Hey hotshot, if you are really so worried about muslim sensibilities, get your facts straight. The bodies were burned facing towards Mecca and the incident occured in the hills, not in front of a village.
Yes, that’s right because without the photographer, the locals would be inclined not to believe their own eyes. But since there is now a photographic record of this event being shown here in the US, the local Afghanis might be inclined to believe their own eyewitness accounts, despite the fact that they probably do not know about the existence of the film.
Look you fucking turdwad racist sack of pig shit. Your attitude that Afghans are stupid is what is setting back the damned war effort in Afghanistan. How fucking stupid are you? You assume that it is okay for US soldiers to needlessly violate local customs in a grossly offensive manner. You assume that the locals don’t know about it when it was done in plain view so that they would know about it and be offended and drawn out. You assume that they only know about it because a journalist filmed it, even though Afghans will never see the film. You assume that the photog is the person primarliy responsible for the action by reporting the event. You assume that the American people don’t have a right to know. You assume that the troops committing the offense are entitled to a free pass when they should be reprimanded.
In short, you are a self-centered, fucking asshole.
You probably support the war in Iraq too. Well, do us all a favor and go volunteer for Iraq duty at your local recruiter. They are taking people up to age 50. Or are you just another Republian chickenhawk like Dickless Cheney or Mangy Bush. You think your country is under attack by Iraqis or Afghanis, get your ass down there and sign up.
Didn’t think so. Stinking coward chickenhawk.
Halfassed apologist.
You’re right, I listened to NPR yesterday and evidently got some minor inconsequential facts wrong.
So the best you can do is that, yes, it was horribly offensive, against the Geneva Convention, and a bad move all around, but hey, the didn’t burn them facing away from mecca.
And your second point is just stupid. It was on a hill right by a village and they used loudspeakers to make sure the villagers could hear them.
Glad that your defense involves blaming the messenger and pointing out irrelevancies.
I see two problems with your citing the Geneva Convention.
The first is that the United States is not obligated to the rules of the Geneva Convention when they are in conflict with a non signatory adversary which doesn’t apply the terms of the convention in their conduct of hostilities. That is presumably the case with the Taliban.
Article 2 of the Geneva Convention
The second problem I have with citing the Geneva convention is that these bodies were not prisoners of war. They did not die in captivity. The rules of the convention regarding respect for the dead specifically apply to those who died in captivity.
Take it up with the US military leadership, then. They’re the ones who brought this issue up, according to the OP’s link:
If they really thought that such behavior was just a permissible tactical maneuver that didn’t work out, as aldiboronti claims, they wouldn’t be investigating it as possible misconduct.
I’m pleased to see, though, that at least the military authorities seem to have the sense and the balls to accept that the responsibility for such actions, if they indeed took place, lies with the soldiers who committed them, not with the journalist who reported them.
Does invective often serve you in place of argument? Do you find it effective? Now wipe the spittle off your chin and answer, if you feel so inclined, a few questions.
Were I indeed anti-Islamic, which I am not, how exactly would that make me a racist? You’re muddling your terms.
Where did I say that Agfhanis were stupid? Of course the villagers knew. The word would have spread. It might have been rumored to the four corners of the Muslim world. And that’s exactly what it would have remained - a rumor. Can you see the qualitative difference between this and a technicolor movie?
BTW assumption piled upon assumption will eventually topple over, just as horseshit piled too high.
Self-centered? Oh, I see, I have the temerity to have a different opinion than your own.
Asshole? So you say, but I’m not accustomed to speaking through it. You’ll have to tell me how it’s done, you’re clearly an old hand.
The war in Iraq. Yes, I supported the toppling of Saddam and the holding of free elections in Iraq. If you find these things repugnant then we’ll just have to agree to differ. (“I don’t agree” - Principal Skinner. “Neither do I” - Mrs Krebapple)
As for volunteering, I’ve done my time in the army but I’d sign up in a second if I met the age requirement. (I’m 54).
By the way, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Politics can be nuanced, believe it or not.
As we are in the Pit allow me to close with a hearty Fuck You.
I find it amusing that in one breath you deny any bigotry on your part, and then assume that the Afgans are so backwards that any form of communication between them can only be a ‘rumor’.
Somehow we in the west didn’t have technicolor movies until, well, until they were invented. And lo and behold events like the Boston Massacre still had an impact.
Who’d a thunk it?
Badly put, I’ll allow you. The point that I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was the difference in impact between a filmed event and an eyewitness account.
What I find amusing is the constant harping on bigotry. My opinion would be the same were the offended religious sensibilities Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or fucking animist. Military decisions should not be dictated by theologians. You people (some of you, at least) evidently have a modicum of intelligence. While you may find it pleasing to imagine all that disagree with you are ignorant bigots, sometimes it just ain’t the case.
Fair 'nuff.
And I think you’re dramaticaly overestimating the difference. Imagine, if you will, two different scenarios, in one, the bodies of American soldiers are dragged through the streets and then burned. In the second, the only difference is that we have video.
