it was created by UN, but the US went to war without UN, so what is the status of geneva convention.
**
Interesting point.
Since the background to this invasion is itself illegal under the UN Charter, does that mean the Geneva Conventions can have any validity?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Iraqi's called the blubbering mass of flesh (US GI's Joe's and Jane)
[/QUOTE]
Hope you don't mind when Americans use terms that denigrate the humanity of your brethren. American posters here don't do that I've noticed.
Well I’m getting conflicting views from the world press, apparently pro-war US views were said to be galvanised at one point, but in the BBC a few minutes ago the reporters suggested that support for the war, after seeing the POW’s and lack of Iraqi civilians cheering being liberated, has reduced support.
So I think the US government is still making up its mind about pushing the hypocritical view of the Iraqi’s contravening the Geneva Convention or whether to stay quite and see if they are benefiting in any way by showing images.
They continue to show the images on the BBC...so make your own mind up...the US government will sure try to make it up for you!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
Hope you don't mind when Americans use terms that denigrate the humanity of your brethren. American posters here don't do that I've noticed.
[/QUOTE]
My brethren........non-war mongers?
US media immediately followed up with another of their polls ( I wonder if they poll the White House Staff only) which showed that support for the war (yeah right) stayed 'high' despite reports of POW's and casualties.
It appears the media has made up it's mind.. come rain or hail, the Fuhrer's word will be upheld.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
My brethren........non-war mongers?
[/QUOTE]
I think you have generally felt entitled to use language that paints Americans with a broad brush: Fat, lazy, uneducated war mongers. I can almost hear you thinking, "well...It's true!" Actually, it's not. American posters here have in many cases disagreed very strongly and often sarcastically when discussing issues of the Middle East and Central Asia, but I think they have largely refrained from using specific language that would insult the predominantly Muslim community here the kind of laguage that one could use to incorrectly describe a whole group.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
I think you have generally felt entitled to use language that paints Americans with a broad brush: Fat, lazy, uneducated war mongers. I can almost hear you thinking, "well...It's true!" Actually, it's not. American posters here have in many cases disagreed very strongly and often sarcastically when discussing issues of the Middle East and Central Asia, but I think they have largely refrained from using specific language that would insult the predominantly Muslim community here the kind of laguage that one could use to incorrectly describe a whole group.
[/QUOTE]
The harrassment and the discrimination intentionally propagated by many American tv channels and the American media are enough insult for us MUSLIMs! Trust me!
Storch,
Let’s just get some things straight. These people were part of the invading US army, which went against global public opinion to attack a sovereign state.
The unwitting soldiers after watching Hollywood movies for most of their lives and hanging out with their buddies talking about how many AAAArabs would get their asses whooped, some of these guys got caught. They saw blood, guts and carnage; they witnessed the death of their buddies.
What did they honestly expect, Tom hanks to come running out of some trench with a dagger clenched in his teeth to come rescue them! This is war, they have witnessed the reality of war, I’m sorry if I don’t get distressed at their predicament.
If it was up to me none would get caught and degraded as they would be tucked up in bed in some barracks in kansas.
Having said all that, I apolagise for being crude.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Storch,
Let’s just get some things straight. These people were part of the invading US army, which went against global public opinion to attack a sovereign state.
The unwitting soldiers after watching Hollywood movies for most of their lives and hanging out with their buddies talking about how many AAAArabs would get their asses whooped, some of these guys got caught. They saw blood, guts and carnage; they witnessed the death of their buddies.
What did they honestly expect, Tom hanks to come running out of some trench with a dagger clenched in his teeth to come rescue them! This is war, they have witnessed the reality of war, I’m sorry if I don’t get distressed at their predicament.
If it was up to me none would get caught and degraded as they would be tucked up in bed in some barracks in kansas.
Having said all that, I apolagise for being crude.
[/QUOTE]
I actually don't object too strongly to the pictures being shown. You're right. It's war. It's brutal and ugly. These guys knew what they signed up for. I guess I was a bit miffed by some not so subtle insults regarding level of education, eating habits etc. Stuff used to categorize- that I read sometimes. You're also right about historic perception of Arabs and Muslims in Hollywood. I think it's changed a lot. I hope it will continue to do so. We'll unlikely disagree on lots of things, but perhaps this crudeness in describing cultures we can agree on. I too apologize for any past indelicacies. I run very hot and cold when visiting Gup. I've learned much here, and will try to control my emotions a bit when posting. Hell, I might even pull out a smilie today.
This article reflects what most of the people here are saying…
Editorial: Lies, Lies and More Lies
Yesterday the US-led army invading Iraq — without UN approval, without international backing — woke up to the reality of ground combat.
They learned first-hand that the Iraqi people do not want to be “liberated” by them, and that the Iraqi Army is likely to fight to the very last.
Resistance continues in Umm Qasr, a small port city just inside Iraq which the US claimed to have taken days ago; and independent reports say that in Nassiriyah up to 20 American armored personnel carriers and tanks were taken out by the Iraqis.
What is not in doubt is that dozens of American soldiers may have been killed yesterday. More than a dozen were taken prisoner. The bodies of the dead were shown on Iraqi television. So were the frightened faces of Iraq’s first prisoners of war.
Those who have been getting their news exclusively from US networks probably have not seen these images. Priority was given to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose denials slowly turned as the day progressed into grudging admissions.
Rumsfeld finally commanded the airwaves alone, after having bullied several major American networks — CNN, Fox and MSNBC — into not showing the images of the US prisoners of war and the dead.
He did this by referring to the Geneva Convention. Footage of the captured soldiers constituted “propaganda”, Rumsfeld asserted.
At the same time, he managed to cast doubt on the fact that the captured were indeed American.
Rumsfeld’s newfound affection for the Geneva Convention is remarkable, given that there were images broadcast continuously the day before on US news networks of long lines of Iraqi prisoners surrendering, in US President George W. Bush’s words, “gleefully, enthusiastically”.
The US does not believe that the prisoners now being held at Guantanamo Bay are prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Pictures of the men there, shackled and living in cages, were distributed by the Bush administration to the world’s media.
The US Army yesterday said that it considers the images of the US prisoners of war shown on Iraqi TV “disgusting.” For those who have seen them, they invoke a complex mixture of emotions, including pity and surprise; but disgust is not among them.
Real war is an ugly business, and the US is now engaged in a real, complex war. All the signs are that the Iraqis do not want the Americans on their land, and are not going to give them as a present their vast oil reserves.
The war, it would appear, is going to be protracted, and things are going to get messier. The messier things get, the greater will be the need for clear, objective coverage from those who are covering it.
The US troops are fighting in the name of the US government. The US media, however, are not a paid-up, fully trained extra battalion of the US Army whose job it is to help the troops to victory. Rather, their job is to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth.
So far, they have told little but lies.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by khan_sahib: *
AvgAmericanGirl, PoWs are PoWs whether they have surrendered or ambushed.
I don't see your point in suggesting that Propaganda to dishearten Saddam's army is OK?
I expect Iraqis to treat these PoWs like humans too but found it a bit ironic when the whole media and the US government is shouting about Geneva Convention.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn't suggesting that it's ok for Americans to try to dishearten Saddam and Saddam not do the same. I'm suggesting that pictures of surrendering or dead soldiers on either side is gona piss both armies off.
I think maybe they were screaming about the Geneva Convention because of the bloodiness of the scene. I haven't seen the actual filmed report myself, just the pictures.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Al Jezerra is a fault for showing dead Americans, they have also showed injured Iraqi's. It was uncalled for Rumsfield to chastise the Al Jezzera reporter.
Have to admit that it would upset me if it were Al Jezerra T.V. that interviewed the POW's. But I don't think thats the case, though I think some media may have attempted to insinuate that that was the case. Would really like to see the media more objective, but thats why I read news from various countries with varying points of view.
I wouldn't have a problem with journalists accompanying Red Cross/Crescent to report on how POW's are being treated, whether in G.B. or in Iraq.
Possibility exists that the film wasn't shown on American T.V. because fear that those now supporting the war would withdraw support, in addition to the fact that the families of those people deserve to notified what happend to them in a personal way, rather than seeing it on television.
US violates Geneva Convention by parading POWs
Following the images of the US Prisoners of War shown on Iraqi TV yesterday, the US President cried that the Iraqis had violated international law and a resolution of the Geneva Convention.
Firstly, how about the Iraqi soldiers that were paraded in front of the cameras only days ago.
But worse, how can anyone forget the POWs from the Afghanistan War who are held as captives in an Island off of Cuba? Were they not paraded in Guantanamo Bay for the world to broadcast while imprisoned by shackles and cuffs. Were they not being humiliated in safron garments and carted around on wagons?
Eighteen months on, they still haven't been tried in a court of law.
Where is the justice? Where is the freedom?
The statue of liberty may be seen along the US coastline, but what's coming out of the Whitehouse is a President whose words would much rather paraphrase injustice - G. Bush, the Man of Lie-berty.
Kofi Annan asked for both parties to restrain from doing so.
The U.S will now treat POWs according to Islamic law NOT the Geneva Convention, what's that alll about!?! I have no clue..
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by *Disco~Duck: *
Kofi Annan asked for both parties to restrain from doing so.
The U.S will now treat POWs according to Islamic law NOT the Geneva Convention, what's that alll about!?! I have no clue..
[/QUOTE]
Are they gonna let the Iraqi prisoners go if they educate an American ? In that case, chaltahai and NYA would like to sign up.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by *Disco~Duck: *
The U.S will now treat POWs according to Islamic law NOT the Geneva Convention, what's that alll about!?! I have no clue..
[/QUOTE]
Probably means the poor guys will be stoned to death.
"Islamic Law"?
That's a first! What does the White House knows about Islamic Law? If they really cared about the Shariah, they wouldn't be supplying weapons to Sharon to kill his own (palestinian) people ...
"... kill his own (paelstinian) people."? Now where have we heard that before? Isn't that what the US say Saddam was doing?
That's exactly what Israel is doing because the Palestinians haven't been granted whole autonomy and neither do they have sovereignty. So by definition, he's killing his own people.
CH, ever been on the receiving end of a bullet? The bullet kills faster than the stone.
There's already a big discussion about this exact topic going on in the World Affairs Forum. Maybe these threads can be merged over there so everyone can have their say in one place.