»»Do you have any Bible data points on torture? What would Jesus have done? ««
Well, Joe, go through the Bible and tell us all the places of stories wherein God led His children to defeat heathen.
Impossible to know what Jesus would have done. All we know is what He did and what He said. He told us to conquer the heathen and take the Land. He didn't limit us on how to do it.
|
|
George 'Wanna-be' Bush said:
"Maybe before Guantanimo and Abu Gharib the head scarf argument would have been valid, but now it is a joke."
Do you have ANY idea how strict the rules and standards are for America's Interrogators and Special Agents? And the price they'd pay for violating those rules? Do you KNOW what the enemy ROUTINELY does to its' captives that American Soldiers won't EVER do!? I highly, HIGHLY doubt it!
Also, America is as transparent as it can afford to be, otherwise you wouldn't even know about 'waterboarding' and you wouldn't have heard an open debate on the networks with America's leaders about what 'torture' is and isn't and what America should and shouldn't be doing.
While we're on the topic, how can we trust that you know anything worth knowing about the events that took place at those two locations when you can't even spell either one of their names correctly? It's "Guantanamo" and "Abu Ghraib".
Iran should NOT have shown that video and published that letter and your weak 'moral equivalency' argument changes NONE of that. |
|
|
Seminar Poster. The Democrats have taught you well young liberal. Your liberal mind-tricks only work on fools. |
|
Tony Blair going to the U.N. to seek international help. Well England you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first in obtaining U.N. help.
Why does the Western powers leaders all running around like eunuchs begging for help? Is it because multiculturalists, political correctness, and social engineers weakened the Western powers military so much that we can't even lift a limp finger to defend ourselves and our interests without scorn from our enemies.
Iran has been our enemy for over 34 years and it still doesn't register that,"Hey these guys are trying to kill us."
Iran only understands one thing, and that thing is brute force. Destroy XXX amount of the buggers and I bet a shiny dime that the Western powers would get their attention pretty damn quick.
Winston Churchill is probably rolling in his grave and Margret Thatcher cries herself to sleep at night over such pathetic behavior from her fellow Englishmen.
Maggie wouldn't stand for this crap. |
|
Wearing a headscarf is absolutely a violation as it pretty much amounts to forcing a person to make a religious statement they didn't chose. And isn't the next part after "humiliating and degrading" something about not being forced to be a public spectacle? That's what this is. Absolutely. Being made to make propaganda statements is a violation even without the slap in the face concerning the head scarf.
Oh, you fellows can be all "what's the big deal" about it, but I can't really even imagine a male equivalent to use as an illustration. Making her put it *on* is like saying she's a (censored word) because she *didn't* wear one. Moreover, and this would be the same for men, taking her *out* of her uniform is a humiliation because it takes away her professional identity and repudiates what she serves. Before I looked at the picture I thought they maybe just stuck a scarf on her head for sensibilities sake, but they didn't.
Would a man captured that way (like any of the others) think it was no big deal to have his uniform taken away?
I'm assuming that since she has a chance to get out she's going to take it, to get someone out with accurate information. It makes no sense to not take advantage of that. If you've got a weapon, use it. |
|
As a woman, I am totally offended when I see women in headscarfs which is a bondage symbol in that religion. Reword however you want to, it is degrading and offensive. I'm sure to a military woman, it is even more so. They didn't put those toga things on the men. It is pure subjugation.
Cotton |
|
"What would Jesus have done?"
Rendered unto Caesar, obviously. Caesar, in turn, would have introduced the Gitmo crowd to the lions. |
|
|
I'd love to find a complete chronology of Iran's handiwork from 1979 to present. |
|
|
Do you have any Bible data points on torture? What would Jesus have done? |
|
JP said:
"on how wearing a headscarf violates the GC. There must be some childhood trauma you experienced to explain such a baffling claim."
on which Brian J commented:
"On the other hand, JP is right in that requiring a woman to wear a headscarf is probably not, ipso facto, 'humiliating and degrading treatment.'"
The problem is that a POW should not be compelled to participate in propaganda. Now, was the statement released with the photos and vidoes propaganda? YES! Absolutely.
If you think not, then why did Iran release the comments made by the female, stating that she 'knew' they were in Iranian waters? WHY would the soldier even go on the record with a comment like that?
In any case, It's PROPAGANDA! And THAT is where Iran is making its' error with the POWs right now.
Legally it's an error, but in the world we live in today, with the apologist, appeasement societies, Iran's error will be immediately forgiven and dismissed by the court of public opinion. |
|
Iran doesn't care. Period. What will we do ? What will the (LOL) UN do? Iran can do any thing they want to those sailors- they could hang them on their national TV network and neither the brits nor the americans will do anything about it.
Look no further than Iran's allies, the democratic party, for the reasons why we won't do anything.
