Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Why do the Americans fear for POWs?


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 29 March 2003 - 04:35 AM

I've heard similar views from other Americans and although I know that the concept of "patriotism" differs between the US and Europe (This is where I live).

In Europe, being a "patriot" is mainly what the ultra-right wing or Neo-nazis consider themselves to be.
Western Europe are very wary of nationalism as it was the source of a lot of suffering here.

But I'm willing to accept that the word itself might mean something completely different to Your people.


Here's what I cannot grasp;

You agreed that there were some rather suspicious agendas to go to war with Iraq. But when it's raging You've got no option (this is how I concieved it) but to support your troops, am I right?

To me this is a paradox, IMO your very support of this war (based on your support of the troops) is to me exactly what is endangering them.

Support for the war means that your countrymen in service will get killed.

To me, opposing this war, would be the right thing to do if you're concerned about the life of the soldiers in the field... bring them back home.

This is just a thought, but can it be that this very common american view, doubtful about the war - but still supporting the troops, has, besides the fact that all wars invoke nationalism, has got a certain legacy from the Vietnam war?

(I will not go about speaking of the horrors of the Vietnam war, nor any geopolitics involved in it)

Although It was a great deed that the war itself was brought to a halt, I sometimes feel that the very treatment of the homecoming soldiers (conscripts) was very bad. (Getting blamed for something that their government created...)

Yes - some of them had commited crimes, but I believe the vast majority, really believed that what they had done was the right thing to do (this was until reality proved the opposite).

Can it be that the notion ; "not to let our troops down" is playing a role in the support of this war?

I am offcourse aware of the obvious fact that the US troops of today are professional soldiers (as opposed to drafted ones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, if this war proves to be a crime (I believe it's outrageous), we all know that your troops will be among the ones being blamed the most - by the population of the ME.

And as usual , the people at the very top of this whole operation would be far too high up in the hierarchy to be effectively prosecuted, while the ones in the middle will wash their hands and shift the blame on the troops instead..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO there's been a trail of deceit, coverups and sometimes blatant lies on the road to this war...

Also I read in a poll that that showed that roughly 50% of the americans believe that atleast 1 on the 9/11 hijackers was from Iraq. Don't you think this might have affected the US public view on going to war with Iraq?

Some of these issues can be explained when singled out - but combined these things look highly suspicious.

(Im going to leave out the usual suspects, "war for oil";"Regional control" etc.. because this has and is being discussed all the time)

(no specific order)

* The Us refuses to sign multiple international treaties (and/or pulls out of existing ones

* The War on Terror is declared -> enemy #1= Osama bin Laden
Afghanistan is attacked, to destroy the taliban regime that host
bin Laden and the Al Quaida.

War on Terrorism is declared by G.W. Bush to be the top priority and the hunt will not stop until O.B.L. has been caught and his terrorist network destroyed.

The regime of Iraq is accused of being an active supporter of Al Quaida. Despite the fact that OBL is a sworn enemy of S.Hussein.
Both the CIA and it's british counterpart says there is no evident link between OBL and Hussein.

* To the world - fears of anthrax seems to paralyse the US. Iraq is quickly singled out as the country of origin. (This proves to be false)

* Continued efforts on linking Iraq with Al Quiada... US government insists it has evidence, but the evidence will not be shown due to risks involved ... US/UK intelligence still insist there's no proven link.

* The whole issue of WMD (and the dangers of it falling into the hands of terrorists) explodes and is the top agenda of the US.
Iraq is accused of having WMD. Continued efforts to link Iraq to Al Quaida.

* Reports of attempted smuggling of Plutoniom (uranium?) in Turkey (This later on turns out to be false)

* Hussein is threatened to disarm or face the consequences, Weapons expections resume, Hans Blix says there's progress.
Hussein is ordered to destroy the Al Salmoud II missile - Iraq destroys the Al Salmoud II missiles.

* Declare that Hussein has 48 hours to leave the country or face war. 36 hours after this statement , US/UK forces bomb Iraqi surface-surface missile installations.

* US/UK Ignores the UN and declares war on Iraq (Although it's branded a war against the Baath regime)

* US/US declares to liberate the Iraqi people.

* The infamous "Projects for the new american century" get some attention.

* US Govenment heavily involved in oil/arms companies.

* Paul Wolfowitz brags about him masterminding the so called "Afghanistan Trap" - a deliberate attemt to trick the Soviet Union into Afghanistan and to have them defeated.

* UMM Quatr is declared secured (8 times - all dismissed)

* Chemical Weapons factory found in Iraq (dismissed)

* The Russians are accused of supplying Nightvision googles, radar jamming and equipment and anti tank weapons to Iraq

* The Syrians get accused of doing the same

* Basra revolt (dismissed)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list goes on and on and on... I realize that the order and the way I've written might be a litte confusing - English is not my native language and I never was much of a writer.


