Gabriel

The dark part of me within agrees with much of what all of you have said, but the optimist in me wants to agree with George Bush's position that freedom and democracy is God's gift to the world. I feel like my opinion on this issue changes every day. One day I'll throw my hands up in the air and just think to myself that the country is doomed to savagery and barbarism due to the prevalence of sickening cultural traditions. The next day I hold out hope and see an inspiring story on TV or read a hopeful anecdote online. I sure hope there IS a good possibility of Afghanistan and Iraq working towards strong democratic and free societies over time, though. It would be an amazing story in history. With respect to the story referenced in the OP, I sure hope that these schoolchildren, teachers, and other stakeholders in education are alloted reasonable protection by our military and allies from Taliban terrorists and other filth. Especially given the fact that these attacks are not new and seem to be growing in frequency and volume. If this security threat isn't being addressed responsibly by our government and our allies, then THAT is a shameful situation that should receive more media attention. I'd like to see Ignatieff or another opposition idiot achieve a little redemption by raising this issue! Unfortunately, the opposition again wastes time by droning on about a non-priority like abuse allegation during question period. If Ignatieff really wanted to take a position that would resonate with Canadians on an emotional level he would criticize the government (fair or unfair) for not doing more to protect Afghans that Canadians WILL care about - young students. Instead, he'd prefer to be an advocate for those that many Canadians have little concern for - Taliban detainees. For the Liberal operatives out there - that advice is on the house. On the other hand, the Conservatives could emphasize this issue and treat it as a priority, and then build support for its policies by showing improvements towards this problem resulting from governmental actions.

My apologies if I implied that you had compared us to the enemy with respect to conduct or morality. It has been an idea I've heard in these forums from several people, though. Yes, such a suggestion is absolutely ludicrous. I agree with you that our behaviour must be judged by our own standards. Neither capricorn or I have suggested otherwise. I disagree with your assertion that we are outsourcing detainee management in order to wash our hands of difficult work. It simply isn't practical to install a full prison infrastructure in Afghanistan or anywhere else to deal with this problem, so Canada (and our allies) has decided to work with the existing infrastructure in Afghanistan to deal with the very real problem of managing detainees. I agree that we must be firm with the Afghanistan government. Since I'm certainly no expert on the inner working of the conflict, I am unsure if Canada and our allies are making strong efforts shape the Afghan government into what it should be. I am sure you would concede that although certain values are universal (values which are apparently non-existent in countries like Afghanistan), it can and does take time for these values to take hold in a culture and its institutions. Clearly freedom and democracy cannot bloom overnight. Perhaps positive changes in Afghanistan at the cultural and institutional levels are occurring at a reasonable rate. I do like your idea of severe consequences for terrorists, though.

Yes, yes... how ethnocentric we are to "force" our values of equality of all persons, freedom, democracy, protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, age, or sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc. How imperialistic of us to force these clearly WESTERN values on another "civilization". Reality check - our core values are UNIVERSAL, although you wish to portray them as being relative values. LIVE FREE OR DIE.

Just curious - Is your screen name inspired by Naomi Klein and Danny Glover? Lastly, are you an arts student enrolled in an arts program like "international development" or "public policy"? Just curious how much strongly you match the type of person I think you are.

Capricorn - Feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your posts. I'm quite certain I understood the point you were conveying, though. I still cannot see how Sir Bandelot or Toad Brother or Topaz interpreted your posts as some sort of justification for any abuses that have occurred (or have allegedly occurred) as a direct or indirect result of the actions of us or our allies.

More evidence of Ignatieff being a liar without integrity - I watched him in question period today accusing the government of attacking Colvin's reputation. This is a common criticism from the left on this issue, and it is a complete lie. The government has *never* attacked Colvin on a personal level or criticized his character. The government has only attacked the value of his testimony given the fact that it is all based on four interviews with Taliban detainees who may or may not have been apprehended by Canadian forces. Iggy is as much of a liar as some of the leftist in this forum, at least with respect to this issue. Anyways....

Capricorn's point is simple - those that suggest that we are behaving similarly to our enemies are idiotic. Bringing up the case of Daniel Pearl is entirely relevant, as it is one of COUNTLESS examples of the type of barbarism we're fighting against. The few incidents where those on our side have behaved dishonourably (i.e. the Abu Ghraib scandal) have been addressed and dealt with. Contrast that with the widespread support that terrorists and murderers receive among segments of their home populations (i.e. the Lockerbie bombing terrorist receiving a hero's welcome in Libya). There is no comparison between the honourable conduct that we exhibit (our people, our government, and our military) and the barbaric conduct of our enemies and their supporters. To suggest any commonality while ignoring the immeasurable differences illustrates supreme idiocy (i.e. eyeball and jaysfan). This stupidity may apply to other posters in here, as well. I cannot recall. The bottom line - there is no meaningful parallel to be drawn between our conduct and the conduct of our enemies. It is absurd to suggest such a thing. With respect to the Pearl/Pearlman typo, it seems strange to me that you two would make a mistake and use a seemingly common Jewish "suffix" to the name. Ah well, I won't make much of it. Otherwise, it is shocking that capricorn's simple point has been twisted into something she didn't even imply in the slightest - that she was somehow justifying any misdeeds done by our side. She's just putting some context in there, and squashing the silly "we're just like them" line of argumentation that often seems to come from the left on such matters.

So now you're sub-categorizing Jews in order to suggest that European Jews had no claim to the land. I guess sometimes it's convenient for you to lump us all together, and other times it's more convenient to sub-categorize us. We don't need to be removed of our rights to self-determination and statehood because we are a small population? Who the hell gives a shit about the 10% number? Does a group need to constitute 51% of an arbitrarily defined territory to satisfy your standards for a "claim" to the land? There is a Jewish connection to the land going back MUCH FURTHER than anyone else still around today. We didn't ask to be forcefully displaced throughout the world. And finally, after Jews coordinated following the greatest massacre in history you question the legitimacy of a Jewish state? First of all, I don't even care about indigenous claims to the land. For either side, it's irrelevant (although it's a losing argument for the recently created group known as Palestinians). What matters is what has happened, and how the powers that be divided the land leading up to Israel's establishment. If you go into some emotional sense of fairness (as you're trying to do with this issue), then we can redivide the entire world into new territories and redraw all the borders. Decisions were made by the powers that be to create a Jewish state, after much lobbying by Jewish groups and Zionist supporters. It's been done. Thank god it was done.

There are several diseases that are more common among Ashkenazi Jews... are you talking about Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis? Many populations have their genetic advantages and liabilities. There are also many illnesses that various types of Jews are less likely to acquire. It shouldn't be surprising, cultures often maintain some element homogeneity by "sticking together" over time. That being said, I think Jews have engaged in more mixing up than most other cultures. We've spread around the world and thrived in all sorts of free and democratic societies, despite prejudices and other obstacles. Anyways, this is too much of a tangent and not worth discussing.

My undergrad was science (biochemistry, specifically), and I took courses in evolutionary biology. I have a casual interest in genetics and how the mixing (or lack of mixing) of populations over time explains various phenomenons - for example the susceptibility or resistance of various ethnic groups to disease. Anyways, everything you stated above is a lie. The Palestinians, as they are now known, do NOT have roots in the land that goes back to "prehistoric" times. The opposite, however, is true. Although the Jewish population has always been diverse, and separable into sub-categories... but I'm going beyond your understanding here so I'll stop now. My advice to you is to stop lying about some imagined historical connection that the Palestinians have to the land advanced by some anti-Israeli (and often anti-semitic) proponents. "...residents of the land since prehistoric times"... Acting as if you've ever read a peer-reviewed scientific journals on the matter! Too funny. My guess is your experience on the matter begins and ends with anti-semitic "science" common on the web (i.e. Wikipedia) about Jewish "Khazars" from Eastern Europe. Spare me your 30-minute internet career as a pseudo-scientist. Some of us actually have a real education.

If you ever go to Israel, take a look at Palestinians. They're as mixed up genetically as Trinidad and Tobago residents. The land of Israel has had so much traffic throughout history, with populations moving and leaving, intermarriages, etc. Of course the reality of history doesn't fit in with your agenda to describe this group known as the Palestinians as being some sort of historical inhabitants of the land. Being there a few generations is hardly the same as what you're trying to allege. Thanks for the laughs!

