DogOnPorch Posted November 18, 2009 Report Posted November 18, 2009 This seems to be the part that reminded me of Abu-Garib... You might like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ254Jo4LuU Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted November 18, 2009 Report Posted November 18, 2009 And now we in Canada have our own Abu-Garib it seems Not really. The allegations are old and second hand. What is agreed on is that the prison was't run by or manned by Canadians. Our only involvement is turning the prisoners we causght over to the Afghans who have a different feeling towards the rights of prisoners than we do.. Their culture is different than ours. We should respect their culture. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted November 18, 2009 Report Posted November 18, 2009 Not really. The allegations are old and second hand. What is agreed on is that the prison was't run by or manned by Canadians. Our only involvement is turning the prisoners we causght over to the Afghans who have a different feeling towards the rights of prisoners than we do.. Their culture is different than ours. We should respect their culture. I am laughing at this but I have no idea WHY I am laughing at it. Quote
naomiglover Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 Not really. The allegations are old and second hand. What is agreed on is that the prison was't run by or manned by Canadians. Our only involvement is turning the prisoners we causght over to the Afghans who have a different feeling towards the rights of prisoners than we do.. Their culture is different than ours. We should respect their culture. For a second there, you almost came off as someone who cares about universal human rights and international law. Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
M.Dancer Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 For a second there, you almost came off as someone who cares about universal human rights and international law. International laws, are laws agreed to by the signatory nations. Universal human rights are a myth. I see no reason to dscuss either with you since you have not read them. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
naomiglover Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 International laws, are laws agreed to by the signatory nations. Universal human rights are a myth. I see no reason to dscuss either with you since you have not read them. I have read them. Human rights law fall under international law. I will be here to discuss them once you've learned the basics. Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Wild Bill Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 I have read them. Human rights law fall under international law. I will be here to discuss them once you've learned the basics. Since terrorist groups appear not to be signatories to any International Human Rights agreements, particularly those who behead western journalists for youtube video clips, perhaps we should ask if if it's possible to win against such enemies if hamstrung by the "good guy" rules? I'm not saying we should abandon all moral high ground in such situations but I truly think that when the opposition has no reciprocal respect for human rights and common humanity they have a TREMENDOUS advantage! In such scenarios, CAN we win? Or do we just lose, dying with a sense of deep moral superiority? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Gabriel Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 Since terrorist groups appear not to be signatories to any International Human Rights agreements, particularly those who behead western journalists for youtube video clips, perhaps we should ask if if it's possible to win against such enemies if hamstrung by the "good guy" rules? I'm not saying we should abandon all moral high ground in such situations but I truly think that when the opposition has no reciprocal respect for human rights and common humanity they have a TREMENDOUS advantage! In such scenarios, CAN we win? Or do we just lose, dying with a sense of deep moral superiority? Great post. In all seriousness, though, terrorist supporters like naomi actually blame the West for contemporary terrorism that is rooted in fundamentalist Islam. It's important not to lose sight of who you're talking to. Even when the reality that you've just clearly explained is thrown in the face of terrorist supporters like naomi, they resort to arguments that justify terrorism as some sort of natural response to historical wrongs that have been inflicted upon Muslim/Arab populations by what is perceived as Western imperialism. Again, in naomi's perverted perspective, terrorism is our fault. I'll reiterate that you did a great job of concisely illustrating one of the major problems we face when combating such a despicable enemy that violates all laws and conventions of conflict. As you've implied, naomi and other terrorist supporters would seem to prefer that we continue to be murdered and victimized while paralyzed by laws and regulations in order to cling to some sense of moral superiority. Quote
jbg Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Posted November 19, 2009 Americans had Abu-Garib in Iraq. We all recall that one don't we? Abu Ghraib, I guess, is the equivalent of the beheading of Daniel Pearl? Their culture is different than ours. We should respect their culture. Agreed. I have often expressed my deep and abiding respect for Arab and radical Muslim culture. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
naomiglover Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 Since terrorist groups appear not to be signatories to any International Human Rights agreements, particularly those who behead western journalists for youtube video clips, perhaps we should ask if if it's possible to win against such enemies if hamstrung by the "good guy" rules? You make it sound like any time we, the West, violates Human Rights, it's done to only 'terrorists'. Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
DogOnPorch Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 You make it sound like any time we, the West, violates Human Rights, it's done to only 'terrorists'. So Hamas aren't terrorists? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Michael Hardner Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 Great post. In all seriousness, though, terrorist supporters like naomi actually blame the West for contemporary terrorism that is rooted in fundamentalist Islam. It's important not to lose sight of who you're talking to. Even when the reality that you've just clearly explained is thrown in the face of terrorist supporters like naomi, they resort to arguments that justify terrorism as some sort of natural response to historical wrongs that have been inflicted upon Muslim/Arab populations by what is perceived as Western imperialism. Again, in naomi's perverted perspective, terrorism is our fault. I'll reiterate that you did a great job of concisely illustrating one of the major problems we face when combating such a despicable enemy that violates all laws and conventions of conflict. As you've implied, naomi and other terrorist supporters would seem to prefer that we continue to be murdered and victimized while paralyzed by laws and regulations in order to cling to some sense of moral superiority. Gabriel, this isn't a Clint Eastwood movie where a ridiculous liberal judge is stopping us from getting the bad guys. I really get the feeling that allowing our side to torture and flout agreed upon conventions of conflict would primarily serve to make you feel better. This suspicion is reinforced by your insistence on calling people terrorist supporters in debate. It would easy to call the opposition a terrorist supporter, especially if they supported using their methods as you seem to want us to do. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Abu Ghraib, I guess, is the equivalent of the beheading of Daniel Pearl? Your guess would be wrong though. Agreed. I have often expressed my deep and abiding respect for Arab and radical Muslim culture. I respect Arabs and Muslims. I don't respect the extremist side which has essentially hijacked a religion to bring about the extreme view of Islam. Just like we should not support the extremists of other religions. If you don't think other religions have their extremist factions, then you are simply not paying attention. The one difference here is that the extremists of other religons are not out killing the other ... wait... maybe they are. Edited November 19, 2009 by GostHacked Quote
Oleg Bach Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 "Peace Process" ? Sounds like a lawyer wanting to extend the "process" in order to reap maximum profits over the longest period of time. How come someone does not stand up and make some declarations..declare peace and get it over with? But we are so fixated and habitual about turning profits and there seems not to be a reward for peace - other than peace..and peace does not pay the bills if you have a couple of villas in the south of France. Quote
jbg Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Posted November 19, 2009 Since terrorist groups appear not to be signatories to any International Human Rights agreements, particularly those who behead western journalists for youtube video clips, perhaps we should ask if if it's possible to win against such enemies if hamstrung by the "good guy" rules?I believe that such beheadings are permitted under the "friends of the enemies of G-d and enemies of the friends of G-d" exception to the Geneva Convention. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
naomiglover Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) So Hamas aren't terrorists? The 1000 civilians killed in Gaza were not terrorists. Neither are the 3000 who have been maimed for life. Neither are the thousands and thousands whose lives have been ruined. Edited November 19, 2009 by naomiglover Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Oleg Bach Posted November 19, 2009 Report Posted November 19, 2009 The 1000 civilians killed in Gaza were not terrorists. Neither are the 3000 who have been maimed for life. Neither are the thousands and thousands whose lives have been ruined. 3ooo people died during the 911 strike..America with all of it's power and sofisticated defensive devices simply allowed this mass murder to take place - It's impossible that such a thing should have happened in more than one location..Look at the Pentagon during that time - How is it possible to damage such a place - It's improbable and impossible- To faclitate terrorism is to commit it. Far as I am concerned the Americans harmed themselves on purpose. They allowed the strike - Just like Pearl Harbour - they knew they were coming and sacrficed (murdered) there own people in order to justify entering the war...what a rotten buisness buisness is. Quote
PocketRocket Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Why doesn't the Taliban fight back against the U.S. or Pakistani army? Because suicide bombing against soft, unrelated targets is easier? That would be one reason. Someone once said (and I do not remember who) that the best, easiest way to bring down a government is to make the general population realize that their government is not capable of protecting them. So, if you don't have a big army with big guns, but still want to overturn a government..... I don't like it, but I suppose some of these people seem to think it'll be effective. Quote I need another coffee
jbg Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Posted November 21, 2009 That would be one reason. Someone once said (and I do not remember who) that the best, easiest way to bring down a government is to make the general population realize that their government is not capable of protecting them. So, if you don't have a big army with big guns, but still want to overturn a government..... I don't like it, but I suppose some of these people seem to think it'll be effective. Given what you're saying why are so many posters and MP's willing to part with taxpayers' dollars for aid since it all literally goes up in smoke anyway? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
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.