Captive US Soldier Executed in Iraq?

[Sokartawi]

You might be right about that emphaty thing, but there is another point I like to bring up. In the case of the car accident, I would not try to cause accidents to other people. In the case of the soldier who got killed, he's most likely perfectly willing to kill others.

[Darth Wong]

You might be right about that emphaty thing, but there is another point I like to bring up. In the case of the car accident, I would not try to cause accidents to other people. In the case of the soldier who got killed, he's most likely perfectly willing to kill others.

Not if they've put up their hands and surrendered. The vast majority of US prisoners of war have not been killed. I'll grant that some have been killed, so the US is on shaky moral ground here, but it is equally fair to characterize the US soldiers who committed those acts as assholes.

In war, you are ethically empowered to kill the other man because he is also trying to kill you, and one of you must win. When he throws down his arms and raises his hands in surrender, you no longer have an ethical imperative (or license) to kill him.

[Sokartawi]

To classify any resistance that isn't officially part of the state as terrorist is a bit excessive.

Strawman. I never classified terrorists as having to be separate to the state. There is such as thing as state-sponsored terrorism, you know.

And I wasn't calling them terrorists because they happen to wear towels around their faces and are in Iraq killing Americans - they're fucking terrorists thanks to their tactics. Beheading a civilian is wrong, videotaping it is atrocious, and there's no difference from executing a soldier and doing the same thing (videotaping it).

If its true that they worked for the military, it isn't that wrong at all. And apparantly the only way to get results is by videotaping it. Didn't the US justify the pictures taking of the corpses of Saddam's dead sons in a similar way? Or do you also think that's wrong? The problem is that the resistance cannot confront the US directly, if this was a fair fight it was easy talking, but they have to resort to other tactics.

Insurgents or resistance fighter is more appropriate IMO. The tactics the French resistance used during WW2 for example weren't pretty either.

Oh really? They beheaded collaborators and plugged the images onto the internet and Al Jazeera? The two examples aren't comparable because the French were fighting a resistance to the German occupiers; from what I've heard, the terrorists in Iraq aren't fighting for Iraqi freedom, they just want to kill Americans. Therefore 'resistance or freedom fighter' doesn't apply to them. Insurgent is accurate. But so is terrorist. Call a spade a spade.

The insurgents are fighting for freedom, freedom from foreign interference in their country, which has been going on either directly or indirectly since the imperial age or whatever you like to call it. The US is currently the obvious target for this, of course.

But what would you suggest doing with them instead when the US is unwilling to give in to the demands of the insurgents?

Why the fuck do they have to take prisoners in the first place when they know the US gov't will never give in to their demands? First of all it's not guaranteed the US won't negotiate with terrorists, as it's happened in the past. Secondly, the demands are immaterial as what the terrorists REALLY want is to spread terror (a big fucking DUH from the obvious machine). That said, do you seriously think the terrorists expect their demands to be taken seriously? As it has been said before by others here, the victims were dead the second they were taken hostage - the terrorists have no intention of playing ball with the US, so why the fuck are they going to keep the prisoners safe in a cell somewhere?

And none of this at all justifies what they do to their victims.

Do you feel better if they shot this guy on the streets instead?

[CJvR]

To classify any resistance that isn't officially part of the state as terrorist is a bit excessive. Insurgents or resistance fighter is more appropriate IMO. The tactics the French resistance used during WW2 for example weren't pretty either.

Go read the Geneva convention you sorry excuse for a Swede. Resistance movements are covered by it as is unrecognized regimes. The requirements on combatants to be included under its protection is something any remotely civilized human being would have no problem fullfilling.

[Sokartawi]

You might be right about that emphaty thing, but there is another point I like to bring up. In the case of the car accident, I would not try to cause accidents to other people. In the case of the soldier who got killed, he's most likely perfectly willing to kill others.

Not if they've put up their hands and surrendered. The vast majority of US prisoners of war have not been killed. I'll grant that some have been killed, so the US is on shaky moral ground here, but it is equally fair to characterize the US soldiers who committed those acts as assholes.

In war, you are ethically empowered to kill the other man because he is also trying to kill you, and one of you must win. When he throws down his arms and raises his hands in surrender, you no longer have an ethical imperative (or license) to kill him.

Like I asked before, what must they do with their captive then? You would want to remove his ability to commit more violence to your side. Thus normally he's imprisoned in some way, and hand him back when the fight is over or trade him for something. But this is not really possible for the resistance, is it? So they remove his ability to pose a threat permanently.

[Sokartawi]

To classify any resistance that isn't officially part of the state as terrorist is a bit excessive. Insurgents or resistance fighter is more appropriate IMO. The tactics the French resistance used during WW2 for example weren't pretty either.

Go read the Geneva convention you sorry excuse for a Swede. Resistance movements are covered by it as is unrecognized regimes. The requirements on combatants to be included under its protection is something any remotely civilized human being would have no problem fullfilling.

Like the US pays any attention at all to the Geneva convention nowadays. Unfortunately that treaty is as good as dead in reality, even though I'd like to see it differently.

The resistance are barbarians, and the US are also barbarians.

[Darth Wong]

Like I asked before, what must they do with their captive then?

Prisoner exchange. Instead of making some ridiculous demand like the total pullout of all forces or the release of thousands of prisoners in exchange for one, ask to exchange him with one of the prisoners held by the other side.

You would want to remove his ability to commit more violence to your side. Thus normally he's imprisoned in some way, and hand him back when the fight is over or trade him for something. But this is not really possible for the resistance, is it? So they remove his ability to pose a threat permanently.

That might explain shooting him on the battlefield when he surrenders, but it wouldn't explain holding him for two months and then executing him. That's just cruelty.

[CJvR]

Like the US pays any attention at all to the Geneva convention nowadays. Unfortunately that treaty is as good as dead in reality, even though I'd like to see it differently.

The resistance are barbarians, and the US are also barbarians.

The US prosecuted their offenders so the US is still within the bounds of the GEN-Con. The Problem with the GEN-Con is that it assumes conflict between civilised opponents and not savages. Most of the prisoners the US have are the kind that the GEN-Con don't cover.

After reading some of your earlier statements here it is also rather clear thay you to are a barbarian.

[Sokartawi]

Like the US pays any attention at all to the Geneva convention nowadays. Unfortunately that treaty is as good as dead in reality, even though I'd like to see it differently.

The resistance are barbarians, and the US are also barbarians.

The US prosecuted their offenders so the US is still within the bounds of the GEN-Con. The Problem with the GEN-Con is that it assumes conflict between civilised opponents and not savages. Most of the prisoners the US have are the kind that the GEN-Con don't cover.

After reading some of your earlier statements here it is also rather clear thay you to are a barbarian.

Dont have much time to reply to everything now, will do it later.
Apparanlty I know the Geneva Convention better then you in this aspect.

The Geneva convention clearly sais that every captive must be treated as POW until an impartial judge sais otherwise for EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. I don't think the people at Guantanamo or other prisons like that have been individually judged by an impartial party, or have they?

[Stofsk]

If its true that they worked for the military, it isn't that wrong at all. And apparantly the only way to get results is by videotaping it. Didn't the US justify the pictures taking of the corpses of Saddam's dead sons in a similar way? Or do you also think that's wrong? The problem is that the resistance cannot confront the US directly, if this was a fair fight it was easy talking, but they have to resort to other tactics.

Other tactics that have nothing to do with fighting for freedom.

Their 'results' are terror. NOT freedom for Iraq. Get that straight.

The insurgents are fighting for freedom, freedom from foreign interference in their country, which has been going on either directly or indirectly since the imperial age or whatever you like to call it. The US is currently the obvious target for this, of course.

Bullshit. The insurgents here and now aren't concerned with fighting for freedom, and they're made up of foreigners who are using the Iraq situation as an excuse to fight the Americans. Yeah, these insurgents are really fighting for an end to foreign interference... by interfering in a foreign country...

Their chosen tactics - namely beheading hostages soon after their capture - suggests they had no reason for taking captives other than public spectacle. They don't negotiate under good faith, and there is no reason to consider them trustworthy at all.

Coyote - someone who lives and works on the scene - seems confident that the average Iraqi supports the Americans. Is there something wrong with his direct observations?

Do you feel better if they shot this guy on the streets instead?

Why should I feel better about a change in the guy's execution? I fucking hate them either way they choose how to commit their atrocities. You're the one who makes it sound as though what they do is acceptable. Bullshit - the hostages that were killed weren't afforded any dignity or restraint, quite the reverse actually - their deaths were the focus of a deliberate public spectacle with the overall intention of the insurgents to cause terror.

You don't take prisoners in order to execute them dumbass. You take prisoners and you treat them well because the other guy will be obligated in doing the same thing. When one side here for the most part strives to treat their prisoners well (and I do stress for the most part) while the other side takes prisoners for no other reason than to humiliate and execute them then their actions are frankly unacceptable. And attempts on your part to dress them up as such - "Oh, what do you expect the poor terrorist to do with captives?" - is contemptible. The terrorists don't fight pitched battles for the taking of ground, then after winning take prisoners. No, they fucking go OUT OF THEIR WAY to kidnap and make someone a hostage, for no other reason than to spread terror amongst their enemies.

[Stofsk]

The resistance are barbarians, and the US are also barbarians.

Yeah right, because Abu Ghraib proved that a small group of scumbags equal the combined totality of the entire USA, making EVERY American a barbarian. Even if what you 'meant' was the US ARMY being barbarians it still doesn't follow because they're outmatched in cruelty by the terrorists who kidnap hostages for the SOLE PURPOSE in executing them via public spectacle.

[Aeolus]

Uhh...

When the killed civilians, ok...

But hellloooo? This was a soldier. And they shot him. What's so wrong about that? It's what the soldier signed up for. Since when is fighting back (against a legitimate target this time) not allowed? So they videotaped it. I remember certain pictures of Iraqi prisoners somewhere...

So if we lined up all of the Iraqi soldiers we have captured and shot them it would be okay? Humiliating prisoners is wrong, killing them in cold blood is much worse.

[CJvR]

Apparanlty I know the Geneva Convention better then you in this aspect.

The Geneva convention clearly sais that every captive must be treated as POW until an impartial judge sais otherwise for EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. I don't think the people at Guantanamo or other prisons like that have been individually judged by an impartial party, or have they?

No I don't think it says that.

The Avalon Project

ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

And then about the questionable cases...

ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Art4 defines who are PoWs and Art5 only say that if there is any doubt they should be considered PoWs until the doubt is resolved. If there is no doubt, under the rather simple guidelines of Art4, then there is no need for a tribunal.

[Sokartawi]

If its true that they worked for the military, it isn't that wrong at all. And apparantly the only way to get results is by videotaping it. Didn't the US justify the pictures taking of the corpses of Saddam's dead sons in a similar way? Or do you also think that's wrong? The problem is that the resistance cannot confront the US directly, if this was a fair fight it was easy talking, but they have to resort to other tactics.

Other tactics that have nothing to do with fighting for freedom.

Their 'results' are terror. NOT freedom for Iraq. Get that straight.

The desired END RESULT is still freedom for Iraq. I don't see your point.

The insurgents are fighting for freedom, freedom from foreign interference in their country, which has been going on either directly or indirectly since the imperial age or whatever you like to call it. The US is currently the obvious target for this, of course.

Bullshit. The insurgents here and now aren't concerned with fighting for freedom, and they're made up of foreigners who are using the Iraq situation as an excuse to fight the Americans. Yeah, these insurgents are really fighting for an end to foreign interference... by interfering in a foreign country...

Ok you are right in that aspect, however those foreigners comming to Iraq to fight the US are either sympathetic to their cause OR fighting for the freedom of the entire middle-east. Thus eventually your point is quite irrelevant, as these are still freedom fighters.

Their chosen tactics - namely beheading hostages soon after their capture - suggests they had no reason for taking captives other than public spectacle. They don't negotiate under good faith, and there is no reason to consider them trustworthy at all.

I wouldn't consider the US trustworthy at all either.

Coyote - someone who lives and works on the scene - seems confident that the average Iraqi supports the Americans. Is there something wrong with his direct observations?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

Do you feel better if they shot this guy on the streets instead?

Why should I feel better about a change in the guy's execution? I fucking hate them either way they choose how to commit their atrocities. You're the one who makes it sound as though what they do is acceptable. Bullshit - the hostages that were killed weren't afforded any dignity or restraint, quite the reverse actually - their deaths were the focus of a deliberate public spectacle with the overall intention of the insurgents to cause terror.

Got any better idea to force the US out of the area? I already said, it would be easy if it was a fair fight, but it's not. There is no real way that these people can fight back. While it doesn't directly justify their actions, they most certainly are understandable, which is my point.

You don't take prisoners in order to execute them dumbass. You take prisoners and you treat them well because the other guy will be obligated in doing the same thing. When one side here for the most part strives to treat their prisoners well (and I do stress for the most part) while the other side takes prisoners for no other reason than to humiliate and execute them then their actions are frankly unacceptable.

In which case you must look at things from a broader perspective, and not focus on the aspect of captives. Currently for every American killed a lot of Iraqi's die, due to the unfair difference in technology in this war. Thus, they must use other tactics to hurt the US and force them out. It's not about the prisoners, it's about the tactics, of which, like I said before, it is completely understandable that they are used in these situations.

And attempts on your part to dress them up as such - "Oh, what do you expect the poor terrorist to do with captives?" - is contemptible. The terrorists don't fight pitched battles for the taking of ground, then after winning take prisoners. No, they fucking go OUT OF THEIR WAY to kidnap and make someone a hostage, for no other reason than to spread terror amongst their enemies.

Like I said before, how else can they force the US out? They simply CANNOT confront the US directly and win ground. Cowardly you think? Not more cowardly then firing cruisemissiles, or carpetbombing the area, or go firing around in heavy tanks, in which the opposition has no chance to shoot back at all.

[Sokartawi]

Like I asked before, what must they do with their captive then?

Prisoner exchange. Instead of making some ridiculous demand like the total pullout of all forces or the release of thousands of prisoners in exchange for one, ask to exchange him with one of the prisoners held by the other side.

I don't think demanding the US to leave is a rediculous demand. As for exchaning him on a 1:1 ratio, that's nonsense, since for every US soldier killed, a lot of Iraqi's die. 1:50 would be far more reasonable.

You would want to remove his ability to commit more violence to your side. Thus normally he's imprisoned in some way, and hand him back when the fight is over or trade him for something. But this is not really possible for the resistance, is it? So they remove his ability to pose a threat permanently.

That might explain shooting him on the battlefield when he surrenders, but it wouldn't explain holding him for two months and then executing him. That's just cruelty.

Agreed. I've come up with another argument, which is in my previous post.

[Sokartawi]

Uhh...

When the killed civilians, ok...

But hellloooo? This was a soldier. And they shot him. What's so wrong about that? It's what the soldier signed up for. Since when is fighting back (against a legitimate target this time) not allowed? So they videotaped it. I remember certain pictures of Iraqi prisoners somewhere...

So if we lined up all of the Iraqi soldiers we have captured and shot them it would be okay? Humiliating prisoners is wrong, killing them in cold blood is much worse.

Not really, because the US is the invasive force in this conflict and they still like to claim they are 'liberating' the Iraqi's *can't help starting to laugh*. In addition, a lot of the soldiers captured didn't choose to fight, at least I think you are referring to these cases as well.

If both sides were the agressor, in situations like WW1 in Europe, it would be perfectly justified to kill captured soldiers though.

[Chardok]

1:50 would be far more reasonable.

That's the 4th dumbest thing I've ever heard. You feel that for every one U.S. soldier murdered as a hostage that 50 iraqis are murdered as a direct result of US action? Prove it.

that fact that you don't think telling the U.S. to leave "Or else" is ridiculous shows you know nothing of international politics, or military action, or awareness of the world at large. Were you raised in a cave?

[Sokartawi]

Apparanlty I know the Geneva Convention better then you in this aspect.

The Geneva convention clearly sais that every captive must be treated as POW until an impartial judge sais otherwise for EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. I don't think the people at Guantanamo or other prisons like that have been individually judged by an impartial party, or have they?

No I don't think it says that.

The Avalon Project

ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

And then about the questionable cases...

ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Art4 defines who are PoWs and Art5 only say that if there is any doubt they should be considered PoWs until the doubt is resolved. If there is no doubt, under the rather simple guidelines of Art4, then there is no need for a tribunal.

I think it's clear these people belong to either group 1 or group 2, and if they US thinks otherwise there CERTAINLY is doubt about this, so their status is yet to be determined, and they are still POW. End of story.

[Sokartawi]

1:50 would be far more reasonable.

That's the 4th dumbest thing I've ever heard. You feel that for every one U.S. soldier murdered as a hostage that 50 iraqis are murdered as a direct result of US action? Prove it.

Strawman tactics. For every US soldier killed by insurgent activities (which include ambushes etc etc as well, NOT just the killing of hostages which only started shortly after the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners BTW), a larger number of Iraqis is killed by US soldiers.

that fact that you don't think telling the U.S. to leave "Or else" is ridiculous shows you know nothing of international politics, or military action, or awareness of the world at large. Were you raised in a cave?

I'm not even going to bother answering that.

[Stofsk]

The desired END RESULT is still freedom for Iraq. I don't see your point.

You don't see the point that the so-called 'freedom fighters' are coming from outside Iraq? You don't see how this is relevant?

Ok you are right in that aspect, however those foreigners comming to Iraq to fight the US are either sympathetic to their cause OR fighting for the freedom of the entire middle-east. Thus eventually your point is quite irrelevant, as these are still freedom fighters.

So they're fighting for the freedom of Iraq - even though they don't represent Iraq at ALL, you still maintain they're fighting for Iraqi freedom.

Got any better idea to force the US out of the area? I already said, it would be easy if it was a fair fight, but it's not. There is no real way that these people can fight back. While it doesn't directly justify their actions, they most certainly are understandable, which is my point.

...Thus, they must use other tactics to hurt the US and force them out. It's not about the prisoners, it's about the tactics, of which, like I said before, it is completely understandable that they are used in these situations.

Interesting backpedalling, considering you said earlier:

Then what are they going to to with the captive? It's not like the US will give in to their demands. They can't lock him up in a prison either. So yeah, when dealing with an invader like the US it's perfectly acceptable to kill these captives.

Yes, it's 'perfectly acceptable' for terrorists to kill people. Now it's also 'certainly understandable'.

Like I said before, how else can they force the US out? They simply CANNOT confront the US directly and win ground.

Not my fucking problem. I happen to be on the side of the US and the other coalition members since my own countrymen are there at risk as well. I may not have appreciated the fucked up reasons for going to war in the first place, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about our troops over there.

Cowardly you think? Not more cowardly then firing cruisemissiles, or carpetbombing the area, or go firing around in heavy tanks, in which the opposition has no chance to shoot back at all.

Yeah, war is hell. What's your point? Do you seriously think that ANYONE would walk into a war with their arms tied behind their back wearing a blindfold (figuratively speaking)? You think it's cowardly that the Americans have such a high tech advantage? You honestly don't understand the difference PR makes to a war campaign? You don't think that the Americans have tried hard to limit civilian losses? The terrorists don't give a SHIT about any of that. Coward rightly describes them.

[Aeolus]

Uhh...

When the killed civilians, ok...

But hellloooo? This was a soldier. And they shot him. What's so wrong about that? It's what the soldier signed up for. Since when is fighting back (against a legitimate target this time) not allowed? So they videotaped it. I remember certain pictures of Iraqi prisoners somewhere...

So if we lined up all of the Iraqi soldiers we have captured and shot them it would be okay? Humiliating prisoners is wrong, killing them in cold blood is much worse.

Not really, because the US is the invasive force in this conflict and they still like to claim they are 'liberating' the Iraqi's *can't help starting to laugh*. In addition, a lot of the soldiers captured didn't choose to fight, at least I think you are referring to these cases as well.

If both sides were the agressor, in situations like WW1 in Europe, it would be perfectly justified to kill captured soldiers though.

Wow talk about moral relativism you really believe that murder is no worse than what happened at abu-whatever?! I thought you Europeans were supposed to be "morally superior" to us Cowboy, Jingonistic, War loving Americans. Glad to know how wrong I was.

[Sokartawi]

The desired END RESULT is still freedom for Iraq. I don't see your point.

You don't see the point that the so-called 'freedom fighters' are coming from outside Iraq? You don't see how this is relevant?.

You're messing up two of my statements here. And it's not like the overwhelming majoirty of freedom fighters are foreigners...

Ok you are right in that aspect, however those foreigners comming to Iraq to fight the US are either sympathetic to their cause OR fighting for the freedom of the entire middle-east. Thus eventually your point is quite irrelevant, as these are still freedom fighters.

So they're fighting for the freedom of Iraq - even though they don't represent Iraq at ALL, you still maintain they're fighting for Iraqi freedom.

Again you mess up my statements, I suggest you do some re-reading on this and the previous quote. I clearly said "OR fighting for the freedom of the entire middle-east", did I not?

Got any better idea to force the US out of the area? I already said, it would be easy if it was a fair fight, but it's not. There is no real way that these people can fight back. While it doesn't directly justify their actions, they most certainly are understandable, which is my point.

...Thus, they must use other tactics to hurt the US and force them out. It's not about the prisoners, it's about the tactics, of which, like I said before, it is completely understandable that they are used in these situations.

Interesting backpedalling, considering you said earlier:

Then what are they going to to with the captive? It's not like the US will give in to their demands. They can't lock him up in a prison either. So yeah, when dealing with an invader like the US it's perfectly acceptable to kill these captives.

Yes, it's 'perfectly acceptable' for terrorists to kill people. Now it's also 'certainly understandable'.

Exactly. I still stand by those earlier statements.

Like I said before, how else can they force the US out? They simply CANNOT confront the US directly and win ground.

Not my fucking problem. I happen to be on the side of the US and the other coalition members since my own countrymen are there at risk as well. I may not have appreciated the fucked up reasons for going to war in the first place, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about our troops over there.

If you give a shit about your troops, you should be protesting for their withdrawal from Iraq right now.

Cowardly you think? Not more cowardly then firing cruisemissiles, or carpetbombing the area, or go firing around in heavy tanks, in which the opposition has no chance to shoot back at all.

Yeah, war is hell. What's your point? Do you seriously think that ANYONE would walk into a war with their arms tied behind their back wearing a blindfold (figuratively speaking)? You think it's cowardly that the Americans have such a high tech advantage? You honestly don't understand the difference PR makes to a war campaign? You don't think that the Americans have tried hard to limit civilian losses? The terrorists don't give a SHIT about any of that. Coward rightly describes them.

I don't think the US has done enough to limit loss to civilian life and property. And I didn't say it was cowardly to HAVE a technological advantage, but the way it's used can be described in no other way then cowardly. Yes it's war and you want to try to limit your losses, but that doesn't make it any less cowardly to kill people that have no way of defending themselves against the assault, and it might even be compared to killing the defenseless prisoners.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Soldiers sign up to fight, not to die when they are captured or surrender. Combat death is far different from nabbing civilians and soldiers, holding them hostage, and then killing them when you get bored.

These freedom fighters (terrorist fanatics) are very good at killing civilian contractors aren't they? These contracts are trying to HELP Iraq become a better nation. The isurgents clearly do NOT want Iraq to be a better, more prosperous democratic nation, rather a wacky quasi-fascist one. Fuck. THey even kill their own god damn people! Hellava bunch of islamic heros eh?

People like you should not be allowed to vote. You don't deserve it. You deserve a leader like Saddam who gasses you when he wants to try out new weapons or something. When someone comes in and gets rid of the fucktard who did it, you can praise the terrorists who are trying to reinstall that oppressive regime.

[Stofsk]

You're messing up two of my statements here. And it's not like the overwhelming majoirty of freedom fighters are foreigners...

Too bad. You make them out to be freedom fighters fighting the Good fight against Big Bad. I point out how 'freedom' isn't what some of these people are fighting for.

Again you mess up my statements, I suggest you do some re-reading on this and the previous quote. I clearly said "OR fighting for the freedom of the entire middle-east", did I not?

What, the ME is completely occupied by the USA? There's a reason I didn't respond to that - it doesn't make sense. If they SOOO desire freedom for the entire middle-east, perhaps they can wage a rebellion against their OWN theocratic autocratic despotic shithole countries THEN you'd have a case.:

Exactly. I still stand by those earlier statements.

Then fuck you. The US may be on shaky moral ground in regards to the treatment of its prisoners, but at least they don't parade them in front of a camera and then execute them like animals to a captive audience.

If you give a shit about your troops, you should be protesting for their withdrawal from Iraq right now.

That will do a grand total of two things: JACK and SHIT.

Don't worry, I'll voice my displeasure at the ballot box come election time. But as for taking a day out with a homemade sign I learnt a long time ago that no-one actually gives a shit about protestors. Let them protest and ignore them, that's a politician's motto.

I don't think the US has done enough to limit loss to civilian life and property. And I didn't say it was cowardly to HAVE a technological advantage, but the way it's used can be described in no other way then cowardly.

Bullshit. You directly said the use of cruisemissiles was cowardly, even though by their nature they're surgically precise. What are cruisemissiles if not an overwhelming tech advantage?

Yes it's war and you want to try to limit your losses, but that doesn't make it any less cowardly to kill people that have no way of defending themselves against the assault,

You're sidetracking the issue. Prisoners have no way of defending themselves against assault; the insurgents do. There's a big difference between someone who has an RPG and AK47 and some guy who was disarmed, paraded in front of a camera and videotaped as he was executed.

and it might even be compared to killing the defenseless prisoners.

Then that's a bullshit comparison. The insurgents are armed and a ready threat; prisoners are not. If you can't tell the bleeding obvious difference then you're a moron.

[Sokartawi]

Soldiers sign up to fight, not to die when they are captured or surrender. Combat death is far different from nabbing civilians and soldiers, holding them hostage, and then killing them when you get bored.

These freedom fighters (terrorist fanatics) are very good at killing civilian contractors aren't they? These contracts are trying to HELP Iraq become a better nation. The isurgents clearly do NOT want Iraq to be a better, more prosperous democratic nation, rather a wacky quasi-fascist one. Fuck. THey even kill their own god damn people! Hellava bunch of islamic heros eh?

Who are we to force democracy down their throats if they do not want it? As stated in the article I linked to earlier:
"Sadr’s Al Mahdi Army has been engaged in a bloody standoff with U.S. forces in the cities of Kufa and Najaf for more than two months. His popularity among leading Iraqi public figures is exceeded only by that of another Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who was “strongly supported” by 51 percent of Iraqis and “somewhat supported” by another 19 percent."
If they want to live under Islamic clergy, then why should we deny them that? You want to let them choose their leaders, but you don't want to allow them to choose their form of government?

As for the "they kill their own people" argument, that they assault police forces or other collaborators ok, but killing random civilians with bombs is of course detestable, even I agree with that.

People like you should not be allowed to vote. You don't deserve it. You deserve a leader like Saddam who gasses you when he wants to try out new weapons or something. When someone comes in and gets rid of the fucktard who did it, you can praise the terrorists who are trying to reinstall that oppressive regime.

I never said I like Saddam, did I? But it was up to the Iraqi people to get rid of him, not up to the US.