What is your Christian response to this?

I think your whole argument is silly and I really don't want to get into it with what else they could be doing standing with their hands in the position they were in and their body gestures and what not. I am going to leave it there and just be glad this is not a argument floating around.

I can tell by your response that anything that looks bad for the military makes you happy.

My response has merit. You still haven't explained the lack of actual piss missing from the video. Besides the way they are standing there is nothing else to suggest they are pissing on the dead bodies.

It would look bad for the military if there were attempts to whitewash it or cover it up. Since they are investigating and have identified two of them, that is not the case.

Is this how some conservative Christians think people can learn work ethics?

I never said whitewash it or cover it up. I just think those on the left and making a bigger stink out of this then it is. I'm willing to bet that the Obama admin comes forward pretty soon and says this wasn't what it appeared to be. If I'm wrong then so be it I will admit it. I hope when these guys are proven innocent you can admit the same.

Of course I will.

That's a bit of a bizarre admission you've had to make. The only person I have come across that thinks this video could be a fake is Baldimo. The White House has not suggested such, nor has any news organisation. I think it's highly unlikely to be faked, although I too will admit to being wrong if that happens.

I can understand the argument that this ia fake. The video clip is hardly 100% convincing, but let's assume these marines were, indeed, pissing on corpses.

It's a lapse in discipline and should be appropriately addressed (My concern is that because of the political aspect of this incident these young men are going to be punished in a manner that far exceeds the degree of their transgression)

Other than that, what's the big deal?

It's despicable to piss on dead bodies, but not to kill them in the first place?

Chances are pretty good that these marines have seen the deaths and maiming of close friends at the hands of the Taliban. I'm amazed that there aren't stories of actual atrocities involving captured Taliban fighters.

More of the Rules of War bullshit.

The very fact that this incident created a firestorm is the reason marines need to maintain discipline and not provide ammo to the enemy, but the outrage by our own government?

The outrage by the Taliban was to be expected as utterly hypocritical as it may have been.

Slimy Kharzai is always looking for an angle and so I'm not surprised he shot his mouth off.

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that the highest ranking members of the Obama Admnistration shot their mouths off as well. It's just further evidence of how desperate they are to accomplish some farcical peace settlement before they pull out of the country and leave the Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban.

BTW How did this story find it's way to this thread?

Is someone asserting that Jesus cammanded us "Thou shall not piss on the dead bodies of your enemies?"

I agree that it's bizarre to complain about urinating on corpses, but not killing them in the first place. The rules of war bullshit as you like to call it holds NATO troops to different standards than their opponants, and can allow us to claim the moral high ground.

I agree with you that they should not face a harsher punishment because of the publicity. It should be thoroughly investigated and dealt with according to set down procedures. I don't think it's as bad as what went on in Abu Ghraib by a long shot. Some British soldiers were acquitted yesterday of taking war trophies from dead fighters. They cut off the fingers, but their defence was that the fingers were not trophies, but DNA evidence, they were under fire at the time.

I guess that they thought it was the only way of obtaining DNA?

It wasn't the only way of obtaining DNA, but because they were coming under fire it was deemed acceptable under those particular circumstances.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16651610

It reminds me of souvenirs of the past.

Before the torch was applied to the pyre, the negro was deprived of his ears, fingers and genital parts of his body. He pleaded pitifully for his life while the mutilation was going on, but stood the ordeal of fire with surprising fortitude. Before the body was cool, it was cut to pieces, the bones were crushed into small bits, and even thet ree upon which the wretch met his fate was torn up and disposed of as “souvenirs.” … Small pieces of bones went for 25 cents, and a bit of the liver crisply cooked sold for 10 cents. As soon as the negro was seen to be dead there was a tremendous struggle among the crowd to secure the souvenirs… Knives were quckly produced and soon the body was dismembered.” – this quote comes from 100 Years of Lynching by R. Ginzburg

It may remind you of that, but it's quite different. Mutilating someone while they're still alive and then burning them to death is not the same as taking body parts from a fallen enemy. There would be similarities if it were a war trophy, but DNA testing is something else.

Even if it was standard procedure to piss on dead Taliban fighters the ground on which NATO troops march would be much, much higher than that of their enemies.

These were corpses. Once you kill someone there's not much harm you can do to them.

If for some far out reason in the future NATO invaded your country and you were against this invasion would the ground still be much much higher than that of your fellow comrades?

This is a ridiculous hypothetical.

Without the US, there will be no NATO and so even in the most far out scenario, NATO will not be invading America.

Apparently you are making the argument that atrocities by those defending their homeland from invaders is OK.

No I was just looking at it from a sociological view.

OK Socrates, lets pose a question to you:

If your homeland is subject to invasion, is it morally acceptable for your partisans to commit atrocities far worse than pissing on corpses if it will help in repelling the invaders?

I can answer that...Yes.

I was only curious about what determines the high ground it seems to be the ideology you up hold is what determines it.
Just because one believes their ideology to be the best does not make true but it does in their mind.

I can't read this entire thread--too insane. But I never could understand how we can put young men and women in a situation where they are at extreme risk for months and years and killing other human beings without expecting them to undergo some moral deterioration. Urinating on the bodies of men you have killed is nothing compared to having killed them, and letting yourself be put into the situation of having to kill them or be killed by them is the first step in your deterioration. I admire conscientous objectors for doing what was necessary to maintain their own human integrity. I wish we could see more of that in other countries, especially the countries of our so-called enemies.