Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23rd March 2003, 23:02   #1
nature spirit
Major Dude
 
nature spirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: nature
Posts: 839
Send a message via ICQ to nature spirit
Mr Rumsfield is talking about Geneva convention.. is this jerk serious?

nature spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 23:20   #2
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
that's not against the geneva convension to the best of my knowledge, actually that picture doesn't bother me at all - they are POW's after all.

But i still agree that Rumsfeld is a jerk - but not because of this.

May I remind you that this is a WAR, not a humanitarian mission!
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 23:34   #3
nature spirit
Major Dude
 
nature spirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: nature
Posts: 839
Send a message via ICQ to nature spirit
yes but Rumsfield is depicting his war to be a humanitarian mission to save the Iraqis!

and anyway, the US were the FIRST to show the tape of those 17 Iraqi soldiers surrendering in a humiliating way on the first day..
nature spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 23:52   #4
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
That's not violating the Geneva conventions. Quite honestly, I don't see how transporting prisoners in that manner is so terrible. It's not as if they are being held there for an extended period of time.

I didn't see footage of the soldiers who surrendered, so I don't really know what it entailed. I should mention, however, that showing footage of people surrendering does not violate the Geneva conventions. People who are surrendering are not considered POWs. POW status is after they've surrendered. (I should also mention that the US is not considering troops who surrender to be POWs. They are considered members of the army of Iraq.)

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 00:03   #5
nature spirit
Major Dude
 
nature spirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: nature
Posts: 839
Send a message via ICQ to nature spirit
I honestly can't argue much about that and you may be probably right.
but personally I can't see much difference between soldiers surredering and some who already did. Anyway 'surrendering' in that footage meant they were actually caught by the US troops and not like they held a white flag from a window. Other spans of the tape showed some who are already captured (although not in a closed place, to be honest, but I dont know what difference does it make)
nature spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 00:06   #6
InvisableMan
Ninja Master!
(Forum King)
 
InvisableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hotel California
Posts: 4,331
I saw that tape (on iraqi tv), its not right. soldiers with their heads blown off, dead and dying, bloody and bruised. horrible. dont fucking talk about stuff that you dont even know about.
InvisableMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 01:53   #7
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
that picute is fine by me. so they are tied up and blindfolded, so what? they havn't been cut up, beaton, kiled, maimed, ect. Compared to what they have doen to us, we arefreakin saints. btw I-Man, did u get teh video off the alshzeera site? I can't find it anywhere.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 02:04   #8
MGSolidSnake5
Senior Member
 
MGSolidSnake5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Right behind you
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to MGSolidSnake5 Send a message via Yahoo to MGSolidSnake5
You're really supposed to do that to POWs.
1. So they can't escape easily
2. So they can't see the location they are being sent to
3. So they can't communicate with each other (or very little communication)

It's not like they are killing them.
MGSolidSnake5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 02:59   #9
InvisableMan
Ninja Master!
(Forum King)
 
InvisableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hotel California
Posts: 4,331
yep. standard procedure, and since you cant see their faces, its not in violation of the G.C.
InvisableMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 01:50   #10
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
you're not allowed to put anything over their face or something, i believe. i find it amusing and tragic that saddam hussein is using exactly the same trick as the US did in order to try and escape the trappings of the convention, though.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 02:06   #11
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
i think the people who are surrendering arn't getting POW status tho. they are jsut iraqi civilians or somethign liek that. idk what yet, but i think i recall something about how they, like the ali quada prisionars at camp x-ray, are NOT gettnig POW status.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 02:09   #12
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
you're not allowed to put anything over their face or something, i believe
I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to blindfold POWs.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 02:10   #13
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to blindfold POWs.
i'll endeavour to find out. i was pretty sure it was something like that, though.

edit: couldn't find the actual complaints, strangely. people classified as "prisoners of war" are granted extra rights though, like being able to suppress information, or something like that.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 02:13   #14
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
the geneva convention

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 02:26   #15
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
I've read through that and a number of the other conventions once before. I'm not going to do it again.

I'll say this, though. If blindfolding POWs is in violation of the convention, it should not be.

"Well, we would just take you prisoner, but since we can't have you seeing where our camp is, we'll just have to kill you."

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 02:27   #16
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
nah, i think what i heard was that it was the "whole face" thing people were objecting about. i don't think it specifically breaks anything, though.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 02:34   #17
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
/nevermind
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 03:09   #18
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
A full shroud is really the only proper way to stop someone from seeing, though.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 03:53   #19
MGSolidSnake5
Senior Member
 
MGSolidSnake5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Right behind you
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to MGSolidSnake5 Send a message via Yahoo to MGSolidSnake5
The US military sometimes goes through training on what might happen if they are a POW. In the clips, the soldiers in this training had bags over their heads, so it is alright, and not against the GC. Why the hell would you let the enemy know where they are? Like I said before, they are not killing them.
MGSolidSnake5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 04:03   #20
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
anyone here seen "the recruit"? i thought it's "pow" training idea was nifty.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 04:05   #21
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
heh... you should see what the british SAS have to go through...

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 08:23   #22
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html
These allegations are beyond a joke after reading this.

Quote:
If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes.

This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.

His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention.

It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 10:11   #23
Khaine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 171
Send a message via ICQ to Khaine
Hey why don't people whine and bitch about Japan and how they treated Australian, British and American POW's ???

