When threats to humiliate
are used to then subjugate
a country to an expected fate…
if they perceive themselves to be wronged.
Is this the new look for women
who speak out against the men
who hide behind culture (law) then
seek out virgins (by claim) as if they’re longed?
How does one seek to suppress
that which is desired, to regress,
and be seen as selfish in the press…
but noble by cause, on game show soon gonged!
To posture against any humiliation Iran may say is directed to them [if even perceived to be] will cause exposure of information, obtained under duress, of the US sailors captured [US Navy] to humiliate them. So how does this apply to women and ‘Women’s Rights’ here or to the lack of concern over the rights of children, as provided for under the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights); which is what we should defend the most. Take the case of Sgt. Martland… and how wrong it is to throw away our own values, to conform to that which is politically correct [even culturally accepted] or ‘looked away from without regard’- to excuse it is to see it continue. What I find most appalling here is the lack of disclosure found in the US media… and the apathy to what an honorable man faces, being expelled from doing what he was trained to do with heart and selflessness.
Non-combatant: Does this apply or not? If Iran is at war with the world… how should we (then) look at our own views?
a)… violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b)… taking of hostages;
c)… outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
d)… the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regular constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Once the status of belligerency is established between two or more states, their relations are determined and governed by the laws of war.
[Reference found here for the words above.]