eyeball Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Whereas you, Eyeball and Jaysfan are obvious in your seething hatred of the military and anyone conservative, all instantly ready to accept as proven allegations made by a Liberal appointee who has no evidence to support his allegations. Bullshit. You have zero evidence of me accepting as proven any Liberal allegation. As for Jaysfan, I get the impression he's one of those types that cheer every time a Canadian or allied soldier dies. Impression? How about you produce some actual evidence. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Where is the outrage against Iran and Syria who continue to this day to apply torture on a regular basis? It would be hypocritical of us to point our fingers at others for doing the same thing our side is. It would probably only encourage more of the same. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Topaz Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Again I'll link the article to the NY Times and if you want proof, read the article here. Is McKay going to tell Bernier HE didn't SEE what he thought he saw? IF nothing was going on, then why did the Tory stopped handing them over to the Afghanis? IF the Tory he know, then why not come out and admit it, mistakes were made, instead of going to great lengths of a cover up? They are only hurting their own credibility! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/americas/24canada.html?ei=5088&en=9f1fec83314617c6&ex=1358830800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print Quote
Keepitsimple Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 It would be hypocritical of us to point our fingers at others for doing the same thing our side is. It would probably only encourage more of the same. That is amoung the top ten dumbest statements on this forum. Where in Canada do we torture prisoners? Iran and Syria are doing it to their own citizens - in their own country!!! Or are you going to tell me that there's no proof - that this is just second and third hand information - merely heresay? Quote Back to Basics
eyeball Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 If it was "flimsy, inconsistent and unreliable" in 2006... why was it suddenly "solid, consistent and reliable" in 2007? If there were no problems... no concerns over detainee abuse, why was the 2005/2006 initiated detainee transfer program stopped... the agreement signed by Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier? If there were no problems... no concerns over detainee abuse, why was a new detainee transfer agreement put in place by the Conservatives? Colvin’s testimony, if nothing else, validates the Conservative actions in reforming the detainee transfer program... however, it also raises serious questions that have driven the Conservatives into full-blown cover-up mode - who knew what when, and why did the Conservative government take so long to act. The necessary detainee transfer reforms have been put in place... the real issue surfacing is the Conservative cover-up, and the direct attempts to impede Colvin's actions and suppress his reports. I'm quite certain Liberals would have invested just as much effort to keep this buried. The issue of government officials and politicians keeping our government as opaque as possible is one that knows no political boundary. All parties appear as equally complicit and guilty in this regard. The thing that really stands out to me is how little importance so many Canadians afford this. At the end of the day this latest scandal is an issue that should be polarizing the governed against the government, but as always we're reduced to fighting amongst ourselves. We deserve just about everything that happens as a result. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Being morally better than your enemy doesn't win wars. Being as morally deficient starts and maintains them. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 That is amoung the top ten dumbest statements on this forum. Where in Canada do we torture prisoners? Look dummy, I didn't say Canadians were torturing people, what I said is; it would be hypocritical of us to point our fingers at others for doing the same thing our side is. However perhaps after a few more years of shrugging and laughing off reports of Canadian complicity in our allies torture of human beings we'll have more enthusiasm for actually doing it ourselves. After all shouldn't Canada be doing more to pull its weight in the effort to win the War for Terror? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
JaysFan Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Look dummy, I didn't say Canadians were torturing people, what I said is; it would be hypocritical of us to point our fingers at others for doing the same thing our side is. However perhaps after a few more years of shrugging and laughing off reports of Canadian complicity in our allies torture of human beings we'll have more enthusiasm for actually doing it ourselves. After all shouldn't Canada be doing more to pull its weight in the effort to win the War for Terror? No doubt there's more than a handful of the right wing here already frothing at mouth in hopes that they'll have that opportunity one day.Because we both know, they have no problem with torture being used as long as it's not their side being tortured. Quote
d4dev Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Being as morally deficient starts and maintains them. I disagree. What's hurting Canada's war effort is the lack of a consistent and coherent policy from the federal government. Let it be clear that I'm not just blaming Canada, but each and every one of the countries that's part of the ISAF in Afghanistan. Most countries participating in the war have done so very reluctantly, and with numerous conditions and prohibitions about what their soldiers can and cannot do. That's not the way a war is fought. A war is fought to win, not to merely convey an impression of fighting. The extreme lack of enthusiasm has contributed to a lack of allocated finances, manpower, equipment, and consequently, a limitation of the operational objectives. Today, many western countries are also talking about some kind of a "deal" with the "less hard-core" Taliban. Problem is, we've tied the hands of our soldiers from day one by giving them a list of too many do's and dont's, and not enough support to accomplish the objectives that we ask of them. And when they make even minor mistakes to do their job, the armchair generals among us pounce on them seeking to deliver lectures on morality and how to fight a war. If you don't want torture to occur, give our troops more ways of obtaining information, be it via satellites, drones, HUMINT or others, and give them the means to act on the information they collect. You cannot fight with one hand tied behind your back, and a war is no different. All the ISAF countries need to untie the hands of their soldiers, and pour in more manpower, money, and equipment to win this war. The objective should not be a perpetual status quo, and I hope that's not what our and other leaders are working towards. If need be, ask other countries in the region to help-countries like Iran, India, Russia and China could provide invaluable support if utilized in the right way. India is already one of the largest donors in Afghanistan with over $1.2 billion spent on highways, schools, hospitals and the Afghan Parliament building. Iran shares a large land border with Afghanistan and is very well connected to it through the Zaranj-Delaram highway, which could be used as an alternate support route instead of Karachi through Pakistan. China should be persuaded to invest some of its gargantuan dollar reserves in Afghanistan in its own interest-they have problems with Muslim extremists in Xinjiang, and if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed of terrorism again, it won't be beneficial for them either. Lastly, Russia can use its massive clout among the CAR states to develop alternate markets for trade, development, and economic uplift of the Afghans. Until the Afghans depend on poppy for their livelihood, Afghanistan cannot function as a viable country. The problem of torture cannot be seen in a localized sense isolated from the general state of affairs in Afghanistan. Torture takes places to collect information on the enemy, and until the enemy exists, there will be a pandemic of chaos in the region. I don't seek to condone the use of torture, and in any civilized society, torture should be abhorred and condemned by all. But Afghanistan is in a state of war, and if torturing a mass-murdering Taliban extremist will save hundreds of people from dying the next day in an attack on a marketplace, it should be quite clear where our priorities lie. Quote In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in an clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth. Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
JaysFan Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) You know, when one looks back at this file over the past year or so.. the evidence adds up. PM denies getting angry call from Hillier on detainee issue Last Updated: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 | 4:09 PM ET CBC News Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday he never received an angry call from Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of Canada's defence staff, last week over the government's handling of the Afghan detainee issue. Harper was lying then, he's lying now and Hillier was ordered to comply. It's no small wonder/ coincidence the man decided to retire at an early age from the military. He likely knew the shit was going to hit the fan over the detainees being tortured, the Conservatives ordering a cover up of it and bailed ahead of it. Edited November 21, 2009 by JaysFan Quote
JaysFan Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Published On Sat Jun 9 2007 Toronto StarOTTAWA– Six prisoners have complained to Canadian officials of abuse in Afghan prisons – not four, as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said earlier this week. "There are, in fact, four allegations. Those allegations ... have been brought to our attention," MacKay said. That was later confirmed by a MacKay spokesperson, who told the Star in an email that there were two new cases of possible abuse. In fact, there have been six reports of abuse – four since Canada signed a new prisoner transfer agreement with Afghan authorities on May 3, said France Bureau, a Foreign Affairs spokesperson. Three complaints originated in Kabul and three in Kandahar, she said. ----------- Now back in 2007 who do you think supplied this information to MacKay Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? No, Colvin did and the question that should be answered now is; were the cases of abuse investigated and if they were will MacKay release those findings. Hmm, Peter MacKay must have a short memory if he can't recall this... Either that or he's lying.... Quote
Keepitsimple Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 You know, when one looks back at this file over the past year or so.. the evidence adds up. PM denies getting angry call from Hillier on detainee issue Last Updated: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 | 4:09 PM ET CBC News Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday he never received an angry call from Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of Canada's defence staff, last week over the government's handling of the Afghan detainee issue. Harper was lying then, he's lying now and Hillier was ordered to comply. It's no small wonder/ coincidence the man decided to retire at an early age from the military. He likely knew the shit was going to hit the fan over the detainees being tortured, the Conservatives ordering a cover up of it and bailed ahead of it. As you've stated, Hillier is retired - he doesn't have to "comply" anymore. If he's proved anything, it's that he speaks his mind. So why is Hillier saying that this whole thing is bulls***? Quote Back to Basics
JaysFan Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 As you've stated, Hillier is retired - he doesn't have to "comply" anymore. If he's proved anything, it's that he speaks his mind. So why is Hillier saying that this whole thing is bulls***? Senator Hillier wouldn't want to be disloyal to his master. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 Senator Hillier wouldn't want to be disloyal to his master. The plot thickens..... Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted November 21, 2009 Report Posted November 21, 2009 The plot thickens..... I wouldn't put it past the Harpercrite, the guy that swore he would NEVER appoint senators has appointed MORE senators than any other prime minister in the history of this country. Quote
eyeball Posted November 22, 2009 Report Posted November 22, 2009 I disagree. What's hurting Canada's war effort is the lack of a consistent and coherent policy from the federal government. Let it be clear that I'm not just blaming Canada, but each and every one of the countries that's part of the ISAF in Afghanistan. Most countries participating in the war have done so very reluctantly, and with numerous conditions and prohibitions about what their soldiers can and cannot do. That's not the way a war is fought. A war is fought to win, not to merely convey an impression of fighting. This reluctance is a good sign that the citizens of these countries are increasingly dubious about how just it is. I hope it'll be a long time before people can be convinced to wade into any other quagmires because of this. What's really hurting the commitment to this war is the apparent suspension and surrendering of our principles and how not adhering to these in the past is likely the very tap-root cause of this conflict in the first place. We cannot be complicit in the torture of human beings today any more than we can be complicit in the support of dictatorships in the past and not expect a thick moral fog of political repercussions and civil doubt to blow back in our faces. I just pray we don't suffer a massive retaliation in the form of a terrorist attack as well. The extreme lack of enthusiasm has contributed to a lack of allocated finances, manpower, equipment, and consequently, a limitation of the operational objectives. Given the real source of this lack of enthusiasm I'd say good. Today, many western countries are also talking about some kind of a "deal" with the "less hard-core" Taliban. Problem is, we've tied the hands of our soldiers from day one by giving them a list of too many do's and dont's, and not enough support to accomplish the objectives that we ask of them. The real problem is that many western leaders are reluctant to back out of the corners they painted themselves into by swearing they'd never negotiate with terrorists. And when they make even minor mistakes to do their job, the armchair generals among us pounce on them seeking to deliver lectures on morality and how to fight a war. No its when our side starts cutting moral corners that critically thinking principled people start pouncing. If you don't want torture to occur, give our troops more ways of obtaining information, be it via satellites, drones, HUMINT or others, and give them the means to act on the information they collect. We merely need to stick to the very same principles that we claim to live by to ensure torture doesn't occur. You cannot fight with one hand tied behind your back, and a war is no different. All the ISAF countries need to untie the hands of their soldiers, and pour in more manpower, money, and equipment to win this war. The objective should not be a perpetual status quo, and I hope that's not what our and other leaders are working towards. You cannot win a war by surrendering your principles. If need be, ask other countries in the region to help-countries like Iran, India, Russia and China could provide invaluable support if utilized in the right way. India is already one of the largest donors in Afghanistan with over $1.2 billion spent on highways, schools, hospitals and the Afghan Parliament building. Iran shares a large land border with Afghanistan and is very well connected to it through the Zaranj-Delaram highway, which could be used as an alternate support route instead of Karachi through Pakistan. China should be persuaded to invest some of its gargantuan dollar reserves in Afghanistan in its own interest-they have problems with Muslim extremists in Xinjiang, and if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed of terrorism again, it won't be beneficial for them either. Lastly, Russia can use its massive clout among the CAR states to develop alternate markets for trade, development, and economic uplift of the Afghans. Until the Afghans depend on poppy for their livelihood, Afghanistan cannot function as a viable country. I agree the people of this region should be left to settle its own issues. We can best help by not picking sides and by refusing to interfere in the region in the manner we have for so long now and in the manner that has caused so much of this conflict in the first place. The problem of torture cannot be seen in a localized sense isolated from the general state of affairs in Afghanistan. Torture takes places to collect information on the enemy, and until the enemy exists, there will be a pandemic of chaos in the region. The problem with torture is that its a heinous crime against humanity, the minute we become complicit in it is the same minute we become no better than the enemy. I don't seek to condone the use of torture, and in any civilized society, torture should be abhorred and condemned by all. But Afghanistan is in a state of war, and if torturing a mass-murdering Taliban extremist will save hundreds of people from dying the next day in an attack on a marketplace, it should be quite clear where our priorities lie. Big if and if hundreds and thousands of people are subjected to torture needlessly you can be quite certain that a steady stream of mass-murderers will be the result. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Topaz Posted November 22, 2009 Report Posted November 22, 2009 Here's what the reporter G. Smith said about the abuse of prisoners today on the Question Period. http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/nov-22/#clip237936 Quote
Gabriel Posted November 22, 2009 Report Posted November 22, 2009 Here's what the reporter G. Smith said about the abuse of prisoners today on the Question Period. http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/nov-22/#clip237936 What a garbage video clip. After playing a brief soundbite from Peter MacKay during question period, where he criticized the validity of Taliban testimony (vilifying the Taliban), the VERY FIRST QUESTION towards Graeme Smith from this stupid old "journalist" (Craig? Never heard of him) is "Does it surprise you that the government has decided to vilify Colvin instead of deal with the substance of the issue?" This is a complete lie and the entire panel sits there without challenging him! To which Graeme Smith, idiotically, states that the government is wrong is suggesting that Colvin is a "Taliban-sympathizer", WHEN THE GOVERNMENT NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. COLVIN HAS NOT BEEN PERSONALLY ATTACKED BY THE GOVERNMENT. More left-wing anti-Harper media bias on display for all to see. This is maddening. But of course Topaz swallows it all up happily. Also, I love how this journalist spends one-month in Afghanistan and is described by another ass-kissing "contributor" as having "long experience" in Afghanistan. Canadian journalists on the whole are a joke. We need a Michael Ware-type up here. Lastly, nobody even questioned Graeme Smith's interviews. Were the former detainees paid for the interviews? How do we know whether or not they were detainees, and if so, were they detainees transferred from Canadian forces? There is simply NO questioning, everything is taken at face value in order to suit the agenda. Just four schmucks parroting left-wing absurdities without addressing the real issues and not acknowledging the difficulties of the conflict. I never watched CTV, and it's clear that it is a garbage network if this is the type of discussion they have on serious issues. No wonder they're losing money hand over fist and begging for a bail out from the television service providers with the CRTC's blessing (by extension, the customers). Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted November 23, 2009 Author Report Posted November 23, 2009 What a garbage video clip. After playing a brief soundbite from Peter MacKay during question period, where he criticized the validity of Taliban testimony (vilifying the Taliban), the VERY FIRST QUESTION towards Graeme Smith from this stupid old "journalist" (Craig? Never heard of him) is "Does it surprise you that the government has decided to vilify Colvin instead of deal with the substance of the issue?" This is a complete lie and the entire panel sits there without challenging him! What about the reports from the ICRC? They made some reference to the fact that all the agencies, human rights watch, knew about the torture that was going on in Afghanistan prisons. This apparently went on for a long time, not just one incident. If you don't think its possible, take a look at the pictures taken from Abu Graib, this is how the US was deling with the prisoners there in Iraq. The same people, US commander and strategists, are calling the shots in Afghanistan. So it's not much of a stretch of the imagineation. Quote
Argus Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 If it was "flimsy, inconsistent and unreliable" in 2006... why was it suddenly "solid, consistent and reliable" in 2007? It still was, but more evidence, actual evidence, came forward, or was brought forward, enough to justify taking action on. Colvin’s testimony, if nothing else, validates the Conservative actions in reforming the detainee transfer program... however, it also raises serious questions that have driven the Conservatives into full-blown cover-up mode - who knew what when, and why did the Conservative government take so long to act. Honestly, you people act like an email from a third or fourth rank diplomat who interviewed four prisoners he didn't even know had been captured by Canadians ought to have set the entire government into a rush to reform Afghanistan's prison system. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Its bad enough being allied with countries that subscribe to torture but The problem is you and the other far leftists have expanded the term "torture" to encompass so much that virtually all nations on Earth other than western democracies (and not all of them) can be painted as practicing it. That leaves us a pretty small selection group to be allied with, and excludes the US and Japan, among others. actively participating in the process represents a descent to the sort of low that should have our grandfathers and great-grandfathers spinning in their graves. Actively participating sound imply Canadians soldiers took partin beating prisoners, something which I'm sure appeals to your sense of self righteousness, but for which there is no evidence. Canada is no more guilty of the abuses of these prisoners than a citizen who makes a citizen's arrest is if the man he hands over to police later gets beaten in prison. I honestly believe things are getting to the point that Canada will require some sort of activist resistance movement to bring our state to heel. Most of the people who make up the "activist resistance movement" are those who find torture quite appealing as long as it's performed against "enemies". They just have a different list of enemies - namely anyone who disagrees with them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 What the right doesn't realize is that by not making any human being's rights the paramount issue we sell out our principles and become no better than the enemy. Oddly, I have rarely seen the Left much concerned with human rights other than those of themselves and those they consider fellow travellers. Certainly they have shown little respect for the human rights of those who dare to disagree with them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 It would be hypocritical of us to point our fingers at others for doing the same thing our side is. It would probably only encourage more of the same. Is "our side" accused of torturing prisoners to death by the bus load? The problem with you people is you have no sense of proportion. You think of a term you believe will cause outrage - like Torture - and then apply it indiscriminately to every regime you don't like including the Americans - who don't treat their prisoners with the utmost respect and courtesy. So America, which does things like sleep deprivation is in the same boat as North Korea, which skins people alive then disembowells them in front of relatives. It's just all "torture" to you. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 I wouldn't put it past the Harpercrite, the guy that swore he would NEVER appoint senators has appointed MORE senators than any other prime minister in the history of this country. Why do you suppose your total lack of knowledge of history and your inability to count both fail to surprise me? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 We merely need to stick to the very same principles that we claim to live by to ensure torture doesn't occur. You cannot win a war by surrendering your principles. Oh don't be a child. Wars throughout history have been won without the winners showing a shred of principle. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.