Printable View
One of my fav sites http://www.yellowtimes.org/ has been shut down for showing pictures of American POWs :mad:
I don't get this as every effin tv station is showing them, usually after going on about the Geneva Convention :rolleyes:
Show them or don't show them (including the Iraqis) but be consistent for f's sake.
You see, when the CNN shows Iraq refugees walking towards the allied forces with their hands up, it's within the Geneva convention. But when Al Jazeera shows the Allied troop members as proof to bolster claims of the Iraqi forces (which the US forces would be quick to discard as "propaganda") it is against the Geneva convention.
In short, when the US does it, it's all legal and fair. When Iraq does it, it's not so.
.
yellowtimes.org can sue their hosting company for that message. I learned the hard way. Ask me what happened
While I personally don't agree with showing the pictures because of the affect on the families. It is interesting to hear Bush an Co. talk about the Convention which they happily ignore in CubaQuote:
Originally posted by honeybee
In short, when the US does it, it's all legal and fair. When Iraq does it, it's not so.
This is going to turn into a rant isn't it? :)Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
yellowtimes.org can sue their hosting company for that message. I learned the hard way. Ask me what happened
*clears throat* ok What happened?
The message you see is because yellowtimes.org's hosting company uses HSphere software (like I). I had to suspend one of my customer's website because he was spamming (legally though) from my mail servers and it was against my AUP. Now this clever fellow filed a suit against me, and this is the reason he gave was:Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
This is going to turn into a rant isn't it? :)
*clears throat* ok What happened?
DEFACING Website
Now what he claimed was that my Hosting agreement states that I can terminate your service if you violate my AUP. However, the definition of "termination" actually means taking that guys website offline. However, when you do terminate the services using the HSphere software (which I use), it puts a site suspended/terminated message on the site. He claimed that it was illegal. Terminating means terminating. He further claimed that I defaced and defamed his website and business.
I had no option but to settle and modify my agreement. heh, how about someone sending an email to yellowtime's and give them that idea.
******* Iraq is showing video of American and British soldiers shot in the head. If you were a parent and turned on TV to see your son/daughter with a bullet hole in their head before being notified that they were KIA what would you think. Show some ****ing respect...Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
You see, when the CNN shows Iraq refugees walking towards the allied forces with their hands up, it's within the Geneva convention. But when Al Jazeera shows the Allied troop members as proof to bolster claims of the Iraqi forces (which the US forces would be quick to discard as "propaganda") it is against the Geneva convention.
In short, when the US does it, it's all legal and fair. When Iraq does it, it's not so.
.
What right does America have to demand the Iraqis follow the Geneva convention after what they did to the taliban soldiers in camp x-ray ?
Perhaps you could expand on that a little, give some specifics illustrating what you believe happened at Camp X-Ray?Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
What right does America have to demand the Iraqis follow the Geneva convention after what they did to the taliban soldiers in camp x-ray ?
BTW, is there a Country called "Talibania" or some such, if there exists taliban "soldiers".
_Lou
yeah and while your at it, can you provide the footage that was shown on US media that showed taliban soliders executed with a bullet in the forehead? I would be instered in seeing that.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Perhaps you could expand on that a little, give some specifics illustrating what you believe happened at Camp X-Ray?
BTW, is there a Country called "Talibania" or some such, if there exists taliban "soldiers".
_Lou
Sorry I didn't mean that the US executed any of the soldiers.
It hasn't yet been proven that the soldiers were indeed executed.
Aaaanyway.
My point was that the taliban "soldiers" were made lie down outside in the sun, faces against the ground, blindfolded.
Complete sensory deprovation.
They were also shown on television quite often.
How does that compare to what the Iraqis have done so far ?
umm they killed them and put them on tv?Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Sorry I didn't mean that the US executed any of the soldiers.
It hasn't yet been proven that the soldiers were indeed executed.
Aaaanyway.
My point was that the taliban "soldiers" were made lie down outside in the sun, faces against the ground, blindfolded.
Complete sensory deprovation.
They were also shown on television quite often.
How does that compare to what the Iraqis have done so far ?
There's no proof that the US soldiers were executed.
And if they were KIA, then the Iraqis are most certainly not the first people to show dead enemy soldiers on television.
yes they got lucky and the dead POWs all happened to get hit in the forhead right between the eyes...Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
There's no proof that the US soldiers were executed.
And if they were KIA, then the Iraqis are most certainly not the first people to show dead enemy soldiers on television.
[edit]...[/edit]
Okay I've found references to it now.
Well the soldiers may not have been executed while in captivity.
An Iraqi officer could have done it on the battlefield.
I haven't read of any American of British POWs being executed by Iraqi soldiers (perhaps you can point me in their direction). *edit* the stories that isQuote:
Originally posted by kleinma
yes they got lucky and the dead POWs all happened to get hit in the forhead right between the eyes...
As a result I would be slightly sceptical given Saddams approach these people are worth more to him alive than dead. To the Iraqi people they are also worth more alive with the bounty that they get.
What I'm saying is that executing POWs does not seem to follow the standard approach to propaganda that Saddam uses.
Heres what a Mr. Jack Shafer has to say, over at msn:
Why Rumsfeld should be careful about lecturing Saddam about the Geneva Conventions
-Lou
Obviously very lob-sided, but its a reference anyway...Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
*edit* the stories that is
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=31688
is that why Saddam said in his speech to "slit the throats of the enemy"?Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
As a result I would be slightly sceptical given Saddams approach these people are worth more to him alive than dead.
Yeah, your right...must be a coincedence that they ALL were shot in the forehead.Quote:
There's no proof that the US soldiers were executed.
Iraqi soldiers must be incredibly accurate with their weapons!
besides article 13 of the geneva convention states specifically.
This means they shouldn't have been paraded and interviewed (interrogated) in front of a camera, for propoganda purposes, nor showing the bodies of dead (executed) soldiers.Quote:
prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
They did state that if a camera man is on the battlefield and films (as it is happening) a group of soldiers surrendering, this is not a violation of the geneva convention.
Perfectly acceptable to do that on the battlefield.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
is that why Saddam said in his speech to "slit the throats of the enemy"?
1) An officer could have done it at point blank range on the battlefield with a pistol.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Yeah, your right...must be a coincedence that they ALL were shot in the forehead.
This means they shouldn't have been paraded and interviewed (interrogated) in front of a camera, for propoganda purposes, nor showing the bodies of dead (executed) soldiers.
2) Nor should the afghan figters that were held in camp x-ray have been.
That was a reference to a post earlier that said the soldiers were worth more to Sadaam alive.
Im not saying that the US should be lecturing about the Geneva Conventions or anything.. I am just saying it is wrong what Iraq is doing... if we do it to it is still wrong... I am sure POWs are not treated with the best care.. but I do know for a fact that our military medics were operating on Iraqi soldiers that were shot BEFORE they worked on US/British soldiers in need of medical assistance. They do it in order of how badly the medical attention is needed. Not what side they are on.. and to me that says a lot about us because I have no doubt what so ever that Iraq would NEVER do the same
Doctors and nurses use triage. Simple as that.
Not to mention the HUGE humanitarian add effort that's about to begin. But I'm sure Sadaam had something similar planned for his own people...since he cares so much...:rolleyes:
What am I talking about anyway, we're just a bunch of war mongers here in American anyway
Quote:
Iraq's news agency said Saddam has put a price on the heads of allied soldiers.
The agency said he's decreed that an Iraqi who kills an enemy soldier will get a $14,000 reward. It says anybody who captures a soldier alive will get $28,000.
The list also includes rewards for shooting down planes and missiles -- it specifies $55,500 for a fighter jet, $28,000 for a helicopter and $5,500 for a missile.
A huge fuss was made about showing footage of POWs where's the outrage in the mainstream media i.e. BBC RTE of them being executed?Quote:
Following a grim weekend of events in which Arab television broadcast footage of American POWs executed and being interrogated by the Iraqis, U.S. military officials expressed satisfaction over the progress coalition forces are making toward their objective of taking down the Saddam Hussein regime and getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction.
Ah I found another article fro m South Africa
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...337247,00.html
Another article I came across quoted an American Officer in Iraq saying he did not believe that they were executing POWs
Another thing I find odd is how some sides mention that US officials said that they saw what appeared to be bulletholes in their heads, and some other sites say that the bodies were riddled with bullets, but also with bullets in their heads.
If the Iraqis held them as war criminals they could have executed them.
The US said that anyone that uses chemical weaons would be a war criminal - so by using US logic - you can decide on the fly what constitutes war crimes.
So in theory it would be okay for them to execute the soldiers.
You will argue and justify everything until the bitter end, I'm completely convinced.
Hehehe how can I say I don't agree without sounding like im again trying to argue something ;)Quote:
Originally posted by run_GMoney
You will argue and justify everything until the bitter end, I'm completely convinced.
Anyway I'm just playing devil's advocate in a few situations.
I completely understand wanting to understand both sides but eventually it reaches a point where it's pointless to offer evidence or justification on our end if everything is questioned. It's like entering one of those pointless philosophical discussions with no answers. "How do you know you're not dreaming..." God I hate philosophy sometimes...[end off-topic rant]
Its not just what the US says I do believe that the world feels that the use of chemical or biological weapons is considered a war crime. The same holds true for executing soldiers.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
The US said that anyone that uses chemical weaons would be a war criminal - so by using US logic - you can decide on the fly what constitutes war crimes.
So in theory it would be okay for them to execute the soldiers.
X
Except the punishment for war crimes is generally execution.
So it could be perfectly legal if the Iraqi legal system found them guilty.
Many countries in the world execute people.
Look at china - they do it for money crimes too.
[exagerrating for affect] So if the Iraqi legal system says "American soldiers are war criminals", not that it does I'm just hypothesizing, that makes it ok to execute them as war criminals? Or if the Iraqi legal system says "anyone wearing brown" is a war criminal it's ok to execute them as war criminals? [end exagerration] C'mon I think the definitions for war criminals is pretty common worldwide in accordance with Geneva.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Except the punishment for war crimes is generally execution.
So it could be perfectly legal if the Iraqi legal system found them guilty.
Quote:
Many countries in the world execute people.
Look at china - they do it for money crimes too.
Shame on you for bringing that up. You know better. Just because they do it doesn't make it right...etc...you know the drill.
Nah my point here is that any country can decide what is an executable offense.
So why can't Iraq ;)
The irony here being that Iraq could vary well be committing war crimes by executing Americans for war crimes.
The term war crimes is so subjective though.
Just like "illegal combattants" used by rumsfeld. meh :rolleyes:
Oh no, now we're getting into loose interpretation of war crimes. That's dangerous and scary. I'm not positive, but I thought the guidelines of war crimes were pretty cut and dry. Again, I'm not positive and I'll have to research that a bit. And if it is such a subjective term, something needs to be changed.
There is a basic definition of war crimes, open for interpretation I suppose.Quote:
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including . . . wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, . . . taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
"willful killing" :confused: