betsy

When Dachau opened in 1933, internees and their relatives were told that they were there "for their own safety". They lied. Or things got out of hand. Or it was poorly planned. Etc.., That was then. We should've learned from those mistakes by now. In this day and age, when the world is really keeping tabs on abuses against humanity....and most civilized nations are trying to comply, chances are, internment wouldn't be like that from the past. Most likely, independent observers will be around to monitor the conditions of, and treatment given to interns.

Excuse me, can you explain how this thread can be likened to trolling?

Is that situation supposed to get the whole nation in a STATE OF EMERGENCY? The simplest solution to that is just for parents to stop sending their children to Muslim preachers if they are being sexually abused! End of the problem! Why do they all have to be interned? Now, if the Muslim preachers start bombing places to create chaos in our cities.... for whatever reasons they may have, including the deisre to sodomize or molest children...now, that is a different story. Maybe internment will not be all what we'll be debating about then....debate will also include turning them into eunichs! Please, refer to the title of the topic...the exact scenario that is being assumed.

Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ? That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ? I answered your question, now you answer mine. Who is talking about internment camps based on religion. Betsy is. The question was should all Muslims be interned? Well apparently there were other internments that had happened in the past, according to M. Dancer. So my answer to that is another question (since this topic was partly inspired by the internment of the Japanese), were ALL Germans, all Ukrainians, all Japanese interned during those respective times?

Yes. Very well said.

Issues that the enemies know they can...and had used to their advantage. Killing the bomb-maker is just a part of it. Killing those who pay the bomb-makers to make bombs...or those who recruit suicide bombers to carry out attacks is the big chunk of it. The recruiters are the roots that should be pulled out. Why would you give your enemy an advantage over you? If for example Israel is being bombed by Iran...should Israel consider the safety of the majority of Iranians in bombing back? Shouldn't they just unleash a rain of bombs after all they're being attacked?

I understand that attacking Iraq became "immoral" only because the UN did not sanction it? Had the UN gave the go-ahead signal....it would've been a moral war?

We don't need new rules. Article one of the geneva conventions already clearly states that using civilian shields is a war crime and that the deaths or injuries of those human shields is not blamed on the bombers, but rather those using the civilians as shields in the first place. In other words, Qana et. al. was a war crime: a palestinian one. I think it should be revised in the sense that those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions rule should not be protected by the said rules. Or something similar to that. If the terrorists want to fight dirty...then we should also have the option, if we so choose...to fight "dirty" too. That we don't get hauled in front of the tribunal to answer to accusations of "war crimes."

Because the said humanitarian laws are only for certain groups of people! You explain why there's hardly anything being done about the way Israel is treated....as compared to the nations that are fighting Israel. Israel is easily slapped on the wrist for just about anything when it deals with these opponents...and yet, the UN practically tries to downplay the offenses of the others! Lebanon and Israel war was a perfect example! That Harper even had to argue with these nations of the Francophonie...many of whom are members of the UN...just so to recognize casualties in Israel as victims too....speaks volume! To them, Isrealites are nothing! If we should talk of values and REAL morals, well then....humanitarian law should be for all!

They may not have the fire-power...but I wouldn't casually dismiss them as a threat. Why, they've got the whole world in a tizzy!

" It may constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity to violate the Geneva Conventions. There are four Geneva Conventions (signed in 1949) and two additional Protocols. The first two deal with the wounded and sick, the third deals with prisoners of war, and the fourth deals with civilians. The two protocols deal with the victims of international and non-international conflicts. The Geneva Conventions make a distinction between civilians and combatants. There are different rules for different classes of people in conflicts: SOLDIERS -Combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians, wearing uniforms and carrying weapons openly -POWs must be treated humanely – when questioned, POWs must only give their name, rank, birth date, and serial number -POWs must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and not unnecessarily exposed to danger – they may not be used as human shields -POWs may not be punished for the acts they committed during fighting unless the opposing side would punish its own soldiers for the same acts CIVILIANS -Civilians are not subject to attack – unless justified by military necessity, there is to be no destruction of property -Individuals or groups must not be deported -Civilians must not be used as hostages, must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity, must not be tortured, raped, or enslaved, must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals, and must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance -Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons JOURNALISTS -War correspondents and journalists are recognized as civilians and are due all civilian protections -Journalists must not be deliberately targeted, detained, or otherwise mistreated – journalists must differentiate themselves from combatants by not wearing uniforms or openly carrying firearms" http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/arti...onventions.html

Well I wouldn't call us fighting "dirty" like the terrorist! I wouldn't compare us with the terrorists! My goodness! There is big difference here. We are not deliberately using civilians as shields! And so far, we are doing what we can to avoid as many casualties as possible among civilians. However, there will always be casualties of war, unfortunately...that's the hard reality...and nothing will change that no matter what. So yes, we are trying to adhere to values dictated by our culture. But I am not talking about that. I am talking about the rules of engagement established and dictated to by nations. You cannot just bind one group to the rules...and let the other group follow no rules! And then on top of that, protect the "rights" of the group that follow no rules at all!

We know that terrorists in other countries like the Hezbollah deliberately hide among their own civilians. And from one of the recent news account (can't remember if it was Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan), some civilians were forced to stay in town to provide cover...or to be used as shields....knowing that perhaps the international community will apply the expected pressure on the attacking nation from bombing. The civilians were prevented from leaving or evacuating. It may seem laughable and ridiculous to say that internment does not have to mean the interned group are automatically enemies....and that it is more for their own safety. If the scenario that I've assumed above, that due to numerous terrorists attacks Canada had declared a state of emergency, is it a stretch of the imagination how some people may react? We had seen hostile reactions recently following a few incidents as a knee-jerk reaction (right after 9/11, several Muslims were interviewed on tv and had complaint of harrassment), isolated incidents of vandalism. What more if there is a real major disaster and state of emergency? Since we know the terrorists' modus operandi of hiding among Muslim civilians....suspicion will fall on every civilians. You can call it paranoia or islamophobia....but it will be a natural reaction for the people (non-Muslims) who feel threatened. Besides, how do you protect a Muslim moderate from being forced by the radicals to be the "cover"...or the "shield." I don't think many moderate Muslims would voluntarily come forward and report about it...perhaps not out of loyalty to the radical element....but out of fear. Right now we know that one big obstacle the law enforcers are facing among ethnic groups...is that most ethnic groups do not want to "rat" on their own. Is it because of lack of trust towards the cops?....or fear of retaliation?...a cultural code?...who knows. The moderates will be caught in the middle. They will become sitting ducks. Thus I say, internment should not be looked upon as an acknowledgemnt that the interned group are enemies. It should not be phrased as "being arrested!" That was what was wrong about the Japanese internment imho. Everyone treated them like enemies. My scenario looked too dire....and too dark. It's a scenario of all hell breaking loose in our society. But it seems the world is coming apart. When you hear of the intifada happening in France....something that you usually and normally read about far-flung countries in Africa or somewhere that no one knows about...but it is happening in a country like France! An old nation like France. A democratic society like France. And we know that we are on the list. Of course I can''t help but wonder and have these what-if thoughts.

Wow...what passes these days........ No. No experiance like the japanese wars.........No internment of Italians (during the italian wars?)...no internment of Ukranians (...uke wars?)....no internment of Germans........ amazing how most of us have learned a thing or two since 1945......and how amazing some have not. In Canada? I didn't know that....

Again, let me remind you....this is only a what-if scenario. I stressed that! On the title topic...and on my very first post. And I would like to remind you again that the what-if scenario states that "numerous attacks had happened, and a state of emergency was declared." I don't know the state of alertness or emergencies we follow in Canada...but I am thinking of something that is similar to a war state situation....or situations that could induce the declaration of let's say, martial law. This is just pure assumption. This topic was partly inspired by the internment that happened to the Japanese. That was uglyy. No doubt about that. But it did happen! So we have a precedent. And having had a precedent....it could therefore happen again...or it may not. Notice that I stressed the importance of not confiscating properties and possessions....for that was one of the main injustice that happened to the Japanese. I also stressed that the Japanese were ALL AUTOMATICALLY looked upon as enemies! Which I find very wrong. The reason for the internment should have been for the SAFETY of ALL! ESPECIALLY, the Japanese people!

Shocking may be. Or disturbing. But, discussing it shouldn't be suppressed.

So, you admit....it is our way of life.... that they resent. So what do we do? Change our culture to something they'd find acceptable....as a form of appeasement, of course? In the name of imagined "peace", we have to capitulate and sacrifice our way of life?

I wouldn't say "the MOST likely...." at this point. But it is a possibility. That's why we need also to keep check and balance! You do not agree to almost anything put before you without listening to the experts and understanding how it can affect us too.

Taking over nations does not always necessarily have to involve violence.

Deeply entrenched negative feelings against us could've stemmed from a combination of various reasons. For the extremists followers of the Koran....our very way of life is one reason they've got this deeply entrenched feelings against us. That we are not believers of their prophet is another. That some western democracies support Israel and the Jews is another. Etc., In other words...we appease?

Well I don't know what's in the international humanitarian law, so I can't say if that is what I mean.

So how do we know just how many wants us liberating them...and how many don't? Referendum? That would be quite tricky to accomplish in a dictatorial or oppressive regime, don't you think? So what kind of "saving" do you think they want...if they don't want our physical involvement? Financial aid? "Just give me cash please?"

History is not confined only to Latin America. FYI, history does not apply only to the last 100 years or so. Anyway, feel free to re-educate me about Latin America. What happened? So I see you've got a beef with the USA. What about England? And more recently...the Australia? Canada? Don't you think they did pretty well? Where are they now? What kind of society do they enjoy? What kind of immigrants flock to these shores, including that of the big bad ol USA...immigrants from which parts of the world? Latin America? Asia? MiddleEast? Africa? You agree to that? (to be continued...got to go.)

Common sense. See answer above. And your explanation?

Why do you think they're not as useless now? Or worse? The enemy does not follow the laws and norms. It takes two to tango. If your enemy is not obligated...nor does it have any inclination at all to follow the laws, in fact it laughs and scoffs at these said laws and uses it as a weapon to wield against you....then obviously, you're in a pickle!