3 dead terrorists.......I guess the US people should thank them for saving the cost of a trial and internment. I hope they(the terrorists) are enjoying their virgins......oh wait......suicide is a sin in Islam as well.......sorry......no virgins for you!

The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) also assigns suicide to the lower levels of Hell.
Allah says explicitly in the Quraan,
"And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you". (Surah An-Nisa Verse 29)
In another verse of the Quraan, Allah says:
"And do not throw yourselves in destruction". (Surah Al-Baqarah Verse 195)

So no 72 raisins for these guys.

http://inter-islam.org/Prohibitions/suicide.html#As%20shown,%20neither%20the%20Judaic%20nor%20Christian%20parts

But, but... the CBC is objective, unlike those private broadcasters.

3 dead terrorists.

Too bad, so sad.

May the CBC be next . . . .

I have a suggestion: How about putting a hangman's noose in each cell? It would save wear and tear on the sheets.

Already taken down.

BOB, CBC, RAE: Zarqawi's Mirror in Canada.

Bob Rae, erstwhile failed Socialist/NDP premier of Ontario; is now a member of convenience of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Bob Rae, the failed premier of Ontario, now wants to be the leader of the failed Liberal Party of Canada.

Rae wants to be the Prime Minister of Canada.

Rae fits David Warren's definition of a Muslim Islamist terrorist stooge.

Rae wants to get out/cut and run from Afghanistan.

"Cut-and-Run" Bob Rae, "Sponge-Bob" Rae agrees that "withdrawal" means "surrender".

Rae is an ugly mirror reflection of the mirror of the U.S. left: Zarqawi's mirror.

....

babble: Bob Rae wants us out of the Afghan war next year!
... believes Canadian combat troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan next [year, 2007] ... So Bob Rae thinks next February [2007] would be a good time to shift gears away ...
www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009033 - 54k - 9 Jun 2006 -

Zarqawi’s mirror: An ugly reflection of the U.S. left
Manchester Union Leader ^ | June 11, 2006 | Editorial

Posted on 06/11/2006 7:42:05 AM PDT by billorites

THE KILLING of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by U.S. forces last week was cause for rejoicing. A beast of unspeakable villainy who had slaughtered many Americans and Iraqis entirely in cold blood was brought to a deservedly unpeaceful end. Incredibly, many opponents of the current administration saw the event first and foremost as one to spin, criticize and deconstruct.

Zarqawi’s death does not mean the end of terrorism in Iraq. It does not mean America’s mission there is accomplished. The only one we’ve seen who has suggested that is John Kerry, not George W. Bush. But his killing means something.

For those waging war on us and the majority of Iraqis who want peace, the meaning is clear. There is no safe hiding place for self-proclaimed jihadi warrors. As long as he evaded us, Zarqawi was a symbol of American military ineffectiveness, as well as terrorist power. The terrorists look a lot weaker, and we a lot stronger, now.

More than a symbol, Zarqawi was an actual killer, too. He couldn’t handle a machine gun, but he could handle a knife, and he could lead delusioned young men. There is no telling how many American servicemen and women, as well as Iraqi civilians, died at the hands of men he led. That he is no longer with us is a fact worthy of celebration, no matter one’s views on the underlying justification for our being in Iraq.

Yet one left-wing commentator after another used the event merely to pound anti-Bush, often anti-American messages. In perusing dozens of left-wing reactions to the Zarqawi killing, we found only a handful of commentators expressing genuine happiness that this killer of Americans could slaughter no more of our brethren overseas. It was instead a chorus of “Haditha!” “Abu Ghraib!” “Karl Rove!” “Tax cuts for the wealthy!” and “This changes nothing!”

Some said nothing at all. A full day after the event, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean had not issued a single statement.

The Democrats’ last Presidential nominee, John Kerry, proclaimed the military job in Iraq “done” and urged withdrawal. The minority leader of the U.S. House, who would be speaker of the House should Democrats take that chamber this fall, also used the occasion to urge withdrawal.

“Withdrawal,” of course, is another word for “surrender.” It means we don’t see the mission through, we simply get out, cut our losses, flee the fight. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647305/posts

How do we go from "detainees held without charge" to "hardcore terrorists"? Just wondering, ya know, what SDA may know that the rest of world does not......

They aren't "detainess held without charge," they're boy scouts who were just standing there doin' nothin'.

My heart bleeds for those boy scouts.

stageleft said: "Just wondering, ya know, what SDA may know that the rest of world does not......"

The ominous/evil face of multiculturalism is known to "SDA".

Ian Robinson tells the world about the evil face of multiculturalism.

Seventeen faces of multiculturalism: 17 Muslim Islamist terrorists who wish to kill Canadians. ...-

Ominous face of multiculturalism revealed
Calgary Sun ^ | 2006-06-11 | Ian Robinson

Posted on 06/11/2006 7:35:31 AM PDT by Clive

Back when Yugoslavia fell into genocidal civil war, I worked with a young Croatian kid.

He was built like a full-sized pickup, but he was a sensitive soul, a painter in his spare time.

And what his lifelong friends had become was torturing him.

He told me these Canadian-born kids, barely into their 20s, mocked him because he refused to join their secular jihad to the fragmented Yugoslavia, to fight for the culture their parents or grandparents left behind.

They called his manhood into question.

They went. He stayed. When they returned, some were unalterably changed. They drank more.

Lots more. When the bottle got down to the bottom couple of inches, they talked of atrocity. Not the atrocities they witnessed.

The atrocities they committed.

Nice, decent, polite Canadian boys, raised on hockey rinks, maple syrup, Don Cherry, O Canada, the Tim Hortons double-double and the liberal culture of acceptance had placed the reticule of a telescopic rifle sight on civilian women and pulled the trigger. They had shot indiscriminately into occupied houses and burned villages. They hinted at darker secrets, such as mass rape.

Even after listening to these tales of soul-killing horror, my young friend felt guilty for remaining behind.

At the time, an eastern paper published a feature in which one "soldier" recounted how his Yugoslavia-born mother wept and begged him not to go, saying this was not his war.

His reply was if she didn't want him to feel such a strong connection to the old country, she should not have sent him to a cultural school several times a week, steeping him in the language, culture and, yes, resentments of the past.

Such is the ominous and hidden face of Canadian multiculturalism.

We confront it yet again today.

Only this time, 17 Canadian-born or Canadian-raised men and boys stand accused of plotting a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647303/posts

Right. They MUST have done SOMETHING.

I thought we were talking about Gitmo.

Maybe these individuals committed suicide BECAUSE one of their leaders was killed. So in effect, this was another victory for the US. Call it collateral damage...

So now, if we keep on killing their leaders, it will effectively demoralize the rest of the troops... and more jihadists will find their solace at the end of a bedsheet...

Bring on the 500 lb. bombs...

Just how small is a cockroach's brain?

Thanks for answering the question already.

Stageleft,

I love hearing modern socialist defend their commrades. When I read about Canadian socialists of the past defending the socialist of their time, it reminds me that nothing ever really changes.

And if you want proof, look at the 1937 federal hansard, pages 1030 - 1040 for proof.

More left wing spin. Bottom line is the left wants the Western Democracies to fail in Iraq and Afganistan.

For reasons unknown to me, they want the Taliban back in power and a base formed for another attack on North America to be set up. With the money from Heroin, they'll be able to do as well as the Arabs.

Yup, that's the left-wing/cbc style, why bother trying to actually connect the dots, or do some real reporting when you can just smugly claim the truth to be self evident.

Reminds me of the kind of sleazy sales pitch a not so honest used car dealer would use too sell a piece of junk.

I say that is 3 less terrorists to worry about.

Pat the Taliban wiped out the poppy fields it was the US that hired the Northern allience, which is the main opium dealer, to help fight the Taliban. I guess the US economy needed some of that 3 trillion in drug sales to come to their Banks.

Nice to see that so many are in support of a totalitarian democracy, do as we do or die.

From the posts here I, as so many others, can see a group of people that have the same ideals as Mussolini's "corporative" system.
Mussolini played up to his financial backers at first by transferring a number of industries from public to private ownership.

Who makes the money in time of war?

So much support for the war in Iraq because Saddam Gassed the gurds, with products he got from us.
The time is coming and the use of Chemical weapons on the women and children of Fallujah by the US will be accounted for.

The Media keeps so much of whats going on away from the people on this side of the ocean.

Gitmo residents are those folks that, if found in equivalent roles that landed them there from previous battle field situations (W.W.II) would have been summarily shot on site. Every remaining day of their lives is a gift from a civilization that they despise. I suspect most would be too risky to release and that there will be plenty of time to determine the ones that aren't.

Thot "we" were talking, er reading about, Bob "Swede" Rae. Sponge-Bob Rae says endorses/ the Svedes call to shut Gitmo?

Boob Rae and "TEN THOUSAND SWEDES WENT INTO THE WEEDS, CHASED BY BUT ONE SKINNY NORWEGIAN," ...
listserv.dom.edu

Sweden says suicides show need to close Guantanamo Bay prison camp
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Sweden's foreign minister said Sunday that the suicides of three detainees at Guantanamo Bay showed the importance of shutting down the U.S. prison camp and bringing detainees to trial or letting them go.
canoenews

What can the CBC be thinking? Those 3 Gitmo folks have just martyred themselves and are now in paradise.

Being in paradise is a good thing isn't it CBC? That is to say, they have fulfilled their particular cultural dream, so why isn't the CBC celebrating?

CBC algebra:

Israel = bad. Palestinian = good.
Liberal = good. Anything else = bad.
Quebec = good. Alberta = bad.
Canada = good. USA = bad.
Muslim = good. Christian = bad.

My algebra:
Privatization = good. CBC propaganda = bad.

Jealousy. Low self-esteem. Bitterness. This is what I believe may drive some leftists in their derision and scorn of the United States and all things American.

I have some of these feelings myself as I look upon the wealthy as they drive by in their big expensive cars and pull into their mansions. I gripe about their big cars polluting the atmosphere and they just don't care. I would be happy if some catastrophe were to befall them and "put them in their place", knock down those who are so "high and mighty". I deride them for their blatant excesses.

Of course, these feelings flash by in a heartbeat and I realize that most likely worked incredibly hard to achieve that kind of success and I understand that if I had that kind of success, I would undoubtedly act the same way. I realize that this is just jealousy, bitterness and low self-esteem on my part and I denounce those feelings.

So I suspect the leftists/socialists look at the successful Americans dominating the world scene and they are jealous of their success and imagine they do all sorts of evil and wish for all sorts of evil to be visited on them to bring down the "high and mighty". The difference is that the leftists/socialists lack that next bit of wisdom.

Therefore, I theorize that in their minds, American soldiers MUST be guilty of terrible things, their detainees MUST be victims of terrible injustices, it would be GOOD if the US gets its nose bloodied, etc.

Pity the poor, misguided leftist/socialists.

And yes, Todd, they MUST have done something. As even Steved has realized, it's all about economics...why would the US take on the cost of detaining innocents?

Why do so many of us get so upset because one of the enemy , or three, dies, by whatever means?

Have canadians developed an overriding mother complex that causes them to feel psychic pain whenever someone dies?

Do you really care all that much, or is it just an ingrained habit, like Pavlov's dogs?
An accused terrorist snuffs himself in a prison in US occupied Cuba. So what.

When I hear of one of the world's many real trgaedies, of course I feel empathy for the victims of earthquakes, fires, floods, war, suicide bombers, etc. I donated to the Tsunami Relief fund, so the Tamils could buy better weapons.

But why waste your emotions on Gitmo? The inmates were not arrested for jaywalking, and our concept of presumed innocence is totally foreign to them. Shoot first and ask questions later is not an American concept.

Back home, in Allah's Little Junction, they'd have been immediately killed by their own people for the least infraction of Sharia law.

Anyone who believes the world is somehow diminished by the death of a single human being, no matter how bad that human was, needs to grow up and take a good look around at the real world.

Now, instead of typing a reply to my obviously psychpathic rant, roll up a joint, put on the headphones, listen to Joni Mitchells "Woodstock", and, hopefully, by the time you're ready to get blogging again, I will have been struck by lightning, and the world will not be diminished one iota.

Did anyone else see the CBC reportage on the increase in Knife violence/ownership in the UK. They just couldn't bring themselves to point out that they have effectively banned guns there and that this is the fallout from it.

Gitmo for Les on the national official time signal at CBC/Radio Gitmo: The time in Mecca is ,,,

GOLDSTEIN: Terror at the CBC

What would happen if our national broadcaster was ever taken over by ... er ... 'militants'? ...-
nealenews

Do they call for the closure of our prisons when someone decides to take themselves out of the gene pool? Make no mistake, this was a deliberate choice, done for maximum media negative attention, as has been all their other disruptions.

Three more nominees for Darwin awards.

A profile of the three:

One of the detainees was a mid- or high-level al-Qaida operative, Harris said, while another had been captured in Afghanistan and participated in a riot at a prison there. The third belonged to a splinter group.

Ironically, anyone of the three would strap on a suicide belt without hesitation and target innocent children in a different venue. Name anything beyond the pale for these folks? The orchestrated suicides of these Death Cult jihadis - and it's always death in any form with these fanatics - isn't surprising. It galvanizes the collaborating Useful Idiot left on their behalf.

Hey, neutralsam, the Taliban aren't that drug trade adverse:

The Taliban, too, are promoting the growing as a source of income for their operations. They have spread leaflets ordering farmers to grow poppy.

In Helmand, the Taliban have forged an alliance with the drug smugglers, providing protection for drug convoys, and are carrying out attacks to keep the government away and the poppy flourishing, said the new governor of Helmand, Mohammad Daud.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/17/news/poppy.php

Read that article this morning maz2.
Great read.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2006/06/10/1625052.html

I agree, who cares? Likely they heard they were being shipped back home. Like I've said before, a prisoner, especially a Muslim one - the darling victim child of the LSM.

And Sweden would do well to focus on it's own high suicide rate amongst it's own Swedish population.

I admit I am of two minds on the operation of Gitmo.
On one hand we have the USA who trumpets individual rights and freedoms as sacred above all else.They then proceed to imprison and detain indefinitely SUSPECTED terrorists and their supporters without the inconvenient bother of trials.Oh sure,you can spin arguments to defend these actions,but it is still a dangerous and hypocritical (sub)standard to set.

On the other hand,these detainees,guilty or not,have been removed from an enviroment that probably would have seen many of them dead or maimed by now anyways.With the type of justice they could have faced in their homeland,they are indeed lucky the Americans haven't dropped their collective heads,crammed in duffel bags,off at some street corner in Iraq years ago.

But then again,trying to find logic or discern right from wrong in the middle of a war is a fool's game.

Just thinking out loud.I am aware these opinions are not particularly right or left biased and I attacked no one,nor am I trying to tell you what to think,so some here may not get my point! :-)

I understand your thoughts on the subject, CO. Gitmo is an unpleasant reality but probably better than some of the alternatives for those folks...that is, being shot on sight. Presumably, they were "illegal combatants" or whatever that term is that is used in the rules of engagement. So, the term "suspected terrorists" probably doesn't do them "justice".

When you capture the enemy or an illegal combatant, what else do you do with them? Shoot them, imprison them or let them go with a stern warning ("don't come back and shoot us now, ya' hear...or we'll be very put off")? I'm certain if the roles were reversed and Americans had been captured, they would have been beheaded.

So, discomfort is a reasonable response to Gitmo, but take some solace that it is much better than many of the alternatives, in the grand scheme of things.

For centuries countries have agreed that combatants in uniform receive fair treatment by their captors. This in part was done to prevent spying and, er, um, militancy, which as others have pointed out used to end in execution.

Want to be treated well? Put on a uniform. Want to be a terrorist scumbag? Gitmo is what you get.

3 empty cells for extra Khadrs that CBCpravda usually stories like heros.

or maybe Guite?

Poor lefties: first the Christians (Mexico) beat their Jihadi friends the Iranians, 3-1.

Now another Christian country, Portugal, is going to stick it to their communist friends in Angola.

suicides are not taken lightly in most prisons. Prisons generally try to avoid them, because it brings into question the integrity of the prison. I can't see how this is somehow a left wing biased view. News reports like this happen everytiem an inmate commits suicide, in my part of the world anyways.

I am sorry...I have to go along with an earlier poster on this. Those men should not be detained without being charged! It is a violation of human rights!!!

They should have been tried in court, and summarily SHOT months ago! Along with the entire management staff of the CBC!

CBC is altogether out of it: What else is new?

FYI, I'm sending along my latest note to the CBC Ombudsman--Ombudsstooge? Re the CBC's political reporting (sic), one could write a dozen objections a day at least. Then multiply that by the 20+ years I've been keeping a wary eye on this propaganda machine . . .

"Dear Mr. Carlin

"Michael Colton's report at 6: a.m. on the CBC radio news--I believe it was on Wednesday, June 7 or Thursday, June 8-- about the concerns in Washington about Canadian/American border security was most disturbing. If the CBC really does have objective professional standards concerning REPORTING of the NEWS, this piece most definitely falls outside them.

"Mr. Colton's piece, which was embedded in CBC's NEWSCAST was not reporting: It was a full-blown, anti-American editorial. The intemperate language and obvious disdain for the American politicians, whom he presented as buffoons, had no place in a news report: E.g., At the top of the piece he described certain people as "popping up" and "saying the darndest things". There were many other missteps, language-wise, which you may check out as you have a transcript. (I was lying in bed.)

