Gabriel

I don't care about the story, it's not the purpose of this thread. Clearly you are determined to derail this thread into something else, as you can't substantiate the claim that the government reduced itself to personal insults on Colvin. You're either unable or unwilling to recognize that the government critiqued Colvin' assertion and support, not his character. The reason I'm sceptical of your "soft on child porn" claims is because I don't trust you. After reviewing the source, it indeed is a dumb thing for a campaign to suggest that Martin is somehow in favour of child porn. Also of note is that the campaign withdrew that slanderous message within one minute of its release. Anyways, it's irrelevant to this thread. Either corroborate your claims of government engagement in slander with respect to Colvin or just stop wasting time. This is so unbelievably repetitive and annoying. I can't keep playing this stupid game with you.

Without question it's an insensitive statement. Apparently Rahm's undergrad is in communications, too. Mentally handicapped folks are less capable than the rest of us in many ways, so it there's some "justification" behind the use of the term "retarded" to describe a bad decision. It's not the same as suggesting someone is less able simply because of their skin. Know what I mean? It's insensitive, but it's not comparable to hate-speech like using the n-word.

...his lawyers argued he can't be an Al-Qaeda agent because he's a compulsive gambler and gambling is un-Islamic. That is certainly a ridiculous defense. If anything, I'd expect a terrorist to have all sorts of things wrong with him/her.

You're the one who brought up allegations of Harper "thuggery" when you couldn't come up with real evidence to support the false claim that MacKay and company slandered Colvin. Colvin hasn't been personally attacked by the government. Your misrepresentations of the "suspect source" and "duped" quotes have already been addressed. We can keep playing this game of ring around the rosie or you can simply concede that MacKay and the government didn't attack Colvin's characters, but rather his judgement and assertions in this case. Nobody cares about these apparent "soft of child porn" comments that you keep trying to bring up in an effort to deflect to something broader that you may have an easier time supporting. Stay on topic.

Sure looks like that's the case. I hope others that we know to be on the left can at least concede that AI, is the very least, slightly politicized.

As I've explained, resources don't play much of a role with respect to the volume and content of information on AI's website. It doesn't explain the disparity, so it's not a good answer. Can't you admit this upon reflection? I understand that perhaps you have a knee-jerk reaction to defend AI and similar groups like HRW. Perhaps it's just a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with anything I say. Regardless of why you gave the answer, we're not talking about some limited resource here. It's not expensive to create brief commentaries on such stories. We're not talking about fundraising dollars going towards some sort of legal defense team. We're talking about website coverage. I'll just wait for some other posters' opinions....

Why don't you even TRY to make some posts with substance? You're not funny, and you're not contributing anything. Perhaps you've got limited mental 'resources' and are unable to participate meaningfully in this thread?

I still don't get it. You're gonna have to spell this out for me. Regarding Palin's criticisms of Emanuel's statements chastising his fellow Democrats, although his statements were inappropriate and hurtful to some folks connected to mental disabilities, it's hardly the same as using the n-word.

You folks like CFRA? Lowell Green, Michael Harris, Rob Snow, Jon Counsel, etc? I usually am unable to listen to it when working, but I think Ottawa's got a good station going on.

This is a discussion forum and I was interested in finding out what some of the folks in here think. As I said, resources are largely irrelevant to this discrepancy as it takes virtually nothing to spend some time a report on a given story. Remember that I am calling into question not just the volume of material on these two stories but the content, as well. There are serious variations with the forcefulness of language and of the expectations of the criticized parties coming from AI. AI is a collection of people, most of whom largely have political/ideological solidarity. At least, that's my impression. The Liberal party is also just a 'thing', but there is some measure of political/ideological cohesiveness there. What about Fox News? Would you also describe it as just a 'thing' without real feelings? Of course it is, but an institution can still have a perspective. This is often true for all sorts of organizations and associations. I am in no way implying that there is a malevolence within AI regarding its bias(es), I am simply observing that political/ideological leanings manifest themselves in how AI conducts itself - I think I've provided a small sampling of evidence illustrating this. I specifically stated that I didn't intend for this brief examination to be viewed as some sort of hit piece against AI. You seem to have sidetracked the question, so I won't ask you again.

Well said. I don't think Avatar is gonna be remembered beyond its commercial success. August1991 - That video was hilarious and SO true, thanks for posting it.

