• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

Please show "taking pictures with"... Thanks... "other mistreatment" is ambiguous, so much so, the timid, like to suggest a stern look at a savage taliban would be a war crime....

The point is, had they not taken pictures, no one would have known. Moreover, whenever there is a war, this sort of thing happens. In order to fight a war, the enemy must be dehumanized, which is why there is always an unofficial name for them that implies that they are less than human.

such is the nature of war. We shouldn't dump on the soldiers.

and posing with body parts is pretty mild compared to some of the things that go on in any war. The only thing different now is the ease at which we can take video and share it with the world.
 
Please show "taking pictures with"... Thanks... "other mistreatment" is ambiguous, so much so, the timid, like to suggest a stern look at a savage taliban would be a war crime....

that's a dishonest strawman and you know it.

mistreatment of the dead, clearly would include using dead bodies of the enemy for photographs where one poses & smiles.

at least, that's what a logical & intelligent interpretation would say.
 
The point is, had they not taken pictures, no one would have known. Moreover, whenever there is a war, this sort of thing happens. In order to fight a war, the enemy must be dehumanized, which is why there is always an unofficial name for them that implies that they are less than human.

such is the nature of war. We shouldn't dump on the soldiers.

and posing with body parts is pretty mild compared to some of the things that go on in any war. The only thing different now is the ease at which we can take video and share it with the world.


I remember being in Kuwait in 91. I avoided all cameras, from cnn to guys in my unit. I dunno, I just thought it was always a bad idea.
 
that's a dishonest strawman and you know it.

mistreatment of the dead, clearly would include using dead bodies of the enemy for photographs where one poses & smiles.

at least, that's what a logical & intelligent interpretation would say.



nonsense. by that idiotic logic you could say a stern look that made a taliban savage feel intimidated was a war crime. You could say that not giving each dead taliban savage a proper muslim burial would be a war crime.

so tell me, What would you have done to these soldiers for the "war crime" of taking pictures with body parts? dishonorable discharge? Jail? how bad do you want to **** some kids life up, some kid who signed where you would never dare tread, ho bad do you want to see his life ****ed up for taking pictures of some dead savages severed elbow?
 
The simple fact is what these soldiers did was wrong (according to the military). NJP should be given at the company level and then move on. The soldiers shouldn't be discharged and the soldiers shouldn't be jailed.

Soldiers do dumb things sometimes, this happened in 2010, training has since then been implemented to curb this sort of thing.

Personally, when I was in Korea in 2001, A soldier stationed in Japan that raped and killed an underage girl got less exposure than this. That's pretty sad right there.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm afraid not.

AGREEMENT ON PROVISIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN

For the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan:

Ms. Amena Afzali

Mr. S. Hussain Anwari

Mr. Hedayat Amin Arsala

Mr. Sayed Hamed Gailani

Mr. Rahmatullah Mousa Ghazi

Eng. Abdul Hakim

Mr. Houmayoun Jareer

Mr. Abbas Karimi

Mr. Mustafa Kazimi

Dr. Azizullah Ludin

Mr. Ahmad Wali Massoud

Mr. Hafizullah Asif Mohseni

Prof. Mohammad Ishaq Nadiri

Mr. Mohammad Natiqi

Mr. Aref Noorzay

Mr. Yunus Qanooni

Dr. Zalmai Rassoul

Mr. H. Mirwais Sadeq

Dr. Mohammad Jalil Shams

Prof. Abdul Sattar Sirat

Mr. Humayun Tandar

Mrs. Sima Wali

General Abdul Rahim Wardak

Mr. Azizullah Wasefi

Mr. Pacha Khan Zadran


Witnessed for the United Nations by:

Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan



Who really allowed Karzai to take power? It was our invasion/occupation.

"Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate."

"During the late 1990s, Karzai worked with an Afghani-American, Zalmay Khalilzad, on the CentGas project. Khalilzad is President Bush's Special National Security Assistant and recently named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Interestingly, in the White House press release naming Khalilzad special envoy, no mention was made of his past work for UNOCAL. Khalilzad has worked on Afghan issues under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron, itself no innocent bystander in the future CentGas deal. Rice made an impression on her old colleagues at Chevron. The company has named one of their supertankers the SS Condoleezza Rice."

CRG -- Getting used to the idea of double standards: The underlying maxim is "we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends"
 
nonsense. by that idiotic logic you could say a stern look that made a taliban savage feel intimidated was a war crime....

idiotic analogy.

there is no military rule against dirty looks towards the enemy. :lamo

but there is a rule against mistreatment of the dead.
 
idiotic analogy.

there is no military rule against dirty looks towards the enemy. :lamo

but there is a rule against mistreatment of the dead.



You missed this:

"so tell me, What would you have done to these soldiers for the "war crime" of taking pictures with body parts? dishonorable discharge? Jail? how bad do you want to **** some kids life up, some kid who signed where you would never dare tread, ho bad do you want to see his life ****ed up for taking pictures of some dead savages severed elbow?"




 
You missed this:

"so tell me, What would you have done to these soldiers for the "war crime" of taking pictures with body parts? dishonorable discharge? Jail? how bad do you want to **** some kids life up, some kid who signed where you would never dare tread, ho bad do you want to see his life ****ed up for taking pictures of some dead savages severed elbow?"





Maybe KP for a week?

Is the problem having posed with body parts, or is it having photographed the incident?
 
Maybe KP for a week?

Article 15, :shrug:

Is the problem having posed with body parts, or is it having photographed the incident?



My personal problem with it? is them getting caught, it causes an international incident and gives our enemies fodder. as for the actual act? if some dude spent his life building bombs to blow me up, and I had the opportunity, I would stick his head on a pike on the front of my vehicle as a warning to all those who would dare tread on my royal hunting grounds..... but alas, we live in a civil world today, and things such as this is frowned upon in a polite society.


Seriously though in the scheme of things? what did they do? They posed for pictures with body parts of savages that have been trying to kill them. I find it something not to be encouraged, but hardly a "war crime"....
 
that's a dishonest strawman and you know it.

mistreatment of the dead, clearly would include using dead bodies of the enemy for photographs where one poses & smiles.

at least, that's what a logical & intelligent interpretation would say.

You need to be shown how these assholes savage and suppress their own people in the name of islam and jihad.

They all paint themselves as the victims, every single one of them, They are true believers of their own hype. They cannot be reasoned with, persuaded or turned. No one can convince them they are wrong.

Reason why, there is no excuse for a live terrorist

Islamic extremists will always find an excuse to rationalize their behavior. Efforts to treat these savages better will not stop the violence. It will only change the excuses the enemy uses to attack us.

That is a brutal fact you seem to fail to understand.

Stop your whining and harden, the **** up
 
No I didn't. I simply chose not to respond to a silly question.


how was it silly, asking what you think the punishment should be would show the forum how much of a war crime you think this is.... Why do I bother. Nevermind.
 
Maybe KP for a week?

Is the problem having posed with body parts, or is it having photographed the incident?

Poor judgment. That's the problem. The world we live in today almost assures someone you don't want seeing this will see it.
 
"For years the US army has been talking about winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan but it appears to be fighting a losing battle.

On March 11, one US soldier went on a shooting rampage claiming the lives of 16 Afghan civilians – nine of them children. It was just the latest in a series of PR disasters for the coalition. Last month a group of US soldiers caused outrage in the country when they accidentally – or so they say - burnt the Holy Quran. Before that, video surfaced of coalition snipers urinating on the dead bodies of alleged Taliban fighters.

While the Obama administration shifted back into damage control mode, the story was also picked up by the now vibrant Afghani media landscape whose various media outlets, including the Taliban's media machine, all had a different tale to tell."

See video at link below:

Afghanistan's propaganda war - Listening Post - Al Jazeera English
 
I don't believe in hell, but I do believe in the rule of law. The US Field Manual (1956) provides that “maltreatment of dead bodies” is a war crime


The US field manual (1956)?

Really.
 
Who really allowed Karzai to take power? It was our invasion/occupation.

"Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate."

"During the late 1990s, Karzai worked with an Afghani-American, Zalmay Khalilzad, on the CentGas project. Khalilzad is President Bush's Special National Security Assistant and recently named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Interestingly, in the White House press release naming Khalilzad special envoy, no mention was made of his past work for UNOCAL. Khalilzad has worked on Afghan issues under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron, itself no innocent bystander in the future CentGas deal. Rice made an impression on her old colleagues at Chevron. The company has named one of their supertankers the SS Condoleezza Rice."

CRG -- Getting used to the idea of double standards: The underlying maxim is "we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends"

Afghan tribal leaders and other Afghan elder's picked him...not Americans, not NATO, not the UN, not the Bildergurg group. His past relationship with America or anyone else is irrelevant.
 
Afghan tribal leaders and other Afghan elder's picked him...not Americans, not NATO, not the UN, not the Bildergurg group. His past relationship with America or anyone else is irrelevant.

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the Afghans after he is no longer under protection of an occupation by the most powerful military on the planet.
 
"For years the US army has been talking about winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan but it appears to be fighting a losing battle.

On March 11, one US soldier went on a shooting rampage claiming the lives of 16 Afghan civilians – nine of them children. It was just the latest in a series of PR disasters for the coalition. Last month a group of US soldiers caused outrage in the country when they accidentally – or so they say - burnt the Holy Quran. Before that, video surfaced of coalition snipers urinating on the dead bodies of alleged Taliban fighters.

While the Obama administration shifted back into damage control mode, the story was also picked up by the now vibrant Afghani media landscape whose various media outlets, including the Taliban's media machine, all had a different tale to tell."

See video at link below:

Afghanistan's propaganda war - Listening Post - Al Jazeera English

It goes deeper much deeper. A case of....wear out one's welcome

The Army was bullheadedly shaped to fight a war not in keeping with the most likely employment needs. In both Vietnam and A-stan/Iraq we were pushed hard by past generalship into a extremely* tank-heavy force structure* in spite of plentiful evidence that we would more likely need more mobile *light fighter*, less armored forces for the MOST likely employment in the future. Having forced ourselves into this structure - and having taken a very bad lesson from Vietnam against Army involvement in nation building over and over, ignoring the historical precident indicating that while we may not WISH to do it, we are the ONLY one's in our governmental structure who has or can - we ended up unable to effectively fight the insurgency wars we were sent into.

What we need to do in the future....is to get in and get the **** out as quickly as possible.....NO ****ing nation building
 
You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the Afghans after he is no longer under protection of an occupation by the most powerful military on the planet.


mac does? Why? Is mac the president of the United States? When Bush was in charge of the military during his terms, those in criticism of the wars, and indeed Bush himself, made him personally responsible for things like this, along with bashing the military as a whole, now seems that the current CiC is left out of the equation in the blame the US for the worlds ills game. Why is that?


j-mac
 
mac does? Why? Is mac the president of the United States? When Bush was in charge of the military during his terms, those in criticism of the wars, and indeed Bush himself, made him personally responsible for things like this, along with bashing the military as a whole, now seems that the current CiC is left out of the equation in the blame the US for the worlds ills game. Why is that?


j-mac




Excellent point..... It is funny watching Catawba no longer cackle on about how the president is responsible for all these things. :lamo
 
nonsense. by that idiotic logic you could say a stern look that made a taliban savage feel intimidated was a war crime. You could say that not giving each dead taliban savage a proper muslim burial would be a war crime.

so tell me, What would you have done to these soldiers for the "war crime" of taking pictures with body parts? dishonorable discharge? Jail? how bad do you want to **** some kids life up, some kid who signed where you would never dare tread, ho bad do you want to see his life ****ed up for taking pictures of some dead savages severed elbow?

Idiotic logic is obviously a speciality subject with you. I defer to your greater experience.
 
Idiotic logic is obviously a speciality subject with you. I defer to your greater experience.



Is this a way for you to avoid answering:


so tell me, What would you have done to these soldiers for the "war crime" of taking pictures with body parts? dishonorable discharge? Jail? how bad do you want to **** some kids life up, some kid who signed where you would never dare tread, ho bad do you want to see his life ****ed up for taking pictures of some dead savages severed elbow?


If so, I accept your concession.
 
You need to be shown how these assholes savage and suppress their own people in the name of islam and jihad.

They all paint themselves as the victims, every single one of them, They are true believers of their own hype. They cannot be reasoned with, persuaded or turned. No one can convince them they are wrong.

Reason why, there is no excuse for a live terrorist

Islamic extremists will always find an excuse to rationalize their behavior. Efforts to treat these savages better will not stop the violence. It will only change the excuses the enemy uses to attack us.

That is a brutal fact you seem to fail to understand.

Stop your whining and harden, the **** up

You could benefit greatly from your own advice. Something the defenders of these war criminals have in common is the application of the lowest common denominator of morality. It's not about what they do, it's about what WE do. Do we not only mess with the human remains of our foes but laugh and take pictures while doing it, or are we better than that? If we are not, why are we fighting these people under the falsehood of superior morals?
 
Back
Top Bottom