Geneva convention?

newnew
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014




Do you think Groverat will ban this picture?



err... Discuss!
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 105
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
  • Reply 2 of 105
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New





    Do you think Groverat will ban this picture?



    err... Discuss!




    Discuss what ? If Groverat will ban the picture or comment the picture.

    In order to comment it, we need the context, or it means nothing. Please enlight us new, i am too old to imagine what this picture means out of context.
  • Reply 3 of 105
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Discuss what ? If Groverat will ban the picture or comment the picture.



    I don't think he'll ban it, since there are no dead american soldiers or blood in it.



    In regards to the context:



    Is hooding a prisoner of war agaist the geneva convention? Yes.



    Does it help that this man is holding his child? No.



    Does it make for a good day to wake up to these pictures? Hell, no.
  • Reply 4 of 105
    skipjackskipjack Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New



    Is hooding a prisoner of war agaist the geneva convention? Yes.





    We still need context:



    "All the fedayeen, the ex-guardsman said, are volunteers. They swear their allegiance to Saddam, and they have special blue patches on their uniform sleeves bearing the motto ``God, Homeland, President.''



    Once they're approved as fedayeen, the men wear black cotton hoods that expose only their eyes, nose and mouths. They attend political-education seminars and martial arts training. They get higher pay and the best available weapons, including U.S.-made machine guns."



    Maybe it is his mask.



    San Jose Mercury News article on website
  • Reply 5 of 105
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Well New? Why don't you show us that you are not a typical pea brained knee jerk anti-american european and tell us how the tactics used by Saddam's people put civilians at risk?
  • Reply 6 of 105
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Idiot.
  • Reply 7 of 105
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Well New? Why don't you show us that you are not a typical pea brained knee jerk anti-american european and tell us how the tactics used by Saddam's people put civilians at risk?



    Yeah, this guy has his self-exploding suicide kid with him...
  • Reply 8 of 105
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Well my comment is that he had put on this hood of some short and is free to take it off. If you look it doesn't look as if he hands are tied, cuffed, or secured in some manner.



    Nick
  • Reply 9 of 105
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    Yeah, this guy has his self-exploding suicide kid with him...



    Well? Who is this guy and kid? Your anti-american knee jerk reaction doesn't allow you to tell us? Where'd you find the photo? prosaddam.com?
  • Reply 10 of 105
    Scotsman: So he is sitting with the hood on because he likes to? Of course he can take it of. But what do you honestly think will happen? The soldiers will say "Well jolly good for him. On time he stopped playing around with that stupid hood"



    And Scott: Even if he just blew up USS Theodore Roosevelt he still have some rights.
  • Reply 11 of 105
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Well? Who is this guy and kid? Your anti-american knee jerk reaction doesn't allow you to tell us? Where'd you find the photo? prosaddam.com?



    I actually got it from a pro-war norwegian newspaper.



    But after researching it, I've found it here at AP as well.
  • Reply 12 of 105
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I have removed 5 war-related pictures before. Only 1 had dead American soldiers. I don't know why you keep saying I only remove those. Well, I do know why but it's still wrong.



    Content? No cussing in the thread title? You read the posting guidelines?
  • Reply 13 of 105
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Is hooding against the Geneva Conventions? I'm not too familiar with them because I don't see why that matters, seems better than showing their faces.



    And when I see that picture I think, isn't it amazing that when we take prisoners of war we let them hold their children. When they take prisoners of war they rape and mutilate them.



    What's so bad about that picture? The hood?
  • Reply 14 of 105
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Is hooding against the Geneva Conventions? I'm not too familiar with them because I don't see why that matters, seems better than showing their faces.



    And when I see that picture I think, isn't it amazing that when we take prisoners of war we let them hold their children. When they take prisoners of war they rape and mutilate them.



    What's so bad about that picture? The hood?




    yeah . . . we're so Good
  • Reply 15 of 105
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The geneva convention do not allow to take pictures of POWS or at list picture where we can recocnize them.

    perhaps it could explain the hood.
  • Reply 17 of 105
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    yeah . . . we're so Good



    Well, compared to how OUR POWs are being treated, we actually are, aren't we?







    You don't actually think/believe U.S. soldiers are torturing, raping and mutilating the Iraqi soldiers we're holding? You don't, do you?



    :confused:
  • Reply 18 of 105
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I wasn't making "one of those" arguments, tonton. I'm not a moral relativist (and I HATE when people go "yeah, but he did that so...").



    I'm simply responding to the guy's post above. No where do I say, imply (or support) that just because our soldiers have been horribly mistreated and brutalized that it's okay and acceptable for us to do it.



    As I often have to ask others here (and they know who they are), re-read my post if you must, then take a few breaths and actually think about what it is I said.



    We AREN'T treating Iraqi POWs the way ours have been treated. That's a true, simple and very straight-forward statement that everyone would probably believe. Why is pointing that small little tidbit out an "argument for 'he did it, so I can too!'"?







    Uh, it's not.
  • Reply 19 of 105
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Well, compared to how OUR POWs are being treated, we actually are, aren't we?



    That's not how a rational human being judges. You can't look at the Iraqis and say "well, they've kill 10 of our POWs, that means we can kill 7 of there's and we're still better than they are."



    There is a minimum standard we must live up to regardless of how the opposition acts. Yes that means that even if they resort to 'terrorist' acts we can't do the same.



    EDIT: I had written this while you posted the previous post....
  • Reply 20 of 105
    The real strange part is that this picture is of a POW that the US Soldiers have allowed to have his son be with him... yeah, thats really torturous, not seperating them so they can be together.. some people need a smack upside the head. they are so against everything they have to ignore what it is and try to make something else out of it.

Sign In or Register to comment.