Why bitch about how America is treating Iraqi POW's when it is much more humane than the Japanese.
Khaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 11:57   #24
Windude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: secret
Posts: 289
no ones at war with japan and japan aren't holding any POWs to my knowledge

<<<will give head for food-stamps>>>

Windude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 12:35   #25
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Khaine
Why bitch about how America is treating Iraqi POW's when it is much more humane than the Japanese.
because. there's. rules. laid. down.

because those who are threatening to use these rules, are breaking them themselves.

the defence you put forward there is a lot like the rapist who gets off the hook with the defence "well, look at the guy on trial in the other court now - he killed someone! that's much worse! why worry about what i've done?"

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 16:27   #26
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...,921192,00.html
These allegations are beyond a joke after reading this.


Quote:
If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes.

This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.

His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention.

It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.
hate to break it to ya, but that is bullshit. not one of the people held at Guantanamo Bay are POW's. They have not been given that status. EIther by teh SU or others, i don't know, but they DO NOT have POW status, therefore no laws aer being broken. Wathced a debate on CNN i think about it. Was interesting, so he has nothign to worry about
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 17:16   #27
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
But they ARE POW's whether the US admits to this or not. The US has given tham a status that just does not exist, 'captive combatants (or something), sorry but they are prisoners of war. No two ways about it.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 17:18   #28
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
well, apparently there ARE two ways about it, because the status that the US has given them means they don't have to follow the geneva convention with them, wether you think they are POW's or now.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 19:06   #29
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
They can call them what the hell they want, they're still prisoners of war and the US _has_ broken the Geneva convention.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 19:17   #30
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
as long as tehy don't officially cal them pow's, tehy arn't, so sux to be them.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 19:41   #31
aeturnis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
There is nothing being done wrong in that picture. I know cause I was in the military, and I was trained in how to handle prisoners. They can be restrained, blinfolded, and prevented from communicating. Keep in mind, these people are also being provided with food, water, and proper shelter. Is Iraq giving our people that curtesy?
Probably not.
Another note (I'm probably gonna catch some hell for this), if you haven't served in the military, or been trained in the ways of the military, then you shouldn't try to spout off aboutwhat they are doing right or wrong. This statement isn't directed at any one in particular, just think about it though.
aeturnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 19:48   #32
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
/discalimer: what i spout is simply stuff i hear on tv form teh "expererts" interveiwed on cnn
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 19:54   #33
aeturnis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
and you trust everything you hear on tv? i trust my training. now look closely at that picture, heres something no one thought to point out. iraq is a desert, right now its hot as hell over there. those prisoners are sitting in the shade. i know from expereince that its probably at least 10 to 15 degrees cooler in the shade. wow, the abuse we're givin them
aeturnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 19:55   #34
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
for the most, part yea, i trust cnn, fox news, ect. when they aer talkig about Pow tretment, ect. yea, i like to trust people
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 19:58   #35
aeturnis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
hey, im not trying to attack you or anything, cause we live in a free country, and we are free to say what we want. and i agree with you for the most part on what you've said in this thread. just be careful what you believe. cnn is pretty good, so is fox, and a few others. just to many people that want to spout off about things when they dont know what they're talking about.
aeturnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 20:01   #36
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
i know, but i'm jsut saying that i trust pretty good what snn and fox tell me. they seem to ask real questions, not jsut oens that make us look good. they show "the video" despite the pentagons wishes. so i trust them pretty good, and i am only 18, never been in the military, so yea, most if not al of what i say in here is what i get off those two stations.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 20:25   #37
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
as long as tehy don't officially cal them pow's, tehy arn't, so sux to be them.
They can call them friggin' squirrels for all the differance it makes. They were captured during a war and held prisoner. They're prisoners of war. It doesn't matter what you call them, I could call you a stone, it doesn't stop you being a human.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 21:29   #38
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
as long as tehy don't officially cal them pow's, tehy arn't, so sux to be them.
That's funny, so are you saying Iraq can capture american soldiers, call them something else than Prisoners Of War, and then do whatever they want with them?

Or we can twist it even more, as i am aware of the legal issues being involved, let the Sadam fayed troops, witch the americans have described as terrorists and are not official troops, capture american troops - then the legal issue would have been reversed, and they should be allowed to break the geneva convention the same way the US does.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2003, 00:37   #39
nature spirit
Major Dude
 
nature spirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: nature
Posts: 839
Send a message via ICQ to nature spirit
First Mr Invisableman I know well what Im talking about, I wonder if you do. The footage I was talking about is not this same pic, the footage showed Iraqi soldiers and NOT civilians, and this was acknowledged by the US military spokesman, diffused by most US channels in the first day of war. those were 17 captured soldiers, and they were shown bare faces, and the US was clearly to break the Geneva Convention first.. so enough of this nonsense Rummy.
Second, if we are talking about international laws and conventions, THIS VERY war is a very serious breach because it is a 'preemptive' strike (which is forbidden in the international law), based on hollow reasons that were not really approved by experts, and without any approval of the UN.. should I say more?


hey, im not trying to attack you or anything, cause we live in a free country, and we are free to say what we want.

are we really?
if it weren't for the internet and some other TV stations, Bush would be controlling EVERY bit of what you see.. and make you see things HIS own way. If it weren't for al-jazeera for example, people would have believed the Pentagon first lies about everything going fine and denying Iraqi's minister's claims that they captured some US sodiers.. al-jazeera pushed the administration to admit this... People have to know what's going on even if it's ugly.. it's their right..
nature spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump