Red Cross : Americans must comply with intl humanitarian law

"For the parties to this conflict, complying with international humanitarian law is an obligation, not an option," said Pierre Kr�henb�hl, the ICRC's operations director.

www.aljazeera.com...

Despite many attempts by the administration and Bush supporters to find excuses for war crimes, it seems that the watchdog is growling...

These insurgents and insurgent ideas aren�t destroyed with civility, but brutality. War is hell.

I don't know about that I have not seen any complains on the amount of death from "casualties of war"

And I have not seen any effort to keep track of the casualties of civilians in Iraq.

I wonder what the US do with all the bodies, I mean are the bodies been allowed to be claim by family members or they just burry them in mass graves and tag then as "insurgents"

Does this mean the insurgents are going to stop sawing innocent peoples heads off?

Or is the red cross OK with that?

The statement notes there is "an absolute prohibition on the killing of persons who are not taking active part in the hostilities" and "the parties to the conflict must provide adequate medical care for the wounded - friend or foe".

I guess it does but you forgot to mention this part right moku?


[edit on 20-11-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk
Does this mean the insurgents are going to stop sawing innocent peoples heads off?

Or is the red cross OK with that?

Amuk don't be so bad,I wonder if it somebody out there taking the time to separate the "civilian" casualties from the "insurgents" or onces they are death they all tag "insurgents"

Who is making sure of paying honor to the Iraqis that are giving their life as "casualties" and are paying the maximum sacrify for the liberation by the US of their country.

I don't get it where are the heroes of Iraq.

Originally posted by marg6043

Amuk don't be so bad

I just wanted to point out that moku not only had a misleading title but compleatly left out the part about the insurgents.

But what else can you expect for him?

I'd like to know HOW they intend to enforce what we all know is right

in a situation in which the USGummint is so off the mark,

we citizens no longer consent to what they are DOING to innocent people

What would the Red Cross like to do about it?

I'm all ears.

Originally posted by Amuk
Does this mean the insurgents are going to stop sawing innocent peoples

unlike the US they arnt binded by international laws
since they arnt goverment forces

I would like to see how they are gonna enforce it with the "heroic head choppers" whoops I mean the insurgents, or does war crimes only count when WE do it?

If the US Govt decides to ignore the Geneva Convention, I doubt anyone could stop them. The UN is more toothless than my old cat was. How can we force a country to comply with International humanitarian law if that country is the most powerful in the world ?

I just don't know.

Originally posted by bodrul
unlike the US they arnt binded by international laws
since they arnt goverment forces

So its OK for them to chop peoples heads off, right? Just as long as one of our boys doesnt make the mistake of shooting one BEFORE he asks him if he is armed and intends to harm him

Originally posted by Amuk

I just wanted to point out that moku not only had a misleading title but compleatly left out the part about the insurgents.

But what else can you expect for him?

I know I was just been silly but I kind of taking my post now seriously, actually I see not body paying honor to the death of the inocent in Iraq.

Originally posted by Amuk
So its OK for them to chop peoples heads off, right?

im just saying they arnt bineded by international laws
unless the US forces pride them selves of going down to their level its good for them.

Originally posted by Amuk
Just as long as one of our boys doesnt make the mistake of shooting one BEFORE he asks him if he is armed and intends to harm him

if shooting unarmed people is what you lot get kicks out of what are we to argue,

where did i say US forces should ask people that ( dont know where you got it from )
i was just saying US forces should follow international laws just like how it forces it down other countries throuts

We're on the verge of national bankruptcy.

Our soldiers are too-thinly spread out across the globe--just as Imperial Rome's WERE--

Our leaders buy into a globalist philosophy that destroys the very core of Constitutional republicanism.

How, where is the power you're talking about?

It's an illusion. We're about to get our a$$ whipped, is what's about to happen.

Yeah

The US forces are absolutely complicit in cutting people's heads off. This is the part that's aimed against us al
Zarqawi disappeared out of his supposed home base Falluja - how convenient - an alledged leading beheader
Nonsense - this is just a phantom head-cutter to scare us or activate our anger
All in the service of the NWO Nazi's, literally,aims
This is death sacrifice made almost public
It frightens us, it empowers them
Get a hold

Originally posted by bodrul
if shooting unarmed people is what you lot get kicks out of what are we to argue,

where did i say US forces should ask people that ( don't know where you got it from )

How else are they supposed to know if they don't have a pistol or hand grenade or some other weapon? Should some one go out with a white flag and ask all of them if they are armed? Or maybe they should wait till one of them is shot, after all they might have been joking and didn't really mean any one harm. I

f they say they are surrendering and have bombs strapped to they how many of ours have to die BEFORE its OK to shoot if you THINK they are armed? Or should they ALWAYS be given a free shot?

What it amounts to is the sniveling cowards are mad because our side caught onto there tricks.

If they dont want their wounded shot QUIT BOOBY TRAPPING THEM.

Oh I forgot they can do what they want

Originally posted by dh
The US forces are absolutely complicit in cutting people's heads off. This is the part that's aimed against us al

Show me ONE PIECE OF PROOF that doesnt come from some BS sight like Jahidunspun.

Yall are just crying because your heros are getting their butts handed to them

Well, Amuk, it's a situation of everyones butts on the line sooner or later, yours included
For you are pretty small, and not one jerk away from being offed in one way or another
For all your seemingly patriotist call you're just a small man awaiting extinction
(Please understand - that's not a threat from me but the supposition of a threat from then government)

[edit on 20-11-2004 by dh]

Originally posted by Amuk
I would like to see how they are gonna enforce it with the "heroic head choppers" whoops I mean the insurgents, or does war crimes only count when WE do it?

We shouldn't even be there anymore. If the whole idea was to get rid of Saddam so they could sort themselves back out into a better gubmint, well then, Saddam was gone a long time ago.

If I had thousands of invaders running "amuk" killing anyone who moved wrong, blowing up what infrastructure was left, and paving the way for Bush & Co's corporate looting squad, I'd be feeling a bit insurgent too.

The most awful thing in my mind is that I know only a percentage of the real news gets to mainstream media from there. Try to imagine the atrocities being committed by US troops. From what I hear, a good percentage are mercenaries hired by defense contractors, and so have even fewer rules of conduct to follow. It must be like a human torture, rape and killing theme park over there. It's obscene, and if that happened here, the Revolutionary war would seem like a schoolyard shoving match in comparison. We don't have to conquer and anihilate these people to "liberate" them. Obviously that is not the orders they've gotten, or there would be soldiers building, not destroying.

--Saerlaith

Originally posted by Amuk

How else are they supposed to know if they don't have a pistol or hand grenade or some other weapon? Should some one go out with a white flag and ask all of them if they are armed? Or maybe they should wait till one of them is shot, after all they might have been joking and didn't really mean any one harm. I

f they say they are surrendering and have bombs strapped to they how many of ours have to die BEFORE its OK to shoot if you THINK they are armed? Or should they ALWAYS be given a free shot?

What it amounts to is the sniveling cowards are mad because our side caught onto there tricks.

If they dont want their wounded shot QUIT BOOBY TRAPPING THEM.

Oh I forgot they can do what they want

you really do like twisting things dont you?

firstly how do you know all wounded are booby traped

or is it kill them first and if then think later?
what makes you think all of them think the same


secoundly i just said they arnt bineded by international laws ( hat doesnt mean they can do what they like )

also as showed on some tapes shooting people in the head point blank isnt classed as self deffence as some US forces do ( which is against international laws )

and when you say
sniveling cowards
( i could put both some of the US forces and the rebels in one cat )