BTW this might be of interest;


"We're absolutely sick and tired of putting things out and finding they're not true. The misinformation in this war is far and away worse than any conflict I've covered, including the first Gulf war and Kosovo," said a senior BBC news source
On Saturday we were told they'd taken Basra and Nassiriya and then subsequently found out neither were true. We're getting more truth out of Baghdad than the Pentagon at the moment. Not because Baghdad is putting out pure and morally correct information but because they're less savvy about it, I think.

"I don't know whether they [the Pentagon] are putting out flyers in the hope that we'll run them first and ask questions later or whether they genuinely don't know what's going on - I rather suspect the latter."

(The Full Article: http://media.guardia...,924171,00.html)
  • 0

#42 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 30 March 2003 - 01:33 PM

There are some here who contend the US is running a Hilton in Guantanamo...

That's why the detainees are trying to commit suicide in DROVES to get out.

Firecat
Editor, www.Stopdubya.com
  • 0

#43 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 30 March 2003 - 08:13 PM

I just heard an interview with one of the American POW's father. He said he was happy to see his son on TV because that was the only way he could be sure the kid was alive... he couldn't trust his own government to tell him.

Firecat
Editor, www.Stopdubya.com
  • 0

#44 ahmad

ahmad

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1927 posts

Posted 30 March 2003 - 10:04 PM

No one knows if the POWs are alive - a picture means nothing. You are the lowest kind of human being - using the tragedy of captured men and women to promote your agenda. If we can negotiate a trade, we may offer you in exchange for a decent human being. Get ready.
  • 0

#45 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 30 March 2003 - 10:19 PM

How are thinks over in spookville today, "Ahmad"?

You're an idiot for saying that I'm using the POWs to promote my agenda. I'm merely pointing out that the US has BEATEN ITS POWS TO DEATH, CHAINED THEM LIKE DOGS, PARADED THEM BEFORE CAMERAS, DRIVEN THEM TO SUICIDE, AND VIOLATED EVERY STANDARD OF COMMON DECENCY NOT TO MENTION INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Those are the undeniable facts, meatball.

Is there any part of this you don't understand?

Firecat
Editor, www.Stopdubya.com
  • 0

#46 ahmad

ahmad

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1927 posts

Posted 30 March 2003 - 10:26 PM

You used those POWs to promote your politically correct agenda. We can always change that one way ticket to Iraq and make it to Guantanamo. This way you can give us your on the ground assessment of the conditions and "suicides".
Looking at the number of posts you have made on this forum, I'm relieved to know you have nothing better to do with your time. If this is the most damage you can do, you're a waste of time.
  • 0

#47 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 30 March 2003 - 10:30 PM

Post what you like, it's a free board.

I'll do the same, but I won't be reading yours, because you're ignored.
  • 0

#48 Atheris

Atheris

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 12:20 AM

The prisioners at GTMO are treated humanely. I've posted on this several times. The BBC website at one time had a complete run-down with graphics.

First, the prisioners are classified as unlawful combatants, and do not technically fall under the Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not fight under the auspices of any recognized army.

While it is true that the prisioners, upon being captured, were shackeled, blindfolded and hauled away like animals (see Firecats website), once at GTMO, they were treated well.

They have clean enclosures, a cot, a prayer mat, a copy of the Quoran, orientation signs pointing to Medina, 3 ethnic-appropriate meals per day, 3 showers per day and exercise time.

They also have access to medical treatment, and the average detainee has gained 12 pounds.

The main reason for the complaints were the open-air enclosures that were essentially cages--which were probably better than enclosed rooms with artificial lighting.

They do not have the right to a trial for reasons previously mentioned by Ahmad...clearly one of the more logical thinkers on this forum.

Concerning attempted suicides by detainees...they want to be martyrs so that they can have their virgins...a much better scenario than captivity.
  • 0

#49 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 02:05 AM

Atheris ... this is a cut and paste of another post I did in this thread

All concerning the prisoners of Guantanamo bay, I urge you to check out the links as they are all from the official organisations that monitor human rights violations.

Then come back.

Regards

TP



----- This is the official UN site -----------------------------------------

"GENEVA CONVENTIONS: U.S. Denies Violations; Experts Criticize U.S., Iraq "

http://www.unfoundat...asp?objid=32792

A short quote:

"Human Rights Watch and other rights advocates have pointed to other more serious apparent violations of the Geneva Conventions by U.S. military personnel holding prisoners in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----- This is the Official Human Rights Watch Site -------------------

"http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/03/us030603-ltr.htm "


(A recent article about violations of the Geneva Convention in
Guantanamo Bay)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and what was the third source you mentioned?

Oh yes.. The Red Cross

This one is trickier :

--- From the official Red Cross Site -----------------------------------

http://www.icrc.org/

"The ICRC does not comment publicly on the situation in Guantanamo Bay. As a general rule, the ICRC discusses all matters concerning its visits to places of detention exclusively with the authorities concerned"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • 0

#50 ahmad

ahmad

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1927 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 02:48 AM

Your links don't work. But even if they did, they would not have any verifiable information. The International Red Cross which is under the United Nations mandate, is PROHIBITED from sharing information they collect when inspecting a facility. There is a lot of disinformation out there (a la Firecat) about the detainees at Guantanamo, but the facts are that they are treated according to the Geneva Convention and are housed in a civilized facility. I rather doubt that our POWs in Iraq are being treated the same at the moment. Of course, the Firecats of the world don't care about them - it's not politically correct and it doesn't suit their agenda.
When you have verifiable information, please do post it.
Thank you.
  • 0

#51 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 03:12 AM

Oh come off it Ahmad..

"...But even if they did, they would not have any verifiable information. The International Red Cross which is under the United Nations mandate, is PROHIBITED from sharing information they collect when inspecting a facility..."

You realize how this makes you sound?...
One one hand you are referring to the Red Cross to support your opinion - then on the other hand you say they're Prohibited from sharing information.

I will give you the links again (to the UN and Human Rights watch)

Although you've already taken a defensive stand even before reading them, claiming that their opinions would be considered irrelevant in any case..


Here goes:

A few (among many) articles on the human rights watch:

http://www.hrw.org/e...03/us032103.htm http://www.hrw.org/p...01/us011102.htm http://www.hrw.org/p...s030603-ltr.htm

The UN:

http://www.unfoundat.../25/current.asp
http://www.unwire.or.../23/current.asp


The first UN link should get your attention as it includes this little quote :

"Red Cross officials have been able to visit detainees held at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay but refused to comment on conditions at either place, saying any public statements about the treatment of prisoners would violate the confidentiality ICRC officials vow to uphold in exchange for humanitarian access.

The ICRC said that images of prisoners of war violate Article 13 of the accords, and that governments are responsible for ensuring that their prisoners do not face degrading media exposure. Kim Gordon-Bates, an ICRC spokesperson, pointed to widely seen pictures of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, where detainees from Afghanistan were seen blindfolded, bound and held in pens. Gordon-Bates said ICRC officials were "not very pleased" with the pictures of detainees at Guantanamo Bay that have surfaced"


Amnesty International:



http://web.amnesty.o...ENGAMR510542002

http://web.amnesty.o...ENGAMR511642002

(I'm having great difficulties publishing these links.. stupid forum)
  • 0

#52 ahmad

ahmad

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1927 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 03:22 AM

If the recommendations made by the Red Cross WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL were not implemented, a formal complaint would have been filed WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC. To date, no complaint has been filed and all recommendations made by the Red Cross have been fulfilled. If you can find an official complaint filed with the United Nations, please let me know.
The content of the articles which you cited are SPECULATIVE in nature, they are the "what if's" and are not derived from actual observations. There's a difference.
Thank you.
  • 0

#53 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 03:33 AM

What is your comment on the links I provided?

And more important, how do they support your view?

Thank You


I do however grant you the fact that (sadly) no formal complaint has been made.

But You aswell as Me can read the articles from the Human Rights Watch , the UN and Amnesty
  • 0

#54 Atheris

Atheris

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 04:17 AM

This GTMO stuff is all old news.

This definition bears attention:

The prisioners at GTMO are not POWs. They are unlawful combatants. They serve no recognized military and wear no uniform bearing any insignia, nor carry any flag representative of any sovereign nation.
  • 0

#55 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 04:17 AM

Atheris... Check my provided links
  • 0

#56 Atheris

Atheris

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 04:26 AM

"The situation is made worse by detainees' limited contact with the outside world and the uncertainty of their futures. Amnesty International believes that such conditions may cause severe physical and psychological damage, particularly when imposed long-term or indefinitely. "

A sight better than a bullet in the head. That the detainees have limited contact, are are uncertain about their futures is fine with me. If they provided useful intelligence, I would cut them slack accordingly. They should be tried in a military tribunal and punished as appropriate. The same should have applied to the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh.
  • 0

#57 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 11:37 AM

No matter how you spin it, Atheris...

The US tortures prisoners, denies them their basic human rights, and has beaten at least two of them to death in recent history.

You cannot rationalize that away.
  • 0

#58 Atheris

Atheris

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 08:16 PM

It's certainly possible that 2 prisoners were beaten to death by over-zealous soldiers...who likely saw them shoot or kill their fellow soldiers. This is not the norm.

Does the US interogate prisoners using psy techniques, sleep deprivation, etc.? Sure...so what.

Does the US use torture techniques like shock, teeth extraction, nail extraction, cut & laceration? No.

Prisoners at GTMO are treated as well as they need to be.

AZ Senator John McCain spent 5 yrs as a Vietnam POW. He would have been thankful for treatment similar to what GTMO prisoners receive.
  • 0

#59 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 08:24 PM

The pows were chained to the ceiling for days, beaten with clubs, subjected to electric shock, and given drugs.

And that was just for starters.

Why are you defending this practice? Are you a member of some other species? Perhaps another planet?
  • 0

#60 UN's therapist

UN's therapist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 08:33 PM

The POW's look fine? Have you been to iraq to verify this? How about the others that they tried to hide in shallow graves.
The ones that were mutilated?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You two clowns are retarded. I really, really, REALLY wish I could meet either of you bootlickers one day.

Save your lectures for the dinner table and the abused wife & kids.
:rolleyes:
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru