Ok, lettuce make a thread about it.

Negativecool

Gold Member
Founder
May 30, 2008
2,359
43
78
39
Internet
Mamba -How would I feel if someone raped my mother or child after killing them:

You find it disturbing that a dead body gets "abused." I find it disturbing that your question in the chat box is asked in a way that focuses on the fact that the dead bodies of the loved ones are being raped, and glazes over the fact that they've been murdered. As if to say the greatest insult possible to another human being is somehow secondary and unimportant given what happens afterwards. And you condescend and ask it in a way as if to expect me to actually now reconsider and somehow see your point of view when really all it does is exemplify my point of view---that respect for the dead is a practice intended for the benefit of the living only (people like you), and the dead do not/cannot care(people like the militant tard drenched in piss). Will you ever change my mind on anything with your continued tiring condescending style of personal and pious moral viewpoint? No.

Quick answer: I would be too focused/enraged/depressed/distraught/insert all other morose emotion- over the fact that, ya know, they've been MURDERED and taken from me by the hand of another than to give much thought to what happened afterwards.

I suppose now the hypothetical questions from you may shift towards asking me how I would feel if someone peed on me when I was dead. Well, simple answer is I wouldn't care; I'd be, ya know, too dead to think. BUT let's say by some miracle people were capable of post-mortem cognition and sensation. I think at that point I would still be concentrating too much on whatever damage had been done to my carcass to cause my death than to worry about a few CC's of warm piss on me. Warm piss may actually be a welcome reprieve from whatever post-mortem pain I’d be in. Moreover, if I willfully engaged in armed violence with intent to kill another in a force clearly far superior to my own (such as in the case of the militant tard that deserved daily golden showers when his heart was still beating), and if that other man got the drop on me (such as in the case of the better armed, better trained American force), I would expect nothing less than continued hatred-fueled vengeance on my body---much like the Halo tea-bag.

Capiche?
 

Mamba

Uranium
Founder
May 22, 2008
2,288
1
66
Primarily, I never said that murder was secondary to the act of defiling a corpse. What I said was it is the "ultimate" insult. To continue defiling when a body is already dead, as in don't you think the body had been insulted enough, ie. by the act of murder?

When you're talking about a militant tard, or anyone - who is already dead, what need is there for "continued hatred-fuelled vengeance upon the body" ? Dead is Dead. War can challenge humanity, I don't doubt this - but as soon as your desecrate a corpse you abandon all sense of humanity you could hope to possess.

It's about honour- I'm not suprised you do not understand.
 

Fancypants

Yaa!
Founder
Oct 31, 2013
598
11
18
Yeah, I think I'd have to say honor has a lot to do with it too. You can scale this up or down as much as you'd like, but it's like playing a game of pool with a friend. If you beat him it would be in bad taste to strut around for 10 minutes all up in his face saying "BOOYA, I BEAT YOUR ASS, YOU FUCKING SUCK". Taking it up a notch, if you get into a fist fight with a guy and end up knocking him out, you don't sit there and keep punching him, you already beat him, just walk away. Finally, you get to mortal combat, when you end up killing another person it's just wrong to desecrate his corpse.

I mean don't get me wrong, I agree that I could care less what happens to my corpse after I die, but it's more about coming across as a dick to the other living people around you. Society as a whole will ALWAYS look down upon someone who desecrates someone else's corpse. Humans have held dead bodies sacred for longer than recorded history, it's probably in our genes.
 

Negativecool

Gold Member
Founder
May 30, 2008
2,359
43
78
39
Internet
Primarily, I never said that murder was secondary to the act of defiling a corpse. What I said was it is the "ultimate" insult. To continue defiling when a body is already dead, as in don't you think the body had been insulted enough, ie. by the act of murder?

When you're talking about a militant tard, or anyone - who is already dead, what need is there for "continued hatred-fuelled vengeance upon the body" ? Dead is Dead. War can challenge humanity, I don't doubt this - but as soon as your desecrate a corpse you abandon all sense of humanity you could hope to possess.

It's about honour- I'm not suprised you do not understand.
Suddenly your tone changes and it's now about honor?

I see.

And it's also about my inability to understand your point of view, the "correct" point of view, thus I lack honor as well.

I see.

