|
23 Mar 03 - 10:52 AM (#916498) Subject: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,in shock We've just listened to reports from Al Jazeera about Americans captured by Iraquis. A young woman (Shauna) from Texas was being grilled by her captors. Apparently they're showing pictures of wounded and dead American soldiers. My God, this whole thing is so awful. Does anyone have any more info. Our mainstream outlets are not reporting this. Like most, my wife and I have been against this war from the beginning, but we're just feeling numb at the moment. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 10:55 AM (#916501) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Tweed Schwartzkopf said a minute ago that the captured prisoners have been executed. Many different numbers reported however. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 11:01 AM (#916503) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,linguist Prisoners of War or Enemy Combatants? (The U.S. makes a distinction, so why shouldn't the rest of the world?) |
|
23 Mar 03 - 11:18 AM (#916506) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Rick Fielding Executed? Jeesus, I'm listening to CNN at the moment and they're starting to confirm these earlier stories. I just saw Don Rumsfield reply to a pertinent question "I don't know what you're talking about".....but to be fair to him, I don't know WHEN he was questioned. I've been pretty objective about this whole thing for the last few weeks, but I'm damned emotional today. It's just so damned sad. SURELY some of this could have been avoided with more economic pressure....and SURELY the millions of protesters can bring about a swift end. I don't want to hear more reports from Al Jazeera, but like watching a train wreck, I guess I'll listen. They're being broadcast on CBC. Rick |
|
23 Mar 03 - 11:23 AM (#916509) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,boab d Did Iraq actually sign the Geneva convention? If not then they cant breach it. Hope they get out alright though even if its wrong what the UK+us are doing Dylan |
|
23 Mar 03 - 11:39 AM (#916513) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Sledge The stuff being shown on Al jazeera is pretty graphic, they have shown at least 8 US dead and were grilling some poor guy from Kansas on camera, to say the least he looked terrified. The dead seemed to have a few too many head wounds, when I first saw the pictures I found myself thinking executions, ugly stuff and with it being broadcast like this, how long before word gets round the troops and tit for tat killings become a regular thing. Sledge |
|
23 Mar 03 - 11:40 AM (#916516) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Sorcha Well, does anybody seriously believe that Saddam and his sons will be "captured alive"? After all,that is our stated intent......they will be "shot in the back trying to escape." How is that different from execution? |
|
23 Mar 03 - 12:25 PM (#916532) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: The Walrus Surely retaliaton is what the 'powers-that-be' in Iraq want. If the US + forces start topping PoWs, the rest of the Army will be more reluctant to surrender if pushed into a corner and more likely to move into 'we're dead either way, so let's take the ba*ds with us' mode. Am I too cynical? (and if so, am I still wrong?) Walrus |
|
23 Mar 03 - 02:14 PM (#916564) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: InOBU All we are saying, is give peace a chance. Larry |
|
23 Mar 03 - 03:52 PM (#916612) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Forum Lurker Walrus-I think you might be giving Saddam a little too much credit for forethought. If he were smart enough to try that, he would have been able to convince the UN that he positively did not have proscribed weapons. Frightening thought, though. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 04:34 PM (#916621) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Nemesis ON the UK news it showed the US personnel dead with head wounds (8 I think) and appeared to support the execution theory and 5 captured (from Texas and New Jersey including one female personnel .. Iraq (whether it was Saddam or militia - I didn't catch) stated that they regard the Allies as mercenaries to whom the Geneva Convention will therefore NOT apply in their view. If the Iraqis intend to execute them, I just hope they do it quickly without torture or mutilation. This is so awful.. my son was born 15 years ago this week and the terrible headlines for that day were full page pictures of two off-duty policemen who'd strayed into the wrong part of Belfast and were photgraphed being torn to pieces by a mob .. and now what can I say to a child on the brink of adulthood about the World 15 years on ... |
|
