NationStates Jolt Archive

Army investigators have concluded that no charges will be filed against soldiers posting pics of dead bodys on a website. SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050928/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/corpse_photos)

The owner of the website also says that he has no plans to remove the pics, and still plans to let soldiers post.Anybody care to comment?

There really is nothing to say. Just another in a long line of US disgraces.

There really is nothing to say. Just another in a long line of US disgraces.
Oh, bullshit, Fass! I don't often take issue with you anymore, but on this one I have to.

It's hardly a disgrace, but it certainly doesn't speak very well of those few soldiers who did this. They have dishonored their dead brothers. But I can well understand their intense desire to find an alternative to actual sex, especially in an Islamic society. Give the poor guys a break, willya?

May the gods forgive me, but ill have to defend the americans.


The internet is a place for free discussion of everything. If we are allowed to say anything, than why not be allowed to post the images we want? I mean, why are they worse than I, that am a regular user of rotten.com? At most, i'd call them stupid not knowing were to get free porn :P but call them a disgrace? Why, for using the right of free speech? For posting the reality that war isnt funny, pretty or clean? They have their right.

I think disgraceful is the attempt of the US admnistration to hide what happens to US soldiers, because they have horrible deaths too, but those pictures seem never to surface.

Well, this is extremely bad taste...and I don't like this seemingly obvious connections between dead people and porn :eek:

It didn't say whether they were dead US soldiers or dead "evildoers".
I'd like to see what the parents of US servicemen/women would say if pictures of their mutilated bodies would be exchanged for porn.

To be of extremely bad taste here: Eutrusca, what would you have said if any buddies from the war had been killed and people made photos of their bodies to swap for issues of whatever was in then (Playboy and Penthouse I assume...)

I have to agree with Fass here, it really is a disgrace.

Blah blah blah disgrace blah blah.

I can think of a hundred websites that show disgusting pictures. And *gasp* many of them make money off it! So, let's see the threads ranting about how disgraceful to America rotten/com is... I'm waiting.

Blah blah blah disgrace blah blah.

I can think of a hundred websites that show disgusting pictures. And *gasp* many of them make money off it! So, let's see the threads ranting about how disgraceful to America rotten/com is... I'm waiting.
That is a completely different thing.

Rotten.com isn't US soldiers (representing the US) trading pictures of dead people in exchange for free porn.

That is a completely different thing.

Rotten.com isn't US soldiers (representing the US) trading pictures of dead people in exchange for free porn.

No, it's US citizens (representing the US) trading pictures of dead people in exchange for money.

I fail to see what's so drastically different about the two that one is normal and the other is a disgrace.

There are people out there who may be the families of those who are dead.
By the sounds of it, these corpses, whose images are being traded for some minor titilation, are those of dead Iraqis and Afganistanis.

Eutrusca.
Believe it or not, men are able to live without the dire need for soft porn or prostitutes, (as you seem to infer in your posting) how do you think they managed before the internet?

Portu Cale MK3.
I believe very strongly in free speech, I believe that war is becoming too sanitised and yes people should be able to see what a gun/bomb/rocket shell can and will do to the human body.
However, can you honestly say that this is the right way to do it and for the right reasons? Where's the commentry? Where's the remorse? Where's the morality?
There is none, these soldiers are saying "Here, look, I scraped this Iraqi off the pavement today, see his guts are all over the road still.....Now give me a picture of some naked woman so that I can get me rocks off"

Oh yes, free speech well worth defending.

No, it's US citizens (representing the US) trading pictures of dead people in exchange for money.

I fail to see what's so drastically different about the two that one is normal and the other is a disgrace.
US Citizens aren't paid by the state to represent it, US soldiers are. US soldiers are there in an official capacity as a paid official of the United States of America, a US citizen in Iraq is not.

Oh yes, free speech well worth defending.
All free speech is well worth defending.

Odd..
if there were pictures posted on forums of Iraqi or Taliban soldiers showing strung up dead, mutilated and dismembered GI's- pointing and laughing at them in a "Hey Mom, look what i got today, some fuckin' hick from the States.. see how his guts are smeared all over the windshield of his Humvee..." fashion, there would be absolute uproar on here, demanding 'kill em all'....

nice guys, real nice.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Odd..
if there were pictures posted on forums of Iraqi or Taliban soldiers showing strung up dead, mutilated and dismembered GI's- pointing and laughing at them in a "Hey Mom, look what i got today, some fuckin' hick from the States.. see how his guts are smeared all over the windshield of his Humvee..." fashion, there would be absolute uproar on here, demanding 'kill em all'....

nice guys, real nice.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Agreed.

All free speech is well worth defending.
Mmm... I'll choose to differ on that one, Nadkor. While free speech is worth defending, like all forms of absolutism, totally unfettered freedom of speech isn't necessarily "well" worth defending.

Take hate speech; while some may feel moved to defend that form of free speech, there are just as many, if not more people who feel differently, who feel hate speech is justifiably limited or even prohibited. I fall into the latter category - surprise, surprise - but as for this business with the soldiers and the online wankery, well...

...You mean to tell me they don't keep the troops supplied with skin mags? Ouch. I mean, what with the US military's obscene annual budgets, you'd think they could give 'em all a subscription to some full-colour smut.

What?

Mmm... I'll choose to differ on that one, Nadkor. While free speech is worth defending, like all forms of absolutism, totally unfettered freedom of speech isn't necessarily "well" worth defending.
Oh, I wouldn't have included "well" if it didn't make the link to the quoted post immediately obvious.

US Citizens aren't paid by the state to represent it, US soldiers are. US soldiers are there in an official capacity as a paid official of the United States of America, a US citizen in Iraq is not.

US soldiers are paid to soldier, not to be "representatives." And speaking of paying, US citizens pay the taxes for said soldiers. And vote for the politicians. And ARE the United States! Don't tell me that a US citizen is not a "representative" of the US... if the people are not representative of the nation, then nothing is.

US soldiers are paid to soldier, not to be "representatives." And speaking of paying, US citizens pay the taxes for said soldiers. And vote for the politicians. And ARE the United States! Don't tell me that a US citizen is not a "representative" of the US... if the people are not representative of the nation, then nothing is.

I have really really tried to answer this without flaiming or trolling, but after the fourth attempt at it I am going to have to just shake my head and sigh.

I have really really tried to answer this without flaiming or trolling, but after the fourth attempt at it I am going to have to just shake my head and sigh.

Why? He is correct. US Soldiers are not representatives of the United States. Those are ambassadors and diplomats. But the ignorant/arrogant civilian would never know/believe that.
The harsh truth is that they are just people that kill other people in the interest of the United States. No more, no less.

Nope, deffinately can't answer that one either......
I think this is where I leave this thread......

Mmm... I'll choose to differ on that one, Nadkor. While free speech is worth defending, like all forms of absolutism, totally unfettered freedom of speech isn't necessarily "well" worth defending.

Take hate speech; while some may feel moved to defend that form of free speech, there are just as many, if not more people who feel differently, who feel hate speech is justifiably limited or even prohibited. I fall into the latter category - surprise, surprise - but as for this business with the soldiers and the online wankery, well...

...You mean to tell me they don't keep the troops supplied with skin mags? Ouch. I mean, what with the US military's obscene annual budgets, you'd think they could give 'em all a subscription to some full-colour smut.

What?

You're kidding me right? If the US military had such a big budget, then they would buy a lot of better equipment.
A lot of the humvees in Iraq are still underarmored, which really sucks when you're going against an RPG or IEDs.
The radios really suck because sunspots, storms, and other interferences render the radios useless.
Other things that could be better is the artillery and aircraft bombs. Artillery is still very inaccurate and does cause friendly fire every now and then. Better guided artillery would really help our troops, especially in urban combat.
Most aircraft drop dumb-bombs which usually miss the target. This really doesn't help our troops besides boosting their morale a bit. If we had better guided bombs, then this might be a different story.
Plus a pay raise would be pretty nice. :)

if there were pictures posted on forums of Iraqi or Taliban soldiers showing strung up dead, mutilated and dismembered GI's- pointing and laughing at them in a "Hey Mom, look what i got today, some fuckin' hick from the States.. see how his guts are smeared all over the windshield of his Humvee..."I wonder how much more porn would they get for these pics...

I wonder how much more porn would they get for these pics...

They don't need porn. They got 3 wives. :D

(j/k)

You're kidding me right? If the US military had such a big budget, then they would buy a lot of better equipment.
A lot of the humvees in Iraq are still underarmored, which really sucks when you're going against an RPG or IEDs.
The radios really suck because sunspots, storms, and other interferences render the radios useless.
Other things that could be better is the artillery and aircraft bombs. Artillery is still very inaccurate and does cause friendly fire every now and then. Better guided artillery would really help our troops, especially in urban combat.
Most aircraft drop dumb-bombs which usually miss the target. This really doesn't help our troops besides boosting their morale a bit. If we had better guided bombs, then this might be a different story.
Plus a pay raise would be pretty nice. :)

The US military spends about half of the entire world's military budget, about 470b a year, to the entire world's 500b or so.

We are incredibly wasteful with our money though. I wonder how many big screen TV's and Xbox's they needed at the MEPS station in sacramento...

Edit: Whether or not US troops can post pics online, I would hardly say US troop's aren't in trouble.

every body shut up

i haeve the s answer


dead bodyes are gross

so dont look @ them



dummys

every body shut up

i haeve the s answer


dead bodyes are gross

so dont look @ them



dummys

This man is a genius! Everyone bow down to your new god!

every body shut up

i haeve the s answer


dead bodyes are gross

so dont look @ them



dummys

Well yes I ddi say that I was going to leave the thread, but the email notifications still came through and I am SO glad that I came back in time to see this well reasoned and thought provoking post.
I am speechless, I just can't answer this as I am so ...... well.....speechless!

This man is a genius! Everyone bow down to your new god!

no no i am no god!!

i am just a man

i did it all 4 allah

May the gods forgive me, but ill have to defend the americans.


The internet is a place for free discussion of everything. If we are allowed to say anything, than why not be allowed to post the images we want? I mean, why are they worse than I, that am a regular user of rotten.com? At most, i'd call them stupid not knowing were to get free porn :P but call them a disgrace? Why, for using the right of free speech? For posting the reality that war isnt funny, pretty or clean? They have their right.

I think disgraceful is the attempt of the US admnistration to hide what happens to US soldiers, because they have horrible deaths too, but those pictures seem never to surface.


not to mention that on a daily basis in the middle east is the loving,touching images of innocent hostages being beheaded/shot...blown to pieces with chants of yea!!!(or should i say...allah akkabar)(peace loving religion and people)
or the loving and touching image of thousands in the streets after 911 cheering.(not terrorists but your average muslim)
but it was only innocent fathers/mothers/sons/daughters being murdered for no reason,but i guess since it was americans that is acceptable...because we all know america is too blame for all the evil in the world.
forget the ottoman empire,britains colonization of the world,the french colonies.the crusades,the rape of nanking.....noooo america is too blame for all evil.

at least we are trying to minimize civilian deaths,as opposed to these religous nuts that intentionally target civilians to make there so called point.

but they show it on there tv's to cheers of us infadels getting murdered....but thats ok because we are evil and they are the poor oppressed.

we have a handfull of soldiers posting it on an obscure web site(not national tv)and we are horrible and despicable people....

i checked the sight,and mostly it looked like..freedom fighters...uh bullshit...i mean religous nut job terrorists

but i also saw the video of a man bound,being beheaded....real warrior there...and real concern for non combatants.

sometimes the hypocracy of the media and of the western liberals is so overwhelming it is laughable.

they should put it on the news..to show the true horror of war....guess what...most if not all americans,myself included would and do recoil in horror,i seriously doubt we would take to the streets to see some ones mom crushed to death under a building cheering.like that peaceful religions adherents seem to enjoy...

not to slam islam,but please,i understand there is many many innocent peaceful muslims,but they cry foul when a handfull of pics from a handfull of soldiers is posted on the net,yet they stay strangely mute when it is innocent americans being beheaded on nightly news..or worse...rejoicing in the streets.

i'll save my sorrow for all the innocents murdered in the name of allah,and for the unfortunate result of war with people that attacked our innocents..ie...innocent muslims that got caught in the crossfire in a war that is not of there doing...but of there complicity of silence and lack of outrage.

if the us military started to indescrimmanately bomb civilians..or as everyones new hero saddam did and gas them(which we could easily do)the american public would be outraged...hell...the soldiers would refuse orders...period...kinda different then a suicide bombers mentality..or the silent masses of islam.

rant off....

Well, this is extremely bad taste...and I don't like this seemingly obvious connections between dead people and porn :eek:

It didn't say whether they were dead US soldiers or dead "evildoers".
I'd like to see what the parents of US servicemen/women would say if pictures of their mutilated bodies would be exchanged for porn.

To be of extremely bad taste here: Eutrusca, what would you have said if any buddies from the war had been killed and people made photos of their bodies to swap for issues of whatever was in then (Playboy and Penthouse I assume...)

I have to agree with Fass here, it really is a disgrace.
It was photos of dead "insurgents," not photos of dead American soldiers.

Secret aj man

So would it be alright for the photgraphs of those terribly mangled and crushed bodies of those who died in 9/11, to be put on the internet so that the 'donators' could have access to porn?

It was photos of dead "insurgents," not photos of dead American soldiers.

And as we all know, American soldiers are more human, more real, more important than these other human beings. Nice hypocrisy there, Eutrusca, in how it's not OK when it's American soldiers strung up like pigs with Iraqis running around them and gloating, while it's completely "understandable" when your guys do it.

You know what? It makes you no better than them. It makes me feel like the Americans who are strung up like that deserve it, because, hey, they do it themselves - they're no better. And that's not what I want to feel. That's really not what I want to feel. So I condemn them. Condemn them because I choose to believe more in that they are still the sort of people it's actually worth while to condemn, because they can still feel shame and remorse at this.

(Sorry if this comes across as disjointed, it's very early in the morning here and the topic upsets me more than I should allow it to.)

Hang on Fass, he only answered a previous query.
He made no comment on whether it was good or bad, right or wrong.

When did an American soldier shoot , burn and dismember a person , or even a terrorist and then hang them from a bridge ? WTF is he taking about ?

It was photos of dead "insurgents," not photos of dead American soldiers.


to whom you were replying too..i may add,i do recall a series of pics and video's of an american being dragged thru the streets of somalia,and of coarse the 4 contractors that were beaten,murdered,burnt and hung from a bridge in iraq...oddly to the applause of many muslims,if an american soldier beat,murdered,burnt and dragged an iraqi or anyone threw the streets ,tied to there bumper...i am pretty sure there would be tremendous outrage here in the states,the soldier would never see the light of day again.
but when it happens to an american...everyone is mute...except the thousand or so muslims cheering it on...

we have silly pics of our (a handfull) of troops humiliating some probable terrorists to get them to break,or at least to demoralize them(it is war after all)and there is worldwide outrage..

they have pics of bound and innocent noncombatants(pearl) being beheaded...oh well...they are mad and unfortunate,they have a gripe with the usa...

screw that....instead of nekid pyramids..maybe we should take a page from them on how too treat prisoners?or how about them super civilized germans in ww2 or another old sophistacated european country like france...even later then ww2..how about vietnam,i have some friends from there when the french were there..real civilized...technigues they used...or should we just fight fire with fire and just behead our prisoners...no one seems to care much about that..or is it only ok when americans are tortured and beheaded?
oh how could i forget my favorite of all..the french in algiers..bet those prisoners where swimming in champagne and coffee.

back to topic....soooooooooo what......they show beheadings of innocent people on the nightly news,we have a few pics of dead terrorists on an obscure websight you would never have heard of it it wasn't on the news or read it here.

and the porn connection is plain stupid.....the gi's wanted to see some porn,the webmaster said if your a soldier,and can prove it..you get free access...good american if you ask me..it just degenerated to the dead murderers being posted.

i will forward the pic's of the horror of war to my son..so he can see what he is in for..he is signed up. :sniper:

It was photos of dead "insurgents," not photos of dead American soldiers.And as we all know, American soldiers are more human, more real, more important than these other human beings. Nice hypocrisy there, Eutrusca....well we are the "good guys" :rolleyes:

Its very hard to communicate in a rational manner with someone who is either so blinded by his ideology that he refuses to see or so biased that he cant see the difference between the Average American Soldier ..forget average..99 % of American soldiers and 100 fucking percent of the terrorist we are fighting against . In fact I find it almost impossibile . So I am out of here. For now , I'll go smack the heavy bag for an hour or while I think of why you are worth a civilised response .

I'm glad someone metioned that. It wasn't a "dead bodies for porn" agreement. The webmaster posted a message saying Post subject: Are You A US Soldier Serving In Iraq Or Afghanistan ?

As a Thank-You for the work you do and the sacrifices you make I would like to offer you guys who want it the ability to get free access as a SUPPORTER member.

Just post a picture of you guys hanging out, or saying hi, or of other cool stuff you see while your there. Something like the kinda pictures you would be sending home to your family and friends. Lets see some tanks, guns, the place your living in, some dead Taliban, just anything. I would like to get a glimpse of what you guys are seeing over there and I think everyone here would also.

In return for your submission I will give you SUPPORTER access in the forums. When I get a few pictures I will setup a special forum called something like "Pictures From The Field" or something like that and post them all there for people to see.

Just post your pics like you would in any other forum and if I approve them I will add you to the supporter group. All real pics will be approved.