What I said was it is the "ultimate" insult. To continue defiling when a body is already dead, as in don't you think the body had been insulted enough, ie. by the act of murder?
Ultimate insult by significance or chronology?
Initially, it sounds like you're trying to say that doing something to a dead body is the "ultimate" insult by virtue of the fact that it's the last thing that happens. Which would be a complete "no-shit" thought.
If you're trying to argue that pissing on them after death is a far greater insult to someone than killing them, I would have to say that's the most psychotic/idiotic thing I've ever read on these boards.

When you're talking about a militant tard, or anyone - who is already dead, what need is there for "continued hatred-fuelled vengeance upon the body" ? Dead is Dead.
That's a awfully beautiful thought my naive care-bear. But why stop there? What need is there for hate? What need is there for war? What need is there for murder? What NEED is there for "___fill in the blank___"? Exactly.
Re-read the last part of the first paragraph in my original post.
kthnxbai!
 

Negativecool

Gold Member
Founder
May 30, 2008
2,359
43
78
39
Internet
Yeah, I think I'd have to say honor has a lot to do with it too. You can scale this up or down as much as you'd like, but it's like playing a game of pool with a friend. If you beat him it would be in bad taste to strut around for 10 minutes all up in his face saying "BOOYA, I BEAT YOUR ASS, YOU FUCKING SUCK". Taking it up a notch, if you get into a fist fight with a guy and end up knocking him out, you don't sit there and keep punching him, you already beat him, just walk away. Finally, you get to mortal combat, when you end up killing another person it's just wrong to desecrate his corpse.

I mean don't get me wrong, I agree that I could care less what happens to my corpse after I die, but it's more about coming across as a dick to the other living people around you. Society as a whole will ALWAYS look down upon someone who desecrates someone else's corpse. Humans have held dead bodies sacred for longer than recorded history, it's probably in our genes.
Thanks for leaving out the gushing emotional hysterics, meaningless hypothetical questions, and condescending personal moral values. You bring up good points. I just posted a statement in the chat box secondary to an odd feeling I got after watching all the news covering the marines peeing on the Taliban enemy. Every single news channel and every single news anchor put on an absolute show utilizing as grandiose language as is available in the English language to describe the event. As if it were a competition between the network news channels to draw in the most ratings by seeing who could act the most shocked and disgusted by it, as if it were truly that unbelievable.

One single thought entered my head after I watched the shit show on every channel. "What the hell was the greater insult to the guy? Having his life taken away or getting pissed on?" I found it ironic that we as a society have become so accepting of war, death, and murder that that the focus is only on what happens to the body---not that the body has been created. It's gallows humor to me that it actually becomes an unbelievable event when the dead body is treated with disrespect while the environment of death and bloodshed is completely ignored.

You also reiterate part of my original point. The living do/have indeed held dead bodies sacred, hence rules preventing mistreatment of dead enemy. But this lends itself to an entirely different and lengthy discussion about religion, spirituality, burial, etc and how it all influences the way we treat the dead; however, the inevitable fact is that respect for the dead is not for the dead, it is for the living.
 

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
if you get into a fist fight with a guy and end up knocking him out, you don't sit there and keep punching him, you already beat him, just walk away.
There is something to be said for a red rage.. Sometimes you're not done when he/she is. =/

I avoid fighting like the plague (even though I really enjoy it) now because of that. When I fight, I'm all in and tend not to stop until the other person is completely, 100%, no question not going to be able to get their sorry ass up and continue coming at me.

And, if I do get into a fight - it's usually for an intensely emotional reason that requires I fuck the other person up to the extreme... so, even if they are down on the ground, snotting on themselves, I do not want to stop *at all*.

Anywho, just another perspective. I don't think it's necessarily right or wrong, but it is the way I am and the way some other people are as well.

For me? If I was going to go to the trouble to kill someone, I know I'd have issue with 'stopping' at the socially appropriate time. Half their face could be falling off and I'd still be smashing it against the ground, satisfying what was left of my rage.. because honestly, as a civilian, if I'm going to put my entire life on the line (jail time, felonies, possible resulting death) to kill this motherfucker, you better believe I'm going to satisfy what's left of my adrenaline rush.
 

Mamba

Uranium
Founder
May 22, 2008
2,288
1
66
Suddenly your tone changes and it's now about honor?
That's what it was always about. Pay attention.

And it's also about my inability to understand your point of view, the "correct" point of view, thus I lack honor as well.

I see
I didn't say that - I just said I am not surprised you don't understand, because I'm not. After all the history of conversations that we have had together- I am not surprised that you don't hold the same values as truth. That's just a general fact.

Ultimate insult by significance or chronology?
Initially, it sounds like you're trying to say that doing something to a dead body is the "ultimate" insult by virtue of the fact that it's the last thing that happens. Which would be a complete "no-shit" thought.
If you're trying to argue that pissing on them after death is a far greater insult to someone than killing them, I would have to say that's the most psychotic/idiotic thing I've ever read on these boards.
Urgh.You just conceeded to the point from Dirty Hippie:

Dirty Hippie said:
Finally, you get to mortal combat, when you end up killing another person it's just wrong to desecrate his corpse.
Neg said:
Thanks... You bring up good points.
But you won't conceed to it from me - because, I'm me. Shocker.

That's a awfully beautiful thought my naive care-bear. But why stop there? What need is there for hate? What need is there for war? What need is there for murder? What NEED is there for "___fill in the blank___"?
meaningless hypothetical questions...
Stay on subject.

You also reiterate part of my original point. The living do/have indeed held dead bodies sacred, hence rules preventing mistreatment of dead enemy. But this lends itself to an entirely different and lengthy discussion about religion, spirituality, burial, etc and how it all influences the way we treat the dead; however, the inevitable fact is that respect for the dead is not for the dead, it is for the living.
I still disagree.

Firstly, past the point of death it is not about justice - but about ego. As you said yourself - dead people don't feel what happens to them, therefore - what can be gained by continuing your torrent of abuse and desecration? By your own logic - you are not hurting them anymore.

However, that's not my belief.

My belief is that everything has a soul - which would experience (or at least be conscious of) the desecration visited upon it until such a time as the soul left the body. Now maybe you'll see why I don't agree with anything you have said. The dead should be left in peace.. RIP... ring any bells?

But, they are just my beliefs. - As I said before, I am not surprised that you don't understand.
 

Fancypants

Yaa!
Founder
Oct 31, 2013
598
11
18
I think some of the confusion here is coming from the different situations we are portraying.

Mamba, you proposed a situation where someone killed a loved one and then desecrated their body. I proposed a situation where a person entered into combat with another person and it ended up in a death (which is the case in the news story).

There are some major differences in these situations. In the first of course there would be the shock, denial, questions, etc. because this was a murder of an innocent person in a situation which is generally thought of as peaceful. At this point the desecration of the corpse afterwards has a smaller relative impact because the impact of the actual murder is so huge. In the second the case on the news there aren't really those same questions, a member of the military killed a (presumably armed) militant in combat in a war zone. These things are (sadly) expected and therefore the impact of the actual killing is much smaller, which makes the desecration of the corpse stand out much more.

In both situations the act afterwards is horrible and uncalled for, but how much attention it gets is partially due to the circumstances leading up to the death.
 

Zeabot

Californium
Founder
Oct 25, 2013
1,506
7
68
I have bit my tongue about this subject up until now because I really did not know what to think about it. Originally, I thought "what dumb fucks... peeing on a dead guy." But part of me also said "those clowns deserved it." I think after reading the opinions on this board, I have come to my conclusion - and it is still pretty ambiguous.

I don't want to put words directly into people mouth's, so correct me if I am wrong. Dirty Hippie is essentially claiming that no one likes a bragger. If you won, you won. A little gloating is expected, but going over the top to celebrate a victory is generally looked down upon, especially when the stakes are as large as death. However, everything has a fine line. No one likes a bragger, unless you are throwing it in the face of someone who truly deserves it. In the fist fight example, what if the aggressor was the asshat jock that no one liked and his opponent was a loner? Then if the loner won, people would be much more accepting of over celebration on the part of the loner.

So, back to the point at hand, the Marines. Part of me wants to hail the marines as the good guys and the dead enemies as the bad guys, but, as anyone directly affiliated with the military knows, individual soldiers generally do not embody the "good vs. evil" characteristics. The end result is: who knows? Maybe the dead soldiers were a bunch of asshat jocks, constantly tormenting innocents and making people's life a living hell. Maybe the enemy soldiers were just doing what they had to do to support their family in a country that has been plagued with war since the beginning of time? Maybe the roles are reversed and the same scenarios can be played out with the Marines.
 