23 Mar 03 - 05:06 PM (#916636) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Peter K (Fionn) They were soldiers Hille. For all that the Iraqis have killed a few coalition personnel, they're probably still trailing behind what the coalition personnel do to each other. It all seems a hopelessly one-sided encounter to me. Very little evidence so far that Iraq was any kind of military threat to anyone. And if they have all those WMDs, they show no sign of ever using them. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 05:16 PM (#916644) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Ireland Saddam is far from stupid, how has he lasted so long in power. What he wants to do is get the coalition forces to strike back in the same manner, one such action by coalition troops would be seen by the world and despised more than a hundred such atrocities by Iraq. He is playing a mind game,lets hope he does not win it. I pray that this ill advised war does some good so the dead will not have died in vain. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 05:47 PM (#916652) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: wysiwyg It's been a bad news day all around, and I do not think that is a concidence-- I think it is a response to the propaganda war we have been presenting from the start (whenever you think the start was). I think the target is our own minds, all around the world, more than the soldiers heading for B'dad. Although I do not advocate putting one's head in the sand (nor up one's ass), I do want to remind people that we can choose not to put our heads in the line of fire-- we can get away from the TV long enough to remain able to think and to do proud the belief system of your choice. ~Susan |
|
23 Mar 03 - 07:17 PM (#916692) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Nemesis Just reported on the news that The Iraqis will respect the Geneva Convention vis the prisoners .. 2 Tornado aircraft crew downed by "friendly fire" - ITN's senior reporter and camera man and translator presumed dead after coming under fire .. just seen B52's taking off from RAF Fairford on their way .. wierd sort of propaganda but the idea seems to be for them to be publicly seen to be on their way with their "massive" payload of bombs. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM (#916718) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: The Walrus Just a thought, Saddam has placed a price on the head of each Allied serviceman/woman killed or captured. Should 'we' start issuing aircrew with 'goolie-chits' as the RAF did over Afghanistan in the 1930s or the 'Laundry List' worn by the American "Flying Tigers" in China? A "goolie-chit" was a badge/notice promising payment for each airman handed over to the Allies, with a sliding scale based on their 'condition' (removing bits of the anatomy reduced the value greatly, hence the name). Walrus |
|
23 Mar 03 - 08:27 PM (#916719) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: McGrath of Harlow Strikes me there's a lot of spinning going on here. Bottom line is, the Geneva Conventions about prisoners and about war really matter. And when any country breaks them or tinkers with them - for example by calling prisoners of war "hostile combatants" - the people responsible ought to be arraigned before a war crimes tribunal, because they make it easier for other people to do the same. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 08:53 PM (#916722) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,sorefingers I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but G W sounds completely different from his usual could-care-less tone of voice. Hope it ends soon and Saddam retires or steps on a land mine.... |
|
23 Mar 03 - 08:54 PM (#916723) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: NicoleC I agree, Kevin. Sad then, that a bit over a year ago the US was insisting those soldiers they captured in Afghanistan weren't "prisoners of war," and so the Geneva Convention didn't apply. I have to wonder how much spin got used in the Mid East about what how the US treated those men -- and if the Iraqi soldiers are responding to that. It's more sad that the 507th aren't the kind of front line troops that get prepared for this sort of thing. I'm trying to keep away from the TV today, but I do keep thinking about those poor boys. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 09:23 PM (#916730) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Bobert Well, this was certain to happen. And it looks very much like Rumsfeld was well prepared for this day. Rather than show any level of *true* remorse, he is shifting the blame onto the folks the US has attacked. A PR stunt! Back to PR, Iraq needs as many *live* prisoners as it can get its hand on so don't think, for one instance, that they are going to let any *live* ones get away. This was the war that Bush chose. He had to know that this day would come. Bush did not walk the exrta mile for peace. Might of fact, he didn't takw the first step in that walk. He has made it plain to even a dead man what his intentions were. Now, the realities are coming home to roost. Welcome to the real world, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld. Sure, the US will win the war. It has too many weapons but these days are part of the sceneriom but felt not by those who bought you election, but the people who do your dirt work! Yeah, stop your studid imperialistic war and maybe the Iraqis will stop ruining your TV hour... Bobert |
|
23 Mar 03 - 10:19 PM (#916751) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Norton1 PR stunt? Wow - let's see if that holds water - nope - old dog don't hunt no more. Wonder if those Russions in Iraq in violation of the UN had anything to do with it? Or the french Mirage fighters that were being delivered a few weeks ago? Don't be so single minded about this Bobert - you want world peace you best hold everyone accountable - not just the safe little space you live in. Iraq uses chemical weapons the world will turn on him - only when Bagdhad comes under serious assault will we see those. Just my .02 worth - Steve |
|
23 Mar 03 - 10:37 PM (#916755) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Stilly River Sage Google is jammed this evening. San Francisco Chronicle From South Africa |
|
23 Mar 03 - 11:03 PM (#916762) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: katlaughing The US is technically in violation of the UN, too, with an illegitimate war. NOT that I wish for the harm to come to ANYONE involved, but it the propoganda is sickening. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 12:25 AM (#916786) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Coyote Breath Clinton went into Kosovo without UN approval. Bush asks for UN approval and doesn't get it and then he goes into Iraq anyway. What is the lesson of these two approaches? It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. CB |
|
24 Mar 03 - 12:42 AM (#916793) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Blackcatter Between this event today, the Patriot missle destruction of a Brit plane, and the "fragging" by an American soldier and any number of things, it is continuing proof that the U.S. Military does not know how to fight a war. Stupid, stupid mistakes. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 02:06 AM (#916827) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: DougR Bobert: you are so full of horse pucky! "Bush didn't go the extra mile?" The whole U.N. WENT the extra mile for twelve years! If you and yours had your way, Saddam would have continued on his merry way, building WMDs and when he had enough of them, and used them, you and yours would say, "Jesus! Why didn't the government stop him?" Sick, sick, sick. DougR |
|
24 Mar 03 - 03:41 AM (#916859) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: katlaughing If he'd ever used them, Doug, he would know it would be suicide. He'd never get past the borders of his own country before he was obliterated. Once one unleashes such unholy power the bigger dogs have carte blanche to up them one better...but, since you love this war crap so much, you already knew that, didn't you? |
|
24 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM (#917097) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Troll kat, he wouldn't NEED to use them. The threat would be enough. If he said, "Do such-and-so or I'll drop a nuke on Tel Aviv", who would oppose him? As sure as someone did, Tel Aviv would be a radioactive puddle. Sure, we could take him out, but at what cost? Would the US risk our only ally in the Middle East that way? If we did, we'd lose every ally we ever had. That's why he has to be stopped now, before he gains nuclear capability and starts blackmailing the world. North Korea would be doing the same thing if not for its proximity to China. They know that China would take them our without really caring if South Korea or Japan got hit. We haven't that luxury. I don't "love this war crap." I've been there, which most of you have not, but I can see when the use of force is necessary. And when diplomacy has failed so spectacularly as it has over the last 12 years with Iraq, I believe that it is necessary. troll |
|
24 Mar 03 - 11:19 AM (#917106) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Troll- If Saddam said "Do such-and-so or I'll drop a nuke on Tel Aviv," Baghdad would be a smoking puddle before the broadcast was done. Mossad has much better intelligence resources than the CIA in Iraq, and you can be sure that Israel would use any force necessary to prevent Saddam from gaining nuclear power. Remember, they took out Saddam's breeder reactor a decade before we started getting worried about him. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 11:20 AM (#917107) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: katlaughing The threats have worked for umpteen years all over the world, Troll, threats against other countries by the US, so why not continue with that? What proof is there that he has been building up nuclear weaponry? Why didn't we take him out when daddy shrub had the chance? Why didn't we send a small elite force in there to assassinate him a long time ago? Why didn't we do an operation like we did to get Noriega? Why, oh why, did it have to come to this insane war which has turned the entire world against us? |
|
24 Mar 03 - 06:51 PM (#917456) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Marion I saw an article in the paper about the US POWs which stated that publishing their photos/footage was against the Geneva Convention, and right above the article - with no apparent irony - was a photo of a dozen Iraqi POWs. What's the difference? When is publishing such photos illegal, and when is it legal? Marion (not a rhetorical question, really asking) |
|
24 Mar 03 - 07:04 PM (#917465) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Gareth Weeelll - This cynic might suggest that a smallish nuclear warhed would have killed Saddam Hussain at time in the last 12 years - But are you suggesting we (UK and USA) should have used one ???? Gareth |
|
24 Mar 03 - 07:22 PM (#917485) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Jeri Marion, what I've heard them saying here is that what's against the Geneva Convention is publishing humiliating images. They've been showing small clips here of two of the POWs. I don't know how humiliating the rest of the film was - from what I saw it might have become so very easily. "Humiliating" is pretty subjective anyway. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 07:27 PM (#917488) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: McGrath of Harlow I turned on the news channel - a story about the American prisoners being shown on TV; and a story showing Iraqi prisoners in American custody. In both cases the faces were quite identifiable, and the prisoners looked scared, as anyone would in that situation. Whether showing prisoners on TV is actually in itself an offence against the "putting on public display" Geneva provision is, I understand, highly questionable. I gather the suggestion is that the provision was included was intended to cover the kind of situation where they are paraded trhough streets in front of jeering crowds. Anyway, surely anyone who is suspected of mistreating prisoners, or authorises the mistreatment of prisoners, deserves to be put on trial and if found guilty, severely punished - are we all agreed on that? |
|
24 Mar 03 - 07:28 PM (#917489) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Rapparee The difference between what the Iraqis showed and what was shown on TV of the Iraqis is that the folks from the 507th were televised by the governemtn of Iraq. The Iraqi prisoners of war were shown by various TV networks, not the US or UK governments. The first case is considered to be a humiliation of the prisoners and to be using them for propoganda, both of which are forbidden by the Geneva Accords. The Accords recognize that private citizens or corporations might also photograph or televise POWs, but the Accords can only apply to governments. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 07:53 PM (#917503) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: McGrath of Harlow I think that distinction between different TV stations might be a bit too subtle. I would think that, if a Geneva Accord makes it illegal for a Government to do something, that would imply an obligation on that Government to act effectively to prevent private individuals or organisations doing that thing. Otherwise it'd be the easiest thing in the world to delegate the nasty stuff to a private agency. Whether the Geneva Accord does actually cover that kind of thing is far from clear, according to the kind of lawyers who are supposed to know about that stuff. The thing is, the Accords haven't been updated to take account of developments in technology. Clearly they need to be upadated - however, whether the present American Government would be willing to cooperate in such updating is perhaps a bit doubtful, in the light of the attitude it has had towards attempts to get an agreed international system to deal with war crimes, as well as in the light of a number of other attempts to develop international agreements. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 08:34 PM (#917518) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST, heric The Red Cross asserts that this is a violation of Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: " . . . prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. . . . " From the U.S. House of Representatives: --------------- Whereas beginning on January 19, 1991, captured United States and allied service members held prisoner by Iraq in the Persian Gulf conflict have been displayed *and interrogated* before television cameras; Whereas these televised interrogations strongly suggest that those service members have been subjected to physical and mental torture; and . . . --------------- http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910125-169932.htm (*emphasis added.*) It seems nigh impossible to legally differentiate between "news" and "public curiosity." |
|
24 Mar 03 - 08:59 PM (#917532) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST, heric It's peculiar that "insults," without any qualifiers, constitute a war crime. It's a good thing mudcat hasn't formally declared war on me. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 09:10 PM (#917535) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST, heric Nevertheless, there are few, if any, credible arguments that GUESTS have met all of the four conditions for belligerent status. GUESTS do not have a recognizable military hierarchy, commanded by a person who is responsible for his subordinates. Neither Mariot, Sheila, nor even Gargoyle lead a "'responsible' command structure is capable of ensuring that the entire GUEST organization complies with the laws of war and that any malfeasance must be addressed and punished." The GUEST forces have been run by an ever-changing cast of insurgents whose authority is unclear, especially since Gargoyle's membership was revoked. GUESTS seem to encourage non-compliance with the laws of mudcat, rather than address and punish malfeasance. Additionally, the GUESTS do not display an emblem that would identify their forces as combatants. This requirement is designed to protect non-combatants or regulars and recognizes that when GUESTS are able to hide within the mudcat population, the chance that members will be fired upon and suffer casualties is drastically increased. In other words, a "concealed combatant certainly has an advantage over the monikered member, [and] . . . the advantage comes with a price that others must pay." Such a distinctive emblem could take the form of an armband, a coat, a shirt, or a colored sign worn on the chest. The most common emblems take the form of a uniform or a flag. GUESTS are not issued uniforms, they do not carry a flag that is consistently uniform in nature, nor are they wearing armbands or colored signs on their chests. Additionally, they blend in well with the population because the GUESTS, as opposed to the al Queda fighters, are largely British by nationality. Therefore, if the GUESTS have in some way distinguished themselves from the civilized population of mudcat, it is not apparent to their opponents. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 09:59 PM (#917559) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST Oops. Forgot to cite my sources: http://www.mobar.org/journal/2002/novdec/hook.htm |
|
24 Mar 03 - 10:46 PM (#917576) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Rustic Rebel I just put a link to some photo's of the Al Jazeera POW's on the thread ah, mmm, well heck, I can't remember the name of it now! Well, I guess I'll just link it here too. These are graphic and nasty and sickening.click here(truthout.org) Peace. Rustic |
|
24 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM (#917581) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Greg F. Damn! war is graphic,nasty and sickening! WHO KNEW??? |
|
25 Mar 03 - 12:01 AM (#917597) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Troll Obviously not you, greg. BTW I heard that hackers have taken the Al Jazeera site off line. troll |
|
25 Mar 03 - 12:04 AM (#917600) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Sorcha LOL!, sorry,but Greg the Garg can be so funny! Link still works for me and nothing much very "graphic" there..........no decapitated bodies, etc. Just a few beaten faces, and those not very bad. |
|
25 Mar 03 - 12:40 AM (#917613) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: DougR The latest news report states that Iraqi troops are authorized to use biological and/or chemical weapons once the coalition forces cross a certain line (not identified). If they do, I would expect that a lot of folks here will be singing a different tune. Right? And kat, I do not, and never have stated that I do, like war! What an insulting charge. DougR |
|
25 Mar 03 - 04:16 AM (#917707) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Teribus Differences regarding media coverage of POW's 1. US held Iraqi prisoners are nearly always shown as groups clearly seperated from those guarding them. All appear to be fairly relaxed about their situation. 2. UK held Iraqi prisoners, again always shown in groups and filmed from the back. Again none appear to exhibit undue concern about their situation. 3. Iraqi held US prisoners apart from staged television appearances, always in isolation, all show symptoms of shock, sometimes shown under interrogation with interrogators not identified (i.e. there is no way of knowing if they are being questioned by Iraqi military or by Iraqi media) |
|
25 Mar 03 - 05:39 AM (#917730) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Wolfgang Sorcha, have you scrolled down in that link? Til the last picture? Wolfgang |
|
25 Mar 03 - 09:37 AM (#917849) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Ireland I have no objections of the US/UK showing the Iraqi prisoners on television, what they are do is letting the world know that these people are not being harmed or harassed in any way. I cannot say the same for the Iraqi's. They are using the media to intimidate the coalition forces, showing them what will happen if they are caught. The deliberate use of images showing soldiers shot in the head should be condemned outright with no succor given to Saddam, people referring to the G.Bay prisoners and the Iraqi prisoners are playing right into Saddams hands. This bolsters this man and gives him encouragement to keep doing this. We are talking about someone who according to an ex-human shield in Iraq, put people feet first into tree shredders, if he can do that to his own people what will he do to the troops out there? I find the under tone of some of the posts sickening,what people are really saying is that the troops should not have been out there in the first and they have just themselves to blame. Where the images showing two dead soldiers in the link there all along,could they have been missed? If they are not graphic I do not know what is. |
|
25 Mar 03 - 09:59 AM (#917864) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Peter K (Fionn) Well DougR, I expect you might be one to change your line if the WMDs come out. You'll be able to go back to whining about the WMDs that Saddam actually has, rather than those he is building. Such cautious backsliding didn't really suit you anyway. |
|
25 Mar 03 - 11:29 AM (#917951) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: katlaughing Doug, take as you see it, no less, no more. You've done your share of insulting with stupid little bon mots tagged on to almost every post of yours in the past few weeks; it seems they come from an insecure, self-defensive stance of "my prez, right or wrong." That is sickening, imo. |
|
25 Mar 03 - 01:16 PM (#918049) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Amos The Stock Exchange has justed kicked Al Jazeera off the floor saying they only have enough media slots for "responsible" media organizations. Additionally, the DoD is claiming that showing the images of POWs on media, as well as those of corpses, I suppose, is a violation of the Geneva Convention which is supposed to protect POPWs (among other things) from being made objects of "public curiousity". The Australian public media has rejected a blanket request from the US not to show images depicting the violence of war, on the grounds that it would be a complete compromise of their basic mission as reporters. The US Media has generally refused to show anything but the most bland imagery of the war, and I can only susp[ect that the Bush administration is nervous as hell about undermining public support for the campaign, which would diminisyh if people were shown the reality with its horrors and degradations. How insulated should Americans be from the ground truth in which they are directly involved as a nation engaging in a foreign war? Why the hell should they be protected from understanding the meaning of their votes when they argue in support of the war? IS there genuine rationale behind the notion of sanitizing war reportage? Or is it just part of the Newspeak campaign pitching the notion that war is peace? Didn't someone famous once say "The truth shall set them free?" Oy, tempora, oy, mores! A |
|
25 Mar 03 - 02:31 PM (#918128) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: McGrath of Harlow A letter in today's Guardian says what a lot of people are thinking: "Mr Blair tells us the filming of US prisoners is the sort of thing that makes it necessary to get rid of Saddam. Presumably he would have had no objection if the Iraqis had dressed them in orange suits, hooded and shackled them, and wheeled them between interrogation centres on hospital trolleys." And here is an article by George Monbiot in the same edition, making the same point at greater length: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html -"Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law." |
|
25 Mar 03 - 06:02 PM (#918335) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Ireland On a day time show in the UK, Richard and Judy,they were interviewing two politicians and a new journalist, kate?. A caller to the show asked why Bush Sr did not go on and take Saddam out in the first Gulf war.Kate? said that one of the reasons was that Bush Sr was worried about the images and public opinion of him. Looks like the daddy was more worried about his presidency and thought the images would harm him, Amos has pointed out the same concern is shared by Bush Jr. |
|
25 Mar 03 - 07:19 PM (#918388) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: McGrath of Harlow Kate Adie, I imagine - a news journalist. |
|
25 Mar 03 - 08:09 PM (#918420) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: NicoleC Bush Sr. didn't take out Saddam for two reasons: 1) He didn't have the mandate to do so either from the US public or in world opinion 2) He didn't try to get such a mandate. The rebel (extreme fundamentalist) factions in Iraq had ties to powerful similar factions in Iran, and were seen as a greater threat than Saddam, since they would have easily gained control if Saddam were ousted. While we may wish Saddam weren't around now and there's a lot of talk about how we "should" have taken him out... in light of the close ties many of those extreme fundamentalist government to terrorist organizations -- like Al Qaeda -- things could have been much worse without Saddam around. Iraq might really be supporting terrorist acts like 9/11 instead of being an unsubstantiated political ploy. No way to know for sure now what might have happened, but the decision to leave him in power was made for specific reasons, not out of any weakness or ineptness on the part of the US or the UN coalition then. What we definately SHOULDN'T have done in GWI was tell the rebel factions we were going to support them, and then let them get slaughtered by Saddam instead. I suspect certain members of the intelligence community made promises they weren't authorized to, and it turned out to be a nasty bit of work. Bush the Elder just doesn't seem like the sort to have approved that kind of double-dealing. |
|
26 Mar 03 - 01:25 AM (#918540) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Sorcha Sort of like why George Patton didn't "take" Moscow..........but now,we are defying U.N. rules...........and Shrub Jr. doesn't seem to care, as long as the Iraqis follow Geneva Rules. Looks to me like Jr. doesn't have a mandate either. Seems a bit weird to me.......Jr. seems a tad less concerned about his Public Image than dear old dad. Oh well. |
|
26 Mar 03 - 03:21 AM (#918569) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest Cut the crap. The States knowingly began an ilegal war for it's own interests. Bush made him self and Americans untouchable for war crimes committed. Of course the States will find weapons of mass destruction just like cops plant drugs on people before they arrest them. The States is the only country to have so far used weapons of mass destruction. Your heads of govt who were not actually democratically elected have conflicts of interest in relaton to companies that are contracted to complete the reconstruction and the supply of materials. Your leaders used false documents stolen from the internet to try to convince the world about how bad Iraq is. (Feeble lies) There is a huge imballance of military might. Many Iraq people are now dead as a result of your ilegal invasion. Soldiers or civilians they are still someones very much loved sons and daughters and parents. Don't dehumanise the situation they are people just like you. The only weapons of mass destruction that I can see in the area are aimed at Iraq. they are your's and you sure have a huge arsenal of them. The states has delberately ignored noncompliance of united nations instruction in regards to Isreal's occupation of Palestine. The States and it's CIA have manipulated almost every world conflict that has existedover te last 40 odd years. The States has chosen to Veto any UN resolution tht does not suit it's purposes and has done so more than any other nation. Yes and there is pretty good evidence that the states had a hand in the murder of it's own people on Sept 11th. Sadam is obviously a really nasty guy but probably an angel when compared with Bush and his Mates. At least he's not going for world domination. Get real and see with your own eyes what is happening. this is all about right verses left. Look at the big picture and forget you selfish personal interest. Frankly if you can't see this your dishonest or a fuckwit. Yes I amm pissed off. |
|
26 Mar 03 - 09:10 AM (#918694) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Coyote Breath Now my "POW-MIA" flag has a more urgent look to it. Faded as it is, I am keeping it up. It's age testifies to the concern I have about POWs and MIAs and KIAs. I am going down to my local Dollar General and buying enough yellow ribbon to tie seven bows onto the flag's pole. And enough more for what the future will bring. I hope and pray that those young folks are well treated and that they come home to the safety and love of their families. CB |
|
27 Mar 03 - 02:39 AM (#919374) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: DougR Kiwi Guest: you're pissed off? Wow! Nicole: thanks for writing your last post. Coming from you, the lefties here might finally put that argument to rest. If I, troll, Teribus, or any others of our ilk had posted it, it would have just been treated as propaganda. DougR |
|
27 Mar 03 - 03:02 AM (#919377) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: katlaughing Bush the Elder just doesn't seem like the sort to have approved that kind of double-dealing. ??? Former head of the CIA??? Doesn't likely that he would have that much of a conscience! |
|
27 Mar 03 - 07:42 AM (#919480) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Greg F. Double-Dealing? From George the First? I'm shocked and awed you'd even suggest such a thing. The co-sponsor and willing participant in Iran Contra? Not him! No way. |
|
27 Mar 03 - 08:00 AM (#919496) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Lepus Rex On the front page of the Mpls. Star Tribune the other day, there was a photo of a wounded "Iraqi soldier," nude but for his headwear and being forced to sit up on a blood-stained stretcher, being strip-searched for the cameras. At least the Iraqis let their POWs remain clothed while being photographed. I've seen plenty of photos of dead Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi soldiers being publicly humiliated, etc., but there's been almost no public outrage about that (in the US). ---Lepus Rex |
|
28 Mar 03 - 07:03 AM (#920363) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Beffudled Hasnt this war become a media circus...since when in time of war has government allowed the media to undermine the war effort with constant negative reporting.if this thing needs to be done ????? then why have they allowed the western media to be Saddams greatest weapon...Surely there are far too many reporters being allowed to tag along with the military making it impossible to control a part of any war thats at least as important as the military side the public information side which must surely have a very negative effect on the morale of the coalition soldiers engaged in this conflict.. Another extra-ordinary happening is the campaigning on TV here in the UK to raise money for the Iraqi people...surely until they make the decision to stand up to the thug who has ruined their lives for the last 35 years (they seem qiute willing to risk all to snipe at the coalition soldiers)why should we be asked to bail out this vastly oil rich country which if only they had been able to organise a decent government of would have made handouts from us the reviled infidel west unneccessary |
|
28 Mar 03 - 07:08 AM (#920366) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Bagpuss befuddled - re raising money. Because there are a lot of compassionate people who don't like to see people starve to death when we can help prevent that? Bagpuss |
|
28 Mar 03 - 07:24 AM (#920373) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: Wolfgang Looked at from over here, i is hard to see any difference in treatment except for the uncorroborated (so far) claims of executions. Wolfgang |
|
28 Mar 03 - 08:55 AM (#920433) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: McGrath of Harlow "Bush the Elder just doesn't seem like the sort to have approved that kind of double-dealing." I read that as heavy irony. Was I wrong? |
|
28 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM (#920486) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Mars Possible Link to Al-Qaeda? |
|
28 Mar 03 - 10:01 AM (#920493) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: stevetheORC Dear'GUEST,Beffudled' Im not having a go but I would just like to let you know that a number of Iraqies did rise up against Saddam 12 years ago only to be slaughterd by Republican Guard troops, as we in the west stood back and allowed it to happen, so please dont be so quick as to judge them. they quite proberly dont want another taste of Saddams Justice. Steve the Orc |
|
28 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM (#920587) Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Beffudled (sic)-The government allows the media to report negatively because doing otherwise would violate the First Amendment in a manner that would be utterly unacceptable to the majority of the nation. Remember, the media in fact controls most broadcast and paper information distributers. That's why we call them the media. It would be almost impossible to censor them all without tremendous backlash. Instead, the government has set up a system, the "embedded" reporters, which nearly guarantees favorable reporting without the appearance of censorship. Further, I think the free flow of information is more important than the morale of soldiers who should know full well that the war is not fully supported or moral. As to why we should bail out the Iraqi people, consider that because of our earlier support of Saddam, and our bombing of Iraqi infrastructure over the last twelve years, we are responsible for much of their poverty. |