Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 10/22/2005 View Fri 10/21/2005 View Thu 10/20/2005 View Wed 10/19/2005 View Tue 10/18/2005 View Mon 10/17/2005 View Sun 10/16/2005
1
2005-10-22 Afghanistan-Pak-India
US troops burned bodies in Afghanistan because “they stank”
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2005-10-22 00:15|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Iff true our warriors are off the hook, as US warriors are gener allowed to burn or otherwise effectively dispose of bodies deemed a severe health risk.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-10-22 01:37||   2005-10-22 01:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Only folks upset about this are already either terrorists scum, their supporters or journalistic scum. Nothing to see here.
Posted by Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-10-22 02:56||   2005-10-22 02:56|| Front Page Top

#3 US troops burned bodies in Afghanistan because “they stank”

They smelled bad enough before they were dead...
Posted by RG 2005-10-22 03:19||   2005-10-22 03:19|| Front Page Top

#4 Steve, your inline strike outs, says it best.

Australian television talking out of its ass
from all the usual left-wing sources, while the rest of the world hardly noticed.

It's all right out of the old lefty playbook,
BFD..So F***ing what if some, [mind you] dead Taliban [7th century murdering throwbacks]were fired up in flames?

..The 5th columnist will Wank, the Seething will Seethe and all over the net the Clueless will Cry. LOL. SOS, different day.
Posted by Red Dog 2005-10-22 03:36||   2005-10-22 03:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Under the Geneva Convention, the disposal of war dead “should be honorable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged.”

The locals didn't want to do it, so it wasn't possible. End of phuquing story.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-22 03:58||   2005-10-22 03:58|| Front Page Top

#6 another molehill hyped into a mountain while they ignore the real story going on around them.
Posted by Grush Tholuger7316 2005-10-22 04:30||   2005-10-22 04:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Under the Geneva Convention, the disposal of war dead “should be honorable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged.

Under the Geneva Conventions you have NO rights when you don't respect them.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2005-10-22 06:23||   2005-10-22 06:23|| Front Page Top

#8 Should have read: under the Geneva Conventions you have NO obligations when the enemy doesn't respect them. None with the living: ie you can shoot them if say you caught fighting out of uniform (a thing who endangers civilians) and none with the dead: feed them to swines.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2005-10-22 06:29||   2005-10-22 06:29|| Front Page Top

#9 I asked the droid and it said that's how you dispose of Jawas. Good'nuff for me.
Posted by Glealing Sluper3406 2005-10-22 07:52||   2005-10-22 07:52|| Front Page Top

#10 Oh no! It's another Meat Lie, shame of a nation. This is better than napalming the Vietnameese girl. Great opportunity for kooks everywhere.
Posted by Shipman 2005-10-22 07:55||   2005-10-22 07:55|| Front Page Top

#11 This willful misrepresentation of the actions and motives of our soldiers being made and repeated in our own press in war time has truly outraged me.

I'm all for First Amendment rights but I'm so pissed off that any 'responsible' Westerner would countenance such lies...

I hope that Aussie journalist breaks his back in forty pieces. Propagandist scumbag.
Posted by JDB 2005-10-22 09:33||   2005-10-22 09:33|| Front Page Top

#12 This is how one makes his bones in the "journalism" trade - by trading, and treading, on the bones of honorable men.

The nest reeks - as did these rank Muzzynutz... sigh, so much trash to be taken out. I favor the formation of bounty hunter / asshat killer teams, myself. Think of them as shock treatment, chlorine for the gene pool. Or lifeguards, if you prefer.
Posted by .com 2005-10-22 10:00||   2005-10-22 10:00|| Front Page Top

#13 Detailed update here
Posted by tipper 2005-10-22 10:34||   2005-10-22 10:34|| Front Page Top

#14 Why does anybody care what happens to terrorist bodies. They don't care what happens to anybody elses lives or bodies?
Posted by 3dc 2005-10-22 10:42||   2005-10-22 10:42|| Front Page Top

#15 MSM cares.

They care because their allies in the field are dropping like fllies. The MSM media cares because they mourn the deaths of enemy combatants as they mourn live Americans.

The MSM loves dead Americans. They really can't distinguish between Americans and our armed enemies until someone dies, then they mourn the bad guy.
Posted by badanov 2005-10-22 10:46|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org]  2005-10-22 10:46|| Front Page Top

#16 Let me see if I get this right:

MSM is upset and throwing its usual swishy fit because our guys burned up some skanky-smelling dead Jihadis, right? However, there is no prohibition against the use of flamethrowers or naplam against "live" Jihadis, right?

See: Fire When Ready
Why we should consider using flamethrowers in Afghanistan.
By Scott Shuger
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2001, at 10:49 AM PT

There aren’t any news cameras trained on the caves of Afghanistan, but you can still watch U.S. soldiers battle an enemy hiding in underground tunnels and bunkers: Go rent Sands of Iwo Jima. The 1949 John Wayne classic incorporates actual combat footage of Marines attacking Japanese forces ensconced, à la the Taliban, in caves and other fortified underground positions, many of them linked by tunnels. On the Pacific island of Iwo Jima, the central command post was 75 feet below the island’s volcanic rock. On nearby Okinawa, the Japanese fought from several belts of caves and bunkers as well as from thousands of ancestral tombs. What was the weapon that enabled the Marines to take the fight in and down to an enemy this entrenched? As you can see in the movie, it was the flamethrower, which shoots a column of splattering fire that can penetrate viewing slits and air ducts and even kill around corners.

Recent news reports have said that Osama Bin Laden has access to caves that are electrified, multistoried, and steel-fortified. So we’re prepared to use flamethrowers to clear them out, right? On several occasions, President Bush has said of the terrorists, “We’re going to smoke them out of their holes.” But why settle for smoke when there’s fire?

Well, there’s a little problem. That John Wayne movie is about the only place you can see flamethrowers these days because the U.S. military doesn’t have them anymore. Though flamethrowers were in use as recently as the Vietnam War, none of our service branches has any in their inventory now. (None of the experts and old Army hands interviewed for this story knew exactly when they were eliminated.) The field manual used by the Army and Marines states that “flame is a valuable close combat weapon” that can be “used to demoralize troops and reduce positions that have resisted other forms of attack,” but the manual dropped detailed descriptions of flamethrower tactics in the early 1990s...

Nevertheless, the United States has never officially sworn off flamethrowers. And there’s no good reason that it should.

They are not banned by the generally accepted rules of warfare. The Army’s Judge Advocate General School—which speaks for the legal branch of the Army—has concluded that fire weapons, including flamethrowers, are not illegal per se or by treaty, and the Army and Marine Corps field manuals flatly state that “their use is not a violation of international law.” ...

Posted by Jim Marrs Nail File 2005-10-22 11:12|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]  2005-10-22 11:12|| Front Page Top

#17 How many bodies were burned on september 11th? In Bali? In the streets of Iraq everyday from their suicide bombs? On the buses of Israel? And on and on and on...

The fact that we're even responding to this is embarrasing.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2005-10-22 12:13||   2005-10-22 12:13|| Front Page Top

#18 I've become convinced that the sole purpose the Geneva Conventions serve in modern days is to abuse the United States. We've been fighting an enemy who openly violates them, who *proudly* state their intention to violate them, but we're supposed to follow the strictest provisions even when the Conventions themselves say otherwise.

The Conventions are dead. It's time we admit it.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-10-22 12:34|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-10-22 12:34|| Front Page Top

#19 Ahem:

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.

And also:

The Tyrone was growlin’ like dogs over a bone that has been taken away too soon, for they had seen their dead an’ they wanted to kill ivry sowl on the ground...I do not wondher they was on the sharp. ’Tis a shameful sight! Whin I first saw ut I wud niver ha’ given quarter to any man north of the Khyber—no, nor woman either, for the wimmen used to come out afther dhark—Auggrh!
Posted by Angie Schultz 2005-10-22 13:12|| http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]">[http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2005-10-22 13:12|| Front Page Top

#20 -"...they stank"

Nuff Said.

If these countries are going to join the present millenium, their going to have to learn to stop smellen like ass.

