The BBC leads its news this morning with the news that the Taliban are “furious” about the video of some US soldiers urinating over the dead bodies of some Taliban terrorists. Sorry, I mean fighters. Have to say I couldn’t care less about what happens to these savages who chose to pick a fight with the US military but the BBC certainly seems vexed about it. Could someone please explain that the Queensbury Rules don’t apply in war. I wonder if the Taliban have the BBC on speed dial?

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. kayjays says:

    Is this the same Taliban that recently shot and genitally mutilated a Scots soldier who ventured our alone to recover a piece of his kit?


    • Jeremy Clarke says:

      No, kayjays. That is a different Taliban who love fluffy kittens and hand out sweets to children.

      Interesting that dear old Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has oozed out of the woodwork and has been on BBC radio this morning.

      Why he and his organisation should concern themselves with dead Taliban fighters is a mystery.

      What the Marines did was wrong; it was unprofessional and immoral. They could, of course, have booby-trapped the corpses or maybe hung them from a bridge but I’ll avoid stooping to whataboutery.


  2. Martin says:

    I’m angry with that video, why didn’t they set fire to the bodies, then piss on them 🙂


    • noggin says:

      yep! major news again eh!,  filled with fury, and i hope offence.

      Did they saw the heads off them? whilst still alive?, drone out threat after threat? claim its for erm … allah?  
      sorry el beeb all out of sympathy here, go handwring somewhere else.  
      If your brown-nosing media coverage is  because of yours and obamas erm “islamic” respect … go swivel!

      One or more of those genocidal c-nts could have killed ken bigley, daniel pearl etc etc etc.  
      They want to go to erm … allah anyway, they ve been helped on the way ……. with a wash into the bargain.
      allah ackbar to that


  3. magiclantern1 says:

    Yes teh BBC seem more outraged by this than they are with Taleban terrorists (sorry, “militants”) who torture and kill girls who want an education. 


  4. Martin says:

    If you were going to do this to a scumbag member of the Taliban, what sort of pissing technique would you use?

    Would you go for the full spray or the more targetted short bursts? Which would be better I wonder?


  5. Hugh says:

    Seems it’s OK to ignore videos of dead US Marines being dragged around the streets by the Taliban, or captured Pakistan Army soldiers being slaughtered en-masse, but a tasteless, but by comparison minor event, is subject to bBBC outrage. 


  6. ltwf1964 says:

    so they’re “furious” eh?

    oh dear

    how sad

    never mind


    • Nota Sheep says:

      Very rare to see an ‘It ain’t half hot mum’ reference these days; nice one!


  7. john says:

    The indignantly furious Taliban – sorry, the world’s worst broadcaster – BBC – had better pray that this footage is genuine.
    Remember Piers Moran at the Daily Mirror ?
    And we know what happened to him !


  8. cjhartnett says:

    Oh dear-how disrespectful!
    I think Mr and Mrs Pearl-and Daniels wife…the Bigley family…and so many others were similarly “disappointed” by what the Talibans chummies in the Umma did-on the Internet-and with stanley knives-to their kids/dads etc.
    The Beeb-of course-were not so judgemental.
    A cultural nuance presumably.
    The Alan Johnston managed to leave with his head still on his shoulders forever means that there is no issue with the Taliban or Al Queda for the BBC…just a matter of speed and implementation.
    Have they sent that letter of apology to Saddams family about those beastly troubled young persons who taunted grandad on the gallows in 2006 I wonder-after all, it has been five years now!… 


  9. London Calling says:

    To the simpletons running news at the bBC it’s simple. America = bad, American Soldiers = double bad. All wars are a replay of Vietnam, of which they have not the slightest understanding. Viet Cong insurgency = liberators.  Inciting Muslim indignation worldwide = more good jobs at Al Jazeera for when they leave the bBC. Hopefully there will be a bit of flag or effigy burning as a result of their coverage worldwide, which will make good Anti-American  footage and keep fanning the flames of Mulim indignation. Good job well done. Where can we piss on the bBC please?


  10. My Site (click to edit) says:

    If these Marines did this, I can’t condone it, or the smarts that went into the publicity, especially with clearly ID’d faces.

    However, once (oddly not applied, this time) watertight oversight has shown the current assumptions to be accurate, having already rushed into kneekerk splashing (front page/top of hour wise, I mean) a la SKY or frillies twisting a la BBC and its iPhone-on-tap brigades, I’d suggest a very hard look was taken by those complicit at relative coverage vis a vis those incidents already cited above by unpaid bloggers in comparison.

    Then a very hard look in the miiror at what has courrupted the ‘news’ we get served in this country to the ratings or aganda-riddled tripe we now have.

    SKY I can opt out of, at least.


  11. Martin says:

    Actually I see nothing wrong with it, you can’t expect soldiers to put up with the daily bollocks of yet another fucked up war run by politicians from the White house and Downing Street, where some bearded halfwit they know is a member of the Taliban can’t be shot as he’s 5 feet from his rifle or he’s walking away from them.

    Our fat useless gutless politicians love starting these wars but then don’t seem to want to fight and win them.

    God knows what the BBC would have made of D-Day where very few Germans were taken prisoner and a lot were just shot out of hand. You can’t blame soldiers who’d seen hundreds of their mates slaughtered in front of them and the Germans shooting the wounded.

    The Germans had a habit of shooting pilots and crews in their parachutes, so often if our pilots saw it, they’d do the same back to the Germans.

    There are no rules in war except one, kill all of them if you can, that’s how you win.

    I don’t give a shit what some camp left wing BBC arsehole thinks, I think it’s quite funny and nice to see the Taliban getting it, shame they didn’t shove a grenande down their throats and pull the pin out (even better if they’d still been alive)


    • hippiepooter says:

      “where some bearded halfwit they know is a member of the Taliban can’t be shot as he’s 5 feet from his rifle or he’s walking away from them.”

      That’s a rule of engagement that undoubtedly needs breaking.  But peeing over the dead bodies of the enemy?  Never.


      • Martin says:

        Nothing wring with pissing on them, shame they already dead though. They are vermin inbred vermin.


      • Martin says:

        Hippiepooter, in war soldiers will normally treat the enemy as they would like to be treated by them. I suggest you take a look at how many units of the German army acted in WW2 (especially SS units) in both Russia and France.

        You will find SS soldiers were often shot regardless by allied soldiers as SS soldiers were notoriously cruel evil bastards. I have no sympathy for the Germans in that case. You reap what you sow.

        Same in the Pacific, the Japs were vile cruel scum, personally I’d have wiped out every Jap male, but the Americans didn’t, they did often kill first and ask questions later but the Americans still ttried to take prisoners despite seeing the bodies of thier friends mutilated, often involving castration and other torture.

        What you don’t seem to understand is how dehumanising war is, plenty on this forum were cheerleading the wars inAfghanistan and Iraq, well this sort of thing happens in war.

        Me I don’t give a shit, I won’t say here want I really want to say but Im’ just surprised they haven’t done more to the bodies.

        The Taliban like all Muslim terrorists are cowardly scum, they don’t follow the Geneva convention at all, they torture and murder prisoners, including women and children. They’d cut the heads off babies without thinking twice, they don’t even deserve to be treated like dogs.

        Piss on them, shit on them, fart on them I don’t care, But I suggest you join up for a few years and see what it’s like first.


        • Span Ows says:

          second owslet is passing out next week as a Royal Marine Commando. Very proud, already told him to double tap any “prisoner” to avoid problems later.

          re this, apthetic, poorr dead diddums, reminds me of the Git-bay “torture”…a bit of pee landed on my Koran, ooh the torture (lapped up by the BBC and Guardian when it happened. 


  12. Bupendra Bhakta says:

    Bonkers BBC pretrendy-leftie mindset for you.

    It’s (just about) alright to shoot the Taliban dead.

    But you mustn’t pee on them.


    • Bupendra Bhakta says:


      Breaking News

      The toilet bowl on the Executive Floor at BBC Salford Media Palace is to sue Director General Mark Thompson for insulting, cruel, and degrading behaviour.