Some guys happened to have pics of bodies. MOST are just pics of them selves and their fellow soldiers. It's just way overblown by dumbass media people who like RATINGS!
BTW Heres the site, check out the actual pics, and judge for yourself! LINK (http://www.nowthatsfuckedup.com/bbs/ftopic4132.html)

I didn't intend to stir the pot on this one. My apologies.

Allow me to clarify: Besides being against the Geneva convention ( even taking pictures of dead opposition members is verboten, as I recall, much less publicizing them, which is what placing them on the Internet would be. ), it's not something of which I approve.

When I was a company commander in Vietnam, I became highly incensed at some of my men when they sat a dead Viet Cong soldier outside the wire and put a beer can in one hand and an unlit ciggarette between the fingers of the other hand. I made them take the body and bury it.

In the intensity that war can become, with your friends getting killed and all of you being constantly under fire, men can become enraged and may take that out on the enemy. Any commander worth his rank should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this.

When did an American soldier shoot , burn and dismember a person , or even a terrorist and then hang them from a bridge ? WTF is he taking about ?


See for yourself. (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html) (Graphic content warning!) The first image contains an American soldier posing triumphantly in front of a dismembered limb. The other American soldiers doing so in front of an incinerated person, calling the picture "cooked Iraqi" and this is what they exchange for pornography. That is what the world is talking about.

I didn't intend to stir the pot on this one. My apologies.

Allow me to clarify: Besides being against the Geneva convention ( even taking pictures of dead opposition members is verboten, as I recall, much less publicizing them, which is what placing them on the Internet would be. ), it's not something of which I approve.

When I was a company commander in Vietnam, I became highly incensed at some of my men when they sat a dead Viet Cong soldier outside the wire and put a beer can in one hand and an unlit ciggarette between the fingers of the other hand. I made them take the body and bury it.

In the intensity that war can become, with your friends getting killed and all of you being constantly under fire, men can become enraged and may take that out on the enemy. Any commander worth his rank should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this.
Thank you for saying the very thing I would hope and expect from the US military. (seriously, thank you)

Ah well, it was 'fun' while it lasted, yet again another discussion has come down to slagging people off and irrational comparisons.

It's the same ones who bring up the same points in the same manner time after time.

G'night all, well good morning really........

There is and always have been a demand for this kind of MORBID material. I have had one friend or another show me DVD's of dead bodies from Thailand for years, in an attempt to gross me out. The call for this type of material is best shown in the major popularity of CSI (all 3) and Law and Order (again all 3) not to mention others like shows with the theme of medical procedures. There are way too many to list. This facination is NOT limited to North America either and does not look like it will end any time too soon!

Allow me to clarify: Besides being against the Geneva convention ( even taking pictures of dead opposition members is verboten, as I recall, much less publicizing them, which is what placing them on the Internet would be. ), it's not something of which I approve.

When I was a company commander in Vietnam, I became highly incensed at some of my men when they sat a dead Viet Cong soldier outside the wire and put a beer can in one hand and an unlit ciggarette between the fingers of the other hand. I made them take the body and bury it.

In the intensity that war can become, with your friends getting killed and all of you being constantly under fire, men can become enraged and may take that out on the enemy. Any commander worth his rank should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this.

You know, my respect for the US military has actually risen appreciably as a result of this post.

Secret aj man

So would it be alright for the photgraphs of those terribly mangled and crushed bodies of those who died in 9/11, to be put on the internet so that the 'donators' could have access to porn?


umm,yea...because i believe in free speech.

keep in mind,these were people going to work and not terrorists with bombs strapped to there bodies,but some phillipino cafeteria worker,or an accountant counting beans,or someones mom laying out the next photo shoot for the hypocrites that hate america,but wear addidas running shoes.

your logic fails me..it is ok for them to kill innocents,and post and dance in the streets,but a couple of soldiers post on an obscure sight and they are evil incarnate?
all i can say is wow...

and speaking of porn..what about the 72 virgins,that aint porn?or just promising a little sumthin in the afterlife for killing innocent people is ok...wow..i am speechless.
dont bother to respond,there is no responce other the incredulity.

keep buying the line...america=bad,islamo fascists=good

just dont be gay/a women that wants to work/oh my gosh...non religous or any of a million other things they HATE.

you will rue the day when you capitulate out of misguided altruism or plain ignorance of fact.

i wish everyone got along,we could all skip thru fields of flowers...but,not when someone thinks it is acceptable to chop off some one's head to make a point.

and that is what they do..and that is were your argument breaks down..we dont chop off heads on the nightly news to the adoring crowds,yes we kill unneccasarily innocent people..but we dont intentionally target them..thats the difference...and we sure as hell dont glorify and promise virgins that kill innocent people

they do...we put people in jail for that..rightfully so...yet when we kill insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters and are glad we got a bad guy..were evil and sick...they promise porn and virgins and put it on tv every night and they cheer..yes..quite a different mindset and moral compass there if you ask me.

one can blather on and on about innocent eople being killed(sad but an unfortunate product of WAR)

but you cannot with any sense argue the morality of the 2 differing approaches.

we minimize death,and they want it and hope to kill more and the more innocent the better.

illegal war,whatever...wmd's,who knows...war for oil...why am i paying more now then b4,we should have ships carting there oil away if that was true...you know like england/france/germany did with there colonies..or is that also acceptable..as long as it is not the us...
man u hypocrites infuriate me.

i know..you all know better now...like me telling my teenager not to drink when i was a boozehound...do as i say not as i do ring a bell?

we could nuke them off the face of the planet...they would to us,why dont we...because as much as it grates all the liberal hand wringers..we have some morals...it's just easier for everyone to bitch at us cause we wont kill you...and they will.

give osama a nuke..think he would think twice about killing a million babies...really...THINK..we have tons of em,we could stop this bs now,but we dont.

we spend billions on bombs that wont kill innocents,they spend on bombs that kill innocents...need i say more.

take off the rose colored glasses,get out of the ivory tower,better yet..go there and live under there sharia law..especially you women...then tell me all about it..how you cant vote,how you can be raped and stoned for not marrying your arranged husband,how if you show your face(let alone lowrider jeans and nipple piercings)you are stoned....go have fun then come back and bitch about america trying not to kill innocents,while they aim for it...please..do me that favor and god bless you..you need it.

it is neanderthal and bringing up the back of civilazation,but keep trying to chip away at us..over a few pics(compared to the nightly beheadings)..
just be careful for what you wish(unless your a neanderthal guy that wants his bitch to keep the cave clean and fuck on demand..just dont let me catch you showing skin..you know...your face or i will stone you and get another wife from the next village over)..lovely system..jeez..how could i prefer the usa or the war against the holy and peacefull and religous muslims...fanactics that is.

if you want to sit in a cave as a women,and be treated like dirt,fine with me,just dont attack my country and say we need to be like you...go live in your cave and i promise i will not mess with you. :sniper:

*yak yak yak*

So what? Who cares what they do? Are they occupying YOUR country? No?

The reason there's such an uproar about the pictures of dead Iraqis is because we are supposed to be more civilized than they are, we are supposed to be the GOOD guys.

Good guys don't blow peoples heads open and post the pictures on the internet for the world to see with people posing triumphantly next to them.

It's been asked before but I'll go right ahead and ask it again - would you be so fast to defend "free speech" if it were photos of American soldiers with Iraqis posing triumphantly? I really fucking doubt it.

If I were to mutilate and murder your loved ones (don't take that as a threat, it's really not), and then posted pictures all over the internet - would that be alright? It's free speech.

You know, my respect for the US military has actually risen appreciably as a result of this post.


Good! Let it! These are men and women doing an unspeakable job.

Every one of us loves them and are behind them 100%.

Unforetunately, they're not doing it for the reason our government tells us they're doing it for. Chew on that.

I have served in two militaries for two different countries and I find it difficult at best to judge the actions of other soldiers, enemy or not.

But civilians seem to have no problem in doing this.

I didn't intend to stir the pot on this one. My apologies.

Allow me to clarify: Besides being against the Geneva convention ( even taking pictures of dead opposition members is verboten, as I recall, much less publicizing them, which is what placing them on the Internet would be. ), it's not something of which I approve.

When I was a company commander in Vietnam, I became highly incensed at some of my men when they sat a dead Viet Cong soldier outside the wire and put a beer can in one hand and an unlit ciggarette between the fingers of the other hand. I made them take the body and bury it.

In the intensity that war can become, with your friends getting killed and all of you being constantly under fire, men can become enraged and may take that out on the enemy. Any commander worth his rank should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this.

quite a good point as usual,i will now calm my rhetoric,i just get incensed when one side shows beheadings on the nightly news of noncoms,yet we have a few(enemy combatants) on an obscure sight and it is a tiff....99.9 % of us soldiers are honorably fighting for the freedom of the iraqi's,and they are portrayed as evil,yet on a daily basis,atrocities by the so called freedom fighters/insurgents are overlooked ...i think i need a xanax.

or a decent dose of the dead kennedys...holiday in cambodia. :confused:

See for yourself. (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html) (Graphic content warning!) The first image contains an American soldier posing triumphantly in front of a dismembered limb. The other American soldiers doing so in front of an incinerated person, calling the picture "cooked Iraqi" and this is what they exchange for pornography. That is what the world is talking about.

he was a combatant,not some poor japanese or aussie contractor trying to make some money...beheaded...try again appeaser. :mp5:

But civilians seem to have no problem in doing this.
Indeed, maybe it is because we are removed from the situation, because we can neutrally look at whether an action is right or not - clinically even.

Soldiers on the battlefield (and there hasn't been a proper battlefield for many many years indeed...) seem all to eager to simply forget the rules of proper behaviour. I suspect it is their environment, that temporarily (and sometimes permanently) screws with their heads.
Would these kids have photographed a dead guy in the streets of NYC and sold the pictures? I doubt it (unless either the military is conducive to such behaviour, or the military attracts that kind of person).

You can't expect a soldier to act properly unless he is trained perfectly. Maybe that's not possible, but I can tell you here and now that these kids were not well-trained enough. Emotion needs to stay outside - do you know what an angry soldier is? A war criminal to be.
Knowing how to handle a gun doesn't make you a soldier. That may sound funny coming from a civilian, who's far enough away from his country not to have to go into the service, but sometimes you need someone from the outside to tell you what's wrong.

So what? Who cares what they do? Are they occupying YOUR country? No?

The reason there's such an uproar about the pictures of dead Iraqis is because we are supposed to be more civilized than they are, we are supposed to be the GOOD guys.

Good guys don't blow peoples heads open and post the pictures on the internet for the world to see with people posing triumphantly next to them.

It's been asked before but I'll go right ahead and ask it again - would you be so fast to defend "free speech" if it were photos of American soldiers with Iraqis posing triumphantly? I really fucking doubt it.

If I were to mutilate and murder your loved ones (don't take that as a threat, it's really not), and then posted pictures all over the internet - would that be alright? It's free speech.

answered..but again...yes...as long as my family was attacking you and you fought them off and won...fine..
however i will agree that we are suppose to be above that,so i will concede on that point...my anger at the beheadings of innocents got the better of me..i stand corrected.

my bad and thank you for pointing out my obvious anger and vengefullness at innocent's being displayed as trophies...i was incorrect,and actually...etrusca made the point quite elonquently...and i do agree with him..we should be above the animalistic displays,but when you lose a friend..like etrusca said..emotions seem to carry the moment..my bad.

I Sed Stop Looking At Bodyes They Are Gross

Exscept Gurl Bodyes

B-)

I Sed Stop Looking At Bodyes They Are Gross

Exscept Gurl Bodyes

B-)
why do you wanna keep the gurl bodies?

why do you wanna keep the gurl bodies?

no not when thay r dead! then u putt them in a ground!!!!

when they are alive and cue tee

IT IS WHAT WE ENJOY IN MY COUNTRY TO LOOK AT WIMIN WITH LISTS IN OUR HEARTS YESYES

he was a combatant,not some poor japanese or aussie contractor trying to make some money...beheaded...try again appeaser. :mp5:

And.....?

So what if he was? That doesn't change the fact that the Geneva conv. was broken, the pictures of PEOPLE who were mutilated, dismembered and burned to death were happy-snappy posted on the internet and traded for pornography. (its not like there is a shortage of free porn)

And also, if they were Taliban or Iraqis pointing, laughing and publishing pics of brutally mutilated GI's there would be UPROAR from people just like you, baying for blood. Its hypocritical.

@Eutrusca: Thank you for that response. :)

I didn't intend to stir the pot on this one. My apologies.

Allow me to clarify: Besides being against the Geneva convention ( even taking pictures of dead opposition members is verboten, as I recall, much less publicizing them, which is what placing them on the Internet would be. ), it's not something of which I approve.

When I was a company commander in Vietnam, I became highly incensed at some of my men when they sat a dead Viet Cong soldier outside the wire and put a beer can in one hand and an unlit ciggarette between the fingers of the other hand. I made them take the body and bury it.

In the intensity that war can become, with your friends getting killed and all of you being constantly under fire, men can become enraged and may take that out on the enemy. Any commander worth his rank should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this.That's how it ought to be done. Great post, Eut! :)

Just post a picture of you guys hanging out, or saying hi, or of other cool stuff you see while your there. Something like the kinda pictures you would be sending home to your family and friends. Lets see some tanks, guns, the place your living in, some dead Taliban, just anything. According to Sick Nightmares, this is what it said on the site... Now who would send pictures of dead people home to their families? :confused:

See for yourself. (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html) (Graphic content warning!) The first image contains an American soldier posing triumphantly in front of a dismembered limb. The other American soldiers doing so in front of an incinerated person, calling the picture "cooked Iraqi" and this is what they exchange for pornography. That is what the world is talking about.

The fact that you cant see the difference between four NON combatants being shot , stabed , incinerated then dismembered and hung from a bridge w and a military action sickens me . But it does let me put you in perspective. I'll be right back I have to go wipe my shoe off .

The fact that you cant see the difference between four NON combatants being shot , stabed , incinerated then dismembered and hung from a bridge w and a military action sickens me . But it does let me put you in perspective. I'll be right back I have to go wipe my shoe off .
If you're talking about the mercenaries from last year, then it's hardly fair to call them non-combatants. They were soldiers for hire. So let's turn the tables a bit--you're a citizen of a country that's been invaded, and you don't give a shit about the wider geopolitical implications. Invaders are in your country and you want them out--that's as much as you care about. Are you really going to differentiate between invading soldiers and mercs? Hell, are you going to deny yourself any tactic that would help get the invading force out of your country? You're a fucking liar if you say you wouldn't do exactly what the Iraqis are doing right now.

The fact that you cant see the difference between four NON combatants being shot , stabed , incinerated then dismembered and hung from a bridge w and a military action sickens me . But it does let me put you in perspective. I'll be right back I have to go wipe my shoe off .

Mercenaries are "non" combatants? Gee, that is why Paul Bremer's security was made wholy of blackwater personal, since they were "non" combatants, they couldnt be shot at! :D

To be honest I don't care what or who these people were.
What I care about is that they are being used as some form of sick souvinier.
Something to boast about, something funny to share with your families and friends.
I don't even care that they are Americans that are doing this or if the Iraqi's were seen dancing in the streets.

What I care about is that these images and others are being used, not to show the inhumanity of war, or to make some social comment, but as entertainment.

There is and have been and will be some very horrific images in all of the media, but they are not there just for us to gape at, they are there to make some form of political or social statement.
That is as it should be, whether we personally agree or disagree with that statement is another matter.

There are people out there who may be the families of those who are dead.
By the sounds of it, these corpses, whose images are being traded for some minor titilation, are those of dead Iraqis and Afganistanis.

Eutrusca.
Believe it or not, men are able to live without the dire need for soft porn or prostitutes, (as you seem to infer in your posting) how do you think they managed before the internet?

Portu Cale MK3.
I believe very strongly in free speech, I believe that war is becoming too sanitised and yes people should be able to see what a gun/bomb/rocket shell can and will do to the human body.
However, can you honestly say that this is the right way to do it and for the right reasons? Where's the commentry? Where's the remorse? Where's the morality?
There is none, these soldiers are saying "Here, look, I scraped this Iraqi off the pavement today, see his guts are all over the road still.....Now give me a picture of some naked woman so that I can get me rocks off"

Oh yes, free speech well worth defending.


I see. If a reporter posts a picture of a dead soldier (from whatever side), it's fine for that to be done for money, and to hell with what the dead soldier's friends and family think.

But if a soldier posts a picture, even if he doesn't do it for money, you're all in a tizzy.

BTW, according to the Geneva Convention, the parts signed by the US, Convention I, Article 2, these dead people are not dead members of a signatory to the Conventions. So they have no protection under the Convention.

If you're not a uniformed soldier, in uniform, belonging to an official armed force that is a signatory to the Conventions, you're screwed.

If you're talking about the mercenaries from last year, then it's hardly fair to call them non-combatants. They were soldiers for hire. So let's turn the tables a bit--you're a citizen of a country that's been invaded, and you don't give a shit about the wider geopolitical implications. Invaders are in your country and you want them out--that's as much as you care about. Are you really going to differentiate between invading soldiers and mercs? Hell, are you going to deny yourself any tactic that would help get the invading force out of your country? You're a fucking liar if you say you wouldn't do exactly what the Iraqis are doing right now.
I would do a lot to free my country! You know what I WOULDN'T DO? I wouldn't capture someone, and then tie them up and cut off their head while they screamed to god for help. I wouldn't go blow up a bunch of innocent American civilians just to get one or two of them. I wouldn't strap explosives to my wife and say "go on honey, go do it for god". I don't like the pics any more than you, it may be over blown, but it's not excusable. But to suggest that what they are doing over there is right because we invaded them is just fucking disgusting! Do you think they realize that if they quit killing people for a fucking month, we'd hand them the keys to the country and just fucking leave?

