| greaserkat 11.01.2012 19:23 |
link Shit like this will keep us, the USA, being one of the most hated countries in the world. |
| MadTheSwine73 11.01.2012 20:48 |
Wow. That is just sad. |
| pittrek 12.01.2012 06:12 |
greaserkat wrote: link Shit like this will keep us, the USA, being one of the most hated countries in the world. I'm glad normal American citizens understand why the popularity of their country has dropped in the last 10 years :) The marines are disgusting |
| Holly2003 12.01.2012 07:11 |
Terrible, degrading things happen in warfare. That's the nature of it: it dehumanises both sides. This type of thing has been going on as long as warfare has. The difference today is that every combatant has access to a digital camera and can self-publish it on the internet. |
| Micrówave 12.01.2012 09:38 |
It's interesting to note how one sided this view is and how quickly some are to jump on it. I'm sure there's similar acts of disgust performed by BOTH sides, yet the U.S. doesn't participate in the airing of that footage. I wonder how your Mothers would feel about choosing (1) a life of rape and torture or (2) having her dead carcass urinated on. I'm thinking most would take #2. Another interesting fact left out: The United States does not censor their internet, as most arab nations and China are fond of doing. Try searching for a Taliban killing and desecrating a Marine. I bet you can't find one. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.01.2012 09:44 |
Micrówave: A decent person would have said "that's terrible, it's sad to see both sides engaging in this kind of behaviour". You instantly jump onto the defensive and start writing about how the other side does things that are even worse. That suggests you approve. And you know that. |
| GratefulFan 12.01.2012 10:28 |
If Microwave approves - not the word I'd have chosen BTW - he's certainly not alone. I've been following the online comment sections in several major North American newspapers last night and this morning and the overwhelming sentiment is some version of what he expressed. People should not be surprised at this video. It is the very function of the military machine to strip the enemy of all humanity so normal young men can go out and become functional killers. The uniform helps to remind them that they're only supposed to be killers when they're in it, and helps to diffuse what would be an otherwise crushing sense of personal responsibility in any other situation. Why shouldn't the psychology of that be understood to extend to - whatever this is. What struck me about the video is that unlike Abu Graib and other gleefully posed war time atrocities this seemed to be as much about the act itself as finding a way to boast about it. At some point somebody asks "did you get that on video" or something like that, suggesting that that motivation may have been at least secondary. It seems to me that the specifics of that act embody a tremendous desire to degrade or express something like rage - I mean it's not just anywhere on the body, in appears to be their faces. The generic and specific battlefield conditions that engender such acts should be of grave concern to any nation sending it's people off to war, but instead we see a form of dehumanization extended back home. The excuses of moral relativism are likely what normal, good people need to tell themselves to be able to make sense out of the senseless. I understand it. But it doesn't make them right. |
| greaserkat 12.01.2012 11:14 |
I don't understand why people always refer to the reasoning, "Well, they do it too," or "They do worse things." |
| The Real Wizard 12.01.2012 11:30 |
GratefulFan wrote: >>It is the very function of the military machine to strip the enemy of all humanity so normal young men can go out and become functional killers. The uniform helps to remind them that they're only supposed to be killers when they're in it, and helps to diffuse what would be an otherwise crushing sense of personal responsibility in any other situation.<< Bingo. And millions of people are sold on war by that basic principle, not just those who become soldiers. |
| The Real Wizard 12.01.2012 11:33 |
greaserkat wrote: I don't understand why people always refer to the reasoning, "Well, they do it too," or "They do worse things." ================== I can think of a couple reasons.. a) It's more macho than expressing empathy. Plenty of people don't evolve past the high school bully stage. b) It's yet another device to reinforce the "we are the best" mentality. |
| GratefulFan 12.01.2012 12:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote: GratefulFan wrote: >>It is the very function of the military machine to strip the enemy of all humanity so normal young men can go out and become functional killers. The uniform helps to remind them that they're only supposed to be killers when they're in it, and helps to diffuse what would be an otherwise crushing sense of personal responsibility in any other situation.<< Bingo. And millions of people are sold on war by that basic principle, not just those who become soldiers. I'd only add that it's no less applicable to just, necessary wars. Dehumanization is at once a prerequisite and an ongoing and deepening byproduct of war just by it's nature, and independent of any righteousness (or not). |
| inu-liger 12.01.2012 15:56 |
The Real Wizard wrote:greaserkat wrote: I don't understand why people always refer to the reasoning, "Well, they do it too," or "They do worse things." ================== I can think of a couple reasons.. a) It's more macho than expressing empathy. Plenty of people don't evolve past the high school bully stage. b) It's yet another device to reinforce the "we are the best" mentality. c) They're weak and full of self-egotistical pride? |
| GratefulFan 12.01.2012 23:31 |
I think it's a mistake to make this about the United States. These events could happen in anybody's war. That is what I meant to say I think when I talked about 'just, necessary' wars. Really that's a rather empty turn of phrase, particularly given that my knowledge of history and warfare is superficial enough that I'm not sure I could make a truly cogent argument about whether war is ever either just or necessary. My larger point was that all war has the raw ingredients for this kind of horrific act. Still, it's an opportunity lost for Americans to abstract this too much. The facts bear thinking about in exquisite detail so the horror and inhumanity is not lost. Without exaggeration, the actions on that video would not be out of place for a serial killer in another context. It requires an extraordinary failure of empathy and humanity to do what those men did. Unless one accepts that five psychopaths ended up in the same unit by chance, you have to accept that that war and that place changes people, at least temporarily. While people mouth patriotic platitudes at home these men are being thrust into situations characterized by relentless and dehumanizing fear and stress. No matter where life takes them from here they will forever be the authors of a pointedly sickening and callous deed. We are all changed by our actions, and by shame. So to the extent that war can be kept afloat in part by jingoism and dogma, it's an opportunity to take a good hard clear eyed look at how America's vision of itself diverged from this partcular stark reality, and to think about how a nation should count casualties of war. |
| YourValentine 13.01.2012 03:15 |
I totally agree, GF. Also - nobody seems to ask the question how or why these people were murdered in the first place. This reminds me of the soldiers who hunted and killed civilians in a helicopter - the only question was who leaked the information and not why soldiers are hunting and murdering defenseless civilians. There is a dangerous loss of ethics and basic human decency in this society. |
| Micrówave 13.01.2012 10:29 |
No, TQ, I don't approve of what I called "acts of disgust", but you interpreted that as I'm a member of the Golden Shower Brigade. Since you COMPLETELY missed my point, let me put it to you a little more clearly: War Is Hell. Terrible things happen when any kind of conflict occurs. But since you're the war expert, why don't you point out a war where nothing bad happened. It may have been called a "civil" war... but it was hardly that. You're all acting like this action (the peeing incident) is the worst thing that has ever happened. Clearly it is not. Yes it's horrible. But the bodies are no longer living. No one physically suffered, unless you wanna bring up little 5 year old Johnny who had to witness this... whatever. There are far worse acts that have occurred during wars and they were not all committed by the United States. For example, you British were pretty brutal, back in the day. No, you might not have pissed on a soldier's grave, but you'd go back and bed his wife after you killed him. But at least you didn't pee on her husband's dead body. I believe I've heard stories about a certain German killing millions or a Russian practicing genocide 7 million times. But US soldiers just peed on those dead bodies!!! Now that's crossing the line. |
| GratefulFan 13.01.2012 12:43 |
Nice try. The parallel for rape, torture and indiscriminate killing in historical military conflicts is not the modern day desecration of corpses. It's rape, torture and indiscriminate killing - all of which have occurred in conflicts western nations have been involved in the last 20 years. The apparently overwhelming and widespread instinct to minimize this is understandable but wrong. I read Lara Logan this morning summing it up as 'stupid' , the essential equivalent of drunken frat boys behaving badly . Lara Logan, who one would think might be able to speak with a little more clarity and urgency about unchecked dark human impulses in conflict situations, still apparently trying to prove she can man up. Whatever. I don't care how prosaic the full story turns out to be, it's going to be deceptively prosaic. Group urination on the dead faces and bodies of war casualties, heads on sticks, ears and fingers and who knows what else kept for trophies, sadistic smiling poses with the dead and tortured - all these things harm nobody more than they've already been harmed - unless you want to count tearing a strip off the soul of the person doing it - but they are and always have been a symptom of the underlying and raging systemic illness of war. I've made clear I hope that I don't think there is anything quintessentially American about this, and I actively deplore lazy and self serving anti-American rhetoric where it exists. That said, I'm glad it's not me paying for the Gatorade or whatever that eventually ended up all over the faces and bodies of dead Afghan men, and I'm glad it's not me so eager to 'contextualize' that I'm whistling past such unambiguous horror. And it is horror. It is. |
| The Real Wizard 13.01.2012 13:32 |
Micrówave wrote: Yes it's horrible.And that's where you should have stopped. By adding to that, you are effectively condoning the act (or at best, trivializing it) on the grounds that worse things happen in war. |
| Micrówave 13.01.2012 15:22 |
Ok... so using your logic* (taking my comments out of context), you're saying that worse things DON'T happen in war? You need to quit watching Fox News. |
| Micrówave 13.01.2012 15:26 |
Grateful wrote: Group urination on the dead faces and bodies of war casualties, heads on sticks, ears and fingers and who knows what else kept for trophies, sadistic smiling poses with the dead and tortured - all these things harm nobody more than they've already been harmed - unless you want to count tearing a strip off the soul of the person doing it - but they are and always have been a symptom of the underlying and raging systemic illness of war So all those beheadings of military and civilian contractors by muslim fundamentalists was OK? But urinating on a corpse is crossing the line? You accused the "Western"world of atrocities, but you need to see the whole picture. No, that's not me condoning desecration of corpses. Remember Nick Berg? Berg first arrived in Iraq on December 21, 2003, and made arrangements to secure contract work for his company. He also went to the northern city of Mosul, visiting an Iraqi man whose brother had been married to Berg's late aunt. Leaving on February 1, he returned to Iraq on March 14, 2004, only to find that the work he was promised was unavailable. Throughout his time in Iraq, he maintained frequent contact with his family in the United States by telephone and e-mail. Berg's body was found decapitated on May 8, 2004 on a Baghdad overpass by a U.S. military patrol. Berg's family was informed of his death two days later. Military sources stated publicly at that time that Berg's body showed "signs of trauma", but did not disclose that he had been decapitated. |
| GratefulFan 13.01.2012 16:23 |
Micrówave wrote: So all those beheadings of military and civilian contractors by muslim fundamentalists was OK? Cooking device, I know you're smarter than this and I'm pretty sure you know I am as well. Don't waste my time with nonsense. When Western nations' justification for deploying combat or peacekeeping troops includes security through establishing or guarding systems of human rights, it's relevant to point out that there have been egregious violations of human rights. I've never heard anybody credibly argue that it takes a good soaking in urine to stamp out beheading, but I'm willing to listen if you want to try. I think urinating on a corpse is crossing the line, and leaving that line far behind in the desert dust. I mean don't you? Who wouldn't? |
| Micrówave 13.01.2012 18:09 |
I can't understand what I'm saying makes you think I'm OK with urinating on corpses. I'm just making the case that this is one of many outrageous acts the human race seems to occaisionally participate in. To make a blanket statement about the entire military is absolutely ridiculous. Spoken like people who have NEVER served their country... like you, GratefulFan. I'm fairly certain you have not. I personally have not, but I doubt my father was urinating on North Vietnameese soldiers back in 1971. |
| Holly2003 13.01.2012 18:31 |
Micrówave wrote: I can't understand what I'm saying makes you think I'm OK with urinating on corpses. I'm just making the case that this is one of many outrageous acts the human race seems to occaisionally participate in. To make a blanket statement about the entire military is absolutely ridiculous. Spoken like people who have NEVER served their country... like you, GratefulFan. I'm fairly certain you have not. I personally have not, but I doubt my father was urinating on North Vietnameese soldiers back in 1971.This doesn't even address what GF said. You're just lashing out like an idiot. Give it a rest ffs. |
| Amazon 14.01.2012 01:27 |
I completely agree re dehumanization, and I would also argue there is an intrinsic element of dehumanization to wars that might be regarded as just & necessary. If a war is regarded as just & necessary, it therefore becomes a battle between good and evil. Afterall, if you are fighting the good fight, then your enemy is thereby fighting the bad fight, so to speak, and terms like good and evil enter the picture. It makes it easier to kill if you regard the person as evil, and thereby deserving of death. It's interesting as on another site, I read a comment by someone, which epitomes this dehumanization that impacts even some war supporters who have never picked up a weapon: "An enemy that suppresses the freedom of it's own people, who treat the weakest among them (women and children) with contempt and oppression in the name of their deity, deserves no respect, no compassion , no sympathy and no dignity." BTW, one thing that I think is a massive, massive concern is the use of technology, such as drones. While such technology may be 'easier' to use, it also makes it easier to kill without recognising that those being killed are human beings as well (not to mention that drones often stuff up and are hated by the Pakistani people among others.) |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.01.2012 08:30 |
