Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[Gabriel]

That's rich.. a genocide supporter issuing lectures to others..

YOU have a lot in common with the Taliban yourself.

Maybe we should classify you as a supporter of terrorism.

Yes, I sure do have a lot in common with the Taliban - I support freedom of speech, freedom of association, protection from discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc. I am in favour of democracy and rights to own private property. I believe education is the great equalizer and support appropriate multiculturalism. I wish destruction upon those who stand against these values. You nailed me!

I'm still waiting for you to show me a post where I advocated genocide. in your demented mind, however, my desires to destroy the Taliban and all those who would attack the fundamental values that I believe in listed above is synonymous with genocide. In your mind, the Taliban and other terrorist groups constitute a nation or race or people. Perhaps also in your demented mind, you are unable to differentiate between the Taliban and the whole Afghan population. Who's the racist, now?

You are a twisted person.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

I don't know what 'crush their towns' would mean if not genocide. I've never been to Taliban Town though, maybe there are no civilians there ?

Since when are towns synonymous with a race or ethnic group of people? Are you not aware that the Taliban and other terrorist groups are in control of various towns and villages? How are you unable to recognize that the Taliban do not constitute some race or ethnic group of persons? The destruction of the Taliban, its supporters and all similar terrorist groups and fundamentalists does not constitute genocide.

EDIT - What's next? The destruction of Al Qaeda towns, villages, and caves will be equated with genocide? What about the fundamentalists in Pakistan who are murdering people every day with suicide bombs? Are they now a protected race or ethnic group whose destruction would be viewed as genocide?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gabriel

[Oleg Bach]

I don't know what 'crush their towns' would mean if not genocide. I've never been to Taliban Town though, maybe there are no civilians there ?

Your friend is a bit bizzare - kind of overly compliant as far as civil matters..I bet they demanded five dozes of swine flu brew..seeing the plague was about to consume him.

[waldo]

Are you really that obtuse... for example: you tighten up the transfer agreements and put in place stringent control/monitoring measures... you rely on independent 3rd party groups (like the Red Cross) to investigate and report on prison and detainee conditions.

How do you know there aren't any monitoring mechanisms in place, already? What if the monitoring mechanisms don't work? Are you going to have full-time observers on-site? Are you going to install cameras all around the detainment facilities? What if it all fails? Do we then release the detainees? It's AFGHANISTAN! It isn't some country with a strong tradition of human rights. This is a product of their culture. It can't be undone overnight. Stop being so naive (or dishonest).

Interesting that you would attempt to validate this Harper government’s failures in addressing the detainee abuse… by suggesting it’s just more of the same… reflective of the Afghan “culture” and, as you say, its “tradition of human rights”… we’ll see just how accepting most are to the Conservatives failures and cover-up.

The alternatives I suggest are easily implemented – with enough pressure applied to the existing Afghan government. The ease with which you dismissed them clearly shows your own dishonesty, rather agenda, in this discussion.

That so-called "moral superiority" tarnishes with each and every allegation of detainee abuse, of civilians deaths dismissed as collateral damage, etc. The mindless, numbing battle for the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people is a tenuous balance between results and (their) perception.

The fact that you use quotes when discussing our moral superiority speaks volumes to your absurdity. As if Canada isn't light-years beyond the barbaric and savage country that is Afghanistan. In your view, obviously morality is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, the perceiving eye of the beholder is everything in this context… the perception of the local populace holds as much weight, if not more, than combat advances. Nothing shapes perception like mass civilian casualties… and detainee abuse. Nothing questions your so-called “moral superiority” than local perceptions that begin to question the distinctions between the Taliban and an invading military that kills innocent civilians and sanctions detainee abuse.

I note you conveniently ignored my other questions/request for comment - what? Too difficult for you to address... let's try again:

I believe you're the only one drawing moral depravity conclusions - in either direction... in your black/white, left-wing/right-wing, extremist/moderate world... care to comment on past/present initiatives to negotiate with the Taliban... to include the, as you say, "barbarian, savage, sub-human, animal" Taliban in the Karzai government? Are there "degrees" of Taliban... are there "moderate" Taliban... are the Taliban of Afghanistan different from the Taliban of Pakistan? ... etc,etc,etc. I trust these questions won't give you cause to label me as traitorous... as committing treason

[Gabriel]

Only a feeble minded polically correct fool believes that gay marriage is marriage..that's like believing a dog is a cat. In this new world that we live in people now believe that dogs should have human rights - all because they grew up watching cartoons with talking animals..well maybe those that believe in pacification of the Taliban should just get a pet and forget about it. Maybe the Taliban that think we are all evil infidels should get an education. They well find out that only some of us are infidels and that they are infidels also.

What the hell are you talking about? I was agreeing with Argus. You're messed up, Oleg.

[M.Dancer]

Let me get this straight - are you saying the Romans weren't more civilized than the Germanic tribes? That the medieval Europeans weren't more civilized than Genghis Khan?

The Roman idea of civilized had nothing to do with human kindness or table manners and everything to do with a people having wellthought out laws which were codified and a well ordered government that debated and created those laws as well as courts to hear the laws.

In this regards they considered the Carthegians, Greeks and Egyptians etc civilized but not the Gauls...

In the same regard, the early Mediaval Europeans were propbaly as civilized and the Golden Horde

[myata]

Unfortunately, the goals for Afghanistan got confused. I don't think it should ever have been about making sure that girls could get an education and to stop the lopping off of body parts in soccer stadiums. It should have been about assuring that the country would no longer be a safe staging area for attacks by international criminals against other organizations.

They got confused only because we keep entertaining the notion that some wars (like those perpetrated by us) can be good. Without such notion, we would simply have to find a way to deal with the terrorist organisation without getting involved into invasion and civil war on a foreign soil. Till we finally get to this understanding, our good interntions will continue to be "confused", mired, and ultimately result in the act not unlike that we were claiming to counter.

[Gabriel]

Interesting that you would attempt to validate this Harper government’s failures in addressing the detainee abuse… by suggesting it’s just more of the same… reflective of the Afghan “culture” and, as you say, its “tradition of human rights”… we’ll see just how accepting most are to the Conservatives failures and cover-up.

The alternatives I suggest are easily implemented – with enough pressure applied to the existing Afghan government. The ease with which you dismissed them clearly shows your own dishonesty, rather agenda, in this discussion.

So you deny that Afghanistan is light-years behind Canada with respect to human rights - both institutionally and culturally? It's one thing to have human rights laws on the book, it's another for the citizens to believe these values in their hearts. You are a fool if you think the average Afghan citizen genuinely supports human rights values that we believe in strongly as Canadians.

With respect to the political fallout, I see this event, if managed properly by the Conservatives, as being detrimental to Liberal and NDP support. It will not be too difficult to illustrate the truth about this issue - that the Liberals and NDP offer no alternatives to the dilemmas faced by the Canadian military with respect to how to deal with detainees. The absurd suggestion by terrorist-lovers among the NDP to have a public inquiry into how Afghan prisoners are treated in Afghanistan, in order to waste millions of dollars and political energy in order to conduct a smear campaign will not win any independents. All the left is doing is pandering to its extremist base. Whether or not you recognize the obvious, Canada DOES stand for human rights. Go travel around the world, see how other people live, and maybe you'll appreciate what this country offers and what it stands for.

Your proposed "solutions" are nonsense. You also make no mention of the likelihood that Taliban detainees have much to gain by lying about their treatment. Why are we going nuts over the second-hand testimony of four Taliban to Colvin (a political hack, clearly a Liberal or NDP supporter)? Are there not much more pressing matters in this war to address? That being said, I'm sure Canada can do (and probably is doing) a thing or two to reduce the likelihood of prisoner abuse among detainees transferred to Afghan security forces. Let's not be naive, however, remember that Afghanistan is largely a barbaric and savage country. The barbaric and savage culture is a much more powerful influence on how prisoners will be treated than a few protocols for monitoring mechanisms designed to reduce the risk of abuse. Unless you have 24/7 monitoring with security cameras on every square inch of Afghan detainment facilities, you won't be able to guarantee unequivocally that abuse of prisoners isn't taking place. Frankly, I don't really give a shit anyways! I'm concerned about the safety of our men and women.

Yes, the perceiving eye of the beholder is everything in this context… the perception of the local populace holds as much weight, if not more, than combat advances. Nothing shapes perception like mass civilian casualties… and detainee abuse. Nothing questions your so-called “moral superiority” than local perceptions that begin to question the distinctions between the Taliban and an invading military that kills innocent civilians and sanctions detainee abuse.

What of the good that Canada and our allies are doing in Afghanistan? From providing security to certain segments of the Afghan population from the Taliban and other vicious terrorists, to assisting the development of the civilian infrastructure, and everything in between, you make no mention of these efforts that build goodwill? You'd prefer to rant on and on about how allegations of abuse override all efforts to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, because that way you can smear the Conservative government. Do you actually think the Afghan population wants Canadian troops out? You think the Afghan population would prefer to be left at the mercy of the Taliban and other terrorist groups?

I note you conveniently ignored my other questions/request for comment - what? Too difficult for you to address... let's try again:

Those questions weren't worth responding to. "Degrees of Taliban"? Are you kidding me? Spare me the Fareed Zakaria-esque nuances. If you're an Islamic fundamentalist, you should be destroyed. Our weakness is what permits them to continue on existing - we fight with both of our hands tied behind our backs. Our tolerance of Taliban presence in the Karzai government is another example of extreme leftism in action.

[ToadBrother]

They got confused only because we keep entertaining the notion that some wars (like those perpetrated by us) can be good. Without such notion, we would simply have to find a way to deal with the terrorist organisation without getting involved into invasion and civil war on a foreign soil. Till we finally get to this understanding, our good interntions will continue to be "confused", mired, and ultimately result in the act not unlike that we were claiming to counter.

Oh BS. I'm tired of your idiotic oversimplified nonsense historically ignorant quasi-pacificist claptrap.

It's called mission creep, and it happens because politicians become unwilling to listen to the commanders on the ground.

At any rate, your ideas are so ludicrous, unworkable and just plain stupid that other than irritating me on occasion, they will never ever ever be enacted by anyone.

[ToadBrother]

EDIT - What's next? The destruction of Al Qaeda towns, villages, and caves will be equated with genocide? What about the fundamentalists in Pakistan who are murdering people every day with suicide bombs? Are they now a protected race or ethnic group whose destruction would be viewed as genocide?

Could you point out some Al Qaeda towns and villages on the map. Apparently, from what you seem to be writing, they live in their own little settlements, which would serve NATO forces well, since they seem to be of the opinion that these guys live among larger populations, and thus can attack from anywhere at any time.

[Gabriel]

Could you point out some Al Qaeda towns and villages on the map. Apparently, from what you seem to be writing, they live in their own little settlements, which would serve NATO forces well, since they seem to be of the opinion that these guys live among larger populations, and thus can attack from anywhere at any time.

Both are true. They hold some territories (towns, villages, etc) and also often live among the larger population. Spare me the patronizing request for a map that doesn't exist.

[GostHacked]

I'm unconvinced the overall Afghani population can be civilized. Although perhaps I'm wrong, I've seen some inspiring stories. Perhaps the portion of the Afghani population that are subhumans is only 25%?

I hope I am reading this correctly. You think that most of Afghans are barbarians? I know you meant to say Taliban instead of Afghans. It's an easy mistake to make.

Our enemies are animals who besmirch all of our fundamental values. They torture and execute people without any rule of law - convert to the wrong religion? Well, off with your head!

And yet when our guys do it, it is alright? You can't expect them hold them to our own standards when you advocate killing people without a trial or evidence. Because in the case of the 4 US soldiers being charged for murder for killing those suspected insurgents shows that you are no better than them. Convert or die. This is the same mantra the terrorists tout out. Convert or die. The only difference is the flag you wear.

And it is still all alleged these US soldiers killed those men at this point. After the trial and evidence is seen and witnesses heard and if they are still convicted and jailed then guess what, we still need to hold ourselves to our values or essentially in the end they don't amount to anything.

Only an extremist left-winger would refer to me as evil and hate-filled for wanting to EXTERMINATE these subhumans WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

And without evidence or a trial or anything.

These barbarians (you dispute that they are barbarians!) should've been annihilated years ago. Unfortunately we always fight with our hands tied behind our backs - silly rules of engagements and absurd laws/rules of war that was always exploited by our enemies.

Well, guess what. Those are our laws and rules for our society. Just because we are in another country does not mean we are no longer accountable to the democracy and freedom we hold so dear when at home. Either you stand by your principals/morals/freedome/democracy across the board or ditch them altogether. Don't be half assed about it.

[Gabriel]

I hope I am reading this correctly. You think that most of Afghans are barbarians? I know you meant to say Taliban instead of Afghans. It's an easy mistake to make.

I know what I said. I meant what I said. What I did say was that I am unconvinced that enough of the Afghan population can be civilized. Perhaps I am too cynical, perhaps enough of them can see the light and join civilization by first BELIEVING in the values of freedom and democracy, and then implementing those values into robust institutions. Until then, I will sceptical of their ability to join the civilized world.

And yet when our guys do it, it is alright? You can't expect them hold them to our own standards when you advocate killing people without a trial or evidence. Because in the case of the 4 US soldiers being charged for murder for killing those suspected insurgents shows that you are no better than them. Convert or die. This is the same mantra the terrorists tout out. Convert or die. The only difference is the flag you wear.

Trial or evidence? This is a fucking war. We have soldiers over in Afghanistan, not detectives and lawyers. The four soldiers you speak of have already been through the court system. Three of them were convicted of first-degree murder (insanity, punishing them for killing the enemy).

The flag I wear is a HUGE difference that you consistently ignore. The flag I wear represents freedom and democracy. Values protecting us from discrimination based on various personal grounds, allowing us to participate politically in a democratic system, protecting our rights to private property, and on and on and on. The flags of our enemies stand for religious extremism, oppression of women, rejection of education and modernity. Basically, the enemy represents BARBARISM. Fools like you draw a moral equivalence between Canada and the Taliban - nothing more ridiculous could be suggested. I stand by my position unapologetically - embrace the values we adhere to (which are NOT contextual as you propose, they are UNIVERSAL) or be destroyed. There is no negotiating with respect to freedom.

And it is still all alleged these US soldiers killed those men at this point. After the trial and evidence is seen and witnesses heard and if they are still convicted and jailed then guess what, we still need to hold ourselves to our values or essentially in the end they don't amount to anything.

3 of the 4 soldiers were convicted of first-degree murder. Another example of extreme leftism punishing heroes.

Well, guess what. Those are our laws and rules for our society. Just because we are in another country does not mean we are no longer accountable to the democracy and freedom we hold so dear when at home. Either you stand by your principals/morals/freedome/democracy across the board or ditch them altogether. Don't be half assed about it.

What are you even talking about?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gabriel

[ToadBrother]

Both are true. They hold some territories (towns, villages, etc) and also often live among the larger population. Spare me the patronizing request for a map that doesn't exist.

It's hard not to be patronizing to someone whose ignorance seems to grow exponentially with every post.

The point is that there is no map. The Taliban are fundamentally mobile. They can occupy a town, get driven out, be gone for six months come back in strength, take it back. And more importantly, many of those towns are indeed "held" towns, which means wiping them out takes out civilians.

[Gabriel]

It's hard not to be patronizing to someone whose ignorance seems to grow exponentially with every post.

The point is that there is no map. The Taliban are fundamentally mobile. They can occupy a town, get driven out, be gone for six months come back in strength, take it back. And more importantly, many of those towns are indeed "held" towns, which means wiping them out takes out civilians.

