I believe the good colonel's memory is faulty. :rolleyes:I remember the outrage well.

Don't take this as me condoning the behavior, because I don't.

No it isn't exactly the same, but considering the Battlefield is the ultimate field of competition it is very similar and in that respect it should be no surprise that You Tube is the venue of choice for their Bad Ass Me exploits.

The point is this type of theatrics is widely accepted in our culture, we go as far as producing ESPN highlights promoting the Look at My Bass Self image and why the games are more about Shaq, Deon and TeeBow than they are about the teams they play with.

AND experts like Dr. Edwards can dream up ways to make insulting behavior acceptable.

Welcome to PS.Com.
1. You don't have to re-type the entire quote. Just go the bottom of the post of interest and hit quote. loads it right into your reply.
2. You don't just post links, back it up with YOUR point. It is not always as self-evident as you might think.
Case in point: "These kids made a mistake. There's not any doubt about it. They shouldn't have done it. It's bad," Perry told CNN's "State of the Union" program. "But to call it a criminal act, I think, is over the top," said Perry, who faces a possible make-or-break performance in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary on Saturday.
Rick Perry? this guy? http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/16/419...lina-isnt.html
So what? And he said it was "bad". And he's wrong, it is a criminal act. In fact, it's a war crime.
3. Find the picture. You won't.
4. And then explain how it is germaine. We are not talking about pissing (I pissed this morning AND last night. gasp!!) The point is where. (I pissed in the toilet. big whoop)

re: Dozer
 

Roger that sir,

I posted the link becuase I found the allusion to the picture of Patton ironic and nothing more.

I do feel what they did was wrong, but being that I've never been in combat I do not feel I can rightfully judge the action of others in combat.

Thank you for your corrections sir,
Tweeder

I think pretty much sums it up
 

I don't know how to put a pic here. If it worked woo hoo. If not oh well.
sf

There are other ways to make your point. Maybe "playing cards" with pictures of pigs or pork products left with the bodies. Maybe leaving then where they were killed and more of less using them for bait. Maybe just waiting until to they get ripe to notify family or ANA. This could be a long list. I don't think the Taliban respects civilized behavior, but they react to insults, and that behavior could be used against them.

The really dumb part was the video, no video very little or no problem to deal with later.

It worked...

Hypocrisy. Thank you!

You Pee for me Marine!

I'd lean more on an NJP. Article 15 would be their CO's friend. Misconduct, discredit thrown upon themselves and the USMC. In my environment they'd call it captain's mast. I've seen a few and an old man worth his salt definitely knows how to tear you a new one. A fine, extra duties ( it used to be pretty easy for people in non LE positions to see when someone on base had fu*%&d up as you'd see them in blue coveralls, wandering around with one latex gloved hand and a black trash bag picking up cigarette butts and other minor litter and of course followed by an E-5 or above who looked terribly pissed and annoyed. Let us just say that when they still did that, throwing a cigarette butt on the ground wasn't that big of a deal since you had to give those guys something to work on. Apparently now the blue coverall's detrimental for the individual's dignity... BS :rolleyes: ), . I don't know how liberty restrictions programs work when deployed.

Anyhow, I agree with who's saying that we should definitely look at the big picture with this one. Those guys absolutely did a huge favour to the plethora of local detractors of Uncle Sam. Not a case if a taliban leader immediately released a public statement piling on it and accusing the US military of countless unreported profanations of the same nature.

Skoll...a little historical perspective
 

From " The Daily Norseman"
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked that as a Vikings fan. Most people think it's just a common, Scandanavian greeting...and it is. It can also translate into bowl, as in drink from a bowl. And although there are varying opinions on how 'skol' came to be a greeting, this is my most favorite one. Let's see how we can tie these two disparate meanings--(bowl and hello) together.

Star-divide

Back in the Middle Ages, rampaging bands of Vikings were roaming Europe and kicking the shit out of people. From Lindisfarme to France it didn't matter. For about 500 years, the boogeyman would check his closet before he went to bed to make sure there weren't any Vikings in it.

Anyway, at the end of the battle, Viking warriors would decapitate the king or leader of the tribe/army they had just vanquished and that night would drink from his skull--spelled skoll--as a sign of respect for the fallen opponent. It was only then, Viking warriors believed, could an opponent who had fought valiantly be allowed into Valhalla.

In battle, Vikings would urge each other forward by yelling "SKOLL" to one another. By doing so, they were telling each other to keep it up so they could drink from the skull (and the top of a lopped off skull looks roughly like a..wait for it...BOWL!!) of the Vanquished that night.

These days, it just is a way to urge each other on to victory in an American football game, but if you piss us off too much, we'll put Packer Nation's head on a pole, parade it around, and then drink some Grain Belt from it, so keep one eye open bitches, because the Vikings can go medieval on you in a freakin' heartbeat.

So, at least mythologically speaking, both meanings originate from our Ancestors kicking the hell out of some poor bastard who was the leader of some hopelessly pathetic tribe that dared to give us the finger.

I mean, think about it...after a hard day of rampaging, killing, and pillaging, you're beat. You're dog-assed tired. All you want to do is sit around a campifre, drink some grog, and shoot the shit with your buddies. You're too freakin' tired to strike up a conversation, and as a warrior, you don't gush over someone when you see that they're still alive, so you come up with simple, one or two word phrases that capture the essence of the moment.

Today, it's "dude".

Back then, as the skull of the poor bastard (who hours before was some minor bigshot) is passed around, all you have the energy to do is give a wry smile over to a fellow warrior and say....skol. One word conveyed it all.

So skol has evolved from a battle cry of warriors to a common salutation or toast to friends, which in a way, it always was.

Only under much different circumstances.

And if it is just a myth, as many claim, well, it's one hell of a myth, and until someone can prove to me they DIDN'T drink from the skull of a vanquished opponent, then By God, they did. Because until then, it's just opinion, and I like this side of the story a lot better, because it's totally badass.

"May we always drink from the skulls of our enemies!"

Skol.

They can smoke you but they can't eat you....for the most part.
Cultures throughout history have celebrated victory over their opponents in war many different ways....What doesn't get said is that you can cartwheel someone with a 7.62 round but to pee on them....
If you wouldn't start nothin, there wouldn't be nothin.

Are you trying to say that the 4 marines were just putting in being their own version of some old viking after-battle honouring gesture? :confused:

Could you explain that? AFAIK, we have both a military that is both professional and volunteer.

I wasn't there and know nothing other than what I see in the pictures. What I am saying is this would not be the first time in history that something happened after foes were killed. I am saying this kind of ritual is as old as time. The reason? They may not even know. Maybe a result of lack of ritual maybe dominance, disrespect, after action celebration, etc...Maybe they were doing what they could, can you imagine if they were filmed harvesting a bowl. Personally I have bigger priorities of things I am concerned with. Bless our soldiers and their fight...

This is minor bullshit, who knows what the circumstances were.
Art15 (suspended) for doing something they should not do, and they know they should not do, and some xtra duty.
If the American public doesn't like who is fighting their wars then they can collectively get off their 99.3 percent asses and join up...that includes all of the talking heads children and the plotico's too.
The Senior leadership should get their collective heads out of their asses and put this in the proper perspective.
If you have not been in serious combat then maybe you will not understand. Period.

"volunteer" and "professional" were used generically to identify a code of conduct...i should have been more clear in my statement...thanks

I wasn't thinking level of punishment on that, but tossing out the "cover-all" for "What part of the UCMJ covers that?".

As I recall, a reprimand or Article 15 could save a good man's butt, if someone higher in the chain of command tended to overreact to a particular offense or a particular group of soldiers. Seems that, once punishment was imposed, even the relatively "mild" forms, additional proceedings were a "no go".

Maybe PBR, But these guys are toast. The only question is how far into the loaf they are going to go before the power gets shut down. I' would not want to be in the first four level of leadership here.

Could not have said it better.

An ignorant move on the part of a few really stupid individuals.

Yup, they were wrong.
However, if you think this act will set us back greatly hearts/minds that's a consideration but I doubt it will have much impact after 10 years of war.
Won't affect the Taliban at all, they totally understand depridations as cutting of your head with a dull knife is more their style.
The population has experienced much worse at the hands of the Talib.
It's been blown out of proportion....if it were a common deal and sop yeah, an issue. Afghanis aren't as stupid as we seem to think they are.

The "hearts and minds" I am most concerned with are those in the United States. A persistent theme in civil-military relations is Americans' ambivalence towards the armed services. While public confidence in the armed forces is much greater than it was four decades ago, I dread that events such as the one depicted in the video will be used to swing the pendulum in the other direction.

As an added example, I would point to the ongoing coverage of Itzcoatl Ocampo. The local news media lead their stories about the man with the facts that [A] he was a Marine who [B] served in Iraq without establishing the connection between those two facts and the crimes for which he has been charged. Consequently, the implied argument is that A and B contributed to C because A and B proceeded C. This "logic" is already fueling comments in the blogosphere that demonize all members of the armed services, that question the professionalism of the armed forces, and that express skepticism about the utility of war as an instrument of national policy.

My $0.02.

4 young kids, that probably killed these guys, do something stupid and that should sway public opinion about the military.
If out public is that dumb then we are lost.
That 'logic' about crazed service people has always existed and always will. Most thinking people can see beyond the shallowness of that argument.

QP PRB--

With respect, the perception is not just about crazed service people but also about dysfunctional and anachronistic institutions staffed by men and women who are more interested in their personal and parochial interests than the defense of the country.Since when is the ability to think in and of itself proof against bigotry?

Enough said...........
 

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...682_n.jpg?dl=1

Big Teddy :munchin

Two NCOs to be court-martialed.
 

Update on the sitation. Two Marine sergeants to be court-martialed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

I am certain there are worse videos of what has been done against them, So sure .

The Marine Corps case over the Afghan urination video that just won't go away.

And so it goes...

Richard

Fight Escalates Over Case Involving Marines Urinating On Corpses
S&S, 16 Nov 2013

Nearly two years after a video of U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of suspected Taliban fighters in Afghanistan became an Internet sensation, the case has triggered a rare and escalating fight over the way the military sought to punish the servicemembers who were implicated.

Maj. James Weirick, a Marine lawyer assigned to the case, is taking on the chief of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, alleging that the criminal investigation was compromised after the commandant demanded harsh punishment for the suspects before they had their day in court.

In response, Weirick says, the Marine Corps has retaliated by removing him from his job, seizing his personal weapons and ordering him to get a mental health evaluation — steps he and his supporters call character assassination.

This week, Weirick took the fight a step further, charging in a complaint filed with the agency that oversees classification of secrets that senior Marine Corps officials improperly classified material that could have assisted defense lawyers representing the Marines under investigation.

The case could hardly come at a worse time for the military justice system, which has come under searing criticism from activists and lawmakers who contend that commanders often exert undue influence in criminal investigations, particularly those involving sexual assault.

The urination scandal was among the embarrassing episodes for the Marine Corps during the last decade of war, calling into question the military's ability to adequately investigate war crimes. Its muddled handling comes as Afghan officials are debating whether to support keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, which would require Kabul to extend immunity from prosecution by the Afghan authorities to U.S. forces that remain behind.

The military dropped its case against Capt. James Clement, the sole officer charged in the urination case in September, shortly before Weirick was to testify about his concerns. Three enlisted Marines who appear in the video have pleaded guilty to a range of charges that include wrongful possession of unauthorized photos of casualties and failure to report mistreatment of human casualties. Five other Marines received non-judicial punishments.

With the criminal cases over, Weirick says he is now in a struggle for his career and livelihood.

"There won't be a Weirick and an Amos in the Marine Corps at the end of this," he said in an interview Friday night. "I'm not sure which one will remain, but it's not clear we can both coexist."

As the Defense Department inspector general reviews Weirick's allegations, several retired Marine lawyers and a few members of Congress are rallying around the embattled officer.

"This has a foul odor at the highest level," Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who has met with Weirick personally, said in an interview Friday. "This is an effort at the highest level to discredit a man of integrity."

The Marine Corps says Weirick was not removed from his job in retaliation for being a whistleblower. The step was taken after Weirick sent an email to a colleague he believed was under pressure to cover up lapses by senior officers, asking him to "come clean" about his actions in the probe.

Col. Sean Gibson, a Marine Corps spokesman said, in an email that the message showed "poor judgement." There was some question as to whether the language in the email could be construed as threatening, according to military officials.

"The command is well aware of obligations to service members who have made protected communication to the Inspector General," Gibson said. "The command has and will continue to meet these obligations."

A spokesman for Amos said the commandant would not discuss the case.

"He respects the process by which the disputed issues will be sorted out, and he has full faith and confidence in his commanders to handle those matters within their purview," said Lt. Col. David Nevers, the spokesman.

The saga began on January 2012, when a video of four Marines laughing as they urinated on the corpses of suspected insurgents was posted on YouTube. The video alarmed U.S. military officials in Afghanistan because it came shortly after deadly riots in the country sparked by the revelation that U.S. military personnel had burned Korans.

Weeks after the incident, Amos met with Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, who had been assigned to oversee the prosecution. In their conversation, Amos told Waldhauser that he wanted those responsible "crushed" and separated from the service, Waldhauser wrote in a court filing in July.

Waldhauser told Amos that he was considering a lesser form of punishment for some of the Marines. Amos soon replaced Waldhauser with another three-star general, saying that he worried their conversation could have been construed as undue command influence.

As the case moved forward, Weirick and other Marine officials protested when senior officers argued that the video and an investigative report ought to be classified in order to prevent leaks that could stoke further controversy in Afghanistan about the case.

"Tensions were running high in Afghanistan in the wake of the Koran burning and civilian casualties, posing serious operational and strategic threats," Nevers said. "The decision to classify the materials was made in that crucial context."

A Marine expert on classification expressed alarm at the time, writing in a March 14, 2012, email to Weirick that the Marine Corps stood to look "like a box of buffoons" if the decisions to classify the video and report were litigated.

After Weirick started raising alarms about the way the case was being handled in the spring, he was reassigned. But he kept pushing the issue, he said, believing that the Marines under investigation deserved a fair proceeding. Beyond launching an inspector general probe, he said, the military has taken no action in response to his concerns, the major said.

This week, Weirick filed a complaint to the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees classification procedures across the federal government. The former head of that office, J. William Leonard, endorsed his complaint.

"I am extremely concerned that the integrity of the classification system continues to be severely undermined by the complete absence of accountability in instances such as this clear abuse of classification authority," he wrote in a letter to the agency's directory, John Fitzpatrick.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/fight...rpses-1.253233