Thursday, January 19, 2012

War and Piss

Alright, look... it's not cool to piss on a corpse. But I get the rage. I get where it comes from. I've never fought in a war, so I don't know how soldiers let of steam and, I guess, excess bodily fluids. But, you know, neither do a lot of people. Frankly, I find the outcry against this pretty hysterical. I mean, is it disrespectful? Yeah, it is. I assume that's the entire point.

I think the whole debate over who should apologize and what constitutes a criminal act just shows us how fucked up war is. Are we not fighting a war in a genteel and polite enough fashion?

"See those guys over there? Those mongrels hate you and hate your freedom and want to murder you. So murder the shit out of them first! But for chrissakes, don't desecrate the bodies!"

Seriously? We train these people to put themselves in the line of fire of people who we train them to think of as enemies, and then we're surprised when they don't respect those enemies? This is war, not kindergarten.

8 comments:

Tallulah Morehead said...

You see, we have this thing called The Geneva Convention, which makes desecrating corpses a war crime. It also inflames further hate amongst our enemies, so STOP DEFENDING THESE GUYS!

Remember who else defended this abomination: Rick Perry. You AGREE with Rick Perry? Apparently the man is so anti-education, he's even against toilet training.

No excuse for these guys. None. They're supposed to be our "finest". Clearly this batch is not. Or is pissing on dead people what "Our Finest" do?

spiderkev said...

Yeah.show a little class.America ought to be better than this.

Roger Owen Green said...

Oh, and you don't want to be agreeing with Donald Trump, who tweeted some inane thing I've since forgotten.

More to the point, these soldiers were TRAINED not to do this type of stuff, precisely because it lowers the United States in the international community. And they did it anyway. It was grossly irresponsible, because it had foreseeable consequences.

It's like steering a luxury liner too close to the coast and being surprised it hit rocks. Cause and effect.

JP said...

I think I understand samurai frog's point here. Don't want people pissing on their dead enemies? Don't have wars.

SamuraiFrog said...

JP is right: I'm not defending anyone, I'm commenting on the ludicrousness of the idea that murdering people is fine, but desecrating their corpses is apparently going too far.

Tallulah, you know what also inflames further hate amongst our enemies? Continuing to kill them.

Spiderkev, you know what America ought to be better than? Killing a lot of people. I'm not sure what the classy way to shoot someone in the head and take away their life is. I don't know where the line of class between putting a hole in another human being and pissing on them actually is. Both are pretty disgusting.

Roger, you know what else is cause and effect? Teaching people to kill other people over ideological differences and then being surprised when they become grossly irresponsible about it.

So yeah, everyone, that was my point, and sorry if it wasn't clear enough: don't want people pissing on their enemies? Don't have wars. Stop trying to draw a line between one kind of barbarism and another, and saying one kind is perfectly acceptable because there are rules.

"You mean they pissed on the people they so politely murdered? I must lie on my fainting couch."

Uncle Burt said...

Something that almost nobody ever touches on is that in the second world war, when Nazi troops invaded all kinds of countries in Europe and Africa, the local resistance were called freedom fighters or The Underground or heroes.
Agreed, Hitler's ideas to create a geographic area with only caucasians and getting rid of people he did not like is somehow similar to what the Taliban are trying to achieve in Afghanistan, so there is a good reason to attempt to change their minds, but the point I am trying to make is that local people will always hate it when foreigners invade their country and kill their people and will resist.

Wars have never achieved anything; not in the short run, nor in the long run. Innocent peoploe get killed - without due process - and eventually people will rise up against their occupiers, even if it takes a long time coming.

A few examples:
the USA against the U.K. occupiers.
South America against the Spanish inquisition.
Europe and North Africa against the Nazi's.
Tibet against China.
Indonesia against the Dutch and Japanese.
Palestinans against Israel.
Et cetera.

Also, in most religious books like the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, it is stated that one should love one's neighbors and thy should not kill.
Yet most leaders who initiate wars say they are 'believers'.

And lastly:
There seems to be a timeline for religious wars.
In the middleages the Europeans initiated the Crusades and Inquisitions, and those wars on infidels were not exactly pretty.
Fast forward: Islamism was created some 650 years after Christianism was created. This religion is now in the same stage as Christianism was at the time of the Crusades and Inquisition. It is also staging a holy war, which eventually will fizzle out.
I am certainly not condoning it, but it seems to be something that was inevitable.
Mormons will most probably start a new crusade in another 1000 years, if we survive past 12/21/2012

Comments by Burt Vance

Johnny Yen said...

I think it was pretty poor judgement, but the Taliban crying out about this is the height of hypocrisy, given the murder and brutality they've inflicted on living Afghanis. It's interesting-- I used to volunteer in a lefty bookstore here in Chicago and we carried pamphlets from left groups who were trying to get someone to intervene against the Taliban, who were particularly brutal to women and girls. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and women had essentially no rights in the Taliban's odd version of Islam-- if you actually read the Koran, women are guaranteed all kinds of rights, including divorce.

I've never been in a war, but my brother, a retired Marine, has been in several (Beirut 1983, First Gulf War 1991-1992, Somalia 1992-1993, Haiti peacekeeping 1994). He doesn't like talking about it, but what little he has said about it is not pretty. War is brutal, bloody and non-sensical. This incident only reinforces that. It seems to me that making a big deal of this incident is like complaining that someone was swearing during a bar brawl

SamuraiFrog said...

I agree with that last statement. I remember debating about the Taliban and whether America should intervene in a college class back in 2000. Someone actually tried to pull the "maybe they don't know any better" routine, and every girl in class stopped talking to him after that...