Compensating Khadr

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, montgomery said:

We Liberals are whining cry babies! 

 

Yeah...

[DogOnPorch]

32 minutes ago, turningrite said:

It's not worth it. I think reasonable people should leave the site. I've been bullied and harassed all week in a fashion that steadily escalated and need a break. This is not political discussion. I'll look for another place to discuss politics. I used to go to the news sites until a lot of them either shut down comments or set up pay walls. There must be other venues.

Nah...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Yeah...

Mitt and ball at the ready...?

[montgomery]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Yeah...

I'm going to warn you in person to not quote me incorrectly. This is a courtesy to you on not reporting you. Don't do it again. 

Conservatives need to learn to play by the rules! 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Mitt and ball at the ready...?

 

At least I remembered to bring a hat.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, montgomery said:

I'm going to warn you in person to not quote me incorrectly. This is a courtesy to you on not reporting you. Don't do it again. 

Conservatives need to learn to play by the rules! 

 

Ooooooo...a threat. I am the Cooler King.

[Guest]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

At least I remembered to bring a hat.

It looks like you won't need it.  I'm gonna catch my death of cold, of course.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

It looks like you won't need it.  I'm gonna catch my death of cold, of course.

 

Better than by a tossed grenade.

[Dougie93]

13 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Conservatives need to learn to play by the rules! 

Because leftist LibDippers need "rules" to try to insulate them from having to back up their pseudo intellectual nonsense blather with logically cogent argument. 

In the case of Prime Minister Gerry Butts those "rules" are enforced by the CBC and associated Canadian Media.

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Because leftist LibDippers need "rules" to try to insulate them from having to back up their pseudo intellectual nonsense blather with logically cogent argument. 

In the case of Prime Minister Gerry Butts those "rules" are enforced by the CBC and associated Canadian Media.

 

I'll say. I was recently handed 6 months from CBC for not praising the Chinese space program...I kid not. They said it was hate speech saying the Long March rocket was a dangerous death trap. 

Not allowed to say Islam or Israel or Khadr w/o penalty...to name a few.

Edited January 9, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I'll say. I was recently handed 6 months from CBC for not praising the Chinese space program...I kid not. They said it was hate speech saying the Long March rocket was a dangerous death trap. 

Not allowed to say Islam or Israel or Kahdr w/o penalty...to name a few.

Because the CBC is a state run and funded media which is as a result nothing more than the propaganda arm of the government, who knew?

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Because the CBC is a state run and funded media which is as a result nothing more than the propaganda arm of the government, who knew?

 

If I recall correctly, CBC's moderators aren't even Canadian. So good luck getting that "iffy" comment posted...

Khadr... you'd best praise him on CBC as a saint that walks among us.

Edited January 9, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Dougie93]

It's the government which is Cultural Marxist/Maoist naow.    Not saying Prime Minister Gerry Butts is a CM, CM's emanate from liberal arts academia, but if they are going to create that monster, Butts is going to ride that wave, not only because the government is afraid of their own SJW hordes, but because Butts is an opportunist who specializes in getting vacuous dingbat Liberal elites elected, as he did with Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne before jumping to the federal level to manage Zoolander for the Liberals.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I'm dismayed by some of the stuff people post on here and the tactics employed by some to undermine other contributors. I'm tired of being bullied merely for raising rational arguments and believe it personally necessary to take a break from this site. Maybe the reasonable and productive contributors, who can in a civil fashion disagree with one another, should all take a break. Do you know of any other political discussion sites, particularly sites that focus on Canadian politics?

Most of the people here are decent. Don’t let the others get you down.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

If you call me a terrorist sympathizer then I'll report you for a personal attack. Scheer and the CPC are mostly racists and greedy capitalists. I'm not trying to get you banned or suspended, I'm trying to get you to abide by the forum rules. 

Oh, and the US had it coming on 911 and Osama spelled it out exactly why. But in any case, it was nothing compared to the US saughter of tens of millions in 40 wars of aggression since WW2 alone. Ask our army guy!

Dude, you are a terrorist sympathizer. 

When terrorists read your posts they say to themselves “this guy truly appreciates what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.” It makes them feel like the good guys.

How can you possibly think you’re not sympathetic to their political “cause”?

[Dougie93]

Basically, the disease which has been inflicted on Ontario by the farm team Liberals for the last 13 years has now gone national,  and even more hilariously international where they are completely in over their heads.  Things are going sideways because this is like dressing the Marlies up as the Leafs and sending them up against NHL countries like China.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Dude, you are a terrorist sympathizer. 

When terrorists read your posts they say to themselves “this guy truly appreciates what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.” It makes them feel like the good guys.

How can you possibly think you’re not sympathetic to their political “cause”?

That's how Cultural Marxism works, everything is in the paradigm of the oppressor vs. oppressed Pseudo Marxist dialectic. 

So all the lefties are terrorist sympathizers because all the lefties have been indoctrinated into CM since the 1970's, and the United States, as the Global Hegemon, and Arch Nemesis of the Canadian Left, is always the default oppressor, and the terrorists are just being "oppressed" by America. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

[turningrite]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

That would be a pity, as I enjoy reading your posts and I'm sure others do. If some posters bother you, don't engage them anymore. It just gives them another opportunity to reply, which would be fine if they had a good point to make. But, they don't.

Thanks for your support as well as that of others, some of whom have messaged me to among other things provide alternative forums for political debate. The site administrator has assured me the situation on here has returned to a semblance of normalcy. I don't mind others expressing their views but believe the situation had deteriorated to the point that rational discussion and debate had become almost impossible on many topics. It's impractical to ignore somebody when they continue to weigh in on your posts and your discussions and debates with others. It's like trying to swim with one hand tied behind your back. I hope the situation improves and that discussion  and debate from this point forward remains productive and civil.

Edited January 9, 2019 by turningrite

[Argus]

On 1/7/2019 at 1:41 PM, Dougie93 said:

So, if you run a concentration camp like Gitmo, you're doing what the Nazis did on the Eastern Front basically "extra-judicial black hole", and whatever justifications the Americans have invoked, rest assured the Nazi's invoked all those justifications as well "new kind of war, old rules don't apply, blah, blah, blah"

I think we can do without hyperbole like comparing Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps. Unless you've got a record of gas chamber deaths or other mass executions?

The US had a problem in that the laws of war don't apply to people not fighting in any recognized army - as youv'e acknowledged. They weren't POWs. And if they were, then they'd have to be released when their nation surrendered, but the didn't owe allegiance to any nation. Criminal prosecution is difficult in most cases, as well, since the types of crime committed by mass groups of irregulars in wartime are generally anonymous. How do you prove an individual did this or that crime? Go and interview his fellows in hiding? Interview dead witnesses? Take forensic evidence on a battlefield? There are no CSI squads in Afghanistan.

What they should have done is put in place a proper strongman, forgotten about this democracy nonsense, since the people of that region aren't ready for it, and then go home and let the strongman slaughter his enemies. Instead they're like a bunch of damn boy scouts who earnestly try to build a democratic state in a land which is utterly foreign to all the ideas which support such a state.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, turningrite said:

I'm dismayed by some of the stuff people post on here and the tactics employed by some to undermine other contributors. I'm tired of being bullied merely for raising rational arguments and believe it personally necessary to take a break from this site. Maybe the reasonable and productive contributors, who can in a civil fashion disagree with one another, should all take a break. Do you know of any other political discussion sites, particularly sites that focus on Canadian politics?

You really do need to investigate the use of the ignore file. I find that a certain type of person here contributes nothing to my information or to my enjoyment, and is thus best relegated to the ignore file. This means their posts don't appear unless I want them to. Now if only other people stopped responding to these individuals, I wouldn't see them at all. I'm willing to bet the person or people most irritating you can be found in my ignore file.

You can also post on the subjects in my "club", btw, where such behaviour is not tolerated.

[WestCanMan]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:41 AM, Dougie93 said:

The United States did not violate national/international law and the laws of armed conflict by invading Afghanistan per se, that was backed up by several international mandates, the legality issue starts with the United States giving terrorists legitimacy by arresting them and charging them as civil criminals.  See, terrorists have no standing under the laws of armed conflict on the battlefield, so the United States could have charged them thusly and had them executed as unlawful combatants, but, that's a very old statute, and in this day and age, politically radioactive, so instead the United States charged them with other crimes, split the baby, at which point you have to treat them as de facto POW's under Geneva, which the United States did not do, ergo, legal jeopardy, war crime.

POW's under Geneva have a lot of rights, you can't even put them in civilian jail, civilian jail is a war crime if imposed on a lawful combatant in a war, they have to put in special POW camps where they get all sorts of privileges and whatnot and can pretty much run their own affairs inside the camp as a de facto military unit, like Hogan's Heroes kind of thing.

So if you invade Afghanistan under the laws of armed conflict, so be it, but then you have to operate under the laws of armed conflict, you can't go back and forth and have it both ways, US domestic criminal  law cannot be imposed on combatants in a war, because war itself, is not actually illegal, thus there is only two options, you either charge them as unlawful combatants and shoot them, or you treat them as POW's with all that that entails, because under Geneva, any civilians you intern have to be treated as de facto POW's, which, yes, international law is capricious, but it is what it is.

So, if you run a concentration camp like Gitmo, you're doing what the Nazis did on the Eastern Front basically "extra-judicial black hole", and whatever justifications the Americans have invoked, rest assured the Nazi's invoked all those justifications as well "new kind of war, old rules don't apply, blah, blah, blah"

It's my understanding that because the taliban don't wear uniforms they are considered "unlawful combatants" and don't get all the protection that real soldiers get in the Geneva conventions. They can surrender or be taken prisoner if they're caught, hurt or whatever, but they don't get the same rights as an actual POW. IE, there's nothing in the Geneva conventions to stop the US from "Gitmoing" them and whatever that entails.

