NATO soldiers can shoot Taliban terrorists. They can bomb them from the air. They can fire missiles at them from remote-controlled drones.But they can’t pee on their dead bodies.
That is the latest anti-American, anti-troops “scandal” being cooked up by the Media Party against four U.S. marines videotaped relieving themselves on terrorist corpses in Afghanistan.
The Taliban terrorist group — mass murderers — was outraged by the peeing. Its spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, actually said: “This is not the first time we see such brutality.”
So the murderers of thousands, and the enslavers of millions, condemn peeing as “brutality.”
All of which is reported with a straight face by our anti-war media.
It’s not just our enemies who are calling it brutal. So are our so-called allies.
Arsala Rahmani, part of Aghanistan’s “High Peace Council,” said the peeing video, available on YouTube, will “leave a very, very bad impact on peace efforts.”
Really? Is that really true? Is the peeing incident really the reason why Islamic fundamentalist terrorists want to kill westerners? Is it really the stumbling block — especially in a country where Internet access is a rarity except for the elite class? Is that really the problem and not, say, the incompatibility of a totalitarian Islamic theocracy vs. western liberal democracy?
Peeing has a great place in the annals of war. U.S. Gen. George Patton peed into the German Rhine River during the Second World War. He insisted he be photographed doing it — as a symbol of his contempt for the Nazis.
Could you imagine if President Franklin Roosevelt had denounced his top general and prosecuted him for celebrating a victory over a barbaric foe? And Patton was just a general.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made a point of peeing on the German Siegfried Line when the Allies breached that defensive barrier.
There is a moral difference between micturating in a river and a fortress and on a corpse. And an essential difference between our side and the enemy is we fight with certain basic rules of morality and civilization.
But do not forget the currency of war is killing, and peeing on dead terrorists is hardly a capital offence.
Which is exactly how the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has treated it — loud, repeated national condemnations and calls for prosecutions to the fullest extent of the law. This after another round of lusty funding cuts targetting the Pentagon. But it’s not just Obama who is happy to defame the Marines. Much more fascinating is the response by the liberal media.
Remember, the same Media Party condemned former President George W. Bush for the violent misconduct by rogue soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.
That, apparently, was Bush’s personal responsibility, and that of the defence secretary. The perpetrators were prosecuted by Bush. But it was hung around his neck.
Not so with Obama — the Media Party has not blamed Obama, the soldiers’ commander-in-chief. They imply Obama is the PR victim here, not the responsible party.
Allied soldiers shouldn’t pee on dead terrorists. But Obama shouldn’t throw the book at those exuberant soldiers.
And the Media Party needs to explain why it hanged one offence around Bush’s neck, but gave Obama a pass on this one.
Original Article
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment