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.

 

About Geneva convention and USA soldiers

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 10:46 PM
link   
To all USA citizens *really* worried about Geneve conventions:

www.monbiot.com...

...what do you think now?

...and this is slightly off-topic

www.observer.co.uk...

Please, convince me you have nothing to worry. I think USA flag should be changed again... With the stars forming a svastika. For all you NWO followers!

Yeah, Saddam should be shot, judged, whatever, but not for you. And if it should, at least do it JFK style: A handful of sharpshooter, not thousands of bombs and missiles.

I don't think Iraq would thank you for being *liberated*


...I don't think any country would do. Now USA showns its real face. Now USA showns who is in charge, who rules the world.

Welcome to the NWO.

[Edited on 2003-3-26 by MakodFilu]




posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Full response in respect to the status Unlawful Combatant

why intellence gathering is a key issue with holding enemy combatants at Camp X ... evidence" to justify its designation of Padilla as an unlawfull enemy combatant ...


www.state.de.us...


On camp X-ray

edition.cnn.com...

In respect to your updated comments keep in mind that the events at Pearl Habor was a legitimate act of War. But in respect to what happened at 9/11 that was not.

What is was in fact was a criminal act perpatuated by a man. Who in his manifesto declared anyone who payed taxes to a goverment he felt obligated to attack, as being defined in respect to a combatant. Those who suport him consider his thoughts valid and are adherents to these policies.

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Are you justifying USA? It doesn't matter.

The Geneva convention was violated, with reason or without. It was violated. Period. And by far more than simply portraying POWs on TV.



posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Yes I agree with respect to the attack against unarmed American citizens who had no military background, or for that matter any aspirations in respect to same.

Those pictures do not show there faces, there is no way to know who they are. They are simply evidence that they are not dead. The Genevan convention was not violated and all your doing is justifying the acts of Saddam Hussein.



posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 11:57 PM
link   
You are probably 15 years old Mako, high school student, with a liberal and retarded teacher for history, who thinks that the holocaust never happend.

How did we break Article 13? It's the paparazi who take pictures of those prisoners and then publishes them, the government has not released publically humiliating photographs of Camp X-ray. Or any of the prisoners.

Also never when the government allowed pictures to be taken, were their faces revealed.

Article 18, is fake, when taking prisoners you are allowed to strip them, and take their possessions.

Article 22 is also construed, he carefully chooses his words to make you think one thing, but it is really another.

Here he uses "Penitentiary" in Article 22 it would be referring to torture devices, in english, while this is still an acceptable definition, it is of course, not what you'd think it means. As it is popularly understood as a prison, which is where you hold prisoners.

They do have proper mess facilities, so Article 28, is pointless.

They have their religious premises, as they even have a sign pointing them to mecca so they may pray.

Physical excersise? This they probably have, not sure though.

Article 41, never been followed. 70 and 71? They have no families, or no one has 'claimed' them, being that they have no identification, and that they've given no information of who to contact.

72 has also been followed, this guy is just full of crap.

Article 118, we are allowed to hold them as prisoners until the Al Qaeda formally surrenders and hands over all weapons and assets to the USA. I guess the author is just pretty stupid and doesn't understand, hostilities have yet ended.

Back to Article "17" you are allowed to interrogate prisoners, but they are only REQUIRED to tell you that stuff, meaning anything else they tell you they can be prosecuted for.

Sleep deprivation, bright lights, and being in a chain-link fence for a cell (doesn't qualify as isolation) are not in the Articles, the North Koreans applied this tactic, and the UN didn't care.

"Unsurprisingly the prisoners have tried to kill themselves" Duh, another ignorant and leading statement, as if they wouldn't have done it blowing themselves up in a resturant somewhere.

Now the US's claim that they are not even lawful combatants is a perfectly legitimate clame, as who is to surrender the "Al Qaeda" they are all independants who are paid from another independant. They are not a recognized country.

LoL look at this slander: "Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light"

Yeah they taught alright, a fanatic form of Islam, they sure were engineers too, building all those defense works.

And they aided Afghanistan alright, right back to the stone age.

"On 21 November 2001, around 8,000 Taliban soldiers and Pashtun civilians surrendered at Konduz to the Northern Alliance commander General Abdul Rashid Dostum." Now he's just stopped giving sources, and decided to entirely just say stuff.

Oh wait, even worse, he does give a source, a speculative news source.

Even this site says "alleged murder of Taliban prisoners"

www.acftv.net...

Ok I'm sick, I've never seen such a fool follow such a peice of crap as in this one thread.

Anyone who is against America, does have the Swastika, in their souls.



posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Oh, in conclusion, since I doubt Mako is willing enough to realize, the Conventions were not broken, or even stretched, barely scraped.

And deservingly so.

Go move to Israel, maybe you'll be lucky enough to blow up on a bus.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Toltec:

The Genevan convention was not violated and all your doing is justifying the acts of Saddam Hussein.

Simply not true. In no way do I justify Saddam. Please don't justify USA.

5POF:

You are probably 15 years old Mako, high school student, with a liberal and retarded teacher for history, who thinks that the holocaust never happend.

Comparing me to you? Come back when you grow up, kid.

5POF:

Go move to Israel, maybe you'll be lucky enough to blow up on a bus.

What? Are you wanting me to die? I think I'm goind to do a preemptive strike and bomb your house for that, because you are surely a terrorist, cause you are willing me to die. In fact, I'm sure of that, you *are* a terrorist, and you deserve to die by the same means you want me to be killed. I'll find proof about you actually being a terrorist in the ruins of your house after the planned and inminnent bombardment. I'll surely find. But if not,... oops! Well, don't take it so bad, you are only a *collateral damage*. Smile.

[Edited on 2003-3-26 by MakodFilu]



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 12:15 AM
link   
No don't take the bus comment so literally, that is what kids do. The intent is entirely to show you what these people are.

You think they are Germans in WW2, misguided yes, but do they hesitate when a child is in the way? Do they go out of the way to save children? No, they blow them up too.

You are 15, mentally, you are misguided, and have no clue what America is, or doing, because you read tripe mostly, that is propogated, and I went through your propogation and showed HOW it is propogated.

You come back, by attacking the only two things that involved you, my belief of your age, and my analogy of what life is like, at the recieving end of these "evil dooers".

I guess that means you stand defeated on the technical points of your argument, I don't blame you...it is pretty weak.

Nice Smile, for a teenager.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5POF
You think they are Germans in WW2, misguided yes, but do they hesitate when a child is in the way? Do they go out of the way to save children? No, they blow them up too.


Of what country are you talking about? USA is doing the same in Irak right now. Lot of missiles hit their targets, yeah, assured, but since there were fired thousands, a lot hit civil building as well. Call it *collateral damages*, *friendly fire* or whatever. You hit them.


No don't take the bus comment so literally, that is what kids do. The intent is entirely to show you what these people are.


I thought you recognized Monty Python sense of humour here. Yeah, my second link is a letter written by one of them.

No, kid, you are the one misguided here.

Back on topic: no matter what justified, no matter for good, no matter for bad, no matter for nothing. *USA broke Geneva convention*. All world has seen that on TV. Period. Nothing to add, nothing to argument, even you know that is *true*. Assume it.

[Edited on 2003-3-26 by MakodFilu]



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Oh no, I forgot, hitting a target to within a few feet, means blowing up dozens of civilians. Grow up and step away from the part-line. At least this ISN'T WW2, where you'd bomb half a city and still miss all the military targets.

You seem to still not get it.

Your source is crap, and so is your source's source...the US did not break the Geneva Convention.

And you're right there is no argument, I suggest you go back and re-read your source.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5POF
Oh no, I forgot, hitting a target to within a few feet, means blowing up dozens of civilians.

Surely do, all buildings near the targer are hit by the bomb blast. But we are not talking about accurate hits. We are talking about that absurdly quantity of missiles being fired. How can you *really* believe no one missed or hit the wrong target when even through official channels most USA/ UK casualties are because giving the missiles wrong targets?


Grow up and step away from the part-line. At least this ISN'T WW2, where you'd bomb half a city and still miss all the military targets.
Interesting point: at what military target were you wanting to strike when you blasted Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of the map? Off-topic, anyway...


You seem to still not get it.

Your source is crap, and so is your source's source...the US did not break the Geneva Convention.

And you're right there is no argument, I suggest you go back and re-read your source.


I can't believe you really trust your owns words without a single doubt. You, kid, are a bully, or maybe a troll. Re-read your arguments, and say if you really trust what you posted:

You say paparazzis posted that TV images? In *Guantanamo*? In one of the most defended bases of USA some paparazzis dropped in without restrictions or permission? What a laugh at you forces! You owe them an apology.

'...no known family' --> Uh, yeah, they grow up by expontaneous generation, yeah, sure...

Not wanting to dismiss your points one by one.

All in all, I resigned of being a member here...

[Edited on 2003-3-26 by MakodFilu]



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, not only were they a power house of industry, but they were centers of communication between the Nazis and the Japanese. Bombing a town that had already been leveled (Most of Japan), would have been pointless, blowing up a bunch of ruined buildings.

They picked targets that were never hit before, that still had an importance, which were those two cities.

And because of it, the Japanese surrendered, rather than the millions that would have died if we tried to Invade.

There have been no pictures taken from inside camp X-Ray, everyone of them has been without the perimeter.

As for all I have said? You can trust it better than your source, it is more thought out, and more informed. For it isn't a leading argument, it is shows the flaws in your source.

Hell one of its arguments even misled you, or did you not read the part about "penitintiary"?

You may still believe this drivel, but clearly no one else has, I didn't even need to spell it out for them. It was all for you.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 02:20 AM
link   
MakodFilu : I welcome you on this board !!!

your link www.observer.co.uk...

is very great !!


5POF : lame attempt at justifying nuking

5POF :
stop posting senseless things that are freaking our members away please !!!

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by banned]



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 02:32 AM
link   
By labeling individuals who by there acts supported the Al-Queda which admitted to cause the events of 9/11, as Prisoners of War. You are in effect MakodFilu supporting that, engaging in acts of Terrorism. Against unarmed civilians can be legitimized as a valid response to political concerns.

An "Act of War" has a legal definition that was the purpose of the Geneva convention to make rules of engagement. And I can assure you that the rules of war established by that document and those that followed. Do not in any way support terrorism as a valid means of resolving a conflict. If the Al-queda had instead of what they did engaged American military forces. Then it would have appropriate to label those captured POWs.

What the Al-queda did was commit a crime and what the Taliban did was provide aid and comfort to criminals. AS far as what the US has done I assure you it could have been much worst (if it had happened 50 years ago Afghanistan would not have been able to support life for at least 300 years).


5POF is right you have no idea what you are talking about. And I would further add that a person who supports the killing of innocent civilians. By soldiers trained in what is today the current state of the art, is supporting something very dangerous.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 08:44 AM
link   
**5POF**:
For your information: I've read most of your post even if I didn't want too. I don't want to be in a flamewar like this. I *leaved* the forum because I got tired of that. But William told me in no way a user can be deleted without deleting its post, so I remained, only to show up once in a month or so.

Whatever you say I actually *saw* images of the concentration camps you have on Guantanamo. Almost everyone on the world has. That is a far better source that anything posting here. Even insulting your land forces at Guantanamo saying that images were taken by paparazzis, you recognize that. We have seen more than simply a handful of faces.

USA alleges Irak has broken the treaty simply because they shown your five soldiers. Only with the faces you have shown in your Guantanamo concentration camps, you broke Geneva convention as well. But you have broke more than that, liking it or not. If you want to trust your lies, the official lies, I'm not going to stop you.

**Toltec**:
Yeah, whatever. You still are justifying USA actions, but still don't have even tried to negate the facts: justifiedly or not, USA has broken Geneva convention as well. And yeah, I say *as well*. You are not worse, but keeping on the same level isn't a good thing either. Whatever Taliban did, and I say *whatever*, you have no right to threat them as rubbish. If so, you are down to the same level as them, or even lower.

BTW: you have no idea of what you are talking about. You say I support killing civilians? Simply not true. And this is your second time you try to accuse me of something I didn't say. Instead of bashing me, Toltec, try to find if USA break Geneva treaty or not. At least, 5POF have tried.

**Banned**:
Thank you, but I'm not new here. As I'm not going to be interested in this thread for much more time, I suggest you that if you support this idea, you'll better trying to find better sources of information, cause 5POF is so willing to think he is the master of the truth and all other sources are misguided.

**5POF**: Don't go further with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As I said, is *off-topic*, even if we all have something to say about that. Instead, try to negate we all have seen images of your camps, any of them. That only broke Geneva convention.

[Edited on 2003-3-26 by MakodFilu]



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Madouk does have a point.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is the body that is internationally recognised as the guardians of the Geneva Convention. They are the ones who decide wither the rules have been broken or not, and in this conflict they are giving equal warning to both the U.S and the Iraqis.




"If we look at the reactions today in the US and the Arab world, they have been very similar. People have perceived [the pictures] as being an offence, a humiliation," ICRC spokesperson Antonella Notari told BBC News Online."
(Speaking about the pictures both sides have shown)

news.bbc.co.uk...

The difference is we show pictures from the time of capture, whereas the Iraqi's have to wait until they get them back to a base, as they do not have the technological means, nor a definite and stable front line to show them from at the time of capture.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 10:46 AM
link   
1. The pictures we show of Iraqi POWs are taken by independent news agencies NOT state-run news outlets. Therefore, any "violation" would be done by them, not by the US government.

2. We do NOT display close-ups, and their names, etc. Because of the anonymity, the intent to cause "insult" is not there, unlike the Iraqi's depictions of our POWs.

3. We do NOT execute POWs!!! I'm sorry, but do you really think that soldiers die in combat with their hands bound and gunshots in their foreheads?


dom

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 11:00 AM
link   
1) The responsibility, as laid down by the Geneva Conventions, is with the military forces to make sure that footage is not taken of POW's. i.e. coalition forces should prevent the news agencies from getting these pictures.

2) We DO display close-ups.
news.bbc.co.uk...
Shows a picture of an Iraqi POW drinking water. [EDIT - I thought the gun was at his head, but I think that's perspective]



[Any idea how to get these links to work? *hrmph*]

The insult is irrelevant. The clause states "public curiosity"

3) True. I still haven't seen definitive pictures of this. Do you have a link somewhere?

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by dom]

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by dom]

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by dom]



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 02:51 PM
link   
No one here is doubting that Irak broke Geneva convention.

What we are stating here is that if USA want to accuse Irak of breaking Geneva convention, it *will* backfire to them.

**dom**:
Your image...


[Edited on 2003-3-26 by MakodFilu]



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by dom:
...[Any idea how to get these links to work? *hrmph*]...

This way:


[Edited on 2003-3-26 by MakodFilu]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join