Canadian Military Issues

[Stoker]

That part of the Geneva Convention has already been shown by scholars to be incapable of application against such armies as the Taliban had. It's context is in the world of advanced nations.

Simple economics make the idea of uniforms inapplicable. How did they not conduct their operations in "accordance with the laws and customs of war?" The laws and customs of war include the resistance of an invader by guerilla action. They do not require that an army must form squares in the desert. in order for an action to be legitimate.

So.....I.....guess....it's a good thing that even though the definition of the Taliban fighters is fuzzy, the Americans are giving them the benifit of the doubt?

Don't be too sure. Even the terrorists did not start beheading westerners until AFTER information on Americans torturing prisons became common knowledge.

Thats complete and utter Bullshit

GO GOOGLE DANIEL PEARL FFS !!!

Or does he not count caesar, because he was a jew?

[kungfusion]

Wow....I didnt know my reply will cause so much heat.

I was ashamed because of the incompetence of our government, not because of our soldiers. I absolutely adore them, make no mistake. I think I need to apologize for those who took it in ways that they werent intended to mean.

But I have to say I'm a proud Canadian so far.

[caesar]

Sorry, I missed him but it still holds true. Most of this behavior started after the publicity of the Americans torturing. Irregardless, they did have information on the torture prior to it being confirmed with pictures. Let's face it that is why they took the Afghani prisoner to Cuba to circumvent American and International law. That torture was going on was no secret.

[Stoker]

Irregardless, they did have information on the torture prior to it being confirmed with pictures.

My god, the press broke the story of Abu grad prision in Janurary (for the most part) and some reports surfaced almost a year ago........but it doesn't mater Pearl was killed before the iraq war started (Jan 2002) and only about five months after the towers fell.........

Let's face it that is why they took the Afghani prisoner to Cuba to circumvent American and International law. That torture was going on was no secret.

So I guess your proof of torture in the American camp in Cuba is secret also?

[caesar]

No secret to me; I was aware of it.

Pearl was an isolated incident. The middle east is a angry area. However, I do expect more from our enlightened civillized neighbours. At least I used to.

[caesar]

here stoker;

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Torture_RS.html

Of course, you only believe what comes to you via American propaganda. You are closed minded and in denial of commone knowledge regarding American atrocities.

[playfullfellow]

As far as I see it, there is a lot of difference between sticking panties on some guys head and whacking his head off. I do not condone torture but there is a hell of a lot of difference between the two. As I recollect, most of the beheadings have been towards civilians, right? It's one thing to shot back at someone who is shooting at you but it is an entirely different thing to grab an unarmed civilian and systematically execute him with no trial. You have to be pretty hard hearted to condone any such action at all caesar.

[Stoker]

No secret to me; I was aware of it.

Pearl was an isolated incident. The middle east is a angry area. However, I do expect more from our enlightened civillized neighbours. At least I used to.

And

Of course, you only believe what comes to you via American propaganda. You are closed minded and in denial of commone knowledge regarding American atrocities.

So I went to your conspiracy theorist website, and I'll be damned, it doesn't mention anything relating to your claims of torture of prisoners in Cuba by the American government..........Whats going on caesar?

[Argus]

ook, many of them were nothing more than in the wrong place at the wrong time. If a bunch of foreigners invaded my home; I wouldn't wait to get on a uniform.l It is self defense..

Except Afghanistan wasn't their home and it's kind of hard to explain how you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time when you're caught with an Ak-47 in your hands and in with a batch of Al Quaeda soldier types.

[Argus]

No secret to me; I was aware of it.

Pearl was an isolated incident. The middle east is a angry area. However, I do expect more from our enlightened civillized neighbours. At least I used to.

Sooo, you expect more from White people, is that it?

[Black Dog]

So I went to your conspiracy theorist website, and I'll be damned, it doesn't mention anything relating to your claims of torture of prisoners in Cuba by the American government..........Whats going on caesar?

This took about 2 seconds on google:

New Claims Of Gitmo Abuse

War Crimes?

Except Afghanistan wasn't their home and it's kind of hard to explain how you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time when you're caught with an Ak-47 in your hands and in with a batch of Al Quaeda soldier types

The same could be said of the Blackwater mercs who were kiled in Fallujah last year.

Not all the prisoners at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan.

Detainees by nationality

At least 160 of the 650 detainees acknowledged by the Pentagon being held at the United States military base at Guantanamo, Cuba -- almost a quarter of the total -- are from Saudi Arabia, a special UPI survey can reveal.

In UPI's groundbreaking and detailed breakdown of the nationalities of the detainees, some arrested far from the 2001 battlefield of Afghanistan, the other top nationalities being held are Yemen with 85, Pakistan with 82, Jordan and Egypt, each with 30.

Afghans are the fourth largest nationality with 80 detainees, according to the detailed UPI survey that has now for the first time established the homelands of 95 percent of the total number of prisoners.