The US couldn't be expected to just catch and release even under international law, so a holding facility of some sort couldn't possibly be ruled out. If the UN doesn't like it they can always be defunded. 

 

The Nazis starved the russians to death unless they beat them to death first. Gitmo is nothing like a nazi prison camp for russians. Anyone who is offended by Gitmo is just being a hypocrite. 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You really do need to investigate the use of the ignore file. I find that a certain type of person here contributes nothing to my information or to my enjoyment, and is thus best relegated to the ignore file. This means their posts don't appear unless I want them to. Now if only other people stopped responding to these individuals, I wouldn't see them at all. I'm willing to bet the person or people most irritating you can be found in my ignore file.

You can also post on the subjects in my "club", btw, where such behaviour is not tolerated.

The problem with ignore is that people can still see your posts and reply to them.

Eg, I bet that I can say whatever I want here and you won't know hehe.

ARGUS LOVES BRETT KAVANUGH! HE HAS A POSTER IN HIS ROOM!!!!!!!

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, montgomery said:

First they choose to take part in US led wars of aggression and they knew when they joined the military that would be the case. That's pretty well the exclusive mission for Canada's military since the fall of the Soviet Union when the window of opportunity for US aggression in the ME opened. Now, thank the dogs, it's been slammed shut.

Khadr shouldn't have served a minute of jail time for the killing of a US illegal combatant. . Any other worthwhile points you want to debate with me, let me know.

Your sense of compassion is out of this world, kind of like telling an earth quake victim he had it coming since you knew he was living on a fault line.....But then again when did any liberal give a rats ass about the Military....I do want you to know that those men and women that stand those lines everyday, they do it for all Canadians , you included.....Yes moon pie your military loves you....each and everyone of them would gladly lay down their lives for this nation or it's citizens....but lets not kid our self  they are not in charge are they....The federal government is in charge....it's how our nation works....but in typical liberal fashion you need to point a finger at someone or something....and since your an extremist liberal, well sir you got a lot of wagging fingers....

Moon pie, your not getting it are you, your beloved Liberal party sent us to Afghanistan, Mr Chretien also sent us into Kosovo,  both the army and the air force just in case anything needed bombing....He also sent our air force F-18's and our navy to be used in the war against Iraq were they were used to patrol the gulf, and in one case an f-18 tried to sink an Iraq armed patrol boat with an air to air missile because we could not afford to bring bombs....Justin has also sent us into Iraq once again,....lets not forget Ukraine...and other eastern European countries to act as a trip wire incase the Russians decide to attack.... 

As for Omar, nothing you say will change the fact that he has tried and convicted of murder, along with 4 other charges....thats got to burn your ass with a 4 ft flame....to know that a Muslim terrorist is still not paid for all his crimes....Maybe next year he'll be able to travel to Meca, and see his sister...or maybe not...

I don't want to debate anything with you, I just going to continue to show the other posters here that your a fraud , a liar, and a bullshit artist, your here to do nothing more than troll the other good members here....

[Dougie93]

To be clear, as an enlisted service member and/or commissioned officer of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, you do not swear nor are you bound, to any particular allegiance to the Canadian public, your oath of service unto death as necessary under contract of unlimited liability, is entirely to the Commander-in-Chief, up to and including use of military force as necessary against the Canadian public, under order in council for war measures by the Emergencies Act, in aid to the civil power, the civil power being HM and not the squishy "Canadians" protesting in the streets.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

To be clear, as an enlisted service member and/or commissioned officer of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, you do not swear nor are you bound, to any particular allegiance to the Canadian public, your oath of service unto death as necessary under contract of unlimited liability, is entirely to the Commander-in-Chief, up to and including use of military force as necessary against the Canadian public, under order in council for war measures by the Emergencies Act, in aid to the civil power, the civil power being HM and not the squishy "Canadians" protesting in the streets.

Your 100% right Dougie….DND and RCMP, CSIS,  swear allegiance to the Queen or whom ever is seating in that seat at the time...Thats Canadian law, done for several reasons, one is to prevent the PM in deploying those dept's in any illegal operations....She the Queen is represented by the Governor General as a figure head, and a safety factor to reign in our nations military authority  from being abused....That being said through out our history when has a GG over ridden the any  elected PM....None, RCMP and Military forces were used to put down the North west rebellion, also the conscription  riots during WWI, FLQ crises in Quebec, OKA crises, always those damn French men....Canada does not have a long history of using it's military on it's own citizens....and through out our history the PM has always called the shots, not one GG has said no...it's one of those laws that are on the books but have not been put to the test....The PM decides what the budget is, and how it is spent....not the GG, which is a figure head, and the oath, a notion that is not been challenged....make no doubt we serve the federal government , but you would be hard press to find a soldier to pull the trigger on a Canadian citizen.