Footage shows US troops burning Taliban corpses in Afghanistan

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Bury them in the sand?
How difficult would that be?

But then if we did that what else would the US do for people like you to constantly complain? It is always and will always be a damned if we do damned if we don't for people like you. People are cremated everyday and quite frankly I don't care what we did with those bodies. What do terrorists do with the bodies of Americans? Behead them then hang it from a bridge is one example. Do you need more? You people cry foul when the US does something but when terrorists commit atrocities I don't see a word from all you US haters. Wonder why?

If u donot respect other nations/religions norms/ethics, then why do u wage war against those who donot respect ur way of living? Even the most ignorant knows that those Muslims bury there dead ones, then who are these terrorists burning the deadbodies plunging US & the world more deepinto the hell of terrorism?

"Burning corpses are an efficient method of disposal." You can,t find their relatives to handover the deadbodies. They are from Mars? Jupiter? This way u are strengthening the terrorists ideology. Will they not hunt more of us troops to make them more respectable dead bodies to be wrapped in us flag , carried to us, mourn over by relatives and then dealt with honouably as their relatives wish?

hey you guys are forgetting that in Iraq they drug the burnt bodies of US security members and mutilated them and hangged their bodies on a bridge for eveyone to see.

use whatever means to destroy the terrorists will and support.

Originally posted by nb25
hey you guys are forgetting that in Iraq they drug the burnt bodies of US security members and mutilated them and hangged their bodies on a bridge for eveyone to see.

use whatever means to destroy the terrorists will and support.

US forces launched an assualt a week or two after that and killed 600 people in retaliation so obviously US forces don't like having their dead mutilated so why do it to the enemy?

This isn't going to break the will of the enemy.
It will probably just anger them and other Muslims will probably want to join the fight to avenge those acts.

Do u really believe that Afghans want Taliban out of their land? Did Afghans invite us to invade? US made it to save its face, to capture a strategic spot for its own agenda. It was not the will of Afghans. Why do u expect them to help achieving ur goals while u donot honour their fundamental faith/traditions. Afghans are not logical as US citizens are, they are tarditional: the whole world knows their traditions towards those who violate thier norms. If it is a war , it must be fought like a war not like a terrorit attack!

Here's 2 screen grabs from the video, you can hear them talking clearly but SBS puts subtitles on everything - Don't look at it if you don't want to see burning bodies.

Please Note! Graphic Images!

img238.imageshack.us...
img238.imageshack.us...


The video goes on to show them reading the various messages they've been broadcasting and shows them driving around with loud music blarring etc etc.

It's being done because they can't find the Taliban. So these PsyOp teams are going around tyring to stir up the towns by insulting and mocking Islam in order to get the Taliban fired up and come out attacking.

The video also has US soliders & locals saying how the Taliban are coming from Pakistan and that their weapons are all Pakistani. They aren't an Afghanistan production, they're being propped up by Pakistan now.

Funny how it all works. I guess that pipeline isn't finished yet and there's still areas which need to be protected from sabotage.

Mod Edit: Graphic Image Warning.



[edit on 20/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

This isn't going to break the will of the enemy.
It will probably just anger them and other Muslims will probably want to join the fight to avenge those acts.

We don't have forever to sit around and wait for them to attack us, we might as well speed the process and make them attack us as soon as possible so we can kill them and go home. They are using reverse psychology to draw the fundamentalists out.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
BTW, just in case it’s true, can some show me the article in the Geneva Conventions where it states you can’t burn dead enemy bodies?

Gladly.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

---snip---

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

Read the words "humiliating" and "degrading" out loud.

Art. 16. Parties to the conflict shall record as soon as possible, in respect of each wounded, sick or dead person of the adverse Party falling into their hands, any particulars which may assist in his identification.
These records should if possible include:
(a) designation of the Power on which he depends;
(b) army, regimental, personal or serial number;
(c) surname;
(d) first name or names;
(e) date of birth;
(f) any other particulars shown on his identity card or disc;
(g) date and place of capture or death;
(h) particulars concerning wounds or illness, or cause of death.

I don't see them making a point to do so.