The vast majority of Afghanis agree
Posted by Eric Cartman 2005-10-22 15:26||   2005-10-22 15:26|| Front Page Top

#21 Islamic tradition requires the bodies of Muslims to be washed, prayed over, wrapped in white cloth and buried, if possible, within a day.

Yeah, sure .. you betcha ... we'll get right on this, just as soon as we're finished with much more vital tasks, like plucking our nose hairs. Any soldiers wasting valuable field resources and time on duty to perform these last rites would be compromising the safety of their squad. Cremation is a sh!tload more honorable than the treatment our battle fatalities receive at the hands of these maggots. They and all the whiners squawking about this can go f&%k themselves.
Posted by Zenster 2005-10-22 15:30||   2005-10-22 15:30|| Front Page Top

#22 I believe Christian tradition didn't involve theft, urinating and defecationg in a church, drinking and defacing christian icons....


note the worldwide condemnation of the Paleos who occupied the Church OF THE NATIVITY! Fucking MSM couldn't care less. What if I took a dump on the black rock?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-10-22 15:37||   2005-10-22 15:37|| Front Page Top

#23 What if I took a dump on the black rock?

I'll take, "Who Gives A Sh!t?" for $1,000, Alex.
Posted by Zenster 2005-10-22 15:42||   2005-10-22 15:42|| Front Page Top

#24 Damn skippy DPA
Posted by Ol Dirty American 2005-10-22 15:48||   2005-10-22 15:48|| Front Page Top

#25 As I recall, Frank, Israel was blamed for the desecration in the Church of the Nativity... because they had allowed the Palestinians to get themselves besieged there.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-22 20:01||   2005-10-22 20:01|| Front Page Top

#26 TW said: "Israel was blamed"

No need to go any further, TW. That says it all. About anything.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2005-10-22 20:11|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]  2005-10-22 20:11|| Front Page Top

#27 How 'bout feeding the Abu Ghraib dogs? No one is thinking about the dogs.
Posted by Captain America 2005-10-22 20:21||   2005-10-22 20:21|| Front Page Top

#28  Have things changed that much since I was in the Army? Back then, it was SOP to burn shit!
Posted by FeralCat 2005-10-22 22:55||   2005-10-22 22:55|| Front Page Top

#29 people: the MSM will ALWAYS be like a rabid dog biting the hand that feeds it and fawning on our enemies UNTIL the following changes:

In the MSM you win awards, prestige and kudos based on whether your article embarrassed the government and caused measurable policy change.

The MSM awards judges are impressed by this as a measure of the influence of the press and a sign they are doing their 'watchdog' job properly.

You can only do this by being critical and forcing your own side in to a hole.

You can NOT do this by exposing the Taliban (though at great risk to yourself like those women journalists who , before the war, hid cameras under a burqa and went in there to film the attrocity that was Sharia law) or other enemies.

You do not win awards for that type of journalism though it takes infinitely more guts and is presenting a hard-won truth to the public at the risk of the brave journalist's life. Many die in the process.

No the walkley awards and other media awards are judged by boffins whose most easy course of judging is to reward the famous stories that changed society (for the worse) by embarrassing the government.

Campaign to change the awards system (which leads to promotions pay rises and respect) and you will change the journalistic culture. I know, I'm a journo.
Posted by anon1 2005-10-22 23:04||   2005-10-22 23:04|| Front Page Top

#30 good post. Thanks.
Posted by Grush Tholuger7316 2005-10-22 23:46||   2005-10-22 23:46|| Front Page Top

23:56 Grush Tholuger7316
23:46 Grush Tholuger7316
23:43 macofromoc
23:42 Grush Tholuger7316
23:27 doc
23:24 Edward Yee
23:24 Grush Tholuger7316
23:24 Hupitle Snomoth2094
23:19 Grush Tholuger7316
23:17 Grush Tholuger7316
23:04 anon1
23:01 Grush Tholuger7316
22:55 FeralCat
22:52 Grush Tholuger7316
22:19 Phemp Glemp1339
22:15 Frank G
22:10 Xenia
22:09 Oldspook
22:05 CrazyFool
22:04 CrazyFool
22:01 Xenia
21:58 John in Tokyo
21:35 Shipman
21:29 Shipman









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com