Is Conservative Government Guilty Of War Crimes?

[TenPenny]

Well, as long as we agree that we can use insults, that's fine. I was just wondering how hypocritical some people are expecting to be, that's all.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I wonder if any self-appointed patriach of the web has ever complained about your offensive language when you use these insults, Messiah and Joan of Arc?

Well, you have complained. Are you a self appointed patriarch?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't see this as a big deal, TenPenny when referring to politicians, I do it myself a lot like referring to Mulroney as "Lyin' Brian" and one of our local Politicians - Penny Priddy as "Pretty Penny".

Quite so, JLM, politicians are fair game, individual posters are not (or should not be). And those who complain when I refer to Harper as Messiah, or Palin as Joan of arc, they are the first ones to use the most vile, nasty, filthy names when referring to Liberal politicians or to Obama.

There problem is that they lack the skill of using sarcasm, using parody. They don’t have the knack of damning somebody with praise (and in spite of what TenPenny thinks, ‘Messiah’ or ‘Joan of Arc’ are not insults, they are honorifics). All they can do is to call filthy names to the politicians (and to posters) they don’t like. They just cannot handle the sarcasm, satire directed at their own political icons.

Anyway, if referring to Harper as “Messiah’ or referring to Plain as ‘Joan of Arc’ I can get under the skin of conservatives, why, all the more reason to use those terms.

 

[TenPenny]

Well, you have complained. Are you a self appointed patriarch?

If you take that as a complaint, then you have far more issues with the written language than I thought. You'd not do well in a real debate, would you?

 

[TenPenny]

There problem is that they lack the skill of using sarcasm, using parody.

Some lack skill in writing a simple sentence.

 

[JLM]

Well, as long as we agree that we can use insults, that's fine. I was just wondering how hypocritical some people are expecting to be, that's all.

I've always believed that before we can laugh at others we have to be able to laugh at ourself and be able to take a little ribbing but once we can do that I have no qualms about making fun of politicians, or actors and actresses, sports celebrities etc. If these people want to be immune to friendly (or unfriendly bashing) they should join a monestary.

 

[JLM]

"Anyway, if referring to Harper as “Messiah’ or referring to Plain as ‘Joan of Arc’ I can get under the skin of conservatives, why, all the more reason to use those terms."

I agree with you up to a point, S.J. the first time you say something like that it can be hilarious, the tenth time mildly amusing, the hundredth time, perhaps a little boring. The same with getting under their skin, I doubt if you are STILL getting under their skin, they have bigger fish to fry and I bet are no longer losing ANY sleep.

 

[Francis2004]

Quite so, JLM, politicians are fair game, individual posters are not (or should not be). And those who complain when I refer to Harper as Messiah, or Palin as Joan of arc, they are the first ones to use the most vile, nasty, filthy names when referring to Liberal politicians or to Obama.

There problem is that they lack the skill of using sarcasm, using parody. They don’t have the knack of damning somebody with praise (and in spite of what TenPenny thinks, ‘Messiah’ or ‘Joan of Arc’ are not insults, they are honorifics). All they can do is to call filthy names to the politicians (and to posters) they don’t like. They just cannot handle the sarcasm, satire directed at their own political icons.

Anyway, if referring to Harper as “Messiah’ or referring to Plain as ‘Joan of Arc’ I can get under the skin of conservatives, why, all the more reason to use those terms.

You are welcomed to continue to use those terms of course but I disagree in that these are the best way to get points across. Using the term once or twice might be funny but it loses its effectiveness when used repeatedly.

If one believes that one cannot make a point without using proper names then one is ill prepared to debate and that applies for all.

 

[TenPenny]

"Anyway, if referring to Harper as “Messiah’ or referring to Plain as ‘Joan of Arc’ I can get under the skin of conservatives, why, all the more reason to use those terms."

I agree with you up to a point, S.J. the first time you say something like that it can be hilarious, the tenth time mildly amusing, the hundredth time, perhaps a little boring. The same with getting under their skin, I doubt if you are STILL getting under their skin, they have bigger fish to fry and I bet are no longer losing ANY sleep.

Quite so, of course, and the Lord High Mayor of Flexible Ethics is quite right, as well, old boy.

 

[Colpy]

Treat others as yu would have them treat you. What is fair game for us and our allies is fair game for our adversaries. So the question isn't what's considered torture for our prisoners, but what's fair game for treatment of Canadians by our adversaries.

So what kind of treatment would you consider a war crime if it was done to Canadians?

Is waterboarding Canadians ok? How about beatings and electric shock? How about a cattle prod up the anus. At what point does ill treatment become torture?

Here is a December 12, 2001 International Red Cross report:


So this has been on for some time.

Ah....EaO, you begin to show some understanding of the principles of the treatment of prisoners....it is reciprocal......

And we could legitimately be shooting every prisoner we take in Afghanistan....as they murder NATO prisoners.

No, I would not approve of such a thing....and there is NEVER an excuse for torture....I am simply making a point. Sometimes I wonder if you think before you post......

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Fact is, we are now part of a very dirty, very old war. For the last 30 years Afghanistan has been in an intense civil war, ever since the Soviets invaded in 1979. And were there no war crimes or torture over this period? In a country where killing a woman is like killing a bird? 'Bravest woman in Afghanistan' tours Canada

This is a shameful war and it is time to leave it. If they attack us we can attack them. We need a cordon sanitaire from this religious madness.

 

[earth_as_one]

Ah....EaO, you begin to show some understanding of the principles of the treatment of prisoners....it is reciprocal......

And we could legitimately be shooting every prisoner we take in Afghanistan....as they murder NATO prisoners.

No, I would not approve of such a thing....and there is NEVER an excuse for torture....I am simply making a point. Sometimes I wonder if you think before you post......

I expect Canadian soldiers to behave professionally at all times regardless of the behavior of our adversaries. If Canadian soldiers capture an adversary, I expect they act in accordance with international laws, treaties and conventions regarding the treatment of POWs. If any Canadian soldier does anything illegal, I would want them held accountable for their actions to the full extent of the law.

Our adversaries have likely known for a long time that if they are captured by Canadians, they will be handed over to a third party for interrogation where they will get a cattle prod up the arse and will be beaten repeatedly until death.

Does that qualify as murdering a POW or just killing a terrorist?

I imagine our requests that our adversaries treat captured Canadian soldiers humanely must sound hypocritical. Would you prefer the Taliban hand Canadian soldiers over to a third party where they are beaten to death? That would be reciprocal treatment.

Also many people Canadian soldiers handed over to the Afghans for a cattle prodding were probably only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of them were subsequently killed/murdered. Is that part of our strategy to win the hearts and minds of average Afghans?

BTW, you never answered my question. Would you consider waterboarding torture? How about a cattle prod up the arse and beaten repeatedly? Would you want Canadians treated the same way we treated Afghans? The way we treat our POWs must be the same way we would demand our adversaries to treat our soldiers.

 

[earth_as_one]

Funny.
What Chretien did say for sure was that Canada would strive to:

"deter and disable terrorist organizations;" among other things.

In Canada's view, the Taliban are terrorists. So it seems to me that there is little difference in meaning and you are simply whining about the semantics.

I interpreted that as meaning the people responsible for 9/11, not one side of a civil war in Afghanistan.

Before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were focused on winning a civil war and their activity outside Afghanistan was limited to Pakistan where they had political and military support. Can you point to an example of a Taliban terrorist attack outside Afghanistan/Pakistan before we attacked them?

It was only after we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan, that they became our adversaries. We sided with one of the Taliban's adversaries known as the Alliance, which had a record about the equivalent of the Taliban. Are the Alliance terrorists? They used suicide bombings and other common terrorist tactics, just like the Taliban. How come this group aren't considered terrorists?

The word "terrorist" is pretty general and can be applied to any person or group which causes terror. I think it was pretty stupid to declare an open ended war on a tactic. What that meant is we can attack anyone we don't like, whether provoked or not. All we have to do is pin a label to them first.

We should have defined our enemy more clearly.

 

[AnnaG]

I interpreted that as meaning the people responsible for 9/11, not one side of a civil war in Afghanistan.

There are interpretations other than yours, you know, and just because you have one doesn't mean it's the right one.

Before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were focused on winning a civil war and their activity outside Afghanistan was limited to Pakistan where they had political and military support. Can you point to an example of a Taliban terrorist attack outside Afghanistan/Pakistan before we attacked them?

It was only after we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan, that they became our adversaries. We sided with one of the Taliban's adversaries known as the Alliance, which had a record about the equivalent of the Taliban. Are the Alliance terrorists? They used suicide bombings and other common terrorist tactics, just like the Taliban. How come this group aren't considered terrorists?

The word "terrorist" is pretty general and can be applied to any person or group which causes terror. I think it was pretty stupid to declare an open ended war on a tactic. What that meant is we can attack anyone we don't like, whether provoked or not. All we have to do is pin a label to them first.

We should have defined our enemy more clearly.

The Taliban regime faced international scrutiny and condemnation for its policies. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S., Saudi Arabia and the UAE cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban.
The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial.
The Taliban recognized the need for international ties but wavered between cooperation—they claimed to have drastically cut opium production in July 2000—and defiance—they pointedly ignored international pleas not to destroy the 2000-year-old Buddhist statues of Bamian. However, they made no effort to curb terrorist activity within Afghanistan, a policy that ultimately led to their undoing.
Even after their ouster, the Taliban's brand of Islamist radicalism threatens to destabilize other countries in the region including Iran, China, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan. The Taliban's relationship with Pakistan is especially problematic. A high percentage of the Taliban are ethnic Pashtuns; Pashtuns are a sizable minority in Pakistan and dominate the Pakistani military. Public support for the Taliban runs very high in the Pashtun North-West Frontier province where pro-Taliban groups have held uprisings and sought to emulate Taliban practices by performing public executions and oppressing women.

You are saying that people that like to terrorize others don't form groups? Canada calls Taliban a terrorist group for no good reason? lmao

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are welcomed to continue to use those terms of course but I disagree in that these are the best way to get points across. Using the term once or twice might be funny but it loses its effectiveness when used repeatedly.

If one believes that one cannot make a point without using proper names then one is ill prepared to debate and that applies for all.

I never claimed that is the best way to get the point across, Francis. But it is one way, it serves its purpose, it is effective, and it seems to get under the skin of at least some conservatives (otherwise they wouldn't be complaining about it). So I think it serves its purpose.

 

[Goober]

I never claimed that is the best way to get the point across, Francis. But it is one way, it serves its purpose, it is effective, and it seems to get under the skin of at least some conservatives (otherwise they wouldn't be complaining about it). So I think it serves its purpose.

SJP - are you and Liberalman receiving order direct from Lemming Command Central - as we now know that is in Toronto ??? Where Iggy and the elite hangout out in their rump of a party as described by Coderre and Dion's wife -

 

[Liberalman]

Amnesty international Canada is calling for an independant inquiry but the Conservatives are continuing to keep their head in the sand because they would rather see Canada’s reputation go in the toilet than admit that they made a mistake.

 

[darkbeaver]

Get current, Canadas reputation is already in the toilet. We are aiding and abetting the genocidal Zionist regime.

 

[AnnaG]

Canada is Satan.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Harper can save face with the Canadian people by first handing all legal documents pertaining to the detainee issue over for close chronological examination.

After the findings who ever has done wrong should be removed immediately from the current governing cabinet.

It bothers me with the shadow Conservatives who at will act as the FBI of Canada,
thereby dictating to Colvin to stop writing letters and report any new findings via telephone.
We all know that phone calls are much easier to modify then letters.
Something fish is up what that…..

I am not for a minute going to think that Harper was in the dark, the proof in the putting here will come soon after the investigation is complete, the way things show Harper Conservatives will be wearing this on their necks come next election.

The biggest laugh in this past week was Harper preaching human rights in China, playing the role of the intellectual when in fact this Detainee ISSUE points to the Conservatives to be not snow whites but rather bloody whites.

Yes, the detainee issue is a serious war crime for a country that preaches human rights to the world.

Unfortunate as it has been alleged, Colvin’s letter communication this far point to wrong doing on the detainee torture, which will subject Canada in the eyes of the al-Qaida in the most recent hit list.

I know the truth hurts, especially this if proven to being the result of a Government who pretends to be a just and fair government, when this latest military revelation is about to prove otherwise.

BIG NEWS.

8O