I'm sure I've dealt with worse. And I'm not even kidding. Spare me the sleep deprivation tears. I don't want to get into that story, especially not with someone like you. I'm certain anyone curious enough about the story will investigate it further not trust your one-liner NO CONTEXT summary. If it was as simple as you're describing it, it wouldn't be worth talking about. Unfortunate for you, the story isn't simply "American soldiers shoot unarmed Iraqis". Why do are you such a pathological liar? You're twisted - describing heroes as murderers. Unsurprising.

Nobody in here ever said torture was justified. So you're erecting a straw man. What some of us ARE saying is that in the broader context of human rights in some of these godforsaken countries, these allegations of abuse in Afghan prisons aren't the top priority. There are greater issues facing the Afghan people - disease, hunger, and security for starters. Of course, the liberal media in Canada would prefer to focus on this issue in an attempt to smear the government. MacKay has already stated that efforts have bee taking place for years to address the concerns of conditions for detainees in Afghan prisons. He stated that over $100 million has been spent towards this issue. If he's telling the truth, this is hardly compatible with the left's assertions that the government was complicit in alleged abuses and sweeping the issue under the rug. It would also suggest that Colvin is either entirely ignorant of the government's efforts or intentionally omitting that information in order to strengthen his true agenda - to smear the government. I believe Canada should make reasonable efforts to address this concern. That does NOT include constructing prisons in Afghanistan and offering HBO and correspondence education to detainees. Some monitoring, some workshops, some accountability. I'm not expecting Afghan prisons to adhere to rigorous standards. Let's put it in context, how are the prison conditions compared to last year? Two years ago? Five years ago? I'll be satisfied with improvements being made over time. Since I'm not an idiot, I'm not expecting Afghan prisons to adhere fully to our standards overnight. At the end of the day, this is a concern but NOT top priority. For those pretending to care about the welfare of detainees, you should pull your heads out of the and and focus your efforts towards real problems facing the Afghan people - disease (hygiene infrastructure is necessary such as clean wells and water testing technology, waste removal, etc), education, security and protection from terrorists, etc. THIS is where our funds should go if we really care about Afghans. But of course the left prefer to express selective outrage, being outraged over allegations of mistreatment towards detainees. It's small potatoes - there are much bigger fish to fry.

Great. Sir Bandelot has found a fellow fool who cannot understand capricorn's SIMPLE point - that despite immoral behaviors that have been revealed by those on our side (Abu Ghraib, for example), they are ever a fraction as disturbing as those crimes committed by our enemies. Nobody is denying that torture is wrong, but some extremists on the left intentionally ignore that there are degrees of abuse. Being deprived of sleep isn't comparable to being beaten. Being forced to listen to loud music isn't comparable to being electrocuted. We address the wrongs when they occur. Our enemies do not. If anything, we OVERZEALOUSLY attack our own - the three American soldiers who were convicted of first-degree murder comes to mind. The soldiers should be revered as heroes, yet are now serving long sentences in prison. Our enemies treat murderers as heroes - the recent Lockerbie bombing murderer receiving a hero's welcome in Libya comes to mind. All capricorn is saying, which you are unwilling or unable to understand, is that it is absurd for anyone to ever even suggest that there is a remote similarity between our conduct and the conduct of our enemies. We are light, and they are darkness. STOP COMPARING US TO OUR ENEMIES. WE ARE NOTHING LIKE THEM.

Wow. I mean wow. How can you NOT understand the point that capricorn is making? She NEVER suggested or implied that we need to behave as our enemies do. Let me spell it out for you: what capricorn is clearly stating is that wrongs done by our side are never even a fraction as gruesome as those done by our enemies. Canadians and our allies don't butcher people. Our leaders don't call for the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, and all Muslims. We don't rip out finger nails and round up the families of our political opponents. We don't saw off the heads of journalists. We don't fly planes into centres of commerce. It is sickening to me when I see extremists in here (who don't need to be named) suggesting that we are morally equivalent to our enemies. This type of rhetoric is treasonous and completely anti-Canadian. It angers me when Canadians who should appreciate our values and way of life denigrate us and draw a moral equivalence between us and our enemies. Capricorn's point is clear - we are superior to our enemies in every way, especially morally. She's clearly saying that comparisons between the morality of us and our enemies are ridiculous, as we are infinitely superior to our enemies in that regard (and every other regard). Your entire post is irrelevant. Either you are a very simple person or you an extremely dishonest person obsessed with spin.

I don't find it nearly as disturbing as 9/11, Daniel Pearl (or the many other vicious decapitations of various prisoners), the Bali bombings, the Beslan hostage crisis, the London and Madrid bombings, the Mumbai shootings, the USS Cole, the endless suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, etc, etc, etc. Leftists like you have selective (and entirely fake) outrage: throwing a fit when there are allegations of abuse in Afghan prisons (as if that's shocking to you), but not caring at all about much more severe human rights abuses taking place all the time, being perpetrated by our enemies.

Oh, so now you're telling how I describe other types of human garbage that I believe should be dispatched? Why don't you answer the question - what is it that you find so offensive about my description of the Taliban and other terrorist groups (i.e. Al Qaeda) as animals and subhumans that need to be eradicated? Please explain to me on what level(s) that offends your sensibilities. Our political leaders definitely DO vilify our enemies. George Bush wanted the enemy dead or alive. MacKay recently alluded to the barbarism of the Taliban by mentioning two of their favourite past-times: throwing acid in the faces of young girls and suicide bombings in busy civilian areas. I can't recall any Harper statements off the top of my head, but he has used strong language to describe our enemies. For the last time - please explain why you get offended when I label the Taliban and other terrorist organizations as subhumans?

We'll see the truth about this story as time goes on. MacKay has stated that the government has made efforts and has invested over $100 million towards improving the compliance of Afghan prisons with international law. Unfortunately he didn't provide details as to how that money was spent. Assuming this is true, why doesn't Colvin acknowledge this? Why is Colvin making no mention of what the Canadian government HAS DONE towards addressing this issue? His contention is that the government has done nothing. I don't believe him. I am unconvinced that the government has been aware of this issue and put its efforts toward ignoring the problem. Again, as time goes on we'll see the truth about this issue. I'll reserve final judgement on the issue given the fact that Colvin's testimony is based on interviews with four Taliban detainees, who may or may not have been apprehended by Canadian soldiers. As a side observation, I see strong irony in how concerned some politicians (and ordinary folk) are portraying themselves to be about this issue, when the detainees themselves are likely the type of tribal animals that sell of their daughters at the age of nine and throw acid into the faces of girls trying to learn how to read and write. Furthermore, there are much more prominent human rights issues going on in Afghanistan that have much more impact on the ordinary lives of Afghanis than this. Disease management, food issues, protection from Taliban terrorists, etc. How much political capital and hard resources are we going to throw at this issue instead of much more pressing matters? I still think Colvin is a left-wing opportunist masquerading as a principled whistle blower advancing the agenda of human rights. Where is his support? Let's see some other diplomats or high-level government or military officials corroborate his arguments. For now, he's alone. All the support he has is from four Taliban detainees who he interviewed.

Again, you intentionally omit who I was referring to as animals and subhumans - the Taliban and other similar terrorist ultra-religious groups. What do you find so offensive about that description? I attach the same label to serial killers, rapists, child molesters and other varieties of human trash that the world would be better off without. What is it about me wanting to rid the world of this type of trash that you find so distasteful? Don't bother answering.... we all know why you say the things you do.

What a garbage video clip. After playing a brief soundbite from Peter MacKay during question period, where he criticized the validity of Taliban testimony (vilifying the Taliban), the VERY FIRST QUESTION towards Graeme Smith from this stupid old "journalist" (Craig? Never heard of him) is "Does it surprise you that the government has decided to vilify Colvin instead of deal with the substance of the issue?" This is a complete lie and the entire panel sits there without challenging him! To which Graeme Smith, idiotically, states that the government is wrong is suggesting that Colvin is a "Taliban-sympathizer", WHEN THE GOVERNMENT NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. COLVIN HAS NOT BEEN PERSONALLY ATTACKED BY THE GOVERNMENT. More left-wing anti-Harper media bias on display for all to see. This is maddening. But of course Topaz swallows it all up happily. Also, I love how this journalist spends one-month in Afghanistan and is described by another ass-kissing "contributor" as having "long experience" in Afghanistan. Canadian journalists on the whole are a joke. We need a Michael Ware-type up here. Lastly, nobody even questioned Graeme Smith's interviews. Were the former detainees paid for the interviews? How do we know whether or not they were detainees, and if so, were they detainees transferred from Canadian forces? There is simply NO questioning, everything is taken at face value in order to suit the agenda. Just four schmucks parroting left-wing absurdities without addressing the real issues and not acknowledging the difficulties of the conflict. I never watched CTV, and it's clear that it is a garbage network if this is the type of discussion they have on serious issues. No wonder they're losing money hand over fist and begging for a bail out from the television service providers with the CRTC's blessing (by extension, the customers).

Wrong thread. Please delete.

Let's not be silly, not all leaders are equally prone to gaffes. To use the Obama example again (as I think he is a good example of a strong personality that was able to greatly influence his own narrative), Obama made very few gaffes. The only ones I can remember at this time were his willingness to meet with tyrants without precondition (a gaffe that only reaslly resonated with those of us with brains, as the extremists on the left would love nothing more than to extend love to Ahmaedinejhad and Kim Jog Il), and more importantly, his "spread the wealth around" statement. There's no doubt that Obama is careful and meticulous with his statements. On the other hand, look at fools like Joe Biden who are literally unable NOT to say something stupid in a 2 minute conversation. Bottom line - it's a gross oversimplication to state that "all leaders say positive and negative things" without recognizing that there are great variations between the vulnerability of differing leaders to gaffes. Perhaps, but I still think a lack of charisma opens a leader up to being defined by outside forces, most notably his/her critics and opponents. You're making a huge mistake by assuming that charisma is attached or is derived from his/her message. Charisma is independent from one's message. If anything, charisma can enhance the efficacy of the delivery of a leader's message. In all seriousness, you're dead wrong on virtually everything you're saying here. Are you arguing simply for the sake of arguing or do you genuinely believe what you're saying in this thread? You'll be hard-pressed to find any serious political analyst (or reasonable person) who agrees with your perspective of how unimportant the leader is to success of a party. Perhaps, but Hillary would not have been a guaranteed victory. She has about 10% of Obama's power, presence, and influence. I also think women are at a disadvantage when running for such high leadership positions as I feel like we've associated many of the qualities that we want in a leader with the male gender, for better or for worse. Again, I think you're dead wrong on virtually everything you've said. I do agree with you that Obama has been very underwhelming. If I was an American, I would have voted for Obama, and I would now be extremely disappointed.

Only extremists such as yourself would get that impression even after the countless times I've explicitly stated otherwise. Your are a classic and unoriginal example of a compulsive liar on the extreme left who reads only what he wants to read. You define your opponents without letting them define themselves. If someone wants the Taliban destroyed, he is a racist. If someone supports the mission in Afghanistan, he is an imperialist. If someone is critical of entitlements, he is anti-poor and a corporate shill. Every single post you make comes from a rolodex of rhetoric that we've all seen for years from countless fools. Step your game up and perhaps someone might take you seriously in here.

I strongly disagree with you. Although the image of a leader can often be shaped by narratives created by outside forces (i.e. the media, the opposing parties, supporters, etc), the leader him/herself greatly influences this narrative. Misstatements, strong speeches, positive/negative soundbites, all come from the mouth of the leader. I think the weaker the leader, the greater the influence of external forces in shaping the image of him/her. In terms of Harper, he doesn't strike me as particularly passionate/charismatic. I find this leaves him slightly more vulnerable to those who seek to mischaracterize him. For example, we all remember the absurd "hidden agenda" advertisements that were on TV with the evil-looking black and white images of Harper - clearly pandering to the extremist base of the Liberal party. I found Harper somewhat vulnerable to this because in public, he doesn't seem to have the strongest personality. That being said, I prefer Harper's demeanor to the fake outrage of Dion and other left-wing politicians. The stronger the personality of the leader, the less likely he/she is of being misrepresented by outside forces. The opposite is also true. Anyways, I disagree with you. I disagree. Obama's appeal came from Obama. Of course he had certain advantages which he capitalized on, primarily the disaffection of much of the American public with the current trends in America occurring under Republican leadership. I also strongly disagree with you that Hillary would necessarily have won. I'm not sure you've got your finger on the pulse of politics with respect to this issue. Sure.

There's already a thread very close to this subject. I'd advice you move this link and your post to the existing thread and then delete this thread.