live in a place that is the root of all evil? ( I am of course jumping to the conclusion that do you live here)

It must make you itch that you are so perceptive and the rest of us are so blind.

I have now re-evaluated your mental status and must, however reluctantly, raise you to the level of gibbering idiot.

thedaddy

First of all, the poster:

"Posted by Cobra at October 23, 2005 05:45 PM"

Is not me. I don't believe the US is the "root of all evil." I do believe that the US is capable of incredibly evil things, re: slavery, genocide of Native Americans, Internment camps, Jim Crow, etc.
It's quite clear to me, however, that supporting ALL ACTIONS simply because your country does them isn't patriotism at all. It's jingoism and hysteria.

--Cobra

I guess Jane Galt's readers are a bunch of fascist psychos who don't mind stooping down to the mentality of the people we are supposedly fighting against -- terrorists.

If your goal in fighting these guys is to destroy them, then do it. But you obviously wouldn't advocate ethnic cleansing (or maybe some of you would). If the goal is to foster a new environment whereby most people in those societies don't wind up hating modernity and everything the US stands for, then you need to try another tactic then the one whereby you deliberatly seek to humilate their religion and heritage. No doubt, there are better ways to fight the war. I guess you apologists don't see the now routine incidences of torture and religious intolerance as a tactic that goes against our American principles.

Funny how libertarians who uphold the notion of universal human rights such as property and liberty are so quick to jump on the bandwagon of realism, a philosophy that denies all such things as merely secondary concerns, when looking for a foreign policy doctrine.

How exactly does disposing of rotting corpses resemble ethinc cleansing, humiliation of religion and heritage, torture, religious intolerance, or the violation of universal human rights?

From Henry V

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears,Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;"

"Therefore, you men of Harfleur,Take pity of your town and of your people,Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds Of heady murder, spoil and villany.If not, why, in a moment look to see The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking aughters;Your fathers taken by the silver beards,And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen. What say you? will you yield, and this avoid, Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?

Multitudes writes:

How exactly does disposing of rotting corpses resemble ethinc cleansing, humiliation of religion and heritage, torture, religious intolerance, or the violation of universal human rights?

Look. Afghistan is a predominantly Muslim country. Now, you may think that "savages" have no right to have any boundaries of behavior, but that is just not true. All societies and communities, even in prisons, have acceptible norms of behavior. One of the norms in Muslim societies is to promptly bury the dead, even your enemies. After all, death is death. At that point, you let God do the judging and move on. The US Army is burning the bodies with the main intent of hoping that this tactic will deter attacks on them. The reasoning would be that not getting a proper burial and even getting burned would be such a humiliation and a blow to the religious sensibilities of the enemy that it might deter many of them from engaging in battle. This is clearly in line with other tactics that this administration has condoned, (i.e. look at Abu Ghraib or in Gitmo when interrogators smear blood on inmates claiming it is menstrual blood, so that they cannot then pray). In other words, the whole purpose of this tactic is to humiliate the enemies' religious sensibilities. One predictable outcome of such a tactic would be to further alienate a population we are trying to move to "our side". These tactics don't help our cause. They hurt our cause as they are counterproductive and go against our basic principles.

Contrary to some of the wackos on this board, war DOES have rules and guidelines. That's what the Geneva Conventions and the Military code of conduct are for.

Remember, the aim of war is not mere destruction but politics by another means. Thus, the method of its conduct DOES affect the outcome, which is ultimately political.

The Henry V quote is ill-placed. It reflected the character of war 500 years ago. Look where that style of warfare got Europe, no where. Without the intervention of the US with our notion of war with principle (the Nuremberg trials were OUR idea), Europe would still be engaged in the stilly and stupid romantic tribal warfare as depicted in that ridiculous quote. Don't believe me, just look up what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s.

"The US Army is burning the bodies with the main intent of hoping that this tactic will deter attacks on them." Norm, do you have other sources of information you have not shared with us, or are you such a master at photo interpretation that you can even see intent in the photo? Or perhaps you have psychic powers? Because as far as I can tell from one photo:

-There may or may not be bodies in the fire.
-The men in uniforms may or may not actually be US troops. At least they don't look like posed GI Joe dolls this time, but the uniforms don't look quite right.
-They may have started the fire or found it already burning.
-The worst-case assumptions for the previous points still leave open the question of intent, and other questions. Did our troops know that cremation is an offense to Muslims? When were the bodies killed, and by whom? Did the villagers leave them lying there to rot? Isn't that also an insult to the dead)? Did the villagers ask our troops to take care of the stinking remains of men they wouldn't even bother to bury themselves?

Norm,

I think Shakespeare had it down cold. The first quote describes the nature of the soldier, the second the nature of war. Neither is in the least romantic, and neither has changed much over the centuries. Read the words of the soldiers of WWII, the so-called "good" war. They were hard men in a desperate struggle who, when encountering resistance in a town, would back out and shell it until the resistance stopped. Men who knew the meaning of "take no prisoners". It was only when the killing was done that the lawyers came out. I am not in the least appalled by the actions of our soldiers in Iraq. I am impressed by their restraint.

And not to get off the subject or detract from any points that anyone has made, if I hear another reference to the Geneva Convention I'll puke. The last enemy we fought that honored the Geneva Convention was Nazi Germany. And I don't know of anyone who was preparing for the Vietnam War who seriously believed in the Code of Conduct--certainly our instructors who had recently returned from the war did not. (As an historical aside, Ollie North was one of our tactics instructors.) So let's recognize that any "rules" we impose on warfare are the result of politics and have no real benefit to the military man.

Norm the Klute - I don't disagree with anything you said, except for the declaration as fact that the US Army is burning these bodies as part of some tactic to intimidate our enemies. We don't know that the US Army -- or any other organ of the US military -- was involved in the burnings. We don't even know that bodies were burned. Until we know what happened, shouldn't we wait to assign blame? I also take exception to your parenthetical use of Abu Ghraib as an example of mistreatment of prisoners as a result of an official US policy. My understanding is that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were perpetrated by a handful of sadistic guards who were acting more out of a desire to relieve their own boredom than to further any military goal. While the media spent months trying to use Abu Ghraib to illustrate the Administration's willingness to do just about anything in it's zeal to prosecute the war, that take on the story has not stood the test of time. Still, well meaning people, such as you, bought the media's version and have been slow to change their impression of what happened at Abu Ghraib in light of the facts as revealed by several official investigations. So, Abu Ghraib better serves as an example of why we should not jump to conclusions and assume the worst about the US military.

However, I agree with what I take to be your main point. We should not be burning bodies in an attempt to intimidate our enemies. Such an approach, in addition to violating our own mores, would be counterproductive.

Norm: You assume that burning dead Taliban will make Muslims who do not already hate America, do so.

What evidence is this based on?

Firsthand reports from Afghanistan indicate that the average Afghani already hates the Taliban, and leave their corpses to rot and be spit upon, which is just as "against Islam" as burning them. "Islam" says they must be buried, or so we're told - and yet Islam in practice leaves them to rot and be spat upon.

I think you'll find that Islam is far more malleable than you or the Mullahs wish it to be, and the average Muslim in Afghanistan is smart enough to know that burning a rotting corpse of someone who murders in the name of Islam is not an offense to Islam, but a service.

I believe the matter of "was it Americans" or "were they Taliban" bodies was settled. I saw an article about the Lieutenant who ordered the bodies be burnt. They had killed the Taliban over one day earlier and had told the townspeople to come and pick them up and bury them. No one in the town would do it, and they bodies were starting to attract bugs and vermin. Because they were conducting patrols here for many more days and needed this particular area for their base, the Officer in Charge ordered the bodies be burnt for sanitary reasons. Sadly, he will most certainly be hung out to dry.

hammer

cum-diary Q cumdiary Q cumshots Q facial-fanatics Q facialfanatics Q facial-gangbang Q facialgangbang Q facial-movies Q facialmovies Q goody-cum-drops Q goodycumdrops Q hot-cum-for-hot-girls Q hotcumforhotgirls Q japaneseteenagersfucknfacial Q latin-newcummers Q latinnewcummers Q messyfacialmovies Q mom-and-cum Q momandcum Q swallowing-milfs Q swallowingmilfs Q cumswappingbitches Q cumswallowinglessons Q facialbuffet Q sperm-swap Q spermswap Q cum-covered-glasses Q cumcoveredglasses Q cum-shot-circus Q cumshotcircus Q cum-thirsty Q cumthirsty Q facial-land Q facialland Q cum-hungry-chicks Q cumhungrychicks Q cum-inside-of-her Q cuminsideofher Q cumshot-vault Q cumshotvault Q facial-world Q facialworld Q spunk-facial Q spunkfacial Q tranny-cum Q trannycum Q creamy-facials Q creamyfacials Q cum-cheeks Q cumcheeks

Cobra, "We're Americans" is insufficient justification for any American action besides maybe the defense of American symbology. (Defense of American people is more directly justified by "We're the governing body responsible for providing for the common defense of these people.") But name me an instance (one that can be verified, please) in which Americans grabbed, tortured (I mean real torture, of course, rather than petty humiliation that, while wrong and unworthy of us, is still not torture as it's commonly understood), murdered, desecrated, displayed, and cheered about all the previous, a group of Iraqi civilians. In other words, "We're Americans" was not the justification given for retaliation in the Fallujah instance - "You're monsters" was.

There's no doubt that evil things have been done by Americans and by the US collectively, but I can't recall a single occasion of a Muslim civilian's kidnapping and beheading on camera by Americans, with the resulting record broadcast and celebrated. I remember when Berg was killed, telling my husband, "They're going to reap the whirlwind from this." Imagine my horror to learn that Berg's own father was springboarding off his son's torture-murder to a critique of Bush rather than an impassioned denouncement of his son's murderers. Imagine my telling my own child, if he was bullied on the playground (to reduce the argument to banality), that it was his teacher's fault for sending him out to recess on a playground where known bullies consorted. Imperfect analogy, of course, but how is the bullying not the bully's fault?

Finally, I haven't heard any protests of "It's not fair! You shouldn't pick on us, because what we're doing isn't nearly as bad as what you've [or "they've"] done!" from the American military. They do what they decide to do, and they bear the consequences of it, without carping. The carping is left to those who'd apparently prefer that the military spend all its effort defending itself from domestic enemies.

Jamie writes:

>>>"But name me an instance (one that can be verified, please) in which Americans grabbed, tortured (I mean real torture, of course, rather than petty humiliation that, while wrong and unworthy of us, is still not torture as it's commonly understood), murdered, desecrated, displayed, and cheered about all the previous, a group of Iraqi civilians."

http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/recruitment-posterNAT.gif

Abu Ghraib has become the "Remember the Alamo" of the millitant Islamic world. And given the details of General Antonio Taguba's report, plus pictures, there is definitely meat on those skeletons.

>>>"Taguba's 53-page report, classified "Secret" and dated April 4, 2004, concluded that U.S. soldiers had committed "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" at Abu Ghraib.[5] Taguba found that between October and December 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners. In violation of Army regulations, intelligence officers asked military police to "loosen up" inmates before questioning. The report estimates that 60% of the prisoners at the site were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#Taguba.27s_report.2C_April_2004

And it went beyond "humiliation"...

>>>"Taguba's report cited numerous examples of inmate abuse, including:

Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.

Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.

Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.

Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.

Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.

Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.

Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.

Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.

Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.

A male MP guard raping a female detainee.

Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.

Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.

Pouring cold water on naked detainees.

Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.

Threatening male detainees with rape.

Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.

Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

By the time Taguba's report was completed, 17 soldiers and officers, including Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, were removed from duty, and six soldiers faced courts martial and possible prison time on charges of dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery, as a result of their roles in the events. Taguba said, "'Specifically I suspect that Col. Thomas M. Pappas, Lt. Col. Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven Stephanowicz and Mr. John Israel were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and strongly recommend immediate disciplinary actions ..." [6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#Taguba.27s_report.2C_April_2004

Those pictures rocketed around the world, without a pro-American filter. There is just no way to spin it into something positive, or harmless, as much as many conservative pundits would like. I could go on to Gitmo, but...

http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/LET-SLIP-RUMSFELD-NATIONAL.gif

--Cobra

Okay, I see one rape and one sodomization, and perhaps one dog attack if it was intentional and not just a mistake on the dog handler's part.

But the rest is NOT "torture" as Jamie is using the word.

And don't forget that these were detainees who were captured for one reason or another; not civilin contractors like Nick Berg who was just trying to help rebuild a country.

There's a difference between hard interrogation and torture. Many of us would condone hard interrogation in certain circumstances, but I don't think any of us would condone torture.

"One of the norms in Muslim societies is to promptly bury the dead, even your enemies."

According to Norm. I must be one of the "wackos" he mentioned, and that could be. I did live in and around Quetta for several years (off and on) and know many Paki Army officers. Let's be clear on the allegation Norm makes: Yes, a Muslim norm is to promptly bury the dead, even enemies-IF THEY ARE ALSO MUSLIMS, AND OF YOUR PARTICULAR SECT OF ISLAM, AND OF YOUR NATIONALITY. Other wise, your chances of a prompt (and "proper") burial when killed in a firefight with the average inhabitant of the Afgan-Paki region is pretty slim for a "Muslim" and next to zero if you are an "infidel". During the Afgan fighting vs the Russians, the Russian dead were routinely dismembered and left without burial until recovered by their own forces. The Taliban burned some of the bodies of those that were executed in the stadium in Kabal when bulldozers were not available for the creation of mass graves and when there were no relatives left to claim the bodies as whole families had been wiped-out. I seriously doubt that there will be many common Afgans too upset over this. There will be several developing Afgan "leaders" who will benefit from their alleged "outrage" by receiving "aid" for their Village in exchange for "restraining" the "locals", but that kind of outrage has a real short lifespan.