Do you really think that Americans’ reactions would be all that different without the video, and just a NY times report that didn’t show pictures?
“Today several American servicemen were killed, their bodies lashed to trucks and dragged through city streets, and then the bodies were set on fire while taunts were issued over a PA system.”
Do you really think that without a video we wouldn’t feel a tide of outrage sweep over our country?
But then again, there are people who wouldn’t want to see that done to their religion.
If, for instance, the US was invaded and our enemy took dead soldiers and nailed them upsidedown to inverted crosses, and then set fire to them while taunting nearby cities that they couldn’t even protect their war dead… Well, how many US citizens would be happy with that, and say it’s all fine and good since a war is going on?
I think some people are quite willing to overlook someone else’s religious sensibilities but will go berserk if their own are threatened.
And let’s take that scenario. America is invaded by people who want to gain the support and trust of our citizens. They then nail dead soldiers upside down to inverted crosses and burn them. Now… does this help convince Americans that their occupiers are friends? Does it matter if there is no documentary footage, but trusted Americans vouch for that happening?
Is there really a huge difference, or is it a case of “it’s okay as long as it happens to them, and they’re of a different religion.” Because I have a realllly hard time trusting that American Christians, particularly Religious Right American Christians would be thrilled to see Islamic troops taunting Christian beliefs and desecrating bodies.
It could be that you are not a bigot. As far as your ignorance goes, your statements stand for themselves. As far as your lack of human decency goes, you are quite remarkable. If I thought that your attitude was typical of Americans, I would be calling for Canada to dump the USA as allies in Afghanistan.
You appear to be confusing the duties of reporters with those of PR flacks and propagandists.
The Flying Dutchman: “latter” in your quote of the Convention refers to “said Power.” In other words, it specifically means that, even if the other party to the war isn’t a signatory to the Convention, the one who is shall be bound by the Convention.
Let’s not conflate the two events. The cited article says that the PsyOps unit came up with the plan to taunt the Taliban fighters with the messages over the loudspeakers. It does not say that unit came up with the idiotic, asinine, and certainly illegal plan to burn corpses in the pose of prayer facing Mecca. The taunting messages decrying a fighter as a wimp is pretty good PsyOps, and it’s even practiced by high school football teams. The abuse of a corpse isn’t (and I certainly hope it’s not practiced by high school football teams).
As to your item #3: The military hierarchy is investigating the incident and those responsible should face punishment for it.
To those who think it’s a good idea to do outrageous things against Islam just because the enemy happens to be Muslim: y’all need to realize that some of our allies and many of our own people are Muslims. It’s far beneath stupid to outrage them just because some ignorant sod decided that it’d be cool to insult the religion of the enemy. Just as an example: in a couple of our wars in the past, the predominant religion in the enemy country was Roman Catholicism. Do you think it would’ve been a good idea to go burn down Catholic churches or to dress up corpses in priest’s vestments and then burn those? That would, rightly, outrage those of our own people, and our allies, who happened to be Catholic.
You can tell you’re not from Texas… 
jayjay: No sooner had I sit “sumbit,” than I thought, “What about that cheerleader killing in Texas? Did something worse happen there related to football?”
So, according to everyone on this thread, grabbing a (dead) human body and torching it like it’s a specially-designed dummy of sorts is bad only because it might be offensive to other people (and it’s offensive to them only because they have a backwards religion that tells them it is).
You know, these soldiers (or anyone else, for that matter) could have eaten the bodies and it would be alright as long as nobody takes offense and they’re already dead. They could have pissed on them, taken a dump on them, make a “Weekend at Berney’s” movie with them, but it’s okay: we’re in a war!
How really, really sad.
So, it’s wrong because: it’s going to hinder the war effort, it makes you look bad, and it’s against the Geneva Convention. Do you ever wonder why that is? Do you wonder why people do take offense, it makes you look bad, and it’s against the Geneva Convention? Sheesh.
What’s wrong, also, is your comment about “backwards religion.” What part of “Some of OUR OWN PEOPLE practice that religion” do you not understand?
So, is it normal to desecrate the bodies of a dead threat? Is it normal to treat threats in the way that some Americans seem to be treating Iraqi and Talibani prisoners? Once you neutralize a threat you move on - any real need to humiliate them?
BTW, I’m having a bit of trouble parsing your posting above. It seems that, in the first part, you’re against the Convention’s rules, but in the second part, you’re for them.
My apologies if I’ve overlooked something therein.
Hey you shit eating coward, they’ll take you at 54 if you volunteer, go the fuck down and try it. Tell them that you want to do logistics in Iraq. I quoted the portion of your “argument” I based my invective on. Learn to read your own writing you illiterate man whore. Stinking, racist, goat felching, goose stepping Nazi!!@!!!#%# Piece of pit pie!!!
You get it? You’d be scum if you were better!!! Since we are in the Pit, allow me to close with a hearty thank you, ma’am. Please close your mouth and wipe your chin.