Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[Gabriel]

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.

It's a war. There is a greater good to be considered. I am not advocating absolute reckless abandon when attacking the enemy, but I am absolutely opposed to putting our soldiers at extreme risk in order to preserve fantasy ideals. When I see images and videos of American soldiers conducting urban warfare in Iraq, going house to house, risking being killed around every corner from subhumans that embed themselves within the civilian population and hide their weapons and pretend to be civilians when captured... my blood boils. We have soldiers who aren't permitted to engage the enemy until they've been shot at. The entire area should simply be carpet bombed. Stop letting our soldiers get killed in order to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. We send soldiers in to kill the enemy, and then we criticize them for doing their jobs. You don't think our soldiers are nervous when they advance on towns and villages in Afghanistan? You want them to give all of these people the ebenfit of the doubt, assume that they are non-combatants, and then get shot in the back? Let's not be naive to the EXTREME treachery of the enemy. And let's stop romanticizing the civilians! They are more than likely supporters of the enemy.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gabriel

[Michael Hardner]

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?

You left out national group, by the way... Yes, they are a cultural group, definitely so.

I'm suggesting that bombing towns is something that hasn't been done by the good guys in a long time.

I suppose I could throw in the towel here, and say you're not advocating genocide but the killing of innocent children if that would help.

[ToadBrother]

It's a war. There is a greater good to be considered.

The Dresden bombings served no greater good. They were nothing more than revenge for the Blitz.

I am not advocating absolute reckless abandon when attacking the enemy, but I am absolutely opposed to putting our soldiers at extreme risk in order to preserve fantasy ideals.

I don't disagree with that. Combat should be a practical thing, based upon rational and achievable objectives. Soldiers shouldn't be nation builders.

When I see images and videos of American soldiers conducting urban warfare in Iraq, going house to house, risking being killed around every corner from subhumans that embed themselves within the civilian population and hide their weapons and pretend to be civilians when captured... my blood boils.

But that is the fundamental risk of urban warfare. It's the worst kind for precisely that reason.

We have soldiers who aren't permitted to engage the enemy until they've been shot at.

That does not apply in Afghanistan. Believe me, I loathe peacekeeping. When I think of the disasters in the Balkans and Rwanda, *my* blood boils. Where full divisions that could blow the enemies into bits of flesh were needed, we had castrated UN forces. There would have been no Srebrenica Massacre or Rwandan genocide if powerful armies with massive superiority had been present. Instead, "peacekeepers" (a nice fancy word for spectators" with ludicrous rules of engagement got to sit back and watch.

The entire area should simply be carpet bombed. Stop letting out soldiers get killed in order to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. And let's stop romanticizing the civilians! They are more than likely supporters of the enemy.

You keep protesting being called an advocate of genocide, and then you make so very clear that you are in fact an advocate of genocide.

Edited November 19, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Gabriel]

You left out national group, by the way... Yes, they are a cultural group, definitely so.

I'm suggesting that bombing towns is something that hasn't been done by the good guys in a long time.

I suppose I could throw in the towel here, and say you're not advocating genocide but the killing of innocent children if that would help.

If the Taliban value the lives of innocent children, they're welcome to surrender and cease their terrorism. The responsibility for this conflict and its perpetuation lies with the enemy. Of course it is terrible when children die in war. Of course they had no choice regarding where they'd be born or who their parents would be. This is the tragedy of war, though. I am not willing to put our soldiers at a greater risk of being killed or injured by telling them NOT to destroy operational spots of the enemy OR by putting them at EXTREME risk by having them try to painstakingly differentiate between combatant and non-combatant - especially when the terrorists CONSISTENTLY exploit this by claiming to be non-combatants when captured.

With respect to the arbitrary definitions of what groups do or don't qualify as some group protect under international law from being annihilated... let's not be ridiculous. Should the Nazis have been seen as a political group protected from "genocide" during WWII? Let's not be ridiculous. This is garbage we're talking about, not humans.

[Gabriel]

But that is the fundamental risk of urban warfare. It's the worst kind for precisely that reason.

That type of conflict only serves as an advantage to the terrorists. The entire area should be destroyed if the enemy doesn't surrender and hand over its combatants and leaders. Surrender or be annihilated. Rather, we sacrifice out soldiers in order to reduce the likelihood of "innocent" civilians becoming collateral damage.

