Full Version: "US soldiers burnt bodies of dead Taliban"
I have only been able to find a reference to this story from an Australian source:
Link
To be debated:
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
Link
QUOTE
US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions.
To be debated:
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
Here's another link: Afghan Bodies Burned
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
I think it is probably both accurate and anti-American. But then, if the soldiers hadn't done it, it could not be used against them as anti-American propaganda.
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
It was intended to incense the enemy, and it was effective. Tying ham bones around the necks of the dead would have done the same thing. While I do not condone the desecration of corpses (and that is what it amounts to for Muslims), I haven't had to bury any dead bodies, let alone those of an enemy, in the hard, packed-down sand of Afghanistan. It was probably easier to burn the bodies, especially when the soldiers knew that it would enrage their still-living and still-dangerous comrades.
The problem is that it does ratchet up the probability of violence when it is our troops shot during a battle, and we're talking about enemies who get knife-happy without much provocation.
QUOTE(New Hampshire Union Leader)
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Islamic clerics expressed outrage Thursday at television footage that purportedly shows U.S. soldiers burning the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters to taunt other militants and warned of a possible violent anti-American backlash.
President Hamid Karzai condemned the alleged desecration and ordered an inquiry. The operational commander of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, which launched its own criminal probe, said the alleged act, if true, was "repugnant."
Worried about the potential for anti-American feelings over the incident, the State Department said it instructed U.S. embassies around the globe to tell local governments that the reported abuse did not reflect American values.
President Hamid Karzai condemned the alleged desecration and ordered an inquiry. The operational commander of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, which launched its own criminal probe, said the alleged act, if true, was "repugnant."
Worried about the potential for anti-American feelings over the incident, the State Department said it instructed U.S. embassies around the globe to tell local governments that the reported abuse did not reflect American values.
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
I think it is probably both accurate and anti-American. But then, if the soldiers hadn't done it, it could not be used against them as anti-American propaganda.
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
It was intended to incense the enemy, and it was effective. Tying ham bones around the necks of the dead would have done the same thing. While I do not condone the desecration of corpses (and that is what it amounts to for Muslims), I haven't had to bury any dead bodies, let alone those of an enemy, in the hard, packed-down sand of Afghanistan. It was probably easier to burn the bodies, especially when the soldiers knew that it would enrage their still-living and still-dangerous comrades.
The problem is that it does ratchet up the probability of violence when it is our troops shot during a battle, and we're talking about enemies who get knife-happy without much provocation.
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
I saw the video of this incident on ::gasp:: FOX News yesterday. It's available on the FOX News website in their free video area. Reportedly this video was shot by an Austrailian free lance journalist embedded with the 82nd Airborne.
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
No, and according to the report, the US Military isn't happy about this at all. They've opened a criminal investigation into it.
I know what those troops were trying to do and that was to goad the Taliban fighters that were still hiding in the hills into engaging them. But, I think they stepped way over the line with this one.
I saw the video of this incident on ::gasp:: FOX News yesterday. It's available on the FOX News website in their free video area. Reportedly this video was shot by an Austrailian free lance journalist embedded with the 82nd Airborne.
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
No, and according to the report, the US Military isn't happy about this at all. They've opened a criminal investigation into it.
I know what those troops were trying to do and that was to goad the Taliban fighters that were still hiding in the hills into engaging them. But, I think they stepped way over the line with this one.
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
This morning I saw the video, bodies were blurred out, but clearly one could see several men in US Uniforms burning the bodies. It was mentioned in the story that the burning of the bodies was against the Muslim religion and was used to taunt the insurgents from hiding.
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
Yes. Same as Washington cross the Delaware on Christmas, psychological warfare is apart of warfare. I mean we drive really big tanks with really big guns to scare really bad people from fighting.
This morning I saw the video, bodies were blurred out, but clearly one could see several men in US Uniforms burning the bodies. It was mentioned in the story that the burning of the bodies was against the Muslim religion and was used to taunt the insurgents from hiding.
