If you were tortured or raped by one of them, or a member of your family disappeared it’s probable that word got around. And given the statue-to-street-corner ratio of their father I would guess the brothers had substantial national recognition.
Yes, I have problems with that. For one thing, there are also fighting women. Not all of our soldiers are honourable. Not all of Hussein’s people were filthy, evil, murdering, raping, torturing tyrants. The coalition forces stand accused of being all of the things that you used to describe Hussein’s people. I don’t distinguish much between our propoganda and theirs.
But I can understand why the photographs needed to be shown. As long as the Iraqis need reassurance that they won’t fall victim to Saddam and Co. again.
I think that I would have stopped with the photographs though. The video tape of the cosmetically restored bodies may raise more questions for Iraqis than they answer. I just don’t know.
I am in agreement with you. Our soldiers fought for us. I consider it a responsibility to see what was done in my name.
When I was a kid, we weren’t exposed to photographs of the horrors of WWII. I was a freshman in college when I saw a book of photographs of the citizens of Hiroshima. I wasn’t able to distance myself from the realities of war so much after that.
Translation: “Showing pictures of dead bodies and mutilated corpses is evil, wrong, and exploitative – unless it’s someone we dislike, in which case it’s okay.”
:rolleyes:
OK- I forgot that in our PC times we must say men AND women. Got me there. But I thought my point was understood.
I never said ALL of any group were honorable, nor did I say ALL Iraqi’s were not. I was speaking specifically of the Hussein boys.
Sad but true. It’s the real world, not a vaccuum.
Sorry, but a little reminder is at its place here:
The criminals there are the invading occupying troops.
They are the illegal occupyers and the payed murderers of the USA regime.
Whatever Hussein, his sons, his regime did in that country, is for the Iraqi people to decide about and to have a dealing with.
Hussein, his sons, his regime did nothing to the USA, its population and its regime.
All the thousands of Iraqi citizens murdered during this illegal criminal invasion and occupation, including those 3 men and a boy of 14 (and I’m not in the least convinced those pictures show the sons of Hussein) are victims of the mass murdering USA regime.
I don’t know if you can deal with that truth, yet there is no way you can avoid it.
I invite you to beat me with your counter- arguments proving the opposite.
Salaam. A
I think the idea is that the guerilla attacks will cool down a bit if they know their leaders are dead, at least maybe the baathists will stop, even so, if it saves lives then it’s worth it. But then again, concern for U.S. troops is pathetic.
Cuckoorex, I have searched Amnesty’s websites, the news, and the web and have found no statement made about the photos. Cite please.
It is probably accurate to say that they are not combatants and therefore are not protected by the laws of war. In that case, there is no doubt that killing them was murder and constitutes a war crime.
Apos, assassination is prohibited under international law, the Hague Convention, which binds the United States. Funny enough, the U.S. Army Field Manual, incorporates the prohibition found in the Hague Convention: “This article is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy ‘dead or alive.’” I’m not sure where else it’s incorporated into US law, but it’s not some policy the President can opt out of.
Aldebaran, we agree on some points, but you might want to put that into a thread about the topic, since it’s somewhat tangential to what we’re discussing here and is very likely to lead to major hijacks.
Cockoorex,
Sorry, you did nothing else then giving your opinion.
I invited people to give proof that I’m wrong.
By the way: Hussein wasn’t a “sworn enemy of the USA” when he waged war against “sworn US enemy Iran”, was he?
Among others…
And by the way: That is exactly right: the regime lacked the means to even form a threat to the USA.
Yet: That so called “immediate threat”… how was that again used in the US propaganda machine? What was the result… qstill is the result, of these criminal lies and manipulations?
By the way: Do you have still all that duct tape and other equipment to protect you from that “immeditae threat” that as you admit never existed?
Salaam. A
Marley,
Yes you are right… But it seemed a good place to bring some reality in here.
But I agree that the invitation to discuss my points is off topic and leading this discussion astray.
I apologize to the OP author.
Salaam. A.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/24/sprj.irq.photos.ethics/index.html
I believe it’s the tenth paragraph. They also touch on the reason why it’s not considered a violation, and it’s not because they were not combatants. In fact, the Geneva Conventions cover a broad range of definitions regarding who would be considered a POW. The point was, and still is, that they were never POWs. Not that they were not soldiers or not combatants or not this or not that. The only salient point in regards to the Geneva Conventions is that they were never POWs.
They are/were combatants, and any applicable laws of war would apply, I think. Are you suggesting that any time any combatant launches an attack meant to kill an enemy combatant, that they are committing a war crime? It kind of makes it hard to fight a war without committing war crimes, doesn’t it?
Now finally that is something that I think would be interesting to investigate more fully…are the actions of the Coalition in offering a reward for information about Saddam’s whereabouts in violation of the Hague Convention?
Once again: the enemy in Iraq is the invading/occupying army.
Every Iraqi who fight them is in his right to defend himself and his country against an invading murdering army.
What would you do if you country was invaded?
Thus: every Iraqi killed by that invading army is murdered.
The leader of the invading army has in addition to this put prize money on the killing of Iraqis.
This in the pure US Western style: dead or alive.
With this significant difference that in those days this “dead or alive” was putting a prize on criminals living under the jurisdiction of the country (that an sich was also one formed by invading colonizers, by the way.)
Salaam. A
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**Cockoorex,
Sorry, you did nothing else then giving your opinion.
I invited people to give proof that I’m wrong.**
And as I said, you provided only your own opinion yourself. You want people to prove to you that your view of the USA as a criminal aggressor is wrong…excuse me for doubting that you’re seeking an open-minded view of the situation. It reads to me that you’ve already decided ‘the truth’ about the situation. What point is there to argue with you? You don’t like carrots? All the nutritional information in the world won’t make you like carrots. You’ve already decided that carrots are yucky. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
How is this relevant to the current situation? At one time or another, hasn’t just about every country been an ally or an enemy of just about every other country?
Duct tape? I can’t figure out if this is a straw man argument or simply a non sequiter. I’ve always had duct tape. It’s pretty handy. In any case, it’s extraneous to the current argument. You’re trying to make arguments that have already been made in numerous threads of their own. Stick to the topic at hand.
Would you say that every Coalition soldier that is killed by sniper fire is a murder victim as well, or does the charge of murder only apply to the invading force? What of individuals? If a Coalition medic is killed by an Iraqi sniper, is that considered justified self-defense? To kill a medic? Why not simply admit that you have no intention whatsoever of bending in regards to your opinion? Why ask people to make arguments when you’ve already made up your mind? You’re worse than a Young-Earth Creationist in that regard.
Cuckoorex, your post is making no sense to me. I’m wondering if you understand the definition of “combatant.” I’m not using the category of “enemy combatant” invented by the Bushies, I’m using it in the legal sense under the relevant conventions. There are various categories of combatants, but non-combatants are civilians and are never legitimate military targets.
CNN does not attempt to explain its conclusion. Can you?
If they were combatants, and they were captured, they would be POWs.
I misspoke when I said laws of war don’t apply to non-combatants. There are special protections for combatants, but there are even more special protections for non-combatants, who cannot be targeted.
This just in:
And what of these new photos? They’ve made the corpses look like Michael Jackson! 
Seriously, they’re hardly improving their credibility by operating on the corpses to artificially make them look more like the photos of the brothers when they were alive. Plus, Muslims are getting pissed that they haven’t been buried yet. What a mess.