So you've got a problem with that? You'd prefer that we NOT destroy operational points of the enemy in order to preserve possibly non-Taliban civilians?

[Michael Hardner]

So you've got a problem with that? You'd prefer that we NOT destroy operational points of the enemy in order to preserve possibly non-Taliban civilians?

I think John Candy once played a gung-ho cop who said "I'd kill a hundred innocent people to get a scumbag like that off the streets."

I do think bombing entire Taliban towns satisfies the UN definition of genocide.

[Gabriel]

I think John Candy once played a gung-ho cop who said "I'd kill a hundred innocent people to get a scumbag like that off the streets."

I do think bombing entire Taliban towns satisfies the UN definition of genocide.

It's not genocide. Not even close.

[ToadBrother]

It's not genocide. Not even close.

Odd. Seems to be the justification Sudan is using in Darfur.

[ToadBrother]

So you've got a problem with that? You'd prefer that we NOT destroy operational points of the enemy in order to preserve possibly non-Taliban civilians?

If our goal is somehow to bring democracy, peace, love and civilization to the Afghan peoples, blowing them up doesn't exactly seem to productive an activity.

You've already pretty much confirmed you think the Afghani people are a bunch of barbarians. I'm not even sure why we're letting you pretend that you would like nothing more than to see the entire population scraped off the planet.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not genocide. Not even close.

You're targeting a group of civilians because they belong to a group (i.e. the Taliban). Why isn't it genocide ? Because terrorists are from that group as well ? Couldn't you use that logic to plan even greater atrocities than the ones you're proposing ?

[waldo]

So you deny that Afghanistan is light-years behind Canada with respect to human rights - both institutionally and culturally? It's one thing to have human rights laws on the book, it's another for the citizens to believe these values in their hearts. You are a fool if you think the average Afghan citizen genuinely supports human rights values that we believe in strongly as Canadians.

Your selective self-serving double-standard continues – you can’t claim the moral “high-ground” while tarnishing it… regardless of what little respect you have for the Afghan peoples. The average Afghan citizen most assuredly recognizes the double-standard you’re projecting, if nothing more than in basic terms of right vs. wrong evidenced through civilian deaths and detainee abuse.

Your proposed "solutions" are nonsense. You also make no mention of the likelihood that Taliban detainees have much to gain by lying about their treatment... Frankly, I don't really give a shit anyways! I'm concerned about the safety of our men and women.

It’s clear you know nothing of how the Red Cross investigates – the rigour it follows. – and the recognition/esteem its reports carry. That safety you speak to is, itself, compromised by the waning positive perceptions of the local populace…

You think the Afghan population would prefer to be left at the mercy of the Taliban and other terrorist groups?

"Degrees of Taliban"? Are you kidding me? Spare me the Fareed Zakaria-esque nuances. If you're an Islamic fundamentalist, you should be destroyed. Our weakness is what permits them to continue on existing - we fight with both of our hands tied behind our backs. Our tolerance of Taliban presence in the Karzai government is another example of extreme leftism in action.

Given the repeated occasions you’ve denigrated the Afghan peoples and their country, you’re clearly in a fragile position attempting to suggest a concern for their welfare. Perhaps educate yourself… yes, there are degrees of Taliban – unlike the Taliban in Pakistan, predominantly; those in Afghanistan are not affiliated with Al Qaeda. The Taliban being negotiated with… those considered for Karzai government positions are considered “moderates” within the Taliban ranks.

You’re getting way more play than justified by your inability to support your views with anything other than vitriolic statements… perhaps you could further your cause by elaborating on your last sentence. Just how, exactly, is a Taliban presence within the Karzai government… “extreme leftism in action”?

[Gabriel]

You're targeting a group of civilians because they belong to a group (i.e. the Taliban). Why isn't it genocide ? Because terrorists are from that group as well ? Couldn't you use that logic to plan even greater atrocities than the ones you're proposing ?

The Taliban isn't some group that is defined by criteria applicable to genocide. In other words, the Taliban isn't some distinct racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group. This is getting silly... are you suggesting that the Taliban NOT be dispatched?

[ToadBrother]

The Taliban isn't some group that is defined by criteria applicable to genocide. In other words, the Taliban isn't some distinct racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group. This is getting silly... are you suggesting that the Taliban NOT be dispatched?

I have no problem dispatching any combatant. I do have a huge problem dispatching large numbers of non-combatants because they may share some of the ideals, or maybe just the same geography, as the combatants. This is why from the time the Allieds planned it right down to this day the Dresden bombings still haunt us. Killing enemy soldiers is not only permissible in war, it's highly recommended. But killing civilians, even if their sympathies may lie with the enemy soldiers, that's where the high ground turns into a swamp.

[Gabriel]

Your selective self-serving double-standard continues – you can’t claim the moral “high-ground” while tarnishing it… regardless of what little respect you have for the Afghan peoples. The average Afghan citizen most assuredly recognizes the double-standard you’re projecting, if nothing more than in basic terms of right vs. wrong evidenced through civilian deaths and detainee abuse.

The average illiterate Afghan raised in an extremist culture comprehends philosophical double standards between Canada and our enemies that you claim exist based on CBC reports of allegations of detainee abuse at the hands of Afghan security forces? Can you stretch and twist reality any further? Give me a break.

It’s clear you know nothing of how the Red Cross investigates – the rigour it follows. – and the recognition/esteem its reports carry. That safety you speak to is, itself, compromised by the waning positive perceptions of the local populace…

According to MacKay, over a hundred million dollars has already been invested in addition to serious efforts to upgrade the standards of detainee management. In other words, conditions for detainees are improving thanks to the efforts of the Canadian government. I have no doubt that this is true. I'm not about to believe anything you say about anything. How do you know the Red Cross isn't already involved? How do you know the Red Cross hasn't already made improvements to the way the Afghan security forces manage detainees? Will the average Afghan be aware of this and be able to recognize that this is a small part of the massive sacrifices that Canada has made towards benefiting the Afghan people? I'm uncertain.

Given the repeated occasions you’ve denigrated the Afghan peoples and their country, you’re clearly in a fragile position attempting to suggest a concern for their welfare. Perhaps educate yourself… yes, there are degrees of Taliban – unlike the Taliban in Pakistan, predominantly; those in Afghanistan are not affiliated with Al Qaeda. The Taliban being negotiated with… those considered for Karzai government positions are considered “moderates” within the Taliban ranks.

Yes, yes, how rude of me to condemn a culture that sells off children, that denies education to girls, that support suicide bombings in busy bazaars. How dare I denigrate this wonderful and distinct culture. That being said, I am not equating savagery and barbarism (terms you are afraid to use when describing the sick cultural traditions that we see in Afghanistan) to the entirety of Afghan culture. Certainly there are segments of the Afghan population that know that there is a better way to conduct themselves.

Perhaps the "moderate Taliban" you speak of are the same Taliban that supported and passed a law legalizing rape? The same Taliban that refuse to implement a minimum age for sexual consent? Your coddling of animals isn't an endearing quality.

You’re getting way more play than justified by your inability to support your views with anything other than vitriolic statements… perhaps you could further your cause by elaborating on your last sentence. Just how, exactly, is a Taliban presence within the Karzai government… “extreme leftism in action”?

Let me spell it out for you - extreme leftists believe that animals can be negotiated with. They believe that animals can be made into humans. So they give animals seats in the government. That is why we see Taliban represented in the new Afghan government. The enemy has legitimized itself thanks to folks like you that attach labels like "moderate" to extremists/fundamentalists. Insanity.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A swamp that was agreed to be wallowed in within the hallowed chambers of the United Nations. Lets not forget that operations in that theater had the blessing of the entire planet at the time they begun. They are not over yet, and no attempt has been made in the UN to stop the war.