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.
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."
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?
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!'"?
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....
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.
Comments
"You just ****ing killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"
Damn, I'm getting old fast...
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.
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.
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
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...
Nick
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?
And Scott: Even if he just blew up USS Theodore Roosevelt he still have some rights.
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.
Content? No cussing in the thread title? You read the posting guidelines?
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?
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
perhaps it could explain the hood.
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?
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.
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....