• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

Agent Ferris said:
No actually that's the only interpretation as it is the plain English interpretation,

the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

Who is "their", "their" refers to the "Powers who are parties thereto," this is basic grammar and syntax sport. Find yourself an English tutor.
Click to expand...

:rofl

My grandfather is tenured English professor from Virginia University. He came to America through a Fullbright Scholarship.

Now, since you do not understand English grammar concepts, let's take a look at the First Geneva Convention commentary:
International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention
2. ' Relations between Contracting and non-Contracting Parties '

The second sentence added by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949 has certainly the characteristics of a compromise, inasmuch as it does not come to a decision between the suspensive and the resolutory conditions. At first sight it appears to incline towards the Belgian amendment. (11) But, whereas the latter did not make the Convention applicable until after the formal acceptance of the non-Contracting Power, the sentence adopted by the Diplomatic Conference drops any reference to an invitation to be made to the non-Contracting Power, and substitutes [p.35] for the words "as from the latter Power's acceptance" the words "if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof".
What then is the position in the interval between the launching of hostilities and the non-Contracting belligerent's acceptance? Is the Contracting Power released from all obligation?
The passage of the report just quoted shows how this not very clear provision should be interpreted. The Conventions, it says, should be regarded "as being the codification of rules which are generally recognized", and it is in their spirit that the Contracting States "shall apply them, in so far as possible". (12)
Click to expand...



Agent Ferris said:
No they are bound insofar as the opposing side is a member of the high contracting party.
Click to expand...
International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention
It was in 1929 that the need for making the provision more explicit was first felt. Article 25 of the 1929 Convention Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' said that "The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances". The idea was to give a more formal character to the mutual undertaking by insisting on its character as a general obligation. It was desired to avoid the possibility of a belligerent State finding some pretext for evading its obligation to apply the whole or part of the Convention.
The provision adopted in 1949 has the effect of strengthening that of 1929. This is due both to the prominent position which it is given at the beginning of the Convention and to its actual wording. By undertaking at the very outset to respect the clauses of the Convention, the Contracting Parties draw attention to the special character of that instrument. It is not an engagement concluded on a basis of reciprocity, binding each party to the contract only in so far as the other party observes its obligations. It is rather a series of unilateral engagements solemnly contracted before the world as represented by the other Contracting Parties.
Click to expand...
Agent Ferris said:
No it has to do with a signatory being bound to a non-signatory if the latter accepts and upholds the Conventions.
Click to expand...
See above.



Agent Ferris said:
Article 2 has nothing to do with article 13 in the first place, the people in the video do not fall under any of the categories listed in article 13:


Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:



O.K. hotshot which category do these people fall under?
Click to expand...
WOW

We are talking about Article 18, which allows inhabitants and relief societies to collect the wounded and sick. Inhabitants and relief societies are not unlawful combatants. They are protected by the First Geneva Convention.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
:rofl

My grandfather is tenured English professor from Virginia University. He came to America through a Fullbright Scholarship.
Click to expand...

Then have him tutor you in plain English, because that sentence you bolded was in regards to the mutual relations between two or more high contracting parties.

Now, since you do not understand English grammar concepts, let's take a look at the First Geneva Convention commentary:
International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention
Click to expand...

Next time why not trying to post the rest:

The spirit and character of the Conventions conclusively indicate that the Contracting Party must apply their provisions from the moment hostilities break out until such time as the adverse Party has had the time and an opportunity of stating his intentions.

The non-contracting party in the Iraq war has clearly had time and opportunity to state their intent to uphold the GC's, however, quite to the contrary they have stated their intent through actions that they intend to violate nearly every provision therein.

International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention


See above.p
Click to expand...

"It is not an engagement concluded on a basis of reciprocity, binding each party to the contract only in so far as the other party observes its obligations."

That means that if one of the high contracting parties violates the GC the other High Contracting Party is still bound to them, but we are not talking about signatories to the GC in the first place so the point is mute.


WOW

We are talking about Article 18, which allows inhabitants and relief societies to collect the wounded and sick. Inhabitants and relief societies are not unlawful combatants. They are protected by the First Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Wow is fooking right.

Article 13 defines the wounded and sick entitled to that treatment:

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(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 civil 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.
(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 in 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.
Click to expand...

The people who were shot, hadn't surrendered, and were possibly still in fighting condition did not fall into any of those categories therefor they were not protected by the conventions. Once again Article 13 is in the GC specifically for these types of circumstances, because when the enemy doesn't wear a uniform then how is one supposed to differentiate between a van coming into help combatants escape and/or aid in the fighting and innocent concerned citizens?
 
they don't wear uniforms, because they are not in the Military. they are simply in their own village, on the other side of the World, trying to protect what little they have. Wouldn't you act the same way, if we were invaded?? would you just lay down and take it in the Kiester???
 
Skateguy said:
they don't wear uniforms, because they are not in the Military.
Click to expand...

They don't wear uniforms, because they intentionally intermingle with civilians in order to use civilian sectors as cover to launch attacks, and they don't wear uniforms so as to more easily target civilians.

they are simply in their own village, on the other side of the World, trying to protect what little they have. Wouldn't you act the same way, if we were invaded?? would you just lay down and take it in the Kiester???
Click to expand...

Ya because we're there to steal the goats and crops of innocent herders and farmers. :roll: In actuality what they were doing is taking up arms in order to cause instability to take down a fledgling democracy and re-institute a tyranny of the minority as it was prior to the take down of the Tikriti Baathist elite. But ya keep on believing in this noble peasant warrior fantasy that you've constructed for yourself, it sounds like you'd make a good Islamist propagandist, you've already got the pro-insurgent mentality, the twoofer mentality, now all's you got to do is close the gap and blame it on the JOOS.

As to what I would do if I were them I would have joined the Iraqi military and be grateful for the chance that I was given to be out from under the jack boots of one of the most oppressive regimes in the latter half of the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Ya because we're there to steal their goats. :roll: In actuality what they were doing is taking up arms in order to cause instability to take down a fledgling democracy and re-institute a tyranny of the minority as it was prior to the take down of the Tikriti Baathist elite. But ya keep on believing in this noble peasant warrior fantasy that you've constructed for yourself, it sounds like you'd make a good Islamist propagandist, you've already got the pro-insurgent mentality, the twoofer mentality, now all's you got to do is close the gap and blame it on the JOOS.

As to what I would do if I were them I would have joined the Iraqi military and be grateful for the chance that I was given to be out from under the jack boots of one of the most oppressive regimes in the latter half of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Cool--so one question. when did what they do over there, become our business?? don't we have fish to fry, right here at home??
 
Skateguy said:
Cool--so one question. when did what they do over there, become our business?? don't we have fish to fry, right here at home??
Click to expand...

It became our business after Saddam's numerous acts of war which he perpetrated against the U.S.. It became our business after Saddam started recruiting from and cooperating with radicalized Islamist organizations (including AQ affiliates) in order to stage attacks against the U.S. and its interests.
 
Agent Ferris said:
It became our business after Saddam's numerous acts of war which he perpetrated against the U.S.. It became our business after Saddam started recruiting from and cooperating with radicalized Islamist organizations (including AQ affiliates) in order to stage attacks against the U.S. and its interests.
Click to expand...
Ah, ain't he like dead and stuff?
 
Agent Ferris said:
Ah, like in the words of Colin Powell: "you break it you buy it."
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about nice porclin here. Or even expensive electronics. We are talking about people here. You shouldn't break and then buy people.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
We aren't talking about nice porclin here. Or even expensive electronics. We are talking about people here. You shouldn't break and then buy people.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a country here, you can't go in, take down their government, hurt infrastructure, etc and then just leave without leaving them with stability in your wake.
 
Agent Ferris said:
They don't wear uniforms, because they intentionally intermingle with civilians in order to use civilian sectors as cover to launch attacks, and they don't wear uniforms so as to more easily target civilians.
Click to expand...
Got any proof of that or is that just what makes it easier for you?

Ya because we're there to steal the goats and crops of innocent herders and farmers. :roll: In actuality what they were doing is taking up arms in order to cause instability to take down a fledgling democracy and re-institute a tyranny of the minority as it was prior to the take down of the Tikriti Baathist elite. But ya keep on believing in this noble peasant warrior fantasy that you've constructed for yourself, it sounds like you'd make a good Islamist propagandist, you've already got the pro-insurgent mentality, the twoofer mentality, now all's you got to do is close the gap and blame it on the JOOS.
Click to expand...
In actuality we are there to steal US taxpayer money and give it to the rich by way of contracts. We are also there to steal Saddam's wealth and secure oil contracts.