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
Yes. Same as Washington cross the Delaware on Christmas, psychological warfare is apart of warfare. I mean we drive really big tanks with really big guns to scare really bad people from fighting.
I realize that I didn't really answer the question, "Are the actions justified?"
If our troops are out to "win the hearts and minds" of the Muslim populace over to our way of thinking, the answer is an emphatic and incredulous "NO". In terms of an old cliche, this is biting off your nose to spite your face, and there will be hell to pay on the part of some soldiers somewhere as a result of the Muslim outrage at this attempt to draw out the enemy by desecrating the corpses of their comrades.
In terms of their short-term goal--to goad the enemy into coming out of hiding and fighting--we'd have to ask the soldiers there to see if anyone got angry enough to come out and fight them. Unfortunately, with this kind of tactic, it is quite possible for the retribution to come in the form of a knife in the back from a villager who hadn't seen fit to take up the Taliban cause until this incident.
If our troops are out to "win the hearts and minds" of the Muslim populace over to our way of thinking, the answer is an emphatic and incredulous "NO". In terms of an old cliche, this is biting off your nose to spite your face, and there will be hell to pay on the part of some soldiers somewhere as a result of the Muslim outrage at this attempt to draw out the enemy by desecrating the corpses of their comrades.
In terms of their short-term goal--to goad the enemy into coming out of hiding and fighting--we'd have to ask the soldiers there to see if anyone got angry enough to come out and fight them. Unfortunately, with this kind of tactic, it is quite possible for the retribution to come in the form of a knife in the back from a villager who hadn't seen fit to take up the Taliban cause until this incident.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 21 2005, 03:44 PM)
In terms of their short-term goal--to goad the enemy into coming out of hiding and fighting--we'd have to ask the soldiers there to see if anyone got angry enough to come out and fight them.
The tactic is not neccessarily to goad the Taliban fighters from hiding. What operations like these are designed to do is shame the combatants in plain view of the sympathetic (or imtimadated) villagers below as well as disposing of the bodies. It shows the village where power is held. The fact that no fighters came forth makes the tactic more effective - not less.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 21 2005, 03:44 PM)
Unfortunately, with this kind of tactic, it is quite possible for the retribution to come in the form of a knife in the back from a villager who hadn't seen fit to take up the Taliban cause until this incident.
Maybe next invasion we will send the Bay Area League of Multiculturalists as the tip of the spear. For this venture, we have the United States Army. The village was told to collect the bodies for disposal. They refused.
QUOTE(Cylinder @ Oct 22 2005, 07:17 AM)
The tactic is not neccessarily to goad the Taliban fighters from hiding. What operations like these are designed to do is shame the combatants in plain view of the sympathetic (or imtimadated) villagers below as well as disposing of the bodies. It shows the village where power is held. The fact that no fighters came forth makes the tactic more effective - not less.
This hadn't occurred to me. I suppose the image of Somalians dragging the body of a US soldier through the streets served a similar purpose for those Somalians.
QUOTE
Maybe next invasion we will send the Bay Area League of Multiculturalists as the tip of the spear. For this venture, we have the United States Army. The village was told to collect the bodies for disposal. They refused.
Hmm... The fact that a much larger segment of the Islamic population than just the Taliban are upset at these images would indicate to me that this tactic backfired. It shouldn't take a member of BALM (I've never heard of them until your post, BTW) to take this into consideration. If the "accidental splashing of urine" on the Koran can cause an uproar, don't you think treatment of the dead would be problematic?
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
I think it's an accurate report. I don't know if its anti-American or not. Does accuracy not equal pro-American?
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
I doubt it. I believe the Geneva Conventions have something to say about the treatment of the dead. But, perhaps, some legal scholars can commit on this?