"Canada's a free country, so CBC has the right to propagandize--it's actually very good at that. But propaganda should not be disguised as news. Mr. Colton's report in question certainly crossed the line.

"Again, I submit this for the record. Regarding me and the CBC, something quite unlikely seems to be at play: Although I'm a reasonably intelligent person, with good powers of observation, CBC ALWAYS adjudicates against me. Although I've "won" a few Press Council cases in the last two decades, my CBC cases are always dismissed by the in-house judges. Interesting, isn't it?

"Fair? I don't think so."

I gave up writing CBC for a long time: very negative feedback, always! But now I keep the objections coming: It at least means the CBC has to expend some of my tax $$ on my concerns. E.g., I've noticed I now hear from another CBC (CereBrally Challenged) sycophant, other than the ombudsman himself: They've obviously had to hire more staff to handle the complaints. (Too bad they're as obtuse as the ombudsmans [men?] are: They're obviouly reading from the same cheat sheet.)

The CBC Ombudsman's email address is: Ombudsman@cbc.ca

Please inundate him with your objections. (Exercise caution if you have blood pressure conncerns: However, giving it to the CBC can be quite cathartic!) As I said, you'll probably be overruled, no matter how cogent your case, but it does mean CBC will have to spend some of your tax $$ on your concerns.

Clicking on Kate's link to the CBC and then to Dwight Smith, this is the message:

"The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

So, what's the CBC hiding? As I didn't listen to World Report, because I was listening to "Choral Concert" and I'm really not interested in most CBC political commentary (it just raises my blood pressure), I'm relying on Kate's post.

How, indeed, does the suicide of three Gitmo detainees change, even one iota, the U.S.'s "success" in the death of al Zarqawi? If anything, it's more of a victory, even though it's clear why most prisons would be concerned when their inmates take their own lives.

In this case, however, that THESE detainess tended to have suicide on their minds before being incarcerated and that they were more than a little fanatical, it's not entirely surprising that they might have staged these multiple suicides as a "reprisal" for al Zarqawi's death in order to embarrass the U.S.

So, go ahead, guys. Be my guest. Try to embarrass the U.S. And shame on the stupid CBC for playing into the terrorists' delusions. In no way should the U.S. be embarrassed by these suicides.

In my view, these four deaths represent four terrorists the rest of us don't have to worry about. I believe in human rights, in not being cruel to other human beings, but I also believe in common sense and in not extending unlimited compassion to a lethal and barbaric enemy. If these guys were determined to take their own lives as some kind of political statement, there's probably not much the prison wardens could have done to prevent them from doing so. There's only so much you can do when someone's got it into their mind that they're going to do away with themself.

Especially if they're suicidal to begin with.

"Be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove."

"More left wing spin. Bottom line is the left wants the Western Democracies to fail in Iraq and Afganistan."

I don't think anything irritates me more than such non-sensical garbage pontificated by people wanting to prey upon potential ignorances of the general public in order to spread false propaganda. First of all, nothing in this world is black and white and certainly support for war is not. Perhaps you should stop treating the people's intelligence with such contempt and end the insulting insinuations that we are all mere simpletons who only understand issues framed in such a logically falacious manner. There is never a simple answer and those who insist on spewing such rhetoric to the contrary are engaging in the dumbing down of politics and issues.

"Poor lefties: first the Christians (Mexico) beat their Jihadi friends the Iranians, 3-1."

This is another example of what I mean.

Now first of all, I am going to get some facts on the record before you write your rebuttal which I am expecting to be filled with the same sort of rhetoric that destroys real political discourse in this country. I am a left-wing person and self-described progressive. I am not a pacifist though while I recognize the importance and sometimes the necessity of war, I also believe that it must be taken based upon rational thought and proper strategic considerations in addition to being compatible with the fundamental principles the people of your country as anything contrary to it would put the government in a clash with the minds of the rational intelligent human beings (which we all are capable of being although those, such as the ones who continue to spread the fallacious statements I quoted above, seem to want it otherwise as they realize that often their arguments would fall apart under the weight of rational argument and debate) that make up the country and define the principles. These principles, in the context of deciding war and peace, relate to the overall strategic goals, overall general interests, and desires of the people as they do their part in advancing the human race forward in civilization.

I was not for the war in Iraq but was for and continue to be strongly for the war in Afghanistan. My belief is that invading Iraq was not a strategically sound decision and one of the reasons for my belief in this is that because of Iraq, valuable US troops, equipment, and general overall focus was diverted from Afghanistan far too quickly setting back a success. There are still thousands of US troops in Afghanistan but finishing there would have made more sense I believe and I believe that had such a focus remained, we could be further along today than we actually are.

I have already stated by continuing support for the Afghanistan mission but now I'll state something that will surprise those of you who were about to respond with simpleton rhetoric. Despite being against the invasion of Iraq I do not want the US to fail in Iraq. Just as we need, and quite frankly have no choice but to succeed in Afghanistan, the US (or the west in general) need to succeed in Iraq. Failure in Iraq would actually create a worse strategic environment than what existed prior to the invasion. Colin Powell gave the "pottery barn" analogy in regards to the invasion of Iraq and he was right. The US is stuck with it and has to succeed. Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be acceptable options.

Finally I want to say a few words about the "support our troops" rhetoric. I stated that fallacious reasoning irritated me to no end. "Support our troops" rhetoric has to rank up there as a very close rhetoric. There is a fundamental difference between supporting a mission and supporting the men and women fighting the mission. Not supporting one does not at all necessarily mean a person does not support the other. Being against the mission does not necessarily mean a person is also against the troops. Such arguments are patronizing and insulting at best and damaging to democratic political discourse at worst. One again it is the result of someone applying a simple illogical, fallacious model on an argument in order to prove a point. Rather than appealing to the patriotic sound bites and attemping to absolutely infuriate your opponents with such rhetoric let's instead have a rational argument based upon fact and evidence rather than simplistic rhetoric and logical fallacies.

Has C*C reported this rally?
A German trade union alliance and the local Jewish community

allied to protest the fascist regime of Ahmajihad and the (not-mad) mullahs of Islam.

Has C*C reported the the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, Muslim Islamist terrorist alliance of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) with the murderous regimes in the Gaza Strip, aka Hamas, Fatah ,etc.

C*C is allied with Muslim Islamist terrorists, with the late Z-Man, the Gitmite Muslim Islamist terrorists, with Sponge-Bob Rae, Imam Aly Hindy, et al. ...-

Rally against Iranian president ahead of first World Cup match
Posted by West Coast Conservative
On 06/11/2006 11:06:51 AM PDT · 3 replies · 80+ views

AFP ^ | June 11, 2006
Some 1,200 people joined a rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ahead of a World Cup match .n this southern German city between Iran and Mexico. Waving Israeli flags, the demonstrators attacked Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric and repeated denial of the Holocaust at Sunday's protest organized by the local Jewish community and the German trade union alliance. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647393/posts

The suicides 'spoil' the brief moment of success?!!! That's hilarious!!! The suicides are icing on the cake, wish more muslim terrorists wanted to see Allah that much.

Maritime Liberal said: "...and desires of the people as they do their part in advancing the human race forward in civilization."

Pure, unadulerated Communist/Socialist rhetoric; The "Great Leap Forward", the march backward of socialism is presented by Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

The natural end of socialism: 80% unemployment; a life expectancy of only 39 years.

Advancing the human race forward to death by socialism. Sponge-Bob Rae espouses the march of Death also; it's good for youse, scumbag, filthy Canadians , Rae says. Not. ...-

In Zimbabwe, Reform Has Opened the Door to Ruin
Newhouse News ^ | 6/9/2006 | Daniel Pepper

Posted on 06/11/2006 10:15:44 AM PDT by Incorrigible

In Zimbabwe, Reform Has Opened the Door to Ruin

BY DANIEL PEPPER

ZHAMPALI, Zimbabwe -- As soldiers rolled past Lot Dube's land and set up camp in late November, they brought a blunt message.

"They told us, `We are taking away your fields from you,"' says Dube, who has farmed these 10 acres 80 miles south of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe's second largest city, since 1982.

Dube, 63, said the soldiers now forbid him from growing tomatoes, onions and sweet potatoes -- market vegetables he sells to raise cash for his children's school fees -- and ordered him to plant only maize. The entire harvest, he was told, must be sold to the Grain Marketing Board so the government can purchase foreign currency.

Landlocked in southern Africa, Zimbabwe is roiling toward anarchy, experts believe. As the world has watched the more immediate and more violent problems in the northern part of the continent, Zimbabwe has slid closer to what many believe will be an economic and humanitarian catastrophe.

The crisis may represent the final stand for 82-year-old Robert Mugabe, the controversial president who came to power in 1980 and has won every election since.

Having survived wars, historic drought and accusations of corruption, Mugabe now confronts perhaps his greatest challenge: annual inflation running near 1,000 percent. To understand that type of economic impact, consider: Some 8,000 miles away, in New Jersey, a $3 gallon of gasoline would cost $30 more next summer.

As pressure builds on Mugabe to leave a post he assumed after the reformation of the former Rhodesia, he is -- perhaps predictably -- strengthening his grip, opposing activists say.

He has ordered his military to fan out across several rural areas to ensure the government's grain silos are full. In the cities, he has appointed military commanders to top slots at the Reserve Bank, the Electoral Commission, the Ministry of Energy, the Public Service Commission and other key institutions.

So far, political opposition groups say they have been unable to gain traction and organize mass demonstrations because Mugabe's security officials have threatened to open fire on protesters. But experts warn that without a viable political alternative, the anger boiling over from rising prices, shortages of goods and services and abuses by government officials will result in widespread civil unrest.

"Militarization is an admission that things have fallen apart and national governance can no longer continue in a civilian mode," says Jonathan Moyo, his country's only independent member of Parliament.

Moyo warns of a possible "slide into anarchy" or "even a Somalia situation," referring to the East African nation controlled by rival warlords.

Zimbabwe's economy has shrunk in each of the past six years and has depended on international food aid since 2002, according to the United Nations' World Food Program. Eighty percent of Zimbabweans are unemployed, food and fuel are scarcer than ever and the country now has one of the shortest life expectancy rates in the world -- 39 years. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647377/posts

Talk about ignoring the point of what I said to attempt to spin one part of one sentence into making a case that I am a socialist.

I see human beings as intelligent rational creatures designed to advance human civilization. By civilization I mean enhancing economic accomplishment, and most importantly, furthering science and above all technology in order to better the standard of living of the perfection of civilization through technology. To me advancing civilization means moving forward to live in a more technologically superior and above all, a more-science and mathematics based, and thus more rational and functional state of human society.

I am a strong anti-communist because I believe that free enterprise is vital and indeed desireble. We need to foster the growth of small and medium sized businesses, prevent monopolies, and ensure economic growth, technological development, enhanced productivity and efficiency, low inflation, and very low unemployment. How am I advocating the Zimbabwe model?

My post was on rational argument and a criticism of propaganda, fallacious reasoning, factless rhetoric, and manipulation. Thanks for proving my point.

More inanity at the CBC last night. 'Caught Lorna Jackson and The World this Weekend, thinking there might be some commentary on the al Zarqawi hit.

'Was assaulted by a lengthy expose of Britain's soccer hooligans, with interviews of soccer fans horrified by their compatriots' yobbism. Well, I know that the World Cup's on in Munich, but do the drinking and after-hours behaviours of terrorizing British yobs take precedence over real terrorists intent on blowing up Canadians? In our streets. In Canada.

The CBC's doing everything they can to avoid talking about the fanatical CANADIAN Islamist terrorists who would like to blow a bunch of us to smithereens. As unpleasant as the Brit yobs are, whose story might have been of some interest to us had it not been for our own, homegrown terrorist "troubles," they're not any kind of threat to life and limb as the Islamists in the GTA are.

And then, all week, we've been getting the CBC's take, via Michael Colton, on the former CSIS operative's dire predictions about infiltration of CSIS and the Canadian government by Islamists. You could hear his smirk and the leering, sneering, and jeering in his voice, as he put down the U.S. and their concerns about the security risk to their borders caused by the laxness of the past Liberal government.

CBC: Can't Be Constructive. That's for sure.

Maritime Lib.

I understand and agree with a fair amount of what you have to say. Simplistic blustering from both sides is pointless.

Personally as I beleive and you have pointed out nothing is black and white. The war in Iraq can be looked at from a different perspective. Remember the Bush Doctrine is about prevention not reaction to events. In the spirit of taking that Document to heart I can see not one but several good reasons for going into Iraq.

Any single reason is probably unjustifiable but if you consider that:

1) No terrorist attacks have occured in the US since the US went into Iraq I believe points to the US military being a lightening rod for the terrorist. Cannon fodder if you will. They are too busy with American forces in Iraq to make any cohesive attack on American soil.

2)Iran I believed then and seem to be getting some confirmation today has and is the real problem not Iraq. If you look at any map the US has 2 armies in theater able to respond to aggression from Iran
one on either side. Afganistan to the top and Iraq underneath.

3) Iraq with it's ability support itself through oil sales in is probably the only country where it was possible to afford rebuilding a country from the bottom. If you are going to attempt a Marshall plan like program in the Middle East to foster Democracy in a sea of Totalitarian states it cost big bucks. The US having spent well over 200 billion and probably approaching 400 billion needed a country that could afford the cost of rebuilding itself. The US can't go on forever spending money at that pace. Frankly there aren't many countries in the world that have the resources to payback some of what was spent rebuilding the country whist continuing the rebuilding and easily provide a middle class enviroment for it's people.

Imam says:"It didn't used to be like this.".

Welcome to hatred, Imam. Have you heard of 9/11, Imam?

The world changed on 9/11, Imam. Where have you been, Imam? ...-

'Hateful' attack at mosque
Montreal Gazette - 12 hours ago
Threatened Imam Said Jaziri, pictured last year, says Muslim women and children in Montreal don't go out alone at night because they fear for their safety. "It didn't used to be like this.". A Muslim clergyman ... google news

I guess Torontonians could also say, "It didn't used to be like this."

Maritime Liberal, you've said some sensible things: Your understanding that defeat in the ME is not a viable option for the West is one of them.

However, you've chastised sda contributors-- certainly your right--while remaining altogether silent on the CBC's duplicity. CBC certainly doesn't appear to agree with you on the necessity of winning this war: Hey, the CBC barely admits there is a war.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the routine CBC propaganda, which aids and abets the enemy. Not only does the taxpayer funded CBC denigrate and even deny the substantial gains being made by Canada's fighting men and women and our allies in the ME, it both downplays the seriousness of the situation and tries to appease the enemy. In a time of war, I believe that the CBC's duplicity could be rightly described as treachery.

Is that OK with you?

I have question I would like to pose to everyone so take off the tin foil hats and put on your thinking caps.

Has anyone else noticed that since the Canadians have taken the lead in Afganistan that things seem to be moving forward in the Middle East again?

It has occured to me that it was gettting quite bogged down over there and now that the Canadians are in the fight it is taking some of the pressure off the Americans and they too are able to move forward as well with more tangible results or am I
just wearing rose colored glasses.

Is the Canadian advances against the terrorists in Afganistan and they seem to be having a lot of success and are really taking the fight and too them and winning it. Is there an overall strategic plan unfolding in the Middle East now that couldn't before because the Americans were doing it alone and now have a respecatable and capable military fighting what could be considered a hiding spot for many terrorists in ME namely afghanistan. Pincer movement comes to mind but I am no military tactics expert by any stretch of the imagination.

C*C and its in-house liberals will attempt to twist, turn, eviscerate this message. ...-

Top court to investigate deportation process

OTTAWA (CP) - The government says secret evidence, closed-door hearings and indefinite detention are key tools in fighting international terrorism. ...
via canoe news

Maritime Liberal

Yours is an intelligent and well reasoned post from the dark side yet IMHO it is nevertheless deeply flawed. If you want us (and I consider the U.S. led coalition us- as in democratic western civilization) to succeed in Iraq then you do not defend an organization that denigrates every accomplishment. Just because the CBC has been in the habit of presenting an anti-American spin to its coverage of just about everything for the last 30 years in order to make inadequate Canadians feel better about themselves is no reason to encourage this type of clueless, dishonest and pathetic coverage or overlook the fact that this type of coverage is prolonging the war.

When the democratically elected government in Iraq called a press conference to announce the death of this mass murdering fanatic the Iraqi media applauded the news. Iraqis danced in the streets at the news. The killing of Zarqawi should bring joy to all freedom loving people. This accomplishment is not diminished except in the minds of those who see it as their role –for whatever reason- to downplay its significance. The death of three terrorist prisoners at Gitmo who decided to seek their reward in the hereafter is not a cause for regret.

The war on terror will not end until we kill enough terrorists that they realize they cannot win. The sooner more terrorists perish the more innocent people will survive. I therefore celebrate the death of every terrorist just as I mourn the death of every innocent victim of their fanaticism. I particularly mourn the deaths of those brave men and women, who have risked their lives to preserve the freedom of others.

Incidentally you are wrong about it being wise to invade Afstan and not Iraq. Unlike Richard Clark, Bush can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Bin laden may no have been caught but his capacity to exercise command and control over his forces is limted. His escape had nothing to do with invading Iraq. He was in that cave 15 months before the U.S. went into Iraq.

The criticism that America couldn’t do both is political not military. You are also overlooking the fact al Qaeda has been devastasted in Iraq- militarily, psychologically and in terms of their brand name. They are now known throughout Arabia as killers of Muslim women and children.