That does not apply in Afghanistan. Believe me, I loathe peacekeeping. When I think of the disasters in the Balkans and Rwanda, *my* blood boils. Where full divisions that could blow the enemies into bits of flesh were needed, we had castrated UN forces. There would have been no Srebrenica Massacre or Rwandan genocide if powerful armies with massive superiority had been present. Instead, "peacekeepers" (a nice fancy word for spectators" with ludicrous rules of engagement got to sit back and watch.

Perfect examples of extreme leftism and apathy allowing for the massacring of countless people. The violent groups should have been annihilated.

You keep protesting being called an advocate of genocide, and then you make so very clear that you are in fact an advocate of genocide.

I am not advocating genocide. I am supporting measures that will destroy the enemy and OPPOSED to absurd measures that result in the deaths and injuries of our soldiers in order to somehow protect "innocent" civilians. Of course there are some reasonable measures that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties - but sending our soldiers into towns and having them go door to door is completely irresponsible. As much as we need to win the hearts of minds of certain segments of that Afghan population (the segments that can be integrated into civilization), we also need to break the hearts and crush the hopes of the enemy.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gabriel

[DogOnPorch]

The Dresden bombings served no greater good. They were nothing more than revenge for the Blitz.

More accurately, it was Bomber Harris trying to remain relevant in a war that was wrapping up quickly.

[JaysFan]

If the Taliban value the lives of innocent children, they're welcome to surrender and cease their terrorism. The responsibility for this conflict and its perpetuation lies with the enemy. Of course it is terrible when children die in war. Of course they had no choice regarding where they'd be born or who their parents would be. This is the tragedy of war, though. I am not willing to put our soldiers at a greater risk of being killed or injured by telling them NOT to destroy operational spots of the enemy OR by putting them at EXTREME risk by having them try to painstakingly differentiate between combatant and non-combatant - especially when the terrorists CONSISTENTLY exploit this by claiming to be non-combatants when captured.

With respect to the arbitrary definitions of what groups do or don't qualify as some group protect under international law from being annihilated... let's not be ridiculous. Should the Nazis have been seen as a political group protected from "genocide" during WWII? Let's not be ridiculous. This is garbage we're talking about, not humans.

Karzai vowed to call a meeting of political, tribal and community leaders from across the country's social spectrum to bring peace -- pledging action on corruption, drugs, unemployment and reconciliation.

"We will call Afghanistan's traditional loya jirga and make every possible effort to ensure peace in our country," he said, calling on Taliban "not directly linked to international terrorism to return to their homeland".

Your puppet president feels differently Gabriel.

[Topaz]

Of course, the Cons knew about the abuse going on and are trying , like they always do, spin their way out BUT there are too many people who do know and it will come out one day. In 2005, Canada was turning over the prisoners to the US and then it was changed under Harper to the Afghanis. Also, when this was hapening wasn't it Bernier that was Foreign Minister and O'Connor the minister of the military? Then O'Connor was gone when this first came to light and Bernier, well all those secret papers were where? Anyway, this is what the New York Times said about this. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/americas/24canada.html?ei=5088&en=9f1fec83314617c6&ex=1358830800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This will get messy!

[Michael Hardner]

If the Taliban value the lives of innocent children, they're welcome to surrender and cease their terrorism. The responsibility for this conflict and its perpetuation lies with the enemy. Of course it is terrible when children die in war. Of course they had no choice regarding where they'd be born or who their parents would be. This is the tragedy of war, though. I am not willing to put our soldiers at a greater risk of being killed or injured by telling them NOT to destroy operational spots of the enemy OR by putting them at EXTREME risk by having them try to painstakingly differentiate between combatant and non-combatant - especially when the terrorists CONSISTENTLY exploit this by claiming to be non-combatants when captured.

With respect to the arbitrary definitions of what groups do or don't qualify as some group protect under international law from being annihilated... let's not be ridiculous. Should the Nazis have been seen as a political group protected from "genocide" during WWII? Let's not be ridiculous. This is garbage we're talking about, not humans.

This is Orwellian logic at its best. "Terrorists don't value the lives of their children, therefore we will kill their children."

I already through in the towel on the definition of genocide. Do note that the bombings of Dresden, Nagasaki and the like wouldn't be politically viable today, which is why you're on the fringe. Nothing wrong with being on the fringe, but don't be shocked that most people don't agree with you. They just don't.

[Michael Hardner]

I am supporting measures that will destroy the enemy and OPPOSED to absurd measures that result in the deaths and injuries of our soldiers in order to somehow protect "innocent" civilians. Of course there are some reasonable measures that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties - but sending our soldiers into towns and having them go door to door is completely irresponsible.

Are you serious here ? You just advocated crushing towns, you town-crusher. What 'reasonable measure' is that ? You really should think these things through as your prescription for Afghanistan sounds like you just thought it up while typing.

Also, I've never read anyone use the term innocent in quotes beside the word civilian.

[Gabriel]

This is Orwellian logic at its best. "Terrorists don't value the lives of their children, therefore we will kill their children."

I already through in the towel on the definition of genocide. Do note that the bombings of Dresden, Nagasaki and the like wouldn't be politically viable today, which is why you're on the fringe. Nothing wrong with being on the fringe, but don't be shocked that most people don't agree with you. They just don't.

That wasn't the logic of my statement, at all. What's I was suggesting was that the Taliban and other similar terrorists put the safety of the children at risk by conducting their operation among them. The responsibility for all civilian casualties lies with the Taliban, unless negligence can be illustrated on behalf of Canadian forces or our allies. That being said, our conduct and morality cannot even be compared to the treacherous methods of our enemies, although we've all seen the extremists on the left make absurd claims that we are the moral equivalents of the Taliban and other similar terrorist groups.

If you don't understand what's I'm implying, ask for clarification. Don't mischaracterize my statements. I'm not even sure how you inferred that I was advocating for the killing of children because they weren't cared about by the Taliban.

With respect to Dresden and Nagasaki, they were necessary. The enemy didn't surrender until afterwards. If only we had the same resolve today, we could end many conflicts much sooner.

[Michael Hardner]

That wasn't the logic of my statement, at all. What's I was suggesting was that the Taliban and other similar terrorists put the safety of the children at risk by conducting their operation among them. The responsibility for all civilian casualties lies with the Taliban, unless negligence can be illustrated on behalf of Canadian forces or our allies. That being said, our conduct and morality cannot even be compared to the treacherous methods of our enemies, although we've all seen the extremists on the left make absurd claims that we are the moral equivalents of the Taliban and other similar terrorist groups.

If you don't understand what's I'm implying, ask for clarification. Don't mischaracterize my statements. I'm not even sure how you inferred that I was advocating for the killing of children because they weren't cared about by the Taliban.

With respect to Dresden and Nagasaki, they were necessary. The enemy didn't surrender until afterwards. If only we had the same resolve today, we could end many conflicts much sooner.

Your statement only makes sense when looking at the current policy, not at what you're proposing. Or have you retracted that proposal ? Maybe I didn't understand. If not, then what is the difference ?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[DogOnPorch]

You just advocated crushing towns, you town-crusher.

Town crusher...lol. Me step on towns now...ugh.

*CRUNCH*

Owwww...hurt foot.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This is Orwellian logic at its best. "Terrorists don't value the lives of their children, therefore we will kill their children."

I already through in the towel on the definition of genocide. Do note that the bombings of Dresden, Nagasaki and the like wouldn't be politically viable today, which is why you're on the fringe. Nothing wrong with being on the fringe, but don't be shocked that most people don't agree with you. They just don't.

Dresden was over the top, then again there were many thousand bomber raids. Cologne,the first was a success, but Essen the second was not. Bremen fell short of the four digit number, there was the Ruhr and the Rhineland efforts then Duisburg. Massive RAF attacks were matched by US efforts as well. These were indeed fierce and did in fact target civilians. The A bombs dropped on Japan were a horse of a different colour in my view. The Japanese were actually warned ahead of time and were offered terms. They declined and as a result the bombs were dropped. Perhaps toward the point, civilians have ALWAYS been targeted, if not during battles then during the aftermath when then undefended. Cities were surrounded and starved out or burnt down from the beginning of time.

My point is this; there is the victors and the vanquished in all conflicts. The Afghan case is no better or worse than many others.

[Gabriel]

Your statement only makes sense when looking at the current policy, not at what you're proposing. Or have you retracted that proposal ? Maybe I didn't understand. If not, then what is the difference ?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've stated my opinions quite clearly and then explained them further. What's confusing? I'm simply opposed to putting our soldiers at extreme risk in order to satisfy extremists on the left under the guise of reducing the likelihood of harming civilians. If a town or village or anything is reasonably suspected of being hostile, why in the world are we sending our soldiers in to go door to door and attempt to discern between combatant and non-combatant? As we do this the enemy exploits these methods by pretending to be a non-combatant when defeat and/or capture is imminent. This is insanity. If there is hostility in an area, destroy it. The blood of all the civilians lies on the hands of the terrorists.

Do I need to paint a picture with an easier to digest analogy? What about the hostage taking at Beslan with the Muslim Chechen terrorists? Were the casualties (over 800, I believe) the fault of the Russian paramilitary response? Of course not - the murder of hundreds of children and civilians are completely the responsibility of the terrorists. The same is true in the theatre of combat in Afghanistan. The Taliban is responsible for all civilian deaths and injuries. The Taliban still has the option to surrender and cease terrorism. Clearly they are more committed to their violent Islamic ideology than they are to the values of freedom, democracy, and peace.

[Michael Hardner]

Dresden was over the top, then again there were many thousand bomber raids. Cologne,the first was a success, but Essen the second was not. Bremen fell short of the four digit number, there was the Ruhr and the Rhineland efforts then Duisburg. Massive RAF attacks were matched by US efforts as well. These were indeed fierce and did in fact target civilians. The A bombs dropped on Japan were a horse of a different colour in my view. The Japanese were actually warned ahead of time and were offered terms. They declined and as a result the bombs were dropped. Perhaps toward the point, civilians have ALWAYS been targeted, if not during battles then during the aftermath when then undefended. Cities were surrounded and starved out or burnt down from the beginning of time.

My point is this; there is the victors and the vanquished in all conflicts. The Afghan case is no better or worse than many others.

They haven't always been targeted. Were they targeted in the Gulf Wars ? Are they targeted in Afghanistan today ? War is changing.

[Michael Hardner]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've stated my opinions quite clearly and then explained them further. What's confusing? I'm simply opposed to putting our soldiers at extreme risk in order to satisfy extremists on the left under the guise of reducing the likelihood of harming civilians. If a town or village or anything is reasonably suspected of being hostile, why in the world are we sending our soldiers in to go door to door and attempt to discern between combatant and non-combatant? As we do this the enemy exploits these methods by pretending to be a non-combatant when defeat and/or capture is imminent. This is insanity. If there is hostility in an area, destroy it. The blood of all the civilians lies on the hands of the terrorists.

"The responsibility for all civilian casualties lies with the Taliban, unless negligence can be illustrated on behalf of Canadian forces or our allies."

How do you rationalize that statement with "we will crush their towns". It's nonsense.

Also address the 'moral equivalence' question - not in the context of what we're doing NOW but what you propose. Why would we be better ?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Guest TrueMetis]

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?

What does that matter it didn't stop them from bringing those cultures to their knees. Mow I don't know much about the Germanic tribes but I do know a bit about Genghis Khan and all things considered he was fairly civilizied, had some out right biazare customs but definately was not a barbarian or savage.

Edited November 20, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Gabriel]

Dresden was over the top, then again there were many thousand bomber raids. Cologne,the first was a success, but Essen the second was not. Bremen fell short of the four digit number, there was the Ruhr and the Rhineland efforts then Duisburg. Massive RAF attacks were matched by US efforts as well. These were indeed fierce and did in fact target civilians. The A bombs dropped on Japan were a horse of a different colour in my view. The Japanese were actually warned ahead of time and were offered terms. They declined and as a result the bombs were dropped. Perhaps toward the point, civilians have ALWAYS been targeted, if not during battles then during the aftermath when then undefended. Cities were surrounded and starved out or burnt down from the beginning of time.

My point is this; there is the victors and the vanquished in all conflicts. The Afghan case is no better or worse than many others.

Put simply, Nazi Germany started it. Nazi Germany employed brutal and vicious methods, as well - far more brutal than the methods of the Allied. Bombing London and other civilian areas, mass executions of captured towns and villages, the siege of Leningrad, etc, etc, etc. Nazi Germany deserved everything it received. Only Nazi Germany and its allies and supporters were at fault. Even in the heat of the brutality that was WWII, Nazi Germany's conduct was contemptuous - the Allies always maintained moral superiority and have virtually nothing to apologize for.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

"The responsibility for all civilian casualties lies with the Taliban, unless negligence can be illustrated on behalf of Canadian forces or our allies."

How do you rationalize that statement with "we will crush their towns". It's nonsense.

Also address the 'moral equivalence' question - not in the context of what we're doing NOW but what you propose. Why would we be better ?

What's hard to understand? We're not crushing their towns out of some sick vendetta. We're there to annihilate a threat to our freedom and values. It's about removing a serious threat!

How can you not realize that we ARE better? We promote freedom and democracy, civil rights, opportunities, education, and everything else good. We're not going in there and trying to convert people to Nazism or Islamism or other barbaric, savage, or subhuman ideologies that turn people into animals. We're promoting civilizational advancement. When those values are finally integrated into the Afghan culture, and enforced by sturdy civil infrastructure, our mission will be complete.

It is maddening when I hear this type of argument advanced - that somehow the only thing that distinguishes us from the animals is that we don't kill civilians. Civilians will, on occasion, become collateral damage. It is never our intention nor desire to harm civilians, but it is a consequence of conflict when the enemy and civilians are intermixed and impossible to distinguish from one another in a reasonably safe manner. Forget about that fact that we are light-years ahead of the animals with respect to moral development (human rights, civil structure, values of equality, freedom, democracy), education, technology, etc, etc, etc. Yet in your mind we're all the same once we're forced by our enemies to engage in military actions that can harm civilians. Insanity! Once we nuke all of Afghanistan, you MIGHT have an argument that we've become comparable to the enemy with respect to morality. Just MAYBE. Until then, our morality has nothing to prove to animals.

[Guest TrueMetis]

So you deny that Afghanistan is light-years behind Canada with respect to human rights - both institutionally and culturally?

A light year is a mesurement of distance not time.

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?

The Taliban don't have operational points they are completely mobile.

[ToadBrother]

With respect to Dresden and Nagasaki, they were necessary. The enemy didn't surrender until afterwards. If only we had the same resolve today, we could end many conflicts much sooner.

The use of the Bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a touchy one, with little historical consensus (I'm of the opinion that they were bombed more as a demonstration to the Russians). Pretty much everyone agrees Dresden was militarily meaningless, it achieved no military goal, and even at the time it was debated whether it went too far. It's one thing to bomb military targets, even industrial targets, but Dresden was pointless destruction.

Edited November 20, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Guest TrueMetis]

What's hard to understand? We're not crushing their towns out of some sick vendetta. We're there to annihilate a threat to our freedom and values. It's about removing a serious threat!

And killing children.

How can you not realize that we ARE better? We promote freedom and democracy, civil rights, opportunities, education, and everything else good. We're not going in there and trying to convert people to Nazism or Islamism or other barbaric, savage, or subhuman ideologies that turn people into animals. We're promoting civilizational advancement. When those values are finally integrated into the Afghan culture, and enforced by sturdy civil infrastructure, our mission will be complete.

You really like forcing people to think like you. Sieg Heil!!!!

It is maddening when I hear this type of argument advanced - that somehow the only thing that distinguishes us from the animals is that we don't kill civilians. Civilians will, on occasion, become collateral damage. It is never our intention nor desire to harm civilians, but it is a consequence of conflict when the enemy and civilians are intermixed and impossible to distinguish from one another in a reasonably safe manner. Forget about that fact that we are light-years ahead of the animals with respect to moral development (human rights, civil structure, values of equality, freedom, democracy), education, technology, etc, etc, etc. Yet in your mind we're all the same once we're forced by our enemies to engage in military actions that can harm civilians. Insanity! Once we nuke all of Afghanistan, you MIGHT have an argument that we've become comparable to the enemy with respect to morality. Just MAYBE. Until then, our morality has nothing to prove to animals.

Killing civilians accidently is completely different from destroying entire towns.

[Gabriel]

A light year is a mesurement of distance not time.

So since you've got nothing to contribute to the thread, you illustrate your ignorance by not recognizing a common figure of speech? It's not uncommon to describe vast differences between things, for example between the civilizational progress of different societies, as being light-years apart. If you've got nothing to contribute, then don't post.

The Taliban don't have operational points they are completely mobile.

Do I really need to prove this point? Go spend a second or two on Google and YouTube, they absolutely have operational points. Of course that's not their entirety and many of them are mobile and embedded among the broader population - the common tactic of treachery utilized by fundamentalist Islamic animals.

Why am I even responding to you?

Edited November 20, 2009 by Gabriel