When your job is to take life, you should be serious in the taking of it. WHAT WHAT

I see. If a reporter posts a picture of a dead soldier (from whatever side), it's fine for that to be done for money, and to hell with what the dead soldier's friends and family think.

But if a soldier posts a picture, even if he doesn't do it for money, you're all in a tizzy.

BTW, according to the Geneva Convention, the parts signed by the US, Convention I, Article 2, these dead people are not dead members of a signatory to the Conventions. So they have no protection under the Convention.

If you're not a uniformed soldier, in uniform, belonging to an official armed force that is a signatory to the Conventions, you're screwed.

To answer your first part, I'm not getting in a tizzy over anything. I am commenting upon a situation that I feel needs to be commenting upon.
You have just made the differention between the two points.
A photographer takes photographs and sells them to the media, the media then uses them to illustrate and article and make a comment upon it.
I have to see even the most basest of gutter press to just publish this type of picture without any form of comment.

As for the second?
Well thats OK then, why am I even worrying, if they are not included on a piece of paper, then they are not obviously not human and worth anyone concideration.

As for the second?
Well thats OK then, why am I even worrying, if they are not included on a piece of paper, then they are not obviously not human and worth anyone concideration.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who fights who is not in an official uniform of an official high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions is the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who fights who is not in an official uniform of an official high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions is the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.

And that is, of course your opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who fights who is not in an official uniform of an official high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions is the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.

Good job you weren't in charge of countering French resistance under the German occupation.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who fights who is not in an official uniform of an official high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions is the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.

You make me sick.

And that is, of course your opinion.

You will note the wording of the Geneva Conventions, Convention I, Article 2.

It's not my opinion that non-signatories have no protections under the Conventions. It's there in black and white.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who fights who is not in an official uniform of an official high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions is the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.
If a another country invaded the US, are you saying that you would have to put on a uniform to defend your country, even though the invading country has ordered the De-Republicanizing of America (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/CPAORD5.pdf)?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who fights who is not in an official uniform of an official high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions is the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.
I am sure that if insurgents get to read what you have written here, they will keep your words in mind in any future dealings on the Iraqi battlefield with your "brothers"?

If a another country invaded the US, are you saying that you would have to put on a uniform to defend your country, even though the invading country has ordered the De-Republicanizing of America (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/CPAORD5.pdf)?

It's basic military law. I was taught this in the US Army.

It's in BLACK AND WHITE in the Geneva Conventions.

Convention I, Article 2.

It's also in the Hague Conventions. Technically, you can be shot on the spot without a trial if captured under arms without a uniform on.

If you don't like the wording of the Conventions, and you think that somehow everyone should be covered, and everyone should be more "humane" in war, then I suggest that you work to have the Conventions (Hague and Geneva) completely re-written, instead of imagining or wishing that they said something else.

You will note the wording of the Geneva Conventions, Convention I, Article 2.

It's not my opinion that non-signatories have no protections under the Conventions. It's there in black and white.

Where in the Geneva convention does it state:

the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.

That is what I am referring to.
You are saying that because a country does not have it's signature on that bit of paper, then their people deserve to be debased, murdered, raped, tortured and naything else that a signatory nation can think of?

If a another country invaded the US, are you saying that you would have to put on a uniform to defend your country, even though the invading country has ordered the De-Republicanizing of America (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/CPAORD5.pdf)?
Maybe if it was a de-Democrat-ing of America! :D (JUST KIDDING! lighten up, jeez)

Where in the Geneva convention does it state:

the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.

That is what I am referring to.
You are saying that because a country does not have it's signature on that bit of paper, then their people deserve to be debased, murdered, raped, tortured and naything else that a signatory nation can think of?


Thank you

Where in the Geneva convention does it state:

the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.

If it were possible to bring back drawing and quartering, I would bring it back.

That is what I am referring to.
You are saying that because a country does not have it's signature on that bit of paper, then their people deserve to be debased, murdered, raped, tortured and naything else that a signatory nation can think of?

What it means is that if a person is a member of a party or organization that is:

1. Not a High Contracting Party
or
2. Not accepting or applying the Geneva Convention

then they have no protections under the Conventions.

Therefore, it's not that they "deserve" it - it's just that it is LEGAL to do so.

Under the Hague Conventions, if you are under arms, and not wearing some sort of identifying badge or uniform, you can be SHOT ON THE SPOT WITHOUT TRIAL.

If you don't like the wording of the Conventions, go change them. But until they read differently, STOP IMAGINING OR WISHING that they said SOMETHING ELSE.

BTW, according to the Geneva Convention, the parts signed by the US, Convention I, Article 2, these dead people are not dead members of a signatory to the Conventions. So they have no protection under the Convention.

If you're not a uniformed soldier, in uniform, belonging to an official armed force that is a signatory to the Conventions, you're screwed.

The only portions of the Geneva Convetions unratified by the US are the two additional protocols of 1977. These two protocols extend protections to victims of wars of racist regimes and wars of self determination as well as victims of internal conflicts. However, even though the US hasn't ratified these protocols, the protocols themselves primarily serve as a restatement of standard international law and thus bind all nations regardless of the ratification status. Furthermore, the US has expressed support for many of the rules in the 1977 protocols, and has only balked at ratifying it because of the rules concerning POW status for irregular combatants. Therefore, the only portion of the Geneva Conventions that the US is not bound by (and even that is debateable) is the POW status, and it is still bound by the rules for POWs set forth in article four of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

What it means is that if a person is a member of a party or organization that is:

1. Not a High Contracting Party
or
2. Not accepting or applying the Geneva Convention

then they have no protections under the Conventions.

Therefore, it's not that they "deserve" it - it's just that it is LEGAL to do so.

Under the Hague Conventions, if you are under arms, and not wearing some sort of identifying badge or uniform, you can be SHOT ON THE SPOT WITHOUT TRIAL.

If you don't like the wording of the Conventions, go change them. But until they read differently, STOP IMAGINING OR WISHING that they said SOMETHING ELSE.

Ah but you didn't say 'shot on the spot' did you?
In fact you didn't even mention being shot on the spot.

Being shot on the spot is what every solidier, of no matter what nation, risks if they are working under cover.

Being termed as:
the lowest form of scum of the face of the earth, and deserves to die in as horrible and contemptuously defaming method as possible.
Is not.

The only portions of the Geneva Convetions unratified by the US are the two additional protocols of 1977. These two protocols extend protections to victims of wars of racist regimes and wars of self determination as well as victims of internal conflicts. However, even though the US hasn't ratified these protocols, the protocols themselves primarily serve as a restatement of standard international law and thus bind all nations regardless of the ratification status. Furthermore, the US has expressed support for many of the rules in the 1977 protocols, and has only balked at ratifying it because of the rules concerning POW status for irregular combatants. Therefore, the only portion of the Geneva Conventions that the US is not bound by (and even that is debateable) is the POW status, and it is still bound by the rules for POWs set forth in article four of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

If they haven't ratified it, then they haven't ratified it.

So you're admitting that under US military law (which is what the photo-taking soldiers would be prosecuted), that the POW status is not applicable to non-uniformed personnel.

You would also admit (I've read the 1977 protocols) that they do not apply to non-signatories. Convention I, Article 2 is still in effect. I see no language in the Protocols (where supported but not ratified by the US) where that is negated.

I would also point to the standards of conduct upheld by the French recently in Ivory Coast, where unarmed people were shot and left in the street by French troops - and no one said a word.

If you're going to start enforcing "international law", I urge you to go to Le Mans and hand out speeding tickets.

I would also point to the standards of conduct upheld by the French recently in Ivory Coast, where unarmed people were shot and left in the street by French troops - and no one said a word.

If you're going to start enforcing "international law", I urge you to go to Le Mans and hand out speeding tickets.

Ah another deflection tactic, again not answering to the comments made to you.
There was plenty said about the way in which the French troups behaved, in the UK at least. I'm sorry that your country did not see it news worthy enough to report it.

However, this thread is not about leaving corpses on the streets, it's about taking photographs as trophies.
I also cannot find anywhere that is mentioned, other than in your postings and those replying to you, where people have said anything about international law.
We were discussing the morality of it, at least until you and others like yourself, changed that.

If they haven't ratified it, then they haven't ratified it.

Not true. The 1977 protocols, as I stated, are in part merely a codification of commonly accepted international law. Thus, ratification isn't important as the US is already bound by the strictures of international law.


So you're admitting that under US military law (which is what the photo-taking soldiers would be prosecuted), that the POW status is not applicable to non-uniformed personnel.

I'm admitting nothing. I'm suggesting why the US has failed to ratify the 1977 protocols even though through public statement and action we support many of the provisions included therein.