You are guilty of short term tactical thinking rather than long term strategic planning. The prospect for a successful democracy in Iraq within the next decade is excellent. It is far more developed and less tribalistic than Afstan. It will take at least 25 years before there is any hope of civilizing Afstan. (It might have been better to ship out all the innocent people to Toronto and then bomb those who remained back to the stoneage- just kidding).

We of course have no choice but to stay unless we are prepared to see al Qaeda return to their "homeland".

Exactly, where was the outrage for the police officer in Montreal who received stab wounds to his neck and leg from a "certain person" he had stopped to question on his day patrol, almost causing his death. He managed to shoot his attacker, a known radical muslim who did die from his gun wound, but the would be police murderer's IMAM stated that it was all a police set up and the man was not known to carry a knife and the police had no business doing their job against traditionally dressed muslim men.

Yeah, here in Canada.

On a Canadian street, in broad daylight, last fall.

CBC Sensationalizes Layton's Attack While Misrepresenting Martin's Record

(This website says CBC has a sighkosis; who would not believe?) True or False? (Or is it p(silent)sychosis? Is it congenital or/and hereditary?)

If the CBC's producers have any brains at all (and they do), they know that Martin has said things and then implemented the exact opposite policy so often that quoting him from his opposition years without pointing this out is blatantly disingenuous. Housing, clearly, has been no exception.

So why did they mislead the public on Paul Martin's record on an important issue? The psychosis that leads people to lie and distract others from what is most important is not something that will be covered here.

The effect of the coverage, however, is perfectly clear: using the words "nasty" and "personal" over and over again (and flashing them on the screen) serves to distract from the issue. It is sad that it is necessary to note that this, right here (the election!) is the time when issues can be raised in a serious way, where voters might have a choice. And the CBC failed its mission in this case.

Just for fun, let's imagine how a free press (free of the CBC's apparently passionate commitment to upholding the status quo at any cost) would cover this kind of story...

Jack Layton today made a grave and serious claim: that Paul Martin was responsible for the deaths of homeless people. The Liberal response was to show mock horror at Layton's comments. Their unwillingness to discuss their own policies and the effects of those policies was duly noted, and their responses to our questions were evasive and useless.

Now, Layton clearly has his own agenda in attacking Paul Martin, and whether the way he did it was effective is being questioned, but this is a serious issue... so let's look at the facts. Did Paul Martin directly oversee the elimination of the housing budget? Yes, he did. Did homelessness increase as a direct result? Yes, by fourty per cent in Toronto. Do homeless people die more frequently than normal people? Yes, eight times more frequently, according to the CBC's data. And those who don't die suffer from the obviously miserable condition of not having a home. Could a moderate investment in housing have prevented these deaths, in addition to eliminating homelessness? Why yes, it seems that it could have.

Now, to our reporters, who are putting the obvious and difficult questions to the people who are asking for a mandate from voters: why didn't they do the obvious and eliminate homelessness? We now go to our cantankerous reporter in Toronto for perspectives on solutions to homelessness, and why they have been utterly ignored at the federal level...

Obviously, this kind of completely obvious, minimally critical coverage is completely out of the realm of possibility. The key question, which must be answered before we consider ourselves to be living in a democracy, is why the CBC is actively not doing its job.

As the oft-lauded standard bearer for Canadian journalism, the CBC continually lowers the bar by obsessing about how "outrageous" Layton's claims are, while spending very little time indeed discussing the substance (and then doing so in an insultingly misleading manner!) It is a testament to the dysfunction of a supposedly advanced democracy that Canadians must call their media to account before they can do so with their elected representatives.

What is more important: the issue of homelessness, or the image of a politician who makes a serious claim about homelessness? The CBC has made its choice clear. The question is: should this be considered an acceptable practice for journalists in a nation that considers itself a democracy? Citizens must decide, and act.

(It should be noted that most media outlets are worse than the CBC in their distortion of facts and sensationalization of immaterial issues. As an encouraging postscript, the pundits' obsession with the "nastiness" of Layton's comments hasn't prevented a large number of Canadians from seeing the accusations as what they are: straightforward, verifiable claims, delivered in a somewhat...
http://paulmartintime.ca/story/000512.html

I watched George Stombopolis the other night interviewing the editor of the NY Times. George was like a little puppy waiting to be patted on the head with this guy. Tongue lolling to one side paws up in front. Anyway it gave me what I believe was a glimpse into the CBC mindset.

The NY Times seems to be setting the agenda. Pravda can't even think for itself it seems. They are looking to that den of myopic socialists to get their marching orders. Or so it seems.

maritime liberal:

Nowhere in your palaver do you actually refer to the subject in the post.

As for the gitmo prisoners, they died with a bedsheet around their neck instead of a suicide belt around their chest. Why do they get CBC's sympathetic attention? How many deaths have they, CBC, ignored in Zimbabwe just in the last week? Were there no suicides in Sweden last week?

Jeff Cosford - I don't think that the ME situation has improved 'because of Canadians'. The US has never been alone in Iraq - remember, there's the UK, the Australians, Poles, Italians, and etc.

I agree that the ME situation is improving. NATO and Canada are making a big difference in Afghanistan and enabling that democracy to emerge from totalitarianism. Iraq is moving into democracy, despite the relentless attempts by the tribal old guard and Iran, Syria, SA, to send insurgents in to foment civil war, to prevent Iraqi democracy.

Democracy is the key in the ME, and I applaud Bush and the US (and UK) for their efforts.

And - finally, Canada has stepped up to its international obligations, thanks to Harper. Yes, Martin sent in the troops in the beginning, but that was just a diversion to prevent them helping out in Iraq. The Liberals had no intention of assisting democracy there.

However, in my view, the Israeli-Palestinian situation has gone from bad to worse. I support Abbas's referendum, but, presume that Israel will ignore the desire of the Palestinians for a state, and continue to make their unilateral decisions, taking the best land and water.

As for the CBC - it and CTV are 'all the same'. They are Liberal systems, which means that they define themselves, and Canada, only by differentiation from the USA. That's the only identity attributes they know.

What always impresses me, and keeps me coming back for more, is how much *more* everyone here seems to know than the rest of the world. The places I look for news claim that most of the people in GITMO, and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq, are being detained without any charges filed. But everyone here already knows the exact circumstances under which they were captured and whether or not they are indeed terrorists. It's not just that you're all taking a pragmatic approach to it, as in, "this is war, shit happens sometimes to good people, but probably not that many are innocent", no no. You all *know* they're terrorists. On an unrelated matter, can you all pontificate on next weeks 6/49 winning numbers for me?

I know that this is off topic, but it is funny as heck....

CTV.CA

POLL

Did the Liberal leadership debate hold your attention?

It was interesting
315 votes (4 %)

Too many candidates
459 votes (6 %)

It was boring
591 votes (8 %)

What debate?
6163 votes (82 %)

Total Votes: 7528

Tony Snow said that Bush expressed "serious concern", and that "these things do happen and it's an awful thing." The Pentagon and the White House are mounting an "aggressive effort" to investigate.
Starch your panties, boys!
The trouble with Bush is that he is too concerned with PR and wants to be seen doing what he thinks is expected of him.
Why didn't the administration take the trouble to contact either the guards' commander or the base commander? I heard Colonel Bumgarner interviewed several weeks ago on radio (Humphries?), and he said that an imam had been spreading the word that if three "brothers" die, the prison will be closed and the prisoners released. This rumor is clearly the "mythical belief" referenced by Admiral Harris.
So the prisoners have been trying to get three of themselves killed for months. The suicides have nothing to do with despair or Zarky's death.
I'm sure somebody must have tried this already, but it would interesting to compare LexisNexis results on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo and abuse in that coutry next door.

Ted, you say, "You all *know* they're terrorists". Which "all" would that be?

You seem to be exhibiting the generalization fallacy of which you accuse sda contributors.

I just read a book by a journalist in France who infiltrated an Al Qaeda terrorist cell there. The book, by the way, is Inside Al Qaeda: How I infiltrated the World's Deadliest Terrorist Organization by Mohamed Sifaoui. The terrorists are evil but they are not stupid. They know how to play the system and use the "useful idiots" to their advantage. They know the value of propaganda and use it including double-speak for the naive. They have used the courts, the public, and other Muslims to further their cause. They are aware of the value of propaganda and use it. We should be as smart about this as they are!

Dammit Lookout, you made me lose the bet. I bet a fellow leftie that it would take at least 20 minutes before someone said that.

The good news is that if you kill yourself I won't celebrate without being real certain you were a jerk. I won't just take Steve D's word for it, for example.

Sadly though, I wasn't accusing them of over-generalizing. They do, sure, as do I, but that's natural in informal conversations, blogs, comment sections, etc. In fact I was accusing people here (you know who you are!) of claiming to know things they don't, or can't possibly know.

And not just in this thread. It's just a general observation. It's hard to get people to see the other side. My theory is that the people who come here, can't. Over-generalization is too charitable, in other words. It's not just that they (they know who they are!) fail to qualify their (their know whom theirs be?) statements, I suspect they just think they know things that other people don't.

Now, I'm giving it 20 minutes before someone reacts to the word in my rant that will completely avoid the issue. Keep up the good work lookout! Two for two, you can do it!

So Sweden thinks Guantanamo should be shut down because of 3 suicides there.

from http://www.immi.se/imer/thesis/johansson.htm

"The main finding in the first part is that ethnicity is a significant risk factor for suicide in both sexes and in all age groups except for males aged 30-49. The highest risk ratios for suicide in Sweden, adjusted for age, have been found among males born in Russia and Finland. They also show increased suicide risks compared with their countries of birth.

Females born in Hungary, Russia, Finland and Poland all have an increased risk of committing suicide in Sweden, and they also have higher risks than in their countries of birth.

Foreign-born individuals run a twofold risk of committing suicide compared to Swedes and adjusted for socio-economic factors. Foreign-born males and females under 45 and 35 respectively have significantly increased hospital admission rates compared with native-born Swedes."

Maybe Sweden should also be shut down.

Jim at 2:40 PM knows the C*C.

Can. Observer is of two minds? Say/say it's not so/so.

The real bi-polar mind is shown by the Ass. Press writers with this rewrite. ...-

Are Islamists Writing for the Associated Press?

LGF reader Amer1can pointed out an astounding phrase in an Associated Press article, published at MSNBC: ‘Major attacks’ threatened in Iraq.

The phrase echoed the words used by the Prophet Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr, after the prophet’s death in the 7th century to urge Muslims to continue spreading Islam.

Notice, it’s not a quote. That’s pure shilling for jihad, and it’s extremely unlikely to have been written by a non-Muslim.

But even more interesting is this later version of the same article, which appears to have been cleaned up by an editor who recognized how outrageous (and revealing) the first version was: Al-Zarqawi death prompts attack warning. (Hat tip: christheprofessor.)

The phrase echoed the words used by the Prophet Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr, after the prophet’s death in the 7th century to urge Muslims to stick to their new faith.

Well now, that’s quite a different message, isn’t it? ...-
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

The places I look for news claim that most of the people in GITMO, and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq, are being detained without any charges filed.

Ted L, Nancy, I don't what your news sources are(care to share them?), but, when in the history of warfare, be it WWI or WWII, did any country have to file individual charges(?)against every combatant captured on the battlefield and held in custody?

Are you not getting the circumstances, big and small, as to why these jihadis got incarcerated?

I don't know if every single one of them is to a man is a terrorist either, but, somehow, these incarcerated clowns found their a$$es, real stupidly, at the wrong place at the wrong time during warfare. This is a real and serious war, my friend, not some ACLU exercise in nihilistic stupidity. They are lucky to be getting "3 hots and a cot" rather than a summarily ordered execution as allowed by the Geneva Convention. (Check it out.) And, please, define "international law"? (What written international law?, what court? who are the signatories?) It's an entity that doesn't exist in any real or practical form except in the imagination of uninformed moonbats, no offense.

....and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq

Got a verifiable link to that number?

Should have guessed, ask a simple question, get a boat load of idiotic rightwing rhetoric.

three hard core terrorists

Others have mentioned, but it bears repeating, that most here have tried and convicted these people without trial.

I wonder what rights and freedoms conservatives consider worth defending? Obviously not the right to have one's day in court. And the CBC is culpable, it seems, because they won't join the virtual lynch mob here.

Some of you ought to watch The Ox-Bow Incident and think it over. You're sounding like a pack of dangerous fools.

Gabby, the Swedes have their own suicide en masse going on with their own self-imposed pc and multi-culti paradigm where one must politely accept dhimmitude or incur the wrath of lefties for being racists for resisting.

Lefty nihilism at its finest. Like the ACLU defending the burning down of their office, you can't get anymore twisted or brain washed into self-loathing than that.

Obviously not the right to have one's day in court

They don't get a day in court. These aren't crimes under civilian circumstances. Read all of the above. Are you brain dead?

Good night, Ted.

One more time:

Obviously not the right to have one's day in court

They don't get a day in court. These aren't crimes under civilian circumstances by a country's citizens. Read all of the above. Are you brain dead?

"Like the ACLU defending the burning down of their office"

You got to like "The Onion". Great satire. s a t i r e

Odd stuff Penny. Your post I mean. I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. I think you missed the point.

Oh well, I'll do this dance anyway:

Ted L, Nancy, I don't what your news sources are(care to share them?), but, when in the history of warfare, be it WWI or WWII, did any country have to file individual charges(?)against every combatant captured on the battlefield and held in custody? 1. No. 2. Never so far as I know. 3. Out of curiosity, why do you bring this up? Just curious.

Are you not getting the circumstances, big and small, as to why these jihadis got incarcerated? Lol. That's exactly my point. You have no frickin clue what the circumstances of their incarceration are. You're told by the U.S. that it's justified, that they are all bad guys, and bam, it's just an unassailable truth to you. That was classic Penny.

I don't know if every single one of them is to a man is a terrorist either, but, somehow, these incarcerated clowns found their a$$es, real stupidly, at the wrong place at the wrong time during warfare.

Again Penny. I'm enjoying this way too much. Now they're not necessarily all "jihadists", see your previous sentences, but the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, say, a market when a bomb goes off, makes them clowns who deserve to be locked up, and whatever else happens to them there. That's good Penny. I mean, morally bankrupt, but at least its a consistent argument.

This is a real and serious war, my friend, not some ACLU exercise in nihilistic stupidity. They are lucky to be getting "3 hots and a cot" rather than a summarily ordered execution as allowed by the Geneva Convention. (Check it out.)

Prisoners of war can be executed summarily under the Geneva convention? Has anyone told Bush and Rumsfeld? They may decide to apply the geneva convention to the prisoners held in GITMO if they know that. In any event Penny, like I said, I'm glad you've got a consistent argument going, even if its morally bankrrupt. Ie...innocents should feel lucky to be alive and in prison because they could be shot instead. Rejoice! Praise Allah!

Seriously though, what part of the conventions is that in. I totally did not expect that. In fact, I really though it violates convention two, which states the following: "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." But I'm no expert Penny, so you just show me what you read instead and where, unless it was just a gut check, ala Stephen Colbert.

And, please, define "international law"? (What written international law?, what court? who are the signatories?) It's an entity that doesn't exist in any real or practical form except in the imagination of uninformed moonbats, no offense.

None taken. I have no frickin clue what your talking about. Never used the word. Although, the Geneva conventions is considered to be a form of international law, and the international criminal court exists to enforce it, but hey, I don't really care about what you call it. On a related note, did you even read my shorts posts here?

Got a verifiable link to that number?

Here's one, that puts it at 25,000 from the NYT. Also has some good stuff that talks about the way these clowns find themselves in jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world/middleeast/07cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1149739200&en=f1f260eb81975df3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Just a test to see if it was my content or name or ip that is being filtered here.

Last test... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world/middleeast/07cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1149739200&en=f1f260eb81975df3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Dr.Dawg,

"Others have mentioned, but it bears repeating, that most here have tried and convicted these people without trial."

Michelle Malkin -

Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."

Full Story - http://tinyurl.com/naxgd

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

Odd stuff Penny. Your post I mean. I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. I think you missed the point.

Oh well, I'll do this dance anyway:

Ted L, Nancy, I don't what your news sources are(care to share them?), but, when in the history of warfare, be it WWI or WWII, did any country have to file individual charges(?)against every combatant captured on the battlefield and held in custody? 1. No. 2. Never so far as I know. 3. Out of curiosity, why do you bring this up? Just curious.

Are you not getting the circumstances, big and small, as to why these jihadis got incarcerated? Lol. That's exactly my point. You have no frickin clue what the circumstances of their incarceration are. You're told by the U.S. that it's justified, that they are all bad guys, and bam, it's just an unassailable truth to you. That was classic Penny.

I don't know if every single one of them is to a man is a terrorist either, but, somehow, these incarcerated clowns found their a$$es, real stupidly, at the wrong place at the wrong time during warfare.

Again Penny. I'm enjoying this way too much. Now they're not necessarily all "jihadists", see your previous sentences, but the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, say, a market when a bomb goes off, makes them clowns who deserve to be locked up, and whatever else happens to them there. That's good Penny. I mean, morally bankrupt, but at least its a consistent argument.

This is a real and serious war, my friend, not some ACLU exercise in nihilistic stupidity. They are lucky to be getting "3 hots and a cot" rather than a summarily ordered execution as allowed by the Geneva Convention. (Check it out.)

Prisoners of war can be executed summarily under the Geneva convention? Has anyone told Bush and Rumsfeld? They may decide to apply the geneva convention to the prisoners held in GITMO if they know that. In any event Penny, like I said, I'm glad you've got a consistent argument going, even if its morally bankrrupt. Ie...innocents should feel lucky to be alive and in prison because they could be shot instead. Rejoice! Praise Allah!

