How to think about p!$$!ng on the Taliban

[Turtle]

Just thought I'd add this little tidbit, since so many people apparently do not know about it. The Golden Rule is:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."


It is not, "Do unto others as others have done unto you," nor is it, "Do unto others before others do unto you," it's "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

In other words, treat people the way you want to be treated.

Those who do not fully understand and believe in the Golden Rule cannot claim with any validity or credibility to be a Christian. I'm sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, but you just can't. The entire New Testament is based on the Golden Rule. Half of the Ten Commandments are directly based on the Golden Rule. You cannot ignore the Golden Rule for revenge, or rationalize ignoring it because the other guy is really, really bad, and still claim to be a Christian. You either believe in Jesus and his teachings, or you don't. You either believe in the Golden Rule or you don't.

I cannot tell you how disheartening it is of those who profess to be Christians while at the same time so easily dismissing Christ's own words commanding the Golden Rule, the very foundation on which Christ lived his life. It's not merely run-o-the-mill hypocrisy, it goes way beyond that. It's an evil hypocrisy. There's a reason that the Golden Rule exists in every virtually religion and every ethical tradition, it's because the Golden Rule is also the foundation for basic human kindness and all things good.

 

[jrcase]

I feel sick after reading all of this anti American liberal garbage. It is amazing that people who probably never served their country in uniform can spew their limp wristed, liberal, self superior, unpatriotic, venom while at the same time enjoying the freedom that this nation offers. It just makes me sick.

And before anyone asks, yes I served in the United States Air Force.

 

[Turtle]

I've read the entire thread, cover to cover, and I haven't seen anything even remotely anti American, much less anything that would approach "limp wristed, liberal, self superior, unpatriotic, venom." What are you talking about? Surely you aren't suggesting that the US military can do not wrong, has never done wrong, and that whatever they do is always right simply by virtue of them being Americans in the military, and to suggest otherwise is somehow unpatriotic or anti American, are you?

 

[cheri1122]

How one treats those in a subordinate or less fortunate position is a clear and accurate portrayal of character, and the behavior of those soldiers makes Americans look arrogant, malicious, immature, and UGLY.
That makes me angry, because it's not the view of us we want people to have, and still, some justify it on the grounds that "they did it too".
As Turtle said: pointing to someone else's bad behavior doesn't justify one's own bad behavior.
And it's a lame excuse for hypocrisy.

 

[gospelriders]

turtle ,you got it right about the golden rule. i find this whole incident sad and somewhat strange. we have all this "outrage" over p##ng on them ,but don't care about the taking of human life. the whole idea of "rules of war" is absurd in concept anyway. the idea that you can somehow have proper conduct or make killing your fellow man in war more humane is just laughable and slightly depraved. it is also a poor attempt to humanely control an inhumane act.we do have to face the reality though that some members of "the religion of peace" will not stop trying to eliminate the "infidels" even if we pull every troop out of all countries and come home and build a giant wall around us. this whole conflict goes deeper than just politics,territory or oppression.

 

[dieseldiva]

How one treats those in a subordinate or less fortunate position is a clear and accurate portrayal of character, and the behavior of those soldiers makes Americans look arrogant, malicious, immature, and UGLY.
That makes me angry, because it's not the view of us we want people to have, and still, some justify it on the grounds that "they did it too".
As Turtle said: pointing to someone else's bad behavior doesn't justify one's own bad behavior.
And it's a lame excuse for hypocrisy.

I disagree. If we follow your theory then our whole nation could be judged by the standards of all of societies most hardened criminals and their actions. Would they not "represent" the country in entirety also? Extreme? Yes but it follows the same path.

I believe that people do things at war that they surely wouldn't consider doing as a civilian. I have not been to war, I cannot know but can only imagine what the pressures would be. I try to empathize rather than judge. I cannot imagine what I would do in those circumstances and I'd say that most here have no idea either.

Everyone that I've known that had a family member that served during WWll says that their loved one would never talk about the war. Don't you think the atrocities of war would be one of the reasons for that?

Maybe we should all ask ourselves how we would react to watching one of our friends killed by the enemy. Good grief, most of us here cannot stand to be confronted on issues without responding and in some cases, using anger. Do you really think you'd be able to just shrug off the actions of war without anger? If so then you're probably a bigger man/woman than I......or you're just not being honest with yourself.

 

[cheri1122]

I feel sick after reading all of this anti American liberal garbage. It is amazing that people who probably never served their country in uniform can spew their limp wristed, liberal, self superior, unpatriotic, venom while at the same time enjoying the freedom that this nation offers. It just makes me sick.

And before anyone asks, yes I served in the United States Air Force.

Wait - you served your country to protect and defend the freedoms American citizens enjoy, but you feel sick when they exercise those freedoms?
And you think THEY'RE the ones who are 'unpatriotic'?!

 

[Turtle]

I'm not sure what the "most hardened criminals" angle means. But in any case, as for reactions and actions of war, it really should be clarified as to what kind of war, and what kind of enemy, we're talking about. There are unjust wars and just wars, and they should not be confused. Nor should any and all wars that we are involved in automatically be labeled as a "just war" simply because we're in it.

A war of aggression, where one party acts aggressively towards another, and starts a war that further acts out that aggression, is almost never a just war (I use "almost" on the off chance that someone can cite an example of a "just war of aggression"). Far as I know, the only just wars are wars to defend against aggression. And in every single case of a war of aggression, the aggressor fails to live by the Golden Rule.

 

[RLENT]

Just trying to be fair and balanced.

JJ,

If I was making an effort to be something other than fair and balanced I would have edited it .... and have left that part out.

No doubt there's bad dudes over there - as there are in many, many places.

There's also no doubt that we're in a foreign land, fighting against folks who are not easily distinguished from the civilian population. We've been there for ten years (sound familiar ?)

People - other than combatants - are dying, at our hands.

If the tables were turned, and some foreign force were in our land, and our parents, spouses, or children were being (unjustly) killed, there's very little doubt that many here would take up arms and fight to expel them from our country ...

At some point one has to ask: what is the end game ... what's the ultimate goal ?

To restore peace and order .... through the use of violence and disorder ?

Kinda hard to see how that's gonna work out .... since what we're doing just generates more of what we are trying to get rid of ...... because of the manner in which we are going about it .....

We have done precisely what Bin Laden wanted us to do - engage in economically unsustainable military activities, which makes victims out of innocents - which then provides a continuing stream of new enemies ....

The following isn't directed at you personally (since I don't think it applies), but is just a general statement:

Sorry to have say it but Osama has no better ally than the militaristic, unthinking chest-thumper crowd here in the US - the folks who are unwilling (or incapable) to think any further than "Let's go kill 'em ...."

We have done for him, what he was never able to accomplish by himself .... recruit and build a world-wide army .....

It's time for wiser heads to prevail.

 

[cheri1122]

I disagree. If we follow your theory then our whole nation could be judged by the standards of all of societies most hardened criminals and their actions. Would they not "represent" the country in entirety also? Extreme? Yes but it follows the same path.

Hardened criminals are no more representative of Americans than any other group - except for the two most commonly encountered groups: tourists and soldiers. They represent the rest of us to most people in other countries.

I believe that people do things at war that they surely wouldn't consider doing as a civilian.

No argument there.

I have not been to war, I cannot know but can only imagine what the pressures would be. I try to empathize rather than judge. I cannot imagine what I would do in those circumstances and I'd say that most here have no idea either.

Agree with that too - I have no idea how I'd behave in their boots, either.

Everyone that I've known that had a family member that served during WWll says that their loved one would never talk about the war. Don't you think the atrocities of war would be one of the reasons for that?

Absolutely.

Maybe we should all ask ourselves how we would react to watching one of our friends killed by the enemy.

I probably wouldn't want to relive it by talking about it.

Good grief, most of us here cannot stand to be confronted on issues without responding and in some cases, using anger. Do you really think you'd be able to just shrug off the actions of war without anger?

"Without anger"? Not a chance - I'd be way past anger, no doubt.

What I'd hope for though, is the strength to remain in control, and not behave as if there are NO rules, like war excuses any and all atrocities, mine included.
It's like the outrage we feel when learning of a particularly atrocious crime at home, like the killing of a child: we want to form a mob and lynch the perpetrator, and that's a normal, human reaction. The difference is that civilized people don't DO it, no matter how strong the impulse, because we know it's wrong.

If so then you're probably a bigger man/woman than I......or you're just not being honest with yourself.

I understand the desire to 'celebrate victory' - but I refuse to agree that the public display of crude disrespect is acceptable, no matter how emotional the circumstances.
And I'm honest enough to admit that I might behave in ways that don't meet those standards, sometimes, too. But I hope I wouldn't attempt to pretend otherwise, if I did something I know is wrong, because that just makes it worse.

 

[greg334]

I kind of get offended by some of the rhetoric, especially when no one sees the real issues.

The first thing that comes to mind is that this isn't a war, it is an occupation of a country where there was no war declared and before any one starts with the 9/11 jusdtification, it is a lost argument at this point in time. The problem is after ten years, we have not even approached the progress we made in fighting the Japanese by late 1942. Pretty sad

This goes hand in hand with the second point, OUR military is setup to be used as a defensive force only for the defense of OUR country - not the rest of the world.

To expect these things not to take place within the context of "defending" our rights is as ludicrous as expecting OUR county to be safe from any acts of terrorism.

Point in case is this issue, we are hearing how the "order" of the day is to respect the dead while trying to fight a war is something that shows me that we should not even put them in the position of following a dumb orders in the first place by using the military for things other than a clear defense that would require all out war where the dead don't matter.

 

[jaminjim]

Sorry Greg, its a war. You may not consider it a war, but the grunts on the ground surely thinks it is. It may not be a 'war' in the classical sense, but its a war. Stop on by the local VA Hospital and see if you can see any youngsters that look like they were in a war. Anytime there are bombs blowing up and bullets flying around, thats a war.

 

[greg334]

Sorry Jim but we stopped fighting a war a while back. No matter how one wants to say it is, we are fighting an enemy who is part of the population and now nearly impossible to stop. No disrespect to those who are over there/here and I know all too well what the outcome has been but it isn't their decision or input we need to consider when we make the decision to move our troops out; thats part of the problem when we when we don't understand he difference between a defensive engagement and an offensive one.

Needless to say that if we are expecting to fight for our country then it has to be in the context of a real war with real goals and a vision that guides us to stopping an enemy that has directly attacked us - something we haven't had in the last 50 years.

 

[RLENT]

Sorry Greg, its a war. You may not consider it a war, but the grunts on the ground surely thinks it is. It may not be a 'war' in the classical sense, but its a war.

One can call it by whatever one wants - war, armed conflict, insurgency, military policing action, whatever .....

At the end of the day, all quibbling on nomenclature aside, it just doesn't really matter ... the result is still the same - an inherently "un-winnable" conflict which does nothing but:

1. waste our nation's youth in a vain, ineffective attempt at "getting rid of the problem" which ties into the next point:

2. creates more enemies than what we are getting rid of, and

3. I would say "bleed the national treasury dry" - but I can't, since we've long ago passed that point ..... now it's just a matter of how much debt we want to - or (more accurately) will be allowed to pile up, in our continuing, relentless quest for national suicide ....

Stop on by the local VA Hospital and see if you can see any youngsters that look like they were in a war. Anytime there are bombs blowing up and bullets flying around, thats a war.

Yes ..... but at what point will that be "enough" ?

2x the deaths of 911 ? (we're already there ....)

4x ?

8x ?

More ?

 

[RLENT]

Actions have consequences - in this case the needless loss of four human lives:

Afghan soldier 'killed French troops over US abuse video'

By Lawrence Bartlett (AFP) – 1 day ago

KABUL — An Afghan soldier who shot dead four French troops has said he did it because of a recent video showing US Marines urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban insurgents, security sources told AFP.

The attack on the soldiers, who were unarmed, came on Friday at a base in eastern Afghanistan and left 15 other French troops wounded, eight of them seriously.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reacted angrily, threatening to pull his forces out of Afghanistan ahead of the 2014 deadline for all US-led coalition combat troops, and dispatched Defence Minister Gerard Longuet to Kabul.

That started a round of claim and counter claim over who was responsible for the attack, with Longuet saying he was told the killer was a Taliban infiltrator in the ranks of the Afghan army.

The Taliban, usually quick to claim coalition deaths, said they were still investigating and suggested some of the many attacks by Afghan soldiers on their foreign counterparts were prompted by anger towards the "invading enemy".

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in a statement after a meeting with Longuet, failed to echo his accusation against the Taliban and also played down the idea of Afghan resentment of foreign troops.

"The attack against French forces by an Afghan army soldier does not represent the anger of Afghan people but it is just an isolated and individual action," he said.

The story emerging from the interrogation of the soldier arrested for the killings -- named as 21-year-old Abdul Mansour -- would support Karzai's interpretation.

"During the initial interrogations by French soldiers, he told them he did it because of the video in which American soldiers were urinating on bodies," an Afghan army officer told AFP.

That report was backed by an intelligence source and another with access to information from the Afghan ministry of defence, both of whom requested anonymity.

The intelligence source said the soldier told interrogators he had no direct contacts with the Taliban.

The Afghan soldier had also referred to a video showing British soldiers allegedly abusing Afghan children, the ministry of defence source said.

Less than a week after news of the US Marines video broke, British military police arrested two servicemen over allegations that they abused an Afghan boy and a girl, both aged about 10, and filmed the incidents.

The US video, posted online this month, showed four US soldiers urinating on three bloodied corpses, and one of the men, apparently aware he was being filmed, saying: "Have a great day, buddy," referring to one of the dead.

The images conjured up previous abuses committed by US troops during the decade-long war against Taliban insurgents and top US officials scrambled to condemn the soldiers.

Told that AFP was about to run reports of the Afghan soldier's alleged confession, a spokesman for the US embassy in Kabul, Gavin Sundwall, said: "Our deepest condolences go out to France and the families of the soldiers who lost their lives in this tragic incident."

The actions in the video "violate the core values of both our societies", he added.

The bodies of the four French soldiers were flown back to Paris late Sunday, accompanied by French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet.

Sarkozy sent his defence minister to Afghanistan after the attack to evaluate ways to improve the security of the French troops who are training up the Afghan army.

A spokesperson for the British embassy in Kabul said an investigation into the allegations against the British troops was under way and therefore the embassy could not comment on the Afghan soldier's claim.

The US, Britain and France are the main contributors to the coalition forces of some 130,000 troops who have been fighting a 10-year insurgency by hardline Islamist Taliban forces ousted from power after the 9/11 attacks in the US.

 

[witness23]

Anyone dumb enough to video tape this should be dishonorably discharged. Morons!

 

[Turtle]

If the goal is covering it up and making sure it doesn't get out, you're right.

 

[AMonger]

yes, if the act isn't wrong, then there should be no problem with taping and releasing it. if taping and releasing it are wrong, then the act must've been wrong, and that's what needs to be eliminated.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.