Marines accused of desecrating bodies

[ATOMonkey]

The tenants of "Islam" are no worse then the tenants of "Christianity". Do we really need a rehash of all the deaths and torture of people all in the name of "Christ". It makes Islam pretty tame in comparison.

The "tenants of christianity" that resulted in the Inquisition and all of the Crusades, had nothing to do with christianity.

While those atrocities were done in the name of christianity, they had no authority to do so from the bible.

Unless the Koran lists these fatwahs for the purpose of being purely historical, like the Old Testament of the Bible, I think there is a major difference in philosophy.

 

[thebishopp]

The "tenants of christianity" that resulted in the Inquisition and all of the Crusades, had nothing to do with christianity.

While those atrocities were done in the name of christianity, they had no authority to do so from the bible.

Unless the Koran lists these fatwahs for the purpose of being purely historical, like the Old Testament of the Bible, I think there is a major difference in philosophy.

Actually, without getting into specific scripture (against policy I think on INGO) "God" ordered the killings of man, women, and children (and of all their animals) of whole cities because they opposed him. You may look in Samuel, Numbers, and even Psalms.

That is where the authority of the crusades as well as the inquisition comes from. Any who oppose "god" can be eradicated with impunity because they are offensive in the eyes of the lord.

The fact is the Islam is a branch of Judaism. Began by one of his (Abraham) son's Ishmael. I would say the "tenants" of Islam are pretty much the same as teh "tenants" of Judaism of which Christianity is a descendant.

Edit: My point being that the Koran, Torah, Bible, any of them has passages that can be used to justify what some of these people are doing.

 

[thebishopp]

More lunatic blather. [STRIKE]Where in the world are Christians beheading people because they changed religions?[/STRIKE] Nevermind. Not worth the aggravation.

You need to learn your religious history. They did a lot worse then beheading people in the name of Christ.

This is not to say that there were not "atrocities" committed by quite a few followers of various other religions, but do not try to pretend that yours is any more "pure" than another.

 

[DragonGunner]

I watched this today an the liberal media is going crazy...an Hillary also. Will it be used to recruit more terror...look...we ain't ever going to be friends with this enemy. With that I'm not judging these Marines...its war. Kinda tough to have love feelings for those who are killing you an your trying to kill. Some of these stupid media people wouldn't be so smug if their family was being killed. I didn't have a problem with it myself, its contempt for your enemy because you hate him. Sure they weren't suppose to, an they should of kept the tape in their private collection. A guy I work with has a brother that 5 days ago got his leg blown off by the enemy over there....**** on all of them. former 11B

 

[ATOMonkey]

Actually, without getting into specific scripture (against policy I think on INGO) "God" ordered the killings of man, women, and children (and of all their animals) of whole cities because they opposed him. You may look in Samuel, Numbers, and even Psalms.

That is where the authority of the crusades as well as the inquisition comes from. Any who oppose "god" can be eradicated with impunity because they are offensive in the eyes of the lord.

The fact is the Islam is a branch of Judaism. Began by one of his (Abraham) son's Ishmael. I would say the "tenants" of Islam are pretty much the same as teh "tenants" of Judaism of which Christianity is a descendant.

Yes, but the Old Testament has no authority, as the old covenanent with man was replaced by the New covenant when Christianity came about.

The Old Testament is nothing more than history.

 

[thebishopp]

Yes, but the Old Testament has no authority, as the old covenanent with man was replaced by the New covenant when Christianity came about.

The Old Testament is nothing more than history.

I would disagree. There is a passage in Mathew where Christ says the opposite. Various translations of the phrase but essentially he states that he has not come to change or abolish the old laws but to fulfill them.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, Christ has to fulfill the Law in order to live a perfect life so that his sacrifice would provide the saving grace for ALL man kind.

If Christ would have just abolished the law, (which would have required him to become an earthly king) there would have been no need for sacrifice, and thus no grace.

This was illustrated through the tearing of curtain in the Temple that Seperated Man from God.

A new covenant was established between Man and God through Christ's fulfillment of the Law, and His perfect sacrifice.

The Lord also says Vengence is His.

 

[thebishopp]

Yes, Christ has to fulfill the Law in order to live a perfect life so that his sacrifice would provide the saving grace for ALL man kind.

If Christ would have just abolished the law, (which would have required him to become an earthly king) there would have been no need for sacrifice, and thus no grace.

This was illustrated through the tearing of curtain in the Temple that Seperated Man from God.

A new covenant was established between Man and God through Christ's fulfillment of the Law, and His perfect sacrifice.

The Lord also says Vengence is His.

That would be ONE interpretation

In fact had you said such things at certain times you may have been tortured or put to death for heresy depending on if the ruling authority agreed with you or not Unless of course you were the king of england or something and declared yourself 2nd only to god, not answerable to the pope, as god's appointed authority on earth and thus could interpret the scripture as you wished, flip flopping several times before finally deciding on what version you wanted to "enforce". Maybe chopping of a wife's head every now and again for good measure, lord knows (no pun intended) we've all wanted to do that at some time or another

And yes the bible does say that Vengeance is his. So here is the question. If the God of the "Jews" is also the god of the "Islams" and the father of "Christ" (god of the Christians who through Christ are accepted by the father) then who is "right? Who's "book" is the "right" or "correct" one?

A conundrum made even more conundrumish (I know it's not an official word but danggumit but if GWjr can do it I can too) with people fiddling with the holy books (council of nicea anyone?) and deciding what information will or will not be included.

 

[fireblade]

Some of this response to this thread even from some vets is truly sad and pathetic ..... i have said in countless post, was it the right thing to do or the morale thing to do no .....but how quick some of you are to demonetize this soldiers and wish them and there family who will suffer bad will and harm. Stuff like this has been going on since the beginning of war and will alway be there now and the future...The people who know me and from some of my past post know i have seen alot of combat and have lead alot of men in it.

Us combat vets understand this action should have been stop and not supported it, at the same time we also understand how it can happen and the mentality of it. Civilian may not understand or military personnel who have seen little of no combat may not ....but i do and i know us combat vet who have seen the **** do and i know the family of are fallen soldiers here in Indiana and this country do........ if you want to stand on your soap box demonetize this sniper team from pissing on the dead enemy soldier who tried to kill them .....and not try to understand how war can do this to you .... I pity you for the first time in my life i will separate the word Vet to combat Vet......

Here a link with picture Names of our dead brothers from Indiana and the United States tell it to this dead soldier faces and there family's how immoral it was for there brothers to **** on the enemy who kill them and took there love one's away from this earth...

Ind. (136) - Faces of the Fallen - The Washington Post

http://www.militarytimes.com/valor/

 

[xring62]

Go Fireblade!!!!!!!!!!!!! Id **** on the Taliban for what they do have done

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Some of this response to this thread even from some vets is truly sad and pathetic ..... i have said in countless post, was it the right thing to do or the morale thing to do no .....but how quick some of you are to demonetize this soldiers and wish them and there family who will suffer bad will and harm. Stuff like this has been going on since the beginning of war and will alway be there now and the future...The people who know me and from some of my past post know i have seen alot of combat and have lead alot of men in it.

Us combat vets understand this action should have been stop and not supported it, at the same time we also understand how it can happen and the mentality of it. Civilian may not understand or military personnel who have seen little of no combat may not ....but i do and i know us combat vet who have seen the **** do and i know the family of are fallen soldiers here in Indiana and this country do........ if you want to stand on your soap box demonetize this sniper team from pissing on the dead enemy soldier who tried to kill them .....and not try to understand how war can do this to you .... I pity you for the first time in my life i will separate the word Vet to combat Vet......

Here a link with picture Names of our dead brothers from Indiana and the United States tell it to this dead soldier faces and there family's how immoral it was for there brothers to **** on the enemy who kill them and took there love one's away from this earth...

Ind. (136) - Faces of the Fallen - The Washington Post

http://www.militarytimes.com/valor/

First, they are Marines, not soldiers. We guard and cherish that title very much.

I haven't seen anyone demonize them. I for one don't. I am embarrassed that they brought dishonor upon the Marine Corps, and by extension all Marines. That includes me, my brother, my father, all my uncles (except for one Ranger - we still invite him to the family reunions though), and both of my grandfathers.

I want them to get themselves squared away, accept responsibility and appropriate punishment for their unsat behavior, and get back to work doing what they do - killing the enemy and protecting America.

As to combat vs. non-combat Vet thing - we are all Vets. We are all entitled to an opinion. We are all entitled to express that opinion. There is no thin green line of silence, no hidden code of ethics. There is honor and dishonor. These Marines crossed the line, but they are still Marines. We continue to love them as brothers but they do need to account for their misdeeds. This is what separates the Marine Corps from all others.

 

[Kaiser]

I'm not a fan of relative moralism at all. I've said what they did was dishonorable. But - I don't think it rises anywhere near the level of an attrocity, war crime, or desecration of a corpse. Those things are reserved for heinous acts, like draging corpses through streets, playing with severed heads, and the like.



Talk about ignorant and uninformed Koolaid drinker! **** our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs - study the tenents of Islam. This crap has been going on for 1,300 years. Stay in school indeed.

Well said all your post on nthis topic are right on. As I said before I am proud of not only our Mrines but all the armed forces. I am as you ashamed of the actions of a few. Just another example of the attack on morality that has been going on for decades. +10

Keep the faith.

 

[fireblade]

First, they are Marines, not soldiers. We guard and cherish that title very much.

I haven't seen anyone demonize them. I for one don't. I am embarrassed that they brought dishonor upon the Marine Corps, and by extension all Marines. That includes me, my brother, my father, all my uncles (except for one Ranger - we still invite him to the family reunions though), and both of my grandfathers.

I want them to get themselves squared away, accept responsibility and appropriate punishment for their unsat behavior, and get back to work doing what they do - killing the enemy and protecting America.

As to combat vs. non-combat Vet thing - we are all Vets. We are all entitled to an opinion. We are all entitled to express that opinion. There is no thin green line of silence, no hidden code of ethics. There is honor and dishonor. These Marines crossed the line, but they are still Marines. We continue to love them as brothers but they do need to account for their misdeeds. This is what separates the Marine Corps from all others.

the only think i got to add to that is in combat there is no Marines, Army soldiers, Air force, or Navy ......just brothers.......

.... second i do think this sniper team will not get a appropriate punishment ......and will not be back doing what they do best killing the enemy and protecting America........ they will be judged by media BS and the high Brass and be civilians again..

 

[Darral27]

I personally dislike the misuse of the word "snitch". Often used by thug types to describe anyone who turns them in, especially victims.

IMO a "snitch" is someone who for the sake of getting a reduced sentence or some kind of immunity to a crime they participated in, "rolls over" on his buddies. Or after having been caught for an unrelated offense does the same (regardless of if he participated in what he is "snitching" on).

Who cares if someone turned in the video. The whole argument "no on should record what happens so no one knows" is probably one of the stupidest one's I've heard yet. Better you argue that in war things like this happen (as long as you are "ok" with it happening to our people as well).

Things like this and a whole lot worse do happen to our people. Do you think the terrorists think they should kill us all but show us respect while doing it?

IMO a snitch is exactly what this guy was. He was obviously with this group and trusted by this group. He betrayed their trust. That is a snitch.

 

[thebishopp]

Things like this and a whole lot worse do happen to our people. Do you think the terrorists think they should kill us all but show us respect while doing it?

I think has been addressed repeatedly. Rather than repeat everything already stated in contradiction to your "jimmy did it so I should do it" defense... besides didn't your parents every ask you the question: "if so and so jumped off a bridge are you going to do it to?"

Well guess what, "things like this and a whole lot worse" has happened to "other people" as well.

Did you miss the post on this thread where a guy was saying his buddy's grandpa would string up German soldiers between two trees and hack them in half with an ax, presumably while alive?

Point being, yes bad things happen to BOTH sides in a war or conflict (heck in our daily lives), doesn't make it "right".

IMO a snitch is exactly what this guy was. He was obviously with this group and trusted by this group. He betrayed their trust. That is a snitch.

No idea who this guy was. Another on this thread pointed out something about one of the Marines asking if they got it on video seemingly indicated that the wanted it taped (stupid is as stupid does).

If the guy turned in the video in an effort to alleviate some kind of punishment after being caught for this or something else and thought it could buy him some leniency, then yes, I would say he was a "snitch".

If he turned it in because he thought it was wrong then that is another matter altogether. Heck he may have been showing it off to other guys and someone else got a hold of it and turned it in.

 

[CarmelHP]

Actually, without getting into specific scripture (against policy I think on INGO) "God" ordered the killings of man, women, and children (and of all their animals) of whole cities because they opposed him. You may look in Samuel, Numbers, and even Psalms.

That is where the authority of the crusades as well as the inquisition comes from. Any who oppose "god" can be eradicated with impunity because they are offensive in the eyes of the lord.

The Crusades were a belated, half-hearted defensive reaction to Muslim aggression. Muslim armies had been invading and converting by the sword previously Christian lands for three centuries before the first Crusade was called. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by the Seljuk Turks in the mid-11th century was the big catalyst for reacting to the invasions.

