Marines Desecrate Insurgent corpse, urinate on it

Rutskarn

New member
Feb 20, 2010
243
0
0
slopeslider said:
Seems a bit weird you can piss on dead guys but not shoot them with a hollowpoints
Personally speaking, I would much rather be pissed on than shot with a hollow-point bullet.

I would much, much rather be pissed on after I'm dead than be shot with a hollow-point bullet.
 

Toy Master Typhus

New member
Oct 20, 2011
134
0
0
So we are fighting a war on terrorism, against insurgents who can pick up weapons almost anywhere or go to the local store and get items to blow himself up in martyrdom. This war isn't going to be won by destroying supply lines or some far-fetched idea of coexistence. This shit will go on and on until one side gives up.

Insurgents Start with 9/11

Coalition Turn: Topple Iraq

Insurgent Turn: Behead Reporters, Sympathizers and Soldiers on video tapes

Coalition Turn: Make a bunch of detainees stack on a pyramid naked then shock them while throwing water on them.

Insurgent Turn: Mine and bomb the roads.

Coalition Turn: Rape and Murder the villagers.

Insurgent Turn: Throw bombs in London.

Coalition Turn: Carpet bomb northern Afghanistan.

I may not have these events in order and I may be missing more but I'm sure you can all see where I am going with this. This is how this war is going to be fought. Not in some great battle to decide who is the victors and the losers. It will be this long bloody skirmish won by the biggest asshole.
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
wow this is almost as embarrassing as the people you Americans rolled out for the republican primaries.

it's also a bad thing, if you have to desecrate a corpse, collect skulls and reenact Hamlet with them
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
I'm just going to say this guys. When you see... almost your very brothers get shot and blown up by whatever the enemy is that day, that's not something you get over fast.

Read War Is... for this sort of thing. It's an anthology of different war stories and papers. I found it to be a really good.
 

manic_depressive13

New member
Dec 28, 2008
2,617
0
0
BonsaiK said:
Can you see their dicks? Yes. At 0:10 the guy second from left gets it out quite clearly.

As for your second objection, they're NOT comparable and that's exactly the point. This video is far worse than any porn I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot of porn. I'm all for awareness-raising but my point is the double-standard that applies to video content here.

Just on another note, the guy who posted this thread here is the same person who own the YouTube channel it's posted on. Therefore he's promoting his own channel, which is advertising, which is banned here. Another reason for the mods to clamp down on this quicksmart, just in case they didn't have enough reasons.
Okay, I think I saw what you're referring to. It was there for half a second and the video quality is bad enough that I'm not entirely sure it wasn't his belt or something. While I agree this is more offensive than most pornography it is due to the stupidity and debasing behaviour shown by the American troops and not due to the nudity. Besides, I'm pretty sure nudity is acceptable as long as it is justified and not in a sexual context. I doubt anyone would get a warning for posting a renaissance painting or statue with proper justification and genuine desire to have a mature discussion.

There's some unpunished nudity right here in this thread, but it's within the boundaries of a reasoned discussion.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.336542-Does-male-nudity-count?page=2

Also, he's hardly advertising. He probably found the video elsewhere and uploaded it onto youtube to make it more accessible and raise awareness. People should be allowed to draw attention to and discuss injustices on this forum. While the video is obscene, it isn't violent. Your claim that "graphic violence" isn't allowed is refuted by videos of police brutality that I have also seen on this site including one where the police tackled an elderly man to the ground, breaking his nose. It is good that we are able to have such discussions on this forum and it does not need to be punished. I'm glad that this is a website where I can find news and not just threads full of bad relationship advice and people gloating that negative publicity for crappy music is equivalent to positive publicity as if no one else has figured it out, and as if they weren't already internet sensations before they found their way to this site.

Edit: I've been too busy arguing censorship to properly express my opinion. The war on the middle east was one of the fucking stupidest thing America could have done, and it proved to the world that America is an even bigger asshole than the world had previously thought. People have dismissed this behaviour with "they're already dead" and "it's a war". This is true, but it isn't a justification. It isn't the act of urinating on a corpse that is upsetting- it's the attitudes that such an action signifies. The world hates America because it is arrogant, stupid and cruel. These troops perfectly epitomise those sentiments. If they're so upset that people are trying to kill them they should go piss on their government.
 

Charvale

New member
May 17, 2008
51
0
0
They shouldn't have urinated on them... the Marines should have poured pig blood on them and let it be a lesson to future insurgents.

But of course, that's just my opinion.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
erttheking said:
Grouchy Imp said:
You seriously need to calm down. People discussing Marines doing discussing things is bad? Maybe they should have had common sense and not have done this in the first place.
I think perhaps you have misunderstood me. I wasn't having a go at the people discussing what those marines did, I was having a go at those marines for doing what they did. Each and every expletive in my post was aimed at them, not anyone ITT.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Charvale said:
They shouldn't have urinated on them... the Marines should have poured pig blood on them and let it be a lesson to future insurgents.
Except that kind of thing generates insurgents.

You forget, the Psy Ops units embedded with the marines love to shout about how they do this kind of thing over load-speaker within earshot of these people's homes and families. Apparently it's meant to demoralize them and goad them into making rash attacks. What it does is ensure that that this guys children will grow up with a terminal revenge fantasy, which, coming from an honour based society, they're pretty much compelled to act on.

Now, it may be that there's no way to stop that short of perhaps not giving some of the poorest and most desperate people in the world weapons so they can form an army, and then when the army you helped to create has conquered their own country and imposed brutal religious law try to fly in and kill them because you've suddenly realized that they're not very nice people.

But hey, since that can't be changed now, I have to wonder if, in addition to all that, desecrating corpses to deliberately rile up the people who live in the country your invading is a terribly good idea. They know damn well that US soldiers do this shit, as mentioned, some US soldiers are awfully keen to tell them.

And if you think rich white people have a higher tolerance for atrocity than people whose country, which was cripplingly poor and desperate to begin with, has been blown to shit, good luck with that conviction.

The US strategy is predicated on the idea that once you kill all the insurgents they're gone for good. Short of killing practically everyone in Taliban-supporting areas, that's really not true, and there's going to be a really bloody harvest from it at some point.

The last time someone invaded Afghanistan and was horrible to the people there, we got Osama Bin Laden. This invasion is worse, and I don't think it takes a genius to work out the likely consequences. Heck, the whole thing could have come straight out of Bin Laden's own tactical manuals.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
daniel the immortal said:
its the taliban they dont deserve respect, not when they blow up girl schools
No, they don't deserve respect. But the thing is, we're supposed to be better than them. Hell, we are better than them, but we need to be vigilant about showing it, as well. Professional soldiers working under certain rules as representatives from an enlightened nation should reasonably be expected to act like it.

EDIT: But if that's what the Psy-Ops are up to... I'm not so sure anymore. Way to perpetuate the war, lads.
 

Neonit

New member
Dec 24, 2008
477
0
0
daniel the immortal said:
its the taliban they dont deserve respect, not when they blow up girl schools
its the us marines, they RAPE schoolgirls (and boys), they dont reserve respect, lets kill them and sh!t on them or even beter, go to their country, and kill some random guys. you know what? lets blow two towers in usa!

its that easy!
and then they ask "why did they attack us? what did we do wrong!"


honestly, im terrified that there are apparently people who have been brainwashed so hard, that they are cool with that. really. it frightens me. im afraid of future of myself, and my family.
 

Kurai Angelo

New member
Oct 12, 2009
421
0
0
nikki191 said:
that sort of shit is totally uncalled for. it should hit the news soon. i just sent the link to a few news services.

what these idiots dont understand is that this single act is going to put the whole muslim world into an uproar and there will be MORE attacks and violence on coalition troops because of it. people will die because of their actions
Soo you thought the best thing to do would be to speed the process up by personally sending the link out?

Oook... Why even bother? You know people are going to get their hands on this either way so why feel the need to pass it on yourself? As you say, people could potentially die as a result of this.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
I guess it's more evidence that the coalition are the bad guys. We've come far from the days of the Second World war, where Americans, Australians, British etc, could say that we were fighting a much greater evil, to becoming a similar kind of evil.
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
the clockmaker said:
Wicky_42 said:
Sexy Devil said:
Heimir said:
Couldn't care less. Deficate on them too for good measure. Have you seen what the locals do to the corpses of marines? Now thats barbaric. When you allow your children to pull them to pieces and batter them with sticks and stones all while chanting "Allah Akbhar".
When we're condemning a country for their actions to the point of war, we can't just turn around and start acting like them.
This. It would almost be like bombing a country because its regime was violently cracking down democratically-minded protesters, then turning round and doing the same thing to your own citizens...

...

OH WAIT :/
Can we get a raincheck on occupy protesters comparing themselves to the Libyan rebels, is there a lever that says 'pull in case of entitlement or persecution complex' that just causes people to think about what their actually saying, can we at least look into one?
differances
Motivation
-Libya-wanted democratic elections to occur
-Occupy-were pissed that people weren't voting the way that they want
Conditions
-Libya-a country ruled by a dictator who had no intention of stepping down, where any dissent is crushed mercilessly
-Occupy-The western world, where leaders change depending on the vote and any dissent is met with acclaim in roughly half the population depending on the slant of the dissent
The Violent crackdown (most notable incident)
-Occupy- the cop who maced a group of university protesters
-Libya- the murder of thousands of unarmed civilians with a massive toll on infrastructure
Achievements
-Libya- brought down the government
-occupy- mildly inconvenianced city workers and police, broke a few windows
Well, I guess you could source all your news about current events from Escapist forum posts, but I prefer to read around a little, noting stories of journalists trying to cover the Occupy crackdown being arrested or detained, reports on Whitehouse backed violence against peaceful protestors as part of an organised, systemic intimidation campaign against those willing to speak up against the American government's continuous, unquestioning support of entrenched corporate interests that played counterpoint to the American medias' constant derision of the movement and continuous peddling of lies and misinformation to suppress a civil protest that as far as I can see is in the best interests of everyone bar (surprise surprise) those very few with exorbitant wealth and the obscene power and political clout that goes with it.

"-Libya-wanted democratic elections to occur
-Occupy-were pissed that people weren't voting the way that they want
Conditions"
Libya wanted change. Occupy wanted change - nothing to do with people voting, everything to do with the wealthy who have caused the current economic climate to contribute a proportional share in its recovery. Is that so hard to understand?

I found this fun to read, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy]with a follow-up here [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/02/crackdown-occupy-controversy-rebuttal-naomi-wolf]