US soldiers out of control? - Armor Games Community

206	50452

offline

Devoidless

3,675 posts

Jester

Posted January 17, '12 6:54pm UTC

I covered that a few posts up via link.

Yet there is very little chance that the physical mutilation of the corpse did not also have the dual purpose of messing with enemy combatant minds. Why would it have to be mutilation of the corpses? Why not some harmless ritual with chants and herb satchels?

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 17, '12 7:00pm UTC

I didn't get much feedback from my first post on here. We'll try again.

Wouldn't it just make your enemies mad that you are disrespecting there fellow comrades?

They're already pissed off that their comrades have been shot and killed!

When you're a soldier, you don't shrug off the death of your comrade. When a soldier finds the body of a friend, they're already angry that their friend's have been shot! Urinating on the bodies, impaling the heads on pikes, hanging the bodies, all of these are merely icing on the cake.

Although I believe the soldiers were being disrespectful, their actions aren't worth fussing about. I'll quote my post from page 5.

I'm not going to argue whether morality goes out the window or not during war. The article read:

[quote]The deputy commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan ordered troops Friday to treat the corpses of slain INSURGENTS and CIVILIANS with "appropriate dignity and respect."

When a soldier is fighting in a war, he becomes an animal. Anyone ever watch Full Metal Jacket? The scene where the soldiers dressed up a dead Vietnamese soldier and treated him like a guest wasn't made up just for the movie. That kind of stuff actually happened. It's normal for soldiers to gain a hate towards men and women whom are their enemies, and it's often normal for them to hate the foreigners they are sworn to protect.

When it comes to war, civilians are going to die. The measures that the soldiers take to prevent the death of civilians is debatable. Regardless, I believe everyone should come to the conclusion that shooting the living people with a bullet is a far more serious matter than urinating on their bodies!

*If you can accept that the soldiers were in the right to kill the insurgents and civilians, then there's no reason you should grow upset when they urinate on the corpses!

*If you believe the soldiers should NOT have killed the insurgents and/or the civilians, then the front line issue should be that they shouldn't have killed the insurgents and/or civilians! Granted, the urination could still be used as an argument to vilify the soldiers, but it shouldn't be as big a deal as the murders!

I believe that the focus on this act misses the bigger picture.
[/quote]

I don't see how it's acceptable for the soldiers to fire bullets into their enemies, but urinating on the already dead bodies is "going too far". The only people who really are justified in being upset over the bodies being urinated on are those who are against the deaths of the insurgents and civilians. Those who believe that the deaths of these people are merely unavoidable consequences of war shouldn't twist their panties up when a far less evil occurs to the dead bodies.

I also find it quite hypocritical for the military to condemn these men! I remember watching a video where a marine talked about his involvement with the war in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeZe_ToSk80&feature=channel_video_title

At roughly 25 minutes in, he talks about these two men who were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time. They were innocent civilians and the military took them in to make sure they weren't terrorists. They tied the men together and forced them to sit in one place for a week. They were sitting in their own feces.

If we're going to talk about the abuse of enemy soldiers, then let's focus on the ones who are alive. But to complain about the corpses and how the bodies are mistreated misses the big picture, which is that the soldiers were killed.

I didn't get much feedback from my first post on here. We'll try again.\r\n\r\n[quote]Wouldn't it just make your enemies mad that you are disrespecting there fellow comrades?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey're already pissed off that their comrades have been shot and killed!\r\n\r\nWhen you're a soldier, you don't shrug off the death of your comrade. When a soldier finds the body of a friend, they're already angry that their friend's have been shot! Urinating on the bodies, impaling the heads on pikes, hanging the bodies, all of these are merely icing on the cake. \r\n\r\nAlthough I believe the soldiers were being disrespectful, their actions aren't worth fussing about. I'll quote my post from page 5.\r\n\r\n[quote]I'm not going to argue whether morality goes out the window or not during war. The article read:\r\n\r\n    [quote]The deputy commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan ordered troops Friday to treat the corpses of slain INSURGENTS and CIVILIANS with "appropriate dignity and respect."[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhen a soldier is fighting in a war, he becomes an animal. Anyone ever watch Full Metal Jacket? The scene where the soldiers dressed up a dead Vietnamese soldier and treated him like a guest wasn't made up just for the movie. That kind of stuff actually happened. It's normal for soldiers to gain a hate towards men and women whom are their enemies, and it's often normal for them to hate the foreigners they are sworn to protect.\r\n\r\nWhen it comes to war, civilians are going to die. The measures that the soldiers take to prevent the death of civilians is debatable. Regardless, I believe everyone should come to the conclusion that shooting the living people with a bullet is a far more serious matter than urinating on their bodies!\r\n\r\n*If you can accept that the soldiers were in the right to kill the insurgents and civilians, then there's no reason you should grow upset when they urinate on the corpses!\r\n\r\n*If you believe the soldiers should NOT have killed the insurgents and/or the civilians, then the front line issue should be that they shouldn't have killed the insurgents and/or civilians! Granted, the urination could still be used as an argument to vilify the soldiers, but it shouldn't be as big a deal as the murders!\r\n\r\nI believe that the focus on this act misses the bigger picture.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nI don't see how it's acceptable for the soldiers to fire bullets into their enemies, but urinating on the already dead bodies is "going too far". The only people who really are justified in being upset over the bodies being urinated on are those who are against the deaths of the insurgents and civilians. Those who believe that the deaths of these people are merely unavoidable consequences of war shouldn't twist their panties up when a far less evil occurs to the dead bodies.\r\n\r\nI also find it quite hypocritical for the military to condemn these men! I remember watching a video where a marine talked about his involvement with the war in Iraq.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeZe_ToSk80&feature=channel_video_title\r\n\r\nAt roughly 25 minutes in, he talks about these two men who were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time. They were innocent civilians and the military took them in to make sure they weren't terrorists. They tied the men together and forced them to sit in one place for a week. They were sitting in their own feces.\r\n\r\nIf we're going to talk about the abuse of enemy soldiers, then let's focus on the ones who are alive. But to complain about the corpses and how the bodies are mistreated misses the big picture, which is that the soldiers were killed.

offline

Deth666

653 posts

Nomad

Posted January 17, '12 7:23pm UTC

Why would it have to be mutilation of the corpses? Why not some harmless ritual with chants and herb satchels?

Well they believed that if your leg was broken then your leg would be broken in the afterlife. They would break hip bones and gouge out eyes and break arms so their enemies wouldn't be able to take revenge on them in the afterlife. It might have unintentionally had some psychological effect on White people who didn't believe in it but not on their fellow Native American enemies. Although, I'm sure there are other examples that aren't from Native Americans in which the mutilation was religious.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted January 17, '12 8:21pm UTC

So it can not either/or depending on the situation?

I suppose it can be. But I think in this particular instance, I do not think they were attempting to make the Taliban fear them.

I would also venture that it's part of the dehumanising process that takes place during wartime. Once you've put people through the meatgrinder, I doubt they would see desecration in such terms as instilling fear. After all what's one more head on a pike, if you've lived through battles where people's arms were cut through with machine gun fire or blown limb from limb by artillery? In the Pacific theatre of WW2 there was a lot of trophy taking by the US troops. It wasn't to make the Japanese fear them, but it just became part of the routine of battle, to take token body parts like skulls and such as the spoils of war, much like they would take samurai swords or Imperial flags.

I don't know. The fact is a lot of this is guess work. I do wonder now how easy it would be to find some sort of military report or psychological research on the topic. In lieu of that, my gut instinct just tells me there's much more behind desecration than instilling fear, and that certainly it's not the most important objective for the soldiers doing it.

All accounts were to strike fear in the enemies and warn them away lest it happened to them as well.

I don't think this counts as desecration simply because it is a method of execution, not posthumous mutilation. A brutal sign of the times, but little different in substance to the death penalty today. An extreme crime deterrent.

Although, I'm sure there are other examples that aren't from Native Americans in which the mutilation was religious.

The headhunters in Burma, Malaya and Papua New Guineau fought under British supervision during WW2 and had a rather nasty habit of removing their (yep you guessed it) heads after battle and displaying them around their villages, believing to have captured the souls of their enemies and forcing them to guard them in the afterlife.

[quote]So it can not either/or depending on the situation?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI suppose it can be. But I think in this particular instance, I do not think they were attempting to make the Taliban fear them. \r\n\r\nI would also venture that it's part of the dehumanising process that takes place during wartime. Once you've put people through the meatgrinder, I doubt they would see desecration in such terms as instilling fear. After all what's one more head on a pike, if you've lived through battles where people's arms were cut through with machine gun fire or blown limb from limb by artillery? In the Pacific theatre of WW2 there was a lot of trophy taking by the US troops. It wasn't to make the Japanese fear them, but it just became part of the routine of battle, to take token body parts like skulls and such as the spoils of war, much like they would take samurai swords or Imperial flags.\r\n\r\nI don't know. The fact is a lot of this is guess work. I do wonder now how easy it would be to find some sort of military report or psychological research on the topic. In lieu of that, my gut instinct just tells me there's much more behind desecration than instilling fear, and that certainly it's not the most important objective for the soldiers doing it.\r\n\r\n[quote]All accounts were to strike fear in the enemies and warn them away lest it happened to them as well.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't think this counts as desecration simply because it is a method of execution, not posthumous mutilation. A brutal sign of the times, but little different in substance to the death penalty today. An extreme crime deterrent. \r\n\r\n[quote]Although, I'm sure there are other examples that aren't from Native Americans in which the mutilation was religious.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe headhunters in Burma, Malaya and Papua New Guineau fought under British supervision during WW2 and had a rather nasty habit of removing their (yep you guessed it) heads after battle and displaying them around their villages, believing to have captured the souls of their enemies and forcing them to guard them in the afterlife.

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 17, '12 9:08pm UTC

Plain and simple kids, it boosts morale. You spend days, sometimes weeks, not knowing where that fatal bullet is going to come from. Finally you get a reprieve from living in terror when the assault finally takes place and your unit is victorious. You celebrate, maybe have a few drinks (which you aren't supposed to have) and piss on the enemy to express your superiority and reaffirm the idea that your unit has been, and will remain, victorious.

offline

Bladerunner679

2,487 posts

Blacksmith

Posted January 17, '12 9:13pm UTC

Okay, before you decide to give me flak for what I am about to post, I am 17 and am rather uninformed as to what is going on, but I do understand this.

Overall, I say that urinating on the corpses is just an unavoidable by-product of battle. We've been doing this for thousands of years, and it won't stop anytime soon. It is very hypocritical of us to be angry with these men for descecration, but condoning them for putting a bullet in another person's head. I don't see the logic behind this shade of grey. In war, you must either accept all of what is being done for that is what happens in war, or accept none of it. This isn't a buffet for you to pick and choose what you do and don't like. If it was, then all of us would be extremely hypocritical.

also, we have soldiers that do this off film all the time, and the taliban also does stuff like this. in this case, we shouldn't be throwing stones when our own house is made of glass.

-Blade

offline

Dewi1066

539 posts

Nomad

Posted January 17, '12 9:36pm UTC

Plain and simple kids, it boosts morale.

You are joking?

They decided to pee on the Taliban for morale? And what, video it for posterity?

Don't get me wrong, I understand completely the need to release, to get out all that fear even if you won't admit it before, during or after, but feeling the need to have a whizz on the enemy and video it?

Not exactly a victory dance is it?

offline

aknerd

1,416 posts

Peasant

Posted January 18, '12 12:36am UTC

I don't see how it's acceptable for the soldiers to fire bullets into their enemies, but urinating on the already dead bodies is "going too far". The only people who really are justified in being upset over the bodies being urinated on are those who are against the deaths of the insurgents and civilians. Those who believe that the deaths of these people are merely unavoidable consequences of war shouldn't twist their panties up when a far less evil occurs to the dead bodies.

Of course, I agree completely. I think that the far greater crime was in killing the soldier in the first place. The people who should be held most responsible for this are not the soldiers who desecrated the corpse, but the politicians who placed men and women in a situation where they would have to kill people.

I mean, as has already been mentioned, can you imagine the trauma that would inflict upon your mind? I can't. I have no idea what it would be like to not only constantly fear being killed, but always knowing that I would have to be prepared to take another's life at any moment.

Are U.S. soldiers out of control? How could anyone think that a something as horrible as a war could be controlled in the first place?

In terms of strategy, though, I don't think this act is particularly useful. I don't see how the Taliban will ever be be defeated with guns, they'll just keep recruiting new people. The Taliban will be defeated exactly when people don't want to be Taliban anymore. And they already don't exactly fear death, or the Americans, so fear tactics won't work there. I don't see how the image of an American pissing on a Taliban will do anything other that incite hatred. Which is a step in the wrong direction.

[quote]I don't see how it's acceptable for the soldiers to fire bullets into their enemies, but urinating on the already dead bodies is "going too far". The only people who really are justified in being upset over the bodies being urinated on are those who are against the deaths of the insurgents and civilians. Those who believe that the deaths of these people are merely unavoidable consequences of war shouldn't twist their panties up when a far less evil occurs to the dead bodies.[/quote]\r\n\r\nOf course, I agree completely. I think that the far greater crime was in killing the soldier in the first place. The people who should be held most responsible for this are not the soldiers who desecrated the corpse, but the politicians who placed men and women in a situation where they would have to kill people. \r\n\r\nI mean, as has already been mentioned, can you imagine the trauma that would inflict upon your mind? I can't. I have no idea what it would be like to not only constantly fear being killed, but always knowing that I would have to be prepared to take another's life at any moment. \r\n\r\nAre U.S. soldiers out of control? How could anyone think that a something as horrible as a war could be controlled in the first place? \r\n\r\nIn terms of strategy, though, I don't think this act is particularly useful. I don't see how the Taliban will ever be be defeated with guns, they'll just keep recruiting new people. The Taliban will be defeated exactly when people don't want to be Taliban anymore. And they already don't exactly fear death, or the Americans, so fear tactics won't work there. I don't see how the image of an American pissing on a Taliban will do anything other that incite hatred. Which is a step in the wrong direction.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 18, '12 1:19pm UTC

You are joking?

They decided to pee on the Taliban for morale? And what, video it for posterity?

Don't get me wrong, I understand completely the need to release, to get out all that fear even if you won't admit it before, during or after, but feeling the need to have a whizz on the enemy and video it?

Not exactly a victory dance is it?

Well, I would say that since he has been on the ground, he would know his way around the topic at hand more than all of us eh?

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted January 18, '12 1:52pm UTC

Pissing on enemy corpses makes u look barbaric and uncivilized along with angering their comrades.

offline

Bladerunner679

2,487 posts

Blacksmith

Posted January 18, '12 2:43pm UTC

Pissing on enemy corpses makes u look barbaric and uncivilized along with angering their comrades.

and yet, both sides do it all the time. we just have to accept the fact that soldiers are soldiers are soldiers.

in other words, what they do on the battlefield shouldn't change how we think of them as a person. they live this double life because they want to protect the people in their homeland.

-Blade

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted January 18, '12 2:50pm UTC

and yet, both sides do it all the time. we just have to accept the fact that soldiers are soldiers are soldiers.

except few are good soldiers and few are bad.

offline

Deth666

653 posts

Nomad

Posted January 18, '12 3:44pm UTC

in other words, what they do on the battlefield shouldn't change how we think of them as a person. they live this double life because they want to protect the people in their homeland.

I disagree, an ***hole is an ***hole is an ***hole. Sure, there's some leeway but it doesn't cover thinking that pissing on a corpse is funny.

offline

Devoidless

3,675 posts

Jester

Posted January 18, '12 4:09pm UTC

From here on out, let it be known I officially withdraw myself from this conversation.

The closed-mindedness and lowbrow responses on such a topic has turned me away from the 'discussion' going on. I use the term very loosely, seeing as I would get better results from the fetid remains of yak.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 18, '12 6:43pm UTC

Pissing on enemy corpses makes u look barbaric and uncivilized along with angering their comrades.

Uh, invading their homeland and killing their comrades already pissed them offf.

Let's pretend that the soldiers put a kick me sign on the backs of the dead bodies instead of pissing on them. To me, it's like having a bunch of people getting offended that the bodies have immature paper signs on their backs while they forget that the soldiers KILLED these people.

Oh, and honestly, who cares if the enemies are offended or not? I can imagine a soldier being told "you can shoot the enemies dead, but don't call them sand ******s, or they'll be offended," as if shooting their comrades wasn't offensive as it is.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → US soldiers out of control?