Captive US Soldier Executed in Iraq?

[Chardok]

Who are we to force democracy down their throats if they do not want it?

Who is we? You're doing nothing but bitching about the tyrannical US and our barbaric methods of killing the heroic freedom fighters.

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?

That's what democracy is. They have the right to choose leaders. If they choose a fundamentalist asswipe, that's their deal. We chose one (The US chose bush, even though we really didn't but that's for another day) and will deal with him when comes time to vote. BUT, fundamentalist asswipes do not have the right to "Shove" THEMSELVES down people's throats using terrorist tactics. Dipshit.

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.

It's okay to use cowardly methods like artillery rounds in cars to MURDER cops and public officials and oh-by-the-way if you're mohammed Al-shakra Al Baghdadi on your way to your first day of plumbing work you've had in years, and you get peppered with shrapnel or Tibidi al-shakra walking your husband to the bus station for his ride to work and you are detorsoed by said blast just sucks to be you, right? It's in the name of freedom, after all. Dipshit.

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.

And just how did you expect them to do that? Harsh language? We all saw how well that work at tiananmen square. Dipshit.

[Darth Yoshi]

And just how would they oust Saddam? They don't have the means.

[Sokartawi]

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.

Probably because we are both talking about different kinds of 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?

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.:

You're talking about individual freedom, and I'm talking about national freedom, freedom from interference of foreign nations. Iraq is direclty interfered in, and the US interferes with Saudi Arabia as well, for example.

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.

Maybe consider waging a rebellion against your own government then. It's not like you have much choise and influence when it comes down to your government.

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?

It wouldn't be cowardly to HAVE cruisemissile, but it certainly is cowardly to USE them in this way (as in killing people who have no defence against them nor the ability to retaliate).

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.

Then tell me, what defense do insurgents have against heavy tanks, cruise missiles, carpetbombing, airstrikes, you name it. That infamous video of that helicopter shooting Iraqis at night who had no way to shoot back comes to mind. I can't call it anything other then cowardly.

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.

There are SOME differences, but also SOME similarities.

[Sokartawi]

Who are we to force democracy down their throats if they do not want it?

Who is we? You're doing nothing but bitching about the tyrannical US and our barbaric methods of killing the heroic freedom fighters.

Just what are you trying to say and in what way does it relate to my statement?

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?

That's what democracy is. They have the right to choose leaders. If they choose a fundamentalist asswipe, that's their deal. We chose one (The US chose bush, even though we really didn't but that's for another day) and will deal with him when comes time to vote. BUT, fundamentalist asswipes do not have the right to "Shove" THEMSELVES down people's throats using terrorist tactics. Dipshit.

I know what democracy is. These people currently DONT WANT it, it seems. If the US hadn't interfered they might have eventually came up with it themselves, but this invasion has severely set back that process. Why? Because the people STILL believe they are powerless right now and don't have the means to change their government. All this has done is create even more hatred for the west, and they are likely to follow a leader that opposes the west, depite the fact that it is not likely that this leader has direct interest in the well-being of the citizens.

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.

It's okay to use cowardly methods like artillery rounds in cars to MURDER cops and public officials and oh-by-the-way if you're mohammed Al-shakra Al Baghdadi on your way to your first day of plumbing work you've had in years, and you get peppered with shrapnel or Tibidi al-shakra walking your husband to the bus station for his ride to work and you are detorsoed by said blast just sucks to be you, right? It's in the name of freedom, after all. Dipshit.

Just what did I say about the deaths of random civilians?

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.

And just how did you expect them to do that? Harsh language? We all saw how well that work at tiananmen square. Dipshit.

They can do it by finally understanding that power is always given, never taken.

[Sokartawi]

And just how would they oust Saddam? They don't have the means.

Of course they have the means, as the people are always the source of power for the goverment. Simply stop giving them any power, and they will crumble.

[Knife]

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.

Probably because we are both talking about different kinds of freedom.

Translation; you caught me in a blatent biased bullshit lie.

You plainly said it was ok for foreigners to go fight for the 'freedom' of Iraqis but for some reason in your fucked up brain, Americans fighting for the freedom of Iraqis doesn't apply to your theory.

You can't have it both ways asshat.

[Knife]

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.

Glad that works on your world, but here on Earth, its not how it works. Granted, I'd perfer if Bushie would cycle them through a military tribual, but the insurgents don't fit in 1 or 2.

Unless you'd like to diplay some, oh I don't know, PROOF that they are attached to a recognised military or militia. You know with those uniforms or isignial that the GC says it must have.

[Sokartawi]

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.

Probably because we are both talking about different kinds of freedom.

Translation; you caught me in a blatent biased bullshit lie.

You plainly said it was ok for foreigners to go fight for the 'freedom' of Iraqis but for some reason in your fucked up brain, Americans fighting for the freedom of Iraqis doesn't apply to your theory.

You can't have it both ways asshat.

Bull-Shit. You don't even get what I'm saying, do you?
Freedom#1 (which the resistance fights for and I use): Stop ALL interference of western powers, either for Iraq or other middle-eastern countries.
Freedom#2 (which the US tries to accomplish and you use): Turn Iraq into a democracy.

Two completely different things.

[Stofsk]

You're talking about individual freedom, and I'm talking about national freedom, freedom from interference of foreign nations. Iraq is direclty interfered in, and the US interferes with Saudi Arabia as well, for example.

More bullshit. Before the war, who interfered with Iraq? The UN. Remember the Oil for Food thing? Or fuck, what about those UN sanctions? If that doesn't count as interference I don't know what would. So why aren't those 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' taking on the UN as well as America?

And IIRC the Americans and Saudis are friends, at least nominally; which means they both have ties to each other. This of course means the US is totally interfering with their country completely, and must be destroyed...

Maybe consider waging a rebellion against your own government then. It's not like you have much choise and influence when it comes down to your government.

Are you fucking high on crack? What bullshit is this? Why the fuck would I consider rebelling against my government when in election time I can vote them out? I have fucking choice and influence in my country - I just described what I'm going to do. You'll note that protesting isn't illegal in my country, just most people realise it's a waste of time and don't do it.

Then tell me, what defense do insurgents have against heavy tanks, cruise missiles, carpetbombing, airstrikes, you name it. That infamous video of that helicopter shooting Iraqis at night who had no way to shoot back comes to mind. I can't call it anything other then cowardly.

That's because you're a moron. Those Iraqis who couldn't shoot back at night would probably have been used to ambush a patrol and kill more soldiers' lives. It is not cowardly to attack an enemy who seeks your destruction but uses different means. They cannot fight at our level, so why should we lower ourselves down to their level? We'll see an increase in casualties suffered from such tactics. Yeah, it's real cowardly to destroy the enemy with as minimal fuss or blood on your side as possible...

There are SOME differences, but also SOME similarities.

No, they are not comparable at all. It's also a Red Herring. We're talking about PRISONERS taken captive, and what to do with them; you're talking about enemy combatants who are fighting, and trying to compare them to poor helpless prisoners because they can't fight back as effectively.

[Sokartawi]

You're talking about individual freedom, and I'm talking about national freedom, freedom from interference of foreign nations. Iraq is direclty interfered in, and the US interferes with Saudi Arabia as well, for example.

More bullshit. Before the war, who interfered with Iraq? The UN. Remember the Oil for Food thing? Or fuck, what about those UN sanctions? If that doesn't count as interference I don't know what would. So why aren't those 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' taking on the UN as well as America?

The UN is not much more then a puppet institution of western powers in this case.

And IIRC the Americans and Saudis are friends, at least nominally; which means they both have ties to each other. This of course means the US is totally interfering with their country completely, and must be destroyed...

In this case, yes.

Maybe consider waging a rebellion against your own government then. It's not like you have much choise and influence when it comes down to your government.

Are you fucking high on crack? What bullshit is this? Why the fuck would I consider rebelling against my government when in election time I can vote them out? I have fucking choice and influence in my country - I just described what I'm going to do. You'll note that protesting isn't illegal in my country, just most people realise it's a waste of time and don't do it.

Wow, like there really is that much difference between your two major political parties.

Then tell me, what defense do insurgents have against heavy tanks, cruise missiles, carpetbombing, airstrikes, you name it. That infamous video of that helicopter shooting Iraqis at night who had no way to shoot back comes to mind. I can't call it anything other then cowardly.

That's because you're a moron. Those Iraqis who couldn't shoot back at night would probably have been used to ambush a patrol and kill more soldiers' lives. It is not cowardly to attack an enemy who seeks your destruction but uses different means. They cannot fight at our level, so why should we lower ourselves down to their level? We'll see an increase in casualties suffered from such tactics. Yeah, it's real cowardly to destroy the enemy with as minimal fuss or blood on your side as possible...

Exactly, in this way it's cowardly. And maybe if the US would have had to expect 50k casualties or more they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, PREVENTING casualties.

There are SOME differences, but also SOME similarities.

No, they are not comparable at all. It's also a Red Herring. We're talking about PRISONERS taken captive, and what to do with them; you're talking about enemy combatants who are fighting, and trying to compare them to poor helpless prisoners because they can't fight back as effectively.

I still disagree with you and stand by my points.

