Taliban denounce 'US Marines body desecration' video, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:36 AM by Wrabbit2000

I've heard more and more people starting to suggest that with media coverage like we have today, America would have lost World War II. I can't argue that sentiment by what I know of the War by my reading over the years.

Would we prefer not to see this? I'd prefer footage like this never leave the war zone since people can't be trusted to show some judgement with keepsakes from the war zone anymore. Everyone seems to want their 15 minutes of fame and screw their buddies to get it, too often.

We have no idea what the story of this picture is. Perhaps this is the body of a sniper who'd hit a few Americans before they finally got him, or some other circumstance which puts the act into context. It still isn't something we want to see back home, but War is Hell and I understand that term comes with great meaning.

Perhaps judging men in a war zone from our comfy office chairs here in America isn't the most realistic thing....

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:36 AM by apodictic

reply to post by FlyersFan

THANK YOU

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:38 AM by intelligenthoodlum33

reply to post by apodictic

Brother all your doing is making yourself look bad by showing a complete lack of common sense; much less logic. Maybe you have have skeletons of your own that haunt you; giving you reason to defend these sociopaths. I don't know, nor do I care.

Intelligenthoodlum33 PhD (there you go)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:40 AM by apodictic

reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33

Nice deflection tactic. No thanks, though, Dr. Bull#. I won't use your personal definition of "common sense." Instead I'll listen to the person with an actual psychology degree, and the actual criteria used to diagnose it.

You can have your own little reality.

edit on 12-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:41 AM by FlyersFan

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reason to defend these sociopaths.

The American soldiers aren't sociopaths. The Taliban come much closer to filling that roll.

PhD

OF WHAT?

Did you take ANY psychology classes? I've still got all the books from my Psychology degree. I'd be more than happy to get in a piss'n contest (get it .. we're talking about soldiers piss'n) with you about just who is the sociopath .. the Taliban or the average American soldier.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:42 AM by noonebutme

reply to post by FlyersFan

I completely agree with you, nicely put

What's more "offensive" : cutting the head off a person who doesn't believe what you believe, or urinating on the dead body of the would-be decapitator?

Hmm..

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:47 AM by intelligenthoodlum33

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33

Nice deflection tactic. No thanks, though, Dr. Bull#. I won't use your personal definition of "common sense." Instead I'll listen to the person with an actual psychology degree, and the actual criteria used to diagnose it.

You can have your own little reality.
edit on 12-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

Those are the types of psychologists that probably treats troops and tell them it's okay to be sociopaths...it's a shame really. As I said earlier though, I don't care about you and your issues so bug off. I'm not going to change your mind and your certainly not going to change mine.
You can have this thread, it's has become way too twisted even for me.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:49 AM by apodictic

reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33

Run along now. You've already been proven wrong too many times in one thread.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 06:51 AM by FlyersFan

On Line Profile of the Sociopath
(This is gleened from the DSM-IV ... my hard copy is the DSM-IV-R)

Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
Grandiose Sense of Self
Pathological Lying
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Shallow Emotions
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse,
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily

Just having one or two of these does't make someone sociopathic. It takes more than that.

And it is IMPOSSIBLE to take a picture off the internet of a handful of American soldiers in war
and diagnose them as sociopathic because they are piss'n on the dead body of someone who
was just recently trying to kill them.

reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33

Your continued misuse of the term 'sociopath' in regards to the soldiers in that picture, even after being shown that is the wrong use, is irresponsible. What's more - you throwing out PhD ... and then refusing to state exactly what kind of PhD ... is misleading. Shame on you.

edit on 1/12/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:00 AM by synnergy

The act was a bad deal, and everybody knows it. Those that are defending it, maybe you're right, maybe we should all try and understand the hell a person goes through when they're out there, before we judge. What we deal with here can't compare to what they deal with.
And yes, look who it was done to, the kind of people they are and the s### they have done.
Do they deserve it? It probably can be said they certainly earned it, considering.
But it will never stop, it perpetuates hatred.

Should have never been a video, why is there a video? Why would anyone do that in front of a video?
We all know what state we are in now, as it is.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:05 AM by apodictic

reply to post by synnergy

I'll agree with that. What happens in war should stay between the people who understand it. It just causes controversy otherwise.

Since they found humor in this, you have to ask the question WHY they would find humor in this specific act. I believe subconsciously it's a way of marking territory. We just rationalize our behavior in a conscious way. Most of how we interact as humans has primal undertones. We like to think we're so far off from animals, but in reality we aren't. We think we're "civilized" but the only difference between us and them, really, is we're able to be aware of our conscious thoughts.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:08 AM by Ek Bharatiya

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
We have no idea what the story of this picture is. Perhaps this is the body of a sniper who'd hit a few Americans before they finally got him, or some other circumstance which puts the act into context. It still isn't something we want to see back home, but War is Hell and I understand that term comes with great meaning.

Perhaps judging men in a war zone from our comfy office chairs here in America isn't the most realistic thing....

I think peeing on a dead person's face is wrong, no matter what you are behind.

Also I disagree with the rest of your post. Hugh Thompson, Jr. is an example of a true soldier who saw more than his fair share of combat in Vietnam - his helicopter came under fire, and he lost his aircraft several times, but when he came across US armed forces killing unarmed citizens and mutilating their bodies in My Lai Massacre, he intervened, threatening to shoot the soldiers if they stopped the civilians being evacuated. This is what a true soldier is like.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:09 AM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Maybe the Taliban should have thought twice before refusing to turn Bin Laden over to us.

Taliban agreed to hand over Bin Laden if US could provide proof that Osama Bin Laden was guilty. Bush (US govt.) refused and attacked Afghanistan. Also weren't the most people accused in 9/11 from Saudi Arabia? I didn't see US taking any action against their ally.

You are correct that the Taliban stated they would turn him over if evidence was presented. However, they would not turn him over to the US. They wanted any "legal action" to occur in a 3rd party country.

That option was not acceptable.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:10 AM by Ek Bharatiya

Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by FlyersFan

I completely agree with you, nicely put

What's more "offensive" : cutting the head off a person who doesn't believe what you believe, or urinating on the dead body of the would-be decapitator?

Hmm..

I'm having a hard time coming up with situations and circumstances where peeing on dead people behavior would be right or just even not-wrong. To answer your question both are equally offensive.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:13 AM by noonebutme

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya
Also I disagree with the rest of your post. Hugh Thompson, Jr. is an example of a true soldier who saw more than his fair share of combat in Vietnam - his helicopter came under fire, and he lost his aircraft several times, but when he came across US armed forces killing unarmed citizens and mutilating their bodies in My Lai Massacre, he intervened, threatening to shoot the soldiers if they stopped the civilians being evacuated. This is what a true soldier is like.

And that is very noble and honourable and what a REAL soldier should do - protect the innocent.

However, this situation is NOTHING like that. These were soldiers vs soldiers. The mere fact that the engaged in a fire fight and killed their combatants negates the arguments about "human respect" - if you're in war and ready to shoot another person -- "human respect" has already been left at the door.

Urinating on the dead body - that is nothing like shooting or executing fleeing citizens. THAT, is more what the Taliban do - kill innocent people AS PART of who they are and what they stand for. The US military, for the most part, are not there to kill innocent people, no matter what haters will say. Is it not their agenda. It IS the agenda of the Taliban.

So I really don't see how your anecdote compares to this issue.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:14 AM by WozaMeathed

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Imagine being the wife of one of these men, waiting for so long for your loving husband to come home, and all you get is an empty shell like this.

Imagine being the poor woman that was forced to marry this now dead alledged terrorist.
Imagine the relief she must now feel now that her arranged husband is no longer around.
I think she would be that relieved that she would rejoice and throw her burka in the air, but then again she would probably be shot if she did

edit on 12-1-2012 by WozaMeathed because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:14 AM by Lysergic

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by synnergy

I'll agree with that. What happens in war should stay between the people who understand it. It just causes controversy otherwise.

Since they found humor in this, you have to ask the question WHY they would find humor in this specific act. I believe subconsciously it's a way of marking territory. We just rationalize our behavior in a conscious way. Most of how we interact as humans has primal undertones. We like to think we're so far off from animals, but in reality we aren't. We think we're "civilized" but the only difference between us and them, really, is we're able to be aware of our conscious thoughts.

I figured they pissed on them because the sole fact they are muslim, they kinda got this urine avoidance thing...

Firstly, the Muslim must beware of najaasah (impurity) and try to avoid it as much as he can. It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed by two graves and said, “They are being punished, but they are not being punished for something that was difficult to avoid. One of them used to walk about spreading nameemah (malicious gossip) and the other used not to take care to avoid getting urine on himself.”

Narrated by Muslim, al-Tahaarah, 439

What is meant is that he did not take precautions to avoid getting it on himself. Hence it is permissible to urinate standing up so long as a person can be sure that he will not get splashes of urine on his clothes or his body. See the answer to question no. 9790.

islamqa.info...
So yeah its like an extra step, might not be as offensive to us, but hatred begets hatred is all I'm trying to say.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:16 AM by noonebutme

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya

Originally posted by noonebutme

I completely agree with you, nicely put

What's more "offensive" : cutting the head off a person who doesn't believe what you believe, or urinating on the dead body of the would-be decapitator?

Hmm..

I'm having a hard time coming up with situations and circumstances where peeing on dead people behavior would be right or just even not-wrong. To answer your question both are equally offensive.

It isn't about right or wrong - I was making a point that people are up in arms and morally decrying the US for urinating on dead bodies when its those dead bodies, if alive would have happily executed innocent people; cut their heads off while alive, stone men and especially women for showing individuality and the right to believe and love who they want.

So urinating on a dead body - I'm not advocating it, I don't support it. But it certainly is NO WHERE as offensive as decapitation or stoning.

That's my point.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:17 AM by andy1972

This seems so fake..
I dont see piss anywhere.
I dont see the dead mens clothes or the ground getting wet.

They just stand there imitating pissing on the corpse..nothing more.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:18 AM by Ek Bharatiya

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are correct that the Taliban stated they would turn him over if evidence was presented. However, they would not turn him over to the US. They wanted any "legal action" to occur in a 3rd party country.

That option was not acceptable.

Whether that option was acceptable or not is debatable but atleast you found out that if US wanted to they could have avoided invading Afghanistan. Every country have their own set of rules and United States didn't have any extradition treaty with Afghanistan (Source: Countries with diplomatic relations but no extradition treaty) . The United States instead of going through legal channels invaded Afghanistan.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Ek Bharatiya because: (no reason given)