Seriously though, what part of the conventions is that in. I totally did not expect that. In fact, I really though it violates convention two, which states the following: "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." But I'm no expert Penny, so you just show me what you read instead and where, unless it was just a gut check, ala Stephen Colbert.

And, please, define "international law"? (What written international law?, what court? who are the signatories?) It's an entity that doesn't exist in any real or practical form except in the imagination of uninformed moonbats, no offense.

None taken. I have no frickin clue what your talking about. Never used the word. Although, the Geneva conventions is considered to be a form of international law, and the international criminal court exists to enforce it, but hey, I don't really care about what you call it. On a related note, did you even read my shorts posts here?

Got a verifiable link to that number?

I've seen credible reports that put it at around 25,000. Give or take. Don't believe me or were you just pointing out that 40,000 is too high? I tried giving a link but it gets caught in a filter for some reason. Google is your friend.

PS. Lookout: Umm...goodnight Lookout. Sleep tight. Don't let the moonbats bite.

Dawg

You appear to be unfamiliar with the obligations and rights of combatants under the Geneva Convention.

As the ME combatants (terrorists), who are now in Gitmo, chose to disregard all the obligations of that Convention, they have also chosen to forego the associated rights. (But those horrible Americans accord them lots anyway: Most live more comfortable, civilized lives in Gitmo than at home.) Yes, losing some of one's freedoms isn't altogether nice, but, like war and a fanatical enemy, that's the way it is. (There, there, Dawg, I'd pass a kleenex if I could.)

Now, onto a more important matter: Given your obvious concern for the rights of prisoners of war, do you have any problems with the fact that the terrorists in the ME have no intention, whatsoever, of observing the Convention when our or our allies' soldiers are captured? Could you tell us what rights you think they should have?
Might you spare some of your angst for the fact that our allied POWs appear to have none and are truly brutalized or murdered outright?

Double standard, maybe? (I'd be happy to be wrong here.)

Seems to me that most here know more about this then the people who wrote the laws. I guess thats why the US sent a high level team when it appeared before the UN Committee against Torture?

The Committee firmly rejected U.S. claims that the anti-torture treaty did not apply to U.S. conduct outside the United States, and that it did not apply in wartime.

Very few in the world think the US has a leg to stand on in this fight. Maybe a boycott of US Products and Trade? I think China and Russia need a couple more years of building or at least until the end of hurricane season before they can support that kind of action.

Ural, quoting that level-headed source, M. Malkin:

The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

This doesn't help you, Ural. These hearings determine staus under international law as an "unlawful enemy combatant." Standards of proof? Access to a lawyer? Right of cross-examination?

Oh, I forgot. They're guilty, so why should they get all that?

And is an "unlawful enemy combatant" now considered equivalent to a "hard core terrorist?" Hey, by all means keep extending the definition. Soon you can apply it to anyone you don't like.

On second thoughts, that's what you people are doing now, isn't it? The CBC is now "mourning" Al-Qaeda, according to Kate; the Aboriginals in Caledonia are now "mullahs," according to CJunk.

Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."

Malkin hasn't read the case to which she refers, and has been misinformed by her "legal analyst" friends, or she'd know that Hamdi reaffirmed the right to a hearing before an impartial decision-maker. That does not mean a hearing before one's captors.

Another lyncherous wingnut writes:

They don't get a day in court. These aren't crimes under civilian circumstances by a country's citizens. Read all of the above. Are you brain dead?

You clearly are. Have they been convicted of terrorism or have they not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

By the way, check out Rasul v. Bush before you make a further fool of yourself.

How many even know what the Geneva Convention is or have read it. It is for soldiers in uniform. If you were caught out of uniform in ww11, you could be shot as a spy. Regardless, those at Gitmo have a much better life than if they were in a cave in afganistan or iraq-3 meals/day, following a muslim diet, recreation, exercise, prayer mats. Those 3 suicides probably were about to be released and sent home and didn't want to go. And anyone not expecting threats to increase after Alz death, by wannabe successors is crazy. Take those threats as serious as the CBC does the threats against Toronto by 17 plotters. For months I have asked this question but no leftie will or can answer it.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN IRAQ OR AFGANISTAN IF ALL TROOPS LEFT NEXT WEEK. WOULD WE BE SAFER, OR CONSIDERED COWARDS BY OBL. And why do the lefties and msm want the war to be lost. I don't think the democrats realize what their hate for Bush has done to them.

I'd like to hear an answer to Lookout's question above, from those defending the Gitmo detainees. I'd also appreciate a follow up answer to this question:

Have any of you ever posted a comment on a blog or in your own blog, any expression of outrage over the acts of the terrorists in the middle east (beheadings, bombs in market places etc), ever?

And if you haven't you've pretty much chosen to side with the terrorists don't you think?

Try defending that one.

Mitch wrote: Have any of you ever posted a comment on a blog or in your own blog, any expression of outrage over the acts of the terrorists in the middle east (beheadings, bombs in market places etc), ever?

And if you haven't you've pretty much chosen to side with the terrorists don't you think?

Man, this place has the best wingnutz seats on the nets. I'd like to add that if you've never blogged about how bad rape is, you clearly support rapists, and are hurting the police's efforts to catch rapists to boot.

Goodnight, Ted L. Nancy, Neutralsam, and stageleft.

Nice avoidance Ted, I think I have the answer.

Actually Ted, the better analogy would be if you blogged continually about defending the rights of those accused of rape, split hairs about whether women really said "no", suggested that that many of may have "really wanted it" ect., and never once came out and acknowleged that rape was a horrible crime.

Canadian Observer said: "I admit I am of two minds..."
...

"Canada's approach to terror reveals a split personality."

Why Canada is a terrorist target
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: June 10 2006 03:00 | Last updated: June 10 2006 03:00

"We are a target because of who we are and how we live," said Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada, last weekend. It was on the day that 17 men and boys from Ontario were arrested in an alleged terrorist plot that was to culminate, according to one prosecution document, in the lopping off of Mr Harper's own head. It is striking that Mr Harper's explanation of why Islamists want to bomb his country should so resemble George W. Bush's explanation of why Islamists want to bomb his. After all, between September 11 2001 and Mr Harper's election in January, the notion that the US and Canada are polar opposites was the cornerstone of Canadian national identity. Canada prides itself on its respect for international law, its refusal to participate in the Iraq invasion (although it has 2,300 troops in Afghanistan) and its devotion to multiculturalism.
...

Canada's approach to terror reveals a split personality. On security, it has been tough. Emergency arrangements argued over ferociously in Britain and the US - including wide powers to tap phones and intercept mail - are available to Canada's Communications Security Establishment. An upcoming Supreme Court case will decide the fate of three suspected terrorists who have been held without charge for years. But in other areas Canada has been easygoing. Its intercommunity relations have been marked by political correctness (the president of the Muslim Council of Montreal congratulated the authorities last week for "correctly refer[ring] to these acts as alleged criminal actions motivated by politics and hatred, not by any religion or faith"). Its diplomatic posture, at least until Mr Harper's election in January, has shown an unconcealed belief that Americans overreact to practically everything.

This split personality has its roots in Canada's two-sided experience of terror. At one level, Canadians do understand that "it can happen here". Osama bin Laden has singled out the country specifically in his communiqués. The most deadly terrorist attack in history before 9/11 was the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight out of Toronto, in which 329 people died. A poll taken in the wake of the London bombings in July showed Canadians felt less secure than Americans did: 63 per cent of the former saw a terrorist attack as inevitable, versus 57 per cent of the latter.

But this edginess competes with a tendency towards complacency. Press accounts last week stressed the amateurishness of the plotters, who trained by playing paintball in the Toronto suburbs and wrote childish messages in chat rooms. To take solace in their haplessness is foolish. Since terrorists are always fantasists of a sort, the moment their plan goes awry they will always look a bit ridiculous. But the alleged Canadian plotters were not ridiculous at all. According to prosecutors, their ringleader was a supporter of the notorious Ahmed Khadr of Toronto, killed by Pakistani forces in 2003 while fighting with al-Qaeda. The group found the resources to buy three tons of ammonium nitrate, three times the payload in the Oklahoma City attacks of 1996. They organised a large conspiracy with unusually few blunders. (The group was infiltrated thanks to a far-reaching investigation that started outside the country.)

One source of complacency is self-regard. A poll last year by the Pew Research Center found that Canadians tower above other western countries in their sense that people like them; 94 per cent say they are "well liked by other nations". Last week a letter writer to a Canadian newspaper noted: "Most Canadians question why anyone would want to attack us because, by and large, we do live in a decent and just society." Increasingly, Canadians measure their decency and justice by comparing themselves with the US. A year after the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds of Canadians told Maclean's magazine the US was "a bully". The evolution of attitudes since then is well summed up by a headline that the Ottawa Citizen ran in 2003 after a US State Department report expressed worry that Canada's privacy laws impeded terrorist investigations: "US Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties."

Some Americans do, in fact, assume terrorists up north have the run of the place. The Republican representative Pete King, chairman of the House homeland security committee, said last week: "There is a disproportionate number of al-Qaeda in Canada because of [its] very liberal immigration laws and because of how political asylum is granted so easily." Canadians were appalled by the statement but there is some truth to it. The first big al-Qaeda attempt on the US involved two north-African-born Canadian residents trying to drive a bomb across the border to blow up Los Angeles airport in 1999. By the end of 2007, Canadians will need, for the first time, to show a passport before entering the US.

Canada has the right to form any idea of itself it wishes, whether the US approves or not. The problem is that constant invidious contrasts may have resulted in a misassessment of the terrorist threat Canada faces. This is in contrast to Australia, which assumes itself to be a big al-Qaeda target. Canada has tried to avoid the wrath of radical Islamists by just keeping its head down and making clear that it is not the US. Terrorists do not seem discriminating enough to tell the difference. Two years ago, Israel's ambassador to Canada warned: "The openness of Canada might be interpreted by the various terrorist organisations as a sort of naiveté that can be utilised and abused." He was right. While specific grievances can certainly play a role in radicalising specific people, what we have learnt from the targeting of peace-loving Canada is that terrorists attack, above all, simply because they can. ...-
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13311.2

Great post, Mitch, and right on. Too good, I think, for the likes of our snake oil salesmen accusers.

Hehe... oh I get it. I thought Lookout was actually saying goodnight to me. Hahah.

Anywho mitch, your issue is a fake one. Avoidance? Give me a break. The issue is so fake and phony and ridiculous I find it demeaning to even answer it. But here...I'll hint to you the depths to which it's a sad, sad, talking point.

I just assume you're a decent human being who doesn't like those things and so evaluate your argument from that point of view.

I don't require you to declare that you're against racism, killing innoncent people, etc., when you take a certain position on say GITMO.

You can think GITMO is fine, justified, whatever, and not be racist, murderous, etc. There is nothing implied in that that suggests you are. If I were to ask you to condem racism, killing innoncents, it does two things:

1. Insults you, since it requires that you "prove" your not a racist bastard by meeting through my standards of proof.

2. Insults me, since obviously I'm either an asshole for suspecting your moral character based on the fact that you disagree with me, or so stupid that I think your position implies some degree of support for racism or killing innocents.

Just go ahead and extrapolate that now to your own situation.

We talk about
a bevvy of brides,
a pride of lions,
an exaltation of larks.

How about:

a sinister of snakes?

(as in oil salesmen)

I just don't know where some get their ideas about international law and the UN from.

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

But who is a lawful combatant to the US, have they caught any? Under your reasoning the US shouldn't be classified as legal combatant. They've used Chemical weapons against civilian populations.

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
They've shot wounded people Killed whole Families.
It's not all out in the open yet but they're working on it.

Steven Casteel the most senior US advisor, from the Latin American Drug wars in the 1980’s 1990’s Plus ex US army Col. James Steele who lead the US military mission in El Salvador at the height of the civil war. Seems like the Us has brought out the Death Squads, these two are great at setting them up with the best in US training.

Iraq ia easier to deal with if its broken into small states, divide and conquer is the easiest way. Plus it gives reason for the billion dollar bases the US is building for their long term stay in Iraq.

Aunty-American says: "Moi am not an American". Uses the negative "not" in order to define herself.

The liberal leftist says: "I Am Not Afraid". Uses the negative "not" to define themselves and, thus reveals their state of mind; capitalizes the words.

So much for the split personality theory in re the left liberals. These Canadians have only one personality: left liberals. ...-

TORONTO (CP) - The men who brought the Rolling Stones to Toronto for a massive outdoor concert following the SARS crisis of 2003 want to show American tourists that Toronto is a safe place to visit despite the recent terrorism-related arrests.

Senator Jerry Grafstein, former Liberal MP Dennis Mills and political consultant Warren Kinsella are joining forces to organize I Am Not Afraid, an event designed to showcase Toronto's resilience in the wake of the arrest of 17 local terrorism suspects. cnews

Everytime I read about the CBC I worry that the United States could one day move to a national news system controlled by a few elites and run by a bunch of idiots.

NO tickets for me, thanks very much.

"I Am Not Afraid, an event designed to showcase Toronto's resilience"

More like an event to showcase Toronto's Liberal loons. Spare me!

Ted,

Actually I wasn't defending Gitmo, nice try at deflection once again, read my two posts above. As for your rambling suggestion that you are somehow sparing me by not accusing me of supporting racism or murder (suggesting that my purported position on Gitmo could lead to those charges and then saying that youre above making that very suggestion), well, I obviously struck a nerve.

not accusing me of supporting racism or murder

Have you ever blogged against racism? Or posted an anti-racist comment in a combox somewhere?

;-), Stingray. LOL!

Mitch, your ability to not grasp something astounds me. I was giving an example in order to make a point. I said "your", but we could have put in "Bert" or "Nanny" or "Booboo". If you read it again, with that in mind, you'll come to where I write "when you take a certain position on say GITMO". On say...making up an example. Don't know, don't care what your actual position is. Example.

Engage with the material before you start looking for mistakes Mitch. Think about it. read it carefully and think. Then write. Read, think, write.

Mitch, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Dr. Dawg. Actually yes, I'll try to find a link.

Interesting how your comparing the notion that the continual defence of those accused of terrorism suggests one is sympathic to the terrorists with:

questioning those who are sympathetic to terrorism is suggestive of one being racist (and correpsondingly in need of evidence to the contrary).

Very interesting indeed.

Hey Mitch: I'm behind you on this ... and Dr. Dawg: Yes I have. For Ted and friends, read the Maritime Liberal post. Did you notice that most people agreed with some of his points? Notice that? This is not a liberal blog but look... there were points of agreement there. Hmmmm..... perhaps some lessons learned there and a little coherence might help.

Another frank but disquieting admission by the United States came in response to a question about the future of Guantánamo. Bellinger noted the President’s assertion that Guantánamo detention facilities should not stay open indefinitely. However, he stated that alternatives were lacking and suggested that the detainees cannot be prosecuted either because they were not U.S. nationals (which is simply untrue), or because they did not plot or commit specific crimes against the United States. This was a startling statement and the first time I heard a government official say that we need to hold people without charges because they have not committed any crimes!

Maybe thats why they committed suicide, Not having committed any crimes but all they see in their future is more torture. Over 100 people died while being questioned in US custody.

I like how castro is complaining about the USA.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-cuba-al-zarqawi,0,4138466.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

This is the guy who shoots journalists he doesn't like.

I cant help but think if bush had killed dan rather all the lefties would love him, they like Castro after all and thats what he does.

I could see the republican approval numbers marching up.

Well then Lanny, if you agree with what Maritime Liberal, why do you agree with Mitch that "if you don't condemn terrorism on a blog" then you implicitly support it?

Mitch thinks he's discovered something interesting, but it's pretty clear to me he missed the whole point. Maritime liberal gets it though, that stuff like what Mitch says polarizes and dumbs down the discourse. Spending time accusing and defending against "supporting terrorism", which is so breathakingly stupid I can't believe you'd make that claim about anyone who wasn't an actual terrorist, is exactly the sort of thing ML was talking about.

Of Course, ML spends time saying "I support the troops but I'm against the mission", and Mitch probably thinks good. My point is that ML shouldn't have to say that. Wouldn't have to, if mental midgets weren't making stupid arguments linking the two. Oh, you think Iraq was a mistake, you hate our troops! Oh, your concerned about the collatoral damage of our bombs, what about the terrorist bombs, you support terrorism. Its facile.

And no Lanny, I don't think you've made that claim. I should have written 'anyone would make that claim'.

We know nothing about the three. We cannot say they were terrorists any more than you can say every person on death row is a killer, and the death row inmate has had due process.
Were they terrorists or freedom fighters fighting a foreign invader?
We know nothing about them. They were kept out of the justice system because a case against them could not be upheld in a court of law.

There are anti-terror laws made exclusively to apprehend terrorists and lock them up. These laws were never applied to the majority of the Gitmo inmates one has to assume because the evidence against them is weak. So they are detained simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I just love it when ET comes along and drops one of these:

“However, in my view, the Israeli-Palestinian situation has gone from bad to worse. I support Abbas's referendum, but, presume that Israel will ignore the desire of the Palestinians for a state, and continue to make their unilateral decisions, taking the best land and water.”

Exactly how does Israel ignore the desire of the Palestinians for a state? What was Oslo I and Oslo II??? And what about everything that Barak offered in 2000? Israel ignores their desire for a state? Israel agreed to partition in 1947 – they could have had their state then, and several times since then too. What is ET talking about?