Unhappy Camper

Hells yeah
Founder
Mar 10, 2008
5,012
25
178
Fayettenam Area, NC
Scenario #1 Real life

A FOB somewhere in Iraq several dudes from my unit were massively wounded and one killed by several 83mm rockets fired indiscriminately upon our camp.
Horrendous wound paths from the exploding rocket casings, chucks of bodies and fist sized holes were abundant. I myself and 4 other NCO were mere feet from an impact and missed being hit by simple angle of impact physics and a few sand bags.

Within seconds I and others were aiding in the casualty evac, include myself trying to stem the blood from a severed femoral artery which I don't recommend to anyone to try in field conditions.

With in 40 minutes of the start of the attack we got credible Intel from a counter battery radar of exactly where the launch site was, since there were more than 5 rockets fired the probability of site accuracy was near 100%. As the NCOIC of the Squadron Commander's security detail we were locked and cocked with in minutes and rolling out the gate to the site to engage and destroy the knuckle heads.

Some of you have seen the picture of me standing over a dude with the .50 sucking chest wound. I posted that pic on another forum in 2005 I think ..


I did not post the entire series but there were several pics, and lots more blood and the dead dudes were not handled in a fashion one would consider "nice" He and his comrades were tossed in the back of a cargo truck and were delivered to a field hospital for confirmation of kill. They were not positioned out nicely nor was a tear shed for their demise. They never got a chance to shoot a direct shot at us as we swarmed and killed them with deadly efficiency and accuracy. (technology and warrior spirit is a helluva combination)


^^ In this case emotions were high, adrenaline was pumping and a DIRECT line from those dead to the dead in my camp could be understood to have happened.

Anyone watching at the time would attribute nothing out of the normal flow of combat action and combat recovery to have happened.

In combat the surety of action and "rightness" of event such as that above translates to quick and conscience free action.


Effect follows cause follows effect.




Scenario #2 Real Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Here is a clear example of the psychology of fighting an enemy that is essentially invisible. Hit and run tactics from an enemy that does not wear a uniform and that looks just like everyone you see everywhere you look coupled with a command climate of "kill em all" in a unit with a "good ole boy" system of accountability will lead one to be in a position where group mentality can overwhelm individual ethics.



Bottom line:

It is NEVER ok or right or proper to defile or desecrate another human in a combat zone. Ever, Never.

Why? Besides all the moral and ethic currency a human spends as being part of an event such as that ( yes, you pay for things in life, ask anyone that sits in the dark remembering a perceived evil event from their past) anyone that does not is rightfully classifiable as a sociopath.

But even more tangible is the effect on the dead dude's comrades. Who see it as a cultural desecration as much as a personal one. You have just made an enemy for life of not only the combatants but anyone that the story reaches.
 

Unhappy Camper

Hells yeah
Founder
Mar 10, 2008
5,012
25
178
Fayettenam Area, NC
It is NEVER ok or right or proper to defile or desecrate another human in a combat zone. Ever, Never.
That being said:

It for damn sure is ok to deliver SPEED, SHOCK, POWER and VIOLENCE on an enemy. Shoot, bomb, cut, stab, gouge out eyes rip off nuts chew off fingers ..

What ever it takes to stop the enemy. BUT ... once he's stopped so do YOU. The US has no pursue and kill em all or "take no prisoner policy". The US is OBLIGATED to humanely treat all captured personnel, to INCLUDE safeguarding them from harm.


Killing a dude with 40 whacks from a hatchet while in the throws of combat is acceptable. Going back 20 minutes later and chopping a few more times is not. There is not always a clear start and stop of a combat action but for the most part the US military gets it right.
 

KommieKat

Mao's Pet Cat
Founder
Mar 2, 2008
3,497
6
68
58
Hong Kong, hiding from the Kommies!
In the first of course there would be the shock, denial, questions, etc. because this was a murder of an innocent person in a situation which is generally thought of as peaceful. At this point the desecration of the corpse afterwards has a smaller relative impact because the impact of the actual murder is so huge. In the second the case on the news there aren't really those same questions, a member of the military killed a (presumably armed) militant in combat in a war zone.
I think you got it there.


He and his comrades were tossed in the back of a cargo truck and were delivered to a field hospital for confirmation of kill.
Here is a clear example of the psychology of fighting an enemy that is essentially invisible.
The question has still not been answered. How is it they are the "bad guys". Why are they the enemy and what the fuck was the U.S. doing over there in the first place.