Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) Apologists for this, be damned. MACKAY should be fired for indirectly endorsing the torturing of potentially innocent friggin' farmers. MacKay has made Canada no better than the Taliban. And, yes, we do need three seperate threads about this. Makes it harder to ignore! Edited December 22, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Like I said above, while it does not constitute torture, Catholic nuns ought not to have abused children in their care. They're both wrong, although torture is much worse. Of course....not much political mileage to be had from Sister Theresa rapping knuckles with a wooden pointer. It's amazing that all those subject to priestly sexual abuse didn't figure out the torture angle years before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 MacKay has made Canada no better than the Taliban.Really? Come on now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Apologists for this, be damned. MACKAY should be fired for indirectly endorsing the torturing of potentially innocent friggin' farmers. MacKay has made Canada no better than the Taliban. And, yes, we do need three seperate threads about this. Makes it harder to ignore! How about the Liberals that were in charge for the first part of the mission? Your proposing a double standard. They've got their hands in the torture cookie jar as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Really? Come on now. No, you "Come on." Are you embarrassed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 No, you "Come on." Are you embarrassed?The only thing that's embarrassing is your hyperbole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 How about the Liberals that were in charge for the first part of the mission? Your proposing a double standard. They've got their hands in the torture cookie jar as well. Ummm.... we're talking about 2006, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 The only thing that's embarrassing is your hyperbole. Which one? That MacKay LIED to Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Which one? That MacKay LIED to Canada?That's not what you said and that isn't what I quotes, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) That's not what you said and that isn't what I quotes, is it? You're right, I shouldn't expect you to be embarrassed for your country these days. Canada's governing structure isn't mature enough to be part of these missions yet. We're, once again, punching above our weight. But we've let the bullies write the story this time... No worries, I doubt whether history will take notice of the Harpers and MacKays. It's so much more important to win the hearts and minds of humans but Canada's become distracted by the petty politics that Harper and MacKay have played. They're so desperate to be Americans; why can't they just move to Texas and leave us alone? Edited December 22, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ummm.... we're talking about 2006, right? So the Canadian troops sat with their thumbs up their ass for 2003-3006 in Afghanistan? Where did they send prisoner's they captured then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 You're right, I shouldn't expect you to be embarrassed for your country these days. Canada's governing structure isn't mature enough to be part of these missions yet. We're, once again, punching above our weight. But we've let the bullies write the story this time... No worries, I doubt whether history will take notice of the Harpers and MacKays. Step it back for a minute. You claimed Canada is as bad as (literally, no better than) the Taliban. I never said whether or not I was embarrassed about certain aspects of the mission. I did, however, say that I'm embarrassed at your hyperbole. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you claim we're no better than the Taliban? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 For the record, I'm embarrassed that we haven't been able to get the Afghans to take over the mission, in part because we have not put enough pressure on their government to deal with corruption within its ranks and their military is poorly trained. Regardless, comparing Canada's government to the Taliban is asinine, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Maybe you don't watch Question Period in the Commons, over and over again McKay said there is no proof of torture of prisoners once they were turned over to the Afghans. Here's we have McKay and O'Connor being told there was, which Mckay omitted to Parliament. Why? Because certain people within the government and the military bosses, made sure nothing was written down, no paper trail. Torturing is wrong but so is lying to Parliament and to Canadians and its the lying and the covering up that is out in front now!! Maybe some don't care about the torturing but do you care when the government you believe is honest and trustworthy ISN'T???? I grant you your point, but what was our little 2300 person unit going to do? They don't have the personnel to hold detainees, and that has its own dangers. They had to turn them over to somebody. The question is -- who? The logical people, it seems to me, are the Americans. But no, the Americans would not commit to the terms. The Americans were sending high risk prisoners back to Gitmo. Probably because of political interference, the Canadian army people looked for another group to hand them off to. The Red Cross? Doubtful. There weren't many alternatives. They turned the prisoners over to the Afghan authorities. They also negotiated an arrangement about these detainees treatment. There was back and forth about it. No torture on Canadian detainees. Part of the problem is that what was formerly 'robust interrogation' has morphed into a war crime. What is the real joke is that the famous manual defining American interrogation techniques is that they were designed to comply with new UN human rights regulations and definitions about torture. None of their tortures caused pain. Compared to the tortures used by Saddam, for instance, many people would look on this as a distinct step forward. Saddam's victims were hung from the ceiling, doused with water, and hit with electrodes in the parts of the body most sensitive to pain. The body heaves and spasms to the electricity, causing them to pull their joints out. That is, of course, only one of their techniques. It is estimated that Saddam tortured and executed (both) about a million Iraqis during his reign. I include this just to put it into perspective. Saddam was never charged with the war crime of torture. Just as in this case, where the Taliban torture and kill almost all of their prisoners. Sometimes they videotape a prisoner's head being cut off, for something to play at celebrations. Nobody will even think of charging these people with war crimes. Nor will they think of charging the people in Kabul's prisons. No, instead, they will travel to far-off Canada, and persecute the Minister of Defense. Do you really think that what's wrong with the our efforts in Afghanistan is that our troops torture too much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Wasn't the US torturing prisoners in Gitmo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Wasn't the US torturing prisoners in Gitmo? If so the liberals have some 'splainin' to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 It's true that anyone who supports and defends torture is engaging in moral relativism. Or those who say "I don't care"...which is really thinly-veiled code for...wait for it....defense and support for torture (though without even the guts to admit it). What these folks are saying is "The Taliban do not share our vaunted Enlightenment principles nor our humanitarianism...so it's pretty cool if we behave the same way they do." Which means that the Taliban DOES in fact share our values and principles...at least, they philosophically side with the pro-torture crowd. There's also another issue, and not an insignificant one: the wild-eyed, conspiratorial belief that everyone abused and tortured with Canadian collusion must automatically be a Bad Guy. That's a typical faith-based justification for barbaric behavior. A very clever argument. Probably good in a debate, with an appeal to those who've never considered the stakes in war. Among those stakes -- if any Canadian falls into the hands of the enemy, he can expect to be executed, sold for ransom, or tortured to death. This is a war, and these standards of a North American court room are not relevant. Standard troop behavior in these situations -- they go door to door, searching houses for guns, and likely Taliban. They probably aren't too good at it. They have lost lives because they tried to act as if it were a social visit. Even so, if they catch a guy with a AK-47, and he's twitching with hate ... they just might throw him into the back of the truck to take back to see what the Lieutenant thinks. Probably a big portion of the detainees were released at this level, and allowed to go home. The rest were held, and turned over the Afghan authorities. What do you expect them to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Wasn't the US torturing prisoners in Gitmo? Well...yeah...but the US didn't kill 'em like in the Somalia Affair! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 So the Canadian troops sat with their thumbs up their ass for 2003-3006 in Afghanistan? Where did they send prisoner's they captured then? Good question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Step it back for a minute. You claimed Canada is as bad as (literally, no better than) the Taliban. I never said whether or not I was embarrassed about certain aspects of the mission. I did, however, say that I'm embarrassed at your hyperbole. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you claim we're no better than the Taliban? If we are party to fascist tactics, like Peter MacKay and Harper would like us to be, we are no better than those we fight against in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 If we are party to fascist tactics, like Peter MacKay and Harperand Paul Martin and Bill Graham would like us to be, we are no better than those we fight against in Afghanistan. There fixed for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 There fixed for you. Fascism: Social and Economic rigidity with the suppression of opposition. How was Paul Martin or the harmless Bill Graham fascist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Fascism: Social and Economic rigidity with the suppression of opposition. How was Paul Martin or the harmless Bill Graham fascist? Canadian "Democracy" and Free Speech: "Martin lies, Haitians die". http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1403 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 I wonder if it was this meeting where O'Connor was lead to bekeive that the Red Cross was ovwerseeing the condition of detainees and would notify Canada if there was anything amiss? while visions of Dancer's sugar-plum escape hatch danced in their heads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Fascism: Social and Economic rigidity with the suppression of opposition. How was Paul Martin or the harmless Bill Graham fascist? The same way Stephen Harper and McKay are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.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.