As to what I would do if I were them I would have joined the Iraqi military and be grateful for the chance that I was given to be out from under the jack boots of one of the most oppressive regimes in the latter half of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
What if you were doing just fine under Saddam like many were? You know, sorta like the way people did really well under Clinton all the while bitching about him... you weren't one of them were you? :roll:

Edit: Also, what would you do if the military was disbanded?
 
Last edited:
NoJingoLingo said:
Got any proof of that or is that just what makes it easier for you?


In actuality we are there to steal US taxpayer money and give it to the rich by way of contracts. We are also there to steal Saddam's wealth and secure oil contracts.


What if you were doing just fine under Saddam like many were? You know, sorta like the way people did really well under Clinton all the while bitching about him... you weren't one of them were you? :roll:

Edit: Also, what would you do if the military was disbanded?
Click to expand...





Poor saddam, the Evil US took him out. :doh
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Poor saddam, the Evil US took him out. :doh
Click to expand...
If you were interested in more than blind jingoism you might understand that most people who would agree with me don't give two ****s about Saddam, we're more interested in how and why our government got us into both wars.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
If you were interested in more than blind jingoism you might understand that most people who would agree with me don't give two ****s about Saddam, we're more interested in how and why our government got us into both wars.
Click to expand...




you called people rescuing insurgents "heros" and our troops "murderers", the people that agree with you are anti-American enemy loving assholes. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
you called people rescuing insurgents "heros" and our troops "murderers", the people that agree with you are anti-American enemy loving assholes. :shrug:
Click to expand...
You called our troops assholes and pedophiles so what's your beef?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
you called people rescuing insurgents "heros" and our troops "murderers", the people that agree with you are anti-American enemy loving assholes. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's a strawman...

the 'heros' were not insurgents, but people that with the available video evidence, were doing nothing more then offering assistance to a wounded man on the street.

Also, noone was calling our troops 'murderers', but JUST that 1 gunner who SEEMINGLY lied to his command in order to get authorization to shoot down the van and the people inside it...

Now, (yes, I'm mixing topics here) if it's american to shoot civilians, throw dogs off cliffs, rape children so their parents will talk (among other forms of torture), to warrantlessly spy on civilians, etc... then I suppose yes I am 'anti-american'... however, it's more accurate to say that I'm against these types of crimes against humanity.

I'm not 'anti-war', if our country was being invaded then I would take up arms to protect the homeland... however, I am against wars of conquest and imperialism. I am for a just war, I am against a war that requires 30 pages of ambiguous justification that includes flawed (or plain fraudulant) intelligence.

I am for interrogation techniques that extract the most accurate information as quickly as possible, but I'm against 'enhanced interrorgation' that's no different then torture.

i am for the troops, but against any criminals among them.

Sorry for speaking for NoJingoLingo, but he's expressed many opinions similar to mine on this one.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Got any proof of that or is that just what makes it easier for you?
Click to expand...

Yes the proof is that they don't wear uniforms, don't carry arms openly, stage attacks in civilian sectors, and intentionally target civilians.

In actuality we are there to steal US taxpayer money and give it to the rich by way of contracts.
Click to expand...

Got any proof of that or is that just what makes it easier for you?

We are also there to steal Saddam's wealth and secure oil contracts.
Click to expand...

In actuality as stated in the Iraqi Constitution the Iraqi people through their elected representatives own their own oil for the first time in their history. And the contracts were entered into willingly with the elected representatives of the Iraqi people and unlike with Saddam the oil revenues are distributed equitably to the Iraqi populace rather than horded for the Tikriti elite, and the PSA's are far more fair than the ones Saddam (without the consent of the Iraqi people) entered into with the Russians and the Chinese.

What if you were doing just fine under Saddam like many were?
Click to expand...

Yes Mr. Penn they were flying kites and singing songs, it was rainbows and lolipops dont'cha know? :roll:

You know, sorta like the way people did really well under Clinton all the while bitching about him... you weren't one of them were you? :roll:
Click to expand...


Wait did you just compare life under Clinton to life under Saddam? lmfao wow!
Edit: Also, what would you do if the military was disbanded?
Click to expand...

The Baathist regime was disbanded and by proxy so was the Baathist military, however, a new military was created controlled by the Iraqi people through their elected representatives.
 
Agent Ferris said:
In actuality as stated in the Iraqi Constitution the Iraqi people through their elected representatives own their own oil for the first time in their history. And the contracts were entered into willingly with the elected representatives of the Iraqi people and unlike with Saddam the oil revenues are distributed equitably to the Iraqi populace rather than horded for the Tikriti elite, and the PSA's are far more fair than the ones Saddam (without the consent of the Iraqi people) entered into with the Russians and the Chinese.


.
Click to expand...

If the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people and it's revenues distributed equitably to the Iraqi populace why aren't American oil revenues distributed equitably to Americans? Sounds like we created a socialistic state of Iraq.
Those Iraqi oil profits should be going to US taxpayers that liberated and are rebuilding their country.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
If the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people and it's revenues distributed equitably to the Iraqi populace why aren't American oil revenues distributed equitably to Americans? Sounds like we created a socialistic state of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Because the oil was already nationalized and the Iraqi people wanted it to remain that way.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
If you were interested in more than blind jingoism you might understand that most people who would agree with me don't give two ****s about Saddam, we're more interested in how and why our government got us into both wars.
Click to expand...

It's no secret those reason can easily be found in the AUMF against Iraq which was passed by a joint session of Congress and signed by the POTUS.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Yes the proof is that they don't wear uniforms, don't carry arms openly, stage attacks in civilian sectors, and intentionally target civilians.
Click to expand...
OK so the insurgents don't wear uniforms, don't carry arms openly, stage attacks in civilian sectors, and intentionally target civilians.

Noncombatants don't wear uniforms, don't carry arms openly either so how do you tell the two apart if they are not staging attacks in civilian sectors, and intentionally targeting civilians, like the people in the van.

Got any proof of that or is that just what makes it easier for you?
Click to expand...
Haliburton's nobid contract is a good place to start.

In actuality as stated in the Iraqi Constitution the Iraqi people through their elected representatives own their own oil for the first time in their history. And the contracts were entered into willingly with the elected representatives of the Iraqi people and unlike with Saddam the oil revenues are distributed equitably to the Iraqi populace rather than horded for the Tikriti elite, and the PSA's are far more fair than the ones Saddam (without the consent of the Iraqi people) entered into with the Russians and the Chinese.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you decided not to even bother denying that one. OK, so far we got oil and contracts for tax money. Moving on...

Yes Mr. Penn they were flying kites and singing songs, it was rainbows and lolipops dont'cha know? :roll:
Click to expand...
Poor attempt at obfuscation. Are you going to deny that some people did very well under Saddam's regime? I thought not. That's three up and three down...

Wait did you just compare life under Clinton to life under Saddam? lmfao wow!
Click to expand...
No I didn't. Let's see if you can figure out what the comparison actually was.

The Baathist regime was disbanded and by proxy so was the Baathist military, however, a new military was created controlled by the Iraqi people through their elected representatives.
Click to expand...
Yeah and so... did you actually read my question? :confused:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
OK so the insurgents don't wear uniforms, don't carry arms openly, stage attacks in civilian sectors, and intentionally target civilians.

Noncombatants don't wear uniforms, don't carry arms openly either so how do you tell the two apart if they are not staging attacks in civilian sectors, and intentionally targeting civilians, like the people in the van.
Click to expand...

That's the point which is why according to article 13 the First Geneva Conventions does not apply to the people in the video.

Haliburton's nobid contract is a good place to start.
Click to expand...

A) There was no other company on the planet capable of undertaking the tasks in Iraq which Halliburton was charged with so just who was supposed to bid with them?

B) Who and to what end would someone stage a war simply to benefit Halliburton?

I'm glad you decided not to even bother denying that one. OK, so far we got oil and contracts for tax money. Moving on...
Click to expand...

A) It wasn't tax money these were private companies that entered into the PSA's with Iraq.

B) Oh no, democratically elected government entered into a voluntary and mutually beneficial contract, say it isn't so.

Poor attempt at obfuscation. Are you going to deny that some people did very well under Saddam's regime? I thought not. That's three up and three down...
Click to expand...

Ya some people did extremely well under Saddam, for example the Tikriti Baathist elite who were living it up while the masses starved.

No I didn't. Let's see if you can figure out what the comparison actually was.
Click to expand...

The comparison doing well under Saddam to people doing well under Clinton. Are you asserting that Iraq was better off under Saddam?

Yeah and so... did you actually read my question? :confused:
Click to expand...

I already told you join the new military (which wasn't the enforcement arm of the Baathist regime) and help defend my newfound freedom.
 
It is plain to see, the evolutionary train did not come near here. :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom