How has the Marine Urination fiasco missed Huskerboard?

[Cactusboy]

Yes and no. Dehumanizing the enemy is a huge part of being able to kill another human being in war and would undoubtedly become easier and easier as you lost friends. So pretty much those aren't human corpses they are pissing on. They are the sub-human animals that have killed and maimed their friends.

Earlier when I said I found it amusing that the outrage is about this rather then killing a human being that's what I meant. We send these young kids over to kill people for us and expect them to treat the people we trained them not to view as people, told them are not worthy of life, that kill and wound their friends with the same respect they'd give to a friend that died? It's hypocritical not only to what they've been taught in order to justify what they do but hypocritical to the very act of war. It's not a human before they kill an enemy that would have gladly killed them, but somehow they turn into people worthy of respect once they are dead?

This is what bothers me about things like the geneva convention. It's rules for war, but if you hate someone enough there are no rules except they need to die instead of you and nobody will ever follow them if it was the difference between winning or losing. The fact we use laser guided/gps guided bombs and avoid "collateral" damage when we can seems great and all but it's obvious the people we are at war with would never worry about that crap. So beyond how you treat POWs it's worthless and even then we've shown we'll try and get around things like torture as much as possible. So it turns into a huge hypocritical argument about symantics and just how far is too far. When in war, by it's very nature, there is no to far since the goal is to kill people that disagree with you.

Then why can so many do it the right way and not do stupid things like pissing on dead bodies? You can try to try to rationalize all typs of wrong behavior. I'm sure Mike Tyson could use the same logic for biting Holyfield's ear.

 

[Cactusboy]

so what if they raped them while they were dead in front of their mothers? Do I have to have been in war to judge them for that?

Yes, and not only have been in war but also know all of the factors that led up to it. And I don't care how depraved or heinous you make your straw man sound. I could make up a hypothetical situation where many would feel raping their dead body in front of their mother was absolutely justified. The point is you don't know enough about it to be quite so indignate. Say it's a bad thing. Say it should not go unpunished. Say that things need to be fixed. But you might want to stop somewhere shy of nailing them to the cross. Who are you to judge anyone in a wartime situation from a simple photograph?

Once again, I am not condoning the behavior and I do not feel their superiors should allow an environment where this type of thing is overlooked but, NO ONE can say for sure how they would react to the severe extremes of human nature and emotion that war has a way of bringing out. I don't want to play the age card but you will figure out as you get older that things are not as clear cut as you think they are when you're younger. I know you won't believe that or listen to it but you will realize it more and more as you age. I'm pushing 50 and trust me, I've been there.

All just trying to hide from accountability of actions. Again...why can many/most not do these things if they are so natural to do in war? Why don't all boxers bite ears in fights? Can it just be that they are crazy/low lifes/undisciplined? No, no, lets makes excuses for them because they are on our side...

and it's not just a photo...it's a 40 sec or so video.

 

[walksalone]

What image of a uniform are you talking about?

the image in the first post??

This is the reason there should be testing before idiots are allowed to procreate....

 

[walksalone]

Weren't they private contractors....Blackwater guys to be exact?

Look closely at the uniform. People should look a little more carefully before assuming...

It was a question. People should work on their reading comprehension.

The question should have answered itself if more attention was paid to the picture...

assumption is a horrible thing

 

[redblooded]

double.

 

[redblooded]

Yes and no. Dehumanizing the enemy is a huge part of being able to kill another human being in war and would undoubtedly become easier and easier as you lost friends. So pretty much those aren't human corpses they are pissing on. They are the sub-human animals that have killed and maimed their friends.

Earlier when I said I found it amusing that the outrage is about this rather then killing a human being that's what I meant. We send these young kids over to kill people for us and expect them to treat the people we trained them not to view as people, told them are not worthy of life, that kill and wound their friends with the same respect they'd give to a friend that died? It's hypocritical not only to what they've been taught in order to justify what they do but hypocritical to the very act of war. It's not a human before they kill an enemy that would have gladly killed them, but somehow they turn into people worthy of respect once they are dead?

