Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Bizzare stuff » Pissing in the Afghanistan wind

Pissing in the Afghanistan wind

Righto lets start with a definition and then lets then consider the incident in question.

Now the incident:

click for source

In another and entirely innocuous post Richard Ryan our resident Uber-lefty and  USA hater kicked off with this sentiment::

Lovely! A new dawn here at the Sandpit. As for Afghanistan, not much has changed—–pissing on the fallen Taliban, not a good look for those Yankee Goons . Interesting it will be, to watch the back-lash Shalom.

To be honest I don’t get how atheistic lefties like Richard and JM can be getting so upset by this incident. and anyone who reads the thread in question will see they are both going on as if the marines had committed mass murder rather than performing an act of gross disrespect to the dead.  Of course I think that such an act is wrong, and posting vision of it on the net, or even filming it in the first instance was extremely stupid, especially in terms of international politics. Aside form the political stupidity what real harm has been done here?  The dead are by definition immune from further  harm and anyone who thinks that their families and surviving comrades are going to hate the Yanks more for this instance of stupidity  are being stupid themselves. The conflated outrage from the usual suspects is to me rather humorous especially when it comes form those who disavow any religious faith themselves. Simply put why should an unbeliever give too hoots about anyone having their religious sensibilities (as per the definition I opened with) upset by what is a purely symbolic act that does no actual damage to the corpses?

If these marines are too severely punished (and I do think that they deserve some consequences) it will be for political reasons rather than a just reflection of the gravity of their offence. And then you would have to think that political pressure on the Military justice system would result in an injustice to these men but then what defines justice is entirely subjective isn’t it?

Cheers Comrades

 


11 Comments

  1. Simon says:

    One of the great ironies that murder is immoral but killing is sometimes exceptable. You can be in a “kill or be killed” situation one moment and the next the corpse of your enemy is now sacrosanct.

    The marines in question should be tried, as Western regular military forces have traditionally tried to hold themselves to higher, more honourable standards of conflict – but as the Taliban spokesperson said about this matter: It wont affect the upcomming peace negotiations.

    Compared to slicing of innocent’s heads while they beg for their lives and sharing the footage on the internet, I can’t imagine they’d be that worried.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Well put Simon
    thanks for that Good sense.

  3. JM says:

    “Iain”: what defines justice is entirely subjective isn’t it?

    Subjective? I’m sure the soldiers concerned, who will be charged and disciplined, don’t think so.

    Do I detect some moral relativism here? ie. not an adherence to principles?

    Wouldn’t that make you – in your world view – a “lefty”?

  4. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    what rubbish you come out with!

    As a practical man who has very little time for any religious sensibility I just can’t rate the offence of pissing on the dead very highly, this matter is all about the politics and the spin desired by political players who want to be perceived as caring and inclusive of other people’s religious sensitivities, thus from my irreligious sensibilities I see no reason at all that these men should be severely punished. You on the other hand have been going on like a well grilled pork chop and I think that for you nothing short of these men being given hard time in Leavenworth would be adequate. As I suggest in the line you quote our views of what would constitute “justice’ for the men is based upon our subjective views, and it will be the entirely subjective views of the USMC judge advocate general that will determine what they consider to be a just punishment.

    I am adhering to my principles of deciding , for myself, just how serious I think any infringement of law and social norms is and what a suitable sanction for such things would be. Let me guess you want to defer to some “legal expert” rather than working it out for yourself.

    Oh and one more thing the next time that you put my name in inverted commas I will delete that comment.

    Capiche?

    GD
    Don’t hold your breath on that !

  5. JM says:

    Comment deleted by site-owner

  6. […] things to convert living Americans into corpses and in the process or shortly thereafter to “desecrate” their bodies horribly — that the United States is “exceptional” and therefore entitled to […]

  7. Iain Hall says:

    I recommend the above ping-back as a place where you can get an idea of the sort of sanction the manual of courts martial deems appropriate for cases such as this JM, frankly I can’t see why the Marines deserve anything more than that. But you knock yourself out and explain why it is more serious and deserving of a harsher penalty.

  8. JM says:

    Iain: frankly I can’t see why the Marines deserve anything more than that …. why it is more serious and deserving of a harsher penalty

    Than what? Iain you’re arguing a strawman. I’ve only ever said that these actions are:

    a.) wrong

    You’ve disagreed on that point. You’ve argued rather that there is no real problem on the basis that it is no worse than a dog marking its territory. You have in other words compared human beings, and human beings that are specifically required and trained to act morally, nobly and honourably (ie. soldiers) ….. to dogs.

    b.) that they will be punished in some way

    That’s all.

    Apart from a.) about which I previously remarked that I think I needed a shower in the face of your viewpoint, I don’t think we have a dispute.

    Do we?

  9. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Please take the time to review all of the comments that I have written about this incident and you will see that nowhere have I claimed that the actions of these men is not wrong, I have acknowledged that all along, what I have suggested is that it is not an offence of any great importance, nor one that should incur a very serious punishment. You on the other hand have taken great umbridge at me not seeing it as a serious offence. If you are prepared to accept that the punishments laid out in The Manual of Courts martial would be adequate for the offence then we have no argument. However you can’t blame me for thinking you want to see these men strung up from the level of your hyperbole and rancour in previous comments.

    As for my suggestion that there is a behavioural precedent in other species of animals why on earth do you find that so shocking? Are we humans not just another type of mammal like any other? Only someone who lacks humility denies our essential animal nature.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: