Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Spock
WHAT WAS EXPRESSED SHOULD MATTER......WE CAN'T "ALL GET ALONG" AND IGNORE TREATMENT OF OUR SOLDIERS.....THEY WERE KILLING, DRAGGING BODIES, BURNING BODIES, ETC. LONG BEFORE A FEW SOLDIERS TOOK PICTURES...and that's supposed to be horrific? Get a clue or a dictionary.
The G.C. is "out the window" when dealing with terrorists...and if you don't think so, that's your right, but I have rights to opinion too and that's more than some can say.

For one, the Iraqi army is not a terrorist group, its an army. Hence the name...
We were talking about SOLDIERS in captivity, not terrorists, and soldiers, under the Convention, have greater rights than terrorists do.

Soldiers are covered by the Convention, because they are soldiers. So the rest of what you say is wrong.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Gee, does that only apply to America?

Well lets see. Terrorists are not signatories of the Convention, and thus are not bound by it. Neither was Iraq under Saddam, nor was North Vietnam, nor Japan.

Its those who sign the piece of paper who agree to do whats on it. And, to my lasting delight, America signed it in 1955. Check out the International Red Cross page for the list. And as America signed it, America is at fault for abusing captured soldiers. I say again, how would you all feel if American boys were put through the same pain? You'd be reaching for your copies of the Geneva convention then, oh yeah.

[Spock]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Well lets see. Terrorists are not signatories of the Convention, and thus are not bound by it. Neither was Iraq under Saddam, nor was North Vietnam, nor Japan.

Its those who sign the piece of paper who agree to do whats on it. And, to my lasting delight, America signed it in 1955. Check out the International Red Cross page for the list. And as America signed it, America is at fault for abusing captured soldiers. I say again, how would you all feel if American boys were put through the same pain? You'd be reaching for your copies of the Geneva convention then, oh yeah.

DUH???? I'D LOVE THEM TO PHOTOGRAPH OUR CAPTIVES INSTEAD OF BURNING THEIR BODIES, HANGING THEM FROM BRIDGES AND BEHEADING THEM

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Well, gee, I guess that put me back in my place...

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Spock
DUH???? I'D LOVE THEM TO PHOTOGRAPH OUR CAPTIVES INSTEAD OF BURNING THEIR BODIES, HANGING THEM FROM BRIDGES AND BEHEADING THEM

hear hear.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Oh, and lets just sexually abuse them, drag them naked across a prison floor with a dog collar around their neck, beat them and take photos of THAT.

Hang on, oops AMERICA ALREADY DID. (yes I can use capitals too.)

Calm down spock and argue the points. Oh, and I can use bold too.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Please direct me to the part in the Geveva Convention that stipulates that if you sign it you are bound to abide by it when dealing with terrorists-or anyother parties that are not part of it.You can't honestley think that we should be civil to them when they are not themselves.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I say again, how would you all feel if American boys were put through the same pain? You'd be reaching for your copies of the Geneva convention then, oh yeah.

Are you kidding or are you just blind and deaf? Do you really think that American soldiers have not been subjected to torture and pain? What's funny is that right now, it isn't even American soldiers that it's happening to. It's American civilans, and whether you accept it or not. it is far worse than anything the Americans have dealt to them.

[Spock]

Your rationale suffers from lack of reading comprehension.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by QueenAnnesLace
Please direct me to the part in the Geveva Convention that stipulates that if you sign it you are bound to abide by it when dealing with terrorists-or anyother parties that are not part of it.You can't honestley think that we should be civil to them when they are not themselves.

Is anyone actually listening to my point??

QAL - you are quite correct about terrorist no being addressed in the Convention, quite correct.

The thing that I have been saying FROM THE BEGINING (thats for spock ) is that the Iraqi army is not a terrorist group. Its an Army, just like yours and mine. Soldiers ARE protected by the Geneva Convention, thats the whole point of the damn thing. This is about the treatment of SOLDIERS in captivity.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Are you kidding or are you just blind and deaf? Do you really think that American soldiers have not been subjected to torture and pain? What's funny is that right now, it isn't even American soldiers that it's happening to. It's American civilans, and whether you accept it or not. it is far worse than anything the Americans have dealt to them.

Sorry, but did you (blind and deaf?) just verbally abuse me? Seems that its not only spock who cant just argue the points...

Perhaps I should report that post to a moderator

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Is anyone actually listening to my point??

QAL - you are quite correct about terrorist no being addressed in the Convention, quite correct.

The thing that I have been saying FROM THE BEGINING (thats for spock ) is that the Iraqi army is not a terrorist group. Its an Army, just like yours and mine. Soldiers ARE protected by the Geneva Convention, thats the whole point of the damn thing. This is about the treatment of SOLDIERS in captivity.

This is not about the treatment of soldiers in captivity. This is about the treatment of militants and insurgents in captivity. Difference.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Think about it this way.We are going to have a dual.You sign a paper stating that you will take 10 steps before you turn to shoot.I don't sign the paper.After 5 steps I turn and shoot you in the back.Now does that sound fair?

[Valandil]

Wow... as one who considers himself a 'conservative Christian' and who most generally votes Republican, I often expect to be considered an 'extremist' in general conversation. However, judging by the stands taken and opinions expressed here, I find that I'm quite definitely a moderate. How much of the following can most of you agree with:

1. I think what our soldiers have done in the prison is reprehensible. With this type of mission we have undertaken, I believe it is absolutely essential that we work very hard to maintain the moral high ground. We have not lost that yet, but we have put it to great risk - both with prisoner abuse and with shutting down the newspaper of al Sadr - which shut-down triggered these recent uprisings. These kinds of things (prisoner abuse) can happen all too easily, but we need to make a clear, unambiguous statement that it will not be tolerated. That message must be read loud and clear by the Iraqi's, the rest of the Arab world, our soldiers, all Americans, and the rest of the international community. There should be firm punishment to offenders - and there should be restitution to the aggrieved. I think that we DO need to treat all prisoners humanely and according to the Geneva Convention: for they may be soldiers, they may be terrorists and they may be innocent civilians - mistakenly caught up in a sweep. If we want to export democracy, we need to also export the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' (ED - oops - typed backwards at first - not a 'Freudian slip' I hope! ) (ED - as well as 'freedom of the press') to those in our keeping. It will be a hard thing to do - harder than not doing it, but I believe the end result will then be better.

2. It appears that President Bush will neither himself offer an apology, nor shed himself of Secretary Rumsfeld. I am starting to think he should do both. At least, he should if Rumsfeld was as aware of things as he appears to have been - and if his policies brought on the abuse we now know of. Rumsfeld may also be 'dangerously optimistic' for a man in his position. He's the one who has engineered the downsizing of military units... who tries to do more with less. I think he HAS underestimated the force required to do this job... and that's dangerous. The result has caused great difficulties to reservists... who have been called up to active duty at great levels - and for long durations. I don't think that's the right concept for reservists (and we may soon find a lot of people 'bailing out' of our reserve units - if they can continually expect that much interruption of their lives). If we cannot do the job we want to do without dipping into our reserves, it may be time to take stock in whether to do the job. Too late for that last now - but something good to bear in mind.

3. I think we DO need to stay and finish this job. Leaving now could bring on some very bad results. First - we could actually leave the country in WORSE straits than when we got there... which would NOT be a good thing. Second - we send anew the message to terrorists that we will 'cut and run' when things get difficult. That's the message Usama bin Laden read so well in President Clinton's withdrawal of troops from Somalia. Third - it may actually be advantageous to have our troops in a combat zone which draws would-be terrorists to them... if we were not in Iraq, all the extremists would be scattered all over the world, making much havoc - instead, they're all contained in one area - and we have a large force of well-trained, well-equipped troops on hand to do battle with them (the very best in fact!). Better that than have these guys free to take on civilians world-wide... or to all try to slip into the US.

4. I know it's easy to react emotionally to something like what happened to Nicholas Berg. However, we can't get too 'riled up' over it and take out our wrath on all the innocents who ARE there in Iraq. We have psychos here in the US too - but don't wipe out whole populations in our revulsion to them, do we? For instance, we would not have considered nuking Milwaukee when Jeffrey Dahmer's acts came to light, would we have? A bit unreasonable? It's the same thing there, I think. It's just that the idiots can get an international stage and use such acts as a 'statement' for their 'cause'. We should neither punish innocent, reasonable Iraqis because of their crimes, nor leave those innocent Iraquis at their mercy (as they seem to have none).

5. It may be good to at least CONSIDER dividing up the country, rather than remaining commited to a single, unified Iraq. These people-groups do not naturally go together anyway. Let's consider a separate Kurdish land in the north, a Sunni land in the middle and a Shiite land in the south... and try to give them some reasons to get along and work together... shared benefits of natural resources (oil) or something. If that would be possible.

This is not a game, and we must recall our resolve from 2 1/2 years ago. We entered this for the long haul and for such hard times as this - and for the betterment of the entire world. As for Iraq, I think Saddam Hussein had to go - and because of the sweetheart deals too many of the UN nations had with him in the 'Oil for Food' program (too little has been written on that - but in reality, the people of Iraq were being robbed to enrich French, German and Russian interests, among others), the UN would NEVER have worked to remove him.

[Spock]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
The thing that I have been saying FROM THE BEGINING (thats for spock ) is that the Iraqi army is not a terrorist group. Its an Army, .

.THERE IS NO IRAQI ARMY. We're trying to train their police and get their army restarted but currently all we are dealing with are terrorists, foreign fighters and Sadaam loyalists. Don't blur the facts

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Sorry, but did you (blind and deaf?) just verbally abuse me? Seems that its not only spock who cant just argue the points...

Perhaps I should report that post to a moderator

My dear Fenir, I did not abuse you but asked you a question. If I were going to do anything to you, it would be punishment through the admin cp, and well deserved I'm sure.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Lets lay it out for the little kiddies, shall we?


The Geneva Convention is a treaty designed to safeguard the treatment of Soldiers in captivity.

America signed the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention does not address terrorists.

The Iraqi Army is, in fact, an Army, not a terrorist group.

Americans have abused Iraqi Soldiers in captivity.



Thats it. Thats as fair and as unbiased as it can be put. Now, for the love of God, someone actually argue me on these above points.

Oh, and SGH - the photos that shocked the world were of IRAQI SOLDIERS, from the regular Iraqi Army, making them, well Soldiers. No difference...

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
My dear Fenir, I did not abuse you but asked you a question. If I were going to do anything to you, it would be punishment through the admin cp, and well deserved I'm sure.

Well, with that post, I was actually joking. Noting the Smilies??

But, seriously, if you draw a sword in the normal forum as a regular entmooter, one would hope you wouldn't run for Admin land when I draw mine.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by Spock
.THERE IS NO IRAQI ARMY. We're trying to train their police and get their army restarted but currently all we are dealing with are terrorists, foreign fighters and Sadaam loyalists. Don't blur the facts

And i"ll second it-What Iraqi army???Maybe then but not anymore.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by QueenAnnesLace
Think about it this way.We are going to have a dual.You sign a paper stating that you will take 10 steps before you turn to shoot.I don't sign the paper.After 5 steps I turn and shoot you in the back.Now does that sound fair?

Then dont sign the bloody paper!!

America did!