Marines burning insugents

[TripleDigitRide]

I'm more disturbed that some of our best are dumb enough to take photographic evidence of themselves committing war crimes. Some of our best aren't very bright. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/15/pentagon-probes-photos-that-appear-to-show-marines-burning-corpses-insurgents/

[Spots]

I dont get it. I served with tons of Marines and never understood why some of them insisted on recording everything with pics and video. I don't give two shits about burning those bodies, hell I wouldnt care if they burned them alive. Just like the urinating on the bodies. I couldn't give a crap less if they defecated in the mouths of the dead. Just stop taking pictures and videos... Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[Sam1]

Forgive me if I cannot muster up a lot of compassion for the people who like to behead Americans on tv.

Ps.. as spots said, stop being stupid with recording things.

[Joseg]

So all of a sudden we are supposed to be righteous, did they forget the mutilation and burning of the Blackwater guys on the Fallujah bridge? I can think of several other things.. It was wrong, they should have been smart and got rid of the photos.. 

 

 

BTW, I'm going to take the High road on this because, those of us that sign on the dotted line, to an oath and to abide by the Geneva Convention. 

Edited January 15, 2014 by Joseg

[bersaguy]

Ok, I'm kind of confused. I realize that we went into that war just as we have gone into the last few. With one arm tied behind our back with so many directives that we of course were out numbered by our own Government but!!!!!  Burning the bodies of dead enemy combatants????? I guess because the Marines didn't wash the bodies and wrap them in white robes before setting them on fire makes a difference?????  I have no clue as to when our Government became so self righteous. They don't mind sending our troops into Harms Way but before going to make all these deals with the enemy before we engage them on the battle fields. They were dead. The Marines did not burn them alive. Lets look back a few wars ago when our troops used flame throwers and sent flames into pillboxes and used them to advance our troops and we did burn thousands or enemy troops alive and it was considered a part of fighting the enemy and was done as often and necessary to advance the war against the enemy. We even had flame thrower tanks. Now it is against the rules of war to burn dead bodies?????? Maybe it would have been better had the Marines just left the bodies where they fell and let the buzzards pick their bones clean or let them lay there until they began to decay and spread some type of disease. If we could ever fight a war with both hands we might actually win one. As far as I'm concerned there does not need to be any investigation into which Marines did it and waste tax payer dollars to try and figure out how to punish our troops for just doing what they were sent to do and that is fight and maybe more of them will come home alive and not wounded. Our Government  does not mind sending our troops into battle with a bunch of rules of do's and do nots and then complain like hell when so many come home wounded and they have to pay to assist them in life and look for ways to get out of doing that also...................jmho

[whitewolf001]

bersaguy, after hearing some of the stories my dad told me about Vietnam, we had to give some guidelines for American soldiers(no one please don't try to correct me on this term saying that it only applies to "Army", look up the definition of soldier, THEN get back with me) to follow. Lots of war crimes committed in that conflict by modern standards. Not saying that we should have to tiptoe through the daisies just to request permission for engagement BUT at the same time, we can't just hand em a weapon and say, "accomplish your objective, whatever else you do we don't care.", there does have to be a line drawn somewhere. That being SAID, these are not conventional enemy combatants, the do not represent a specific country, AND only use terror to achieve their means which thereby excludes their "ill-treatment"; as they do not follow any doctrines of war and would rather wipe their ass with the documents made at the Geneva Convention. I must say though that the righteous side in me doesn't wish for us to reduce ourselves to their level but rather maintain our current rules of engagement but they really try to make it hard for us to be the better person when we watch those savages eat the hearts out of their enemies and behead harmless nuns and priests.

[Caster]

Screw 'em.  They're doing a service by disinfecting.  Like the enemy shows us the same respect.  Drop a match to the whole country for all I care.

[Spots]

[quote name="whitewolf001" post="1095584" timestamp="1389812095"]bersaguy, after hearing some of the stories my dad told me about Vietnam, we had to give some guidelines for American soldiers(no one please don't try to correct me on this term saying that it only applies to "Army", look up the definition of soldier, THEN get back with me) to follow. Lots of war crimes committed in that conflict by modern standards. Not saying that we should have to tiptoe through the daisies just to request permission for engagement BUT at the same time, we can't just hand em a weapon and say, "accomplish your objective, whatever else you do we don't care.", there does have to be a line drawn somewhere. That being SAID, these are not conventional enemy combatants, the do not represent a specific country, AND only use terror to achieve their means which thereby excludes their "ill-treatment"; as they do not follow any doctrines of war and would rather wipe their ass with the documents made at the Geneva Convention. I must say though that the righteous side in me doesn't wish for us to reduce ourselves to their level but rather maintain our current rules of engagement but they really try to make it hard for us to be the better person when we watch those savages eat the hearts out of their enemies and behead harmless nuns and priests.[/quote] Call a Marine a solider, then get back to me. Why not just call them military members as a broad term? And while I understand what your saying, its impossible to win a game when only one team plays by the rules. Im not saying we need to turn into animals. Im just over the poor terry taliban speech. The combatants in this war have a hate that is impossible for people who haven't seen it up close to understand. And it needs to be handled in any manner needed to accomplish the misson with the smallest amount of allied and non-combantant deaths. Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[Erik88]

I dont get it. I served with tons of Marines and never understood why some of them insisted on recording everything with pics and video. I don't give two ####s about burning those bodies, hell I wouldnt care if they burned them alive. Just like the urinating on the bodies. I couldn't give a crap less if they defecated in the mouths of the dead. Just stop taking pictures and videos... Tapatalk ate my spelling.

