This action on the part of the Americans was deliberately intended to be offensive to their immediate enemy who were actually being taunted for failing to comply with the requirements of their Islamic faith. The intended result was to wipe out a nest of terrorists period.
This action on the part of the Australian photographer was deliberately intended to be offensive to Islam. The sole purpose was to secure fame and recognition for his career, basking in the glow of anger and indignation that has spread worldwide.
You don’t actually know what the motives of any of those individuals were, so your assessment of what they did based on their hypothetical motives is pretty much useless.
The important issue here, AFAICT, is what they actually did. If the events are as reported in the OP’s link, then the American Special Forces team tried a psychological tactic that involved using dead bodies of enemy fighters in a way that is offensive to Muslims in general and may be against the Geneva Conventions. That was, at best, a stupid and reckless thing to do, no matter how much they thought it might pay off in terms of smoking out the enemy.
What the (officially embedded) photojournalist did was to take photos and publish them. That’s his job, and that’s why we have war correspondents in the media, so we can know what’s actually happening in the conduct of wars.
I consider it absolutely repugnant that people think it’s okay for soldiers to do idiotic or highly offensive things as long as they’re kept secret, and put the blame for them on the journalists who are doing their job by reporting what they see.
And yammering generalities about how “war is hell” and “bad shit happens” and “they hate us anyway” is completely beside the point. War is hell and mistakes are made and hostilities are fueled even when the fighting follows the laws of war, sure. All the more reason why we shouldn’t unnecessarily make the situation worse by gratuitously violating those laws.
Try to get your mind around this concept, guys. Its not about the “hearts and minds” of our sworn enemies. Its about the “hearts and minds” of those Muslims who don’t hate us yet! If the intent of your actions is to eliminate enemies, actions which increase the number of your enemies is neutron-density stupid.
Oh, please; you don’t have to see others as being “Below” you to kill them, you just have to see them as a threat. Indeed, perceiving your enemy as being “below” you is a good way to lose wars; it leads to overconfidence, and ultimately complacency.
With respect, you have no idea yourself if those laws were “gratuitously violated”. Are you implying that the GIs burnt the bodies for fun? The press reports that I saw all indicated that this was a tactical ploy. It may have been a misguided one, but to suggest that those defending it are somehow bloodthirsty savages who wish to ‘nuke’ the Taliban is ludicrous.
Journalists should concern themselves with genuine atrocites; that does not mean broadcasting to the whole fucking world each time an Allied soldier shows disrespect to the Koran or breaks an Islamic commandment.
Still and all, nothing beats the warm glow of feeling morally superior, does it?
As I thought I made clear in my earlier post, the point is that burning the bodies was a bad idea overall, and very possibly a violation of the Geneva Convention, WHATEVER the motives of the soldiers who did it.
Even if they did it purely as a “tactical ploy”, it could still certainly be a violation of the laws of war. As the OP’s link clearly states,
There is no exception made for “tactical ploys”. The Convention forbids commission of certain acts like corpse desecration not just for frivolous reasons but for any reason (except, as stated, “imperative reasons of hygiene”).
So it’s not just that you’re not allowed to burn Muslim fighters’ corpses for shits ‘n’ giggles. You’re also not allowed to burn them as a military maneuver, no matter how pure your motives are or how deeply you respect Islamic rites or how much you personally regret the necessity for the action. You’re not allowed to do it, period.
And again, as wring says, blaming the repercussions of this act on the journalist who reported it is idiotic. Saying that it’s okay for soldiers to commit atrocities as long as they don’t get caught is bound to come back and bite you in the ass eventually. For one thing, word will always leak out to some people anyway (the Taliban fighters who saw the corpses burnt will report it to enrage the local villagers against the Americans, for example).
More importantly, any neutral party who hears you condoning illegal atrocities as long as they’re kept secret will be outraged, and will despise you for a hypocrite. How can we claim to be fighting a just war for freedom and democratic openness and the rule of law if we go around saying that we don’t expect our own soldiers to follow our own laws, as long as they can break them without getting caught?
Dude, the desecration of corpses by failing to “inter them honorably” and violating the deceased’s religious law against burning them is forbidden by the fucking Geneva Conventions which our country has fucking ratified and thereby constitutionally elevated to the fucking status of supreme fucking law of the fucking land.
Where the hell do you get the idea that we can just pick and choose among the provisions of the Conventions and decide which ones we think are “genuine” and which ones don’t really count?
If there is a serious likelihood that American soldiers have violated the formal laws of war in any way, I sure as fuck want the media to report that. The chance of negative publicity is the best safeguard against our troops’ being tempted (and encouraged by the irresponsible indifference of shitheads like you) to commit illegal atrocities.
Oh yeah, that’s comparable. They did it in secret, so that no Germans (or anyone else) would ever know that it happened. 25 years after his death. When his body had turned to jelly.
It is. But who intimated that, apart from yourself?
Once more, this may have been a tactical error. But that is all it was. It didn’t draw any indignant Taliban from the hills (although it did flush out a bunch of indignant Dopers). The journalist, by turning a spotlight on it, has blown the incident out of all proportion.
Who on earth is comparing anything? I simply pointed out that the Russians could be siad to have torched Hitler, despite your labored witticism. It has nothing at all to do with the present case.
Once more, this may have been an illegal violation of an explicit prohibition in the Geneva conventions. Which is why the Pentagon is investigating it.
Your continuing to deny this does not change the fact.
Hey genius, if no one but the immediate enemy actually knew about it, how in the fuck can it offend anyone else. And how in the fuck can you be outraged that US troops have offended the enemies sensibilities in their fucking tactics.
Would you care to point out just where I said that it was not a breach of the Geneva Convention, or even implied it? There are multiple breaches of the Convention in every war by all sides. Some are worth prosecuting with the utmost vigor. Others are not. This is most definitely in the latter category.
Hey idiot - they did it in front of a camera.
In any event, I was responding to the fucker who blamed the reporter , instead of the fuckers who did it. As you, too, seem to be doing.
Abu gharib, watergate, Monica Lewinskigate etc.
if an action is wrong, the cover up is wrong, too.
And, as has been pointed out, the action itself seems to be a violation of the Geneva Convention, and as a tactical action -well the word idiotic seems to fit. how,pray tell, did they plan to ** only let the Taliban know**??? t’aint like information like that is a ’
smart bomb’ with precision like accuracy of deployment.
You’re right.
Unlike the rest of the world, Our Enemies [sup]tm[/sup] have not realized how to communicate, let alone use a phone or the internet. Why, I’m sure that they’re centuries away from creating a news network and naming it something like Al Jazeera.
This is the most bassacwards lunacy I’ve seen in a long time.
We burn bodies facing away from Mecca, taunt an entire Muslim village who will without doubt relay the story to others… and it’s the journalist’s fault for reporting it?
Some people here have some seriously bizarre worldviews… fighting ignorance indeed!
"The journalist should have covered it up, because even though he was imbedded and his job as a journalist was to report the truth, and even though this was undeniably the truth, it was a bad truth for us. Journalists should only report ‘truths’ which will help the war effort, not those pesky truths which we don’t like so much. "
I don’t want any of you attacking the journalist to complain if there is ever a situation where our media doesn’t tell us news, only propaganda and the party line.