"Far scarcer pool of resources"? Scarcer than what or who? It doesn't even matter about the resources, we're talking about writing articles and opinion pieces, not raising money and hiring lawyers. I highly doubt that AI is hurting for a few hours of research time from one of its arts student volunteers to write a few hundred words of an opinion piece. The 'resource' argument is completely irrelevant given what I'm talking about here - articles and content on a website. We're not talking about large amounts of money or time, here. Why don't you just acknowledge the discrepancy and concede that it is likely the result of politicization. Let me ask you bluntly - is AI politicized or not? Do AI's political leanings and ideology impact which stories they are most concerned with, and how they report on such stories? Yes or no?

I still don't know why you're bringing up the irrelevant 'soft on child porn' statement (which I am unfamiliar with, by the way). This thread is about something else. And most recently you're being challenged on your false statement that the government engaged in character assassination against Colvin. The 'evidence' of Colvin being duped was the government's commentary regarding Colvin's discussions with two former detainees. These detainees may or may not have been transferred to Afghan security's custody by Canadian forces. These detainees may or may not be part of the Taliban. The government was (rightly) chastising Colvin for using his discussions with these former detainees as the foundation for his irresponsible comments that all detainees transferred from Canadian forces to the Afghan security's custody were 'likely mistreated'. This opinion of the government is why Colvin was described as a "suspect source". This does not amount to character assassination. You can keep lying all you want, we're not going to let you get away with it. It's been several says now and you haven't been able to show where the government engaged in character assassination against Colvin. Show us the transcripts. Show us the video. Show us something! Otherwise, stop trying so hard to build this house of cards.

Wow. Did you really just say that? Are you denying that there can be legitimate disagreement as to what constitutes torture or mistreatment? You can't be this obtuse. Is being put in a cell mistreatment or torture? Being handcuffed tightly? It is up to signatory nations to determine how they implement their obligations to the GC. If you seriously believe that you're making a valid point, quite frankly I really don't think you can participate in this discussion as a serious contributor.

I did a little homework to test a suspicion I had about Amnesty International, let me know what you folks think. Let me preface this by saying that in no way to I intend to denigrate AI as a whole or throw everything they do or say into disrepute. I do, however, think that the organization does have ideological and political leanings that manifest themselves in what issues and events the organization chooses puts its efforts towards and how it goes about working on these issues and events. Let's do a comparison, which I concede is not necessarily apples to apples for various reasons, of two current prisoners in different situations. Of course one of these prisoners will be Omar Khadr. When doing a search for Omar Khadr on the AI website, nine pages of results are yielded. Many of the articles and commentary about Omar Khadr very vocally call for Canada to repatriate him, and make very clear and detailed allegations that he has been denied fundamental rights and protections that should be afforded to him in contravention of American, Canadian, and international law. There are many clear allegations that he is mistreated and has been subjected to torture. AI stops short of calling for Omar Khadr's release, however. When doing a search on Gilad Shalit, AI yields one and a half pages of results. The articles and commentary that I perused on AI with respect to the Gilad Shalit case is much less forceful and detailed than the Omar Khadr cases. I see no criticisms of Shalit being held without formal charges or access to lawyers and due process. Some of the articles and commentary about Gilad Shalit are diffused as they discuss the broader context of the I/P conflict. I did not notice this phenomenon when reviewing articles and commentary on AI's website dealing with Omar Khadr, although I concede I didn't go through every single article line by line. All AI demands is for Shalit to be treated humanely and for him to access to ICRC and family. There is no questioning of the legality of his abduction. The bottom line is that there is a sharp contrast between the volume and content of AI's information on these two cases of prisoners. I think it is goes without saying that Omar Khadr has been extended far more humane treatment than Omar Khadr. Without question Omar Khadr has had much access to legal avenues of redress for his alleged crimes. Clearly Gilad Shalit, being a prisoner of Hamas, is suffering worse treatment and has no legal recourse available. Shalit's crime? Being a Jewish IDF soldier. Why the large disparity between the efforts of AI towards Omar Khadr, who actually was apprehend whilst fighting American forces s part of a terrorist group, and Gilad Shalit, who was abducted during relative peacetime? I will acknowledge that there are important differences between the Omar Khadr and Gilad Shalit cases. First of all, Khadr's story began in 2001 and Shalit's in 2006. However, the earliest content of Khadr being a detainee at Gitmo on AI's site is from later 2003. The overwhelming bulk of the information on Omar Khadr at AI's website, though, is from the past few years. Gilad Shalit was 19 year old when he was abducted, as opposed to Khadr being 15 years old when he was captured. I find AI has information talking about broader political issues outside the scope of basic human rights, for example criticizing the USA's actions as 'unilateral' (which isn't true) and contributing to anti-American sentiment worldwide. It looks like AI is trying to expand its expertise, going into broader and more complex themes. I do no see these same messages when criticizing the conduct of Arab/Muslim organizations or governments, though. Apparently only Arabs/Muslims can be inflamed when their honour is offended. I could go on and on, but do you see my point? I think it's quite clear that AI is a highly politicized organization, and while doing good work in some areas, have a long way to go towards achieving true objectivity in line with their mission statement. Cheers.

Hey there GostHacked, I didn't mean to link information to other forums or from other forums, what I meant was to actually talk about other forums, perhaps by name, with respect to their content and overall vibe. I've been to quite a few forums over many years, and find this website to be more civil and of an overall higher quality with respect to the calibre of posters.

Perhaps the part of my brain managing humour is temporarily offline, but I feel like you're trying to make some sort of joke that's going over my head. What does this story have to do with the GOP or Palin?

That's interesting, but it still doesn't suggest that Khadr won't face trial. Whether in a civilian court or by military tribunal, he'll get a fair trial. msdogfood - You can't seriously expect me to spend much time replying to you? You're one of those notorious one-liner forum dwellers. I understand English might not be your first language but at least make some effort to participate meaningfully to the dialogue in here. To respond to your Geneva Conventions post, the Geneva Conventions don't define torture.

That's the same opinion as the CSIS folks who investigated him. I think DFAIT officials also echoed your opinion. I also agree that his youth most likely contributed to his resilience in the face of the sleep deprivation he was subjected to. Keep in mind that he was subjected to sleep deprivation that can't honestly be considered severe. In my entirely unprofessional opinion regarding sleep deprivation, I'd guess that he was subjected to "mild-to-moderate" sleep deprivation.

I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, anyways. I still think there's more to Star Wars than just special effects. Still, at least you can concede that special effects are the primary appeal of Avatar. I find other movies much more aesthetically pleasing. The director of City of God (Fernando Mereilles or something? I forget, some Brazilian dude) really has a gift for making every shot look great. I think Dany Boyle has some of that gift, too. I guess I'm just not wired to respond to CGI or be impressed by it. I find it lame. Especially without the fundamentals of a good movie - plot, characters, interesting themes, etc.

Are we permitted to talk about other political forums on this website? I think MapleLeafweb is totally a gem amid a sea of garbage. It's be nice if this website had more traffic, but I really feel there is a high calibre of posters in here.

Look, perhaps it doesn't carry over well in an online forum, but I'm semi-kidding about the "sophisticated" comment I made. Some folks are able to engage in certain types of movies more easily than others. Maybe they're got better imaginations. Some people like shows like LOST and movies like Transformers. I can't stand that TV show and I don't like those types of movies. It's not that I'm "too smart" for them, I just find them too simplistic and clichéd. I have some guilty pleasure movies, but Avatar definitely isn't one of them. And Ebert is very generous with many movies. He must love movies more than anyone!

Wow, that's quite a cool factoid in a semi-ironic way given our recent chit chat about Avatar.

I actually watched the 3D version, which was so gimmicky. It felt like being at Universal Studios in 1990. I also heard today on the news that Avatar is now the highest grossing movie of all time. Anyways ya, sophisticated film fans won't like the movie, which I guess is as obvious a statement as one can make.

Hey folks, I also think it's the right decision to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The only practical obstacle I can imagine is if there's a strong enough current homophobia in the American military to damage its cohesiveness if gay persons are permitted to be open about their sexual orientation. I'm inclined to believe that Americans on the whole, and by extension the military are tolerant of varying sexual orientations, and won't react negatively to gay folks coming out. Don't most respectable militaries have open policies on this issue? I know gays can serve openly in Canada and in Israel, I think the UK also permits openness to gay folks. Generally speaking, the USA is the global leader on civil rights issues, so this move is totally in line with what America represents.