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Oct 21 2005, 01:15 AM)
1. Do you think this is an accurate report, or is it an example of anti-American reporting?
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
2. If true, are such actions justified as an act of psychological warfare?
1. The report is accurate and the only thing "anti-American" about this disgusting incident is the abusing of the corpses and the retalitory acts of revenge that will be spurred against our forces. Actions have consequences and those that would try to excuse this atrocious behavior are not the ones who will suffer those consequences.
2. In words of one syllable: NO. Was it justified when the bodies of U.S. contractors were burnt and hung from a bridge several months ago in Iraq? Was it justified to be able to go online and watch the beheading of Daniel Pearl? Was it justified to see dead American soldiers stripped to their underwear and dragged through the streets in Somalia?
Trying to answer evil by committing evil is ludicrous.
We should acknowledge the wisdom of Senator John McCain. McCain inserted an amendment to the $440 bilion Defense Appropriations bill that would prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" punishment of anyone being held in custody by the U.S. government—including detainees. The amendment passed 90-9 with 46 Republicans (!) blowing off the Bush Administration which said the amendment would tie the President's hands in fighting the war on terrorism.
Former combat pilot John McCain was often tortured during his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Because his father was an admiral, he was offered earlier release by his captors but refused to be freed before prisoners who had been held longer.
During the Senate debate on his amendment, McCain cited the letter he had received from Captain Ian Fishback (whom he later met), and also recalled his years in a North Vietnamese cell:
"Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us—every single one of us—knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies." (emphasis added)
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0542,hentoff,68920,6.html
Updates:
It seems to me that that the burning of these two bodies has less to do with the taunting of the Taliban and more to do with disposing of the body. If you take the Lt. at his word, I understand that they attempted to ask the village leaders to dispose of the bodies properly and that after refusal they had to dispose of the bodies themselves. It might be my own ignorance of the Muslim faith, but why wouldn't the clerics of the local village dispose of the bodies? Maybe it had something to do with the cause they were fighting for, or a question of the faith of the individuals.
I think to the tight spot the Lt. is placed in. He must dispose of the bodies, unfortunately, his local cleric refuse to do it, so he does the next best thing. What other options does he have? He is not a muslim cleric, he cannot preform the ritual. He could not carry the bodies to someone who could and the village, (where there was someone who could preform the ritual) refuse do to anything. And let say that the Lt. does preform an accurate muslim burial, wouldn't he be in the wrong because he is not Muslim?
Though President Hamid Karzai is trying his best not to allow the outrage to spin madly, he offers no solution. I have no idea what other option the US Soliders had. This is what I would like explained. What alternative options could the US Soliders have done to better the situation?
As to the taunting, the only word that I have heard comes from Stephen Dupont, the photojournalist. Could this be his take, or an actual US policy?
Stench Prompted U.S. Troops to Burn Corpses
The desecration of Taliban dead prompts outrage in Afghanistan
The desecration of Taliban dead prompts outrage in Afghanistan
QUOTE(TIME - Online Edition)
Earlier, Lt. Eric Nelson, the leader of B Company, I-508 platoon leader had sent word down to Gonbaz asking the villagers to pick up the bodies and bury them according to Muslim ritual. But the villagers refused — probably because the dead fighters weren't locals but Pakistanis, surmised one U.S. army officer.
It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank." News of this cremation may have remained on these scorching hills of southern Afghanistan, had the gruesome act not been recorded on film by an Australian photojournalist, Stephen Dupont.
It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank." News of this cremation may have remained on these scorching hills of southern Afghanistan, had the gruesome act not been recorded on film by an Australian photojournalist, Stephen Dupont.
QUOTE(washingtonpost.com)
His apparent attempt to reduce Afghans' anger over the incident came amid warnings by Islamic clerics of a possible violent anti-American backlash.
"Sometimes things happen in these sort of operations, during war. Soldiers make mistakes," he told reporters in Kabul. "We are very grateful for the international community's assistance. ... Their soldiers have shed their blood in our country."
But he added, "We in Afghanistan in accordance with our religion ... are very unhappy and condemn the burning of the two Taliban dead bodies. I hope such incidents will not occur again."
"Sometimes things happen in these sort of operations, during war. Soldiers make mistakes," he told reporters in Kabul. "We are very grateful for the international community's assistance. ... Their soldiers have shed their blood in our country."
But he added, "We in Afghanistan in accordance with our religion ... are very unhappy and condemn the burning of the two Taliban dead bodies. I hope such incidents will not occur again."
It seems to me that that the burning of these two bodies has less to do with the taunting of the Taliban and more to do with disposing of the body. If you take the Lt. at his word, I understand that they attempted to ask the village leaders to dispose of the bodies properly and that after refusal they had to dispose of the bodies themselves. It might be my own ignorance of the Muslim faith, but why wouldn't the clerics of the local village dispose of the bodies? Maybe it had something to do with the cause they were fighting for, or a question of the faith of the individuals.
I think to the tight spot the Lt. is placed in. He must dispose of the bodies, unfortunately, his local cleric refuse to do it, so he does the next best thing. What other options does he have? He is not a muslim cleric, he cannot preform the ritual. He could not carry the bodies to someone who could and the village, (where there was someone who could preform the ritual) refuse do to anything. And let say that the Lt. does preform an accurate muslim burial, wouldn't he be in the wrong because he is not Muslim?
Though President Hamid Karzai is trying his best not to allow the outrage to spin madly, he offers no solution. I have no idea what other option the US Soliders had. This is what I would like explained. What alternative options could the US Soliders have done to better the situation?
As to the taunting, the only word that I have heard comes from Stephen Dupont, the photojournalist. Could this be his take, or an actual US policy?
1) Most likely, the report is true.
2) As someone already said, there may be reasons other than mere psychological warfare that explain the conduct in question. We would otherwise do well to know just what the circumstance was. Were the bodies going to be left exposed? How long was the US unit supposed to remain in the area? I ask that because the pertinent Geneva Convention allows for cremation under certain circumstances [one of which is imperative reasons of hygiene, or something like that] and Islam otherwise requires burial within 24 hours of death [to be preceded by a ritual washing and clothing of the deceased]. And not that it matters to us, at least in terms of our own morality, but I find the hypocrisy in the Muslim world rather sickening. Again, outrage for the burning of the two. But no outrage for taking our men and putting them on parade in Somalia [as it were]. And they expect me to believe that Osama, the Taliban, etc., are radical while they are not. Sorry, "friends", but your actions [and lack thereof], speak much, much louder than your words. Oh, sorry, one more. If the idea was to do something more than shame these people, then it was stupid. And by that I mean to say that given the Muslim custom, they would have been better off retreating to some hidden location [as it were] and waiting for the dead men's comrades to come and try to retrieve the bodies for burial. Of course, that too would have sparked outrage, but hey, we can't win this game, so why even try........
2) As someone already said, there may be reasons other than mere psychological warfare that explain the conduct in question. We would otherwise do well to know just what the circumstance was. Were the bodies going to be left exposed? How long was the US unit supposed to remain in the area? I ask that because the pertinent Geneva Convention allows for cremation under certain circumstances [one of which is imperative reasons of hygiene, or something like that] and Islam otherwise requires burial within 24 hours of death [to be preceded by a ritual washing and clothing of the deceased]. And not that it matters to us, at least in terms of our own morality, but I find the hypocrisy in the Muslim world rather sickening. Again, outrage for the burning of the two. But no outrage for taking our men and putting them on parade in Somalia [as it were]. And they expect me to believe that Osama, the Taliban, etc., are radical while they are not. Sorry, "friends", but your actions [and lack thereof], speak much, much louder than your words. Oh, sorry, one more. If the idea was to do something more than shame these people, then it was stupid. And by that I mean to say that given the Muslim custom, they would have been better off retreating to some hidden location [as it were] and waiting for the dead men's comrades to come and try to retrieve the bodies for burial. Of course, that too would have sparked outrage, but hey, we can't win this game, so why even try........
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.