Israel makes decisions to protect its citizens as all states do, unilateral or not.

Taking the best land and water? Huh?
Israel obtains roughly 50 percent of its water from the Sea of Galilee and the Coastal Aquifer, both of which are entirely within Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Another 30 percent comes from the Western and Northeastern Aquifers of the Mountain Aquifer system. These aquifers straddle the Green Line separating Israel from the West Bank, but most of the stored water is under pre-1967 Israel, making it easily accessible only in Israel.
Thus, even in the 1950s Israel used 95 percent of the Western Aquifer’s water, and 82 percent of the Northeastern Aquifer’s water. Today, Israel’s share of these aquifers has declined to 83 percent and 80 percent, respectively. That is, under direct Israeli administration the Palestinian share of these aquifers has actually increased.
In addition, every year over 40 MCM (million cubic meters) of water from sources within Israel is piped over the Green Line for Palestinian use in the West Bank. Ramallah, for example, receives over 5 MCM. Israel sends another 4 MCM over its border for Palestinian use in Gaza. Thus, it is the Palestinians who are using Israeli water.
And not just the Palestinians. Despite its own meager supply, Israel annually provided 600,000 CM of water to ten otherwise dry villages in South Lebanon, and provides more than 55 MCM annually to Jordan. Perhaps no other country in the world, facing the severe shortages that Israel does, has shared so much water with its neighbors.
Check it out for yourself:
http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/water.html

And the “prisoner’s plan”/Abbas’s referendum? Wow, ET, you support a plan that was written by people convicted of crimes including financing, planning and engaging in terror activities that have left a trail of victims. Have you ever read the plan? http://www.jmcc.org/documents/prisoners.htm? The State of Israel is never even mentioned in the plan. There is no explicit statement that establishing a state within the pre-1967 borders would end Palestinian claims over Israeli territory.

Let me predict that ET will ignore this or just say there is no need to discuss it because we differ in opinion. I don’t understand how ET appears rational on other fronts, but when it comes to Israel, she takes her talking points from Edward Said, the NYT, and Chomsky/Fisk.

and speaking of the CBC, I caught a bit of Crosscountry check up today. The topic was something like what to do about those homegrown Muslim terrorists? In the few minutes that I am listening, someone (an ex-diplomat of Canada to Algeria I think he said), says he thinks it is the Arab/Israeli conflict that motivates them - because Israel ignores all those hundreds of UN resolutions that are passed annually (religiously?) at the UN. Rex just lets it go without bothering to point out, as I had to point out on another thread yesterday, that the resolutions passed against Israel are non-binding recommendations. do all UN lovers know nothing about the operation of the UN?

The CBC would still be mourning Hitler if he didnt turn on Stalin. The Gitmo detainee deaths are no different.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

You can choose to spend your intellectual energy defending the terrorists (not merely "doing nothing" mind you).

I'll spend my intellectual energy opposing the terrorists.

Sorry if the lack of nuance is too "polarizing" for you, but war tends to be polarizing.

I sleep well at night knowing I'm on the right side.

Cheers.

In

I am willing to offer 546 virgins (in the after life) to any Muslim that kills himself without taking out any innocents. That's an amazing 474, yes, that's right, 474 more virgins than your local inman/mosque is offering.

The GITMO boy scouts - an additional 365 virgins if you do yourself today ... one less a day. DON'T WAIT!!!

Got a cell going? Get yourself a virgin a day (cell size 15+) for 3 years as a special thank you for organizing a mass suicide ... and each cell member gets a bonus 200 virgins.

"...three hard core terrorists..." I was not aware that the prisoners at Gitmo had been tried and convicted. Have they?

“3 dead terrorists. Too bad, so sad. May the CBC be next . . . .” Posted by: Fred
“They should have been tried in court, and summarily SHOT months ago! Along with the entire management staff of the CBC!” Posted by: Jim
“The CBC would still be mourning Hitler if he didnt turn on Stalin. The Gitmo detainee deaths are no different.” Posted by: Harry
Hmmm...time for more meds.

“For centuries countries have agreed that combatants in uniform receive fair treatment by their captors. This in part was done to prevent spying and, er, um, militancy, which as others have pointed out used to end in execution.
Want to be treated well? Put on a uniform. Want to be a terrorist scumbag? Gitmo is what you get.” Posted by: Mississauga Matt, and echoed by others.

The main problem here is that by any international legal standard this is a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan or Iraq had threatened the US. Furthermore, it’s hardly surprising that after their conventional armies were destroyed by the overwhelming technical advantage of the US military, the so-called terrorists have resorted to guerrilla warfare. However, according to the people that started this illegal war, fighting back is illegal. So in the name of freedom and democracy, all those who reject this US led benevolence can be held indefinitely without trial, or be executed. Of course, anyone who disagrees with this hypocrisy, oops, I mean, fight of the Coalition of the Willing must be a CBC loving communist, socialist, liberal, NDP, Muslim, Native traitor.

So the inmates who committed suicide were hard core Al Qaeda terrorists, huh? How do you know that? Was there a trial? Was evidence presented? You can't answer that, because there hasn't been any trial. And don't give me your bullshit about how the Americans have information we don't have about these guys ergo they probably deserved it. Most detainees at Gitmo have been released on the QT because they were completely innocent (but unfortunately for them and for the cause of justice,years later). Even the ones who might be guilty cannot ever be brought to trial because their testimony is inadmissable because THEY WERE TORTURED. Anybody who condones Gitmo is just as despicable as Al Qaeda, because they are the same.

If the CBC reported the sky was blue, you people would gripe about their liberal bias ("Why not RED, like the red states?"). When does this blog ever address known facts? Oh, right. You're conservatives. Truthiness matters more than truth to you people.

So let the intellectually impotent name-calling begin! Remember, no one is allowed to address the substance of my comments. That would violate the conservative truthiness creed.

Everytime I read about the CBC I worry that the United States could one day move to a national news system controlled by a few elites and run by a bunch of idiots.

Posted by: Stingray at June 11, 2006 09:02 PM

Stingray, they have already. It's called Foxnews.

Steve:
It should be called Fauxnews.

Just heard zer-cow's 16 year old wife might have been killed with him and their 18 month old son?

Unreal.

Pedophile, rapist, a serial mass murderer and an uneducated one at that.
If the three who killed themselves were innocent why did they kill themselves? Suicide is not the answer, they haven't been detained that long. Couldn't have been that devout then eh? Usually they take a bunch of innocents with them, tsk tsk all ah will be so disappointed.

Many innocent people throughout history have been incarcerated for decades, under horrific conditions compared to these kids the innocent don't tend to commit suicide unless it's to prevent ongoing physical torture that they just can't endure, they usually have hope and belief in themselves as they hold the truth.

You lefties sure weren't around a few years back, when Bill Sampson needed the support while he languished in a saudi prision for two years being tortured to near death, while our liberal government went -"oh well, not our problem". But he was just a working man, not a victim, er I mean disenfranchised young muslim man...

Let's get to the real problem here. The terrorists believe in Takiya which means "lie through your teeth in order to further the cause" basically. Terrorists thrive on propaganda being spewed here. For those on the left so worried about terrorists and illegal wars, etc... what is your solution? Bury your head and let the butchers continue and hope you're not on the list? Throughout history, there are elements of society that believe the terrorist attacks are fear-mongering by their governments. After 12 years of liberal rule, I would agree to question governments. However, it seems far to easy to accuse your elected democratic governments of conspiracy and not those who are killing innocent civilians - whether it be Saddam, Zarqawi, etc. who believe in Takiya. The media in Canada perpetuates this and so do the left.

Lanny:

Get a grip on your hysteria. How many Canadians have been killed by terrorists? How many Americans? You stand a greater chance of dying from a slip in the bathtub or a car accident than being killed by a suicide bomber.

The majority of the propaganda is being spread by right-wingers trying to justify the "War on Terror" while companies like with close ties to the US government (ie. Haliburton) make millions off of the war.

This war is about control of oil, not about stopping terrorism or spreading democracy: Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, yet Saudi Arabia wasn't punished; Governments like China are killing their own people and harvesting their organs for transplants, yet the US isn't leading a war to stop that. Rather, they are increasing their trade with China, as is Canada. This kind of hypocrisy needs to be pointed out in order to prevent years of needless killing for misguided reasons, like there was in Viet Nam.

Being reported now on US stations. 1 suicider was with Al Qlueda, one was Taliban, and 1 was scheduled for release.

To Iberia's comment that "The main problem here is that by any international legal standard this is a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan or Iraq had threatened the US."

Please.

"...by any international legal standard" what happened on 9/11 would be considered a declaration of war...by Islamist Muslims/Al Qaeda/the Taliban. Had the Americans flown planes into buildings in Afghnanistan, say, or Iraq, and killed innocent civilians, I'm pretty darned sure that the Afghanis and the Iraqis--or, if you will, Islamist Muslims/Al Qaeda/the Taliban would consider that an act of war against them. Would they just sit quietly by, shrug their shoulders, and say, "Oh well?"

I don't think so.

Now, one of the problems with 9/11 is that the Islamists who hijacked the planes and murdered over 300 people in cold blood, not to mention bringing down the Twin Towers and creating absolute chaos and havoc ever since, plus threatening many more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, did not come from any one country or wear the uniform of any one country, unlike any other war in the past, which made it clear exactly who your enemies were.

So, what to do? Target the places where the Taliban and Al Qaeda hang out. Where do they hang out? A lot of them hang out in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that's where you go to protect your country against further attacks, rather than be sitting ducks, which seems to be what the Left thinks the U.S. should have done after 9/11.

To say that Afghanistan and Iraq had not threatened the U.S. is untrue; both countries harbored, aided, and abetted the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorist groups, so that would be a reasonable place for the U.S. to start in their attempts to provide safety and security for American citizens.

It's the equivalency arguments that become tiresome, somehow the assumption being that the U.S., a democratic country which affords their people liberty and freedom of expression, religion, movement, etc., albeit with many imperfections--hey, humans have problems, we're not perfect anywhere--is on a level playing field with countries that harbour guerilla insurgencies which target many of their own citizens and whose sole purpose is to create terror and havoc on a world-wide scale by stealth and insurgency. Not to mention, these countries who harbour Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not democracies by any stretch of the imagination; their own people are oppressed and have next to no guarantees to any kind of human rights, especially their women and girls.

That the Left can't recognize that the modus operandi of the U.S. and the modus operandi of the ME countries are completely different, that the Left refuses to recognize that, in fact, the U.S. has been threatened by countries that harbour terrorists intent on killing as many U.S. citizens as possible, which could happen anywhere in the States, at any time, is astounding to me.

What would their solution to 9/11 be? Ask the UN to arbitrate? With whom? Get Osama to Geneva to sit around a table with Condi? Take Condi to a Taliban cave somewhere, where maybe her skull and bones might be found months/years later, maybe...?

I just don't know where these guys are coming from at all. Should the U.S. just forget about 9/11, go back to "life as usual"? Well, how would they do that, knowing that the Brooklyn Bridge or the White House might be the next terrorist targets?

I've come to the conclusion that Lefties, by and large, are cowards. The big bully has whacked them, so they'd better get out of the way. Hide somewhere, pretend it didn't happen, and definitely, don't blame the bully. Poor guy. He had an unhappy childhood, he's stronger than he knows, it wasn't his fault. Hey, it was actually our fault.

Pathological pansieism.

Stockholm Syndrome: But why would Canadians or Americans have Stockholme Syndrome? Oh yeah: too many Sociology and Psychology 101 courses and Women's Studies 102, where no one takes responsibility for anything anymore. There are always "legitimate" reasons and "extenuating" circumstances for pathological violence: Poor Osama, one of 40 children: He obviously didn't get enough attention from his mom, so no wonder he lives in a cave and plots mass murder and destruction on a global scale. The U.S. should cut him some slack...

With citizens like the Lefties, who needs enemies?

To Iberia's comment that "The main problem here is that by any international legal standard this is a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan or Iraq had threatened the US."

Please.

"...by any international legal standard" what happened on 9/11 would be considered a declaration of war...by Islamist Muslims/Al Qaeda/the Taliban. Had the Americans flown planes into buildings in Afghnanistan, say, or Iraq, and killed innocent civilians, I'm pretty darned sure that the Afghanis and the Iraqis--or, if you will, Islamist Muslims/Al Qaeda/the Taliban would consider that an act of war against them. Would they just sit quietly by, shrug their shoulders, and say, "Oh well?"

I don't think so.

Now, one of the problems with 9/11 is that the Islamists who hijacked the planes and murdered over 300 people in cold blood, not to mention bringing down the Twin Towers and creating absolute chaos and havoc ever since, plus threatening many more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, did not come from any one country or wear the uniform of any one country, unlike any other war in the past, which made it clear exactly who your enemies were.

So, what to do? Target the places where the Taliban and Al Qaeda hang out. Where do they hang out? A lot of them hang out in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that's where you go to protect your country against further attacks, rather than be sitting ducks, which seems to be what the Left thinks the U.S. should have done after 9/11.

To say that Afghanistan and Iraq had not threatened the U.S. is untrue; both countries harbored, aided, and abetted the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorist groups, so that would be a reasonable place for the U.S. to start in their attempts to provide safety and security for American citizens.

It's the equivalency arguments that become tiresome, somehow the assumption being that the U.S., a democratic country which affords their people liberty and freedom of expression, religion, movement, etc., albeit with many imperfections--hey, humans have problems, we're not perfect anywhere--is on a level playing field with countries that harbour guerilla insurgencies which target many of their own citizens and whose sole purpose is to create terror and havoc on a world-wide scale by stealth and insurgency. Not to mention, these countries who harbour Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not democracies by any stretch of the imagination; their own people are oppressed and have next to no guarantees to any kind of human rights, especially their women and girls.

That the Left can't recognize that the modus operandi of the U.S. and the modus operandi of the ME countries are completely different, that the Left refuses to recognize that, in fact, the U.S. has been threatened by countries that harbour terrorists intent on killing as many U.S. citizens as possible, which could happen anywhere in the States, at any time, is astounding to me.

What would their solution to 9/11 be? Ask the UN to arbitrate? With whom? Get Osama to Geneva to sit around a table with Condi? Take Condi to a Taliban cave somewhere, where maybe her skull and bones might be found months/years later, maybe...?

I just don't know where these guys are coming from at all. Should the U.S. just forget about 9/11, go back to "life as usual"? Well, how would they do that, knowing that the Brooklyn Bridge or the White House might be the next terrorist targets?

I've come to the conclusion that Lefties, by and large, are cowards. The big bully has whacked them, so they'd better get out of the way. Hide somewhere, pretend it didn't happen, and definitely, don't blame the bully. Poor guy. He had an unhappy childhood, he's stronger than he knows, it wasn't his fault. Hey, it was actually our fault.

Pathological pansieism.

Stockholm Syndrome: But why would Canadians or Americans have Stockholme Syndrome? Oh yeah: too many Sociology and Psychology 101 courses and Women's Studies 102, where no one takes responsibility for anything anymore. There are always "legitimate" reasons and "extenuating" circumstances for pathological violence: Poor Osama, one of 40 children: He obviously didn't get enough attention from his mom, so no wonder he lives in a cave and plots mass murder and destruction on a global scale. The U.S. should cut him some slack...

With citizens like the Lefties, who needs enemies?

Sorry for the double post. I got caught in the filter and was told to post again, which I did. So it's a surprise to find that my first posting actually got through...

Interesting how your comparing the notion that the continual defence of those accused of terrorism suggests one is sympathic to the terrorists with:

questioning those who are sympathetic to terrorism is suggestive of one being racist (and correpsondingly in need of evidence to the contrary).

Don't go shifting the goalposts. You originally tried to make the point that, if people like myself haven't stated the obvious (i.e., blowing up or beheading civilians is wrong) then we must somehow be sympathetic to these acts. I'm pointing out that, simply because you have not railed against all the evils of the worlds, doesn't becessarily imply that you support those evils.

Your point was specious, which I guess explains the subsequent backpedaling.

From the released Pentagon documents, some 5,000 pages of transcripts from closed-door hearings on the detainees, most of whom were accused of having links to the Taliban or al-Qaida.

Like the other detainees, Abbasi wasn't allowed to see classified evidence against him. He repeatedly cited international law in arguing that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out would have none of it.

"Mr. Abbasi, your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words international law again. We are not concerned about international law," the colonel says. Then he has Abbasi removed from the courtroom.

You don't get to know what the charges are if any at all are laid.

I also recall seeing charges have been laid against Bush,War Crimes, with an impressive list of generals sending letters of support to the court.The suit, announced Wednesday at a Washington media conference, seeks $10 million in damages and charges the Pentagon chain of command authorized and condoned torture in violation of the Alien Tort Statue, the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

More should come out as we get closer to the elections down there.

>>So much support for the war in Iraq because Saddam Gassed the gurds, with products he got from us.

Who is us ???

More lies from the left, neither the States or canada supplied Saddam with gas products.

The gas that saddam dropped on the kurds was German and the planes that were used were french.

But of course, its become trendy amoung the left just to say 'us' when in reality they mean the States even if it actually wasn't the states.

>However, according to the people that started this illegal war ...

Iberia you idiot, muslims STARTED this war, not the WEST.

Toronto Red Star is mounting the defence of the Muslim Islamist terrorists.

Red Star is saying the Muslim Islamist terrorists are not Muslim Islamist terrorists.

Red Star wants the Muslim Islamist terrorists set free, sent back to their homes, and the case closed.

The government will issue 17 apologies, settle the wrongful arrest law suits with $$$$ awards to the "victims". Case dismissed. ...-

Much at stake in terror case
Toronto Star - 10 Jun 2006
Somehow it's easier to think of terrorists as the product of far-flung training camps operated by Osama bin Laden, not what police are now alleging after the dramatic arrest of 17 adults and youths last weekend. ...
google news

Dr.Dawg,

You missed the other half of my point (you know, the material half), its the combination of CONTINUALLY DEFENDING THE TERRORISTS while remaining silent about the horrors committed by terrorists.

Again see analogy and posts above.

You choose to expend your intellectual energy defending those accused of terrorism.

Good for you.

Something to tell your grandchildren about.

Did CBC's Radio International "cover" the wake? No.

Here's a copy of the e-mail sent to the CBC Omm-Muslim by Les...-

Zarqawi wake: Two MPs held (Jordan)
Posted by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
On 06/12/2006 4:53:35 AM PDT · 7 replies · 197+ views

News24/SAPA ^ | 11/06/2006
Amman - The head of Jordan's Islamic Action Front said on Sunday that two of his party's members who attended the wake for al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have been arrested. Mohammed Abu Fares and Jaafar al Hourani, both members of parliament, have been arrested, Hamza Mansour, head of the Islamist party told The Associated Press. Jordanian officials were not immediately available for comment. The men attended al-Zarqawi's wake on Friday, held at his family home just outside the Jordanian capital Amman. The two other front members who also paid their condolences to the family, Ali Abu Sukkar...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647750/posts

Mitch: The problem being of course, that you appear to think saying things like "You know, we should be careful not to detain indefinitely people who aren't terrorists" is "defending terrorists". That's some real wicked good logic.

Why do you hate Canada so much Mitch? Does someone accused of a crime lose all their rights Mitch? That's just so un-canadian, isn't it? Sounds more like Iran to me. Why do you defend Iranian values Mitch?

Come on Mitch, engage with the material half of this post. Show us how it's done.

Ted,

I'm well aware of your casting this as a "rights" issue. Rights of who though? See the original query above by Little and my follow up as well as the rape analogy (always defending those accused of rape).

On the issue of terrorism you choose to expend your intellectual energy on defending the rights of those accused of terrorism. Rather than on defending the rights of say, Americans who are captured and have their heads severed, or say, on the rights of Westerners not to be terrorized.

Sorry bud, but you've made a choice who to defend.

I guess I would defend everybody's rights. Unlike Mitch, who thinks it's wrong to defend those of accused terrorists. Such charges, apparently should not be defended, or the defenders might end up being charged as well.

Now...what were those Western rights and freedoms we are trying to preserve? Perhaps Mitch will remind us.

Ted, did you know that right now, thousands are being held in Iran (many of them journalists). They weren't captured in a war zone attempting to kill Iranians, or found in a training camp designed to teach terrorism, they are in prison for attempting to promote democracy.

I'm concerned about their rights Ted. That's who I expend my intellectual energy on. Them, and Westerner's who are trying to stop Islamofacism.

Hundreds of thousands of completely innocent people being held, tortured, killed throughout the world. But your intellectual energy is spent on individuals accused of terrorism.

Rights of whom Ted, Rights of whom.

I'd say defending those who were captured promoting freedom (rather than promoting terror) is pretty Canadian, wouldn't you?

Mitch, did you know that gay and lesbian Iraqis are being hunted down and killed by "militias" as we speak?* Why haven't you denounced this? Are you a homophobe?

[See where this stupid line of argument gets you?]

*http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/05/iraq_sistanis_f.html

I see Mitch. Here's the difference I see between us, you look at others and say 'what are they doing wrong'. I say what am I doing that I shouldn't be? Or in this case, what is my government doing on my behalf.

You keep pointing fingers Mitch. Someone has to do the easy stuff I guess. We've already got a war on them. Soldiers, money, etc. But your finger, it does its small part Mitch. Keep fighting the good fight.

Yeah, Iran bad. But I didn't elect anyone in Iran. I'm responsible for what my government does, so I'm more upset when Canada gets invovlved in things like indefinite detention of terror suspects than when Iran does. You keep condemning them Mitch. You're right, they should be condemned. I'll just keep coming back and arguing that if its wrong that they do it, its wrong that we do it. And yeah, I'll point the finger at us more forcefully than them because when we do it it's done in my name. And yours.

"ban the media."

The terrorist plot was a "plot" by Canadian Muslim Islamist terrorists to murder Canadians.

Bail must not be granted to Canadian Muslim Islamist terrorists....-

Suspects in Canadian case scheduled for bail hearings.
WKRC 12 - 47 minutes ago
TORONTO (AP) - Bail hearings are scheduled today for 14 of the 17 suspects accused in a terrorist plot in Canada. Prosecutors may
ask the judge
to ban the media
from reporting details of the allegations. There's a provision for that in Canadian law. ... google news

Just a point about the USA and international law that should be considered in a lot of our discussions:

Neutralsam (07:43 AM) cites a US functionary during Gitmo hearings: "I do not want to hear the words international law again. We are not concerned about international law ..."

Article VI, section 2., US Constitution: "... all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ..." (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

"J st a p lot of our cuss ons:
tralsam (0 AM) cit s a nctionary during Gi mo he in o hea t wo ds int ional law ag . W re not con rned ab onal law ..."

Arti , s be th the land ..." (ht ://www ives-exp en ' blah blah blah ...-

UPDATE at 6/11/06 7:39:27 pm:

Al Jazeera reported yesterday that Zarqawi’s 18-month old son was also killed.

Family sources told the AFP news agency that al-Zarqawi’s 18-month-old son was also killed in the US air strike on the home.

Zarqawi’s son was 18 months old, and his wife was 16 years old... you do the math. But who are we to judge? We never even read him his Miranda rights. ...-

LGF

john galt ("you idiot"):

19 people, mostly SAUDIS, executed the 9/11 attacks. How may people were involved in the planning? A hundred? A thousand? (Pick a number.) The planning was done in Germany. Neither the governments of Afghanistan or Iraq were involved in the 9/11 attacks. But might as well bomb the crap out of, and then occupy Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of democracy and freedom. (Let's not mention OIL.) And then complain when the people in these countries fight back.

Let's mention oil - you keep going on about it.

How much is being "stolen." By what means? What evidence is there of it happening?

OK, Maz2, Zarqawi was a pedophile to boot. Your point, right?

I would worry less about the optics of that, than how taking out a guy's family with him will look to the non-lapdog world. Collateral damage can be counter-productive, as in 'Nam, for instance.

Just once I would like one of the lefty trolls here to state categorically and unequivocally whether they believe that if the west retreats, that al-Qaeda stop operations against the west.

Simple question. Yes or no?

Update One: Nam (pork) sandwich found in Imam Aly Hindy's laptop carrying case. The name of the laptop has not yet been disclosed. However, We suspect it was a 14 year old model ... censored.

Update Two:
The CBC is still in mourning for Muslim Islamist terrorists.

The following is a re-broadcast from the Mourning News from CBC Mecca, in the terrorist capital of Ontario, Canada: .... Toronto. ...-

Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by Kaslin
On 06/12/2006 8:02:50 AM PDT · 1 reply · 27+ views

National Review ^ | June 12,006 | Deroy Murdock
Zarqawi’s death is an important milestone in the broader war on Islamofascism As welcome as are the deaths of Zarqawi and six apparent comrades, this is just one significant victory in civilization’s eventual triumph over Islamofascism. From Baghdad to London to Toronto to Atlanta, this brutal, backward ideology never has looked uglier. Americans and our free, modern allies should celebrate Zarqawi’s termination by brave U.S. personnel, and then redouble our urgent efforts at crushing this ideology that poses a worldwide, existential threat to our lives and lifestyles. A piece in London’s Sunday Telegraph traces the bizarre contours of Islamic extremism....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647864/posts

Two notes on the replies to the intitial post. First, I am actually amazed at the total post count that exists on this and second, I am not at all surprised that most of it has continued to be irrational, fallacious, and non-sensical with some bright points of civilized discourse few and far between. In particular I want to thank those who disagreed with me in a polite, respectful, and rational way and for the most part my response now will be addressed to those willing to continue to engage in such discourse.

In response to Jeff Cosford:

You raised some very interesting posts in your response and one in particular had me thinking last night.

"1) No terrorist attacks have occured in the US since the US went into Iraq I believe points to the US military being a lightening rod for the terrorist. Cannon fodder if you will. They are too busy with American forces in Iraq to make any cohesive attack on American soil."

While not exactly the reason for invading Iraq, that is a very interesting point. If, like me, you did not believe there was a significant terrorist presence in Iraq pre-invasion due to the nature of Saddam Hussein's secular Stalanist regime and believed that nations such as Iran posed more of a threat, this argument you raised can still provide an interesting justification. By sending the military abroad you divert attacks from your soil to the military in another location. Initially I saw this rationale tempting as a possible reason to switch my support for the initial justification of the invasion. Just to review, I was opposed to the war in Iraq but believe that success must be the only option there now given the strategic and geopolitical realities the world is facing. While tempting to tentatively support your argument here, however, I will provide a counter-argument. The counter-argument does not dispute the short-term effectiveness of this but rather the long-term. My concern is that such a tactic, perhaps called the "lightning rod" effect as you have described it, is a dangerous one. All nations have limited military power and given this reality, it needs to be used efficiently and effectively in order to bring about favourable strategic objectives. Unless the "lightning rod" effect is an indirect benefit of action taken to accomplish certain goals, I have concerns about its use. Now in Iraq, despite the fact that I believe the invasion was not strategically sound, it is providing this indirect benefit with the main benefit, the objective being brought about because of the invasion not as a justification for the invasion, being to establish an economically viable, successful democracy that will avoid the creation of a Wahabbist state. Therefore in this case the "lightning rod" effect can be seen as a good argument for continuing the mission although I believe there are more important reason for continuation. As an initial justification I think it would be dangerous to make it the central or direct focus but can be an un-articulated indirect benefit. It has to be indirect because I do not believe such an argument could sell politically. Nevertheless, the idea certainly got me thinking last night so thank you for that.

I agree with you that Iran is a threat and needs to be watched. An Iran with nuclear weapons could have a devastating destabilizing effect on the region. However, I wonder if this effort is more nationalist fuelled rhetoric than a concrete foreign policy strategy for the future. One possible idea to consider, and I admit I will need to study this more, is that Ahmadineajab is using a ground-swell of nationalism in the region as a tool. He has very public anti-western rhetoric which is used to sweep the people into a frenzy. As a result, he can further an anti-reformist agenda domestically in Iran, reverse what reform was made, and revert it back to what it had been. I think that his rhetoric is more a political tool than a signal of an aggressive foreign policy involving a possibility of war or in the long-term, nuclear weapons. Iran's threat lies as a refuge for terrorists.

One thing I think that some of us do need to be concerned about, however, is Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally in the "war on terrorism" for now because it is under the control of a moderate dictator instead of an Islamist regime. What some may not know is that Pakistan has developed missiles capable of hitting not only India, its nuclear rival, not only part of China, a possible nuclear rival, but also Israel. What we need to recognize is that we cannot forget about potential threats but also that this "war on terrorism" is missing something important. The Bush administration has framed as a combat war against terrorists. I think the more important war is an ideological battle against extremist interpretations of Islam and the only way to win it is not to just kill or capture terrorist leaders but rather separate them from the people and thus cut off recruitment. It's an ideological battle because we need to convince people that a different approach will lead to much more than the extremist approach pontificated by the likes of bin Laden. If we isolate the terrorists to a smaller and smaller group of individuals by stopping people from being recruited then the battle would be almost over. Not only that, having more people on side would make it easier to capture the terrorist leaders as they will have fewer and fewer allies and sympathizers.

To Lookout:

You're right, I did not comment on the CBC. I will state this: I think the CBC does itself a disservice sometimes by making unexplained assumptions in the way it presents the news. In this case, the CBC has assumed that people will feel that three prisoners committing suicide hurts the US because it exposes the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay again which has been a controversial and to an extent polarizing issue. The way they should have framed the story was to put important clarifiers on what they are saying and avoid generalities. In effect I will actually do the very rare thing (I have never done it before I don't think) of agreeing with Kate on something. Her comments on this subject were perfect. I will take them one step further. By making these assumptions the CBC risks generalizing sentiment towards the issue. Wording is important, stating that "some argue that this incident is a potential blow to the administration after the success of the killing of Al-Zarqawi because (and explain the links)" would be a more acceptable presentation of the facts. What would be even better is to present the arguments of both sides (this should be the ideal after all). To simply say this is a blow to the US or to present the news in such a short and unfortunately simplified manner opens the CBC up to some criticism over its presentation of the news. As a public broadcaster the CBC has a duty not to present the news with any form of bias, generalities, or assumptions but rather to present the news in an unbiased manner and to show both sides of the story in a rational manner. As a staunch supporter of public broadcasting and in particular, a strong believer that public broadcasting has the greatest possibility of becoming the least biased of news sources, I think the CBC needs to do better sometimes as it is failing its mandate.

To Terry Gain:

First of all, you argue that it was more wise to invade Iraq rather than Afghanistan but fail to provide an argument as to why. If the US wanted to fight extremism in the Middle East Iraq would be one of the last targets I would have picked. Iran, Syria, and while not in the Middle East, Libya would have been my first targets if I believed in the approach the US has taken. I would be curious as to why you think the war in Iraq made more sense.

Second, I would dispute with your tactics. You argue that killing enough terrorists will eventually convince them to give up and others not to join up. However, this is assuming that terrorism and those who commit them are in a bubble with no other circumstances around them. If we put them into the context of the region I think something different would emerge. Even if we killed enough until they stopped (something which I am skeptical is possible all on its own), there would still be extremist elements but ones that may have been scared out of blowing up innocent women and children. I would argue the more effective strategy is not to cut off the head right away but rather chop at the body. The ideological war is the more important war to win if we are to have any change in the Middle East and have security and an end to extremism down the road. We can keep killing terrorists but if we could stop the flow of recruits by providing a different option and winnnign the battle to convince them that this is the option then we chop up the body leaving only the helpless head. I essentially already argue this above so please refer to that.

Interesting discussion, I hope others will engage it in a more intelligent and rational manner rather than continuing to pontificate blind rhetoric and fallacious arguments.

Just once I would like a radical conservative to admit whether or not there are more rules governing the conduct of nations than:

1. My deemed necessity knows no bounds, and
2. Might is right.

More than a yes or no answer would be appreciated.

For all the people who are logic challenged and who equate Gitmo with a police/human rights issue, please think for a moment.

In war (and this is war,) you don't have to charge prisoners with crimes to hold them. You just have to still be in war and have caught members of the other side. These detainees fall into one of two categories: POW's or unlawful combatants.

Pow's are held until the end of hostilities then are returned to the country of origin. They are required to be treated humanely. No charges (unless war crimes or crimes against humanity are alleged) are needed to hold onto these people until hostilities end and a permanent peace agreed upon. It would be foolish beyond reason to release prisoners just to have to fight them a second time. You keep them under lock until the war is over. This is simple logic to comprehend.

Unlawful combatants in recorded history have been summarily executed for violating the rules of war. They have no rights. They are shot. Period. No human rights, no lawyers, no whining about what they're owed. Nothing but the bullet. The reason for this is that unlawful combatants put innocents at risk. The reason they are shot without mercy is to save the civilian populations, the medical teams, aid workers, etc. If you are not uniformed, if you target civilians, if you hide behing civilians, if you wear fake aid or medical uniforms, if you engage in terror you are acting outside of the rules and are no longer protected by those same rules.

The US has detained the unlawful combatants in Gitmo instead of shooting them as international law and precedence allows. In other words, they have been granted privileged treatment not owed them simply because the Yanks are too kind to give them the bullet in the head they have earned. Many will argue that the US is being too kind and that these creeps should have been given the bullet they earned long before they are able to be propaganda weapons against those who gave them better treatment than they deserve (and count me in that category of thinking.) In granting these savages more than fair treatment, the Yanks have been pilloried by the left the media and the human rights hypocrites and UN lackeys who know better and are lying about the facts.

Maritime Liberal: you say you hate the propaganda but I do not hear you decry the CBC's lies. The UN's lies. Koffi Annan's lies. Jack Layton's lies. Even Amnesty International's lies and propaganda.

The rules of war are crystal clear. The Gitmo set have been granted days on earth they are not entitled to. They have been given this as a gift from Uncle Sam and the American people because of their compassion and respect for humanity - a respect not shared by the detainees. The other side cuts off the heads of Aid workers, Journalists, contractors building schools and hospitals. Our side holds savage murderers in comfortable confinement with 3 square and religious rights.

There have been many detainees released and some have been subsequently killed in fighting. In other words, the US and its allies have had to fight them twice. This is no way to fight a war. You don't win by disadvantaging yourself - especially when the other side has no limits.

Is holding these people immoral then? Tell that to the families of those killed if they are released. What of their rights? What of the rights of the people both here and there to live without fear of terror and death? Why do they not deserve any rights? Why would the rights of savages and murderers outweigh the right of the innocent merely to live?

Charges and lawyers are unnecessary. These aren't criminals, this is war and they are violating the rules of even this bloody institution. The rules of war are meant to tone down the savagery of an inhumane activity. They are meant to curb the abuses of innocents and save as many people as possible from a bloody fate. These rules are there for a reason.

How many German soldiers were sent back to Berlin prior to the Allied Victory? None.

How many German spies/unlawful combatants were shot without trial? Many.

It's time the left stopped treating a war like a domestic policing issue and started taking this war seriously. The other side is.

I've seen credible reports that put it at around 25,000. Give or take. Don't believe me or were you just pointing out that 40,000 is too high? I tried giving a link but it gets caught in a filter for some reason. Google is your friend.

Apparently it isn't yours.

After throwing out "40,000" Iraq detainees as factual, then getting called on it, you halve the number, but still can't provide a verifiable source and link. Give us a break.

... and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq, are being detained without any charges filed

The reason you aren't going to find "40,000" or "25,000", my friend, is that if you are referring to "25,000" terrorist detainees in Iraq, that's ridiculous. If you are referring to "25,00" regular Iraqi army still detained, all of this time, since the military fighting ended, that's just as absurd.

Prisoners of war can be executed summarily under the Geneva convention?

I said no such thing. Your reading skills are as challenged as your ability to provide facts.

I'll repeat again a combatant found on the battlefield not in uniform is not protected by the Geneva Convention. He may be summarily shot with the only requirement being that he is initially identified as per the Geneva Convention. Got that. Also, add that only signatory states of the Geneva Convention get the protection for their uniformed forces. Terrorists have no signatory state. They get a bullet or GITMO. The Geneva Convention is a treaty and not "international law". There is no "internatinal law" entity to which the US is a signatory. It's a lame construct that the clueless trot out.

Warwick, the difficulty arises when you take an "unlawful combatant" prisoner. He stops being an unlawful combatant and becomes a prisoner who is not outside of all law. That's why Gitmo was created, to put these guys theoretically beyond the reach of US law. We'll see how this works out in practice.

lAfghanistan was not involved? Afghanistan was the world's training ground for terrorists. It was the home of Bin Laden. Good god how delusional is that rational. Expending energy worrying about Security certificates that have been used only 15 times instead of the real threat to our liberty that would result from a terrorist attack is lunacy. It is sad that human life is lost for any reason the suicides included. However, the left's concerns is misguided at best based on its underlying beliefs that the Western world was responsible for the attacks such as 9/11 and by coddling these people they will change and stop attacking us. When will the left finally understand that the whole reason for their attacks is based on an intense jealousy and envy of the cultural and economic influence of the Western world. They want the world to return to revert to a medieval time where Islam was almost as dominant as Christianity and eliminate the infidels. They will do anything to achieve this and coddling them only fuels their belief that we lack resolve. It is a time for Churchills not Chamberlains.

"The Geneva Convention is a treaty and not "international law". There is no "internatinal law" entity to which the US is a signatory. It's a lame construct that the clueless trot out."

Speaking of being clueless, Penny, international law is nothing but a series of signed treaties, incl. conventions, that constitute the "entity." Read your own Constitution, which specifically says "all treaties." I linked to it if you don't have it handy.

Agitfact,

So you're with me then?

Next time just shoot them so you don't have to deal with the fool lefties who think that granting them an undeserved kindness automatically entitles them to rights that don't exist in law?

These people can be shot legally under the Geneva Convention because they are unlawful combatants acting outside of the protections of international law. It doesn't matter if they are shot 15 minutes after capture or 15 years. They have no rights. Period.

American Law may grant them rights that International Law does not. If so, then holding them at Gitmo instead of San Francisco is a smart move. You definitely do not want the fringe lefties gaining control. The US would lose about 15 minutes after that happened.

That said, the rules of war are clear. If American domestic law is less so, keep them off American domestic soil... Sounds like solid logic to me.

A quick clarification since I think Albertaman's comments were directed at me. When listing the countries I thought would be more likely targets than Iraq I was assuming that the Afghanistan invasion had already taken place. The war in Afghanistan was an appropriate response to 9/11 and was not mentionned in my list because I was assuming the same initial course of action. On a technicality, I did not even need to do this as the US did not declare war on Afghanistan, the allies in NATO did by invoking article 5.

CBCpravdas take on it. note the believed to be, why say it, he only video taped and bragged about it .

The leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Zarqawi was believed to have been responsible for numerous car and suicide bombings, as well as the beheadings of foreign and Iraqi hostages.

Killed along with al-Zarqawi was Sheik Abdul-Rahman, his spiritual adviser.

Caldwell said a "treasure trove" of information was discovered in the safe house, and that several raids of insurgents have already been carried based on what was found.

Serves me right for not scanning my last post. I forgot the final sentence before I selected submit. I was going to say that since the US led the invasion but was not the first to declare the war then my list of targets made logical sense without clarification but I thought I would make it nonetheless to avoid any confusion caused by people not reading and thinking before writing (and yes I was guilty of that in my last post because I forgot this sentence but alas perfection and perfectability is the thing we all desire and must strive for as it is the highest form of human development but, as with all good things, it is very difficult to achieve).

Whoops:My comments were directed at lberia.

Penny wrote: "The reason you aren't going to find "40,000" or "25,000", my friend, is that if you are referring to "25,000" terrorist detainees in Iraq, that's ridiculous. If you are referring to "25,00" regular Iraqi army still detained, all of this time, since the military fighting ended, that's just as absurd."

I'm refferring to 25,000 alleged terroists, resistance, and criminals. I know you think it's absurd. And you seem to think that what you think is absurd is untrue. But then, why not go find out for yourself. You appear to have an internet connection. It won't take long. Don't ask again.

In response to my "Prisoners of war can be executed summarily under the Geneva convention?"

You wrote: "I said no such thing. Your reading skills are as challenged as your ability to provide facts."

Challenged reading skills? I believe your writing skills are as challenged as your ability to look things up. Ahem...here is your original comment: "...when in the history of warfare...did any country have to file individual charges(?)against every combatant captured on the battlefield and held in custody? Are you not getting the circumstances, big and small, as to why these jihadis got incarcerated? I don't know if every single one of them is to a man is a terrorist either, but, somehow, these incarcerated clowns found their a$$es, real stupidly, at the wrong place at the wrong time during warfare. This is a real and serious war, my friend, not some ACLU exercise in nihilistic stupidity. They are lucky to be getting "3 hots and a cot" rather than a summarily ordered execution as allowed by the Geneva Convention."

Whatever you may have meant Penny, it's pretty clear that you were talking about people currently in custody. Now, if you want to argue that Geneva doesn't apply, fine. But if Geneva does apply, then these people are already in custody, then please just let me know about where and in which convention they may be shot and killed. I can look it up myself at that point. Oh, and you can use the terms Iraq, prisoners, and released in google.

Ted,

I hate to split straws here but Penny said that the detainees can be executed, not Prisoners of War. The difference is paramount.

Unlawful combatants detained by the US are legally able to be summarily executed for violating the rules of the Geneva Convention.

PoW's are not. PoW's are legal combatants afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. They can't be summarily executed and in only rare cases can be executed at all (war crimes and crimes against humanity.)

I'll leave it to her to say if this was her intention but everyone needs to reflect on the difference between a PoW and an Unlawful Combatant.

Warwick,

"If captured, civilians who take a direct part in hostilities are not entitled to P[O]W status, but they must nevertheless be treated humanely. They may also be punished as unlawful combatants but only following a fair trial affording all judicial guarantees."

That is the official opinion of the Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Forces, which you will find at para 318.2 of http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/training/publications/law_of_armed_conflict/loac_2004_e.pdf

As you can see, I'm not with you all the way.

Warwick, I'd like more info on unlawful combatants if you have it. This is the most reliable looking information I've been able to find, but it pretty much contradicts what you've been saying.

As for Penny, only three types of people can be detained, either POW's (or combatants), Unlawful Combatants, or Civilians. The first and last are covered by Geneva. And it would seem, so too are the second. Unless you've got some info that contradicts what I've reproduced below.

"Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant)describes a person who engages in combat without meeting the requirements for a lawful belligerent according to the laws of war as specified in the ThirdGeneva Convention . Countries that identify such unlawful combatants may notnecessarily accord them the rights of prisoners of war described inthe Third Geneva Convention , though they retainrights under the Fourth Geneva Convention such as'respect for their persons, their honour [including rape, or any form of indecent assault], their family rights, their religiousconvictions and practices, ... [to] be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence orthreats thereof and against insults and public curiosity'.

The term has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. It wasintroduced into US domestic law in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin . In thiscase, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and alsobetween those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of warby opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in additionthey are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy whosecretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military informationand communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose ofwaging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitledto the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by militarytribunals."

Agitfact:

lol. I didn't expect you to be.

What you link to is Canadian policy, not a legal obligation by the Canadian (or any other) government under international law.

Again, I did make clear that the US's DOMESTIC law can be different than it's obligations under the Geneva Conventions (although only insofar as it grants additional protections, not the elimination of protections as outlined in the G.C.) As can CDN law and/or policy.

In fact, the judges/lawyers/yappy elites can and do make up stuff right out of their backsides when it suits their agendas. They often also pretend this is law. They can often actually make it so (in the case of judges.) This is the downside of law in that it is presided over by human beings with their own opinions and agendas.

This is the reason for Gitmo to exist. It keeps the domestic lawyering/do-gooder set off the file. That the US gov is keeping the lefty lawyers and judges from gaining jurisdiction over the unlawful combatants doesn't make it illegal. It makes it smart politics/policy. It allows the US to serve its interests without being sabotaged by the enemy within.

The left hates this as the left is used to making anything they don't like illegal (or at the very least claiming it is.) How many times have you heard these same idiots chanting that the US war was "illegal." You hear so much of that crap that the word illegal has lost its meaning. It now just means anything the Daily Kos disagrees with. Much like a racist is now just someone winning an argument with a lefty.

I'm refferring to 25,000 alleged terroists, resistance, and criminals. I know you think it's absurd. And you seem to think that what you think is absurd is untrue. But then, why not go find out for yourself. You appear to have an internet connection. It won't take long.

You threw out the "40,000", then "25,000" numbers for existing detainees, hotshot. It's not my problem to verify your facts. Do you really think I'm going to play your silly little game? Link it, verify it, shut up or stand corrected.

By your own words........

"The places I look for news claim that most of the people in GITMO, and the some 40,000 (give or take) in Iraq, are being detained without any charges filed."

You are correct, Warwick. Thanks.

Oh and Warwick, she called them "combatant", "Jihadis", "clowns". Of those, only the first is actually covered under GC, and whether you call them combatants or POW's, they cannot be summarily executed.

She probably just mispoke. Thought of one thing and wrote another. No big deal, happens all the time. But Penny is incapable of admitting a mistake it seems. Instead, she'll probably just comment on my reading skills and lack of holding her hand through the learning procss.

Warwick, do tell PMSH that the CF JAG is one of "the judges/lawyers/yappy elites [who] can and do make up stuff right out of their backsides when it suits their agendas." You should have no problem finding the e-mail address, and I'm sure he'd be interested.

"Just once I would like one of the lefty trolls here to state categorically and unequivocally whether they believe that if the west retreats, that al-Qaeda stop operations against the west.

Simple question. Yes or no?" (Shaken at 11:13 AM)

Simple answer: No.

Complicated reason: The GWOT did not start with 9/11, and would not end with a withdrawal from Iraq or A'stan.

Sgd. Lefty troll

Agitfact,

If you don't think that half of what comes out of CF Jag is a CYA exercise, you've very naive.

CF Jag is there to protect the generals and politicians. Most of the directives come from on high then are applied by JAG in such a way as to insulate the brass and politicos from the grunts. It is inherently political.

Also, JAG's directives don't have to be based on law. They can change a policy and if the grunts disobey it they are guilty of a crime. Soldiers operate under a whole different set of jurisprudence that makes Gitmo look enlightened... There doesn't need to be a change in any laws for a directive to have the same force as a law. And yes, they make the s**t up as they go along. More so even than civilian courts do because they can. They also have even more VIP's A$$es to cover so the directives tend on the draconian.

I must say though that my original comment on the judges/lawyers/ yappy elites was not in reference to Jag which I put less importance to. They are not civilian courts. They're military courts - as the NYT and the left keeps reminding us of when the Gitmo set was to be set to be tried by the military. Their laws and standards of proof are far different than civilian courts.

CBC Update: (Censored: as ordered by Imam Aly Hindy, Mosque, Scarborough, Ontario; an enclave of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).) Note: Aly says his mosque no longer sells Z-Man's videos; donation$ are accepted for Z-Man's Memorial Fund.

"Al Zarqawi's hands are smeared with the blood of Muslims from all sects."

Our Condolences [OpEd- Al Zarqawi's hands are smeared with the blood of Muslims from all sects.]
Asharq Alawsat [Arabic International Daily - English Edition] ^ | June 12, 2006 | Tariq Alhomayed

Posted on 06/12/2006 10:23:43 AM PDT by bwteim

Our Condolences

12/06/2006

Tariq Alhomayed

Clearly, many in the Arab world were shocked by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the "Boss of all evils" in Baghdad. The murderer of women, children, young and old, Sunnis and Shiites, Sayyids and Sheikhs, Arabs as well as foreigners.The masterminded responsible, for last year's bombings in Amman that killed sixty innocent people in three weddings., the man who couldn't tell the difference between bird hunting and cold blooded murder.

His role as a corruptor was well documented, bearing in mind that his last message to the world encouraged civil war in Iraq. Yet despite all this, there are those who were saddened and shocked by his death. To them we should extend condolences.

Our deepest sympathies go out to all the fundamentalist websites, particularly Alsaha.com. Our sympathies also go out to all the conspiracy theorists, who said that Al-Zarqawi was a fictional character created by the Americans, to justify their shortcomings in Iraq at the expense of innocent Iraqi and Jordanian lives.

One particular conspiracy theorist that use to always call Zarqawi an illusion, said upon hearing the news of his death, that now America's act will spawn many more Zarqawi's more dangerous then their prototype.

We should also comfort the wounded Arab Media, which has lost a major source for extremist videotapes. These recordings became the benchmark of excellence in our industry, where the criterion for success was set by the most ignorant of individuals, particularly when it comes to standards of professionalism in journalism.

We sympathize with all of them. The writers, journalists and the TV channels. An honorable mention should go out to our friends at Al-Jazeera, who refused to answer a simple question by one of our journalists about why their Zarqawi coverage seemed slanted. Their reply; "we do not wish to speak or deal with Asharq Al-Awsat."

I do not know if this was their genuine position, our just a byproduct of the shock they are going through, but it is important to point out that an Iraqi viewer named Hassan Salman called on a live program on Al-Jazeera, and said the following;

" I value this channel. However, I hope you commit yourselves to objectivity. The Iraqi people are celebrating the death of Zarqawi while you are holding a funeral in your channel."

Of course, we do not expect our friends in Doha to alter their coverage of Al-Zarqawi just for our sake, baring in mind that we published a piece on al Zarqawi that included some sympathetic elements, However, we can never claim that Al Zarqawi spent his days busy encouraging Iraqis to read more, grow better harvest or build schools.

Al Zarqawi's hands are smeared with the blood of Muslims from all sects. Homes, schools, houses of worship and even relief organizations that worked to help the Iraqi people were not safe from his blood lust. How could an entire media organization ignore this?...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647945/posts

Here's to all the lefties on this illegal war crap....

On September 01/1939, Germany invaded Poland. Three days later, England declared war on Germay. On September 10th/1939, Canada also declared war on Germany.

What the hell did Germany's invasion of Poland have to do with England. Wait a minute... England attacked Germany for the Bratwurst. It couldn't have been for any other reason. Hitler had no WMD's either... except of course for Hitler himself. And he managed to do a bit of damage.

Would any of you moronic lefties deny that taking out Hitler was the wrong thing to do? Only during the latter part of the war, did we find out about the Holocaust. Should we have waited until then to go in?

Why didn't the world just sit back and let Germany have their way with Poland?

There comes a time where wars are started to prevent other wars. Nobody knows for sure. I guess history will tell us if taking out a weapon of mass destruction (Hussein) was the right choice.

All I know is that no Kurds have been gassed by Sadaam since he's been in custody.

So all you hug a thug types, grow a spine. If it wasn't for men and women willing to do our dirty work, none of us would have the ability to speak about anything for fear of being murdered by the state.

If

Here's to all the lefties on this illegal war crap....

On September 01/1939, Germany invaded Poland. Three days later, England declared war on Germay. On September 10th/1939, Canada also declared war on Germany.

What the hell did Germany's invasion of Poland have to do with England. Wait a minute... England attacked Germany for the Bratwurst. It couldn't have been for any other reason. Hitler had no WMD's either... except of course for Hitler himself. And he managed to do a bit of damage.

Would any of you moronic lefties deny that taking out Hitler was the wrong thing to do? Only during the latter part of the war, did we find out about the Holocaust. Should we have waited until we found out what the Nazis did to the Jews (and the Gypsies, the Gays etc.) before we went in? Or might it have been too late?

Why didn't the world just sit back and let Germany have their way with Poland?

There comes a time where wars are started to prevent other, bigger wars. Nobody knows for sure when that is. But the way fanatical Muslims are acting with their weapons of terror and in light of 9/11, this may have been one of those times.

But I guess history will tell us if taking out a weapon of mass destruction (Hussein) was the right choice.

All I know is that no Kurds have been gassed by Sadaam since he's been in custody.

So all you hug a thug types, grow a spine. If it wasn't for men and women willing to do our dirty work, none of us would have the ability to speak about anything for fear of being murdered by the state.

As long as we live free, there will be people who want to kill us for just that. If they want to kill us, there is no talk that can convince them otherwise.

God Bless the people in the military willing to die so that we can argue like this on Kate's site without fear of reprisal.

