Posted on 06/21/2006 10:03:01 AM PDT by TexKat
We would hope for that Peach, but I doubt it. The blood thirsty monsters would need live individuals in order to receive pleasure.
But then who knows!
If 30 gunmen did open fire on them, they were probably dead before tortured. That's my hope at least, and I'm sure the hope of the families involved as well.
Shame the troops did not have time to emplace any claymore mines. WOuld have evened up the odds pretty quick.
I wonder what the squad leader of these two troopers is doing right now?
Citation please.
That's a silly observation to make. If some foreign country invaded my neighborhood today, I don't even own an "identifiable uniform" to wear while I sniped at them from my bedroom window. Would the Geneva Convention find it more acceptable for me to wear my hockey team's colors than my pajamas?
I'd also point out that under these standards it would also be a "war crime" for the U.S. to have private security contractors operating in a place like Iraq. I'm sure those guys aren't dressed like the typical security guard at an office building in New York or Chicago.
As I will point out...and others have done so in the past...the amount of ammo these guys are carrying isn't exactly alot. If they did have extra ammo...it lay in the HUMV and by moving back...they gave up their chance of survival at that point. As long as you can keep firing...no one is going to advance on you...the minute you run out of bullets...your chances of survival end. That is the sad end of this story.
From reading other accounts of Muslim barbarism my guess is most of the mutilation was after death. Such as what was done to their genitals. Their deaths were awful. We kill our enemies cleanly. We don't delight in their painful deaths.
I compare these barbarians to our American Indians of the past. Many tribes were connoisseurs of torture before the white man came. It was prime entertainment around the camp fire for these savages. Why do you think they were called savages?
Geneva Convention Selections*
1. Ambulances, military hospitals, and the personnel serving with them are to be recognized as neutral and protected during conflict.
2. Wounded or sick combatants are to be collected and cared for by either side in a conflict.
3. Prisoners Of War (POWs) must not be subjected to torture, medical experimentation, and must be protected against acts of violence, insults, and public curiosity.
4. POWs are required to provide to their captors only their name, rank, date of birth, and military service number.
5. Prisoners are subject to the laws of their captors, and can be tried by their captors courts. The captor shall ensure fairness, impartiality, and a competent advocate (lawyer) for the prisoner.
6. Taking of hostages is prohibited.
7. Civilians cannot be forced to do military-related work for an occupying force.
8. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations are prohibited.
9. Recruitment of children under age 15 into the armed forces is forbidden.
10. Combatants cannot conceal their allegiance; they must be recognizable as combatants while preparing for or during an attack.
11. Attacks are forbidden on civilians, crops, water sources, cultural objects, and places of worship.
12. Children are to be evacuated to safe areas when possible, and reunited with their families.
*Source: American National Red Cross: A Summary of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, 2001.
It seems to me that in order to be tortured, one must be alive. If you are dead, it is mutilation, or some other word to describe what they might do to a body. At any rate, one can hope they are still alive and recoverable.
I'd appreciate the primary source. I've read many of the conventions, and I haven't yet come across the stated requirement. I really am interested in reading that clause.
heading = hearing
I guess the claim that Zarquawi's successor killed them is bu!!$h*t.
I have to wonder also. This very small unit seemed too isolated. A fire team should not have been so isolated. Such a small unit can be overwhelmed very quickly.
If this is SOP, then it may call for a change in tactics. However, the fact that this isn't happening all the time tells me that this was a mistake, and not standard operating procedure. On the other hand, the insurgents did not seem to have much trouble massing forces and attacking the isolated unit in a coordinated fashion.
That suggests command, control and communication and possibly casing this same checkpoint for a time before the attack.
I would guess that given the known danger in the area that these soldiers were in, that some some lower ranking officer such as a lieutenant, is in a lot of trouble right now for assigning only two soldiers, without backup, in an area where terrorists were known to be present in force. Such a deployment borders on stupidity or negligence or both.
Reuters calls them rebels...
WHEN IN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO CLEAN THIS RAT HOLE "TRIANGLE OF DEATH" UP? When are we going to fight this war as it should be fought -- ruthlessly and relentlessly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.