The fact is the Islam is a branch of Judaism. Began by one of his (Abraham) son's Ishmael. I would say the "tenants" of Islam are pretty much the same as teh "tenants" of Judaism of which Christianity is a descendant.

Muhammad plucked the story of Ishmael out of the Hebrew scripture some 18 centuries after the Ishmael story was recorded. To say Ishmael "began" Islam is such a grossly distorted version of history that no honest person could believe it. I'm not getting into a religious debate, but you're history is incredibly biased and grossly perverted to demonize the West.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The Crusades were a belated, half-hearted defensive reaction to Muslim aggression. Muslim armies had been invading and converting by the sword previously Christian lands for three centuries before the first Crusade was called. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by the Seljuk Turks in the mid-11th century was the big catalyst for reacting to the invasions.

Muhammad plucked the story of Ishmael out of the Hebrew scripture some 18 centuries after the Ishmael story was recorded. To say Ishmael "began" Islam is such a grossly distorted version of history that no honest person could believe it. I'm not getting into a religious debate, but you're history is incredibly biased and grossly perverted to demonize the West.

Carmel, you can't talk sense into people that want to equate attocities between the Abrahamic religions, the fact that one branch gave up its inquisitions, tortures, and edict to wipe out competing religious heresies hundreds of years ago while a (perceived) nother continues them today notwithstanding.

 

[thebishopp]

The Crusades were a belated, half-hearted defensive reaction to Muslim aggression. Muslim armies had been invading and converting by the sword previously Christian lands for three centuries before the first Crusade was called. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by the Seljuk Turks in the mid-11th century was the big catalyst for reacting to the invasions.

Up until the take over by the less civilized Seljuk Turks the Arabs had allowed everyone to come and go from the holy city and also allowed Christians to settle nearby. At that time the turks also began to make threats against the Byzantine empire and supposedly wanted to drive all christians out of the east. The Byzantine Emperor made an appeal to the pope who then started rallying people to the cause.

After Jerusalem it was decided that they wanted to drive the Moors from Spain, and the Slavs and Pagans from eastern Europe, as well as the islands of the Mediterranean.

It is the way of governments to want to expand their power base. Religion happens to be a great way to do it.

Now the post you were quoting was in response to the statement that the "authority" for things like the crusades and the inquisition did not come from the bible and they do.

Muhammad plucked the story of Ishmael out of the Hebrew scripture some 18 centuries after the Ishmael story was recorded. To say Ishmael "began" Islam is such a grossly distorted version of history that no honest person could believe it. I'm not getting into a religious debate, but you're history is incredibly biased and grossly perverted to demonize the West.

According to the Old Testament Ishmael, son of Abraham moved into the area we now call "Arabia" and took a wife. Are all arabs direct blood descendants of Ishamael? Unlikely but neither are all "Jews" direct blood descendants of "Isaac".

So we have the "Jews" who claim "Isaac" was the chosen one of god and we have the "Arabs" who say "Ishamel" was the chosen one of god. Same god mind you. Who is right? I don't know, but hey let's look at the names that God supposedly told Abraham to name them. Isaac: Laughter Ishmael: God hears

So how is the tracing the origins of two related religions "demonizing the west"? If it is true that Ishmael is the basis for the Islamic religion how does that "demonize" the west?

 

[CarmelHP]

So we have the "Jews" who claim "Isaac" was the chosen one of god and we have the "Arabs" who say "Ishamel" was the chosen one of god. Same god mind you. Who is right? I don't know, but hey let's look at the names that God supposedly told Abraham to name them. Isaac: Laughter Ishmael: God hears

So how is the tracing the origins of two related religions "demonizing the west"? If it is true that Ishmael is the basis for the Islamic religion how does that "demonize" the west?

Claiming that Ishmael founded Islam, even if he had been a local patriarch 2 millennia before Muhammad, makes as much sense as saying that Jesus founded Methodism. It's cockeyed history. At least the Hebrew scripture was about 2000 years closer to Ishmael's lifetime. The demonizing of the West is the contention that the Christian West just up and started attacking the poor innocent Muslim world rather than the reverse which is actually what happened. Demonizing the West is drawing moral equivalence between Western politics and warfare last employed in the Dark Ages, as if currently relative, with the savagery shown by our 21st century enemies. It's misleading, false, untruthful and calculated to aid our adversaries and demoralize our fighting men and allies.

 

[buford t justice]

No disrespect meant here but isn't this just a discussion about what historical figures dreamed up their lines of BS and when they did it.

Just trying to put it in perspective.