[Knife]

Bull-Shit. You don't even get what I'm saying, do you?
Freedom#1 (which the resistance fights for and I use): Stop ALL interference of western powers, either for Iraq or other middle-eastern countries.
Freedom#2 (which the US tries to accomplish and you use): Turn Iraq into a democracy.

Two completely different things.

No matter how you couch it, it still sounds like the same BULL SHIT. According to you, its ok for (lets say) Iranians to go to Iraq and fight the good fight for what those Iranians see as 'freedom' (Using the term as loosely as fucking possible) but not ok for Americans to do the (in this example) same thing.

This isn't even counting that in your little world, 'freedom' can be defined as defeating some conspiracy theorist dream of an Imperialistic endeavor from America, in Iraq. News flash buddy, we just turned that dust ball over to the Iraqi people.

Now I wonder who your 'freedom fighters' will fight?

[Sokartawi]

Bull-Shit. You don't even get what I'm saying, do you?
Freedom#1 (which the resistance fights for and I use): Stop ALL interference of western powers, either for Iraq or other middle-eastern countries.
Freedom#2 (which the US tries to accomplish and you use): Turn Iraq into a democracy.

Two completely different things.

No matter how you couch it, it still sounds like the same BULL SHIT. According to you, its ok for (lets say) Iranians to go to Iraq and fight the good fight for what those Iranians see as 'freedom' (Using the term as loosely as fucking possible) but not ok for Americans to do the (in this example) same thing.

This isn't even counting that in your little world, 'freedom' can be defined as defeating some conspiracy theorist dream of an Imperialistic endeavor from America, in Iraq. News flash buddy, we just turned that dust ball over to the Iraqi people.

Now I wonder who your 'freedom fighters' will fight?

The current 'government' are collaborators and traitors, so they need to be removed first.

[Stofsk]

The UN is not much more then a puppet institution of western powers in this case.

China and Russia are western powers.

And IIRC the Americans and Saudis are friends, at least nominally; which means they both have ties to each other. This of course means the US is totally interfering with their country completely, and must be destroyed...

In this case, yes.

So the Saudi government has the FREEDOM to choose it's friends and relations, and you somehow try to spin it that their country is being interfered with by the US? That's an interesting delusion.

Maybe consider waging a rebellion against your own government then. It's not like you have much choise and influence when it comes down to your government.

Are you fucking high on crack? What bullshit is this? Why the fuck would I consider rebelling against my government when in election time I can vote them out? I have fucking choice and influence in my country - I just described what I'm going to do. You'll note that protesting isn't illegal in my country, just most people realise it's a waste of time and don't do it.

Wow, like there really is that much difference between your two major political parties.

Wow, like that point has anything to do with what I stated.

Exactly, in this way it's cowardly. And maybe if the US would have had to expect 50k casualties or more they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, PREVENTING casualties.

You have not proved the US RoE is cowardly. You have only stated as such, using some bizarre notion that superior firepower, training and equipment should be eschewed in favour of a 'fair fight' if the other guy hasn't got the same crap you've got.

The fact that they even HAVE a RoE is significant in itself, especially when their opponents don't bother observing a similar RoE.

You know, I could turn your 'logic' right around and call these 'freedom fighters' cowards for ambushing tactics and guerrila warfare. I won't, because that's STUPID. You fight with whatever you can, however you can; war isn't a fucking sporting event.

I still disagree with you and stand by my points.

It's too bad your points are full of shit. According to you it's acceptable to kill soldiers taken captive, when the REVERSE doesn't occur on the US side. The terrorists are not obligated to cause their terror, and this doesn't serve the notion of 'freedom' you want it to; their cause isn't served by their actions. There is nothing acceptable about their actions and your points are full of shit. The US doesn't do the same thing, therefore they still retain the moral high ground (murky though it is). The deliberate kidnappings and executions are not the same thing as taking prisoners after a battle, therefore your point about it being a 'legitimate tactic' is unwarranted and untenable. The insurgents goal of fighting for the freedom of Iraq is again misleading; where were these insurgents when Iraq was lead by Saddam? Why weren't these 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' fighting the good fight against the Big Bad UN with it's economic sanctions against Iraq? If the 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' want Iraq free, why aren't the Iraqi's rising up against the Americans and openly revolting?

Basically you haven't provided a satisfactory reason why it was justifiable for the insurgents to execute the US soldier. Doing so did not advance their so-called 'cause' of 'FREEDOM!', and of course the Americans are cowardly in their RoE while at the same time the insurgents use 'perfectly acceptable' terror tactics.

[CJvR]

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.

(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.

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.

Well shall we examine that?
Art4 A-1 is for troops who belong to the regular or irregular armed forces of a recognised enemy power. This means any regular Iraqi troops as well as any milita who were captured before the Baathist regime disintegrated. These fellows are indeed PoW according to the GEN-Con. After the fall of the Saddam regime the remaining Iraqi milita fall under Art4 A-2, where they fail rather miserably to comply with the requirements as demonstrated in Falluja.
Under Art4 A-3 any of the Taliban milita captured before the Taliban regime fell appart is also PoWs. Any captured after that fall under Art4 A-2.
A-Q and the rest of the Jihadi international brigades were never part of the Taliban regular forces or served as a milita under Saddam so they are judged under Art4 A-2. There they fail to comply on all points! The GEN-Con is not like civilian laws and regulations where you are always entitled to protection. The GEN-Con only protect you if you, and whatever milita you belong to, respect it's rules and regulations.
Also note that the definition do not put these requirements on individuals but on organizations (members of...).

Perhaps you would like to motivate your conclution that they are PoWs under Art4 A-1 & 2 before unilateraly proclaiming that it is the "End of story". Also note that being a PoW does not make you imune to prosecution for crimes.

[Sokartawi]

The UN is not much more then a puppet institution of western powers in this case.

China and Russia are western powers.

Apparantly you missed the "in this case" part...

And IIRC the Americans and Saudis are friends, at least nominally; which means they both have ties to each other. This of course means the US is totally interfering with their country completely, and must be destroyed...

In this case, yes.

So the Saudi government has the FREEDOM to choose it's friends and relations, and you somehow try to spin it that their country is being interfered with by the US? That's an interesting delusion.

It's because the US now directly aids an oppressive regime thus making it harder for the people to revolt.

Are you fucking high on crack? What bullshit is this? Why the fuck would I consider rebelling against my government when in election time I can vote them out? I have fucking choice and influence in my country - I just described what I'm going to do. You'll note that protesting isn't illegal in my country, just most people realise it's a waste of time and don't do it.

Wow, like there really is that much difference between your two major political parties.

Wow, like that point has anything to do with what I stated.

It does. I pointed out the "choise and influence" you have in your country is not much more then an illusion.

Exactly, in this way it's cowardly. And maybe if the US would have had to expect 50k casualties or more they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, PREVENTING casualties.

You have not proved the US RoE is cowardly. You have only stated as such, using some bizarre notion that superior firepower, training and equipment should be eschewed in favour of a 'fair fight' if the other guy hasn't got the same crap you've got.

I don't think further proof is needed in this case and it's blatantly obvious that the tactics used in this war (such as firing cruisemissiles from outside Iraqi territory, and everything else I've listed before) is low, cowardly behaviour. When fighting a cowardly enemy and it's not possible to confront him openly, what do you expect the resistance does?

The fact that they even HAVE a RoE is significant in itself, especially when their opponents don't bother observing a similar RoE.

Wow, how strange is it that they won't confront their cowardly enemy openly... If they follow the rules of engagement, they get blasted to pieces in milliseconds, without any chance to firing a shot themselves.

You know, I could turn your 'logic' right around and call these 'freedom fighters' cowards for ambushing tactics and guerrila warfare. I won't, because that's STUPID. You fight with whatever you can, however you can; war isn't a fucking sporting event.

Well capturing people that don't have the means to fight back actually was cowardly... but understandable in these circumstances. As for the ambushes, it's not cowardly because the ambushed people often have the means to shoot back, thus inflicing casualties on the attacker.

I still disagree with you and stand by my points.

It's too bad your points are full of shit. According to you it's acceptable to kill soldiers taken captive, when the REVERSE doesn't occur on the US side.

May I remind you that the killings (at least the first) were declared a direct response to the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners? It didn't happen before that, did it? Also I said before, it would be perfectly acceptable for BOTH sides to kill prisoners when both sides are the agressor and they have similar technologial means (in the cases of a fair fight).

The terrorists are not obligated to cause their terror, and this doesn't serve the notion of 'freedom' you want it to; their cause isn't served by their actions. There is nothing acceptable about their actions and your points are full of shit.

At least they believe their cause is served by their actions, which is what matters.

The US doesn't do the same thing, therefore they still retain the moral high ground (murky though it is). The deliberate kidnappings and executions are not the same thing as taking prisoners after a battle, therefore your point about it being a 'legitimate tactic' is unwarranted and untenable.

Maybe because the resistance is unable to put up much that looks like a battle to you?

The insurgents goal of fighting for the freedom of Iraq is again misleading; where were these insurgents when Iraq was lead by Saddam? Why weren't these 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' fighting the good fight against the Big Bad UN with it's economic sanctions against Iraq? If the 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS' want Iraq free, why aren't the Iraqi's rising up against the Americans and openly revolting?

There were groups that resisted Saddam. How could they do anything about the UN? And the US is known to shoot protestors or let people that openly refuse to cooperate lose their job and subject them to harrassment, or even throw them in prison.

Basically you haven't provided a satisfactory reason why it was justifiable for the insurgents to execute the US soldier. Doing so did not advance their so-called 'cause' of 'FREEDOM!', and of course the Americans are cowardly in their RoE while at the same time the insurgents use 'perfectly acceptable' terror tactics.

I hope my above statements fully cleared that up.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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...

Oh, ok, since when did Tu Quoque become a valid argument? Would it work both ways? We earned blowing people up in Iraq because Saddam tried to kill GHW Bush?

Maybe soldiers don't sign up to be captured and summarily executed for political ends by armed fanatics, idiot.

I understand people who are opposed to the failures in US Policy. What I don't understand are people who're so biased they're basically supporting the enemy.

[Sokartawi]

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.

Well shall we examine that?
Art4 A-1 is for troops who belong to the regular or irregular armed forces of a recognised enemy power. This means any regular Iraqi troops as well as any milita who were captured before the Baathist regime disintegrated. These fellows are indeed PoW according to the GEN-Con. After the fall of the Saddam regime the remaining Iraqi milita fall under Art4 A-2, where they fail rather miserably to comply with the requirements as demonstrated in Falluja..

What does the fact that Saddam fell have anything to do with these? The party in the conflict still remains, so they are still under A-1. The war never ended.

Under Art4 A-3 any of the Taliban milita captured before the Taliban regime fell appart is also PoWs. Any captured after that fall under Art4 A-2.
A-Q and the rest of the Jihadi international brigades were never part of the Taliban regular forces or served as a milita under Saddam so they are judged under Art4 A-2. There they fail to comply on all points! The GEN-Con is not like civilian laws and regulations where you are always entitled to protection. The GEN-Con only protect you if you, and whatever milita you belong to, respect it's rules and regulations.
Also note that the definition do not put these requirements on individuals but on organizations (members of...).

Perhaps you would like to motivate your conclution that they are PoWs under Art4 A-1 & 2 before unilateraly proclaiming that it is the "End of story". Also note that being a PoW does not make you imune to prosecution for crimes.

How about the "Inhabitants of nonoccupied territory, who, on the approach of U.S. Forces, 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." part? Too bad the 'laws and customs of war' part isn't clear here though, but I think they meet that criteria as well.

[CJvR]

Your "fair play" posts were most amusing Sokartawi. I know it has been almost two centuries since Sweden fought a war so I suppose Swedes could be excused for imagining war to be a slightly brutal game of soccer. When Sweden last fought a war a battle consisted of two lines of troops blasting away with muskets.

In war you do not try to make it an exciting game by keeping the score even, whining about the unequal struggle is a luxury enjoyed by those far from the frontlines - like Sweden.

[CJvR]

What does the fact that Saddam fell have anything to do with these? The party in the conflict still remains, so they are still under A-1. The war never ended.

It has to do with the fact that there no longer is an organized command structure with a clear chain of command and responsibility. As long as the Saddam regime existed it was directly responsible for the actions of it's armed forces. Once it fell the troops became, at best an "organized resistance" under A-2 and those groupes have to behave themselves according to the four simple rules presented there.

How about the "Inhabitants of nonoccupied territory, who, on the approach of U.S. Forces, 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." part? Too bad the 'laws and customs of war' part isn't clear here though, but I think they meet that criteria as well.

Not really since they are occupied. This rule only allow a certain flexibility on the issues of command and uniform during an invasion phase, it does not allow for savagery or continued anarchy a year after the invasion ended.

I think you will find the rules and customs of war on the Avalon site, if you look for them...
Things which are absolute no-no are using civilians as shields, militarizing protected objects like mosks or hospitals and you absolutely do not saw some prisoner's head off on TV.[/quote]

[Stofsk]

The UN is not much more then a puppet institution of western powers in this case.

China and Russia are western powers.

Apparantly you missed the "in this case" part...

Doesn't matter. The point stands: the UN, made up of foreign countries, interfered with Iraq before the Americans decided to invade. So where were the 'freedom fighters' then?

It's because the US now directly aids an oppressive regime thus making it harder for the people to revolt.

So the Saudi government is oppressive, yet the terrorists don't fight them they go after the US? Yeah, real freedom fighters there...

It does. I pointed out the "choise and influence" you have in your country is not much more then an illusion.

And have little to back up your bullshit.

I don't think further proof is needed in this case and it's blatantly obvious that the tactics used in this war (such as firing cruisemissiles from outside Iraqi territory, and everything else I've listed before) is low, cowardly behaviour.

Sorry, listing the use of weaponry in it's standard operations doesn't constitute 'proof' that the US is 'cowardly'. Only by your bullshit logic. Cruise missiles are designed to be fired at long range; it is not 'low' to fire them to support the war effort.

When fighting a cowardly enemy and it's not possible to confront him openly, what do you expect the resistance does?

I don't give a flying FUCK what the resistance does, they're not on my side.

Wow, how strange is it that they won't confront their cowardly enemy openly

So the insurgents are an inferior opponent, therefore America is cowardly.

... If they follow the rules of engagement, they get blasted to pieces in milliseconds, without any chance to firing a shot themselves.

Not my problem. This doesn't prove the US is cowardly.

Well capturing people that don't have the means to fight back actually was cowardly... but understandable in these circumstances. As for the ambushes, it's not cowardly because the ambushed people often have the means to shoot back, thus inflicing casualties on the attacker.

Kidnapping people is understandable. So's parading them and executing them in some terror ritual.

My second point just sailed completely over your head, didn't it? I KNOW ambushing isn't cowardly - it's a war, you fight it any way you can - the point you stupid fucker is that the Americans are NOT OBLIGATED to fight on the Iraqi insurgent's level - why? Because war is NOT A FUCKING SPORTING EVENT, you stupid fuck. There is no 'fair' fight in war. There is no 'points scored for sportsmanship'. It's a task which you take seriously, or people on your side die. You admonish the US for fighting the way they're trained to fight, the way they're equipped to fight, the way they're ordered to fight. This is considered 'cowardly' in your screwed up fantasy world. BY YOUR VERY LOGIC, I can turn around and say the exact the same thing of the insurgents - they're cowardly for the way they choose and equip themselves to fight. I don't do that, however, because unlike you I realise holding an army to unrealistic expectations is mindnumbingly stupid.

May I remind you that the killings (at least the first) were declared a direct response to the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners?

May I remind you, arsehole, that the Americans didn't execute their prisoners without a shred of dignity like the insurgents did in their first kidnap/killing? Any moral support they (the insurgents) received was flushed down the pisser when they sliced off Berg's head.

But it doesn't matter - America is 'cowardly'. That's what Berg's killers wore fucking towels obscuring their faces, while the Yanks who posed with their humiliated prisoners took no such precautions and are now being prosecuted.

It didn't happen before that, did it? Also I said before, it would be perfectly acceptable for BOTH sides to kill prisoners when both sides are the agressor and they have similar technologial means (in the cases of a fair fight).

Then you're obviously a clueless shithead who hasn't the slightest comprehension why you take prisoners in warfare, and why you treat them well.

At least they believe their cause is served by their actions, which is what matters.

Translation: the ends justify the means. In this case the ends = spread terror, while the means = kidnap then execute prisoners. You obviously have no problem with this.

Maybe because the resistance is unable to put up much that looks like a battle to you?

Good. I am delighted they lack the resources.

There were groups that resisted Saddam. How could they do anything about the UN? And the US is known to shoot protestors or let people that openly refuse to cooperate lose their job and subject them to harrassment, or even throw them in prison.

Doesn't answer the point, just more evasive bullshit. Where were those 'Freedom fighters' before America invaded?

I hope my above statements fully cleared that up.

Dream on. Your points are still full of shit.

Once again, I point out the following:

• 1. According to you, if you're an insurgent it is perfectly acceptable to kidnap hostages, parade them in front of a camera, obscure your features to prevent accountability via identification, and finally execute the prisoner without a shred of dignity; of course, the American's are not allowed to react in same, nor have they even approached the level of cruelty the terrorists have - but they're still COWARDLY BARBARIANS.
  
  2. The 'terrorists' so-called goal is 'freedom for Iraq' - yet their chosen means to achieve this end is to spread terror. Once again, their goals are questionable considering their tactics. But don't worry - they're tactics are 'perfectly acceptable' according to you, and 'at least they believe in their cause'. Well, the Americans 'believe in their cause' - so why aren't their actions, which is less cruel and still holds a measure of accountability, acceptable?
  
  3. Because of the so-called goal of 'freedom for Iraq' you'd expect the country to be in open revolt... oh wait, that's not happening is it? But what about all those 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS!' who are fighting the good fight against the big bad? Where were these 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS!' when Iraq was under the tender boot of Saddam? Or dealing with a decade worth of UN sanctions, which later went on to foreign exploitation (Food for Oil)? And how come these terrorists are called 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS!' when the Americans are in the same stated position of securing the freedom for Iraqis? But don't worry - they're foreign devils, while the terrorists who kidnap hostages and execute them in front of a video camera are 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS!'

[Coyote]

Well, Sokartawi, read your link and to be honest I found nothing to distinguish it from anyy other news report I've seen about the Iraq situation. I am very sceptical of the media's portrayal of Iraq and what is going on here because I find, consistently, that what the world at large is being told is nothing like the reality that we live here.

