Film rolls as troops burn dead

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | October 19, 2005 | Tom Allard

[Rebelbase]

US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions.

An investigation by SBS's Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies.

It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.

According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being "cowardly dogs". "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be," the message reportedly said.

"You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."

The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours.

Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged".

US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.

SBS said Australian special forces in Afghanistan were operating from the same base as the US soldiers involved in the incident, although no Australians took part in the action.

The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

[GrandEagle]

I just read most of the Convention agreement. I found it interesting. Instead of just speculating, maybe we should all read it. As it turns out, both parties do not have to be signatories for it to apply to the one who has signed it. Right or wrong, like it or not, it is the law of the land.

GE

[CDB]

Did we ID those thugs in the photo? Are they room temperature, now?

[Dahoser]

I sure we hope we did and that their temperatures are in the high range of hell.

[Dick Vomer]

we probably need to take some lessons from these peaceful loving people...

[Starman417]

Couple things, the Taliban was not considered a legitimate government, not by the US and not by the UN:(from 1998)

"The United Nations Tuesday refused to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government for the third time in as many years and kept the U.N. seat with the representative of ousted President Burhanuddin Rabbani."

So the Geneva convention would not be granted to them.

Also, even if they had been a legitimate government, if their soldiers do not abide by the rules of war, ie uniforms, then they are considered spies and all bets are off.

Either way, cremating the dead and insulting the enemy is not a violation of the Geneva convention.

[GrandEagle]

You may want to actually read the GC.

I was suprised.

GE

[CDB]

Couldn't agree more--unless their burning carcasses pointed away from Mecca.

[American in Israel]

As the Media is mostly bought out by petro dollars, it is not traitorous, it is just propaganda by the enemy.

Not shutting them down for slander for their innacurate reporting, and naming our troops as culprits is treason by our court system.

[FreedomCalls]

As it turns out, both parties do not have to be signatories for it to apply to the one who has signed it.

You misunderstood what I said. It applies to us alright. We have to follow it. But if we follow it, that means we have to apply what it says. IT SAYS that should do not do those things it says we have to do to POWs who do not follow a simple formula. The Taliban do not follow the formula. To apply it means to not give protection to the Taliban. We are following it. We are doing what it says.

It's as if you signed a contract promising to pay union wages to union subcontractors. You hire union subcontractors so you pay the union rate for wages. You then hire another subcontractor who is not union, so you don't pay them union wages. You are still following the contract. It still applies to you even though one side is not a party to the agreement. You are not in violation. You are following the terms of the contract.

In this case, we would be violating the terms of the Geneva Conventions if we extended POW status and the rights and priviledges therein to the Taliban since it says we should not. The whole point of it is to give an incentive to follow the rules and fight in a civilized manner.

[arasina]

The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

It is? No, it's actually more reminiscent of the burning of the bodies of several U.S. contractors on a bridge near Fallujah.

[Fred Nerks]

Transcript of the Dateline program:

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2005-10-19#

[reluctantwarrior]

This is not a crimianl act it is an act of cultural ignorance. Often the dead do not belong to the local community and the locals refuse to deal with the bodies. These troops were disposing of the corpses through burning, I would bet they didn't know that Islam prohibits cremation. Again an act of ignorance and not malice.

[GrandEagle]

Again an act of ignorance and not malice.
I may need to set the record straight here. I think that it was made pretty clear using all my posts on this thread together, but may not have been using any individual one.
I don't know the circumstances surrounding this so called "incident". To me it is doubtful if it transpired as reported. Even if it did, I'm not advocating that we hang the guys how did it.
I would, however, find it unlikely that these guys were unaware of the cultural problems with cremation.
My only point was that if this was true, and it was a deliberate act, and if it is a violation of a legally ratified treaty, then it is a violation of our law. Lots of if's. War is tough, I'm not in favor of scrutinizing every little detail of what a field commander uses to gain victory on the battlefield. There are times that laws are violated, even deliberately, and that violation is necessary. However, much like speeding to get to the hospital, if you get caught, there are consequences. The only reason that there must be consequences is to maintain order. As I'm sure you will agree, we can not allow the military to operate independent of civilian authority.
From a purely win the battle point of view, I could care less if the guys had a BBQ feast using the enemies body. However,the BBQ idea would definitely NOT be wise. The mission seems to be to eliminate the enemy, to help the fledgling democratic process to take root, and to avoid making enemies of the new government. We must consider all aspects of the mission.

I apologize if I cam across as a "lets hang our military" kind of guy. I am FAR from that. I would offer all the "benefit of the doubt", "look the other way", and "leniency if caught" you can imagine.

Cordially,
GE

[reluctantwarrior]

Were you aware of it? I wasn't and I have been fighting muslims for 10 years, I am a student and practicioner of how to use Psyop, if I had known I wouldn't have allowed the burning of bodies while I was in Afghanistan. A mistake is just that, the film shows two bodies being cremated in order to reduce them to ash and then buried.

[GrandEagle]

Were you aware of it?
Actually, yes. We deployed to North Yemen somewhere around 1980. Before we deployed the Chaplin briefed us on local customs and beliefs. He covered that. I had assumed (you know how that is) that is was standard procedure.
We had such a briefing before every deployment.

Cordially,
GE

[showme_the_Glory]

not a burn day? no burning permit? what did they do wrong?

[Leatherneck_MT]

Personally I'd rather they had wrapped those stinking jerks in pigskins and THEN burned them.

The Bolshevik Media needs to shut the hell up and let Adults conduct the war.

When the MSM starts worrying about innocent Civilians having their throats cut on publicized Videos, THEN I'll start be more apt to be worried about something like this.

Kill 'em all, coat them in pig scat and burn them to ash.