This is what bothers me about things like the geneva convention. It's rules for war, but if you hate someone enough there are no rules except they need to die instead of you and nobody will ever follow them if it was the difference between winning or losing. The fact we use laser guided/gps guided bombs and avoid "collateral" damage when we can seems great and all but it's obvious the people we are at war with would never worry about that crap. So beyond how you treat POWs it's worthless and even then we've shown we'll try and get around things like torture as much as possible. So it turns into a huge hypocritical argument about symantics and just how far is too far. When in war, by it's very nature, there is no to far since the goal is to kill people that disagree with you.

Then why can so many do it the right way and not do stupid things like pissing on dead bodies? You can try to try to rationalize all typs of wrong behavior. I'm sure Mike Tyson could use the same logic for biting Holyfield's ear.

so what if they raped them while they were dead in front of their mothers? Do I have to have been in war to judge them for that?

Yes, and not only have been in war but also know all of the factors that led up to it. And I don't care how depraved or heinous you make your straw man sound. I could make up a hypothetical situation where many would feel raping their dead body in front of their mother was absolutely justified. The point is you don't know enough about it to be quite so indignate. Say it's a bad thing. Say it should not go unpunished. Say that things need to be fixed. But you might want to stop somewhere shy of nailing them to the cross. Who are you to judge anyone in a wartime situation from a simple photograph?

Once again, I am not condoning the behavior and I do not feel their superiors should allow an environment where this type of thing is overlooked but, NO ONE can say for sure how they would react to the severe extremes of human nature and emotion that war has a way of bringing out. I don't want to play the age card but you will figure out as you get older that things are not as clear cut as you think they are when you're younger. I know you won't believe that or listen to it but you will realize it more and more as you age. I'm pushing 50 and trust me, I've been there.

All just trying to hide from accountability of actions. Again...why can many/most not do these things if they are so natural to do in war? Why don't all boxers bite ears in fights? Can it just be that they are crazy/low lifes/undisciplined? No, no, lets makes excuses for them because they are on our side...

and it's not just a photo...it's a 40 sec or so video.

First of all, you're trying to compare a war zone to a state sponsored boxing match with a multimillion dollar purse. That doesn't work. Secondly a state sponsored boxing match with nothing at stake but money resulted in someone biting another live person's ear off! How does that not help their argument after being victorious in a situation where they killed people that would have killed them? It's not because they are on our side. The argument is because its kill or be killed. Crap happens in war, but getting pissed over piss when killing people is the objective seems pretty freaking silly.

 

[walksalone]

They can't make them do 50 push ups w/ their face in camel dung when they catch them doing it...or is our military full of that many lost cause low lifes that even that woudln't stop/prevent it?? I'm wanting to assume the latter isn't the case. I realize you probably don't know the answer, but I'd like to ask the recruiters that question.

another strong case why there should be test taken before certain individuals are allowed to have kids...

Aside from that its apparent that the author of this statement doesn't know sh*t from shinola and is barely qualified to a misanthropic starbucks employee....

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

It's amusing to me (in a sad way) that we send these kids halfway around the world to both kill and be killed and/or maimed by the "enemy" then get upset not that they did it but that they weren't respectful enough to the people they killed after the fact.

The video is downright stupid, but it's a war, a lot worse then that is going on.

Which is anohter reason as to why you ONLY go to war as a LAST resort.

I agree that war should be a last resort and that this behavior should not be shrugged off as, oh well that'll happen. But, until I've walked in their shoes and been in the same circumstances they are thrust into in war, I'm not going to sit here and be overly judgemental of actions like this. I don't like it but I do think I can imagine how things like this come about. I think you might need to lower your level of indignation cactusboyOG unless you're willing to be put into the same situation or unless you've already been there. The saying "war is hell" exists for a reason. Really what's worse? Urinating on a dead body or the actual act of creating that dead body? I don't think most of us are in any position to judge these actions.

Exactly 100% on the ball. +1. All of us who have never served [and people like me who have rarely thought about it] have no proof that, given the same circumstances that were present at the time of this action [which I, DrumLine, and many others on this thread have NOT condoned], we wouldn't do the same. To say that we're better than that and have enough morality to spare pissing on a person whom we just killed is an absolute folly.

There's a psychological term for it: it's called a self-serving bias.

so what if they raped them while they were dead in front of their mothers? Do I have to have been in war to judge them for that?

You missed my point. My point is that of course we, as people who have never served, can and will judge them--I think that the act is wrong no matter the circumstance. But does that make my opinion valid? Probably not, because it is hypocritical in a sense [due to that whole self-serving bias deal].

There are no qualifications for you to pass judgment. But saying something and having a valid opinion are two completely different things.

 

[JJ Husker]

All just trying to hide from accountability of actions. Again...why can many/most not do these things if they are so natural to do in war? Why don't all boxers bite ears in fights? Can it just be that they are crazy/low lifes/undisciplined? No, no, lets makes excuses for them because they are on our side...

and it's not just a photo...it's a 40 sec or so video.

I'm not hiding from accountability and I don't think they should not be held accountable. I don't believe these things can ever be referred to as "natural" whether or not in war. But the fact remains that people pushed to their limits will sometimes react in various disturbing ways. My only point is that we should not be so judgemental of the action that we fail to imagine how it could have evolved to happen. You haven't ever been pushed that far and neither have I. You cannot say with 100% accuracy that it could never happen to you. If you think you can say that, you are lying to yourself. I think as a whole, our servicemen do an outstanding job of behaving appropriately in extreme circumstances and typically much better than most of our enemies. But, like all walks of life, there will be people who have extraordinary reactions to the horrors of war. Instead of continuing to beat that dog with a stick maybe you should try to be a little more understanding. I'm not making excuses for it or condoning it. I'm just being realistic of the fact that it can and does happen and I believe, if you remove those people from the war situation, it probably would never happen. I am fully able to leave that level of judgement up to a greater power than you or I, and one who really knows what is in their heart.

 

[Cactusboy]

You missed my point. My point is that of course we, as people who have never served, can and will judge them--I think that the act is wrong no matter the circumstance. But does that make my opinion valid? Probably not, because it is hypocritical in a sense [due to that whole self-serving bias deal].

There are no qualifications for you to pass judgment. But saying something and having a valid opinion are two completely different things.

THen I hope you're at least consistent and hold this view towards everyone in every case.

I grew up on a farm and I know many times farmers beat on animals when it's not needed and actually counterproductive. They will say you can't judge them because you haven'te worked on a farm...you just take a glimpse and that's not fair. I undestand this to a certain degree, but it's also BS to a relatively high degree. I don't care if it's war, FB, politics or anything, the logic/rationale is the same. Maybe it differs in degrees, but that's it. and AGAIN...why do most/many not do these things if they are so understandable or whatever?

 

[Cactusboy]

All just trying to hide from accountability of actions. Again...why can many/most not do these things if they are so natural to do in war? Why don't all boxers bite ears in fights? Can it just be that they are crazy/low lifes/undisciplined? No, no, lets makes excuses for them because they are on our side...

and it's not just a photo...it's a 40 sec or so video.

I'm not hiding from accountability and I don't think they should not be held accountable. I don't believe these things can ever be referred to as "natural" whether or not in war. But the fact remains that people pushed to their limits will sometimes react in various disturbing ways. My only point is that we should not be so judgemental of the action that we fail to imagine how it could have evolved to happen. You haven't ever been pushed that far and neither have I. You cannot say with 100% accuracy that it could never happen to you. If you think you can say that, you are lying to yourself. I think as a whole, our servicemen do an outstanding job of behaving appropriately in extreme circumstances and typically much better than most of our enemies. But, like all walks of life, there will be people who have extraordinary reactions to the horrors of war. Instead of continuing to beat that dog with a stick maybe you should try to be a little more understanding. I'm not making excuses for it or condoning it. I'm just being realistic of the fact that it can and does happen and I believe, if you remove those people from the war situation, it probably would never happen. I am fully able to leave that level of judgement up to a greater power than you or I, and one who really knows what is in their heart.

I would more slack if it happend in the heat of the battle...but not in a situation like this. AGAIN...If so many others can stop themselves from doing things like this...why can't it be a very rare thing?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

What's often overlooked in a lot of behaviors is context.

