Radsickle Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I wonder if he knows the definition of what a scrificial lamb is....if he does and he's on the hustings looking for the traitorous canadian vote, be sure to ask him. The metaphor? It is to discount one undeserving thing in order to further some other cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 The metaphor? It is to discount one undeserving thing in order to further some other cause. So you think lil ol' Omar is an undeserving thing? I don't agree. I think he deserves what he got and what's coming to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) In the Islamic context, a lamb sacrifice referred to as al dabiha. Edited May 6, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 In the Islamic context, a lamb sacrifice referred to as al ḏabiḥa. A religious ritual found in many cultures throughout the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 So you think lil ol' Omar is an undeserving thing? I don't agree. I think he deserves what he got and what's coming to him. That part is obvious. Must you restate it over and over without some new reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 A religious ritual found in many cultures throughout the world? Of course, always with different names: Al-dabiha, Qurban,... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Of course, always with different names: Al-dabiha, Qurban,... Sometimes even a different animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Sometimes even a different animal. Substitutions can include vegetables (if only these vegetables are given the shape of an animal). http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=11823920 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 You give more evidence of your tendency to search for a scapegoat. Someone who is enjoying sadism is not at all demonstrating that he is the only one to bear the blame. A scapegoat for what ? and why do i need a scapegoat ? because i believe that if you commit a crime that you should be punished for it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 A scapegoat for what ? and why do i need a scapegoat ? because i believe that if you commit a crime that you should be punished for it ? a generalized question without, necessarily, direct association to Khadr... in today's so-called borderless wars against "insurgents" with or without, nationalistic attachment... do you consider those "insurgents" you fight, soldiers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) a generalized question without, necessarily, direct association to Khadr... in today's so-called borderless wars against "insurgents" with or without, nationalistic attachment... do you consider those "insurgents" you fight, soldiers? Strictly speaking, insurgents are only legally soldiers if the comply with the rules of the GC rearding who is a legal or unlawful combatant. They must wear a uniform or an insignia which is visible at a distance. They must bear their arms openly. They must belong and be accountable to a party. They must have leadership responsible for their actions. They must follow the laws of war. An insurgent can be a soldier...but a terrorist who simply dons womens clothing with his AK 47 under his sister burka cannot be considered one or treated as one. The Hague conference decided that those not conforming to the rules of war, who carry concealed weapons, who act as saboteurs and hide amonsgt civilians be shot on sight. Edited May 6, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Strictly speaking, insurgents are only legally soldiers if the comply with the rules of the GC rearding who is a legal or unlawful combatant.They must wear a uniform or an insignia which is visible at a distance. They must bear their arms openly. They must belong and be accountable to a party. They must have leadership responsible for their actions. They must follow the laws of war. An insurgent can be a soldier...but a terrorist who simply dons womens clothing with his AK 47 under his sister burka cannot be considered one or treated as one. The Hague conference decided that those not conforming to the rules of war, who carry concealed weapons, who act as saboteurs and hide amongst civilians be shot on sight. I'm guessing that the enemy does not wear a uniform or bear their arms openly, because if they do they will get quickly annihilated, by high altitude bombers, cruise missiles and "unmanned" predator drones. Seems that those weapons and the people controlling them would not comply either. Any insurgent who wants to survive would have the choice of conforming to the GC and be vaporized, or hiding their identity and weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I'm guessing that the enemy does not wear a uniform or bear their arms openly, because if they do they will get quickly annihilated, by high altitude bombers, cruise missiles and "unmanned" predator drones. Seems that those weapons and the people controlling them would not comply either. Any insurgent who wants to survive would have the choice of conforming to the GC and be vaporized, or hiding their identity and weapons. Doesn't stop the Kurds or the Tigers from bearing arms openly and wearing uniforms. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardi...tamiltig460.jpg I also think you have an exagerated idea of the capabilities of the tools of warfare. The "insurgent" has a third choice. Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I'm guessing that the enemy does not wear a uniform or bear their arms openly, because if they do they will get quickly annihilated.... True....the key point being to engage and kill the enemy. There is little time for the real-time intellectual parsing of combatant grades or chosen wardrobe during an engagement. US Sec'y Clinton apologized today for civilains recently killed by American strikes in Afghanistan, but the strikes will continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 a generalized question without, necessarily, direct association to Khadr... in today's so-called borderless wars against "insurgents" with or without, nationalistic attachment... do you consider those "insurgents" you fight, soldiers? There are many types of insurgents...but answer to your question None....although there has been clashes with Pakistani soldiers and border guards with NATO troops.... Hard core Taliban (terrorists) soft core Taliban (support people , fund raisers, etc) taliban soldiers ( fighting to feed thier family) Al Quaida (terrorists) Mercs (poeple paid to fight )mostly Russian, chechen, or other muslim countries, they are good at what they do and are rare in the south.... muslim radicals ( are normally paid, but some fight for free or for the adventure of it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Hey Army Guy - we may as well bring Khadr home and have a good talking to the young man..and see what is going on - maybe once he is safe and back on Canadian soil he can give us some insight..and he might understand that the Christian crusaders do not chop of hands or bum bang little boys - that we are the superiour and righteous force....I say bring him back and baptize the little bastard...now where is my holy water? Serioursly - Islam if allowed will remove our culture right of the map - not just of the continent but of the globe - as the American revolutionary soldiers would cry out during battle- "no king but Jesus" - JUSTICE - without cruelty...This is a continued battle against Muslims and Christians that has been going on for hundreds of years...and like I said - WHICH IS THE SUPERIOR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE - OURS --- OR SAY SAUDI ARABIA? easy answer! Who do you want trying you - Jesus - or Mohamid? Khdar had better understand - if he had offended a Muslim nation - as he did a Christian one - he would not be with us - or he would have stubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 True....the key point being to engage and kill the enemy. There is little time for the real-time intellectual parsing of combatant grades or chosen wardrobe during an engagement. US Sec'y Clinton apologized today for civilains recently killed by American strikes in Afghanistan, but the strikes will continue. Killings may stop if Canada prepares Omar Khadr to go talk to Talibans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) WHICH IS THE SUPERIOR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE - OURS --- OR SAY SAUDI ARABIA? easy answer! Easy answer at home. Not so easy, when it comes to foreign affairs. In other words we have some measure of justice here in our western countries, towards our citizens. But the exploitive capitalist policies have only served to perpetuate misery in some other lands. From slave trade to industrial revolution to global economy, where Misumi cannot afford to buy a piece of chicken for dinner because she works in a little sweat shop in India, for ten cents an hour. All so you can buy a cheap pair of pants at Wally World. We see ourselves as pretty high and mighty, the highest level of civilization and justice, and we are compared to what else is out there. But we commit our sins too, to the smallest man. So I wouldn't go proudly shouting from the rooftops about how great we are. PS Been drinking? I guess its ok... Edited May 6, 2009 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 A scapegoat for what ? and why do i need a scapegoat ? because i believe that if you commit a crime that you should be punished for it ? You said also Khadr should be punished to serve as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 You said also Khadr should be punished to serve as an example. Do you honestly think that young mr Khadr is the only Canadian that has or is fighting in Afghanistan.....And if he had died of his wounds we would not have even known about him....no he will not be the last Canadian citizen captured fighting for the bad guys....so yes he needs to face justice and serve his time for his crimes and an example be made.... I want to remind you that NATO takes the planting of IED's and mines very seriously for a good reason.....those caught are normally engaged with deadly force in the act....i also want to remind you that most of our young soldiers that come home in coffins are victims of IED's and mines.... What message will be as a nation be sending to the others if he is released and paid off like his brothers....what message will that send to our troops.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I want to remind you that NATO takes the planting of IED's and mines very seriously for a good reason.....those caught are normally engaged with deadly force in the act... I imagine Army Guy in Afghanistan surviving an IED blow and killing some neighbors and bystanders persuaded that they should have known and done something to prevent this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Do you honestly think that young mr Khadr is the only Canadian that has or is fighting in Afghanistan.....And if he had died of his wounds we would not have even known about him....no he will not be the last Canadian citizen captured fighting for the bad guys....so yes he needs to face justice and serve his time for his crimes and an example be made....I want to remind you that NATO takes the planting of IED's and mines very seriously for a good reason.....those caught are normally engaged with deadly force in the act....i also want to remind you that most of our young soldiers that come home in coffins are victims of IED's and mines.... What message will be as a nation be sending to the others if he is released and paid off like his brothers....what message will that send to our troops.... Did he plant any EIDs? Did he skin a man? Did he cut out the tongue of anyone? Do you like making it seem like he did all these things? Are we supposed to feel bad for questioning? Did he even throw that grenade? Has he a chance of a fair trial anywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Did he plant any EIDs? Did he skin a man? Did he cut out the tongue of anyone? Do you like making it seem like he did all these things? Are we supposed to feel bad for questioning? Did he even throw that grenade? Has he a chance of a fair trial anywhere? With no answers we will be tempted to guess that, for Army Guy, just because there is still active Talibans out there, we have to continue to be quick in punishing scapegoats. Edited May 7, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 In fairness, Army Guy's view is affected by his experience `over there'. Mine would be too. But, for those civilians here who haven't been in Army Guy's shoes yet still wanna treat Khadr like a monster, I have little patience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 In fairness, Army Guy's view is affected by his experience `over there'. Mine would be too. But, for those civilians here who haven't been in Army Guy's shoes yet still wanna treat Khadr like a monster, I have little patience. To me Omar Khadr is now more able to put himself in Army Guy's shoes than the converse and, yes, we certainly have to be more lenient with people who are able to put themselves in others' shoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.