Rules only apply to civilized societies. Iran's people are civilized, their leaders are mass murdering facist thugs. We cannot expect them to follow rules if there is no one to enforce the rules.
|
|
Forget the headscarf, folks; that's a head fake! What is most humiliating for the modern, post-feminist Western woman is to be released while the 14 men in the unit remain captives all because "She a gur-uhl!"
By the way, why are the feminists around the world so conspicuously silent while Islamists rub the nose of that sista-in-arms in this misogynous exhibition of female weakness?
During this week that is also notable for US feminists trying to revive the so-called E.R.A., they have revealed that feminism was never about real equality but only about faking the appearance of equality when it suited them and demanding special treatment for females when THAT suits them too.
There are no feminists when the lifeboats are lowered. |
|
I think we did a number with the Abu-Graib situation. Forcing a British POW to wear an Islamic headscarf does not even scratch the surface of the humiliating positions we put insurgents in there, regardless of the Geneva Conventions. However, once it was discovered, we took action to end the ridiculous behavior, and while I do not expect any such corrective behavior on the part of the Iranians, I hardly call the headscarf even worth a mention. There are more important aspects of this situation which need our attention.
Now is about the time to set a new timetable - a timetable for release of the hostages or else. I hope Britain has the courage to stick its neck out for its finest. It'd be a shame if the US had to once again come to the rescue, especially against such a punk regime. |
|
»Good thing we did not violate Geneva...We certainly did with some Iraqis and al Qaeda members in Afghanistan«
Spies and saboteurs are not protected by Geneva. If you're not in uniform when captured on the battlefield, you could be shot on sight. |
|
"So Iran is under a requirement to treat its prisoners decently. So far, it seems to be doing so."
So when we capture one of the Iranian goat violators, is it OK if we make him wear a Yankee ballcap and eat a hotdog?
Or better yet, why don't we put a bullet through his skull and feed him to the swine?
Would that violate the Geneva Conventions? Turnabout is fair play, and the goats have feelings too.
|
|
|
Time to hoist signal flags "1" and "6." |
|
The goat violators who run Iran, probably don't respect treaties presented to them by some Oxford heir to a shipping fortune.
They'll sign anything and tell us tomorrow that they didn't.
The Iranian goat violators are begging us to send them to Allah, sooner rather than later. They are not willing to allow the ramifications of goat violating to send them to Allah, they wish for the projectiles from the Great Satan.
I say give the goat violators the Great Satan penatrator, and let them dine along with their 99 virgins, tomorrow.
It's a win-win. |
|
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Third Geneva Convention signatory, or "High Contracting Party" as technically phrased. Iran signed the Convention the day it was completed in 1949, and ratified it in 1957. (And yes, such a ratification, unless explicitly revoked, is binding upon future governments.)
On the other hand, JP is right in that requiring a woman to wear a headscarf is probably not, ipso facto, "humiliating and degrading treatment."
So Iran is under a requirement to treat its prisoners decently. So far, it seems to be doing so. |
|
Geneva is the fruit of the West, not of the East. Iran, after the ouster of the Shah in '79, styles itself as the "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC," and in islam, there's no sanctity of treaties.
The only test is whether adhering to a treaty advances islam. Whether it advances jihad.
If adhering to a treaty makes the forces of islam stronger in the long run, and hastens the world-wide conquest by the forces of islam, then they'll adhere to the treaty. If not, then a treaty is a piece of parchment. Worthless.
In fact, LESS THAN WORTHLESS, for it allows us in the West to delude ourselves about the fundamental monstrosity of the regime in Tehran. |
|
|
on how wearing a headscarf violates the GC. There must be some childhood trauma you experienced to explain such a baffling claim. |
|
|
As far as the US is concerned, the Geneva Conventions do not apply in the Middle East unless the Shah of Persia is considered. Persia doesn't exist anymore,(it is Iran). Therefore, no violations have ever occurred on the side of the US. The rules do not apply. Think back to the soldiers hung, burned. They were clearly dressed as soldiers. THis then means that they should be treated without malice,receive medical treatment,food, etc...If they did, then the insurgents violated the GC. Many people claim that our soldiers always abuse the Gitmo Prisoners, when in fact, save the already reported incidents, we owe them squat. |
|
Don't both parties have to be a signatory for the rights of the convetions to apply? And, aren't both parties, signatory or not, required to follow the guidelines of the conventions to even be considered protected and covered under an appeal as stated in the conventions?
If the answer is yes to either (it is to both) then I too question, what is the big deal... at Gitmo? |
|
Is the Islamic Republic even a signatory? If not, they are not bound by it.
Besides, she's an infidel anyway, so what's the big deal? |
|
|
At least with the Iranians. We certainly did with some Iraqis and al Qaeda members in Afghanistan--but I think we have been exemplary in treating Iranian nationals captured in Iraq. |
|
|
Why is anybody in the world the least bit surprised about this? |
|
|