And to prevent any confusion, I'll explain using a case of aggressive behaviors in cats [weird one, I know, but it's the one that comes to my head right now]. Cats exhibit two types of aggression, defensive aggression and predatory aggression. Both of which can be located in certain areas of their brains. Now when stimulated, do the cats show those respective types of aggression? No. Why not? Because they need to be provided with an appropriate context in which they can display those aggressive tactics.

So for example, if the center of the brain leading to defensive aggression is activated and the cat is being perturbed by a little kid like this:

It's going to exhibit that defensive aggression like it has.

Now for predatory aggression, when the brain area is activated and the cat is presented with an appropriate stimulus [context] like a bird, then you see predatory aggressive behavior like this:

I'll let you try and draw your own parallels and see what you come up with. Then I'll be back tomorrow to review your answer. I like this psychology stuff so usually when I try to draw parallels, it's psychological studies/examples I'll use--either that or history [which encompasses a lot and is also applicable to this discussion] But now, I am off to video games.

**Thanks to GIFSOUP.com for making this psychology lesson possible**

 

[HSKR]

All just trying to hide from accountability of actions. Again...why can many/most not do these things if they are so natural to do in war? Why don't all boxers bite ears in fights? Can it just be that they are crazy/low lifes/undisciplined? No, no, lets makes excuses for them because they are on our side...

and it's not just a photo...it's a 40 sec or so video.

I'm not hiding from accountability and I don't think they should not be held accountable. I don't believe these things can ever be referred to as "natural" whether or not in war. But the fact remains that people pushed to their limits will sometimes react in various disturbing ways. My only point is that we should not be so judgemental of the action that we fail to imagine how it could have evolved to happen. You haven't ever been pushed that far and neither have I. You cannot say with 100% accuracy that it could never happen to you. If you think you can say that, you are lying to yourself. I think as a whole, our servicemen do an outstanding job of behaving appropriately in extreme circumstances and typically much better than most of our enemies. But, like all walks of life, there will be people who have extraordinary reactions to the horrors of war. Instead of continuing to beat that dog with a stick maybe you should try to be a little more understanding. I'm not making excuses for it or condoning it. I'm just being realistic of the fact that it can and does happen and I believe, if you remove those people from the war situation, it probably would never happen. I am fully able to leave that level of judgement up to a greater power than you or I, and one who really knows what is in their heart.

I would more slack if it happend in the heat of the battle...but not in a situation like this. AGAIN...If so many others can stop themselves from doing things like this...why can't it be a very rare thing?

How do you know this isn't happening all the time? I have no idea is this is common or not. The only reason we found out about this one was because someone was dumb enough to record it. You seem to assume a lot.

 

[walksalone]

Now before you go all whatever you do to Cactus on me, can you tell me how you know they are blackwater, because I am confused.

they're not, they are Marines

sorry, i forgot to add :sarcasm

 

[Cactusboy]

What's often overlooked in a lot of behaviors is context.

And to prevent any confusion, I'll explain using a case of aggressive behaviors in cats [weird one, I know, but it's the one that comes to my head right now]. Cats exhibit two types of aggression, defensive aggression and predatory aggression. Both of which can be located in certain areas of their brains. Now when stimulated, do the cats show those respective types of aggression? No. Why not? Because they need to be provided with an appropriate context in which they can display those aggressive tactics.

So for example, if the center of the brain leading to defensive aggression is activated and the cat is being perturbed by a little kid like this:

It's going to exhibit that defensive aggression like it has.

Now for predatory aggression, when the brain area is activated and the cat is presented with an appropriate stimulus [context] like a bird, then you see predatory aggressive behavior like this:

I'll let you try and draw your own parallels and see what you come up with. Then I'll be back tomorrow to review your answer. I like this psychology stuff so usually when I try to draw parallels, it's psychological studies/examples I'll use--either that or history [which encompasses a lot and is also applicable to this discussion] But now, I am off to video games.

**Thanks to GIFSOUP.com for making this psychology lesson possible**

This goes along w/ what I posted tonight...how they aren't doing extreme things in the heat of the battle. It's a calm situation.