...

Suspected terrorists are detained by U.S. forces at a number of points around the world, including Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and Bagram air force base outside Kabul. But Camp Delta, the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo, has attracted the most media attention and international protest.

[Argus]

If there's evidence they were involved in a terrorist conspiracy, they can be charged accordingly.

How? What law did they break? Who tries them? Please find for me the law, American or Afghani, which says that you, as a Saudi, for example, cannot travel to Afghanistan and join a local, perfectly legal military group called Al Quaeda, and engage in explosives and arms training. American laws clearly don't apply to them. They weren't breaking Afghani law at the time. They therefore cannot be tried for any crime.

Legalistic twaddle. If a man journeys to Afghanistan and joins Al Quaeda's ten thousand man army he's guilty enough, as far as I'm concerned, and the world would be a better place without him in it.

Civilization and western democracies are founded on such "twaddle".

No, actually they were founded on absolute power and might for the state, and killing or imprisoning anyone who threatens the established social order. We only began to accept the twaddle when our societies became so comfortably established and so lacking in legitimate challenges that we thought we could afford that luxury - ie, in the last thirty odd years.

Guilt by association is not one of those principles.

Sorry, but I believe in guilt by association. If I had my way every member of the Hells Angels would be put up against a wall and shot.

(besides which: "ten thousand man army"? where did you pull that out of?)

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan Al Quaeda had several large training camps there, and operated as a military unit allied to the Taliban, and fielding some ten thousand soldiers, most of them foreigners (mainly arabs and pakistanis).

[Black Dog]

How? What law did they break? Who tries them? Please find for me the law, American or Afghani, which says that you, as a Saudi, for example, cannot travel to Afghanistan and join a local, perfectly legal military group called Al Quaeda, and engage in explosives and arms training. American laws clearly don't apply to them. They weren't breaking Afghani law at the time. They therefore cannot be tried for any crime.

If they've broken no law, or committed no crime: what the hell are they being held for?

No, actually they were founded on absolute power and might for the state, and killing or imprisoning anyone who threatens the established social order. We only began to accept the twaddle when our societies became so comfortably established and so lacking in legitimate challenges that we thought we could afford that luxury - ie, in the last thirty odd years.

No. The principles of egalitarian democracies have evolved over the centuries, starting with ancient Greece and onwards. The Magna Carta was one of the earliest documents which established the principles we're talking about. Indeed,Article 39 of that document, almost 700 years old, is remarkably relevant to this discussion:

No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

Sorry, but I believe in guilt by association. If I had my way every member of the Hells Angels would be put up against a wall and shot

You'd make a good Gestapo member.

[Argus]

How? What law did they break? Who tries them? Please find for me the law, American or Afghani, which says that you, as a Saudi, for example, cannot travel to Afghanistan and join a local, perfectly legal military group called Al Quaeda, and engage in explosives and arms training. American laws clearly don't apply to them. They weren't breaking Afghani law at the time. They therefore cannot be tried for any crime.

If they've broken no law, or committed no crime: what the hell are they being held for?

Uhnm, because those of us with more than half a brain figure it'd be dangerous to release the leaders of this group. Unlike you, we're more interested in protecting people from terrorists than protecting terrorists from people.

No, actually they were founded on absolute power and might for the state, and killing or imprisoning anyone who threatens the established social order. We only began to accept the twaddle when our societies became so comfortably established and so lacking in legitimate challenges that we thought we could afford that luxury - ie, in the last thirty odd years.

No. The principles of egalitarian democracies have evolved over the centuries, starting with ancient Greece and onwards. The Magna Carta was one of the earliest documents which established the principles we're talking about. Indeed,Article 39 of that document, almost 700 years old, is remarkably relevant to this discussion:

No, actually they aren't. They're lofty words but had no real applicability until the last half century. Magna Carta be damned. Anyone in the UK who threatened the social order was destroyed.

Sorry, but I believe in guilt by association. If I had my way every member of the Hells Angels would be put up against a wall and shot

You'd make a good Gestapo member.

You're the one who seems to have a problem with Jews, boy.

[Black Dog]

Uhnm, because those of us with more than half a brain figure it'd be dangerous to release the leaders of this group. Unlike you, we're more interested in protecting people from terrorists than protecting terrorists from people.

If someone hasn't committed a terrorist act, what makes them a terrorist? If someone's only "crime" is going to Afghanistan to fight the invaders, that doesn't make them a terrorist: it makes them a mercenary.

No, actually they aren't. They're lofty words but had no real applicability until the last half century. Magna Carta be damned. Anyone in the UK who threatened the social order was destroyed.

So liberal democracies sprang into being fully formed in the last 50 years? Huh.

You're the one who seems to have a problem with Jews, boy.

Huh? Bravo, sir. You've managed to combine a non sequitur with an ad hominem, with the end result being conclusive proof of your own failure as a debater. And here's why.

1) I never accussed you of being a Gestapo member or a Nazi, only that your cavalier attitude towards due process and the rule of law, coupled with your advocacy of collective punishment, are attributes shared by regressive totalitarians, the Gestapo being just one example. Thus, your views not being out of place, you'd probably fit right in. I could have easily used the NKVD, the Ba'ath party or any numbe rof others as an example, but went with one of the best known.

2) I've never (and I challenge you to prove otherwise) made any statements against Jews. Unles syou can prove otherwise, I demand an apology or I will bring this up with th emoderator.

3) This is especially ironic, given that you made numerous comments in the other thread that could easily be interpreted as slurs against persons of Arabic or Mid eastern descent. So it's pretty laughable for you to play the race card.

[Argus]

Uhnm, because those of us with more than half a brain figure it'd be dangerous to release the leaders of this group. Unlike you, we're more interested in protecting people from terrorists than protecting terrorists from people.

If someone hasn't committed a terrorist act, what makes them a terrorist? If someone's only "crime" is going to Afghanistan to fight the invaders, that doesn't make them a terrorist: it makes them a mercenary.

As far as I'm concerned when you go far, far out of your way to journey to another land and join a terrorist organization, and are trained in explosives and weapons, you are a terrorist. And the only two safe things to do with terrorists are imprison them or kill them.

No, actually they aren't. They're lofty words but had no real applicability until the last half century. Magna Carta be damned. Anyone in the UK who threatened the social order was destroyed.

So liberal democracies sprang into being fully formed in the last 50 years? Huh.

I stand by what I said. Western democracies weren't built by following the letter of idealistic laws. Anyone who threatened the social order was killed or imprisoned until very recently.

You're the one who seems to have a problem with Jews, boy.

Huh? Bravo, sir. You've managed to combine a non sequitur with an ad hominem, with the end result being conclusive proof of your own failure as a debater. And here's why.

Listen, boy, you want to talk about someone being in the gestapo don't expect to be treated with respect. Now I've spent considerable time trying to get from you a logical explanation for this obsession you and others have with condemning Israel other than the country being full of Jews and you haven't done much of a job of explaining yourself. So if anyone here would be looking to join an anti-Semitic organization it would seem you'd be a lot more likely than me.

2) I've never (and I challenge you to prove otherwise) made any statements against Jews. Unles syou can prove otherwise, I demand an apology or I will bring this up with th emoderator.

Mommy! Mommy! The bad man is being mean to me! WaaaaahhhhhhH!

[Big Blue Machine]

We shouldn't build our own subs, but we should buy better ones.

[Stoker]

Black Dog, both thoses "reports" you link to are dated well after Pearl was killed, thus to say that Pearl was killed because of allegations of prisoner abuse in Gitmo (as did Ceaser) is complete and utter fallacy.

[caesar]

Reports be darned. Anyone with half a brain knew those prisoners were being abused. Even being held without their geneva convention rights is abuse. But it was no secret that they were attempting to torture them to get information. Perhaps if they really were all Taliban or al quada; I would understand but most were not.

[caesar]

you a logical explanation for this obsession you and others have with condemning Israel other than the country being full of Jews

Geesh, how many times have you been told of the human rights abuses and unjustified attacks on civillians by Israel. Israel ignored more UN resolutions than any other country.

[Stoker]

Reports be darned. Anyone with half a brain knew those prisoners were being abused. Even being held without their geneva convention rights is abuse. But it was no secret that they were attempting to torture them to get information. Perhaps if they really were all Taliban or al quada; I would understand but most were not.

SO you knew that in the first few months of the Afghan war, the Americans were abusing prisoners? Can you also see the lottery numbers in advance?

[Argus]

you a logical explanation for this obsession you and others have with condemning Israel other than the country being full of Jews

Geesh, how many times have you been told of the human rights abuses and unjustified attacks on civillians by Israel. Israel ignored more UN resolutions than any other country.

And yet, there are at least 50 countries who are worse, who kill more people, who abuse more people, who are far and away more brutal, and we rarely hear a word about them. Why is that?

As for Israel ignoring UN resolutions - most of them deserved to be ignored.

[caesar]

As for Israel ignoring UN resolutions - most of them deserved to be ignored

NO they did not. What civillized democratic country is worse than Israel??? Name one besides the USA.

In fact the reverse is true with those supporting Israel.. as long as it is Israel committing the atrocities it is okay because of the holocaust. They, of all people should know what pain they are causing innocent families. Killing innocent children is never okay.

[caesar]

http://www.jatonyc.org/181.html

This is condemnation of Israels's actions to Palestinians by Jews. Not all Jewish people believe that the Israel government is doing the right thing

[Stoker]

To get back on topic:

Sub commander refused airlifts on day of fire: radio log