I'm not going to continue this pointless discussion with Microwave. I'll just leave it at this: Bob and GF are completely right - this is the inherent face of war. Everyone knows that. However, one of the primary tasks of an officer is to make sure that these things don't happen. Every time they do, it means someone has failed to do his (and more recently, also her) job. When you or I fail to do our jobs, we get told off, we get docked our pay, we might even get sued. When an officer fails to do his job, people die. |
| catqueen 14.01.2012 12:13 |
Micrówave wrote:Yes, those men shouldn't have been beheaded. But in what context? Their country had been invaded in a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, which, it turns out were apparently not there. When a minority fundamentalist group performed an attack on the USA, the US responded by starting a war, killing over 100 million people. I am NOT justifying beheading people, i am not justifying any criminal/terrorist/evil activities, but i can kind of see how you would kill people who invaded your country. And one person's crime does not justify another person's crime... war is horrible and horrible things happen, and desecration of bodies has also always happened in war, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it is evil.Grateful wrote: Group urination on the dead faces and bodies of war casualties, heads on sticks, ears and fingers and who knows what else kept for trophies, sadistic smiling poses with the dead and tortured - all these things harm nobody more than they've already been harmed - unless you want to count tearing a strip off the soul of the person doing it - but they are and always have been a symptom of the underlying and raging systemic illness of warSo all those beheadings of military and civilian contractors by muslim fundamentalists was OK? But urinating on a corpse is crossing the line? You accused the "Western"world of atrocities, but you need to see the whole picture.No, that's not me condoning desecration of corpses.Remember Nick Berg? Berg first arrived in Iraq on December 21, 2003, and made arrangements to secure contract work for his company. He also went to the northern city of Mosul, visiting an Iraqi man whose brother had been married to Berg's late aunt. Leaving on February 1, he returned to Iraq on March 14, 2004, only to find that the work he was promised was unavailable. Throughout his time in Iraq, he maintained frequent contact with his family in the United States by telephone and e-mail.Berg's body was found decapitated on May 8, 2004 on a Baghdad overpass by a U.S. military patrol. Berg's family was informed of his death two days later. Military sources stated publicly at that time that Berg's body showed "signs of trauma", but did not disclose that he had been decapitated. |
| john bodega 14.01.2012 12:20 |
I'm drunk. Well, on my moral compass, the taking of a life is a bigger deal than pissing on a corpse. The counterbalance to this would be that A) they were combatants, so to at least some people the killing was justified in a moral sense. And B), if someone shoots someone else in the name of some cause, that the shooter would at least appreciate the gravity of said killing. Clearly, these lads do not, but as I said that's the ideal scenario. Consider a hunter who doesn't put the animal through undue stress or pain, and uses as much of the body as possible. With that logic, you'd hope that combatants would (as much as is practicable) afford some respect to vanquished bad guys. For every corpse pissing in history, there's been at least one respectful burial in wartime - go ahead and read about it. Anyway, I don't really give two shits about the video. This stuff has been going on forever, but more to the point it's been happening rather visibly in that part of the world ever since the war started. Woe betide anyone who comes to me looking for some kind of reaction (a couple of e-friends have asked me what I think of this thing). My reaction?? I said the war was fubar and shouldn't have been started in the first place. Am I desensitised? You bet! The world is too big and there's too many people dying each day for me to really expend energy. On a rational level, I think what they did is totally wrong and I hope they cop some sort of penalty. Aside from that though, I'm still left with my first thought. Without trying to justify post mortem humiliation, I will stand by the idea that killing (even if it is state sanctioned) *is* a bigger deal. I don't support either. But that's just me. |
| YourValentine 15.01.2012 03:13 |
I can totally relate to your point of view, Zebonka. As I already said in my previous post - the question why these people where killed in the first place is not even asked anymore. We hear about unbelievable atrocities each days - a woman in Saudi Arabia beheaded for wicth craft, a man in Austria held his daughter captive in his house for decades and had 7 children with her, the list goes on and on. You come to a point where you simply cannot process it anymore. However, we the people must uphold the basic human values or else there is no hope for mankind. I do understand Microwave when he says that these soldiers are not the only ones committing horrible crimes but a U.S. citizen should not compare his country with criminals in the Middle East - he should compare the actions of the US government and US army with other Western democracies like Europe or Australia and ask himself if these states have camps like Gunatanamo with no citizen rights, if they have the death penalty, deprive their citizens of basic rights with laws like the Patriot Act, send drones into other countries to kill people - among them a 16 year old American citizen like recently happened to the son of (also murdered) Anwar al-Awlaki. Acts like these totally remove the the feeling for decency and legality in a "war" that does not respect any international law at all. To even claim that these soldiers "serve their country" is a language that would make George Orwell jealous. As a citizen I do not want to be blamed for the actions of my government but I have a duty to speak up against illegal or inhuman actions or else I do support them. If half as many citizens would stand up against the so-called "war on terror" as did against the Vietnam war, it would stop pretty quickly. I do not see much resistance against the war in Afghanistan in Europe, either. |
| GratefulFan 15.01.2012 11:54 |
Micrówave wrote: I can't understand what I'm saying makes you think I'm OK with urinating on corpses. I'm just making the case that this is one of many outrageous acts the human race seems to occaisionally participate in. To make a blanket statement about the entire military is absolutely ridiculous. Spoken like people who have NEVER served their country... like you, GratefulFan. I'm fairly certain you have not. I personally have not, but I doubt my father was urinating on North Vietnameese soldiers back in 1971. There are several smart Americans that post on QZ about political or social issues,but the difference with you is that you are, I think, comparatively conservative. From a completely selfish standpoint I'd love to have a substantial discussion with that perspective represented in a thought provoking and challenging way, I am 1000% interested in what you have to say. I would think you're certainly sharp enough to be able to contribute to something like that. But instead it's 'So all those Jihadi beheadings are OK' and, God help me, 'My Dad was in 'Nam'. I mean, are you kidding me with this? And as Holly pointed out, who and what are you even addressing? It seems to me that the average person has lost the instinct and perhaps even in some ways the ability to discuss the public interest without some version of Fox/MSNBC talking points dragging down the IQ of the entire room. Surely the best conversations are actually conversations rather than loosely associated parallel opportunities for Tourette like outbursts of completely exhausted and exhausting rhetoric? 'Have YOU ever served your country GratefulFan?' Jesus Christ Microwave. How about I keep trying to serve it by working very hard to not to pour another drop of stupidity into it's public spaces when I could be using my brains and my experience and my perspective to participate in a real exchange. To address your point, you aren't saying anything that makes me think you're OK with urinating on corpses. I don't think you are. I do think though that the 'line' you keep referencing is not between urinating on corpses and rape, torture or murder. I think there's things like warm mitts and hot chocolate and great music and hockey and looking at Robert Downey Jr and courage and kindness and decency and restraint - and then there's a line - and then there's indiscriminate death, destruction, rape, mayhem, beheading and urinating on the faces and bodies of bloodied and dead human beings lying at your feet. What a red herring all these attempts at atrocity ranking are. We're not officers in some court trying to figure out the right level of outrage and a suitable punishment, we're citizens of countries at war trying to understand what this really means. Who knows where this fits into the process of moral breakdown in a soldier. Who knows what came before this, or went after. It's all related to rage and numbing out and the objectification of things that are not objects. The worst thing about the war is hell but it could be hellier line is the utter passivity. These troops didn't sprout like mushrooms in the middle of the desert and fall into uniforms. They are only there because of political will of the countries that sent them. Political will maintained by the shaping of a narrative that works to suppress these realities, and gravely casts them as outliers when they cannot. There is a clearer line than some would have us believe - a clearer line between government and media sanitization of war that protects missions to which we have committed and protects the psychological well being of returning soldiers (a big problem with the VIetnam protest movement)- and denialism that protects the big dumb machine of war indiscriminately. For those of us safe in our comfortable homes desensitization is a choice, not an inevitability, and not a kind of solidarity that serves anything or anyone well. |
| ParisNair 15.01.2012 12:45 |
Abuse of enemy soldiers, no matter whether caught dead or alive, is definitely not happening for the first time. Like someone pointed out, what makes the difference now is that every body has a camera phone to capture the visual spectacle and then upload it straight away for the whole world to see. This wouldn't have been so easy even 4-5 years ago, right? India and its neighbours Pakistan have exchaged fire along the borders for the last 60 years, and on 3 occasions we have had full blown wars. It has been reported in the papers many times that when the bodies of the Indian dead soldiers is brought back home from Pak custody, they are often mutilated - fingers, eyes, genitals missing. A lot of times post mortem proves it was done after the person was dead. Who would do such a thing? |
| matt z 16.01.2012 20:35 |
this WOULD have been easy 6-7 yrs ago. Digital cameras... xmas presents. As for Vietnam etc... people participating in UNDECLARED WARS (look it up) are frequent to have taken "trophies" (ears, cock and balls - tobacco pouches, skulls, hands etc) what the next generations kinda are starting to realize is it's dehumanizing, and it's usually big rich bastards and companies trying to furnish a new economic platform, because INTERNALLY (through treaties like NAFTA that deregulate) the economic system is collapsing and there's little along the lines of production going on. All the jobs and even the freaking MIDWIFING and CHILDBIRTH are even being considered to get passed out to India. Its a pretty disgusting time to be living in... but unlike other people's selective stories, i doubt that very much has changed. After nearly being led into the service with a former friend of mine i'd already KNOWticed that they were merely going to use me as fodder and a testing ground for new shit. It doesn't appeal to me, and there is NOTHING "UNAMERICAN" about suggesting that the children of Senators etc should be made to serve. They've worked their way to make things clean and easy for themselves; and the rest of the trades behind scenes are all to keep the thing functioning. Peeing on dead bodies is nothing new. They do far worse. Usually the aggressor is more concerned with the "kicks" of the trade. |
| Micrówave 17.01.2012 10:04 |
ParisNair wrote: Abuse of enemy soldiers, no matter whether caught dead or alive, is definitely not happening for the first time. Like someone pointed out, what makes the difference now is that every body has a camera phone to capture the visual spectacle and then upload it straight away for the whole world to see. This wouldn't have been so easy even 4-5 years ago, right? India and its neighbours Pakistan have exchaged fire along the borders for the last 60 years, and on 3 occasions we have had full blown wars. It has been reported in the papers many times that when the bodies of the Indian dead soldiers is brought back home from Pak custody, they are often mutilated - fingers, eyes, genitals missing. A lot of times post mortem proves it was done after the person was dead. Who would do such a thing? Finally!!! {SATIRE ON} Yes, but these were US Marines so it's much worse when that happens {SATIRE OFF} |
| GratefulFan 17.01.2012 11:56 |
One man's satire is another man's strawman. Apparently, you got nothin'. ;) Oh well. There's never a shortage of things I can find to babble in paragraphs about. Editing to add: Sorry! You weren't done. :) |
| Micrówave 17.01.2012 12:07 |
he should compare the actions of the US government and US army with other Western democracies like Europe or Australia and ask himself if these states have camps like Gunatanamo with no citizen rights, if they have the death penalty, deprive their citizens of basic rights with laws like the Patriot ActOk. Nazi Germany. They had camps... but compared to Guantanamo, they were summer camps. Death penalty? Well being cooked to death doesn't really count as a death penalty... more like a bonus. And the German citizens who were Jewish didn't have to deal with something as idiotic as the Patriot Act... they were just separated from their familes never to see them again... they weren't spied on!!! Calm down, TQ... this is what we call "satire". send drones into other countries to kill people - among them a 16 year old American citizen like recently happened to the son of (also murdered) Anwar al-Awlaki.Soon after a 2002 warrant was canceled (lack of physical evidence), Awlaki left the United States for good, settling in Yemen. Since his escape, Awlaki, now considered by intelligence officials to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, has been implicated as the spiritual inspiration for terror plots in Canada and the U.S., and was in e-mail contact with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with 13 counts of murder in the recent mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. After 9/11, however, terror investigators took a fresh look at Awlaki. JTTF agents in San Diego were keenly interested in Awlaki's activities because of his close ties to hijackers Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar. Authorities say the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men, leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor and had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Alwaki moved to a Northern Virginia mosque in early 2001, Alhamzi had visited him there too, along with a third future hijacker, Hani Hanjour. I don't have much compassion for Awlaki or his "son". Do you? He doesn't sound like a real nice man. Acts like these totally remove the the feeling for decency and legality in a "war" that does not respect any international law at all. To even claim that these soldiers "serve their country" is a language that would make George Orwell jealous.Maybe for some... but I think we would have had more 9/11 type attacks here and abroad if the United States did not take the steps that they have. It has saved a lot of lives since. Sure, I can tell you plenty of things wrong with the Patriot Act. But I can tell you some good points, too! There's always a price to pay for security. Those soldiers DO serve their country. Just like your country's armed forces serve. A few bad apples doesn't make the whole tree. It's insulting to suggest that all US Soldiers (or any other armed services) are inhuman killers. 99% of the time, they follow orders. Orders that you and I never see. But when you sit in your air-conditioned home typing on your $3000 Apple computer eating bon-bons, just remember that some soldier has been living in mud for 13 months following orders. |
| Micrówave 17.01.2012 12:10 |
Oh, and I guess you left out this little blurb... "I have seen the footage, and I find the behavior depicted in it utterly deplorable," U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a statement. "I condemn it in the strongest possible terms." Panetta said he has ordered the Marine Corps and International Security Assistance Force Commander Gen. John Allen "to immediately and fully investigate the incident." "This conduct is entirely inappropriate for members of the United States military and does not reflect the standards of values our armed forces are sworn to uphold," Panetta's statement said. "Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent." A senior Pentagon official said Panetta was "deeply troubled" after viewing the video. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos said in a statement the behavior is "wholly inconsistent with the high standards of conduct and warrior ethos that we have demonstrated throughout our history." Lt. Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, deputy commander of ISAF, called the actions on the video "disgusting." "Any acts which treat the dead, enemy or friendly, with disrespect are utterly unacceptable and do not represent the standards we expect of coalition forces," Bradshaw said in a video statement. He said he was speaking on behalf of Allen, who is out of the country. "It is difficult to say what long-term impacts this might have, and I would hesitate to get into speculation, but obviously any sort of footage, any sort of activity of this kind that is grossly against all the moral values that the coalition forces are standing for are very much working against our cause and against everything that we are standing for and that we are here for," said Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a NATO ISAF spokesman. "We will find the ones who are responsible and hold them accountable." UPDATE: Two of the four Marines shown in a video urinating on dead bodies sprawled out on the ground have been identified by the Marine Corps, a Marine Corps official told CNN Thursday. The names are not being made public, said the official, who did not want to be identified because the investigation is ongoing. |
| Micrówave 17.01.2012 15:11 |
Interesting, if you wanted to get "anal", like the topic starter and all other US bashers.... then I guess I could argue:
EVERY BRITISH CITIZEN THINKS MALE RAPE IS OK SOMETIMES.
Buggery Act of 1533 According to the Act: ...the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realm. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy...” This meant that a convicted sodomite’s possessions could be confiscated by the government, rather than going to their next of kin, and that even priests and monks could be executed for the offence — even though they could not be executed for murder.[4] Henry later used the law to execute monks and nuns (thanks to information his spies had gathered) and take their monastery lands — the same tactics had been used 200 years before by Philip IV of France against the Knights Templar. It is likely that Henry had this in mind when he drafted the Act.[4] In July 1540, contravention of the Act, along with treason, resulted in the first conviction: Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury became the first person executed under the statute, although it was probably the treason that cost him his life. Nicholas Udall, a cleric, playwright, and Headmaster of Eton College, was the first to be charged with violation of the Act alone in 1541, for sexually abusing his pupils. In his case, the sentence was commuted to imprisonment and he was released in less than a year. The Act was repealed in 1553 on the accession of Queen Mary. However, it was re-enacted by Queen Elizabeth I in 1563. Although "homosexual prosecutions throughout the sixteenth century [were] sparse" and "fewer than a dozen prosecutions are recorded up through 1660 . . . this may reflect inadequate research into the subject, and a scarcity of extant legal records."[5] Numerous prosecutions that resulted in a sentence of hanging are recorded in the 18th and early 19th centuries.[6] Even if the charge of sodomy was reduced for lack of evidence to a charge of attempted buggery, the penalty was severe: imprisonment and some time on the pillory. "The lesser punishment – to be stood in the pillory – was by no means a lenient one, for the victims often had to fear for their lives at the hands of an enraged multitude armed with brickbats as well as filth and curses. . . . the victims in the pillory, male or female, found themselves at the centre of an orgy of brutality and mass hysteria, especially if the victim were a molly."[7][8] The Act was repealed by section 1 of the Offences against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo.4 c.31) and by section 125 of the Criminal Law (India) Act 1828 (c.74). It was replaced by section 15 of the Offences against the Person Act 1828, and section 63 of the Criminal Law (India) Act 1828, which provided that buggery would continue to be a capital offence. Buggery remained a capital offence in England and Wales until the enactment of the Offences against the Person Act 1861;[9] the last execution for the crime took place in 1836.[10] The United Kingdom Parliament repealed buggery laws for England and Wales in 1967 (in so far as they related to consensual homosexual acts in private), ten years after the Wolfenden report. Legal statutes in many former colonies have retained them, such as in the Anglophone Caribbean. |
| catqueen 17.01.2012 16:54 |
Micrówave wrote:It is no worse when US Marines do it -- i didn't see anyone suggesting that it was. However, the USA is a western democracy, and extremely powerful. What the US does tends to be held up as the benchmark for 'acceptable,' (obviously foreign policy aside) or at least the western norm. It is no worse but also no better when US Marines carry out atrocities. Although, the US army is highly trained, and very powerful, so one could think that they should be at least somewhat ethical in their combat.ParisNair wrote: Abuse of enemy soldiers, no matter whether caught dead or alive, is definitely not happening for the first time. Like someone pointed out, what makes the difference now is that every body has a camera phone to capture the visual spectacle and then upload it straight away for the whole world to see. This wouldn't have been so easy even 4-5 years ago, right?India and its neighbours Pakistan have exchaged fire along the borders for the last 60 years, and on 3 occasions we have had full blown wars. It has been reported in the papers many times that when the bodies of the Indian dead soldiers is brought back home from Pak custody, they are often mutilated - fingers, eyes, genitals missing. A lot of times post mortem proves it was done after the person was dead. Who would do such a thing?Finally!!! {SATIRE ON} Yes, but these were US Marines so it's much worse when that happens {SATIRE OFF} Just wondered - what news station do you get your info from? Might i guess its fox news? |
| catqueen 17.01.2012 17:12 |
Micrówave wrote:Microwave -- don't you sit typing on a computer too? And imo, soldiers go into a role of 'inhuman killer' - how else would they manage to carry out their job? Or are you suggesting that they look at the people they are about to kill with compassion and a full recognition of the impact of the death they are about to cause? That they recognise that this random guy they are shooting has a family, that his wife may now starve because the family breadwinner is dead, that he will be in severe pain and die. And will never come back. I don't think they want soldiers to think like that. Thats why they train extensively. So that they can kill.he should compare the actions of the US government and US army with other Western democracies like Europe or Australia and ask himself if these states have camps like Gunatanamo with no citizen rights, if they have the death penalty, deprive their citizens of basic rights with laws like the Patriot ActOk. Nazi Germany. They had camps... but compared to Guantanamo, they were summer camps. Death penalty? Well being cooked to death doesn't really count as a death penalty... more like a bonus. And the German citizens who were Jewish didn't have to deal with something as idiotic as the Patriot Act... they were just separated from their familes never to see them again... they weren't spied on!!! Calm down, TQ... this is what we call "satire".send drones into other countries to kill people - among them a 16 year old American citizen like recently happened to the son of (also murdered) Anwar al-Awlaki.Soon after a 2002 warrant was canceled (lack of physical evidence), Awlaki left the United States for good, settling in Yemen. Since his escape, Awlaki, now considered by intelligence officials to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, has been implicated as the spiritual inspiration for terror plots in Canada and the U.S., and was in e-mail contact with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with 13 counts of murder in the recent mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. After 9/11, however, terror investigators took a fresh look at Awlaki. JTTF agents in San Diego were keenly interested in Awlaki's activities because of his close ties to hijackers Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar. Authorities say the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men, leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor and had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Alwaki moved to a Northern Virginia mosque in early 2001, Alhamzi had visited him there too, along with a third future hijacker, Hani Hanjour. I don't have much compassion for Awlaki or his "son". Do you? He doesn't sound like a real nice man.Acts like these totally remove the the feeling for decency and legality in a "war" that does not respect any international law at all. To even claim that these soldiers "serve their country" is a language that would make George Orwell jealous.Maybe for some... but I think we would have had more 9/11 type attacks here and abroad if the United States did not take the steps that they have. It has saved a lot of lives since. Sure, I can tell you plenty of things wrong with the Patriot Act. But I can tell you some good points, too! There's always a price to pay for security.Those soldiers DO serve their country. Just like your country's armed forces serve. A few bad apples doesn't make the whole tree. It's insulting to suggest that all US Soldiers (or any other armed services) are inhuman killers. 99% of the time, they follow orders. Orders that you and I never see. But when you sit in your air-conditioned home typing on your $3000 Apple computer eating bon-bons, just remember that some soldier has been living in mud for 13 months following orders. But that wasn't why i started to reply -- you are comparing contemporary USA with Nazi Germany. Were you trying to suggest that it is ok for contemporary democracies to carry out genocide? Or that if a dictator in Europe initiated something 70 years ago that it was or is ok to do it? People rape and kill every day in non-wartime situations too, does that make it justified? (Well, so-and-so did it, so i can too, its no worse for me to do it then for him to do it.) That seems to be your argument. Also, have you done ANY research on human rights? The UN Convention on Human Rights was AFTER WW2. The whole contemporary human rights movement was AFTER WW2. WW2 started off the whole discourse around human rights. The atrocities were so horrific that it got to where a group of nations decided to formally ratify something that was supposed to help prevent similar things from happening. I asked what news you watch -- i now have no doubt that it is Fox. Did you know that research carried out by the Program on International Policy in 2003 demonstrated that FoxNews viewers had far higher rates of misconceptions regarding various world issues (eg war in iraq, etc). There is also a higher level of resistance to the UN among FoxNews viewers then among viewers of other news channels. I know that no station is completely unbiased, all news is someone's perspective on news, but it seems to have a much stronger twist on information then other news reports. Please understand though -- people are not just 'US bashers.' You can disagree with a country's foreign policy without bashing the country. I have a lot of american friends, and american family, but i strongly disagree with american foreign policy. I disagree with Pakistani policy too, but i'm also not a 'Pakistani basher.' Just because someone disagrees, or because someone makes an ethical judgement doesn't mean they are attacking your nation. And it isn't a personal attack. Your dad was in Vietnam -- a lot of people INCLUDING a lot of Vietnam soldiers, and a lot of US citizens did not agree with the Vietnam war. It is not a disrespect to the individuals in that war, even tho atrocities were committed (as, i'm sure you will point out, there were in all wars). The individual soldiers were acting as they were expected to act, they were products of their culture and training, and that's what happens. But people hope -- perhaps naively -- that we will one day learn to respect the humanity of others, and at least respect the bodies, not celebrating killing. Ok rant over :) |
| Saint Jiub 17.01.2012 17:15 |
I see the Tuscany cruise ship disaster has lesser importance on Queenzone than 4 US Marines pissing on a few already dead husks. I find it absolutely shocking that European men on board (more than four?) pushed past terrified women and children to get to the lifeboats first. link |
| catqueen 17.01.2012 17:16 |
... After 9/11, however, terror investigators took a fresh look at Awlaki. JTTF agents in San Diego were keenly interested in Awlaki's activities because of his close ties to hijackers Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar. Authorities say the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men, leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor and had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Alwaki moved to a Northern Virginia mosque in early 2001, Alhamzi had visited him there too, along with a third future hijacker, Hani Hanjour. I don't have much compassion for Awlaki or his "son". Do you? He doesn't sound like a real nice man.Acts like these totally remove the the feeling for decency and legality in a "war" that does not respect any international law at all. To even claim that these soldiers "serve their country" is a language that would make George Orwell jealous.Maybe for some... but I think we would have had more 9/11 type attacks here and abroad if the United States did not take the steps that they have. It has saved a lot of lives since. Sure, I can tell you plenty of things wrong with the Patriot Act. But I can tell you some good points, too! There's always a price to pay for security.Those soldiers DO serve their country. Just like your country's armed forces serve. Oh -- and terrorist acts are not really 'war' as such -- it was not politically sanctioned by a nation. Maybe my definition of war is off, but i would think to be a 'war' it would have to be politically sanctioned, right? No matter what a small group of fundamentalists call it. It was an attack, not a war. There were bombings in Britain and in Spain, terrorist attacks - yet neither of them was considered 'war,' they were considered terrorist attacks. And while we are talking about prior knowledge of 9/11, there are those who argue that the US had prior knowledge which was ignored. |
| Amazon 17.01.2012 20:46 |
Panchgani wrote: "I see the Tuscany cruise ship disaster has lesser importance on Queenzone than 4 US Marines pissing on a few already dead husks." Oh, please. If it shocks you so much, then start a new topic. This topic is about the US Marines pissing on dead bodies. Panchgani, a great thing about QZ is that you can start new topics. Why don't you do that instead of criticizing others for not talking about what you think should be talked about? |
| GratefulFan 17.01.2012 23:14 |
Just in: 67% of Fox News viewers believe Afghans were on fire. Hail Marines as heroes. :P |
| Amazon 17.01.2012 23:57 |
Only 67%? |
| john bodega 18.01.2012 05:35 |
The cruise ship 'disaster' is the most hilarious thing to happen at sea in decades. I'm still reeling from the amusement value. The latest rib-tickler would have to be the audio tape of Captain "I'll Co-ordinate From Over Here" Duce. The cruise ship industry is a joke, and the punchline is your safety and wellbeing. Anyone who gets on one of these ships should anticipate that misadventure is just part of the ticket price. As for the suckers who died - I think we should be pissing on them, too. |
| Holly2003 18.01.2012 05:52 |
I wonder will these American troops be able to turn off all that aggression when they return to the USA? Studies of the war in the Pacific (1942-45) suggest there's a correlation between intensity of combat and the propensity to commit war crimes. Like it or not, every human being has the capacity to do things like this in extreme circumstances. However, there are cultural differences between countries that make some armies more likely to do these things than others. And, frankly, the US is a violent nation and it's unsurprising that US troops feature here. (Warning to idiots: read that carefully before replying!) The nature and behaviour of the enemies is also a factor: the more they differ from eachother (race, religion etc) the easier it is to dehumanise them and more likely there is to be war crimes. But, I repeat, in certain circumstances ALL armies are capable of war crimes. Except maybe the Danes: too many hippies in their military ... |
| GratefulFan 18.01.2012 06:41 |
Amazon wrote: Only 67%? There was ANOTHER survey released late year that purported to show that Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed than people who didn't watch any news at all. However, unsurprisingly, MSNBC viewers were not far behind and in fact fared worse on the area of the survey about the Occupy movement. It's less right wing news that is the problem than it is ideological news in general I think. The format frequently devolves into yelling and talking over each other, reductio ad absurdum and snark and moral outrage as device. In fact, of the two I think I dislike MSNBC more. Fox I just shake my head at, but there's an inherent smugness on MSNBC that actively irritates me. |
| GratefulFan 18.01.2012 07:13 |
Holly2003 wrote: I wonder will these American troops be able to turn off all that aggression when they return to the USA? Studies of the war in the Pacific (1942-45) suggest there's a correlation between intensity of combat and the propensity to commit war crimes. Like it or not, every human being has the capacity to do things like this in extreme circumstances. However, there are cultural differences between countries that make some armies more likely to do these things than others. And, frankly, the US is a violent nation and it's unsurprising that US troops feature here. (Warning to idiots: read that carefully before replying!) The nature and behaviour of the enemies is also a factor: the more they differ from eachother (race, religion etc) the easier it is to dehumanise them and more likely there is to be war crimes. But, I repeat, in certain circumstances ALL armies are capable of war crimes. Except maybe the Danes: too many hippies in their military ... Oddly coincident to your initial point is a 23 year old ex marine and Iraq vet who was just arrested in California for a string of serial killings involving the stabbing deaths of homeless men. Extreme example and of course unknown what if any effect his Military service may have had, but thought I would mention it. There is some indication that he was kicked out of the Military, which may men that he was a screwball to begin with, but I wondered as well if a sudden and ignominious exit would undermine normal transition back to civilian life and civilian expectations. I found your point about the nature and behaviour of the enemy, differences etc. interesting. In the video of the Marine incident there is a brief view of one of the dead men's long, narrow bare feet. I had what I thought was an odd gut response to that small and seemingly irrelevant thing - I thought there was something about that man's foreign and exotic feet, bare rather than shod in something suitable for fighting, that would enrage or disgust those Marines. I dismissed it as kind of a silly and perhaps melodramatic thought, but maybe not. |
| YourValentine 18.01.2012 07:54 |
Micrówave wrote:
Soon after a 2002 warrant was canceled (lack of physical evidence), Awlaki left the United States for good, settling in Yemen. Since his escape, Awlaki, now considered by intelligence officials to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, has been implicated as the spiritual inspiration for terror plots in Canada and the U.S., and was in e-mail contact with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with 13 counts of murder in the recent mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
After 9/11, however, terror investigators took a fresh look at Awlaki. JTTF agents in San Diego were keenly interested in Awlaki's activities because of his close ties to hijackers Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar. Authorities say the two hijackers had attended the Awlaki-led Rabat mosque in San Diego and the imam had numerous closed door meetings with the men, leading investigators to believe that Awlaki was their spiritual advisor and had known about the 9/11 attacks in advance. When Alwaki moved to a Northern Virginia mosque in early 2001, Alhamzi had visited him there too, along with a third future hijacker, Hani Hanjour.
I don't have much compassion for Awlaki or his "son". Do you? He doesn't sound like a real nice man.
I can only hope for you or your "son" that no "investigators" or "authorities" ever "believe", "implicate" or consider" that you can be connected to people who committed crimes. Let alone you emailed such people or visited the same church. Because if they ever consider, implicate or believe such a thing they have every right - according to your logic - to kill you with a remote-controlled weapon. Yes - exactly such things happened in Nazi-Germany (except for the remote-controlled waepon), I hope that makes you feel more justified. |
| john bodega 18.01.2012 08:36 |
"stabbing deaths of homeless men" Victimless crime. |
| GratefulFan 18.01.2012 09:09 |
Holy crap Zebonka. Which US service member intervened with your cornflakes this morning? |
| GratefulFan 18.01.2012 15:34 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The cruise ship 'disaster' is the most hilarious thing to happen at sea in decades. I'm still reeling from the amusement value. The latest rib-tickler would have to be the audio tape of Captain "I'll Co-ordinate From Over Here" Duce. Oh. My. I, uh, hope you're bolted to something because there's reeling and then there's reeling. |
| john bodega 20.01.2012 01:35 |
The man is actually my hero. |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.01.2012 09:20 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "stabbing deaths of homeless men" Victimless crime.So I guess that by your standards, if I massacre a whole bunch of marginal people, I'm only guilty of littering? |
| john bodega 20.01.2012 10:29 |
I think that a lot of public art qualifies as either tasteless vandalism or outright garbage. So, if you could organise your homeless corpses into some kind of thematic configuration, you might get away with just saying it's a work of art. Hell, you might even get a grant! |
| Micrówave 20.01.2012 15:06 |
I can only hope for you or your "son" that no "investigators" or "authorities" ever "believe", "implicate" or consider" that you can be connected to people who committed crimes. Let alone you emailed such people or visited the same church. Because if they ever consider, implicate or believe such a thing they have every right - according to your logic - to kill you with a remote-controlled weapon.Ok... this is getting out of hand. My logic says they have the right? I approve of urinating on corpses? Did you even read my posts? Just where did I say this? Because I am fond of having both points-of-view before asserting my opinion (WHICH SOME OF YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT!!! TQ, YV, etc) Are you sure that you guys don't work for FOX NEWS? |
| catqueen 20.01.2012 18:06 |
Micrówave wrote:Microwave, if you reread your original message from which this was quoted you might be able to see how people got this impression. It may not have been what you intended to say, but there was a strong implication that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son was justified on the basis that there was some unproven suspicion surrounding them. If it is justified to kill one US citizen on suspicion, it is therefore logical that ANY US citizen (and their sons) may be killed on unproven suspicion. Your Valentine was simply pointing out that that logic must apply to ALL US citizens if it applies to one. Therefore, she simply was saying that you believe that if the US government 'believes' that you might be involved in something (by your logic in justifying the officially sanctioned killing of Anwar al-Awlaki), they would be justified in officially killing you and your son. It wasn't meant as an attack on you, from what i could see, it was just taking your argument to its logical end.I can only hope for you or your "son" that no "investigators" or "authorities" ever "believe", "implicate" or consider" that you can be connected to people who committed crimes. Let alone you emailed such people or visited the same church. Because if they ever consider, implicate or believe such a thing they have every right - according to your logic - to kill you with a remote-controlled weapon.Ok... this is getting out of hand. My logic says they have the right? I approve of urinating on corpses? Did you even read my posts? Just where did I say this? Because I am fond of having both points-of-view before asserting my opinion (WHICH SOME OF YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT!!! TQ, YV, etc) Are you sure that you guys don't work for FOX NEWS? (If you can't find the post, its the same one where you ('satirically') compared the actions of the US army to acts of torture and genocide in the 1940s. Somehow that isn't the way the US army generally likes to be portrayed. And for pete's sake -- compare how many US soldiers and citizens have been killed in the 'War on Terror' with how many Iraqi, Afgan, etc soldiers and citizens have been killed. I know invading armies tend to be brutal. But invading armies also don't typically put themselves forth as saviours of the world either.) |
| catqueen 20.01.2012 18:09 |
Are you sure that you guys don't work for FOX NEWS? Actually, that kind of attack is typical of FoxNews reporters, at least from the little i have seen of it. If you can't answer the argument ATTACK THE PERSON! |
| -fatty- 2850 20.01.2012 18:39 |
What was that about bum rape being legal in the UK? fatty. |
| catqueen 21.01.2012 05:31 |
-fatty- 2850 wrote: What was that about bum rape being legal in the UK? fatty.I finally read that post -- it seems to be an act from the 1500s, when homosexuality was illegal... it was then repealed... it actually says nothing about rape, so i don't really get the connection between legalising consensual sex between people of the same sex and saying 'rape is ok.' I tried to understand the connection, but i can't make it... What i finally figured out (on my third reading of his post) is that maybe Microwave thinks that the term 'buggery' means male rape? Not sure, but that's the only way that that post makes any sense. |
| Micrówave 23.01.2012 17:56 |
No, catqueen, I was employing a commonly used theme used quite frequently in this thread. Buggery means Male Rape just the same as I was all for peeing on corpses. You've got to read into the threads, not take them at their literal word. |
| catqueen 24.01.2012 08:45 |
Micrówave wrote: No, catqueen, I was employing a commonly used theme used quite frequently in this thread. Buggery means Male Rape just the same as I was all for peeing on corpses. You've got to read into the threads, not take them at their literal word.Buggery does *not* mean male rape in the UK. It is often used synonymously with the term male rape, but it means anal sex. It is also sometimes used to mean sex with animals also. At least, when working with sex offenders came up in college, my class was told that that is what that term means here when it is used in legal documents. PPl use the term colloquially for rape, but it actually isn't just referring to rape. Maybe in the US the word is used differently tho. Sorry, idk why i'm getting so worked up about it tho lol. |
| catqueen 24.01.2012 08:49 |
Micrówave wrote: No, catqueen, I was employing a commonly used theme used quite frequently in this thread. Buggery means Male Rape just the same as I was all for peeing on corpses. You've got to read into the threads, not take them at their literal word.OH!!! Now i get what you meant by that post! You were meaning that people thinking that buggery meant rape is the same as people thinking that when you didn't condemn peeing on corpses! I don't think its the same, but i think i see where you were trying to go with it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.01.2012 10:05 |
Buggery does not mean "anal sex", it's a slang term for "sodomy". Nowadays, the two things have come to mean the same thing, but in the past, "sodomy" meant all sexual acts "against nature", i.e. anything other than straight up vaginal penetration sex, though usually masturbation was seen as a separate sin. In common parlance, it was highly unusual to refer to heterosexual behaviour of any kind as "sodomy", though technically it might've been that, because that latter term was considered a heinous crime, rather than an illicit vice. |
| catqueen 24.01.2012 10:50 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Buggery does not mean "anal sex", it's a slang term for "sodomy". Nowadays, the two things have come to mean the same thing, but in the past, "sodomy" meant all sexual acts "against nature", i.e. anything other than straight up vaginal penetration sex, though usually masturbation was seen as a separate sin. In common parlance, it was highly unusual to refer to heterosexual behaviour of any kind as "sodomy", though technically it might've been that, because that latter term was considered a heinous crime, rather than an illicit vice.Thanks -- it usually does mean what i said tho. I said it includes involving animals, but should have added 'or other blah blah blah,' but just... didn't... And me trying for precision and all that... oops... i did know it meant more tho, just i was answering that it doesn't mean rape. And i rly need to calm the heck down lol. |
| YourValentine 25.01.2012 02:38 |
Thank you, catqueen, for explaining my post - I thought it was obvious:-) Sometimes I think it is not my lack of English language - it is the lack of reading and understanding my posts. I even marked the words I was referring to in bold letters but it did not help... |
| inu-liger 25.01.2012 03:24 |
What do you expect from these hardcore right-winger Republicans, YV? "Understanding" doesn't even exist in their practical dictionary! |
| -fatty- 2850 25.01.2012 05:27 |
Having been away from the boards for a while, it fills my heart with joy to see that some things haven't changed. Where else but on Queenzone can a thread concerning the ethical merits of pissing on a cadaver be diverted to the legal definition of dirty bum sex. I fucking love this place. fatty. |