Speculate all you like, dig up whatever 'reports' you can, but bear these things in mind.
Undoubtedly front line combat would cause extreme levels of stress and anger, especialy over long periods, yet this does not justify the behaviour of the soldiers. Mitigates it to an extent, but it does not justify it. Playing the shell shocked veteran card to justify unethical acts only goes so far. If you apply the logic of justifiability due to trauma when does it end? Pissing on dead bodies. Taking body parts as trophies? My Lai?
Would you be mad? Or, you know, scared witless and in mental shock?
Actually you're precisely wrong on this point. Towards the end of WW2 the effectiveness of less than lethal weaponry was being observed, and by the time Vietnam came around it was almost an artform. Seeing your comrades scream in agony having lost a limb instills fear. Seeing a comrade die a quick death instills anger.
Urinating on dead bodies is a clear mark of disrespect, I really fail to see how any insurgents would not be angered by the video. I mean really, if this was Taliban pissing on a dead Marine there would be uproar.
Actually you're precisely wrong on this point. Towards the end of WW2 the effectiveness of less than lethal weaponry was being observed, and by the time Vietnam came around it was almost an artform. Seeing your comrades scream in agony having lost a limb instills fear. Seeing a comrade die a quick death instills anger.
I fail to see how your 'rebuttal' has anything to do with my post.
You are speaking of less-than-lethal weaponry. I never even mentioned weapons at all. You then speak of lost limbs and grievous wounds. I was talking about the desecration of corpses. To wrap it all up, you mention units seeing a comrade fall in battle. Once again, not even the same ballpark as I was speaking of.
Perhaps actually try reading a post before attempting to rebuke it.
My entire post was about the psychological affect on people upon seeing the desecrated/mutilated corpse of someone they knew/associated with their organization. The cause of death does not matter. It could be by gunshot, strangulation, internal bleeding, aneurism or drowning. Does not make any difference. I really do not want to re-write my entire post from the previous page about this topic. Just go back a page and read it. Read, not skim and make half-cocked assertions about the material.
A fallen enemies corpse, which proves no real intrinsic value to either side, proves as a logical object to vent those emotions, feeling and pains on. Kick it, scream at it, shoot it or urinate on it. That is how one 'tells' the enemy how they feel.. 'Tell' the enemy that killing their brothers in arms was the wrong thing do. 'Show' them what happens when they decide to pick a fight. Anything to release the mental pressure built up in war.
Doesn't provide any intrinsic value, but it does matter alot to the ex-person's family or friends. Of course in a war, who's going to care about that though? That still doesn't make it any less horrifying to people outside the battlefield, casually reading the news in the morning post, feeling a jolt of guilt or disgust, then carrying on with their lives.
However in this case, I don't really think they did it to demoralize the enemy, or ''tell, show'' them their rage and what not. They were just laughing as they calmly gave the golden shower to the body, I doubt they would be able to film it and parade it proudly if there was serious fighting carrying on around them. Of course, I could just be bull****ting. It's all just speculation until the military releases more information.
I fail to see how your 'rebuttal' has anything to do with my post.
I wasn't talking about the post you made on the last page, but on this one. I do believe there is a link to be made between your analogy to the neighbour, the manner of their death and the weaponry used, and my point about weaponry, so let me be more explicit in my use of quotes.
had his head impaled on a pike outside your front door.
Obviously in this analogy the pike is the lethal weapon in question.
You then go on to say that as a result of seeing your dead neighbour mutilated you would be scared not angry:
Would you be mad? Or, you know, scared witless and in mental shock?
It was by this process by which I came to the conclusion that you were wrong. In fact, I did not quote anything about your post on the previous page to which your'e alluding to, I was attempting to show that your logic about fear being trieggered by seeing dead mutiliated comrades is wrong.
My entire post was about the psychological affect on people upon seeing the desecrated/mutilated corpse of someone they knew/associated with their organization.
Which is why I replied in kind. The reason I brought up less than lethal weaponry, is because it is a good historical example indicating the opposite of what you are saying is true. That in fact seeing your comrades wounded is far more psychologically damaging than seeing them killed or mutiliated.
Just go back a page and read it. Read, not skim and make half-cocked assertions about the material.
Seeing as I wasn't replying to that I rather think it's unnecessary.
Would you be mad? Or, you know, scared witless and in mental shock?
Just to reiterate I really don't think one would be scared. Seeing disrespect shown to your fallen comrades would strengthen your resolve and hatred towards the enemy not put you into shock. As I stated before, if this was a dead Marine being pissed on the US public wouldn't be in a state of mental shock. They'd be bloody angry with the perpetrators, and I'm sure the same goes for the soldiers on the ground.
Obviously in this analogy the pike is the lethal weapon in question.
Really. Because it is totally routine to impale a decapitated head on a pike while the subject is still alive. Kudos on that, my bad. And don't even bother saying "But you never said it was a decapitated head!" It is inferred that the head is decapitated. Never before in my life have I heard of different methods.
...because it is a good historical example indicating the opposite of what you are saying is true.
Well then lay them out for all to see. If you want to start citing "good historical evidence" which disproves my statements, please let us all partake in it. Otherwise, I can only assume you are bluffing for the sake of trying to look learned in the matter.
Just to reiterate I really don't think
No, you do not think when it comes to these situations. You do not just think how someone will act in a set of circumstances you have no idea about. You do not casually throw around that word when juxtaposed against such visceral and serious topics. And by saying thus, you discredit everything you just said in your post. Thinking implies your opinion, not factual information. Opinions means nothing.
@nicho:
However in this case, I don't really think they did it to demoralize the enemy, or ''tell, show'' them their rage and what not.
The urination if a better example of the release of mental strain on half of the solider, than demoralization of the enemy.
Really. Because it is totally routine to impale a decapitated head on a pike while the subject is still alive. Kudos on that, my bad.
Seeing as the guy is dead for the purposes of your analogy, your criticism is immaterial to my point that the weapons were intended to kill not maim.
Here is a pdf I found giving a fairly detailed history of non lethal weaponry in US military history. It's a report that documents the pros and cons of its use if you're interested. But the discourse on non lethal weapons has changed since WW2, it's now clearly considered too inhumane to maim or cripple on purpose. This does not change the fact that during WW2 weapons were developed exactly for that purpose due to their psychological affect (note the number of imitations of the S mine).
The German S Mine is the earliest example I'm aware of: ''The S-mine acquired its cynical nickname "Bouncing Betty" from American infantrymen.[9] The S-mine had a great psychological effect on Allied forces because of its tendency to seriously maim, rather than kill, the infantryman. The German habit of laying the mines around anti-tank and anti-vehicle mines contributed to the reputation. If a vehicle was disabled by a mine, the soldiers would be trapped in it until someone came to rescue them.[10] In particular, limbs or genitalia were the most vulnerable. In his book Mine Warfare on Land, Lt. Col. Sloan described the S-mine as "robably the most feared device encountered by Allied troops in the war."
Gruesome stuff eh?
Opinions means nothing.
And where may I ask is your proof?
It is impossible to know for sure how each individual will react in a given situation. Nevertheless it is plausible to assume that hearing and seeing a comrade screaming in agony for a period of time is psychologically more impactful than seeing a dead body. To deny this is counter intuitive.
I think that we're kinda missing the point that it was just a bunch of young idiots who thought pissing on a corpse was funny. It wasn't any deeper than that. I don't even think we can even say its the war's fault. They're just a bunch of jag offs nothing special about them.
Extrasensory perception. No but really how do we know they did it because they saw their friends killed next to them, had to kill people, etc? We can't actually say that. There's plenty of f**ked up people and plenty of immature jag offs, as well.
Although I shall concede a small point: It's near impossible to ascertain if corpse mutilation/desecration or not immediately lethal wounds have a worse affect on the mind of combatants. Thankfully, that is not what the point of this discussion truly is.
My original point is that ever since man has been killing one another, the desecration and mutilation of corpse has as well. Whether directly intended to have a psychological impact on enemy combatants, or for spiritual reasons (the after effects being equally as terrifying), the results are marked. Also, the desecration/mutilation or corpses is coping mechanism for many troops. It let's them take out pent up rage against the enemy, proves to them that they are superior to the foemen.
For whatever reason, you still seem to be missing the point.
I fully understand the 'head on a pike' thing. I was just trying to say that however he died in your scenario, the important point is that he is dead, not wounded or maimed. Since that was my objection to your claim that you would be disturbed by seeing a dead friend not angered.
Just for a few.
I wasn't arguing that desecration hasn't occured in history. I was merely disagreeing with your assertion that seeing a dead desecrated body would instil you with more fear than anger.
the results are marked.
Are they though? At least for the enemy soldiers I mean? It seems from what you're saying here that the desecration of bodies after battles is more of a coping mechanism for the troops involved, not a tactic for instilling fear in the enemy.
Nevertheless in this particular case it seems to me that pissing on the corpse is a way of showing the ultimate disrespect to the enemy. The fact they filmed it and seem to know they are being filmed says a lot too I think. A brutish show of machoness in front of their mates and the camera rather than having any deep spiritual or personal significance.
Are they though? At least for the enemy soldiers I mean? It seems from what you're saying here that the desecration of bodies after battles is more of a coping mechanism for the troops involved, not a tactic for instilling fear in the enemy.
So it can not either/or depending on the situation?
Are they though? At least for the enemy soldiers I mean?
Impalements through history, by region Granted, not all of those were examples were strictly during war times. Yet still against perceived 'enemies' nonetheless. All accounts were to strike fear in the enemies and warn them away lest it happened to them as well.
Sometimes the desecration is religious. Some, Native American tribes, they desecrate their enemy's bodies so when they die their enemy's spirits will be injured and not able to attack them.
