I am talking about Afghanistan govt., not “OBL”. The “complaints” about innocents are not those holding guns, but specially those sitting in their homes and receiving bombs, or those attending a party and receiving bombs, or those travelling for refuge and receiving a bomb, etc etc. etc.
So you are saying that all those “illegal combatants” were “Al-Qaeda” members? What about the ones just released? They were not Al-Qaeda anymore? So Muslims who want to defend other Muslims should first seek citizenship of that country? what a joke.
Did the US military take those pictures in 1991, or any governmental entitity? Or are you implying that all journalists should be kept off the battlefield?
There is a big difference between people killed in battle, and those assassinated while POW’s.
And please note that the Guardian article misquoted the ICRC. The Red Cross DID NOT SAY that both sides had VIOLATED the Geneva conventions. They “reminded” all beligerents of their responsibilities under the treaty.
“In recent days ICRC has reminded the governments of Iraq, the United Kingdom and the United States of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions which they have all signed, to protect lives and preserve human dignity at a time when it is at greatest risk. To this end, formal representations have been made.” http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5KTK8Z?OpenDocument&style=custo_final
Leave it to the “lefty” Guardian to distort the true statement.
Yes, a country that can afford an army can afford uniforms. The US is not holding any Afghans. If you do not distinguish your army, then expect civilian casualties. This is a matter of caring for your civilians, rather than expecting that the opposition is psychic.....the Geneva convention is very clear on this....
And yes, like it or not, Muslims who are PAID, (as the Al-Qaeda were), and travel to another country to fight are mercenaries. If they do not receive payment, they are volunteers, and can be treated as POW's.
The news media is saying that they are not bound by the Geneva Convention and they are probobly right.
I think the countries are warning that if torture is suspected that they will seek and prosecute those that commit it.
The pictures thing I'm really confused about. On one hand its got to be horrible to see your loved one that way. But equally horrible for an Iraqi or an American or Brit. Those in Iraqi witness first hand civilian deaths while we see the deaths on T.V. We all should witness how horrible war is, but at the same time I wonder if each side keeps this up if it will create abuses?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Did the US military take those pictures in 1991, or any governmental entitity? Or are you implying that all journalists should be kept off the battlefield?
[/QUOTE]
Was it not the US military that allowed those pictures to be taken? Has the US military and government ever complained of those pictures of charred Iraqi soldiers been taken under US supervision? No.
Thank you for the ICRC link..which just confirms what I have been saying along i.e. the Red Cross has warned both sides against violating the Geneva convention.
Was it not the US military that allowed those pictures to be taken? Has the US military and government ever complained of those pictures of charred Iraqi soldiers been taken under US supervision? No.
Thank you for the ICRC link..which just confirms what I have been saying along i.e. the Red Cross has warned both sides against violating the Geneva convention.
[/QUOTE]
Usually amreekans replace "both sides" with "Iraq" what the hell are you wasting time on Malik its no secret I saw Iraqi POWs on TV in uniform paraded up and down ..... As I said jaab p_____ tho sarey conventions yaad ae gaye..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Majestic: *
Yeah the US cries over the POWs how they are treated, look what they have ALWAYS done to OUR pows.
[/QUOTE]
When/Where are these pictures from?
I saw training pictures on T.V. of U.S. soldiers training with black hoods and hog tied and made to sit. I thought it was training of what one could expect to happen if one was captured, not what to do if one captures someone?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"I am talking about Afghanistan govt"
And yes, like it or not, Muslims who are PAID, (as the Al-Qaeda were), and travel to another country to fight are mercenaries. If they do not receive payment, they are volunteers, and can be treated as POW's.
[/QUOTE]
man what a joke.
Let me ask you this, do you really think that the US is the greatest nation on earth, I mean in terms of being fair, soo nice, soo kind, full of compassion. The US don't care ONLY about itself, when OUR people die, our blood is cheap to them.
But no matter what, what ever goes up MUST come down. Do you really think the US will be here for ever????
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
....
Most of the Afghans released were not captured in Afghanistan, they were arrested in Pakistan. Hmmmm....
[/QUOTE]
And you have database of all those captured in Pakistan? Pakistan handed over a very small number of people during that conflict and many of them were non-Afghanistanis.
The bottom line is this, who would you rather be captured by, the US, or the Iraqi's? Think about it for a while and if you are honest, you may have a little epiphany.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The bottom line is this, who would you rather be captured by, the US, or the Iraqi's? Think about it for a while and if you are honest, you may have a little epiphany.
[/QUOTE]
I am talking about Afghanistan govt., not “OBL”. The “complaints” about innocents are not those holding guns, but specially those sitting in their homes and receiving bombs, or those attending a party and receiving bombs, or those travelling for refuge and receiving a bomb, etc etc. etc.
what a joke.