• 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!

U.S. Marines Urinate On Dead Bodies In Afghanistan

ecofarm said:
Not every country targets civilians; that's nonsense.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting there are countries, when at war, that do not target sites that may be inhabited by civilians?
 
Connery said:
Are you suggesting there are countries, when at war, that do not target sites that may be inhabited by civilians?
Click to expand...


We spend billions of dollars and put our soldiers in grave mortal danger in efforts to avoid civillian casualties. You are in the Army, you know about "shoot orders" yes?
 
Grant said:
Deliberately targeting civilians and targeting sites that may be inhabited by civilians is quite different.
Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:
We spend billions of dollars and put our soldiers in grave mortal danger in efforts to avoid civillian casualties. You are in the Army, you know about "shoot orders" yes?
Click to expand...

Point being in a "war" it is accepted that civilians will get hurt or killed yet the war goes on anyway regardless of that scenario.


My purpose in citing this was to qualify a definition that was deemed stupid by another poster. Terrorism is about terror not just directed toward civilians by all people.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Spare us the pompous twaddle. These lowlifes broke the UCMJ and several sections of the Geneva conventions. They are as scummy as their defenders.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz! Do tell us which articles of the UCMJ they violated.
 
Catawba said:
Were these Marines drafted, or did they join voluntarily?

Afraid I am too old, however I have served my country, as did my Dad, Granddad, and my Son.
Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe that you've ever served in the military, much less found yourself exposed in someone else's kill zone, if you think this rates a dishonarable disacharge.

What's more amazing is--and correct me if I'm wrong--you're one of the cats that has defended Bradley Manning.
 
apdst said:
Gee whiz! Do tell us which articles of the UCMJ they violated.
Click to expand...
Article 134, issue an article 15, suspended temporary reduction in rank. Absolved pending successful completion of mission without further incident. Maybe make them write "I will not pee on the enemy" 100 times in the sand. A verbalized apology to their fellow marines. I can understand someone that has never been in the military getting their silkies twisted over this. Someone that has actually served in ANY capacity? This **** is trivial in wartime. A little unit corrective action and press on.
 
VanceMack said:
Article 134, issue an article 15, suspended temporary reduction in rank. Absolved pending successful completion of mission without further incident. Maybe make them write "I will not pee on the enemy" 100 times in the sand. A verbalized apology to their fellow marines. I can understand someone that has never been in the military getting their silkies twisted over this. Someone that has actually served in ANY capacity? This **** is trivial in wartime. A little unit corrective action and press on.
Click to expand...

A violation of article 134 is a big maybe. I don't disagree that there should be some kind of NJP, but not the lynching that some are suggesting.

Morale needs to be taken into consideration. If these men are popular in their unit and the ones that are NCOs are good leaders and respected by their troops, then too severe of a punishment could cause a breakdown in morale and discipline within the platoon and frankly this incident isn't worth it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So what do you think should happen to these soldiers? specifically. These "lowlifes" left thier families behind to fight for thier country in a hellish warzone where our VP states that these taliban savages are "not our enemy" all while they kill our soldiers..... Some would say these "lowlifes" have done more and are willing to do more than some of thier internet detractors. War is hell, if your bothered that much about how they treated those poor poor taliban savages, perhaps you should go join jihad.
Click to expand...

I had friends in the first Gulf War and also two in the Black Hawk Down incident in Mogidishu (sp?) and they talked some about how hellish war can be, not that it takes a lot of imagination. Just horrible stuff and if a little peeing is as bad as these guys got then maybe they should be put on latrine duty for a week but beyond that discussing this in terms of them being bad guys is an insult to the armed forces and everybody in them.
 
VanceMack said:
Article 134, issue an article 15, suspended temporary reduction in rank. Absolved pending successful completion of mission without further incident. Maybe make them write "I will not pee on the enemy" 100 times in the sand. A verbalized apology to their fellow marines. I can understand someone that has never been in the military getting their silkies twisted over this. Someone that has actually served in ANY capacity? This **** is trivial in wartime. A little unit corrective action and press on.
Click to expand...

I can't even imagine what these whiners would be screaming about if there was this kind of press during WWII. :roll:
 
apdst said:
A violation of article 134 is a big maybe. I don't disagree that there should be some kind of NJP, but not the lynching that some are suggesting.

Morale needs to be taken into consideration. If these men are popular in their unit and the ones that are NCOs are good leaders and respected by their troops, then too severe of a punishment could cause a breakdown in morale and discipline within the platoon and frankly this incident isn't worth it.
Click to expand...

I know that if I ever met these guys I would be first in line to buy them some beers...
 
apdst said:
A violation of article 134 is a big maybe. I don't disagree that there should be some kind of NJP, but not the lynching that some are suggesting.

Morale needs to be taken into consideration. If these men are popular in their unit and the ones that are NCOs are good leaders and respected by their troops, then too severe of a punishment could cause a breakdown in morale and discipline within the platoon and frankly this incident isn't worth it.
Click to expand...
First person that gets to stand tall is the moron that filmed it and posted it. I agree and again...precisely the difference between people that have a little bit of experience in the field and people that have the luxury of sitting at home and being outraged. This type of incident is WHY the military provides for non judicial punishment.
 
Connery said:
Point being in a "war" it is accepted that civilians will get hurt or killed yet the war goes on anyway regardless of that scenario.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid point and it surely does not equate US military action with terrorism, as your 'good' definition and defense of it did.

My purpose in citing this was to qualify a definition that was deemed stupid by another poster. Terrorism is about terror not just directed toward civilians by all people.
Click to expand...

Terror "directed" towards actively hostile military forces during war is terrorism? No dude. Terrorism is targetting civilians. That's a good definition; some of it is explained in terminology (targetting referring to intentional physical engagement) and it's boiled down to its most defining modern element.

Do not continue to push your definition as a good one. It is grossly insufficient and will not satisfy the slightest examination.





Also, what's up with wanting a dishonorable discharge for this? I think that's pretty much off the ledge. I wonder if any other poster would/will support that position in the debate regarding appropriate punishment.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
"Four US marines identified by the military as the soldiers filmed urinating on corpses in Afghanistan are likely to face a court martial after an American military commander said such actions are a "grave breach" of the laws of war."

War News Updates: US Marines Likely To Face Court Martial For Urinating On Dead Taliban Fighters

I trust the military to handle this in an appropriate manner that they feel best suits the action.
Click to expand...



that's unfortunate, they will become a sacrificial lamb to this administration. Pathetic.
 
"A grave breach..." haha

Hopefully it doesn't go to court or someone will kick in a few bucks to help out the defense.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
that's unfortunate, they will become a sacrificial lamb to this administration. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

And a further symbol of how "evil" America is, as advanced by other Americans.

The Terrorists aren't complaing at all and don't need to. They have the American left doing it for them.
 
ecofarm said:
That's a stupid point and it surely does not equate US military action with terrorism, as your 'good' definition and defense of it did.



Terror "directed" towards actively hostile military forces during war is terrorism? No dude. Terrorism is targetting civilians. That's a good definition; some of it is explained in terminology (targetting referring to intentional physical engagement) and it's boiled down to its most defining modern element.

Do not continue to push your definition as a good one. It is grossly insufficient and will not satisfy the slightest examination.
Click to expand...

I am guided by this definition which boiled down includes what I have posted. You cite no authority and your example is less than worthy of examination.

TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 38 > § 2656f

§ 2656f. Annual country reports on terrorism

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331

§ 2331. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...

United States Code: Title 18,2331. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

United States Code: Title 22,2656f. Annual country reports on terrorism | LII / Legal Information Institute






Also, what's up with wanting a dishonorable discharge for this? I think that's pretty much off the ledge. I wonder if any other poster would/will support that position in the debate regarding appropriate punishment.
Click to expand...

Why are you directing this toward me?
 
Grant said:
The Terrorists aren't complaing at all and don't need to. They have the American left doing it for them.
Click to expand...

Even people on the right are speaking out about this as well as the Marine Corp. I guess anyone that disagrees with you is now the left eh?
 
TheNextEra said:
Even people on the right are speaking out about this as well as the Marine Corp. I guess anyone that disagrees with you is now the left eh?
Click to expand...

There are silly little hand wringers on the Right, just like there are on the Left; just not as many of them.
 
apdst said:
There are silly little hand wringers on the Right, just like there are on the Left; just not as many of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah those silly little hand wringers like the Marine Corp that has spoken up against this. Is the Marine Corp now lefties?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yeah those silly little hand wringers like the Marine Corp that has spoken up against this. Is the Marine Corp now lefties?
Click to expand...

The senior officers that are expressing fake outrage over this are doing so for no other reason than to protect their careers. If your military experience is what you claim, you already understand how officers can't risk making the wrong public statement.
 
apdst said:
The senior officers that are expressing fake outrage over this are doing so for no other reason than to protect their careers. If your military experience is what you claim, you already understand how officers can't risk making the wrong public statement.
Click to expand...

So you speak for the Marine Corp now and are speaking that all of them have fake outrage? FACT: The Marine Corp has came out and said this does not exemplify the Marine Corp and if YOU served like you said you have you would know they are 100% correct.

I think most of the military agree that non-judicial punishment is acceptable for this offense as well as I do. I'm not sure why you feel the act of pissing on dead bodies should be celebrated and embodies what the Marine Corp is about.
 
TheNextEra said:
So you speak for the Marine Corp now and are speaking that all of them have fake outrage? FACT: The Marine Corp has came out and said this does not exemplify the Marine Corp and if YOU served like you said you have you would know they are 100% correct.
Click to expand...



Thats right and officers can ruin their careers by making public statements that are contrary to Marine Corps policy.

I'm sure you heard officers talking about that when you were the DEFAC NCOIC.

I'm not sure why you feel the act of pissing on dead bodies should be celebrated and embodies what the Marine Corp is about.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think I ever said any such thing. All out of talking points and resorting to lieing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom