UPDATE 01/24/12: Here is the main reason why NO ONE — neither conservative nor liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Christian nor Muslim — should have ANY problem with Marines pissing on dead Taliban terrorists: Images: Taliban Proudly Murder 15 Pakistanis
According to the meme of the Left, it is time to ‘frog march’ Obama and Biden to GTMO over this. Afterall, they sanctioned this ‘desecration of corpses’ with their policies. Isn’t that what the Left said about Abu Graib?
Also according to the Left, when Muslims cut off heads of journalists and contractors (Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg) and captured hostages; burn the corpses of US contractors, parade them through town and hang them from bridges (Fallujah); commit ‘honor killings’; stone their women; throw acid in the faces of their girls… none of this is representative of Muslims as a whole. And the acts themselves are not outrageous; what is outrageous is that people are smearing all Muslims, because of the acts of a few. So, of course, I’m sure that the Left is now saying that the act of these Marines is not outrageous, what is outrageous is that people are smearing the US Marine Corps, because of the acts of a few. Right?
Nope, of course not. Liberals are throwing their usual hissy fits and throwing their usual vitriolic hate and bile towards the only government institution they hate: the US military. Especially when this involves the part of the US military they hate the most: the US Marines.
And, of course, who can forget the most famous quote from the leader of the liberal movement regarding the murder and desecration of US contractors in Fallujah:
“I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.” – Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos)
Got that? When America’s enemies, evil terrorists, murder and desecrate the bodies of Americans, liberals side with our enemies. When Americans piss on the bodies our of enemies, evil terrorists, liberals once again side with our enemies.
Well… piss on liberals. (pun intended)
We’re not talking about fellow citizens of a foreign country who are called to arms by their government to fight in a war. We’re talking about despicable, vile terrorists hell bent on murder who are doing the bidding of an evil cult of death masquerading as a ‘religion’. Of course, I guess we shouldn’t expect liberals to know the difference, considering they worship mass murderers like Che Guevera, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and consider people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to be evil.
“Pee on a Crucifix, you’re an ‘artist.’
Pee on The American Flag, you’re a ‘Liberal Free Thinker.’
Pee on a Police Car, you’re an ‘Occupy Wall Street Protestor Hero.’
Pee on the dead Taliban Piece Of **** that just tried to kill you and your fellow Marines, you’re a ‘Villian.'”
And that pretty much sums up the Left. Interesting priorities they have…
I agree with Debow at Blackfive: The Nature of Warriors
Wars and battle are ugly things. The very insides of the dark side of humanity and the razor thin margins of how close we come to being animals when we fight our enemies rises to the very top for all to see. It is not pretty and it is not polite. When you fight an enemy that prefers death to surrender and straps bombs to little children and records it for posterity to blast out all over the world wide web, you need to start fighting a little fire with fire. Spending every day with death tugging at your elbow while, in some cases, watching your men die, some of them good friends. Seeing this happen right in front of you every day can lead to a thirst for revenge and pay back those life debts that few will ever know.
I know that our grandfathers in B-17 crews over Germany, in the forests of the Ruhr Valley and at Tarawa, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima felt that thirst for revenge. Our fathers certainly felt it in places like Khe Sanh, Hue City, and the Ia Drang Valley when they were walking point, carrying a machine gun or patrolling the rivers. Who among them didn’t add that extra burst of machine gun fire even though they saw the Messerschmitt they had just shot down only smoking a little as it limped away or put another 40mm round into a bunker, you know, just to make sure. There were many who did not succumb to the temptation to exact revenge, but there were probably some who did…
And now there is talk that this could put a crimp in the peaceful style of the “grab the ankles and run away” exit strategy that the OinC has in mind for Afghanistan; certainly timed to go along with his class warfare “eat the rich” super-dee-duper successful campaign strategy. Al-Reuters has their panties firmly bunched because they think this might stir anti-American sentiment after a decade of war. Really? This is what is gonna lose the war for us? The fact that we are attempting to satisfy these subhuman POS’s from the 7th Century who behead those who will not comply tells me just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.
The nature of warriors is something that only warriors will ever know. Those that have never experienced this will never know why these men felt the need to do what they did. But if our military is going to be effective in the long run, our enemies must fear us. They must believe that we are capable of unspeakable evil and every now and then, we have to pull back the curtain a little and let them see a smidgen of what we are holding the lid on while we bomb them further into the stone age. That fear of what those warriors are capable of will save lives.
Was it wrong for these Marines to do this? Sure. Was there a breakdown in leadership? No Doubt. Do I understand with 100 percent certainty why they did it? Absolutely.
As well as with Congressman Allen West:
Congressman Allen West view:
“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?
“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.
“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”
And, amazingly enough, Bill Maher and I are also in agreement. Granted, liberals are kind of like broken clocks, so…
Here we have 19/20-somethings fighting and seeing their buddies killed, or seeing videos of this enemy beheading Americans [reporters, contractors, Soldiers and Marines]. They urinated on the Taliban dead. This is regrettable. After a tough battle even a leader would be tempted to do such a thing. Big deal! Hell, Patton urinated into the Rhine River and it was captured on film! What is so honorable about this bestial enemy that brutalizes his own family with atrocity, and mutilates his women relatives? So, peeing on a corpse is an atrocity now? Horse-puckey! Give them a Battalion Level punishment. Do not ruin the rest of their lives!
As to Secretaries [who never served, never were warriors]: Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest, I say talk is cheap. What hypocrites you are; you crooked politicians! You wear white-washed robes but you are rotten underneath. You talk about honor but you have no pedigree in the subject, and no moral righteousness for this trumped-up indignation. Go ahead, apologize to the Taliban, you idiots. Shame on you for continually persecuting and demoralizing your own warriors. Go ahead, finish off the world’s best enforcers and defenders of peace … you jerks. This is the real crime!
King David, using Goliath’s sword, cut off the head of Goliath after he had killed him, and God blessed King David and the Israelites. I say God Bless the US Armed Forces and the US Marines for taking the fight to the sworn Taliban enemies of civilization and the United States, and killing them!
[H/T Vinnie at The Jawa Report]
Also see: Taliban Urinegate and Vampire Movies
So now we have a videotape of some marines breaking the rules and taping it. It’s curious why they did that, and now it’s gotten out. Snerdley, which do you think is more offensive, a greater transgression: Abu Ghraib photos or the urination on corpses of the Taliban. Abu Ghraib far worse. Abu Ghraib far worse than urinating on Taliban corpses. I know we don’t know when this happened. The details are sketchy. So as a discussion matter, we’ll take it as it is. But get this Reuters story: “Taliban Says Marine Tape Will not Hurt Afghanistan Talks.” Now, what does that tell you? What does that tell you?
All of a sudden you have something that, if they wanted to, the left could exploit as another Abu Ghraib. That goes without saying, Abu Ghraib blamed on Bush, why isn’t this blamed on Obama? Nothing can go wrong. This will be blamed on the individuals, not Obama. When a president is Republican, everything that the government does is blamed on him. But the more important question here, the Taliban, those, according to the story, was their people who were dead who were the urinatees. And the Taliban says that that tape is not gonna hurt anything, we’re not bothered by that. I’m simply asking, what does that tell you? (interruption) No. It doesn’t tell us that they’re tired of being hit by drones.
It tells us that they’re winning and they’re close and if they start raising hell about this, it’s gonna delay the ultimate. Karzai is out there saying one thing or another. A senior member of the Afghan government’s High Peace Council said, “Such action will leave a very, very bad impact on peace efforts.” But the Taliban says, ah, not gonna hurt anything here. Taliban must think they’re close to winning. Taliban must think they’re pretty close to taking over Afghanistan. There are peace talks going on, and the Taliban must think that we’re pretty close to surrendering it to ‘em and getting out, and they don’t want this to come along and stop that process and delay. That’s how I interpret it. This would be my wild guess.
Obviously Urinegate will not interrupt the process of turning the country over to the Taliban. If they wanted to they could go after Obama. They could be out there saying that Panetta should resign. Where is CODEPINK? Where are all these anti-war groups? Where are these people who hate the military compared to way they were around at Abu Ghraib? You remember the fake stories about flushing a Koran down the toilet from Michael Isikoff. They wanted to frog march Bush and Cheney into jail over Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the New York Times above the fold, get this, for 32 straight days. Urinegate, ah, what’s the big deal? No big deal. We can’t even pinpoint when it happened. We’ll deal with it internally. Panetta gets away with talking about how outraged he is. He won’t put up with it. Okay, fine, that’s all we need to hear, let’s move on, nothing to see here.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) on Sunday defended the four Marines who were depicted in a viral video last week urinating on the corpses of three Taliban insurgents, arguing “what’s really disturbing to me is just, kind of, the over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military.”
“Obviously, 18, 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often, and that’s what’s occurred here,” the Republican presidential candidate told Candy Crowley on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ “But, you know, when you’re in war, and history kind of backs up — there’s a picture of General Patton doing basically the same thing in the Rhine River. And although there’s not a picture, Churchill did the same thing on the Siegfried line.”
“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses,” Loesch said during her radio program on FM News Talk 97.1. “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”
So now, our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left want her fired. For saying she’d pee on a terrorist. They’re really, really angry about that. They’ve been shrieking at her on Twitter for days. I don’t know if I would’ve worded it exactly like she did, and personally I’d prefer if our guys would stick to just killing the bad guys instead of making latrines out of them. They should be subject to whatever disciplinary action is coming their way, and you can bet they will be. But I have no problem with Loesch’s sentiment. I mean, it’s the Taliban. If she’d said she wouldn’t mind peeing on Hitler’s carcass, would the left be freaking out at her like they’ve been doing?
You might be a liberal if…
You think Bill Maher was a hero after 9/11 for saying terrorists are brave, and Dana Loesch is a villain for insulting them. (He agrees with her on this one, BTW.)
You insist you don’t sympathize with terrorists, but you fly into a rage when somebody disrespects them.
Your reply to criticism of Obama is “Oh yeah, well, who killed Bin Laden?”, but you become furious when Bin Laden’s pals are humiliated.
Let this be a lesson to everyone: If you want to pee on a dead terrorist, first wrap him in an American flag. Then Keith Olbermann, Eric Boehlert, and other leading lights of liberalism will cheer you on.
Not sure how many of you all are into college football, but there was talk this morning on Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN about the BcS Title Game. Some were whining “it’s ridiculous that we crown a national champion which did not even win its Conference”. And then the usual defense of the BcS system that “if you have a playoff, it diminishes the regular season”.
I call BS on both.
(1) Cannot be a true national champion without winning one’s conference – This is ridiculous. So I guess the Packers from last season are an illegitimate Super Bowl Champion, because they did not win the NFC North Division? The Steelers of 2007 were not a true Super Bowl champion, because they did not win the AFC North Division? Or any NBA or MLB team which wins their Championships are illegitimate if they did not win their Divisions? What about any at-large entries into the NCAA Basketball Tournament… if they won the National Title, would their title be illegitimate, because they got into the Tournament as an at-large team?
(2) Playoffs diminish the regular season – Again, ridiculous. I am psyched to watch NFL football each week, because I enjoy the game of football. And they have playoffs in the NFL and all football fans are always psyched to watch football each week. The regular season is not diminished. And neither would the college game be diminished.
Personally, I don’t consider there to have ever been a national champion in NCAA football. Unless you earn the title through a playoff, you are not a champion. All those years they ‘voted’ on a ‘national champ’ were ridiculous. And then the first BcS system where they added computer calculation rankings to opinion rankings was even more ridiculous. And now the second edition of the BcS system where they assign 2 teams to a ‘national championship’ game based on those same computer calculation rankings and opinion rankings.
It’s ridiculous. In every sport, there are always playoffs which determine champions. NCAA football for some reason never setup playoffs and went with a Bowl system. Then, some reporter decades ago decided to come up with his own rankings for fun for a column he had to write. And then NCAA football just decided to take that fun rankings column and determine their champions by it? What a joke.
Plain and simple, the college football system of determining a national champion is a joke. You don’t determine a champion by the opinions of sportswriters and coaches combined with a computer calculation.
They also talked about a 4-team playoff this morning as well. Which is still bogus. Because it’s still based on rankings, which are based on computer calculations and the opinions of sports writers and coaches.
Whether you assign 2 teams or 4 teams to play, it’s bogus.
We don’t do that in any other sport. And there’s a reason for that: it’s utterly stupid.
I think we just have to face the fact that the college football system screwed itself from the start with the bowl system. There’s really no way to setup a true playoff system, because there’s too much money involved in the bowls.
What they should do is something like they have in college basketball with the NCAA Tournament and the NIT. They could keep the Bowl System as it is, but have 15 Bowl games which are setup for the playoffs. The other small Bowl games would still happen (basically like the NIT for teams which did not get into the NCAA Tournament), but there would be 15 Bowl games set aside for the playoffs each year (NCAA Tournament). They could even rotate them each year so each Bowl would take turns hosting the national championship game as they do now (and similar to how they have the Super Bowl in different spots each year).
So you’d take the 8 MegaConferences and have 8 Conference Championship games. Those 8 Conference Champs would then play in 4 Bowl games the next week. Then New Year’s Day, the last 4 teams play in 2 Bowl games to determine who goes to the National Championship game to be held the following week.
Ironically, this system would have been to the liking of those complaining “can’t have a national champ without winning one’s conference”. Alabama lost to LSU in the SEC Conference Championship. And thus would not have been playing in the national championship game.
So even with my system, you’ll still have people complaining, because you’ll have great teams knocked out of the playoffs early, instead of having top teams earn top seeds and not play one another until later rounds.
I guess another way to do it is not have conference championship games and just have the top 2 teams from each of the 8 Mega Conferences and then seed them 1-16. Then have 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc.
In that system, Wisconsin (2nd in Big Ten reg season standings) and Michigan State (1st in Big Ten) make the playoffs and Michigan does not. As opposed to what happened in the BcS system where MSU didn’t get into a BcS Bowl game and UM did, solely based on money considerations, not players’ play on the field.