Talk:Human rights violations in Iraq

I did not hear from any other source of the execution or tortue of US-soldiers by the Iras !? WeißNix 21:57 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

This is definitely not true (if there were no news on that in the last two hours). Sounds like American war propaganda. It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to present POWs in TV like that (BTW, Iraqi prisoners are seen in TV every day as well). So I will delete this sentence, if there are no objections. -- Cordyph 22:04 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I also deleted the reference to dead soldiers shown on Al Jazeera. These soldiers were apparently killed in action, and there is no evidence, that they were executed or even tortured to death. Sad enough, but it is not a violation of Geneva conventions or a human rights violation. -- Cordyph 22:20 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Two things. 1) I believe the sentence stated "apparent" torture and execution. That has been reported on news all over the world, quite a few countries have issued statements demanding that Iraq treat prisoners in concordance to the Geneva Convention. It is assumed that some of the soldiers were executed because they had bullet holes in their foreheads - not normal for typical combat fatalities. 2) It is not against the Geneva conventions to show POWs on TV, but it is under certain circumstances. If its a "staged event" - such as POWs being paraded around or interviews - that IS against the Geneva convention and that is exactly what Al Jazeera showed.

The International Criminal Court has been requested by the Asland Institute for Peace, Finland, to investigate George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, et al, for their part in the 2003 Iraq war. (this simple, factual, relevant sentence will have been excised from the "2003 Invasion of Iraq" article by anonymous censors by the time you read this). Someone(s) in this institution of Wikipedia, fortunately, had the wisdom to provide Talk pages as an outlet for dissenting opinion and relating of fact, and for future investigators and researchers, a valid and valuable resource.

Trying to cause trouble, are you? -- Zoe

See your User talk page, Reactionary.

I won't put the boilerplate in place, but you should probably read up on the copyright policy before putting in blatantly plagiarized chunks like the one I just excised. ("Copyright © 1992 by The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal", by the way.) And that's aside from labeling it someone's view right in the header, referring to pictures that aren't there, and using HTML instead of wikicode. Oh, and P.S., you're a failure as a profit[sic], the 2003 Invasion of Iraq addition is still there, about 3/4 hour later. -- John Owens 06:22 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hands you a "prophet" n/c--and while you revisit the third grade for spelling rehab, you might use some extra-credit time to investigate whether Ramsey Clark and the International War Crimes Tribunal would consider my insertion of their material here as a violation. You give your Reactionary carcass too much credit for your noble "neutral" POV.

Hands you a Wiktionary with pun bookmarked. -- John Owens

I'm compiling evidence for the extremely non-neutral International Criminal Court, from the vast stores of Wikipedia and those of its users whose content evidences criminal complicity in the crimes of Bush, his senior leadership, and his Coalition. The cowardly among you can breathe your sighs of relief that for most of you, the eventual outreach of the Court will mean no more than public shaming (as though that were not enough to shame anyone with compunction).

I think harassment is more of a criminal offense than laughable attempts at trying to convince any criminal court that anyone here is a war criminal. -- Zoe

Another user has clued me via email as to your history of harassment of others, Zoe, which apparently predates me. You're a gadfly and shit-stirrer. Don't dish out what you can't take. I'll provide adult supervision and allow you the last word.

Wow, I'm honored to be considered a gadfly and shit-stirrer if it involves taking on nonsense such as you and certain others that have caused trouble on the Wikipedia are concerned. -- Zoe

Zoe, moreover to your honor, the gadfly-accuser took three edits to get it right. Gadfly bite cattle, for the record, which explains the mad cow disease. Kingturtle 01:20 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

OK... we had two overlapping pages:

a) Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq and b) Human rights violations in Iraq

I've been meaning to try and merge them for ages. So I've just done it.

I merged (b) into (a), because (a) has a companion page on post-Saddam Iraq, Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq. I think the similarity of the names of these two pages is conducive to NPOV.

I've tried hard to keep all non-duplicate content from the two pages. I realize it's a big change... so I hope people are happy with it and the result! :) --Russell j 03:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]