This Is Total B.S

bush_cheney2004 · January 9, 2009

.... I suppose you'd be in favour of opening another Guantanamo Bay-esque gulag on our soil too, you know, to house all the "animals". Jeepers.

You already have such a facility...at Millhaven Penitentiary. The weather at 'Gitmo is much better.

Shhhsh....Canadians aren't suppose to know about it. :lol:

eyeball · January 9, 2009

So Eyeball, are you saying that Canadian personel should be tried for crimes that have not been and probably will not be committed before they are even dispatched to any area of the world?

No, that wouldn't make any sense. You know I often suggest Canadians voters should decide if their military is to be dispatched as combatants to conflicts abroad. Too many of these conflicts are rooted in causes where the nuetrality of the evidence for getting involved is in dispute and where the morals and ethics of our allies in the conflict are in great doubt. The potential for putting Canada in harm's way by cultivating enemies where we never had any before is bad enough and can be greatly exacerbated by any crimes that might be committed by Canadian soldiers. This can only be worsened by the fact our military still appears to be dragging its heels on timely accountability and transparency.

Further to that are you saying that Canadian voters should be the ones to determine guilt or innocence in military proceedings?

Not voters but I'd definitely like to see civilians involved in the proceedings. Using the military to investigate itself is no better than letting a police force investigate itself.

Looking at your post that would appear to be exactly what you espouse, as such I have to say it is another of the most stupid things I've read lately.

You should probably regard your own sentiment with a grain of salt. My suggestions are probably more audacious and insolent to you given your military background. I'm afraid I can't help that and I know how you feel. I've had occupations that are also deeply mistrusted by the public and its hard not to take this personally sometimes.

As I said, the least we should be demanding is that our troops be restricted to their barracks in Afghanistan until such time as the deficiencies in public oversight the Semrau case have uncovered can be eliminated. The risk of making more enemies and unnecesarily putting Canada in harm's way are just too great to allow for more mistakes in judgement or worse.

Here at home we should be demanding a complete public review of all our international military agreements and especially focus on some of questionable conflicts that many of our allies appear to have entangled themselves with. I still think the best way to avoid getting stuck in the same quagmires would be a strict policy of non-interference but in lieu of that I think Canadians should insist on having the final word through a referendum before even a single soldier is dispatched abroad. If Canadians are to put their good name forward and in harm's way it should be them who do so directly through a vote with a majority that is at least as large as is reserved for truly serious matters such as changing our electoral system for example. Say 60% in 60% of Canada's ridings. I know if I was a soldier I'd insist on no less to ensure I really had the support of Canada before risking my life, limbs or mental health.

Edited January 9, 2009 by eyeball

BigAl · January 9, 2009

Wrong wrong double and triple wrong.
We are not and never have been in Afghanistan in a "peace keeping" role. Our role is purely combat, with some goodwill work thrown in as circumstances allow.

I also place quotes around "peace keeping" in order to emphasize the fact that "peace keeping" is a fallacious feel good concept that does not actually exist. As BC would say, peace killing is a far more accurate and truthfull descriptor.

Thanks for pointing out BigAl's next totally wrong impression for me Dancer, it saves me the trouble of doing so myself.

Oh great!

We have another unintentional master of irony in our midst. Should be good for a few laughs anyway.

All right, given I'm new here I'm willing to concede your point on peace-keeping (to be honest I tend to agree with your estimation of the term), and I would argue your point on whether or not money and support were lent to terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever during the Russian campaign (I didn't say Canada sent that support; the CIA definitely did) but the thrust of my point is that wulf's opinions on the situation is intensely racist and kind of scary. That whole "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality really rubs me the wrong way, you dig? I don't care what happens in war -- people are people and they have motivations that seem right to them. The winner determines whether history records those motivations as "right" or "wrong". I think it's a poor reflection on Canada for guys like wulf to go off spouting that kind of rhetoric. I know it's an emotionally-charged issue, but "scum" and "sub-human" aren't terms that really apply.

wulf42 · January 9, 2009

-- whoever started this thread is a poor example of what it means to be Canadian.