Rex writes:

>>>"Okay, I see one rape and one sodomization, and perhaps one dog attack if it was intentional and not just a mistake on the dog handler's part."

Umm...I guess BEATINGS fall under your definition of "hard interrogation?"

Pouring the contents of chemical lights on detainees?

Come on, Rex. Look at the reaction of OUR government when OUR troops were taken prisoner. There is an interesting interview about the situation regarding Shoshana Johnson's outfit when they were taken prisoner at the beginning of the war with Washington Post foreign Correspondant Peter Baker:

>>>"Upper Marlboro, Md.: How were the POWs treated while they were in custody? I read that the young lady was shot in both feet. Was this done in battle or did they torture her?

Peter Baker: All the gunshot wounds suffered by the three POWs who were injured were inflicted during the battle that led to their capture. While they were kicked and roughed up at the moment of their capture, the POWs said that after they were brought to a prison, the physical abuse began to subside. The main abuse was mental and psychological, as they were never sure whether they might be killed and whether they might ever see their families again..."

>>>"Mclean, Va.: Were the women POWs abused in any way?

Michael

Peter Baker: The only woman POW was Shoshana Johnson and she said that after they discovered she was a woman, they treated her relatively well, better than her male comrades..."

>>>"Harrisburg, Pa.: Do we have early indications on how the prisoners were treated? Were there violations of the Geneva Convention, and, if so, are there suspects who have been found and are being held responsible?

Peter Baker: The U.S. maintains that the airing of a videotape of their interrogation was a violation of the Geneva Convention. If as the POWs say the Iraqis deliberately moved an artillery gun into their prison to attract enemy bombs, that too would be construed as a violation. I'm sure that Army debriefers are going through the full accounts of their captivity and may identify other violations as well. But at the moment, we know of no identifiable suspects to pursue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/03/special/iraq/sp_iraq_baker041603.htm

Do you get a little clearer picture now, Rex? When OUR TROOPS were captured, they were treated humanely, and our government complained about the "videotaping" and broadcasting of the POWs. Compare THAT with what the hell went on at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

Do you see a PROBLEM, sir?

--Cobra

I really am confused here.

Even if the burning of the dead is "against Islam" (odd that things are never "against the laws of Islam" or "against the customs of Islam" but only "against Islam" -- translation problem?), we know that in practice nobody cares. The Taliban doesn't bury the dead of its enemies, and the local villagers wouldn't touch the dead of the Taliban; they didn't even want those bodies near their village, apparently. The burning wasn't "against Islam" as it is practiced in that area.

It also wasn't against our moral standards. Cremation is standard among Hindus and Japanese, for example, and is widely practiced in the United States.

There was no intent to "inflict fear" or any other such nonsense. The local Muslims wouldn't touch the bodies and didn't want them in their village. It was 90 degrees outside and the bodies were rotting and stinking. What else is there to do but burn them? How do we even know it's not "against Islam" for infidels to bury Muslims?

To summarize, what the soldiers did wasn't against Islam as it's practiced there, it wasn't against their own moral standards, and it was not done in bad faith. As far as I can tell, the only problem is that it gave an excuse to some people to complain about American actions "against Islam" who no doubt were looking for an excuse to complain. How do we know it isn't "against Islam" for infidels to bury Muslim dead?

We have no duty to submit to the hypocrisy of certain factions in the region every time they shed crocodile tears over their "brothers."

Amen AT. Is anyone else getting sick of hearing about the sensitivities of muslims? Honestly, they don't seem particularly sensitive to me. Inveterate whiners perhaps. But sensitive, no.

I am just sorry that they did not use bacon fat to fuel the fires.

>>Do you see a PROBLEM, sir?

HEY! I'm talking to you! Don't you realize that the insurgents are good, America is bad, Bush should have a hot poker rammed up his...ARGGHHH!!! ^%$%&&*^( FUGVKJU N{NK{{P!!!

gotfooled @ pussyassmouth @ shocking-parties @ shockingparties @ the-pipe-layer @ thepipelayer @ your-porn-hard-drive @ yourpornharddrive @ we-fuck-bimbos @ wefuckbimbos @ tubby-mcgee @ tubbymcgee @ the-porn-collector @ theporncollector @ supermarket-whores @ supermarketwhores @ she's-on-top @ she'sontop @ rub-and-tug @ rubandtug @ reality-pass @ realitypass @ pornstars-galore @ pornstarsgalore @ mattress-kitten @ mattresskitten @ massive-movie-archive @ massivemoviearchive @ hardcore-xxx-movies @ hardcorexxxmovies

The Best Porn Sites

Comments are Closed.