The Spams can't have it both ways with POWs

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by msr, Mar 25, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

  2. The victor will write the history, wait a couple of years and see if there is any mention of PoW treatment issues.

    ******* spams :mad:
     
  3. msr

    msr LE

    I think that there will be, John Nichol's career as a pundit  has just been given a major boost.
     
  4. Very true msr, but Mohammed abdullah abdul's pundit career still seems a little shakey... ;)

    As I said, the victor writes the history.
     
  5. msr

    msr LE

    Mohammed abdullah abdul

    Who he?

    msr
     
  6. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    The bloke who runs the corner shop.
     
  7. My mate Mohammed, he's just a figment of my imagination :p

    Sorry for the ambiguity, I was trying to point out that we get plenty of feedback from PoW's from our side, but not from PoW's that we took
     
  8. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I like the fact that the SPAMS can lock up PW's by the '000s and not mention anything about the Red Cross (though their mil. were handing out 'we are safe' postcards for later delivery by the RC) but as soon as 5 of theirs get picked up they're demanding immediate RC access to their boys.  Meanwhile the '000s of Iraqi's are suddenly just now going to have RC access.  Well the way I figure it the Spams had 3 days worth of holding PW's before deciding RC access is a good idea so that's 3 days for saddam's boys to hold the Americans.
     
  9. The Spams have just released 19 Afghans from Guantanamo Bay.

    I wonder why?
     
  10. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Surely not because they were innocent all along and it's a busy news day  :eek:
     
  11. Very interesting piece  in the Torygraph today about POWs, more or less its Ok, to photo the poor buggers.
    As it doesn't actually state in the Geneva Convention you musn't show photos of them.
    Although the intention is far from honourable a benefit may be that it may reduce the harm that comes to the individuals concerned.