Who the hell are you to judge who is or isn't a Canadian?? Why because i don't have the same sissy girly man attitude as you?? people like you make my blood boil self rightous sissy's who think

being gentle and terrorist loving is going to win the war on terrorism.....being nice and playing by the rules isn't going to work and is why we are losing the war in Afghanistan! To win the war on terrorism

playing nice and being honourable is going to get our guys killed when dealing with fanatical Islamics bent on our destruction! This stupid pansy Canadian attitude better cjhange if we are going to fight a war on terrorism!!

at least the Americans have the balls to do what needs to be done and so do the Israeli's...you and the others would rather blow kisses at them! and becuase of you and your type this country is FULL of terrorists just go and check the CSIS website!

And your God damn right i would support a Gitmo here in Canada i care what happens to a terrorist as much as i do squashing a bug! You sit behind your computer and call me a racist ??? this shows what an ignorant fool you really are, Terrorists aren't a race in case you didn't know!! i have nothing against any race of people if they are peaceful ,islamic Terrorists are not and i will never refer to these vermin as human and if you don't like it? tough!.......get a clue!

Edited January 9, 2009 by wulf42

guyser · January 9, 2009

As a rant I give it a 3 out of 10.

Why because i don't have the same sissy girly man attitude as you?? people like you make my blood boil self rightous sissy's who think
being gentle and terrorist loving is going to win the war on terrorism

You said you wouldnt do what this guy did, so whos the sissy? ...probably a better description would be internet warrior.

.....being nice and playing by the rules isn't going to work and is why we are losing the war in Afghanistan! To win the war on terrorism
playing nice and being honourable is going to get our guys killed when dealing with fanatical Islamics bent on our destruction! This stupid pansy Canadian attitude better cjhange if we are going to fight a war on terrorism!!

Except our men and women are smarter than you and will play by the rules. Only a pansy would not want to play by the rules.

at least the Americans have the balls to do what needs to be done and so do the Israeli's

And that would be...what? Israelis and Americans caught shooting an unarmed man would face similar charges.

I suppose to support your point you might have reams of links showing that Yanks and Israelis have shot unarmed wounded terrorists.Lets see them.

...you and the others would rather blow kisses at them! and becuase of you and your type this country is FULL of terrorists just go and check the CSIS website!

Funny, I dont recall anyone wanting to blow kisses, but then again, tons of things you ascribe that "others would do" they wouldnt, but you do like the sound of ignorance bouncing around in your head.

And your God damn right i would support a Gitmo here in Canada i care what happens to a terrorist as much as i do squashing a bug!

But you couldnt work there since the psych profile would red flag you as "unstable ".

.......get a clue!

Here is a clue for you. Perhaps a refresher course will help

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

Happy reading.

M.Dancer · January 9, 2009

...probably a better description would be internet warrior.

Internet phoney,..poser....either or both.

wulf42 · January 9, 2009

Internet phoney,..poser....either or both.

More brave talk from the safety of your chair!

wulf42 · January 9, 2009

Here is a clue for you. Perhaps a refresher course will help
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

Happy reading.

The Geneva Convention applies to Soldiers in uniform who fight like men...the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are neither!

I have more respect for the Waffen SS, at least they fought like men although for a rotten cause.

Edited January 9, 2009 by wulf42

guyser · January 9, 2009

The Geneva Convention applies to Soldiers in uniform who fight like men...the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are neither!
I have more respect for the Waffen SS.

Oh goodie, now you bring in the Nazis. Momma aint raised no du.....oh wait a sec, she did.

I will talk slow so follow along.

We are not talking about the Taliban nor Al Queda, we are talking about a soldier in the Cdn Forces who alledgedly shot an unarmed wounded combatant.

So, you agree with us then? You did say the GC applies to soldiers in uniform, which our man was.

T'wasnt so hard was it?

KeyStone · January 9, 2009

The Geneva Convention applies to Soldiers in uniform who fight like men...the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are neither!
I have more respect for the Waffen SS.

