25 Prisoners Died While Held by U.S. Forces

These people merge hatred, terrorism and the targeting of civilians with religion.

You forgot ignorance.

As for the prisoners it\'s a shame.  I hope this article gets more press, not to make the soldiers look bad but to keep them on their toes to act on their best behavior rather than let their anger get the best of them.

I can only imagine how a disgruntled Iraqi throws a hissy fit when incarcerated. :sconf:

Originally posted by THX
You forgot ignorance.

I can only imagine how a disgruntled Iraqi throws a hissy fit when incarcerated. :sconf:

True...  

Only 1 death can be accounted for as a homicide by a US soldier - the other 12 were of natural causes like disease or wounds received from battle.  I wouldn\'t mind it getting more press, but the press needs to be objective unlike the Reuters article.

EDIT:  I am tired... 12 as opposed to 22...

I don\'t understand what\'s wrong with the article.  You\'re being less objective than the article.  10 of the deaths are still being investigated.  Thus only 12 were of "natural or undetermined causes"  NOT 22.

I am not being less objective... Reuters is always first to publicize exaggerated accounts of anything that will make the current adminstration look bad.  I take their reporting with a grain of salt and apparently so does most of the US media.  

Their claim of "25 killings" is misreporting the facts and irresponsible.  Their style of reporting is slanted - more so than any other "mainstream" news source.  Example:

A Reuters dispatch by Luke Baker reports on the escape of Thomas Hamill, a Halliburton employee who\'d been kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq:

Hamill, a dairy farmer who came to Iraq to make money and pay off debts at home, was kidnapped on April 9 after his convoy came under attack west of Baghdad.

So, he "came to Iraq to make money"? Why not just say he came to Iraq to work? Is Luke Baker of Reuters working free in Iraq?

One can find misrepresentations in the media for the day at this link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

It is subtle little words and innuendo’s that are irresponsible to the public.  Granted the example above is relatively harmless, but it shows the underlying contempt that a news organization such as Reuters has for any possible piece of good news that comes out of Iraq.

I would even go as far to say that the Iraqi prisoners are now openly taking advantage of the situation by creating false accusations.  This is tying the hands of the military who are now being watched for any sign of so called "abuse".

core

do not forget our enemy will strap a bomb to a 12 year old boy and send him off to blow up a bus full of innocent people for allah\'s love  :rolleyes:

... mm, wtf does that have to do with this thread?

Nothing as those are just radicals and don\'t make up the vast majority of Muslims.

And to whom ever said something about "their misguided religion" you are truely an idiot to say it\'s misguided just because you don\'t agree with it. Yes they have a bunch of people who are misguided and use religion in the wrong ways and take certain passages out of context, the same can be said about any fanatic of any religion.

[SirMystiq]

^^

Agreed. Besides, it\'s not their religion, it\'s their religious "leaders" Like during the Crusades, their leaders told them that it was right, so they did it.

I think that the US is hated so much because of our "we are the sun" ideal. When was the last time we have "helped" a country without a worry for personal gain? Panama and their drug leader Noriega? Nope. Afghanistan while fighting the Soviets? Nope. Kuwait while fighting Iraq? Nope. We just like to meddle in their business and they just hate us for it.

I didn\'t take time to read the original link because I heard that the story was kind of "tweaked" But how about those abused Iraqi prisoners? That\'s another reason why we are hated, our "American life > Anyother life" If it was US prisoners getting killed or abused we would be in there like a pack of wild dogs. Am I saying that I\'ll rather lose a life from our team than theirs? Nope, I\'m just saying that if we really are trying to help this people(which we aren\'t) we should start off by treating them with respect. Iraq will be what the Soviets called a "satellite state" except a "democratic" one.

And Sine that "pointless wars lead to pointless deaths"(I think) was right on the money.

So Bushy.. I guess those "rape rooms" and "torture chambers" are till in use?

Btw, remember that Apache video? Its being looked at again, apparently the helicopter crew "murdered" those people on the ground. Since its against the laws of war to kill a wounded soldier (they were soldiers right? Or just farmers? OOOPS!).

/me begins to see why the US does not support the court for war crimes.

Originally posted by fastson
So Bushy.. I guess those "rape rooms" and "torture chambers" are till in use?

Btw, remember that Apache video? Its being looked at again, apparently the helicopter crew "murdered" those people on the ground. Since its against the laws of war to kill a wounded soldier (they were soldiers right? Or just farmers? OOOPS!).

/me begins to see why the US does not support the court for war crimes.

Farmers?  Next thing you know they will be Muslim Clerics :rolleyes:

Now every death is going to scrutinized?  Please give it a rest.  Those soldiers were valid targets and maybe ground troops were on their way and the Apache had orders to secure the area.  A wounded soldier can still fight and pose a threat - just in case you didn\'t know.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Farmers?  Next thing you know they will be Muslim Clerics :rolleyes:

Now every death is going to scrutinized?  Please give it a rest.  Those soldiers were valid targets and maybe ground troops were on their way and the Apache had orders to secure the area.  A wounded soldier can still fight and pose a threat - just in case you didn\'t know.

Still, it is illegal to kill a wounded soldier.
The gunner (?) even said "he is wounded", the commander then gave order to "hit him" (not that way )..

When hit with the type of weapon that the Apache uses, I doubt you\'d be any serious threat.. to a helikopter. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by fastson
Still, it is illegal to kill a wounded soldier.
The gunner (?) even said "he is wounded", the commander then gave order to "hit him" (not that way )..

When hit with the type of weapon that the Apache uses, I doubt you\'d be any serious threat.. to a helikopter. :rolleyes:

Where does it say its illegal to kill a wounded soldier?  Linkage please.  Who knows how badly he was wounded... he was trying to crawl away - he still could have pulled a trigger on a gun most likely and like I said - how do you know ground troops were not moving into the are right behind the helicopters?  This is the second time I have said ground troops may have been moving into the area - they usually are proceeded by Apache\'s and other air support.  The area may have been designated as a free fire zone - in which case they have orders to shoot anything that moves.  Maybe they were planting IED\'s you know those nasty little roadside bombs...  the policy is shoot on sight.

I realize that Europe is the land of butterflies and rainbows, but the rest of the world isn\'t as cheery.  Don\'t even bother bringing up the Law of Land Warfare as it only provides for wounded enemies who have surrendered.  

Technically these didn\'t surrender - I can already hear you saying "but they weren\'t given a chance to surr...."  If they are in a free fire zone that is their bad luck.  War is war - not a damn soccer game.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Where does it say its illegal to kill a wounded soldier?

Patrick Baudouin from FIDH (Federation for Human Rights) said:
- To deliberately kill a wounded warrior/soldier means a war crime under international law.

International law - http://www.un.org/law/

[GmanJoe]

Let\'s see......

American Civilian Workers being shot, burnt and hung = 3 weeks of media attention

American Soldiers being abusive to Iraqi prisoners = one week so far, story just started

Originally posted by fastson
Patrick Baudouin from FIDH (Federation for Human Rights) said:
- To deliberately kill a wounded warrior/soldier means a war crime under international law.

International law - http://www.un.org/law/

Who the hell are they!?

Oh I see... some advocacy group:

The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights is a self-governing group of non-governmental, not-for-profit organizations that act to protect human rights throughout Europe, North America and Central Asia. A primary specific goal is to monitor compliance with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and its Follow-up Documents.

This group has no authority to declare anything crime.