It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Today America stands United in Shame

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   
CAN YOU STOP THE NAME CALLING PLEASE??




posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Me? I didn't exactly call anyone names.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
"me? didnt exactly call anyone names"

Really whats this then??? looks like name calling to me.



Originally posted by Satyr
You can stay in the "dirty ape" category, as far as I'm concerned.






[Edited on 10-5-2004 by drunk]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I merely chose a round-about way of telling her(?) that her type of thinking is rather primitive, and/or insubordinate. I don't consider that a direct insult. I've seen much worse. I didn't say, "You're a dirty ape."

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Well whatever she may find it offensive so stop it please.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Of course she will. She found it offensive that I said she doesn't understand honor, but unfortunately it's true.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Of course she will. She found it offensive that I said she doesn't understand honor, but unfortunately it's true.

So why did you say it if you knew she would find it offensive?
Look just refrain from it and have a peaceful discussion please.


[Edited on 10-5-2004 by drunk]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   


If it takes dragging some fedayeen around by a dog collar, so be it.


The Army's has said that the prisoners pictures are not terrorists just petty criminals. They have since been released.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
If they are "petty criminals", then they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, curme?



seekerof



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
If they are "petty criminals", then they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, curme?


Your right! Let's beat the hell out of them! Actually, you're wrong. You see, the GC was written, and a bunch of countries signed it, to protect prisoners of war. If you google it you'll find of info on it. Prisoners who were taken during wartime. The GC covers all prisoners, no matter how minor their crime (this protects them in case the occupying army wants to torture someone for stealing a loaf of bread). The US still runs Iraq, and until the power handover, the prisoners fall under the GC, because the Army arrested them. If the Iraqi National Police arrested them, then they would not fall under the GC. So to answer your question, the GC doesn't start or stop, depending on what you were 'arrested' for. But, let's say they don't fall under the GC, are you saying that makes it ok?

EDIT: My apologies seeker if you were being sarcastic.
I just get angry when people don't understand why this behavour is wrong.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by Seekerof
If they are "petty criminals", then they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, curme?


Your right! Let's beat the hell out of them! Actually, you're wrong. You see, the GC was written, and a bunch of countries signed it, to protect prisoners of war. If you google it you'll find of info on it. Prisoners who were taken during wartime. The GC covers all prisoners, no matter how minor their crime (this protects them in case the occupying army wants to torture someone for stealing a loaf of bread). The US still runs Iraq, and until the power handover, the prisoners fall under the GC, because the Army arrested them. If the Iraqi National Police arrested them, then they would not fall under the GC. So to answer your question, the GC doesn't start or stop, depending on what you were 'arrested' for. But, let's say they don't fall under the GC, are you saying that makes it ok?


Iraq never signed the Geneva Convention. So, does that mean that we have to apply it to the people whose gov't does not support it?

In case anyone forgot, the Iraqis treated our POW's to much harsher treatment. Anyone remeber Desert Storm where we saw the pilots reading off the propaganda statements after getting the # knocked out of them. Where was the international outrage and condemnation then?

I am not saying that I support what happened over there. It just seems a little strange that this issue has made such a big deal now, and not then.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Arrgg! I'm going to tear my hair out! It does not matter what anybody else does! We are America, we have a higher standard! If France jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?
Why is there such an uproar when eveybody else does it? Because we are trying to change them to be like us. We are not trying to become like them.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Arrgg! I'm going to tear my hair out! It does not matter what anybody else does! We are America, we have a higher standard! If France jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?
Why is there such an uproar when eveybody else does it? Because we are trying to change them to be like us. We are not trying to become like them.


You still have not answered my question: why is this a big deal now and not ten years ago? What changed that made it an issue today? Weren't we trying to change them back then as well?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Because we are trying to change them to be like us. We are not trying to become like them.

So using force is the way to do it, in a way what you have just said is the same thing.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by curme

I guess we'll never know since they didn't seek other bids. Couldn't we of found another company that didn't illegally make Saddam rich when our vice-president was in charge?


Gee! How many can you get wrong in one post!

Halliburton did NOT make Saddam rich. You'll have to look to the French, the Germans and the Russians to point fingers in the right direction on that one.



Don't forget to include Kofi Annan and the UN.
EDIT: Whoops...seekerof and others beat me to this point. Mea culpa.



[Edited on 10-5-2004 by jsobecky]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Unless you personally knew someone who was taken prisoner by Iraqis, and severely tortured, I don't see how any other incidents could possibly give you the right to revenge. If you need revenge that bad, and you don't even know anyone who was tortured, you're just an angry person, looking for anyone to take it out on, guilty or not. Is that right? Following that type of thinking, if a black man mugs and beats you (or someone you know) once, all black men should be tortured from then on?
WTF? Do you see how sick that is? Especially if you're not even the one who was beaten and mugged! You really don't see it? Remember, these prisoners, most likely, aren't the same guys that tortured anyone, or even attacked anyone. They could just be, more than likely, some Iraqis that surrendered when they saw a bunch of soldiers with guns.

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I keep seeing references to the Geneva Convention, yes it does require that even humiliation of captured SOLDIERS is not allowed - however we are not dealing with regular enemy army forces that these rules clearly apply to, we are dealing with irregular insurgents.

Here is the definition of irregular forces that fall under convention rules from the treaty, bold type added for emphasis.

"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

So the way I read this the prisoners captured taking potshots or setting bombs that were in captivity before Fahllujah (a) had no clear responsible leader. (b) they had no fixed distinctive insignia indicating they were combatants. (c) only our side can answer this. (c) using civilians or their environs as a screen is against the rules of war and the convention.

Therefore I have to contend these prisoners do not fall under convention rules.

al-Sadrs forces comply with (a) but do not comply with the rest of the conditions set forth either.

Therefore I have to also contend that they do not fall under convention rules.

Doe's this make everything OK, no because we have our own rules also and that is what the perpatrators should stand before a military court for. What I mean here is messing with them not for the sake of gathering information but just shear meanspirited harassment.

On the other hand if intimidation and other means are required to extract information that might save American lives is required then these irregulars have left themselves open to this treatment by the very nature of the type of fighting they are carrying on with.

Reference guide to the Geneva Convention



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   


You still have not answered my question: why is this a big deal now and not ten years ago? What changed that made it an issue today? Weren't we trying to change them back then as well?



If I understand your question, why are people more upset when we torture people rather than Iraq? To answer your question, in a nutshell, no one is surprised when Iraq tortures people. Saddam was a jerk. People our shocked when we do it, because are country was based on freedom and human rights. Now answer my question, what does what Iraq does, have any bearing on how our soldiers should conduct themselves?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Now answer my question, what does what Iraq does, have any bearing on how our soldiers should conduct themselves?


Maybe becuase the Iraqis choose to act like animals, then they should be treated like them? Would people have reacted like this if it was the Nazis in WW2?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Doe's this make everything OK, no because we have our own rules also and that is what the perpatrators should stand before a military court for. What I mean here is messing with them not for the sake of gathering information but just shear meanspirited harassment.

It's pretty damn obvious that this is exactly what was/is going on. Even if it was ok to torture them to get info, it should never be allowed to be so trivialized, and especially not made into some comical, perverted circus show. The point is, we scream Geneva Convention all the time, and even use it as justification for attacking, but only seem to adhere to it when it benefits us. That's already been proven by our dropping cluster bombs.
Apparently, the GC only applies to other countries.


[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Satyr]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join