I love the way Americans and Israelis try to dictate what constitutes an honourable fight.

Of course, if they ever did march in their snappy little uniforms - Israel and the US would mow them down with their mega-billion warplanes or better yet kill them with their unmanned drones. Or perhaps they could fire tomohawk missiles on them from 200 miles away. That's courage.

Listen, any time the US or Israelis want to have a fair fight, and have equal weapons, I have no doubt that the Taliban or any other group would be more than happy to take them on. Until then, let's stop the charade of pretending that Israeli and US opponents are cowardly just because they won't fight with their pistols against warplanes.

blueblood · January 9, 2009

I love the way Americans and Israelis try to dictate what constitutes an honourable fight.
Of course, if they ever did march in their snappy little uniforms - Israel and the US would mow them down with their mega-billion warplanes or better yet kill them with their unmanned drones. Or perhaps they could fire tomohawk missiles on them from 200 miles away. That's courage.

Listen, any time the US or Israelis want to have a fair fight, and have equal weapons, I have no doubt that the Taliban or any other group would be more than happy to take them on. Until then, let's stop the charade of pretending that Israeli and US opponents are cowardly just because they won't fight with their pistols against warplanes.

Nice to know you condone suicide bombing and human shields as acceptable warfare tactics. The middle east used to have the best military forces in the world, cry me a river that they pissed it away. The middle easterners should be fortunate that they are fighting Israelis and the US and not the USSR, we all know what happens when the USSR decides to throw it's weight around. Sorry they are still cowardly, any army that uses civilians as a shield is cowardly and is directly responsible for any civilian deaths that may occur.

bush_cheney2004 · January 9, 2009

....Listen, any time the US or Israelis want to have a fair fight, and have equal weapons, I have no doubt that the Taliban or any other group would be more than happy to take them on. Until then, let's stop the charade of pretending that Israeli and US opponents are cowardly just because they won't fight with their pistols against warplanes.

Hmmmm...do you wish this same sort of "fair fight" for Canadian Forces "mowing down" the locals in Afghanistan?

Seems there is more to this sort of thing besides just "Americans and Israelis".

wulf42 · January 10, 2009

Nice to know you condone suicide bombing and human shields as acceptable warfare tactics. The middle east used to have the best military forces in the world, cry me a river that they pissed it away. The middle easterners should be fortunate that they are fighting Israelis and the US and not the USSR, we all know what happens when the USSR decides to throw it's weight around. Sorry they are still cowardly, any army that uses civilians as a shield is cowardly and is directly responsible for any civilian deaths that may occur.

Yeah i pointed that out to them earlier how their defense for our enemies is truely sickening, i am sure their comments would give the Taliban the warm fuzzies inside.

Edited January 10, 2009 by wulf42

eyeball · January 10, 2009

...their comments would give the Taliban the warm fuzzies inside.

Your's would confirm their beliefs about "us".

wulf42 · January 10, 2009

Your's would confirm their beliefs about "us".

Since when did we care what they thought of us? i wasn't aware Canadian's were concerned what image we portray to the terrorist's...don't you know we are the infidel and thats is all they care about.

KeyStone · January 10, 2009

Nice to know you condone suicide bombing and human shields as acceptable warfare tactics. The middle east used to have the best military forces in the world, cry me a river that they pissed it away. The middle easterners should be fortunate that they are fighting Israelis and the US and not the USSR, we all know what happens when the USSR decides to throw it's weight around. Sorry they are still cowardly, any army that uses civilians as a shield is cowardly and is directly responsible for any civilian deaths that may occur.

Nice to know tht you condone the slaughter of 250 innocent children.

But hey, Israel was aiming for terrorists, so that makes everything OK, doesn't it?

The 'human shield' talking point seems to be particularly well distributed as every Israeli suckup seems to be using it. You don't even stop to think about what it means.

Were the Japanese civilians killed by the atom bomb human shields.

Should the US have asked all the military to go to one island while the civilians stayed on another so they could easily kill the military?

Do you understand the concept of guerilla warfare? This is what you do when you are vastly overmatched militarily.

You don't stand in an open field and wait for the Israeli drones to drop bombs on you.

Like I say, leave the planes and the assault weapons behind, and I'm sure the Palestinians would be more than happy to fight you.

KeyStone · January 10, 2009

Hmmmm...do you wish this same sort of "fair fight" for Canadian Forces "mowing down" the locals in Afghanistan?
Seems there is more to this sort of thing besides just "Americans and Israelis".

I don't think the Canadians should be there, but at least we aren't slaughtering children left in right and blaming it on the Afghanis because they are too hard to find.

When Canada starts killing hundreds of children in an attempt to kill terrorists, I'll start cheering for Afghanistan to win.

blueblood · January 10, 2009

Nice to know tht you condone the slaughter of 250 innocent children.
But hey, Israel was aiming for terrorists, so that makes everything OK, doesn't it?

The 'human shield' talking point seems to be particularly well distributed as every Israeli suckup seems to be using it. You don't even stop to think about what it means.

Were the Japanese civilians killed by the atom bomb human shields.

Should the US have asked all the military to go to one island while the civilians stayed on another so they could easily kill the military?

Do you understand the concept of guerilla warfare? This is what you do when you are vastly overmatched militarily.

You don't stand in an open field and wait for the Israeli drones to drop bombs on you.

Like I say, leave the planes and the assault weapons behind, and I'm sure the Palestinians would be more than happy to fight you.

Those 250 children's death are entirely the fault of Hamas, they can fight on a battlefield and settle it for themselves. Instead they have chosen to hide behind children and as a result, they die as well. The Geneva conventions happen to agree with me.

Yes the japs killed by the atom bomb were human shields, by supporting a gov't that is at war with the US, they were fair game to Truman.

You don't seem to understand the concept of standard warfare, when civilians are in the way of two armies, they wind up dead. If one army is vastly outmatched and is hiding behind civilians, they are responsible for any civilian deaths that may incurr. The Argentinians understood that in the Falkland Islands war, and that is why they caved.

KeyStone · January 10, 2009

Those 250 children's death are entirely the fault of Hamas, they can fight on a battlefield and settle it for themselves. Instead they have chosen to hide behind children and as a result, they die as well. The Geneva conventions happen to agree with me.

It's pathetic how you all use the same talking point.

It's like a husband who kills his ex-wife and three kids, that the death of the kids is on her hands for leaving him.

No, Israel and the IDF terrorists are pulling the trigger. They are the ones dropping the bomb, without concern for how many children they kill.

They are just Palestinian dogs to them. Animals. Savages. They don't care how many they kill.

Yes the japs killed by the atom bomb were human shields, by supporting a gov't that is at war with the US, they were fair game to Truman.

I see. So anytime someone is fighting against 'the good guys', any civilians or children that happen to be aligned with the enemy are fair game. No doubt it was the fault of the Japanese that those children died. Certainly not the US.

You don't seem to understand the concept of standard warfare, when civilians are in the way of two armies, they wind up dead. If one army is vastly outmatched and is hiding behind civilians, they are responsible for any civilian deaths that may incurr. The Argentinians understood that in the Falkland Islands war, and that is why they caved.

Please tell me how exactly you think Hamas should fight?

Should they stand in an open field away from the civilians so that unmanned drones can slaughter them all?

Israel isn't even trying to avoid civilian deaths now. They don't care anymore.

blueblood · January 10, 2009

It's pathetic how you all use the same talking point.
It's like a husband who kills his ex-wife and three kids, that the death of the kids is on her hands for leaving him.

No, Israel and the IDF terrorists are pulling the trigger. They are the ones dropping the bomb, without concern for how many children they kill.

They are just Palestinian dogs to them. Animals. Savages. They don't care how many they kill.

I see. So anytime someone is fighting against 'the good guys', any civilians or children that happen to be aligned with the enemy are fair game. No doubt it was the fault of the Japanese that those children died. Certainly not the US.

Please tell me how exactly you think Hamas should fight?

Should they stand in an open field away from the civilians so that unmanned drones can slaughter them all?

Israel isn't even trying to avoid civilian deaths now. They don't care anymore.

Don't let the facts of the Geneva conventions get in the way of your ignorance.

No its if the husband and wife are in a shooting match with 9mms over her leaving him and she is hiding behind the kids while hubby and wife take pot shots at each other. She is responsible for the kids being killed.

Yes palestinians are dogs and cowards for hiding behind civilians and supporting a terrorist gov't. They decided to lob rockets into Israel and are paying the price. Why can't they be more civilized like their friends in the West Bank?

Yes they are fair game. The Japanese chose not to surrender when their army was beaten. The Japanese population supported their gov't. They paid the price. Had Japan surrendered when their armies got smashed at iwo jima, when their navy and airforce got destroyed, no Japanese civilians would have died. War is Hell.

The middle Easterners, pissed away their army long ago, its not the west's problem that they are incompetant. If Hamas doesn't want civilians to die, then they can fight conventionally. Saladin fought conventionally and did quite well. It's not the wests fault Middle eastern armed forces are so easy to kill.

What is also funny is that you called the IDF butchers. If that's the case then they would have gassed Gaza already and been done with it. That would have been a lot cheaper and there would have been few Israeli casualties. If the IDF were butchers, there would be hundreds of thousands of dead palestinians right now. Obviously the IDF is going after Hamas only militants, if you can't get that through your head, logic is not a strong suit for you.

So Hamas is allowed to butcher Israeli citizens with rocket attacks, but the IDF isn't allowed to strike back at Hamas militants hiding behind civilians. Nice double standard. We now know you think Israeli's are dogs and savages and it doesn't matter how many of their civilians die.

wulf42 · January 10, 2009

Please tell me how exactly you think Hamas should fight?
Should they stand in an open field away from the civilians so that unmanned drones can slaughter them all?

Israel isn't even trying to avoid civilian deaths now. They don't care anymore.

So you think its all right to hide behind civilians??????????? You people are unbelieveable you make excuses for terrorist's, it is scarey what Canada has become.

I tell you what Hamas should do ...they should stop firing rockets into Israel and maybe Israel wouldn't retaliate!

Peter F · January 10, 2009

Its not 'alright' for Israel to bomb civilians in order to kill some hamas guys - maybe kill the hamas guys, maybe not - even if the civilians are being used as shields by arseholes.

Whats the goddamn threat here that demands immediate action regardless of civilian casualties? Hamas is about to overrun Israel? Hamas must be stopped NOW or its all over?

Whats the goddam rush to kill a bunch of Hamas guys in the basement of some hospital? If the IDF doesn't blow the hospital and everyone in it to smithereens those Hamas guys are going to fire some more retarded rockets?

I dont see the rush or immediacy. Blowing the heads off Hamas guys with cellphones or the odd commando raid has worked fine for Israel in the past.

What is the immediate threat that justifies civilian casualties? None that I can see.

But Israel is acting as if there is an immediate threat - yet there is no immediate threat. So there is something else going on here.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 10, 2009

No immediate threat? What of the rocket attacks?

GostHacked · January 10, 2009

This is news in Afghanistan and I'm sure some Afghans, some friendly and some not, will be watching developments as they unfold here. One of our objectives in this mission is to bring the rule of law to Afghanistan. We cannot do this if we thumb our noses at basic justice.

Afghanistan already has their rule of law. Same rule of law that the Taliban had in place.

GostHacked · January 10, 2009

This makes no sense at all. Not what BC posted but the response to that post.Looking at your post that would appear to be exactly what you espouse, as such I have to say it is another of the most stupid things I've read lately.

What he is talking about is a vote or a referendum on the prospect of putting our guys in the line of fire. It is not stupid or retarded, or idiotic. The people never get to vote on these situations. And we end up having threads like this. Screw obligations to NATO. It is only used for political gain.