Finally, the show stopper:

Art. 17. Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body.

-----snip-----

They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found. ....

International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention

Any questions WestPoint23?

Heartagram,

Personally, I don't like the fact that American soldiers did this, as I think it's in poor taste, and would like to believe that the majority of American soldiers are better than that.

However, having said that, I would still argue that it's not necessarily against the Geneva conventions. The portion of the Geneva conventions that you quoted, specifically states that

"Parties to the conflict, shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made."

Thus, the Geneva conventions does in fact allow for the cremation of enemy dead.

As to whether or not the way in which the cremation was carried out is "degrading or humiliating", well that area is a little grayer.

Just my 2 cents,

-Cypher

They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found. ....

Hope you didn't forget to read the following paragraphs of the article ya?

People don't read important documents and scripts half way and assume it's ok. Read everything and get the bigger picture. The above paragraph is still enforced eventhough partially cremation is allowed unless the dead guy has no prior religion which I doubt in this case.

P.S: Everybody knows Islam buries their dead. Even the anti-Islam supporters knows it.

Heartagram,

I did read the whole article that you reffered to. I was just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that cremation IS allowed by the G.C.

Your point however, is well taken; Soldiers operating under the G.C. ARE supposed to "ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged"

But, one could still reasonably argue that digging two graves for the dead men in that hard rocky ground and in a combat zone would have been impratical, and that the cremation of their bodies, was more humane than leaving them exposed to the elements and scavengers.

My point is, that while I believe that the American soldiers could have treated the bodies better, I don't think it's the atrocity that some seem to be trying to make it out to be.

P.S. Everybody also knows that if the situation were the other way around, the two American bodies would have been dragged through the streets, beaten with sticks and then hung from the nearest bridge!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
We don't have forever to sit around and wait for them to attack us, we might as well speed the process and make them attack us as soon as possible so we can kill them and go home. They are using reverse psychology to draw the fundamentalists out.

And what makes you think that you will know when they attack you?

By burning some corpses you are just putting more oil on the Fire that you already can not control. Smart? I think not. Afganistan is not under any kind of control, and that puppet of the president has no control either. How would you feel if the Taliban burned the bodies of some killed US soldiers? Would that make you Angry?

But you are right with one thing: you don't have forever to sit around and wait - just get the hell out of there!

Does the Geneva convention apply to the Taliban? I rather think not as I have no doubt they would do the same as out combat deat were treated in Somolia

Originally posted by FredT
Does the Geneva convention apply to the Taliban? I rather think not as I have no doubt they would do the same as out combat deat were treated in Somolia

So are you trying to use this as an "Excuse" that the US broke the International Laws, Again?

"If they can do it, so can we" Tactic?

I thought the US REPRESENT the International Laws and Conventions!

I guess I was wrong there...

And it's Somalia.

But if the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban what International law was broken?

Originally posted by FredT
But if the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban what International law was broken?

Why does it not apply to the the Taliban?

by whaaa:
Yes I did think it through. I would go to any length to retreive the bodies of my son or daughter. Maybe the Afganis' feel the same way.

Apparently the locals were notified of the two fallen Taliban fighters.

U.S. military officials confirm at least part of the story. They tell NBC News that two Taliban had been killed in a firefight and that U.S. soldiers had asked people in the village to retrieve the bodies, but no one had come forward for at least 24 hours.

link

As for the rest of the story, the gov isn't commenting until an investigation has been completed

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by FredT
But if the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban what International law was broken?

Why does it not apply to the the Taliban?

Not sure that was what I was asking. However, I did find this link:

Geneva Convention Applies to Taliban, not Al Qaeda

Maybe they were Al Qaeda?

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by FredT
But if the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban what International law was broken?

Why does it not apply to the the Taliban?

Not sure that was what I was asking. However, I did find this link:

Geneva Convention Applies to Taliban, not Al Qaeda

Maybe they were Al Qaeda?

I am sorry, but I do not belive any word that your president says, and I am not buying anything from a defence.mil.gov sites. I don't think that is a very good source for some Serious Information. I think this is a more reliable source when talking about Geneva Conventions:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 3

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;