Replies

> I suspect that if some of the same folks who are criticising this young marine were to go to one or our Indian Reservations they would be chucking pups into ravines as fast as they could catch them...

Mate, nobody is disagreeing that real life is rough, and that unpleasant things happen in war, and that the enemy is a b@stard that murders kids and innocent civilians and circumcizes little girls, and of course these things should outrage us.

They do.

And whether this is a real pup or not is largely irrelevant: I am on record being of the opinion that the pup was probably already dead.

It surely can’t be reasonably argued that what we saw of the video was, in any way, the legitimate role of US Marines or allied forces. Did we send our Troops, at great expense and risk, all the way to Afghanistan and Iran, so that they could chuck cute puppies (dead or alive) down ravines? Is this what we teach our elite forces to do?

At the very least it gives the Good Guys a really bad look.

It gives all kinds of ammunition to the Bad Guys, who don’t even need to do anything except watch while Western Civilization hops around, having taken careful aim and shot itself squarely in the foot.

Heck, our Civilization sent these Marines there. We invented the helmet cameras that took the digital video (prank or not). We provided the Internet technology that made it possible to mass-distribute the video. We provided the YouTube to make it easy for everyone to watch. And we provided the audience at the home front and all around the world to get outraged over it all.

The Muslims didn’t need to do anything to do this harm: they got it for free, no effort on their part. We did it all, and paid for it, and served it up for them.

Enemy action could hardly have done a better, more effective propaganda job if they paid millions for it. Instead, they got it for nothing.

So no, I don’t think it was a harmless prank. In this day and age, and in today’s context, it was worse than that. It should be punished.

I know my perspective is different than most folk's and, in large part, theirs is unreservedly justified. They look at their little ankle nipper and see Fifi or Fufu, I see another f'n dog. But that bond, that emotional attachment, is very real. The law is adjusting to the value of pets as companions and I'm begrudgingly doing the same. The pampered pets of today are a completely separate entity from the barnyard dogs of my youth.

The application of that emotional attachment was bound to cause a stir when people saw that film. I think it's an exaggerated response but it is real and the incident does reflect on the Corp. The Corp has a right to protect its image and discipline the offender.