Jump to content
Islamic Forum
ParadiseLost

Us Marines And Disrespect For Dead Muslims.

Recommended Posts

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has condemned a video that appears to show U.S. Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters.

Panetta said Thursday he has seen the video, calling it "utterly deplorable." He vowed those responsible will be held fully accountable.

The defense secretary also ordered the U.S. Marine Corps and the head of the NATO security force in Afghanistan to investigate the video, which appears to show Marines in combat uniforms urinating on three corpses.

 

In the video, one person suspected of committing the act says "have a nice day," referring to one of the dead.

 

ISAF called the act "disrespectful" and said it tarnishes the high moral standards expected of coalition forces.

 

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his government is "deeply disturbed" by the video, and that the actions depicted amount to desecration of the Afghans' bodies. He called the alleged act "simply inhuman."

 

The Pentagon said it has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the footage.

 

Meanwhile, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed said while the video is "shocking," he did not think it would derail peace talks with the United States. He said those talks are at a "preliminary stage."

 

The Marines in the video are apparently are no longer serving in Afghanistan.

 

Source: Voice of America News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

This is what happens when the same soldiers are sent again and again and again into these areas. It takes a toll on their minds and they engage in aberrant behaviors. The best thing that can be done is to bring our soldiers home so they can be treated before they can engage in such activities. There is already an epidemic of suicides and mental instabilities among returning U.S. troops due to their prolonged exposure to warfare, and it will only get worse if the foreign policy is not changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, war can certainly take a toll on the mentality of people - not that I have ever been a soldier so I can only imagine! But I don't think anyone in their sane mind could do this?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you, war can certainly take a toll on the mentality of people - not that I have ever been a soldier so I can only imagine! But I don't think anyone in their sane mind could do this?!

From what I've heard, warfare can completely destroy the human mind, especially when witnessing so much death and destruction. You can't exactly make any sense of a mind that has been overexposed to so much human suffering. You still, however, cannot excuse what was done.

 

Many people in the U.S. have no idea about the history behind current events in the Middle East and just assume that all Muslims are bloodthirsty savages that hate us for every single thing we believe in, when that simply isn't the truth. They don't know why there are dictators all over the area oppressing people. They don't really know why there is all this resentment against us (not really the American people, but our government). There are many people here who would never join the military nor would they encourage their children to join, yet they are the biggest cheerleaders for war. They have no idea what war really is like because they are fairly safe here at home; if the situation were reversed, I believe that many of these chicken-hawks would think twice before advocating war.

 

It's horrible that the chicken-hawks are ecstatic about sending people they don't know off to fight in a faraway land, and the only appreciation they show is sticking little yellow ribbons on their cars or throwing a little parade. They don't listen to what the troops say. I was listening to an excerpt of a radio program, and a Ron Paul supporter mentioned to the host that the troops overwhelmingly support Ron Paul's foreign policy and that they just want to come home. So this host, who only minutes earlier gushed at how much she supports the troops and all that, basically said that Ron Paul supporters in the military are basically young, misguided men and women, insinuating that she knows better than they about foreign policy.

 

Our troops want to come home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not just people in the US who don't really know the history of the middle east and how complex the situation is etc it is also soldiers who go there fighting for their country but not all of them really know why. Anyway I like the points you made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you, war can certainly take a toll on the mentality of people - not that I have ever been a soldier so I can only imagine! But I don't think anyone in their sane mind could do this?!

 

 

I can't imagine anyone in their sane mind who would want to join any armed forces anyway, but that's just me.

 

 

Salaam,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely be an "instrument of peace" rather than a "tool of war."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't imagine anyone in their sane mind who would want to join any armed forces anyway, but that's just me.

Salaam,

 

ron

I suppose it depends on where you grow up and who your family are. Personally I find Americans to be quite patriotic whereas me as an Irish person I don't find Irish people patriotic. It has a lot to do with the education system too. And also some countries require you to do service in the army like in Turkey. Not everyone joins the army out of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would definitely be an "instrument of peace" rather than a "tool of war."

That is good but then you have others who argue that the end justifies the means - quite a deep debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about this on the radio. It is quite terrible and just adds to the argument that we have been too eager in recent years to go to war. Horrible things happen in wars, even if everyone acts honorably. It only gets worse when some do not act honorably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animals act like animals. You never hear Taliban do any such thing. Even the prisoners they take are treated well unlike the barbaric US Army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Animals act like animals. You never hear Taliban do any such thing. Even the prisoners they take are treated well unlike the barbaric US Army.

 

While what happened with those specified Marines is despicable, I would not go as far as saying the Taliban never do "such a thing."

 

The United States allows media around, even during its military campaigns. Also, the US Armed Forces do allow their soldiers/marines to bring recording devices. There are no laws which require those media to be reviewed. Some units may require a PR review of media but only media produced about the specific unit.

 

The Taliban, during their rule, did not have a free press. Any news to leave Afghanistan was reported from outside Afghanistan. The Taliban to this day does not allow media whereever they are unless there is a Taliban created, prepared message they want to convey.

 

The fact that the Taliban controls all of their information does not mean the Taliban is a model of human rights. It only means there is no way for the world to observe what the Taliban does. Saying "never hear Taliban do any such thing" just usually means there was no media around to report anything, to include such things.

 

By the way, this is the 2nd time I've been on this forum and Saracen has used the Taliban in defense of his position. I've noticed in the light of "banned cults, sects, and controversial issues" and different parts of the forum discussing no support for terrorism, I wonder if the administrators would be interested in creating a list of groups they consider as "terrorists?" I personally find it alarming that groups such as the Taliban and Boko Haram are allowed a "justifiable defense" in their actions, yet a discussing a pro-Sunni position using a sectarian author is banned. This means Gawaher treats the latter as more serious an offense than defending groups like the Taliban or Boko Haram.

 

Here is a link within the forum about Terrorism being Unacceptable. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=9447.html&"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=9447.html&[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US allows media around is ridiculous. It's all controlled and it's made sure that the message they want to send out is received. Just like how they lied about their casualties during Vietnam. Even with this current video it was captured on what seemed an amateur phone camera. Or else it would have never got any attention.

 

No one ever said they supported "boko haram". Even using Taliban as an example when compared to the US or others does not mean one supports them. And what you refer to as "justifiable defence" simply means one does not blindly follow propaganda of one side but seeks to get the views of all sides before coming to a conclusion about certain events, people, etc. This is a serious problem with a lot of "Westerners". When one does not follow their 'mindset', propaganda or view of certain events and questions them then somehow that person automatically supports the "other side". Quiet annoying to be frank.

 

BTW just as a FYI apparently the Taliban are not "terrorists" anymore :sl: . : (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpresstv.ir/detail/218035.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpresstv.ir/detail/218035.html[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This means Gawaher treats the latter as more serious an offense than defending groups like the Taliban or Boko Haram.

 

No it does not. Sectarian discussion has to do with religion and religious knowledge. Whilst talking about the Taliban and "Boko Haram" is just another political discussion. Can you also show me where I have defended "boko haram" or the Taliban? Again questioning certain events does not mean one supports anything. Show me how I have 'defended' these groups or apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW just as a FYI apparently the Taliban are not "terrorists" anymore :sl: . : (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpresstv.ir/detail/218035.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpresstv.ir/detail/218035.html[/url]

 

The link you provided would make an excellent defense for you. I commend your research. You are saying that since this article claims Mullah Omar of the Taliban has been removed from the FBI most wanted list, that the entire Taliban is not considered a terrorist organization.

 

According to Dawn, Mullah Omar was never on the list.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdawn(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2011/12/28/mullah-omar-was-never-on-fbi-list.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdawn(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2011/12/28/mullah-omar...n-fbi-list.html[/url]

 

To note, the Taliban was never on the State Department list. Here is the current list, but even past lists it was not. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetstate.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/143210.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetstate.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/143210.htm[/url]

 

Afghanistan, when ruled by the Taliban, was declared a state-sponsor of terror. This means the Taliban at the very beginning was declared a political organization which sponsored terrorism by directly supporting or allowing groups listed as terrorist groups. I believe they are still considered a political organization and are being treated as such by the US, hence the attempts to bring them into the fold of the Afghan government.

 

Here is a list of groups cited in Wikipedia as being "allies" of the Taliban. I put in bold and underlines the groups which are allies of the Taliban which are listed as Terrorist Groups. In Bold are groups which have individuals in the group which are labeled as terrorists.

 

Haqqani network

Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (their leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, is seeking to negotiate with the Afghan government)

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

East Turkestan Islamic Movement

Al-Qaeda (note there are different al-Qaeda brands. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is basically considered non-operational)

Caucasian Front

 

That is still a lot of association with terrorism, which is why the talks with the Taliban are slow and cautious. I also want to state, the war in Afghanistan was to go after al-Qaeda, a terrorist group, sponsored by the Taliban, then known as state-sponsor of Terror. The Taliban no longer have a state. It would still behoove themselves to remove all ties to the above listed groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Wesley so basically Taliban were never "terrorists". Then why were you complaining about my ""alleged defence"" of them? Which, btw, you could prove any time now along with my "alleged defence" of "boko haram".

 

While we are on this topic why don't you tell us what qualifies someone as a "terrorist"? Whatever definition it is I bet it could be applied to almost every single country on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of Terrorism as posted here (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/terrorism"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/terrorism[/url]

 

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

It is why I am politically unaffiliated with any group, and do not sponsor the policies of any political organization.

 

A sponsor of terrorism means the organization actively was affiliated with those who did act for the purposes listed above.

 

The question which needs to be asked then, is which entities use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce? Which entities seek to cause fear and submission through violence and threats of violence? Which entities use such methods to govern or resist governing?

 

When an organization such as Boko Haram doesn't even say they are attacking churches for any reason other than to establish Shari'a law (political purpose), there is no way to defend or propose to defend that action. The Taliban, who definitely did govern by the above definitions, have no good reason to govern the way they did. The Marines who defecated on corpses, that is at best ignorant but isn't something which in of itself causes fear. The eventual goal within Afghanistan is to have a government which does not rely on the above methods to govern. If that is possible, who knows. If the Taliban is the eventual outcome of Afghanistan again, I feel sorry for the people of Afghanistan who have suffered so much from all the war brought on by the Soviet Union, Pakistan, the United States, and Taliban, and various forms of Mujahideen. I hope they can be governed equitably and peacefully, without fear or violence.

 

Saracen, I do apologize for offending you. I should have not said you defended terrorist groups or defended terrorist actions. I would advise though, with a name like Saracen (the group of pre-Islamic Arabs descended from Abraham and Sarah and famous for fighting) and Soldier, that you use a well defined position when discussing possible alternatives to the stated positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Animals act like animals. You never hear Taliban do any such thing. Even the prisoners they take are treated well unlike the barbaric US Army.

I believe you are right, that the Taliban does not commit acts like this. It does however commit other acts that are also shocking to many and are not praiseworthy. Neither side seems to be very exemplary in this conflict.

 

On another note, I was listening to a interview of a retired colonel discuss this incident, and he said that he believed that the mindset demonstrated in this video, the complete disregard for human dignity and honor, is traceable all the way back to President Bush and his administrations (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_orde"]practiced dismissal of the Geneva conventions[/url]:

With the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan some lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and in the office of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the War on Terrorism. This applied not only to members of al Qa'ida but the entire Taliban, because, they argued, Afghanistan was a "failed state."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the complete disregard for human dignity and honor, is traceable all the way back to President Bush and his administrations (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_orde"]practiced dismissal of the Geneva conventions[/url]:

Good point. The detainees of Guantanamo are also not subject to the Geneva Conventions. Things really need to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you are right, that the Taliban does not commit acts like this. It does however commit other acts that are also shocking to many and are not praiseworthy. Neither side seems to be very exemplary in this conflict.

 

On another note, I was listening to a interview of a retired colonel discuss this incident, and he said that he believed that the mindset demonstrated in this video, the complete disregard for human dignity and honor, is traceable all the way back to President Bush and his administrations (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_orde"]practiced dismissal of the Geneva conventions[/url]:

 

All members of the U.S. Armed services are required to have training on the Geneva Conventions and Law of War at basic training. This training reoccurs on an annual basis.

 

It is true the Bush administration at the highest levels did order unjust things which went against those conventions, and I can see how theoretically, this could be an influence. Still, at every lower level, members of the armed forces are trained about these laws and are warned of what articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice they violate and what the probably punishment will be. You can guarantee these members will be punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All members of the U.S. Armed services are required to have training on the Geneva Conventions and Law of War at basic training. This training reoccurs on an annual basis.

 

It is true the Bush administration at the highest levels did order unjust things which went against those conventions, and I can see how theoretically, this could be an influence. Still, at every lower level, members of the armed forces are trained about these laws and are warned of what articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice they violate and what the probably punishment will be. You can guarantee these members will be punished.

I have no doubts about anything you said. But I believe that there is something fundamentally true about the assertion that the gainsaying and circumventing of the Geneva Conventions at the top has had an effect down the ranks. Perhaps not for most individuals, but it could certainly create an environment that proves to be a tipping factor for less stable or scrupulous individuals. I regret that it seems Bush will not be held accountable for this and many other disastrous things he performed while in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I regret that it seems Bush will not be held accountable for this and many other disastrous things he performed while in office.

I definitely don't doubt that the military officers who did this will be punished in some way but yes will Bush be? What is wrong with society that they think politicians should be immune from the law!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Definition of Terrorism as posted here (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/terrorism"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/terrorism[/url]

 

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

It is why I am politically unaffiliated with any group, and do not sponsor the policies of any political organization.

 

A sponsor of terrorism means the organization actively was affiliated with those who did act for the purposes listed above.

 

The question which needs to be asked then, is which entities use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce? Which entities seek to cause fear and submission through violence and threats of violence? Which entities use such methods to govern or resist governing?

 

The above definition can be applied to almost every country and government on the planet. ANd the most guilty of the above in scale would be the US.

 

 

When an organization such as Boko Haram doesn't even say they are attacking churches for any reason other than to establish Shari'a law (political purpose), there is no way to defend or propose to defend that action. The Taliban, who definitely did govern by the above definitions, have no good reason to govern the way they did. The Marines who defecated on corpses, that is at best ignorant but isn't something which in of itself causes fear. The eventual goal within Afghanistan is to have a government which does not rely on the above methods to govern. If that is possible, who knows. If the Taliban is the eventual outcome of Afghanistan again, I feel sorry for the people of Afghanistan who have suffered so much from all the war brought on by the Soviet Union, Pakistan, the United States, and Taliban, and various forms of Mujahideen. I hope they can be governed equitably and peacefully, without fear or violence.

 

You seem to have missed my entire point in the "boko haram" thread. I'm seriously wondering whether I can't communicate well enough!

 

missjupiter on the other thread said that "boko haram" are fighting against Christians because of the killing of their leader. Now you are saying they are fighting against Christians because they want Islamic law. Both of these are untrue because "boko haram" themselves have said that they are only fighting against Christians because Christians have been killing Muslims. Of course this does not mean I am defending their actions but it means I am trying to clarify for me and everyone else the real motives for their actions.

 

Saracen, I do apologize for offending you. I should have not said you defended terrorist groups or defended terrorist actions. I would advise though, with a name like Saracen (the group of pre-Islamic Arabs descended from Abraham and Sarah and famous for fighting) and Soldier, that you use a well defined position when discussing possible alternatives to the stated positions.

 

My alternative is the same as every Muslim. We want to live under the Islam that was practised by The Prophet Muhammad(saw) and the first 3 generations of Muslims. But I don't have to make that known in every single conversation. A lot of non-Muslims here criticize Islam and at the same time they say they "don't support the actions of 'the West'" and they don't post any alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×