I really don't think these pictures where supposed to humiliate the soldiers, but rather just as a proof of their capture. The pictures of the dead soldiers are quite graphical. But wether they were executed or not doesn't seem clear.
Your link isn't working for me. Maybe the CIA is blocking this site.
Back on topic. Most often these "human rights" groups need to be prodded before they make any statements on the treatment of US/UK personal that have been captured. As of right now AI has not made an impassioned plea to treat these people humanly and allow the Red Cross access. They'll get to it in a few days after these POWs have been beaten and tortured.
Meanwhile they make great demands on the US to limmit civilian casualties.
I really don't think these pictures where supposed to humiliate the soldiers, but rather just as a proof of their capture. The pictures of the dead soldiers are quite graphical. But wether they were executed or not doesn't seem clear.
Their deaths are just suspicious becuase they had bullets in their foreheads. The likelihood of this happening in battle isn't so impossible, but it's pretty hard. I suppose a forensics expert could look at thos eimages and tell you whether it was a small arms weapon from close range or a more powerful weapons from farther away. i'm surrpised no news groups have tried this analysis yet.
Their deaths are just suspicious becuase they had bullets in their foreheads. The likelihood of this happening in battle isn't so impossible, but it's pretty hard.
Very hard indeed, seeing as how their bullet-proof helmet would normally keep bullets from that area of the head. Or so I heard on the news.
I really don't think these pictures where supposed to humiliate the soldiers, but rather just as a proof of their capture. The pictures of the dead soldiers are quite graphical. But wether they were executed or not doesn't seem clear.
Really? Putting them in front of a camera to state their name and where they were from, and then playing that on the air isn't meant to humiliate them? And a bullit in the middle of the foreheads isn't proof of execution?
And from your previous post, what double standard for international law are you talking about? Has the US, to your knowledge, forced the Iraqi POWs in front of news cameras to answer questions?
Apparently, they were being grilled as early interrogations in this video. This wasn't simply a video mug shot with "name, rank, serial number." The fact that the (apparently) executed soldiers were also on it (sans ID) seems to suggest otherwise too.
Really? Putting them in front of a camera to state their name and where they were from, and then playing that on the air isn't meant to humiliate them? And a bullit in the middle of the foreheads isn't proof of execution?
And from your previous post, what double standard for international law are you talking about? Has the US, to your knowledge, forced the Iraqi POWs in front of news cameras to answer questions?
I'm not saying the iraqis havn't done anything wrong here. Hell, they probably have, I don't expect them to have been given much education in the Geneva Convention.
But some of you guys are pathetic. Seeing how the POWs were and are treated in Afghanistan, no-matter how "illegal" those combatants were, I feel your reactions to this is really more about the nationality of these soldiers than about your passion for the International Law.
Apparently, they were being grilled as early interrogations in this video. This wasn't simply a video mug shot with "name, rank, serial number." The fact that the (apparently) executed soldiers were also on it (sans ID) seems to suggest otherwise too.
Did you see the video? Sure your not confusing the voice-over comments with the questions actually asked?
Your link isn't working for me. Maybe the CIA is blocking this site.
Back on topic. Most often these "human rights" groups need to be prodded before they make any statements on the treatment of US/UK personal that have been captured. As of right now AI has not made an impassioned plea to treat these people humanly and allow the Red Cross access. They'll get to it in a few days after these POWs have been beaten and tortured.
Meanwhile they make great demands on the US to limmit civilian casualties.
If you even cared to check, you'd see that the whole amnesty site is down, but maybe the CIA is blocking your head.
Prior to the war amnesty made some pretty ballanced demands to both parties in this conflict.
Very hard indeed, seeing as how their bullet-proof helmet would normally keep bullets from that area of the head. Or so I heard on the news.
Not really. They have special ceramic helmets but those are heavy and only special units wear them. The heavy helmets aren't meant to be worn for a long duration, like a war. Regular helmets are there mainly to protect against shrapnel. So this could go either way. I wouldn?t read too much into such ?analysis?. Seems like stupid propaganda at this stage of the game.
Not really. They have special ceramic helmets but those are heavy and only special units wear them. The heavy helmets aren't meant to be worn for a long duration, like a war. Regular helmets are there mainly to protect against shrapnel. So this could go either way. I wouldn?t read too much into such ?analysis?. Seems like stupid propaganda at this stage of the game.
I read about the video footage of captured and killed US soldiers yesterday evening, but the first time I have seen any indication that executions may have occurred was in this thread. Is this based on speculation or fact?
I agree that it is shameful for the Iraqi military to have used this footage to propagandize, but it is equally shameful that the US military allowed similar footage to be aired on CNN and Fox earlier this weekend.
Did you see the video? Sure your not confusing the voice-over comments with the questions actually asked?
Like I said, apparently, meaning, this is at least one story I've heard, the soldiers were being interrogated. I hjave not seen a complete viideo, and I do not know how complete it is. Shame on me I guess, right?
I read about the video footage of captured and killed US soldiers yesterday evening, but the first time I have seen any indication that executions may have occurred was in this thread. Is this based on speculation or fact?
I agree that it is shameful for the Iraqi military to have used this footage to propagandize, but it is equally shameful that the US military allowed similar footage to be aired on CNN and Fox earlier this weekend.
The US Military didn't allow it. CNN and Fox got the tape off of Al-Jezeera (sp?).
Jonathan, you are this forum's administrator and we should expect more from you than Fox News style reporting.
There was no footage of executions. There was only circumstantial evidence that anyone was executed. There is absolutely no indication that anyone was executed by Iraq.
Are you seriously advocating no-holds barred warfare? Do you understand what you're saying, or are you being sarcastic? Do you have any idea of why these conventions have come about, what it's like to be a soldier under even these conditions? Would it be OK then to shoot surendering Iraqi troops? It would prevent those ambushes that have been occuring, make the lives of our soldiers a lot easier. That's OK, right?
People shot in the forehead does by common sense alone make people suspicious of executions.
Are you seriously advocating no-holds barred warfare? Do you understand what you're saying, or are you being sarcastic? Do you have any idea of why these conventions have come about, what it's like to be a soldier under even these conditions? Would it be OK then to shoot surendering Iraqi troops? It would prevent those ambushes that have been occuring, make the lives of our soldiers a lot easier. That's OK, right?
People shot in the forehead does by common sense alone make people suspicious of executions.
No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm no soldier but isn't war about kill or be killed? There have been instances where surrendering soldiers simply bait coalition forces in an ambush.
And I also can't believe there aren't any instances of a trigger happy U.S. soldier dropping a surrendering Iraqi just to "notch up" another one.
My point is that you can't expect civility and respect in an environment where the objective is to eliminate the enemy. And if you blink, you just might be the eliminated.
The US Military didn't allow it. CNN and Fox got the tape off of Al-Jezeera (sp?).
The footage I saw showed a large group of Iraqi soldiers with their hands cuffed behind them sitting on a patch of open ground encircled by razor wire. One of the POWs stood up and started speaking towards the camera, the camera panned to show a US soldier responding. The taping had obviously been conducted with the cooperation of the US military.
Allowing pictures of POWs to be shown is probably a less than serious violation of the articles of the Geneva Convention (it certainly falls short of being an "outrage on personal dignity")?but it still bothers me that it should occur on either side.
Comments
Originally posted by New
So you don't think groups like amnesty have been vocal about Saddams breach of Human Rights?
linky
Your link isn't working for me. Maybe the CIA is blocking this site.
Back on topic. Most often these "human rights" groups need to be prodded before they make any statements on the treatment of US/UK personal that have been captured. As of right now AI has not made an impassioned plea to treat these people humanly and allow the Red Cross access. They'll get to it in a few days after these POWs have been beaten and tortured.
Meanwhile they make great demands on the US to limmit civilian casualties.
Originally posted by New
I really don't think these pictures where supposed to humiliate the soldiers, but rather just as a proof of their capture. The pictures of the dead soldiers are quite graphical. But wether they were executed or not doesn't seem clear.
Their deaths are just suspicious becuase they had bullets in their foreheads. The likelihood of this happening in battle isn't so impossible, but it's pretty hard. I suppose a forensics expert could look at thos eimages and tell you whether it was a small arms weapon from close range or a more powerful weapons from farther away. i'm surrpised no news groups have tried this analysis yet.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Their deaths are just suspicious becuase they had bullets in their foreheads. The likelihood of this happening in battle isn't so impossible, but it's pretty hard.
Very hard indeed, seeing as how their bullet-proof helmet would normally keep bullets from that area of the head. Or so I heard on the news.
Originally posted by New
I really don't think these pictures where supposed to humiliate the soldiers, but rather just as a proof of their capture. The pictures of the dead soldiers are quite graphical. But wether they were executed or not doesn't seem clear.
Really? Putting them in front of a camera to state their name and where they were from, and then playing that on the air isn't meant to humiliate them? And a bullit in the middle of the foreheads isn't proof of execution?
And from your previous post, what double standard for international law are you talking about? Has the US, to your knowledge, forced the Iraqi POWs in front of news cameras to answer questions?
Originally posted by Tulkas
Really? Putting them in front of a camera to state their name and where they were from, and then playing that on the air isn't meant to humiliate them? And a bullit in the middle of the foreheads isn't proof of execution?
And from your previous post, what double standard for international law are you talking about? Has the US, to your knowledge, forced the Iraqi POWs in front of news cameras to answer questions?
I'm not saying the iraqis havn't done anything wrong here. Hell, they probably have, I don't expect them to have been given much education in the Geneva Convention.
But some of you guys are pathetic. Seeing how the POWs were and are treated in Afghanistan, no-matter how "illegal" those combatants were, I feel your reactions to this is really more about the nationality of these soldiers than about your passion for the International Law.
Sorry.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Apparently, they were being grilled as early interrogations in this video. This wasn't simply a video mug shot with "name, rank, serial number." The fact that the (apparently) executed soldiers were also on it (sans ID) seems to suggest otherwise too.
Did you see the video? Sure your not confusing the voice-over comments with the questions actually asked?
Originally posted by Scott
Your link isn't working for me. Maybe the CIA is blocking this site.
Back on topic. Most often these "human rights" groups need to be prodded before they make any statements on the treatment of US/UK personal that have been captured. As of right now AI has not made an impassioned plea to treat these people humanly and allow the Red Cross access. They'll get to it in a few days after these POWs have been beaten and tortured.
Meanwhile they make great demands on the US to limmit civilian casualties.
If you even cared to check, you'd see that the whole amnesty site is down, but maybe the CIA is blocking your head.
Prior to the war amnesty made some pretty ballanced demands to both parties in this conflict.
Originally posted by Whisper
Very hard indeed, seeing as how their bullet-proof helmet would normally keep bullets from that area of the head. Or so I heard on the news.
Not really. They have special ceramic helmets but those are heavy and only special units wear them. The heavy helmets aren't meant to be worn for a long duration, like a war. Regular helmets are there mainly to protect against shrapnel. So this could go either way. I wouldn?t read too much into such ?analysis?. Seems like stupid propaganda at this stage of the game.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Not really. They have special ceramic helmets but those are heavy and only special units wear them. The heavy helmets aren't meant to be worn for a long duration, like a war. Regular helmets are there mainly to protect against shrapnel. So this could go either way. I wouldn?t read too much into such ?analysis?. Seems like stupid propaganda at this stage of the game.
hmm. For once we agree.
I agree that it is shameful for the Iraqi military to have used this footage to propagandize, but it is equally shameful that the US military allowed similar footage to be aired on CNN and Fox earlier this weekend.
Originally posted by New
Did you see the video? Sure your not confusing the voice-over comments with the questions actually asked?
Like I said, apparently, meaning, this is at least one story I've heard, the soldiers were being interrogated. I hjave not seen a complete viideo, and I do not know how complete it is. Shame on me I guess, right?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I read about the video footage of captured and killed US soldiers yesterday evening, but the first time I have seen any indication that executions may have occurred was in this thread. Is this based on speculation or fact?
I agree that it is shameful for the Iraqi military to have used this footage to propagandize, but it is equally shameful that the US military allowed similar footage to be aired on CNN and Fox earlier this weekend.
The US Military didn't allow it. CNN and Fox got the tape off of Al-Jezeera (sp?).
There was no footage of executions. There was only circumstantial evidence that anyone was executed. There is absolutely no indication that anyone was executed by Iraq.
The enemy can do whatever they want to do with their prisoners.
And for Bush to come out and say, you better treat them humanely is absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah, I'm going to do this while you're dropping 1000 bombs on me! Give me a break.
People shot in the forehead does by common sense alone make people suspicious of executions.
Is there a way to translate the whole page while viewing & browsing?
For translation, world.altavista.com (Babelfish) allows you to browse and translate. Just type the URL in the appropriate space.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Are you seriously advocating no-holds barred warfare? Do you understand what you're saying, or are you being sarcastic? Do you have any idea of why these conventions have come about, what it's like to be a soldier under even these conditions? Would it be OK then to shoot surendering Iraqi troops? It would prevent those ambushes that have been occuring, make the lives of our soldiers a lot easier. That's OK, right?
People shot in the forehead does by common sense alone make people suspicious of executions.
No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm no soldier but isn't war about kill or be killed? There have been instances where surrendering soldiers simply bait coalition forces in an ambush.
And I also can't believe there aren't any instances of a trigger happy U.S. soldier dropping a surrendering Iraqi just to "notch up" another one.
My point is that you can't expect civility and respect in an environment where the objective is to eliminate the enemy. And if you blink, you just might be the eliminated.
Originally posted by Whisper
The US Military didn't allow it. CNN and Fox got the tape off of Al-Jezeera (sp?).
The footage I saw showed a large group of Iraqi soldiers with their hands cuffed behind them sitting on a patch of open ground encircled by razor wire. One of the POWs stood up and started speaking towards the camera, the camera panned to show a US soldier responding. The taping had obviously been conducted with the cooperation of the US military.
Allowing pictures of POWs to be shown is probably a less than serious violation of the articles of the Geneva Convention (it certainly falls short of being an "outrage on personal dignity")?but it still bothers me that it should occur on either side.