| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| They'll chop is head off and then people will do what they always do... forget about it . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
The videos in question couldn't be more different. Saddam was the leader of his nation not some Ahmed/Joe captured on the battlefield and forced to make propaganda statements.
Are you honestly saying that there should have been no video footage made public of people like Hussein, Milosevic, Pot or others of their ilk after their regimes fell? In terms of legality, I am also curious as to whether or not political leaders of regimes are actually consisdered "prisoners of war" once captured.
The actual video made during Saddam's hanging wasn't made by US forces. As far as I am aware of the US government released only ONE video of Saddam prior to him being formally charged by the Iraqi government. It was primarily done to show the condition he was in when captured. It served a somewhat newsworthy purpose as to inform the people of the condition in which he was captured.
The video released by the insurgents offers no such purpose to the insurgents. It isn't like the average Afghan is like "Oh my god, I can't believe they captured Joe Smith from Cornfield Iowa, OMFG!"
The video was made for one purpose and one purpose only. We have your guy. We are going to behead him. Let you just try and stop us. Allah Allah Allah and all that. |
Are you honestly saying that the 'Saddam video' served no propaganda purpose? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course it had some propaganda value. Every single image we capture during war could be said to have some propaganda value.
Now why don't you answer my question.? Do you honestly believe that heads of state, once defeated, should never be shown on TV? Is it unreasonable to want to provide images of a head of state, once defeated, in order to solidify the victory. To put an end to it if you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thoreau wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
There's a big difference between a soldier in uniform and an insurgent in civilian clothing. When captured, the former is covered by the Geneva Conventions, while the latter is not.
Not that this excuses the treatment of SOME prisoners by SOME American/British soldiers, but going by the letter of said conventions, the U.S. has a point.
And at least in those cases an investigation was called and those deemed to be responsible were punished.
It's a fairly safe bet that those responsible for capturing and mistreating the soldier are never going to be called to account by their higher-ups. |
I don't think the Taliban has signed on to the Geneva convention. |
Which was one of the points I was making. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
Fox whimpered:
| Quote: |
| This sort of condemnation comes off as so disingenuous after some of the things our nation's government has unashamedly done. It makes us look so hypocritical and pathetic. |
So you're saying that the U.S. doesn't sincerely disdain his use in the propaganda video?  |
A total non-sequitur. Of course in this specific case the U.S. sincerely disdains specifically a U.S. soldier's use in such a video. When we stop abusing our prisoners of war, perhaps we'll have a leg to stand on when we express such disdain.
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| And how is it hypocritical? Have we been making similar videos of Taliban prisoners? |
Far, far worse, and you know it.
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I hope the soldier in question is returned safely, but I genuinely feel the actions of our nation regarding the prisoners we have taken make him less likely to be returned safely, not more likely. |
Why, yes of course, it would have to be our past actions that would prompt the otherwise well-meaning and reasonable Taliban fighters to resort to butchery. It couldn't possibly be the result of their xenophobic, medieval, misogynistic mindset, now could it? |
I said nothing beyond the fact that nothing we've done what so ever gives them any reason to be merciful, and the sort of barbarity we've engaged in regarding prisoners we've taken can only make things worse for this poor soldier. Stop putting words in my mouth.
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Really, Fox, you've hounded yourself out of credibility. |
I know you enjoy playing pretend at conservative talking head on these forums, charicaturing an ultra-conservative nut case, and usually it's in good fun. On this topic, however, I'm just not in the mood for it, sorry. I don't believe you really believe the lunatic things you say on this forum, but the fact that people in our society do is pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
He was a wanted criminal who paid the price for his crimes. In the Western world do they not show criminals in handcuffs...especially if they are famous?
Think Enron for just one example. |
Yes, he was arrested and he was a crimminal, however he was also a military person who had his image potrayed publicly. "We got him" was not enough.
Enron and other arrests are not the same. You should know better than that to try to prove a point.
From wikipedia: The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photographs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| supernick wrote: |
| Quote: |
He was a wanted criminal who paid the price for his crimes. In the Western world do they not show criminals in handcuffs...especially if they are famous?
Think Enron for just one example. |
Yes, he was arrested and he was a crimminal, however he was also a military person who had his image potrayed publicly. "We got him" was not enough.
I would say a military person belongs on the battlefield or in the command room...not cowering in a hole in the ground. His cowardly behaviour deserved to be publicized thus destroying the myth that he was a brave man who stood up to the West.
Enron and other arrests are not the same. You should know better than that to try to prove a point.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. What exactly is your point here...that a military person should not have pictures taken of him? Remember that U.S soldier who was convicted of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl and then killed her whole family to cover it up? There were plenty of pictures taken of him. Same goes for the soldiers involved in the A.G prison. Why is it fine for their pictures to be taken, but not Saddam's? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
From wikipedia: The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photographs. |
Right. And you can bet that the people that captured the soldier are doing nothing of the kind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
Of course it had some propaganda value. Every single image we capture during war could be said to have some propaganda value.
Now why don't you answer my question.? Do you honestly believe that heads of state, once defeated, should never be shown on TV? Is it unreasonable to want to provide images of a head of state, once defeated, in order to solidify the victory. To put an end to it if you will. |
Personally, I'm relatively fine with them being shown on tv. That being said, I'm fine with soldiers being shown on tv too. If the 'Allies' show footage of captured enemy troops being marched past the cameras... I don't really object.
But then the line starts getting blurred by humiliation and forced confessions.
Again, not counting the horrible beheadings and such, I view these types of videos in the same light - propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TUM, please do not put your words in my quote.
| Quote: |
supernick wrote:
Quote:
He was a wanted criminal who paid the price for his crimes. In the Western world do they not show criminals in handcuffs...especially if they are famous?
Think Enron for just one example.
Yes, he was arrested and he was a crimminal, however he was also a military person who had his image potrayed publicly. "We got him" was not enough.
I would say a military person belongs on the battlefield or in the command room...not cowering in a hole in the ground. His cowardly behaviour deserved to be publicized thus destroying the myth that he was a brave man who stood up to the West.
Enron and other arrests are not the same. You should know better than that to try to prove a point.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. What exactly is your point here...that a military person should not have pictures taken of him? Remember that U.S soldier who was convicted of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl and then killed her whole family to cover it up? There were plenty of pictures taken of him. Same goes for the soldiers involved in the A.G prison. Why is it fine for their pictures to be taken, but not Saddam's? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
From wikipedia: The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photographs. |
Hiding in holes I would say is a good military tactic. I'm sure other countries have such places but maybe a little bit more better equiped.
I did not say that I have a problem with the images; it's just that there is a double standard.
Criminals may be all the same in your eyes, but the governing of how they are treated varies by agreements and protacal that countries sign onto.
This is in response to images of Saddam.
From wikipedia: The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photographs
Anyway, not much point in going further. The double standard does not have to be argued is it is clear as day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| supernick wrote: |
TUM, please do not put your words in my quote.
| Quote: |
supernick wrote:
Quote:
He was a wanted criminal who paid the price for his crimes. In the Western world do they not show criminals in handcuffs...especially if they are famous?
Think Enron for just one example.
Yes, he was arrested and he was a crimminal, however he was also a military person who had his image potrayed publicly. "We got him" was not enough.
I would say a military person belongs on the battlefield or in the command room...not cowering in a hole in the ground. His cowardly behaviour deserved to be publicized thus destroying the myth that he was a brave man who stood up to the West.
Enron and other arrests are not the same. You should know better than that to try to prove a point.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. What exactly is your point here...that a military person should not have pictures taken of him? Remember that U.S soldier who was convicted of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl and then killed her whole family to cover it up? There were plenty of pictures taken of him. Same goes for the soldiers involved in the A.G prison. Why is it fine for their pictures to be taken, but not Saddam's? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
From wikipedia: The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photographs. |
Hiding in holes I would say is a good military tactic. I'm sure other countries have such places but maybe a little bit more better equiped.
I did not say that I have a problem with the images; it's just that there is a double standard.
. |
How is there a double standard? According to your link the U.S. said it was a violation and they are investigating it. A double standard would mean that the U.S. WOULDN'T investigate these photos and say that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
I don't think that term means what you think it means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
How is there a double standard? According to your link the U.S. said it was a violation and they are investigating it. A double standard would mean that the U.S. WOULDN'T investigate these photos and say that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
I don't think that term means what you think it means. |
I know what the term means. The double standard is that one side breaks the law, and condemns the other for doing the same thing. Just because they investigate does not give license to do it. That's like saying that the Taliban is now investigating breaches by their own militants. I made reference to a link only to illustrate that the U.S. recognizes that posting images of POWs breaks certain laws - laws that the U.S. has agreed to abide by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| supernick wrote: |
| Quote: |
How is there a double standard? According to your link the U.S. said it was a violation and they are investigating it. A double standard would mean that the U.S. WOULDN'T investigate these photos and say that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
I don't think that term means what you think it means. |
I know what the term means. The double standard is that one side breaks the law, and condemns the other for doing the same thing. Just because they investigate does not give license to do it. That's like saying that the Taliban is now investigating breaches by their own militants. I made reference to a link only to illustrate that the U.S. recognizes that posting images of POWs breaks certain laws - laws that the U.S. has agreed to abide by. |
Unless the U.S officially authorized these photos to be taken it is not a double standard. Simply because some people (who may or may not be U.S. citizens/employees) took these photos does not mean the U.S was at fault. When the appropriate authorities saw these photos they launched an investigation as well they should have.
The Taliban on the other hand have done no such thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| supernick wrote: |
| Quote: |
How is there a double standard? According to your link the U.S. said it was a violation and they are investigating it. A double standard would mean that the U.S. WOULDN'T investigate these photos and say that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
I don't think that term means what you think it means. |
I know what the term means. The double standard is that one side breaks the law, and condemns the other for doing the same thing. Just because they investigate does not give license to do it. That's like saying that the Taliban is now investigating breaches by their own militants. I made reference to a link only to illustrate that the U.S. recognizes that posting images of POWs breaks certain laws - laws that the U.S. has agreed to abide by. |
Unless the U.S officially authorized these photos to be taken it is not a double standard. Simply because some people (who may or may not be U.S. citizens/employees) took these photos does not mean the U.S was at fault. When the appropriate authorities saw these photos they launched an investigation as well they should have.
The Taliban on the other hand have done no such thing. |
Riiiggghhhttt
So now the US didn't release the photos of Saddam? How about those of captured soldiers in past wars? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Including photos of captured Japanese soldiers, specifically shot to make them look as pathetic as a defeated army can be.
Photos of captured soldiers is one thing, forced confessions and torture is another. Torture is a fine fine line. If this guy was a CIA operative, and knew how to jam predator drones, it would be pretty dumb of the Taliban to not try and extract that information. Likewise if we ever nab OBL you can be sure that they'll be doing everything they can to learn everything he knows.
But for this guy the only possible gain is propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
The always interesting foreign correspondent for CNN, Michael Ware, was on "Real Time with Bill Maher" this week and said that;
| Quote: |
| If you do have to get, you know, taken prisoner in Afghanistan, right now is a better time and right there was a better place. Because Pakistan and America and possibly the Taliban right now are all positioning to begin talks to end the conflict... and he becomes a part of that. And the commander who's got him, the ultimate commander of this network, his names Sirajuddin Haqqani. Now, he used to be on the CIA payroll. He was one of the best killers of Russian soldiers that Langley ever had. He's the one that took Charlie Wilson into Afghanistan during the Soviet war. Now, he turned on America when America turned their back on Afghanistan. This is the guy who's got him. He's one of your old mates. And also, this gives him a fairly good chip at the bargaining table. So if you've got to be kidnapped at any point, you know, this soldier is far more valuable to them alive than dead. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZrTgOkIl8&feature=related
So there is reason to hope that this soldier will make it out not only alive but unharmed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
