In this case (if the allegations are true) the filth is clearly the "soldiers". :mad: There is no arguing or excusing such repugnant acts, nor is there no arguing or excusing their gross breach of military discipline in a war zone.

Seriously Tom in the Canadian, Australian, or British militaries they could have been summarily shot on the spot by an officer just for being drunk and abandoning their post. In the French (regular and Foreign Legion) it would have been a firing squad made up of their own unit - the very men they betrayed and endangered.

I have zero sympathy for any of these "soldiers", nor for anyone that tried to cover it up - or made excuses for their crimes.

I don't think anyone is condoning the acts of these soldiers, if indeed they're guilty. However, the outrage over events like this is ironic, considering the international silence that occurs whenever American citizens are killed...

Well, actually if you check out the dictionary ("assasinate"), you'll find:

1. to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.
2. to destroy or harm treacherously and viciously: to assassinate a person's character.

(Emphasis original to dictionary.com. My 1966 Random House unabridged has the same definitions.)

Because they're not necessarily the same thing. Character assassination is form of defamation with the particular purpose of ending someone's political or business career or a similar effect. As the Wiki article that Drolefille linked says: Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is correctly likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long and more, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death.

American civilians? or American citizens? two different beasts

I meant to say civilians, but yeah.

I tip my proverbial cap to you then Mysticcat though Earp completely misused the expression. I had never heard the phrase before yesterday. I suppose you could refer to Mary Magdelene as a famous victim of character assassination.

Shinerbock, I believe the outrage here is that these soldiers were part of an invasion into another country where they then preyed on the civilians of that country. It's like walking into someone else's house, taking off your shoes and shooting their dog.
I am no less outraged by the kidnappings and murders of Americans, Brits, etc. Jill Carroll, for instance, was a UMASS alum and someone we never forgot during her entire ordeal.
The outrage is similar to the emotions on 9/11. Someone came into our country and killed our people.
When you're in the military, you do your damn job and nothing but your job. This murder was pre-meditated and appalling.

Bingo! She wasn't just defamed, her character was assassinated, and it took centuries to get past that. (Although I could make the argument that the current Da Vinci Code-esque treatments of her have started a new dafamation of her.)

But you got it exactly.

I thought that those were pro-Magdelene

There's still no historical evidence for it.

I'm sure you're outraged by American death, I'm referring to people who will gleefully jump on soldiers, yet remain silent when Americans are killed. As for the soldiers, I don't believe they've been convicted yet.

They indeed purport to be pro-Magdelene. But if they portray her as something she was not (and there is no evidence to back up the Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Da Vinci Code-type claims about her), then they defame her. My guess is that she would be equally horrified by her portrayal over many centuries as a former harlot and by her portrayal as the wife of Jesus, mother of his children and "Holy Grail." (Of course, that presumes she would have any idea what a '"holy grail" is, given that she was from Judea and the "holy grail" is rooted in Celtic myth.)

there's no historical evidence for any of the rest that either (jesus, apostles, etc.)

But at least the Gospels (written within decades of when Jesus would have lived) and other early Christian writings can be compared to other historic evidence to try and get a somewhat historical picture.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code rely on distortions of the historical evidence, and in some instances are outright contradicted by the historical evidence, with everything being viewed heavily through a conspiracy theory lens.

Besides the fact that the early Christian writings show hints of veracity (took a whole course in this) look at Josephus.. a non-Christian historian who mentions Jesus. He existed... whether he was the Son of God is your call :)

Ditto to MysticCat.

Josephus is not a reliable source. He refers to Jesus as 'the son of god' in his writings. Someone obviously got to it and tainted the record. Sorry, took a 'Bible as History' class and this was the kind of thing we covered. There actually isn't that much written evidence as to Jesus' existence. A census here and there maybe.

If you put stock in a novel, you deserve everything you get. The Da Vinci Code was neat and it would be awesome if it were true, but come on...