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.

[mwyounce]

oh, did we offend the little taliban ragheads, good....offend them some more, bury the next ones in pig carcasses

"This is a REV-O-LU-TION, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!" -- John Adams, "1776."

[nonliberal]

Ever think being compared to a Muslim might be offensive to the dogs?

[SueRae]

I suppose they don't count the 3000 people that perished in the flames on 9/11/01.

[John Robertson]

"Note to extremly hysteric Leftist world wide. Taliban are ILLEGAL combatants. Under the Geneva conventions they have NO protection."

But when I explained this to an extremely hysterical Leftist acquaintance, she explained that she understood that, but that the West had a "moral obligation" to observe the GC, because we're supposed to be the civilized ones. Yeah, that's how they see things.

[metmom]

Sounds more like they're FROM an alternate universe.

[HamiltonJay]

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.

THE GENEVA CONVENTION DOESN'T APPLY TO TERRORISTS AND SPIES..... The taliban are not an organized militia with a sponsor state, they are NOT covered by the Geneva Convention...... DOLTS!

Personally I'd make standard issue bullets required to be coated in pigs blood before being fired at the enemy... but that's just me.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

War is should be hell. What are we supposed to do, sing Kumbaya after we bury enemy dead????????

The problem with war today is too may want it clean and sanitized, and that in turn makes war palatable--war should be mean and nasty so people don't want war.

Screw 'em.

[layman]

The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims

Is there anything that does not insult Muslims? Also, I have heard that one of the tactics used in this war is to call the terrorists 'girlie men' to enrage them and flush them out from behind their women and children. I think it's a great idea!

[gimme1ibertee]

Yes,they are. You can find them featured under the heading "Lifestyles of the Dumb and Clueless".
More idiotic prattle from the trenches of the uninformed,unknowing and hopelessly leftist cretins.
(By the way...No insult to cretins intended.)

[SQUID]

Where were these conventions when the Muslims burned hundreds of Churches right in front of the "peace keepers" in Kosovo?

Acts of hostility towards places of worship in international conflicts are prohibited. Places of worship may not be used in support of the military effort, and they cannot be the objects of reprisals. (Protocol I, Art. 53)

These prohibitions also apply in non-international conflicts. (Protocol II, Art. 16)

If there is any doubt as to whether a place of worship is being used to help the military action, then it will be presumed not to be so used. (Protocol I, Art. 52, Sec. 3)

Attacks against places of worship are grave breaches against the Geneva Convention. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4)



Where were these conventions when Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia and all of her infrastructure for 78 days.

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

Hypocrite Marxist dogs!

[SolidRedState]

"They" are always trying to use the GC when the GC does not apply in this war.

[MNJohnnie]

But when I explained this to an extremely hysterical Leftist acquaintance, she explained that she understood that, but that the West had a "moral obligation" to observe the GC, because we're supposed to be the civilized ones. Yeah, that's how they see things.

Thank you for reminding us why, no matter how angry the Repub Leadership make us, we simply cannot trust Democrats with ANY measure of political power

[P8riot]

Did I miss something, but didn't those 19 Muslim pigs incinerate thousands on Set 11,2001?

[freema]

I've must throw in the little kids in American elementary school, punished for hitting back. I've been watching this for 18 years. Always told mine, if you need to hit back, make it worth your while.

I also thought it might be fun for Freepers worldwide to coordinate a good ol' fashioned pig pickin'.

[lastchance]

Hooray for our side. Now I have a question for those with more knowledge of things military. Are the Taliban entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention?
Are they considered enemy soldiers of a recognized sovereign nation? I thought that was the defining term.
Or are they terrorist operatives who have formed their own armies independent of any jurisdiction?
I guess an example would be of this would be German soldiers fighting in WWII would be entitled to Geneval Convention protections. Columbian drug lord guerillas would not be. Am I right?

[ArmyTeach]

bookmark.

[PigRigger]

Why do lefties ignore this? They cite the GC and they aren't even aware that it doesn't apply to our present enemies.

Unfortunately they aware, they just don't care.

To the left, the end justifies the means.....and they mean to regain power using any tools at their disposal....

[lastchance]

The reason the corpses were burned was the American Military had quite legitimate fears about the spread of Avian Flu. As you know it has been reported that the Avian Flu strain has been discovered South of Moscow. Russian soldiers fought in Afghanistan for many years. We can only assume that perhaps strains of this flu were dormant in Afghanistan for decades. The poor Russian soldier brought the virus home where it incubated until now. To assure the health of Central Asia our brave troops had no choice but to burn the corpses which might harbor the flu virus. It is standard practice in a pandemic to burn the contagious dead. How sad to see a public health practice villified by the ignorant libs. Note to all Islamofascists- if you think our soldiers are tough- wait till we sic CDC on you.
Nothing like a great cleansing fire to say NUTS TO YOU!!

[ArmyTeach]

The Taliban are not the Afghan army. The Taliban are not 1)uniformed members of a 2)national army with a 3)recognizable chain of command, all stipulations under the Geneva Accords. Nor are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva Accords. My undertstanding is that any kind of terrorist of insurgent is not covered. They are illegal combatants going about committing heinous crimes and then pleading protection to which they are not entitled..