You would also admit (I've read the 1977 protocols) that they do not apply to non-signatories. Convention I, Article 2 is still in effect. I see no language in the Protocols (where supported but not ratified by the US) where that is negated.

The guidelines put forth by the Conventions do apply to signatories in relation to their affairs. Thus, the US is bound to act by the strictures of the conventions in it's dealings in conflicts.


I would also point to the standards of conduct upheld by the French recently in Ivory Coast, where unarmed people were shot and left in the street by French troops - and no one said a word.

Please don't attempt to cloud the issue. While abuses happen, that in no way excuses further abuses.

Not true. The 1977 protocols, as I stated, are in part merely a codification of commonly accepted international law. Thus, ratification isn't important as the US is already bound by the strictures of international law.


It isn't. Please see my post on the relevant status of treaties vs. Constitution.

I don't see anyone enforcing "international law". They usually enforce specific language, not a vague reference to "international law".

And without enforcement, the law is nothing.

Take "protective orders" for instance. A victim of domestic abuse may obtain one. It even contains language that orders the police to provide specific protection to the woman in time of threat by the abuser.

Obtaining a protective order is usually a triggering event for the woman being killed (except for the women I've trained). This is because the police KNOW that they don't have to respond in a timely manner - the courts have backed them up repeatedly.

So the "order" of the court is meaningless.

International law, as a vague concept, is meaningless. What has meaning, and only in relevance to the laws and constitutions of individual nation states, is specific language. And only when enforced.

Take the IAEA for example. Prominent nations are not willing to enforce the provisions of the NPT. Oh, they're willing to talk about it. But not to actually do anything. That gives a clear signal to the whole world that the NPT is dead on arrival now.

Still think I'm wrong?

There really is nothing to say. Just another in a long line of US disgraces.


I can't believe they aren't going to do anything.. but I agree with you, just another example of the way these people operate and think. Simply disgusting.

It isn't. Please see my post on the relevant status of treaties vs. Constitution.

I don't see anyone enforcing "international law". They usually enforce specific language, not a vague reference to "international law".

And without enforcement, the law is nothing.

Take "protective orders" for instance. A victim of domestic abuse may obtain one. It even contains language that orders the police to provide specific protection to the woman in time of threat by the abuser.

Obtaining a protective order is usually a triggering event for the woman being killed (except for the women I've trained). This is because the police KNOW that they don't have to respond in a timely manner - the courts have backed them up repeatedly.

So the "order" of the court is meaningless.

International law, as a vague concept, is meaningless. What has meaning, and only in relevance to the laws and constitutions of individual nation states, is specific language. And only when enforced.

Take the IAEA for example. Prominent nations are not willing to enforce the provisions of the NPT. Oh, they're willing to talk about it. But not to actually do anything. That gives a clear signal to the whole world that the NPT is dead on arrival now.

Still think I'm wrong?



Nobody says you're wrong, well they do, but you just ignore that fact when challenged and raise another instead.

You are just evading every point that has been raised and straying so far off topic that nothing you say seems to have relavence to the discussion any more

I can't believe they aren't going to do anything.. but I agree with you, just another example of the way these people operate and think. Simply disgusting.

You could say that about a lot of things, and a lot of countries.

So, Steph - how's the NPT? How willing are ALL nations to strictly enforce it and ensure its compliance (in recognition of the fact that we now know that talking just won't do it).

Nobody says you're wrong, well they do, but you just ignore that fact when challenged and raise another instead.

You are just evading every point that has been raised and straying so far off topic that nothing you say seems to have relavence to the discussion any more

I pointed out that it wasn't against the US view of the Geneva Conventions.

Is that off topic?

The lawyers at JAG apparently agree with me. Perhaps that's because I'm a lawyer as well.

I pointed out that it wasn't against the US view of the Geneva Conventions.

Is that off topic?

The lawyers at JAG apparently agree with me. Perhaps that's because I'm a lawyer as well.

*sigh*
Here we go again....
Your being a lawyer certainly goes some way towards the reason why you make statements then continually ignore others when they make valid points against them.
It also explains why you continually deflect and try to fudge the issue when challenged.

Quite honestly I don't have any care as to whether you are a lawyer or a street cleaner, you still make statements, which you attempt to cover up with other points.

If you wish to discuss the ramifications and manifestations of various international agreements and the impact they have on countries, then why not start a thread to discuss that.

Just because the relavent authorities have not pressed charges on those who have submitted these photgraphs, does not mean that it is right.

Just because others from the same country or from different countries have done the same or other things equally as bad or worse, does not make it right.

Just because the Geneva convention says that it is expected that personel acting 'under cover' can expect to be shot on sight, does not make your statement any less repulsive, nor give anyone to publish these photgraphs.

If you're not a uniformed soldier, in uniform, belonging to an official armed force that is a signatory to the Conventions, you're screwed.

Total bullshit. You do not have to be in uniform, as long as you don't hide your firearm, you're most certainly recognized. You better check again, Iraq was most certainly a signatory member of the Geneva Conventions.

Total bullshit. You do not have to be in uniform, as long as you don't hide your firearm, you're most certainly recognized. You better check again, Iraq was most certainly a signatory member of the Geneva Conventions.

Ahem. If you're not in a uniform, and you're not wearing an emblem, and you're not a member of an official military that is a signatory, you're screwed.

The insurgents are not members of the official military of Iraq. They have neither uniform, emblem, or ID.

Was taught this many a time in the Army. You don't have to take them prisoner unless ordered to (perhaps for intel purposes, or PR purposes).

And, even if they are in uniform, and offer surrender, until you accept the surrender, you can shoot them and be done with it.

Perfectly legal - asked the people at JAG many a time about it.

So it's not bullshit.

Ahem. If you're not in a uniform, and you're not wearing an emblem, and you're not a member of an official military that is a signatory, you're screwed.

The insurgents are not members of the official military of Iraq. They have neither uniform, emblem, or ID.

Was taught this many a time in the Army. You don't have to take them prisoner unless ordered to (perhaps for intel purposes, or PR purposes).

And, even if they are in uniform, and offer surrender, until you accept the surrender, you can shoot them and be done with it.

Perfectly legal - asked the people at JAG many a time about it.

So it's not bullshit.

Excuse me, but you don't know what you're talking about. First, you don't have to be in uniform and second I don't recall any surrender, the war is very much still in play. They are fighting for Iraq. They don't need a uniform. And THAT is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Go do some more reading..

Excuse me, but you don't know what you're talking about. First, you don't have to be in uniform and second I don't recall any surrender, the war is very much still in play. They are fighting for Iraq. They don't need a uniform. And THAT is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Go do some more reading..

You're forgetting the Hague Conventions, as well.

And I do know what I'm talking about. Why don't you go down to Ballston, Virginia, and go to the JAG office on North Fairfax, and go to the third floor, and ask them in person.

You're forgetting the Hague Conventions, as well.

And I do know what I'm talking about. Why don't you go down to Ballston, Virginia, and go to the JAG office on North Fairfax, and go to the third floor, and ask them in person.

LOL yeah we'll just all hop on a plane and be over in the morning!

LOL yeah we'll just all hop on a plane and be over in the morning!
I'm about 20 minutes away from their offices. I often eat lunch with friends who work there.

Would you like me to ask any questions? I can schedule lunch for tomorrow.

I'm about 20 minutes away from their offices. I often eat lunch with friends who work there.

Would you like me to ask any questions? I can schedule lunch for tomorrow.
ask them their names.

You're forgetting the Hague Conventions, as well.

And I do know what I'm talking about. Why don't you go down to Ballston, Virginia, and go to the JAG office on North Fairfax, and go to the third floor, and ask them in person.

Nope, don't believe I'm forgetting about them either..


Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899

Article 1

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:



To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;



To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;



To carry arms openly; and



To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.



In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."





Article 2

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded a belligerent.

You best go tell your JAG friends to do a little reading as well. However since yesterday on this topic you didn't have a clue about either convention and all of a sudden today you've talked to JAG many times, I will assume that JAG never told you any such thing. (Do note Article 2)

Nope, don't believe I'm forgetting about them either..

You best go tell your JAG friends to do a little reading as well. However since yesterday on this topic you didn't have a clue about either convention and all of a sudden today you've talked to JAG many times, I will assume that JAG never told you any such thing.

It's Convention I, Article 2, that's keeping them from prosecuting.

You tell me what it says. I've posted it enough times.

Civilian combatants have limited protections under international law. hoever to get combatant status they must meet ALL of the listed conditions above.

It's Convention I, Article 2, that's keeping them from prosecuting.

You tell me what it says. I've posted it enough times.

Nice try but no cigar, you're are full of it and I just proved it. I believe I'm done with you now.

Nice try but no cigar, you're are full of it and I just proved it. I believe I'm done with you now.

You did no such thing.

Convention I, Article 2, of the Geneva Conventions states that the protections of the conventions do not apply.

That's the decision here. Obviously, because no one is being prosecuted.

So you're the one who is full of it - obviously a room full of military lawyers finds that your view of international law is inane.

And I'm done with you now.

If you were right, those soldiers would be charged - they most certainly are not.

I might also add that there are tens of thousands of similar pictures on militaryphotos.net, and other sites.

And no one is being charged with anything.

So, Steph, why do you think that is?

Are you wrong about the law? I think so.

You did no such thing.

Convention I, Article 2, of the Geneva Conventions states that the protections of the conventions do not apply.

That's the decision here. Obviously, because no one is being prosecuted.

So you're the one who is full of it - obviously a room full of military lawyers finds that your view of international law is inane.

And I'm done with you now.

If you were right, those soldiers would be charged - they most certainly are not.

Yeah because we all know how well the USA has been following the rules of war.. :rolleyes:

Spare me the bull, save it for someone who doesn't know better.

Yeah because we all know how well the USA has been following the rules of war.. :rolleyes:

Spare me the bull, save it for someone who doesn't know better.

They're not following your interpretation of the "rules" of war.

They're following the specific language.

Spare me your moralisms, because you don't have a leg to stand on.

The reality is that they can't be charged. And you can't stand it.

Yeah because we all know how well the USA has been following the rules of war.. :rolleyes:

Spare me the bull, save it for someone who doesn't know better.
To be fair, we do obey the rules of war, we just circumvent things here and there. The use of white phosperous is not allowed under convention, however, it is perfectly legal call a wp strike on the equipment worn by the enemy. The use of napalm is allowed diallowed, instead, we use a napalm-like substance that burns even better than napalm.

Sierra BTHP,
Being a lawyer, you should know that just because someone is not prosecuted for a crime does not mean that they are not guilty of that crime.
Insufficient evidence or insufficient concrete evidence often prevents those who should be from being prosecuted.

Well done, you have now completely turned this thread into something that bares no resemblence to the originators reason for posting it in the first place.
Hijacking at it's finest.

I am done with it, until such times as it gets back on topic.

Sierra BTHP,
Being a lawyer, you should know that just because someone is not prosecuted for a crime does not mean that they are not guilty of that crime.
Insufficient evidence or insufficient concrete evidence often prevents those who should be from being prosecuted.

Well done, you have now completely turned this thread into something that bares no resemblence to the originators reason for posting it in the first place.
Hijacking at it's finest.

I am done with it, until such times as it gets back on topic.

If I were hijacking the thread, I would be talking about flavors of barbecue sauce.

I'm talking about the relevant topic, if you'll notice.

There's plenty of evidence. Just no grounds.

I see. If a reporter posts a picture of a dead soldier (from whatever side), it's fine for that to be done for money, and to hell with what the dead soldier's friends and family think.

But if a soldier posts a picture, even if he doesn't do it for money, you're all in a tizzy.

BTW, according to the Geneva Convention, the parts signed by the US, Convention I, Article 2, these dead people are not dead members of a signatory to the Conventions. So they have no protection under the Convention.

If you're not a uniformed soldier, in uniform, belonging to an official armed force that is a signatory to the Conventions, you're screwed.

We could get into the article II argument which allows for spontaneous civil resistance in the face of invasion which allows for un-uniformed civillian militia to be given the same protections as regular soldiers, but there is another point you are totally ignoring.

My understanding is that pictures of all sorts of death and mayhem have been popping up.

So if the picture traded is that of a dead child, then this would also be in clear violation of those same conventions regarding the respectful treatment of civilians. The conventions do NOT, after all, only have clauses regarding the treatment of each other's militaries. If that were the case the Nuremburg would not have happened.



There are far more legal areas in play than the one convention that everyone flocks to which is the convetions on the treatment of POWs.


And reading the noted article, it seems that the military is only saying that they cannot pursue charges due to the impossibility of verifying who posted what, and what exactly each picture is.

In other words, they lack the required information to press charges - not that charges could not apply.

My understanding is that pictures of all sorts of death and mayhem have been popping up.

There are tens of thousands of pictures like this on militaryphotos.net.

A lot of people posting with their real names. In some cases, they appear in the pictures.

Are you saying that there's no way to verify pictures with identifiable people in them? Standing over a dead body like a hunter at an African safari?

Who posted with their real names?

I'm not talking about the porn traded pictures - I'm talking about the thousands and thousands of photos out there for the past few years - ever since Afghanistan started.

Are you honestly telling me there isn't enough evidence?

What surprises me is that I and many other people have known about these types of photos for a long time - since the start of the conflict.

And you, and the mainstream media, have only noticed it now.

I can't believe they aren't going to do anything.. but I agree with you, just another example of the way these people operate and think. Simply disgusting.
"These people"? Just what fucking high and mighty land do you come from where you can cast the first stone?

I'm not talking about the porn traded pictures -

Well, that is what this thread is ALL ABOUT!

"These people"? Just what fucking high and mighty land do you come from where you can cast the first stone?

Stephistan, and no American on the planet, is the moral and legal authority on Earth in all matters. That's where she casts the stone from.

Well, that is what this thread is ALL ABOUT!

Look, in case you haven't been reading, Steph objects to the simple idea that the photos were taken and posted at all - regardless of the porn trading.

So do many others on this thread.

So THEY have made the thread about posting photos of the dead.

So I am saying that it's not new. It's been going on. And no one is prosecuted for it.

So stop implying that I am somehow not on topic.

So stop implying that I am somehow not on topic.

I'm not implying- i'm saying it outright- you meandering off of the point a few pages back. they traded them for porn. Why? there is no shortage of porn (free or otherwise) on the Net... its for another reason....sickness maybe?

I'm not implying- i'm saying it outright- you meandering off of the point a few pages back. they traded them for porn. Why? there is no shortage of porn (free or otherwise) on the Net... its for another reason....sickness maybe?
Then correct Stephistan as well - she's the one who says it's not the porn, it's the mere fact that the pictures exist at all.

I'm not the one who meandered. It's a logical course for an argument. It's not like I'm talking about flavors of barbecue sauce.

I would do a lot to free my country! You know what I WOULDN'T DO? I wouldn't capture someone, and then tie them up and cut off their head while they screamed to god for help. I wouldn't go blow up a bunch of innocent American civilians just to get one or two of them. I wouldn't strap explosives to my wife and say "go on honey, go do it for god". I don't like the pics any more than you, it may be over blown, but it's not excusable. But to suggest that what they are doing over there is right because we invaded them is just fucking disgusting! Do you think they realize that if they quit killing people for a fucking month, we'd hand them the keys to the country and just fucking leave?
Good for you. I'd like to think that I'd feel the same way, but you know something? I'm not sure about that. I think that if my country had been invaded and I'd lost relatives to those invading forces, no matter what their excuse was for invading, I'd take it to them in any way I could, and I would have no compunction about using whatever methods were at my disposal to get them out of my country, horrible, dastardly, inhumane or not. I'm not saying it's right--I'm saying it's understandable.

Good for you. I'd like to think that I'd feel the same way, but you know something? I'm not sure about that. I think that if my country had been invaded and I'd lost relatives to those invading forces, no matter what their excuse was for invading, I'd take it to them in any way I could, and I would have no compunction about using whatever methods were at my disposal to get them out of my country, horrible, dastardly, inhumane or not. I'm not saying it's right--I'm saying it's understandable.
I see where your coming from, and I can't say I disagree. My point is that if all they wanted was for us to leave, all they have to do is stop blowing people up and we will leave. You are right though. I would do anything I could to kill them all!

The thing is though, IMHO, there are two factions were fighting. The ones who hate us for invading, and the ones who just want "Death to America" It's the "Death to America" crowd that are blowing up civilians and cutting of civilians heads.

Basically, my point is that since the "Angry for the invasion" crowd will do anything to kill us, and the "Death to America" crowd will be very dangerous to us if we leave, we really have no choice but to kill everyone who tries to harm us.

I see where your coming from, and I can't say I disagree. My point is that if all they wanted was for us to leave, all they have to do is stop blowing people up and we will leave. You are right though. I would do anything I could to kill them all!

The thing is though, IMHO, there are two factions were fighting. The ones who hate us for invading, and the ones who just want "Death to America" It's the "Death to America" crowd that are blowing up civilians and cutting of civilians heads.

Basically, my point is that since the "Angry for the invasion" crowd will do anything to kill us, and the "Death to America" crowd will be very dangerous to us if we leave, we really have no choice but to kill everyone who tries to harm us.


And Steph is upset with me... :rolleyes:

I'm not implying- i'm saying it outright- you meandering off of the point a few pages back. they traded them for porn. Why? there is no shortage of porn (free or otherwise) on the Net... its for another reason....sickness maybe?
I'm not taking sides in the basis of said arguments, BUT, I am the original poster of this thread, and I started it by saying the soldiers aren't gonna be charged. That being said, everyone who is debating whether it is moral or not are "technically" the ones thread jacking. I personally don't care what you say in the thread, but I just figured I'd let you all know the ORIGINAL topic of the thread.

And Steph is upset with me... :rolleyes:
She seems to get angry quite often. Don't take it to heart! :D

I see where your coming from, and I can't say I disagree. My point is that if all they wanted was for us to leave, all they have to do is stop blowing people up and we will leave. You are right though. I would do anything I could to kill them all!

The thing is though, IMHO, there are two factions were fighting. The ones who hate us for invading, and the ones who just want "Death to America" It's the "Death to America" crowd that are blowing up civilians and cutting of civilians heads.

Basically, my point is that since the "Angry for the invasion" crowd will do anything to kill us, and the "Death to America" crowd will be very dangerous to us if we leave, we really have no choice but to kill everyone who tries to harm us.
According to the military, based on their interrogations of the insurgents they've captured, they estimate that over 90% of the insurgents are locals who just want us gone, and they're doing less than 10% of the suicide attacks. The suicide attacks are being done by the foreign fighters, who are less than 10% of the insurgency, and who will surely continue the fight once we get out of Iraq. Logic says we ought to get out of Iraq and stop fighting the 90+% who just want us out and focus on the others.

She seems to get angry quite often. Don't take it to heart! :D
It seemed to upset her that I pointed out that they aren't in trouble. I guess the whole thread upset her, eh?

According to the military, based on their interrogations of the insurgents they've captured, they estimate that over 90% of the insurgents are locals who just want us gone, and they're doing less than 10% of the suicide attacks. The suicide attacks are being done by the foreign fighters, who are less than 10% of the insurgency, and who will surely continue the fight once we get out of Iraq. Logic says we ought to get out of Iraq and stop fighting the 90+% who just want us out and focus on the others.
As horrible as it sounds, and as much as I wish it wasn't so, we are staying there so that we can fight them there. We'd rather deal with the 90% plus the 10% and not have to worry about American civilians getting blown up. Sad but true. Kinda like if your family was in a burning house, and the neighbors were in a burning house, who would you save? Would you be a horrible person for caring more about your own?

It's OBVIOUSLY way more complicated than that, but it's the jist of it.

I find it interesting that everyone is blaming the military. however they are forgetting that someone made the offer, and they are the ones encouraging and posting it. is that person suddenly blameless?

It seemed to upset her that I pointed out that they aren't in trouble. I guess the whole thread upset her, eh?
I think all things having to do with Bush, Iraq, War, Americans, and people with opinions other that hers upset her. I may be wrong though. :confused:

I find it interesting that everyone is blaming the military. however they are forgetting that someone made the offer, and they are the ones encouraging and posting it. is that person suddenly blameless?

Technically, the civilians are free to humiliate anyone they like.

There really is nothing to say. Just another in a long line of US disgraces.
Your opinion is noted, but understand that you just turned into a troll with flame bait in your hand.

Where is the logic in your statement? I can name problems I've found in many countries, but I've talked about it in a constructive manner. Coming from a board member with well over 6,000 posts I expected better. You did NOT say anything constructive. Plus, you didn't even tell us that you actually KNEW anything on this subject (and I'm not going to sift through seven pages of posts to find anything more after your initial post). Go ahead, show your dissatisfaction, you're allowed to do that. But MY opinion is that you're a hypocrite. I found it ironic that a man of Sweden complains about soldiers submitting war dead for access to pornography, since Sweden has some of the worst issues with pornography in Europe. The posing over Iraqi dead? Yes, that is unfortunate and could be considered disgraceful, but it's not unheard of. After all, there are ten times more war criminals in your country than the authorities admit (http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1090&date=20050311). It looks like Sweden might have some issues of its own. Maybe I'd point out Swedish war crimes, but your military forces aren't really allowed to fight terrorism (http://english.people.com.cn/200509/02/eng20050902_206025.html).

Perhaps I'm acting so defensive because of the fact that I live in the United States of America, but I'm sure you would agree with me that your post could have been worded better.

Technically, the civilians are free to humiliate anyone they like.but does that make them blameless?

but does that make them blameless?
No, but Steph and other people who seem to have moral outrage over the fact that the soldiers even took the pictures of the dead say that civilians are blameless.

As for me, I think it's just another symptom of war - we don't like it - it smells bad - it makes us feel bad - we wish it weren't happenning - but it's war.

Doesn't make it right, but as I pointed out, aside from the pcitures available on news sites and photo sites that cater to journalists, there are many thousands of similar pictures free on militaryphotos.net

I found it ironic that a man of Sweden complains about soldiers submitting war dead for access to pornography, since Sweden has some of the worst issues with pornography in Europe.

Thats not BAD! Thats whats great about Sweden! :D

Thats not BAD! Thats whats great about Sweden! :D
In my opinion, Sweden has the best looking porn stars.

Even Swedish soldiers are hot...
http://www.greenfaces.se/upload/uploads/ak5.jpg

Brrrrwwrraaao! :fluffle: :p

Brrrrwwrraaao! :fluffle: :p
Oh! Oh! Illegal pictures of soldiers!

I bet her mom is really upset...

Stephistan, and no American on the planet, is the moral and legal authority on Earth in all matters. That's where she casts the stone from.

Look, in case you haven't been reading, Steph objects to the simple idea that the photos were taken and posted at all - regardless of the porn trading.

So do many others on this thread.

So THEY have made the thread about posting photos of the dead.

So I am saying that it's not new. It's been going on. And no one is prosecuted for it.

So stop implying that I am somehow not on topic.


Then correct Stephistan as well - she's the one who says it's not the porn, it's the mere fact that the pictures exist at all.

I'm not the one who meandered. It's a logical course for an argument. It's not like I'm talking about flavors of barbecue sauce.


And Steph is upset with me... :rolleyes:


It seemed to upset her that I pointed out that they aren't in trouble. I guess the whole thread upset her, eh?



No, but Steph and other people who seem to have moral outrage over the fact that the soldiers even took the pictures of the dead say that civilians are blameless.

As for me, I think it's just another symptom of war - we don't like it - it smells bad - it makes us feel bad - we wish it weren't happenning - but it's war.

Doesn't make it right, but as I pointed out, aside from the pcitures available on news sites and photo sites that cater to journalists, there are many thousands of similar pictures free on militaryphotos.net

I came back on here to see if the thread had returned to it's origional perpose, guess what?

Sierra BTHP,
You seem completely and utterly unable to either have a conversation, justify anything that you have said (because you just avoid answering any comment made upon those remarks) and now you have a fixation on Stephanistan.

I have quoted every one of your posts bar two and they all refer to that ONE poster.

Now the final straw is you posting huge photographs of women soldiers.

And you still say you are on topic?

I came back on here to see if the thread had returned to it's origional perpose, guess what?

Sierra BTHP,
You seem completely and utterly unable to either have a conversation, justify anything that you have said (because you just avoid answering any comment made upon those remarks) and now you have a fixation on Stephanistan.

I have quoted every one of your posts bar two and they all refer to that ONE poster.

Now the final straw is you posting huge photographs of women soldiers.

And you still say you are on topic?

You should ask the original poster, who says that when I was arguing with you and everyone else, I was on topic.

... justify anything that you have said (because you just avoid answering any comment made upon those remarks)

Try looking at all my other threads. I don't seem to have a problem justifying my remarks.

And on this thread, I justified my remarks with Convention I, Article 2, which you choose to dismiss.

Hey, if you like dismissing the Geneva Conventions, that's your business.

According to the military, based on their interrogations of the insurgents they've captured, they estimate that over 90% of the insurgents are locals who just want us gone, and they're doing less than 10% of the suicide attacks. The suicide attacks are being done by the foreign fighters, who are less than 10% of the insurgency, and who will surely continue the fight once we get out of Iraq. Logic says we ought to get out of Iraq and stop fighting the 90+% who just want us out and focus on the others.actually, logic would say we inform the 90% that it's the 10% that's keeping us there. we get the 90% to turn on the 10% then we can start leaving and let the Iraqi's rule their country.

I dunno, I just like this part of the article:

Army officials expressed concern that the matter could trigger an anti-American backlash in the Middle East.

I dunno, I just like this part of the article:

1. The Middle East, even before 9-11, even before Afghanistan, even before Iraq, even before Bush, was anti-American.
2. Photos like this have been on the Internet for a few years now. Thousands.
3. I'm sure Johnny Jihad and his brethren have already seen them.
4. There isn't ANYTHING that the US can do or not do in order to placate the Arab "street".

1. The Middle East, even before 9-11, even before Afghanistan, even before Iraq, even before Bush, was anti-American.
2. Photos like this have been on the Internet for a few years now. Thousands.
3. I'm sure Johnny Jihad and his brethren have already seen them.
4. There isn't ANYTHING that the US can do or not do in order to placate the Arab "street".

And that is exactly why the quote is funny.