It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reason to defend these sociopaths.
PhD
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)
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
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....
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.