US Marines and mistreatment of Taliban dead

[Serrland]

Why not? How can we call ourselves a civilized nation when we embrace the same barbarism we strongly condemn?

I will use the analogy of the bushfire. Sometimes the best way to fight a fire, is with fire itself.

That's not much of an answer. When we embrace tactics we simultaneously condemn, how are we any better than our opponents who use said methods in the first place?

[Boomfook]

You do not believe that a civilized nation, one that prides itself as being The Shining City on the Hill, Light of Nations, etc etc has an obligation to behave morally and ethically?

When confronted by people who would, if given the chance, do far worse, no.

But then you'd become known as the invading hordes who go around blowing up civilians, raping prisoners and urinating on corpses and nobody would show you any mercy either...



Oh wait...

[Keronians]

Taliban: "Americans are evil! They want to kill all of us!! They'll piss on your dead bodies, and rape your wives!"

Afghan: "... Nah..."

Americans: "Woohoo! Let's go kill some brown retards! Oh, and torturing them after would be great... How about we go ahead and piss on their dead bodies as well? Ooh, and then break their limbs and dump them somewhere."

Afghan: "What the fuck, man? Fuck this government shit, I'm signing up for the Taliban!"

Really great.

Just trying to kill as many Taliban as possible, and being cruel doesn't work. It gives them legitimacy, and persuades young Afghans to take up arms to "defend" their nation.

American: Hey, see that village where all the men attacked us three weeks ago?

American 2: Yeah?

American: Let's go build them a new school.

Taliban: Thanks for the school, we will see you down our rifle sights tomorrow!


What then would you suggest?

Yeah, that rarely happens.

If you want an operation in Afghanistan to be successful, then you have to convince the people of the nation to think that you're on their side, and there to protect them.

If you make them fear you, and behave as badly as those you proclaim are evil, then they won't support you. Maybe up front, but in their hearts, they'll wish you were gone. And there WILL be a breaking point.

[Cromarty]

According to you, America already looks like shit.

Any guesses as to why? Couldn't have something to do with violating the Geneva Conventions, going on random dick-waving sprees in Iraq, and going against the UN, could it?

You know, the UN, that body that America (alongside the other great powers after WW2) founded?

Hmm, do I see the UN doing a whole lot with regards to making sure the Taliban follow the Geneva Conventions?...

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

[Cromwellia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16538159

Two of them have been identified.

[Machtergreifung]

I will use the analogy of the bushfire. Sometimes the best way to fight a fire, is with fire itself.

That's not much of an answer. When we embrace tactics we simultaneously condemn, how are we any better than our opponents who use said methods in the first place?

We should'nt condem them. When confronted by a society right from the 1400's, use tatics of the 1400's. They will be understood any more than modern Laws of War.

That made me wonder how many of the Taliban actually know the Geneva Convention?

[Serrland]

Hmm, do I see the UN doing a whole lot with regards to making sure the Taliban follow the Geneva Conventions?...

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

I'm starting to suspect that this guy might be Paul Aussaresses. He's super old but maybe can still use a keyboard?

[Keronians]

According to you, America already looks like shit.

Any guesses as to why? Couldn't have something to do with violating the Geneva Conventions, going on random dick-waving sprees in Iraq, and going against the UN, could it?

You know, the UN, that body that America (alongside the other great powers after WW2) founded?

Hmm, do I see the UN doing a whole lot with regards to making sure the Taliban follow the Geneva Conventions?...

The Taliban being the legitimate government of Afghanistan since when, exactly?

Anyway, it hasn't done much about the US either.

Everybody else, though, knows what's going on, and they sure as hell don't like it. If you don't plan on abiding by a treaty, don't sign it.

[Serrland]

That's not much of an answer. When we embrace tactics we simultaneously condemn, how are we any better than our opponents who use said methods in the first place?

We should'nt condem them. When confronted by a society right from the 1400's, use tatics of the 1400's. They will be understood any more than modern Laws of War.

That made me wonder how many of the Taliban actually know the Geneva Convention?

Why shouldn't we condemn them? Should we validate their tactics by using them? "Oh, no, go ahead, fly another plane into our buildings. Do more car bombs. Go ahead - we'll do the same thing. They're perfectly valid tactics, see, we do it too!"

[Machtergreifung]

Hmm, do I see the UN doing a whole lot with regards to making sure the Taliban follow the Geneva Conventions?...

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

[Strykla]

I'm waffling on this subject. I have great respect for soldiers; doing the stuff they do makes riot police look like mall guards. And really, I don't have much respect for the Taliban and I wouldn't lose any sleep over some Taliban bodies being mishandled. But then again, this stuff never really is okay, is it? Same with the Marine who threw that puppy, and probably some other things. It's immature and, frankly, what would you expect, putting it on the internet?

[Caninope]

Seriously? Really? Wow... just wow. Stop impersonating a US Marine. You aren't one. The only argument you present is "ITG"? I'm done here, anything leftover from an intelligent conversation has been destroyed by your inability to present a valid argument.

You're right. He isn't.

He's an ex-Marine.

Sill Keronians. There is no such thing as an Ex Marine.

[Cromarty]

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

Because acting just as bad as them doesn't achieve anything.

Have you not read a single fucking post anyone has made towards you?

[Malgrave]

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

We are civilized people that is the difference.

[Boomfook]

That's not much of an answer. When we embrace tactics we simultaneously condemn, how are we any better than our opponents who use said methods in the first place?

We should'nt condem them. When confronted by a society right from the 1400's, use tatics of the 1400's. They will be understood any more than modern Laws of War.

That made me wonder how many of the Taliban actually know the Geneva Convention?

War for hearts&minds, eh? What was the point of this whole war again?

[Machtergreifung]

We should'nt condem them. When confronted by a society right from the 1400's, use tatics of the 1400's. They will be understood any more than modern Laws of War.

That made me wonder how many of the Taliban actually know the Geneva Convention?

Why shouldn't we condemn them? Should we validate their tactics by using them? "Oh, no, go ahead, fly another plane into our buildings. Do more car bombs. Go ahead - we'll do the same thing. They're perfectly valid tactics, see, we do it too!"

Absolutely. If they experianced first hand the damage that their tatics cause to innocenet people, perhaps the rural population would change its mind on sending its young ones off on a one way trip to Allah...

[Farnhamia]

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

We're the good guys. Or we're supposed to be. Suppose you enlist. You might get a tour in Afghanistan if you hurry. Then come on back and tell us all about using 14th century tactics.

[THE NEW NEWLY UNITED STATES]

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

I'm starting to suspect that this guy might be Paul Aussaresses. He's super old but maybe can still use a keyboard?

Probably since old people that i saw use keyboards.

[Serrland]

Why shouldn't we condemn them? Should we validate their tactics by using them? "Oh, no, go ahead, fly another plane into our buildings. Do more car bombs. Go ahead - we'll do the same thing. They're perfectly valid tactics, see, we do it too!"

Absolutely. If they experianced first hand the damage that their tatics cause to innocenet people, perhaps the rural population would change its mind on sending its young ones off on a one way trip to Allah...

So you would support the USA becoming an openly terroristic nation?

[Keronians]

Mainly because they didn't fucking sign them.

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

Morality?

Taking the moral high ground the whole operation relies on?

[Cromarty]

Why shouldn't we condemn them? Should we validate their tactics by using them? "Oh, no, go ahead, fly another plane into our buildings. Do more car bombs. Go ahead - we'll do the same thing. They're perfectly valid tactics, see, we do it too!"

Absolutely. If they experianced first hand the damage that their tatics cause to innocenet people, perhaps the rural population would change its mind on sending its young ones off on a one way trip to Allah...

Yep.. cos that worked in Vietnam

and Northern Ireland

and the Basque Coutnry

and in almost every other fucking insurgency in the fucking history of mankind.

[Boomfook]

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

We are civilized people that is the difference.

No you're not.

[Mike the Progressive]

Because America is stupid, Sib. And we have too many aircraft carriers; an English clothes company, owned by its employees, is proof that communism can work; and Labour is the greatest party ever and anything wrong with the UK is David Cameron's fault.

Because the conduct of American military personnel doesn't reflect on America... at all. Nope, not a jot.

Aside from really crap baitery, got anything to actually contribute to the topic, or are you going to continue to shitpost?

Ah, sorry man too much Mexican earlier today and you know I was thinking to myself "Mike the awesome, if I could take a shit on any thread in NSG, it's going to be Cromarty's, because hey, where the shoe fits, amirite?"

But all seriousness aside, I'm fairly certain I never said it didn't reflect on the US, you know anymore than when one black guy being a thief meaning all black guys are thieves, because that's logic makes sense. A few bad apples means the entire bunch is evil, they control the media and they want to eat our children. Our children, Crom. Our children.

But seriously, seriously. Of course it reflects on us, but you applying the broad term "America" or "Americans" or even "US troops" or "US soldiers" makes it seem like "hey, I'm american, rude, fat and dumb, and I'm okay with us pissing on dead arabs," when clearly most Americans are not. Furthermore you condemn every single soldier by saying "US troops" or "Marines" as if there was a DOD memo saying "piss away, men." It's offensive. A tiny fraction pissed on dead combatants, not the entire Marine Corp, not endorsed by the US military, not OK'ed by the American people.

So get off the fucking high horse, my English friend. That said, yeah the guys responsible should be discharged and punished.

[Machtergreifung]

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

Morality?

Taking the moral high ground the whole operation relies on?

I always assumed the goal of the Allied mission was to restore a proper government and beat the Taliban. As it is, they are failing.

Absolutely. If they experianced first hand the damage that their tatics cause to innocenet people, perhaps the rural population would change its mind on sending its young ones off on a one way trip to Allah...

So you would support the USA becoming an openly terroristic nation?

I would support the USA taking a harder line on insurgents supported by terrorists. Treating them like proper combatants is getting nobody anywhere.

So what compells us to treat the enemy any different from they treat us? Why should we protect them under rules that do not apply the other way?

We're the good guys. Or we're supposed to be. Suppose you enlist. You might get a tour in Afghanistan if you hurry. Then come on back and tell us all about using 14th century tactics.

And I am sure your Afgan alter ego would say the exact same thing about Taliban soldiers. Good is meerly the product of opinion.

[Cromarty]

Morality?

Taking the moral high ground the whole operation relies on?

I always assumed the goal of the Allied mission was to restore a proper government and beat the Taliban. As it is, they are failing.

Which is clearly why the Taliban are fucking negotiating with the allies.

Yep, NATO are losing the war so the Taliban are negotiating.