Laws of war ?
 

Look at this lady Victoria Clarke from Pentagon talk about how Iraq isn't following the "laws of war".



War is fucking war. There is no laws in war.



What part of killing thousands of civilians is part of the "laws of war".

some people I tell ya,

:BangBang: :BangBang:

Actually, there are laws of war. Get an education.

Nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, dumb dumb bullets...

Have you heard of the Nuremberg Trials? They happened for a reason.

Treaties. They happen for a reason.

Executing their POWs while we feed ours.

Having laws and rules for war always sounds funny. But just think of how things would be if there were no laws and rules...

Yes, theyre are laws. In fact, even if war has not or is not been declared, the combattants are still protected by the " Geneva convention"...

Those are written laws, and I sure hope that the parties involved will obey " unwritten" laws....

There is a huge diffrence between Atomic Bombs and showing prisoners on tv.


I see Iraqi prisoners on cnn all the time.

whats the diffrence?


US army needs to stop with this double standard bs.

Cool.

Let the executions begin.

Why do you think now we are going to push to bring the Red Cross? So they can have a look at how POWs on both sides are being treated, we will gladly turn ours over to the Red Cross, think ole Saddam will do the same? We will find out they have killed POWs.

It will all unfold.

Tell me, when did CNN post pictures of Iraqi POWs similar to this:
http://www.aljazeera.net/mritems/ima...146001_1_6.jpg
And this:
http://www.aljazeera.net/mritems/ima...146002_1_6.jpg
Unfortunately, I don't watch CNN so I must have missed it. Did anyone tape it?

Well...hmm...let me see...just what government agency/Army is CNN?

First of all, that isn't a POW. That is a KIA.

<img src="http://msnbc.com/c/0/144/706/10x7/030322_war_03.jpg">

Same story. Was our guy waving a white flag or a machine gun when he was killed?

Says who?

Iraqi television?

A bullet between the eyes? Damn. Those Iraqi soldiers have one hell of a shot.

--

Now let's look at your picture. I say the Iraqi had a gun ready and was about to shoot.

--

Who's right?

Nobody knows, although I'm pretty sure 90% of the people on the board think they do.

See this shit sly ?

War is war my man.

Excellent.

I'm ready to roll out the nukes. Let's go! Someone grab the chemical warheads on your way out...

Exactly. The point is we show dead Iraqi's but they can't show dead Americans? Bullshit. There are much more important things to worry about that Iraq's TV station showing our dead soldiers. We are showing our troops dropping missles on the enemy. That is a stupid fucking double standard and Bush is whining about it like a little bitch. Were those people shot after they were POW's? Who knows so why make presumptions. They were ambushed but soldiers/civilians. It ins't very hard to get off a head shot on a soldier that isn't taking a defense from close range.

Not taking any sides here, but actually a head shot is very probable if the soldier isn't ducking properly. If he was laying in a bunker or whatever, his head would probably been the only thing visible..
there's no way of telling if these were pow's before they were killed:2 cents:
they could have been, not denying that either though.

Yes, I'm not arguing any way. Frow what I understand these are POW's from the Iraqi fake surrender that then opened fire on the troops. If that is the case it's possible a sniper had a free shot on an unmoving target or that someone was very close range with weapons. Either way, we show dead Iraqi's all day and Iraqi's being blown to hell but the Bush administration has a piss fit when they show our dead soldiers. I'm sure there are many more important things to worry about and I'm glad the news gets out so we can see a glimpse of what is going on.

You are aware that there are accounts as reported by people IN the battles (soldiers, and media) that Iraqis are faking surrenders (with white flags included) then opening fire on our troops.

Rule #1 of war: Kill the enemy before he kills you.

Rule #2 of war: Rule number 1 is the only rule in war.

War isn't a nintndo game, it's about killing the opposition, so everything goes.

no.

well if you look at the pictures closely you can see that some of their heads were laying on a pool of blood, If they was shot in head during the battle then wouldn't you think that there wouldn't be laying on blood pool

i don't have the picture but i clearly remember one guy had a bandage on his chest which i presume would be his first wound

no sense in bandaging a guy who got shot in the head

The difference is you see news agencies who are riding along with the army reporting what is going on as it is happening.

What you see is coverage of guys surrendering.

Then what you see is coverage of guys in the distance hands bound being interrogated by a soldier.

You never see on cnn close up footage of Iraqi soldiers faces, you never hear audio of them giving out their name, rank, and serial #, you never hear them answering questions while they are being interrogated.

Understand the difference now?

Exactly. America only follows internation law when it suits them! They break UN law and abide be the Geneva conventions? lol

If you think either of these nations abide by the geneva convetions, then get real. I've seen pictures in the Toronto Star of Iraqi soldiers blown to pieces, Iraq's soldiers being blindfolded by US troops etc... they both do it, but the US only applies it when they see fit. In the US's eyes, Iraq must follow all these rules.. no weapons that can fire far, international law, treaties, etc.. but the US is allowed to break them all because it's justified. lol... get real.

Thousands of civilians? Jackass

We are not targetting civilians we are attacking their military. :ak47:

Thats all I'm gonna say, becuase I don't waste my time debating.

According to mika, there are in fact Laws of War.

Read more:
http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...hreadid=119109

i would say the soldiers shown on tv are the lucky ones, they're much more likely to get out when it's all over, now we know they're alive. (let's hope so anyway)

during the first gulf war all the media were saying that the pilots captured and shown on TV were badly bruised and cut up, and had clearly been tortured. And after the war was over it turned out most pilots got their injuries from ejecting from their planes. (I'm not saying they were well treated though)

i think interviewing soldiers on tv is nothing to be honest, it's bizarre that it's ok for both sides to shoot as many as possible with guns, but shoot someone with a camera and there's an outcry. you can guarantee there's a lot worse than this going on on both sides at the moment.

i've seen the faces of loads of iraqi prisoners and don't hear them giving name. rank and number because i don't speak arabic and i'm guessing nor do their captors. i heard lots of taliban being interogated in afghanistan by the CIA and the media including prisoners on stretchers (that american taliban being an example) and when it became clear that human rights may get in the way you changed the "laws of war" and called them enemy combatants whatever that means.

btw i'm not condoning iraqi or taliban treatment, their treatment is fine by me, i'm british and support our troops 110% whilst they're in action, just exposing double standards. it's distressing to see dead and captured soldiers but no worse than we do.

Let's just go nuclear and get this the hell over with.

i thought we were meant to be "liberating" the iraqi people? or is that all forgotten now we've suffered a few casualties.

Laws of war?? My law would be: get in - try to survive - get out.

Of course, my point was addressing the difference between the Iraqi handling of our POW's and the way the coalition has handled Iraqi POW's...regardless the point of law is that they violated it.

One reason for not interviewing soldiers on t.v. is out of respect and security for the family members of that soldier.

One POW's mom found out he was a POW while watching Phillipinian television. Would that be your choice of method in finding out your child was either dead, captured or missing.

Also when they force the soldiers to give out names, places where they were born etc, this now makes their family members vulnerable to attack, whether that is from terrorists, protesters, just flat out ignorant assholes or the media.




The whole enemy combatant thing in Afghanistan is a completely different argument...as far as hearing any Iraq POW's giving out name, rank and number you don't need to know how to speak arabic because you didn't hear it, and you won't at least not from any media "embedded" with the military.


You're not exposing anything. The only thing consisten about life is that it is inconsistent. Let's not pretend that anyone outside of America or that is protesting the war are the only ones with the ability to think.

Now if you don't think the Iraqis are treating POWs any worse than we are...then by all means jump right up there on the front lines and prove us wrong.

what i'm saying is that iraqi prisoners were shown on TV BEFORE any coallition forces were even taken prisoner. it's either right or it's wrong to show them on TV end of story. Anyway i think the geneva convention states that captive prisoners shouldn't be humiliated, that's all that relates to showing them on TV. any soldier shown on tv as a prisoner from either side is going to be humiliated whatever their nationality whether they're questioned or not.

how is it? it is now that the rules have been changed. i'm not defending taliban scum btw just the hypocrisy of all this rules of war bullshit. before the rule change they were (are) protected under the geneva convention.

well your contradicting yourself here, should consistent rules be followed or not?

i'm outside of the US, but who say's i'm against the war? I'm from the UK and my country has got as much to lose as yours in this war and i support our troops 100%.

Now there's a clever answer, i don't need to prove anything to a fool like you, i'm just stating my opinion just as you are giving your opinion also. i'm sure they're (iraqi's) more than capable of treating prisoners terribly (maybe they are lets hope not), but i would imagine they're trying to appear to the world that they are the victims in this, and will want to try and gain the moral high ground, hence red cross access etc.

War is an ugly business, and showing prisoners on tv is not comparable to the death and destruction on both sides currently taking place. i'm just glad they're alive and will hopefully be home soon.

looks like they'l pull the 'treachery' card for the soldiers dressing up like civilians and attacking as another breaking of the rules of war.

A bullet between the eyes?...

actually a head shot is very probable if the soldier isn't ...

Not to mention how thise Iraqi bulletes can somehow duck UNDER those kevlar lined helmets... if they used illegal bullets to pass thru the kevlar, then where ARE the bits of helmet that would be plastered around the wound??

CNN etc are showing the POW's as groups, not singling them out with someone obviously tjreatening the single POW with a weapon in order to talk. Why do you think the US POW's eyes dqrt back and forth to either side of the camera? It's called being threatened with a weapon where the camera doesn't see. Notice any Iraqi POW's being talked to on those camera shots?

It's all about the humiliation aspect. Showing an Iraqi shot in battle is one thing, showing someone shot under, at BEST, suspicious circumstances is another.

no sense in bandaging a guy who got shot
Another of those trick bullets shot that guy in the forehead while he was laying down getting his chest bandaged, Playa. Or so some are trying to explain things away here as

'treachery' card for the soldiers dressing up like civilians ...

'SPY' is the definition here... armed spies in this case. It used to be that they could be taken out and shot when caught. But they probably get trials now.

Afghanistan is a wee bit fifferent... terrorists are CRIMINALS not soldiers by definition so the Geneva convention doesn't quite fit right. I think that is how they are being looked at.

are you saying we don't use spy's, and special forces in plain clothes?

and regarding the geneva convention:



the taliban/alqueda are terrorists (execution is about right for them), but under the geneva convention they are prisoners of war. hence you broke the geneva convention far more seriously by not treating them as prisoners of war than by the iraq's showing prisoners on tv. But that's ok it gets the job done. heard the saying "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?

How quickly it leads to name calling.

I find it disheartening and I guess appropriate at the same time that you can't seem to tell the difference between Iraqi POW's being filmed while surrendering, and American POW's being questioned by their captors in front of a camera.

The Al Qaeda terrorists are one thing, they are being treated as enemy combatants because they all hail from a variety of nationalities, and were not taken as prisoners of war who were defending Afghanistan but as criminals who based their operations in Afghanistan.

Taliban, being that they were in control of Afghanistan that's a different story.

Yes God forbid they ask them their name, rank, and some retarded questions on camera.

Errr.. didn't the USA nuke Japan.... twice.

You are still having problems with comprehension eh?

Nope not at all. I just find it completely retarded the hissy fit Bush and co. are throwing over this.

Lets see, Saddam thinks the USA is 100% wrong in attacking him. We have 300,000 soldiers and a ton of jets, choppers, artillery, tanks, etc against his weak ass army. Being that he hasn't left he pretty much has a target on his head and knows it. If this fight gets dirty when in Baghdad do you think we would let Saddam live if he stepped down? So yes, I understand completely that his regime could give a rats ass what the USA says and are going to show the few POW's they have.

guess you didnt see when the guy walks over, tries to cover up a wound on one of the dead soldiers back, (clearly pulls his shirt down) flips the body over grabs the soldier by the head and holds his limp neck to the camera with blood dripping? the soldier is dead, why hold his face to the camera?

Guesss you miss that huh?

hahah