Many soldiers have gone home on leave, only to return and say that they cannot comprehend the war that is being portrayed to the American people (I don't know anyone that took leave in a foreign country so I do not know about their impressions). The media, remember, is abuisiness, and their purpose is to make money-- enlightening the public comes in a distant second.

THe war here is portrayed very badly, as if death, fire, and blood dominate our every waking moments, and a human sea of seething, angry Iraqis stalks us at every street waiting for a chance to strike.

The people my platoon works with almost every day are regular-Joe blue-collar Iraqi truck drivers. Many are Shi'a, a couple are Christian. I think a couple Sunnis but not usually. They are friendly and enjoy working with us. Their lives are on the line because they are as much targets as we are. One man lost his truck-- his livelihood-- in a terrorist attack. The rest of them continued to stay with us, disregarding this 'warning' from the terrorists.

Another man took AK fire as we were driving and lost half the toes on his foot. The rest of the drivers stayed with us and are grateful to us for being here. So much for your "pro-Iraqi-people freedom fighters".

We drive past a village that was part of the pro-Sadr uprising. They had graffiti painted on a building: "No no USA". The children would be pulled in and we'd drive through empty, silent streets. But Sadr never had more the 350 fighters with him at any time, and he was ostracized by the majority of the Shi'a community. The US Administration here pulled its head out and negotiated with the guy, finding out that what most of his people wanted were jobs and a feeling of a future. The CPA incorported his militia into the new Iraqi army and put them on a solid payroll. No the children greet us in thestreet and wave and salute, the sign was partially painted over andnow reads "USA #1", and the people are out carrying out their daily business as we drive by.

We drive within a stones throw of Tikrit itself. We pass by the tombs of Uday and Qusay. We are not in some quiet happy backwater or safe at BIAP. Farmers run out of their fields and warn us when people have planted roadside bombs. THere is no sympathy for the foreign terrorists.

The Iraqis hated Saddam and wanted him gone but did not have the strength to do it, and were frequently infiltrated by informants. In safe happy Sweden it may be hard to imagine how a tyrant would keep a population divided, unsure, and under surveillance. If your raised your voice in protest in Saddam's Iraq, you and your whole family would pay, including the children.

The news portrays Iraq as a killing field of unspeakable brutality and hate, but that does not square with the experiences that many of us have here. The news is political and interested in making money. Stories about chidren laughing and waving in the streets when a US column rolls by-- I've seen it happen-- does not grab attention like a bomb blast and shattered human remains on the street. Also bear in mind that the terrorists are killing Iraqis, schoolkids as well as police and military.

There is a lot going on here that the news does not portray. If you trust civilian news agencies as your sole source of information, thenyou are getting a fraction of the story-- the fraction chosen by an editor who needs something sensational to sell print and make money. Bear that in mind.

[Sokartawi]

What does the fact that Saddam fell have anything to do with these? The party in the conflict still remains, so they are still under A-1. The war never ended.

It has to do with the fact that there no longer is an organized command structure with a clear chain of command and responsibility. As long as the Saddam regime existed it was directly responsible for the actions of it's armed forces. Once it fell the troops became, at best an "organized resistance" under A-2 and those groupes have to behave themselves according to the four simple rules presented there.

They never surrendered so the party is still there. That Saddam himself is now gone is irrelevant.

How about the "Inhabitants of nonoccupied territory, who, on the approach of U.S. Forces, 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." part? Too bad the 'laws and customs of war' part isn't clear here though, but I think they meet that criteria as well.

Not really since they are occupied. This rule only allow a certain flexibility on the issues of command and uniform during an invasion phase, it does not allow for savagery or continued anarchy a year after the invasion ended.

We were talking about the prisoners in Guantanamo whose status was doubtful, who were captured in Afghanistan which was not occupied territory at that time.

I think you will find the rules and customs of war on the Avalon site, if you look for them...
Things which are absolute no-no are using civilians as shields, militarizing protected objects like mosks or hospitals and you absolutely do not saw some prisoner's head off on TV.

I'll have a peek at that later.

[Sokartawi]

China and Russia are western powers.

Apparantly you missed the "in this case" part...

Doesn't matter. The point stands: the UN, made up of foreign countries, interfered with Iraq before the Americans decided to invade. So where were the 'freedom fighters' then?

They never had the chance to strike at the UN AS I SAID ALREADY.

It's because the US now directly aids an oppressive regime thus making it harder for the people to revolt.

So the Saudi government is oppressive, yet the terrorists don't fight them they go after the US? Yeah, real freedom fighters there...

Still using your definition of freedom I see.

It does. I pointed out the "choise and influence" you have in your country is not much more then an illusion.

And have little to back up your bullshit.

Since you cannot create an effictive politcial party YOURSELF that has any hope to gain real political influence (the ability to create political parties is also a criterium for any democratic nation), you might have the rights in THEORY but in reality they mean nothing.

I don't think further proof is needed in this case and it's blatantly obvious that the tactics used in this war (such as firing cruisemissiles from outside Iraqi territory, and everything else I've listed before) is low, cowardly behaviour.

Sorry, listing the use of weaponry in it's standard operations doesn't constitute 'proof' that the US is 'cowardly'. Only by your bullshit logic. Cruise missiles are designed to be fired at long range; it is not 'low' to fire them to support the war effort.

Of course it's low to use them against an enemy that has no defence against them. It's like taking a group of your friends, arming them with baseball bats, and walking into a kindergarten and start to beat kids up. Unfair fight, no defence, nothing more then a cowardly action.

When fighting a cowardly enemy and it's not possible to confront him openly, what do you expect the resistance does?

I don't give a flying FUCK what the resistance does, they're not on my side.

If you didn't give a fuck that they use these tactics, then why are you whining here?

Wow, how strange is it that they won't confront their cowardly enemy openly

So the insurgents are an inferior opponent, therefore America is cowardly.

America is cowardly by killing people that do not have any change to fight back. Yes I know it's a bloody war, but that doesn't make it any less cowardly.

... If they follow the rules of engagement, they get blasted to pieces in milliseconds, without any chance to firing a shot themselves.

Not my problem. This doesn't prove the US is cowardly.

See above answers.

Well capturing people that don't have the means to fight back actually was cowardly... but understandable in these circumstances. As for the ambushes, it's not cowardly because the ambushed people often have the means to shoot back, thus inflicing casualties on the attacker.

Kidnapping people is understandable. So's parading them and executing them in some terror ritual.

Under these circumstances, yes.

My second point just sailed completely over your head, didn't it? I KNOW ambushing isn't cowardly - it's a war, you fight it any way you can - the point you stupid fucker is that the Americans are NOT OBLIGATED to fight on the Iraqi insurgent's level - why? Because war is NOT A FUCKING SPORTING EVENT, you stupid fuck. There is no 'fair' fight in war. There is no 'points scored for sportsmanship'. It's a task which you take seriously, or people on your side die.

I understand that perfectly, but that doesn't make it any less cowardly.

You admonish the US for fighting the way they're trained to fight, the way they're equipped to fight, the way they're ordered to fight. This is considered 'cowardly' in your screwed up fantasy world. BY YOUR VERY LOGIC, I can turn around and say the exact the same thing of the insurgents - they're cowardly for the way they choose and equip themselves to fight. I don't do that, however, because unlike you I realise holding an army to unrealistic expectations is mindnumbingly stupid.

I ALREADY SAID some of their tactics (capturing/killing of unarmed civilians, who have no defence) is cowardly! The same logic applies to them. If they drop their weapons and beat the dude up then at least they give him a chance to fight back

May I remind you that the killings (at least the first) were declared a direct response to the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners?

May I remind you, arsehole, that the Americans didn't execute their prisoners without a shred of dignity like the insurgents did in their first kidnap/killing? Any moral support they (the insurgents) received was flushed down the pisser when they sliced off Berg's head.
But it doesn't matter - America is 'cowardly'. That's what Berg's killers wore fucking towels obscuring their faces, while the Yanks who posed with their humiliated prisoners took no such precautions and are now being prosecuted.

May I remind you they did other things with prisoners. Just isolated cases? Well first of all I don't believe that, and secondly, not all insurgents are chopping off heads either.

It didn't happen before that, did it? Also I said before, it would be perfectly acceptable for BOTH sides to kill prisoners when both sides are the agressor and they have similar technologial means (in the cases of a fair fight).

Then you're obviously a clueless shithead who hasn't the slightest comprehension why you take prisoners in warfare, and why you treat them well.

I understand that perfectly.
Got to go now.

[CJvR]

They never surrendered so the party is still there. That Saddam himself is now gone is irrelevant.

There is no evidence that there even exist a remnant of the Baathist goverment anywhere. What do remain are small ex-Feddayin milita cells and other Baathist diehards. If the Baathist regime still survives where is it? A regime does not survive simply because it never signed it's own surrender for a regime to survive it have to exist first and the Baathist don't. Thus A-2 for them.

We were talking about the prisoners in Guantanamo whose status was doubtful, who were captured in Afghanistan which was not occupied territory at that time.

OK. How are you going to fit a pack of trained and organized Arab A-Q fighters into disorganized Afghan civilians? The Taliban milita is covered under A-3 as the regular armed force of an unrecognized power although the absence of any form of Taliban authority nowdays should place them under category A-2 instead.