  13. ap-w says:

    I like the slight contradiction between the second paragraph:

    The Taliban has also criticised the video as “shameful” but said it would not derail attempts at peace talks.

    and the tenth paragraph:

    Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi told the BBC that this was not the first time Americans had carried out such a “wild action” and that Taliban attacks on the Americans would continue.


  14. hippiepooter says:

    DV, I strongly disagree with you.  No matter how much our terrorist enemy is the scum of the earth, this is appalling conduct that dishonours all the judeo-christian values of the West that we’re at war to defend.

    Still, one good thing that comes out of it from the BBC and Huff Post reporting angle, is they have reported that if verified ‘such actions violate the laws of war’.

    Good of the BBC to recognise we are at war, not conducting a police action that requires the US Coalition to ‘miranda’ ‘suspects’, give them an attorney and lay charges against them.

    When we capture the enemy we lock ’em up till the war is over.  Only people incredibly stupid or shilling for the enemy fail to understand that.


    • David Vance says:

      Well, I understand your point but my point that war is hell and that we cannot expect Queensberry Rules. Of course it was disrespectful and indeed foolish to video and post BUT one cannot reasonably expect soliders in the heat of battle with bloodthirsty savages to behave as if this was a floral dance.  


      • Anonymous says:

        David, they’re not called Queensberry Rules.

        They’re called the Geneva Convention. And if we, the west, aren’t sticking to them than we lower ourselves nearer the people we’re fighting and give the Taliban a recruiting goldmine.


        • Martin says:

          ‘Guest’ clearly a big war fan, go off and join up and watch you mates die or get their arms and legs blown off and never get the chance to get the people who did it.

          See the bodies of your mates chopped up and then come back with your stupid “oh we’re a lot better than they are” bollocks.


        • Margo Ryor says:

          I didn’t know the Geneva conventions covered pissing on corpses. Living prisoners maybe but corpses?


        • David Vance says:

          Has the Taliban signed up to Geneva Conventions? 


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Since when do the Geneva convention rules cover this? Yawn. “We, the west”? This behavior is a far cry from torture, mutilation, beheading, rape, or using the bodies of their comrades as booby traps. Such bleeding heart hyperbole doesn’t wash with me.

          I hope the soldiers involved get torn a new one by their superiors for such unprofessional behavior, but that’s as outraged as I’m going to get. Who’s more upset and filled with hatred, I wonder? The Taliban or the BBC and their fellow travelers?


    • ap-w says:

      Hippiepooter, your view commands respect, but my issue with the BBC piece, and the prominence given to the story on the radio, is that I suspect the large majority of the UK population would take the view that it was a distasteful act and not one they would do themselves, but one which frankly they can’t get too worked up about given that they are not the ones on the front line dealing with the stress of war and an enemy which would quite literally take no prisoners. I can’t see anywhere where anyone with that view has been represented by the BBC?   


      • hippiepooter says:

        I’m with you, as DP said, the marines in  question need to be ‘torn a new one’ by their OC, but beyond that, let’s not get hysterical at poor taste humour.

        I’m glad these marines killed these guys.

        Martin seems to take a very black and white issue on this: one either wholeheartedly endorses peeing on dead enemy, or one is a soft bellied BBC pinko scumbo.

        Martin, I am aware of the unwritten ‘rules of engagement’ according to the realities of war.  Peeing on dead enemy is neither written or unwritten – and broadcasting it on youtube certainly isn’t either.  Uploading to youtube is hardly done ‘in the heat of battle’.


  15. Louis Robinson says:

    The BBC has danced on the head of a pin for many years unable to justify the Taliban’s brutality. Still, they have still not swerved from their main objective: to vilify western military forces.

    In the box on the webpage http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16524419 for example, under “war zone controversies” they have listed misdeeds by US and British troops – including one false allegation. (There’s no mention of the made-up claims about Koran being flushed down the loo in Gitmo? It didn’t happen but that shouldn’t stop the Beeb from repeating the libel) However, I have not discovered one similar list of Taliban crimes though there been countless executions, torture, kidnappings and murder  against Afghan citizens and foreigners.

    What’s even more interesting are the contortions the Beeb has to perform in order to keep the Taliban image clean. Here is a fascinating example from a C-BBC site:  a “Newsround” background piece for kids  (it’s always good to see what the BBC tells kids).  
    “The Taliban’s strict laws and extreme punishments did make them unpopular with other countries” followed by “But this was not the reason they were attacked in 2001.”


    So if their “strict laws and extreme punishments” (wow! Talk about understatement!) were not the reason “they were attacked” in 2001, what was the reason? Children? Anyone in class?

    And how about this from a BBC profile of the Taliban: “Many observers now believe that future peace in Afghanistan can only come if the government in Kabul negotiates with the Taliban.
    Who are these “observers”? I can think of many reasons why some governments want to cut and run. One such country has an election this year, one has a coalition government, some others have no armies to speak of and have never fired a shot as part of a NATO operation and don’t intend to.

    On a broader point, the BBC’s approach to our enemies dismays me. They don’t acknowledging their intent against us. They are wary of the very people trying to defend us. The root cause of this I’m sure is that no BBC researcher, producer or anchor comes into contact with the army, navy or airforce EVER. (The exceptions  to that statement  are Jenni Murray and Kate Adie). The alienation of the military is the only downside of professional armed forces. They should engage in the propaganda war more fully. Meanwhile at cocktail parties in Islington and Hampstead, useful idiots promote our foes. 


    • Louis Robinson says:

      Clarification: I meant to imply that BBC people sledom meet the military in a SOCIAL context. They all read military press releases. 


      • DJ says:

        Well, that’s that BBC diversity again: the United Colours of Metropolitan Liberals. They insist they need the unique perspectives that can only be achieved by hiring a representative number of back lesbians, but they don’t know anyone who works with their hands or wears a uniform to work.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Tim Willcox on the News Channel is ex-military. He’s also just about the only one there who isn’t blatantly biased when doing interviews.


  16. cjhartnett says:

    Don`t recall the BBC ever worrying about how the Taliban-or indeed any Islamic group like Hamas or Al Queda-treat any US/Israeli soldier caught by them.
    Wonder why?


  17. RGH says:

    Thinking aloud.

    In war, prisoners tend to be taken alive not as individuals, or small groups, but as an organised event. Officer to officer negotiating surrender.

    This, by the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan, is unlikely to happen here.

    You get the oppo. before he gets you or your mates.

    War drives people mad. Near death experiences, witnessing the results of Taliban atrocities..mutilated children…drives one mad.

    Of course, the action ‘dishonours’ the dead in the eyes of the living. (Being dead, they are beyond caring one way or another).

    The action is a media embarrasment.

    Urine  a is sterile liquid by-product of the body that is secreted by the kidneys. You can drink if you can overcome the socially conditioned disgust reflex. Skin conditions…fungal or autoimmuneconditions can be treated with urine. It is bio-degradable and breaks down into plant-food.

    Disgusting it is not …except in the mind. ie it is symbolic.

    Flaying prisoners alive, mutilation…Taliban practices well known to frontline troops  are bestial.

    Disrespect. Yes.  For an enemy who deserves no respect.

    Let’s see if it is ‘genuine’.


  18. John Anderson says:

    The question remains – why did the BBC give such prominence to this story ?

    Remember how much they harped on about Abu Ghraib ? 

    It is just another stick to beat the military with.

    Yes,  the behaviour is wrong and regrettable.

    But the BBC’s behaviour is worse.  They like “pissing” on Coalition troops.


  19. London Calling says:

    War is war, killing is killing, but peeing on people is disrespectful. That really hurts them. The Taliban are the enemy, though perhaps not to the scum that work for the bBC. Just “Freedom Fighters”, as they plant roadside bombs to mutilate our soldiers. The bBC are very very screwed up on the difference between right and wrong.


  20. Fred the Ted says:

    A short while ago US troops were ordered not to fart in the presence of Afghans and not to piss in the direction of Mecca. Maybe the people in charge of this war are in tune with the BBC and their idea that the allies should be angels.


  21. Margo Ryor says:

    All the Liberals on this side of the Pond are in a tizzy over this too. When I saw the headline about a ‘marine atrocity’ I was expecting another Mai Lai not a mildly tasteless bit of male bonding.


  22. pounce_uk says:

    Now I’ve watched the unedited video over at the guardian (yeah thanks for that bBC)  the question I have to ask is, if this happened after a gunfight in the worse place in the world (outside Liverpool that is) and there are four soldiers in the frame, why is only one carrying a weapon, where are the radios? (Each man carries a radio) and why are they wearing a different pattern uniform to the current one. Why are there no US flags on the soldiers arms, I wore a union jack on my arm today Here is the current US body armour and here is the MTV body armour as worn by the marines. (Notice how small his cod piece is as compared to the bloke in the videos (an older model?) well the MTV has been in use since  2006. why is there a woman’s voice in the video? A woman in the field? Maybe but very rare. Also why is nobody wearing a knee pad? I’m talking about something that nearly everybody wears. But these guys aren’t.

    OH I am not saying the vid is a fake, but I sure can spot a number of things that don’t fit in.   


    • pounce_uk says:

      Like the first thing you are taught, “Your gun is your best friend” Never ever leave him alone.  
      You’d think any so called bBC defence expert would be asking those questions? Instead as per normal they find the US guilty. Yup according to the bBC if you are white, heterosexual and not a Muslim then you are always guilty until found guilty.


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      I was prepared to concede benefit of doubt on a few things, but this makes the convenient breaching of the ‘when it suits’ watertight oversight commitment by the national broadcaster (at least), a disgrace.  
      This is heavy duty stuff, charged with emotion and a whole region-full of macho BS just waiting to unload.  
      In a few pithy paras, with sourced support, you have for free identified and articulated a raft of legitimate story validity concners that, far as I can see, no vastly funded media outlet has the capability to conduct, assuming they had any interest in showing integrity or professional competence in the first place.


  23. Cassandra King says:

    Now what they should have done is bury them face down in pigs blood, now thats what I call justice and a fine deterent. These taliban are religious fanatics who have been promised paradise but they aint going there covered in pigs offal and lying face down. Offer that little burial service and the number of recruits to the taliban would drop quite sharply.

    If you have to fight terrorists who obey no rules of war, you simply cannot win by fighting with some of the most ridiculously over the top rules. And that is why the West is losing against the taliban, and that is why our troops are being killed. I wonder if the relatives of those dead soldiers are happy to have sacrificed their loved ones in order that the political class, none of whom have died or will die on the battlefield can have a clear conscience? War is evil, best by far not to fight one but if fight youmust then isnt it better to win and win big?


    • David Vance says:

      The BBC don’t even accept they are terrorists.


      • Louis Robinson says:

        The BBC doesn’t accept the term “terrorist”? Have to disagree, Vance. Only yesterday Mark Mardell (tweeting of course) wondered why the people who blew up the Iranian nuclear scientist are not labelled “terrorists”? It appears now you can be a “terrorist” if you are our side. 


    • Martin says:

      Spot on Cassandra, plenty of people cheer on the “let’s go kick ass” but once the reality of war catches up, they don’t want to know.

      War dehumanises people, there is some rather odd view that our troops are like robots and have no feelings.

      I know just how those Americans feel, it’s so rare our forces seem to ever actually catch up with the Taliban.

      US soldiers spend 12+ months deployed, our soldiers do 6 months, our soldiers look knackered after 6 so god knows what the Americans are like after 12, also many of them will be on their 2nd or 3rd tour.

      What amazes me is the ‘outrage’ on this forum, I can take it off the camp left wing BBC, but people need to get real, if they really think the worst thing in the world is pissing on some dead bodies, they need to get out more.

      We’re losing in Afghanistan, we look weak, we have no strategy militarily other than waste the gains from the surge.


  24. George R says:

    A typical Beeboid political line on the Taliban:

    “BBC presenter Lyse Doucet: Media fail to convey ‘humanity of the Taliban'” (2008).



    • George R says:

      Does INBBC even read its own stuff on the Taliban?:  
      ‘Jihadwatch’ comments on INBBC report of 3 months ago- 

      Surprise! Taliban setting up “sleeper cells” in Afghan National Army and police  

      [Opening extract]:-

      “We have plenty of evidence we had a number of suicide attacks carried out by people who had been in the army, trusted because they were affiliated.”  
      War is deceit,” Muhammad said.” “Ex-UN official says Taliban infiltrating Afghan forces,” from BBC News, October 4:


    • cjhartnett says:

      Doucet was on the Review of the Year-and predicting what might yet come.
      That she was so hopelessly wrong in the pastdidn`t stop her getting the usual respect.
      She was good enough to quote Gramsci verbatim when she spoke of ” optimism of the intellect/pessimism of the will”….a delight to hear such codespeak for the typical fellow-traveller from the colonies.
      Hain, that Aussie lawyer…now Doucet…as if we don`t have ebough guilt ridden white quislings of our own!


  25. Cassandra King says:

    The Geneva convention was not designed to protect the rights of unlawful combatants or terrorists. These illegal combatants have no rights under the geneva convention, they have no protection other than those that the signatory nation gives them. Signatory nations that go to war with non signatory nations have no duties of care other than those they choose to uphold. A nation might choose to give illegal combatants or terrorists the same or similar rights but there is no international obligation to do so.

    The Geneva convention sets out duties and responsibilities of signatory nations on the treatment of POWs and the conduct of lawful conflict between nations signed up to the convention. In fact is perfectly legal to shoot terrorists on sight, there are no rules on the treatment of terrorists on the battlefield, they are not covered by the Geneva convention. Now we have read quite a few posts from people quoting the convention and they seem to labour under the false impression that the taliban are legally due the same rights as our soldiers, they are not.


    • Martin says:

      If the media outrage had been because the soldiers had shot captured Taliban, I might have some sympathy, but they pissed on some dead scumbags.

      The Geneva convention is peddled around like it’s the new Bible, as you rightly point out scumbags like the Taliban and Alky Ada are not interested in ‘rules of war’

      They should consider themselves lucky they don’t get the same treatment they dish out to their captives.

      Margaret Hassan didn’t get Geneva convention treatment, she got her head hacked off.


  26. cjhartnett says:

    How can they be terrorists-haven`t they just opened up a branch in Quatar?
    Surely those old “mission to explain” and “global reach” excuses will mean that thye might take up some slack, now that RBS and Tesocs are having problems.
    They might even be encouraged to provide media opportunities over here if only the BBC would stop doing their job for them.


  27. Cassandra King says:

    The tragedy, the real tragedy is not the fact that some soldiers supposedly pissed on some dead terrorists and it seems likely the pictures are faked. No, the real tragedy and the reason why the mission is doomed and why the coalition is going to lose is the reaction to this video by the Wests politicians, the chattering classes, the progressive liberal anti war gang.

    The taliban are flint hard courageous fighters, they are utterly psychotic, mercy and fair play and rules are simply unknown to them, they fight to win and the only rule is to kill the enemy, instil fear in them, take no prisoners and torture and mutilate them whenever possible. There is no Geneva convention, no red cross parcels to comfy prison camps with the taliban. They are fighting to a different set of rules, rules made up centuries before, they kicked the arse of the greatest most powerful empires, both the UK and then the USSR.

    The answer is dont fight them at all but if you have to fight them then fight on their terms and treat them how they treat you and even then as the USSR found its impossible to win. The red army went in and killed entire villages, wiped out tribes, no mercy and torture centres galore and still they lost. And the real enemy is not even in Afghanistan, they never were and those few that were could have been quarantined easily enough without going into Afghanistan with troops.

    The coalition will leave and the installed regime will collapse shortly after, there was no point in going in, nothing has been achieved, no victory, its a defeat that was certain five years ago, its another Vietnam with the West propping up a corrupt regime that will fall soon after the West gets out, its all been for nothing. All the money wasted and all the lives lost and all for nothing, thats the real tragedy and the real scandal.

    The West could not win because there is nothing to win, victory? WTF is that word supposed to mean exactly? The taliban are stronger now than five years ago, the regime propped up by the West is ready to fall, they have more in common with the taliban than the West and when ‘Saigon’ does fall the ragtag remnants will flee North and hold out as the Northern league did and the taliban will have won. The entire enterprise has been a failure and BTW the training camps are not in Afghanistan they are in Pakistan and the ISI are training and equipping them. The UK is giving aid cash that goes to finance the taliban bombers, crazy isnt it?

    There is a saying, the coalition has the watches but the taliban has the time, they will prevail and the adventure into that quagmire will have been for nothing. All the West will have to show for its hundreds of billions will be lines of graves and thousands of smashed and ruined ex soldiers scraping a bare living on paltry pension. Still the military industrial complex has gotten rich, the arms profiteers have done very well indeed, the new police state built up around the war on terror is coming on in leaps and bounds.

    Now you may think I hate the taliban, I actually admire their tenacity and courage and fortitude and stamina and bravery, they can march for a month on rice and rotten goat curry that would make a maggot puke and still fight to the end with no rest. Once the West leaves that benighted cursed little country they will not pursue us, all they want is for the West to leave, just another defeated empire given a smack down so the locals can get back to abusing their women and molesting their goats and making war on the tribe in the next valley.


  28. Span Ows says:

    If anyone’s interested, here is a post I did on the taliban in 2007, lots of links to…



  29. Merlin says:

    I couldn’t care less what happened to Taliban SCUM, but what a waste of good urine!


    • Merlin says:

      And I see the sanctimonious pro-Muslim terrorist anti-American Guardian are up in arms about it! They are beyond belief, they really are; it would do them much good (and give us all a break from their snooty left wing shite) if they were to bugger off and relocate to the nearest Taliban stronghold to see how ‘understanding and harmonious’ the Taliban truly  are. That extremist left wing  socialist toilet roll of a ‘newspaper’ absoulutely dusgusts me.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Agreed. I get annoyed by the self-righteous indignation from “we, the west” acting as if the entire US military is discredited by this. I roll my eyes at those who cry that this is just going to recruit a new horde of angry Muslim youth, as if all the Hobbits were now going to fight to save the Shire simply because of this. It looks bad, sure, but does little more than give a few demagagues an opportunity for about five minutes.

        Nobody in the outrage department seems to notice that the Marines have already identified half of them and will deal with them swiftly. If anybody thinks that the generals are less upset than your average Muslim about this, they’re mistaken. But that part detracts from the ability to express emotion, so gets ignored.


  30. ian says:

    Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan (on his second attempt) by making alliances with the right tribes and by slaughtering everyone else. But he would have stood no chance at all if he’d been handicapped by the television taliban peering over his shoulder all the time for signs of (sponsored) angst on the faces of the villagers.


  31. Paddy says:

    So, let’s get this right. No condemnation of the barbarity of burying a woman up to her waist , and then when she can’t run away or properly defend herself throw stones at her until she dies for the crime of beng a victim of rape . No condemnation of filming someone beheaded slowly with a blunt knife but let’s throw the book at someone peeing on dead folk.

    Didn’t the beeb describe thatchers grave as going to be britains biggest public toilet (QI).

    So pissing on dead prime minister,funny, beheading innocents, perfectly acceptable, playing crown green bowls with a lasses head, a sort of afghan world of sport,but peeing on a stiff , bloody war crime.

    Well who’d of thunk


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      There’s no condemnation because they expect that sort of behavior from the Afghans. The soft racism of lowered expectations.


  32. Barry says:

    I watched “The Round Up” last night – a sort of French Schindler’s List, only better IMO.

    After that, I’m not remotely interested in what the marines did. I only wonder why they filmed it.