 

I do. This is what makes us better than them. I won't shed any tears but burning someone alive is inexcuseable IMO.

[Spots]

[quote name="Erik88" post="1095593" timestamp="1389813135"]I do. This is what makes us better than them. I won't shed any tears but burning someone alive is inexcuseable IMO.[/quote] So all those nazis and Japanese soliders burned out of those pill boxes in WW2 is inexcusable. I see that as winning a war. Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[E4 No More]

I can't get worked up over this for some of the reasons stated above, but also that it occurred 10 years ago.

[TMF]

I do. This is what makes us better than them. I won't shed any tears but burning someone alive is inexcuseable IMO.

Nobody was burned alive. They just burned the corpses. Of course, we've burned a whole lotta people alive in Afghanistan using WP.

On another note, I wonder what the statute of limitations is on this. All they did was mishandle corpses. If all these Marines are civilians now I can't imagine there is much the gov can do about it.

Oh, and I've seen much worse treatment of enemy corpses at the hands of other Iraqis. Burning them is pretty tame. Hell, depending in the circumstances it may have been warranted. Bodies smell and at the time this took place there weren't Iraqi government services online in that area to handle dead monkeys by the thousands. If I'm having to occupy a house for several days with a pile of dead aholes in the courtyard I'd probably torch them too.

[tnguy]

I think part of it is the whole "hearts and minds" thing. But there's so much cognitive dissonance there that I'm not even going to try.

[Erik88]

Nobody was burned alive. They just burned the corpses.

 

Well, we don't know that for sure but you're probably right. That being said, I was just responding to Spots who said he wouldn't care if they did burn them alive.

[Chucktshoes]

I don't think there is a real story here. I looked at the pics and those bodies were NOT fresh. Maybe I am wrong here but after taking a city with a large scale battle, burning the multitude of corpses as a way to dispose of remains and stop the spread of disease has been pretty standard for a few thousand years I think.

 

TMZ must have had a dearth of slutty starlets and coked out actors to take pictures of today.

[TMF]

Well, we don't know that for sure but you're probably right. That being said, I was just responding to Spots who said he wouldn't care if they did burn them alive.

According to the story it was being investigated because they mishandled Muslim corpses, which was contrary to policy and potentially a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I doubt they burned them alive. We killed thousands of people in only a few days in that city. There were a lot of dead bad guys around. It doesn't take long for bodies to stink in that heat and there aren't enough dogs to eat them all. If you've ever tried to dig a hole there you already know hot impossible that task is; the ground is literally hard as rock. Fire is the easiest and most efficient solution to eliminating stinking bodies in such a situation. Marines are known for their efficiency more than they are known for burning people alive, which is how I arrived at my conclusion. Edited January 15, 2014 by TMF

[DaveS]

I'm not sickened by any of it. The burning of corpses to get rid of them and the smell has been going on for century's. Don't photograph and don't tell. At least we are burning them after death and not alive as our enemys done in the "World Trade Center". It wouldn't bother me if they burned Al Quida members alive, just like when they saw the heads off of live soldiers. Turn abouts fair play if you ask me!

 

Dave

[Luke E.]

 IMO until someone has been over there and had their buddy shot, blown up or mutilated or worse and dealt with all the emotions and thoughts first hand, they have no right to judge these Marines. My cousin was over in the first Gulf war and the things he saw the Iraqi "soldiers" do to others (dead or alive) completely numbs be to anything imaginable happening to the insurgents. Anyone sitting all cozy in Washington in their $2,000 office chair that thinks the Marines did something the wrong way should be on the first thing smokin' so they can get there and show them how to do it the "right way". We ask an awful lot of these men to then turn around and struggle to find a way to charge them with something. Why are we obligated to handle a dead muslim in any certain way anyhow.. Who cares,, I promise they wouldn't think twice about pissing on an American's head that they chopped off. Make ashes out of them.

[TMF]

I don't think there is a real story here. I looked at the pics and those bodies were NOT fresh. Maybe I am wrong here but after taking a city with a large scale battle, burning the multitude of corpses as a way to dispose of remains and stop the spread of disease has been pretty standard for a few thousand years I think.
 

Yeah, but posing with charred skulls is not standard practice. Not that I care, it just makes for a sensational photo and anti-military porn for hippies. If I was a fresh out of high school Marine that believed the things that young Marines do, I'd have been posing with charred enemy skulls as well. Lucky for me I was a little older when all this was going on, so I never posed with dead bodies or took pictures of any of the sensational things that I've seen. I'm thankful for that.

But I've seen Iraqi kids play soccer with the head of suicide bomber. I've seen an Iraqi policeman cave in the skull of a dead bad guy by repeatedly stomping on his head. I've seen Iraqi police tie a dead insurgent to the back of their truck and drag him through the streets. Burning dead, stinking corpses? Yep, don't care.

[whitewolf001]

Call a Marine a solider, then get back to me. Why not just call them military members as a broad term? 

Perhaps in America but then to argue your point, "fag" in America isn't the same "fag" in England either. While it may be slang and military jargon the definition hasn't changed since its conception. My point was that I was using a generalized term that is accepted world wide, not just here. ;) 

 

"A soldier is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed force; if that force is for hire the person is generally termed a mercenary soldier, or mercenary. The majority of cognates of the word "soldier" that exist in other languages have a meaning that embraces both commissioned and non-commissioned officers in national land forces."

Edited January 15, 2014 by whitewolf001

[LagerHead]

It's kind of hard to take the high road when it only works one way. If it's ok for us, then I don't want to see you getting pissed when they do it. Unless you like being called a hypocrite. Just because they did it first doesn't make it ok to respond in kind. That's why it's called the high road. 

[TMF]

Perhaps in America but then to argue your point, "fag" in America isn't the same "fag" in England either. While it may be slang and military jargon the definition hasn't changed since its conception. My point was that I was using a generalized term that is accepted world wide, not just here. ;)

"A [/size]soldier is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed force;[/size] if that force is for hire the person is generally termed a mercenary soldier, or [/size]mercenary.[/size] The majority of [/size]cognates of the word "soldier" that exist in other languages have a meaning that embraces both [/size]commissioned and [/size]non-commissioned officers in national land forces."[/size]

Yeah, but the metric system is also world wide, but we don't tolerate that nonsense here. The term "Soldier" is capitalized when referring to a member of the US Army, BTW.

Now, if you'll please award me Grammar Ahole of the Thread I'll be on my way. Edited January 15, 2014 by TMF

[TMF]

It's kind of hard to take the high road when it only works one way. If it's ok for us, then I don't want to see you getting pissed when they do it. Unless you like being called a hypocrite. Just because they did it first doesn't make it ok to respond in kind. That's why it's called the high road.

Generally I agree with that, but I'm not convinced that this was a case of mistreating/disrespecting corpses. I'm inclined to believe the intent here was to eliminate an overpowering smell and improve quality of life for Marines in a blocking position. Just about every maneuver element during that fight took casualties, so I'm sure the frame of mind the guys on the ground were in was one that didnt include strict adherence to policy, especially policies that didnt consider extreme circumstance. I could be wrong though.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="TMF" post="1095653" timestamp="1389817082"]Yeah, but posing with charred skulls is not standard practice. Not that I care, it just makes for a sensational photo and anti-military porn for hippies. If I was a fresh out of high school Marine that believed the things that young Marines do, I'd have been posing with charred enemy skulls as well. Lucky for me I was a little older when all this was going on, so I never posed with dead bodies or took pictures of any of the sensational things that I've seen. I'm thankful for that. But I've seen Iraqi kids play soccer with the head of suicide bomber. I've seen an Iraqi policeman cave in the skull of a dead bad guy by repeatedly stomping on his head. I've seen Iraqi police tie a dead insurgent to the back of their truck and drag him through the streets. Burning dead, stinking corpses? Yep, don't care.[/quote] Well, we've only had photography for what, 150 years? I mean before that we didn't pose for pictures with our enemies skulls, we just strapped them onto our armor to strike fear into the heart of the next one we met. :D Edited January 15, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Joseg]

It's kind of hard to take the high road when it only works one way. If it's ok for us, then I don't want to see you getting pissed when they do it. Unless you like being called a hypocrite. Just because they did it first doesn't make it ok to respond in kind. That's why it's called the high road. 

 

 

Not sure if it was directed at me but, in case it was I took the high road after I said I could care less about them pissing, burning, whatever, just don't film shit. Despite me taking the OATH, yes that included to abide by the Geneva Convention, I've only had rehearsals and never got to fire my weapon in anger in the 6,yrs, 8 months, and 11 days I served (5yrs of those as a grunt).

 

I can't tell you how I would feel if I lost a brother in combat, but I'm sure I would experience the will to seek revenge, being pissed, and ready to kill a mofo over it, but I still have other brothers to look after and I would hate myself even more if I did something stupid to cause harm to brothers. 

 

We are better than that and I'm sure there's probably a bigger story to this that the media is not showing. I mean after all, we, veterans and active duty personnel are killer and psycho paths according to the media and DHS, right?