And as for all your lefties that think you can negotiate with those thugs, go over there and have a chat with them. You bring back a peace accord, I'll admit I was wrong...

I dare you!

I suggest those of you whining about the need to extend "human rights" and protects to those who flaunt the rules of war, go to http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html and read "Sanctuary".

It will explain for you the absolute moral depravity of your position.

Or it should, if you possess any ability to think a position through to its logical consequences.

(url fixed)

Kate,

You need an "l" on the end of the link (html ended a letter early...) to make it work.

The Canadian left does not so much ask America to disregard it as demand that we do.

There was a brief, shining moment before the Harper campaign really got underway, when the liberal Canadians became so vituperative that Americans were briefly stung by it. Sadly, those days have now passed.

This brief two or three month period was quickly followed by a new American education about the fact that Canada does not elect its senators, that Canada has not found a way to offer equal representation to its people, that Canada has dozens of separatist movements, that Canada forces its people to be fluent in the French language in order to participate fully in politics. And then of course, Americans were astounded to discover that the Bonanno crime family had infiltrated the highest levels of Canadian government (I understand members of Parliament used to whistle the theme from The Godfather when Alphoso Gagliano walked in the room).

Before Belinda started dancing on tables... etc, etc, ad infinitum.

No one in the United States pays attention any more to the Canadian left. It worked hard for its place in the opinion of the American public, and it has earned it.

Now I'm happy to report that a new a more productive relationship is occurring because of the election of Stephen Harper. We have resolved softwood lumber, Canada has entered the armed struggle against terrorism (officially), our people and our politics are sharing a warmer relationship.

We are horrified to learn of the Toronto-17 cell, and if any of them would like to knock themselves off, we would be happy to supply the rope.

I'm working my way through it.

So far, Wow! Very impressive.

...."But what has shocked and dismayed me, way beyond the sadness and regret of our losses, has been the willingness, even the eagerness, among many on the left who want nothing more than to see our side lose.

Our soldiers are fighting and dying to install what any sane person can see is a widely-representative democracy, heroically elected at great personal risk. Opposing them are a shadow army of former secret policemen, state torturers, and foreign invaders of every stripe who kill Iraqi policemen, behead innocent Iraqi cabdrivers, and detonate car bombs at the opening of new schools and children’s centers. There may be an explanation for this support I am not seeing. I, for one, can not get past the idea that millions of Western Progressives would rather see a nation re-enslaved, or erupt in civil war, or have twenty thousand of their countrymen come home in boxes than admit that they were wrong.

And they have the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to claim the moral high ground?

I am trying my level best to understand how and why someone who professes to be for freedom for artists, homosexuals and women – not to mention unlimited personal expression of every stripe -- can take the side of 8th Century religious fanatics who brag about murdering writers, stoning women, beheading homosexuals and instituting moral policemen at every street corner with unquestioned authority to beat, jail or execute anyone suspected of being insufficiently pious.

I used to wonder why civilizations fell. No longer. I see it now before my eyes, every day. Civilizations do not fall because the Barbarians storm the walls. The forces of civilization are far too powerful, and those of barbarism far too weak, for that to happen.

Civilizations fall because the people inside the Sanctuary throw open the gates."....

Brilliant article Kate.

Especially because its main point is exactly what I was trying to say - but it was way better for being so eloquent ;)

Good grief. What an unfocussed ramble. Big, though. Obviously to some people size matters. :)

Dawg,

What's unfocused is your comprehension.

That lack of ability to understand logic and reason is what makes you a lefty.

But thanks for coming out.

Many thanks, kate, for the link to the article. It's excellent. It tells us basic reality, basic truth.

These islamofasicsts have indeed violated the 'Sanctuary of the Uniform, the sanctuary of surrender, the sanctuary of mercy - and - the sanctity of religion'. And, as noted, 'they did it'. They, themselves, broke all rules, violated the rights of civilians - and - the rules of war.

The left, of course, will never understand this, their goal is for democracy to lose.

I see so many arguments made here by both righties and lefties based on comparisons between the war on terror and Vietnam,WWII and others.This is somewhat misguided.
It seems to me the more accurate comparison is to the war on drugs.
I realized this when I finally OD'd(pun intended) from peoples' comments about WINNING the war on terror.The war on drugs has cost multiple billions,multiple millions imprisoned and for all intensive purposes is being lost and has been for the past 30 yrs.There is still NO sign of a victory anywhere on the horizon.
Terrorism has been with us a very long time,groups from almost every corner of the world have used it.They do not declare war as a nation,nor do they wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians,they CANNOT be fought as an army in a battlefield,they cannot be carpet-bombed,and as we have just witnessed,they can pop up anywhere.
We may indeed be successful in coming years at cultivating democracies in Iraq and Af'gan,but how can ANYONE seriously believe we have the means to end terrorism in this world.I usually witness extreme naivetty on the left,but on this topic,everyone seems to be concentrating so much energy to win their petty little partisan arguments,they have lost perspective on the big picture!
But at least the right-minded here do understand what a serious enemy terrorists are.Meanwhile the left cruises along blissfully ignorant of the fact,as they make their self-rightious little speeches,that they are aiding this enemy,especially on the crucial front of propaganda.And when confronted with this behavior,they predictably turn the tables and and again predictably deny doing what they have been caught red-handed doing!No g*dd*m wonder the unethical LPC can still find supporters in this country!(Oops,got sidetracked for a second)
If someone here can explain to me how we can end terrorism worldwide,I'm all ears.Until then,I believe it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that a war on terror can be won!
That is not to say we should be passive and give up,that would be suicide.But to pretend that"winning"in the ME will end terrorism is utter nonsense.Especially since now,thanks to the weak lefties in NA,we have demonstrated ourselves to be divided and uncommitted.

Canadian observer - it isn't that a 'war on terror' can be won. Terrorism is a tactic, and a reprehensible tactic. The actual war being fought is against islamic fascism. That can be won, but, it has to be fought on two sides.

Within the Muslim community, they must themselves reform Islam, moving it out of a tribal doctrine and capable of allowing its adherents to operate within an open society, an industrial economy and a pluralist, global world.

Within the non-Muslim community, we must reject Islamic fascism and refuse to accomodate it within our ignorant policies of multiculturalism. We must insist on evaluating diverse modes of belief and behaviour as to whether those modes assist or deny the ability to the Open Society to function. We must insist on freedom of speech, the right to debate, to question, to analyze, to dissent - and - to evaluate.

Those tactics, along with the military requirement to deny totalitarian Islamic regimes the power to enslave their people - will work.

By the way, apparently the lawyers for the defense, ie, the accused Muslims, are 'furious' because the court has imposed a publication ban.

But, earlier in the day, one of the lawyers (Galati?) was arguing that because of the MSM publicity, his client would be unable to obtain a 'fair trial'.

So, what's their point? To insist on publicity, so that they can claim an unfair trial....
And, of course, they are now claiming 'torture' and etc.

After a while, the rhetoric becomes a litany and empty of meaning.

ET,understand all your points,except I still believe you are being a total optimist and denying reality.Please consider this:
At this time,the muslim community around the world is NOWHERE near demonstrating ANY interest in stopping this disease in it's own ranks.Cripes,just look at the muslim-Canadian reactions to the arrests in Ontario,they immediately circled their wagons and lashed out at US!And these are CANADIANS!
You also point out non-muslim responsibilities.May I humbly suggest we have NO influence on extreme muslims behavior.As a matter of fact,a good portion of the west itself is busy defending and supporting these people.You should be aware of this more than most,you spend a lot of energy arguing with them each and every day!
Finally,as you say,these tactics may eventually work.What you fail to say is it might take 5,50 or 500 years!
My point was that sooo many here seem to believe victory in Iraq will end terrorism.I merely suggest we ain't seen nothing yet!

Co- I agree that victory in Iraq won't end Islamofascism - but, it will be an enormous step to that end. By 'victory', I mean enabling the Iraqi people to maintain their decision for a democracy.
That's valid also in Afghanistan.
These will influence Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia - whether those tribal dictatorships like it or not!

As for the Muslim reaction in Canada, I'm not as sceptical as you. There were several voices raised in the Muslim community - that they must deal with this extremism in their ranks; that they mustn't allow it to happen. There was open criticism by Tarek Fatah and Salim Mansur - and a few others - of the Muslim isolationism and rejection of reality.

I think that non-Muslims have to openly reject the multicultural morass - and there are more and more voices against multiculturalism. At one time, it was as sacred an axiom as our ridiculous health care, but, it is starting to crumble.

The worst culprits are the sophist left, who immediately spring to bleat their simplistic mantras (Orwell's sheep) about 'human rights', ignoring the rights of the presumed victims of islamofascist violence. Their rejection of reason, their revisionist emotionalism, which rewrites reality into frames where the perpetrator is the victim, and the real victim is the oppressor - we are all familiar with those refrains.

But, my optimism comes from another perspective, that of 'la longue duree'..which says that a fascist ideology focused on a Return to Original Purity - with that Original Purity operating in a lifestyle that is closed, tribal and functional only in a 6th century peasant agriculture - can't work in our modern world.

It simply can't work; it is inflexible, unable to develop, non-scientific, can't deal with the massive global population, the diseases, famines, imbalances of our ecological reality. So, islamofascism can't work, not only because no collectivist ideology can work in a large scale population, but, it can't work because its social and political and economic modes are 6th century. We live in the 21st century.

No sane person would argue that the terrorists are right or that islamofascism it right. The problem with this particular "War on Terror" is that it is a smokescreen for something else and that something else is control of oil. This whole fiasco in the middle east is an exercise in hypocrisy and unfortunately it has become a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us," which leaves no room for discussion.

Short of killing off the entire Muslim population of the world, there is no way to guarantee an end to Islamic terrorism. Short sighted George W. and his band of chicken hawks never imagined anything beyond being showered with flowers for bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, and having a secure source of oil. Now, with no exit strategy it's apparent that there will be many years of blood-letting ahead with no secure source of oil and no easy way of getting untangled from this mess. Hope you war mongerers are satisfied.

Iberia - I agree that the islamofascist notion of 'if you aren't with us, you are against us' is a problem - i.e., they are determined to compel everyone to be either Islamic or in 'dhimmitude' to Islam. Or, you are an infidel and must be murdered.

But, most certainly, this situation isn't about oil - other than that the revenues from oil have kept totalitarian despots in power. The way to end Islamofascism is democracy. There is no other way. Bush is engaged in a 'long-sighted' view, which sees that the tribal systems of the ME have, with the exponential growth in ME population, become dysfunctional.

The reason for Islamofascism is the disempowerment of the ME multi-million population that has emerged in the last few decades - by tribalism. Tribalism empowers only one tribe. All economic and political actions are kinbased. That's disastrous for a large population which must move to a civic, or non-tribal mode. But, as you note, oil enabled the tyrants to form their tribalism into military dictatorships. And, this type of tribalism was merged with religion - which meant that you couldn't debate its axioms and change them. That is what has led to fascism.

The only answer, as Bush has also shown, is democracy. That empowers all the people, not just a key tribe.

I don't think you should fret about a 'secure source of oil'. There's still enough there (and they have to sell it) and elsewhere. But the best economic mode for them, is democracy.

- and the West is the Home of Science. We are moving out of the oil age and into a hydrogen and/or helium age.

...that something else is control of oil.

With oil above $60 a barrel and holding on the futures market for months and a huge increase to about $3 a gallon in the states, guess the Americans didn't do too well in getting all of that coveted Iraqi oil exclusively, as if the elected Iraqi government and citizens would allow that.

Oil, birdbrain, is a very transparent global commodity. China and India are growing markets, they pay real money too for what they need. It's almost impossible to monoplized the world's crude oil as either supplier or consumer.

Your understanding of economics is as limited as your grasp of events in Iraq. But, then, when have lack of facts ever inhibited a trolling idiot?

ET,your wishing and hopefulness will NOT make it reality!...Plus my original post wasn't directed at only you.Just because YOU have rationalized to yourself it can be won eventually does NOT change the fact many people in North America(right or left)DO believe that we can actually WIN this self-described war on terror like it was a football game.
My reference to the war on drugs DEMONSTRATES the futility of a war with no easily discerned enemy,where ALL citizens are NOT fully behind the government and the enemy is domestic and foriegn!
I can only hope you are right and I am wrong,but I won't hold my breath!

To win the war on teror we have to eliminate the enemy.

FREE..Easily said,but not easily performed!

How come so many here want a world with courts just your against me you die attitude.
They claim we need no save guards because our leaders wouldn't do the wrong thing. Nobody could ever take control of our land from within because????????
You already work for the banks, who makes money in times of War? Banks, who owns your home who do you pay money to each month?

People talk about the oil but whats oil but an offshoot of money. Cheney makes millions because of his shares in Halliburton, so why did the White House give them all those contracts, the ones that someones stealing from, Why does the White House refuse to help get the TAX Dollars back that were stolen from the Taxpayer? How many elected people have been charged with stealing money from Iraq contracts, 10, 20, 100?

Can anyone prove that the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11? Why did the lawfull winner, from Argentina, of the bid to build the pipeline in afghanistan lose the contract the day after 9/11?

So much of whats going on over there isn't know by most here.

Seems to me that we've done all this before wait we did back in 1920, the reason to free the people from oppression.

Ted (at 10:04):

"I didn't elect anyone in Iran"

You didn't elect anyone in the U.S. but it doesn't stop you from condemning them.

"Its wrong when they do it. Its wrong when we do it".

Herein lies the heart of the moral bankruptcy to which Kate refers.

Our "it" involves providing a Koran (along with proper Muslim handling instructions to the guards) and an authentic prayer mat, to our detainees.

Their "it" involves cutting off our heads after making us plead for our lives on video.

The great moral equivalence summed up in a single ambigous word "it".

As for the other query as to whether I posted about the treatment of gays in the Middle East, actually yes I have, in fact I've specifically condemned the horrible practice of dropping stone walls on gays. I've also noted that condemnation seems to escape those on the left who decry the treatment of gays in North America: if it means supporting one of "Bush's wars (in Afghanistan)" apparantly gays having to risk stone walls dropped on them will have to fend for themselves.

Nice of you to use the notion of gay rights and their suffering in the Mid East, for a little jab, no doubt to be again cast aside with other rights of convienience to be trotted out when trying to score your next political point.

WITHOUT

sorry :)

Mitch How many supposed terrorist died in jails from the treatment of their captors, last count 108, the US said they'd stop water boarding. But they just grap people off the streets from countries around the world and take them away. these people we know nothing about, just their kidnapping.

All these things some here are proposing is the same thing that so many fought against for so many years. Now the very people we were protecting are doing unto others what we protected them from.

This is what your turning into people. Just like the commies, we were warned about, would do to its people.

People talk about the oil but whats oil but an offshoot of money.

So are cornflakes.

You make it so easy. Oil is a commodity like copper, coal, pork bellies, soy, corn, silver, etc.

Oil trades on the world's future markets. People that need it, buy it. People that have it, sell it. Supply and demand set the price.

Do you just willfully suspend reality or are your rantings some kind of affirmative action for the economically and logically impaired?

How many supposed terrorist died in jails from the treatment of their captors, last count 108

Got a verifiable link to that? Deal it out. Otherwise, your rantings aren't worth the bytes wasted on them.

Prisoner Deaths in U.S. Custody
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/03/16/national/w113007S95.DTL&type=printable

This is just a small list from March.
The US has more but I can't remember where it is right now.

Alot of their deaths are listed as homicides.

Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005

(AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel.

The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed.

The other post got grabbed with more links for ya.

"Your understanding of economics is as limited as your grasp of events in Iraq. But, then, when have lack of facts ever inhibited a trolling idiot? "

Posted by: penny

It certainly hasn't stopped you, has it. In the next sentence of my comments I said that this fiasco has resulted in NOT having a secure source of oil. What the hell are you arguing about? And what the hell do you know about this issue anyway? Just because you believe what Bush and company say doesn't make it true. Anyone with half a brain can see that this whole mess is becoming another Viet Nam.

Kate, at 01:58 PM -

"It will explain for you the absolute moral depravity of your position.

Or it should, if you possess any ability to think a position through to its logical consequences."

Well, Kate, I have worked my way through the whole link, both parts, out of curiosity and as a form of cruel and unusual punishment for being disagreeable. I don't know which part was supposed to "explain" to me the "absolute moral depravity" of my position, the liberal use of derogatory adjectives perhaps? I can get the same from a short post by Penny.

What I do recognize is the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the writer's position: if you have nothing to say, wrap it in as many anecdotes and words as possible. Claim heroic virtues for your side, and decry the oppostion. Where have I seen this before?

Please let me know how many of the Ghraib/Gitmo detainees were captured under the circumstances writ up large, the devious ambush of friendly forces. How many were captured or surrendered in open battle? How many were denounced, or picked up on speculation? How many came from countries other than Iraq or Afghanistan? Etc., etc.

Now, Kate, I don't recall singing the praises of terrorists or Ghraib/Gitmo detainees. That is merely another of the multitude of cheap shots in the rant that is wide of the mark. But I do point out that their treatment is self-serving, and arbitrary as not being in accordance with the customs and practices of military or civil law. It's worse than a crime, Kate, it's a mistake. Leave the question of humanity or human rights out of it - in itself the American treatment of detainees discourages friends and confirms enemies. And in future I would not fancy being an American held captive under any circumstances anywhere.

Bit of a long shot ascribing the lack of terrorist attempts agains the USA to intelligence gathered by gentle or other coercion. I don't think that there would have been a requirement to "Protect Source," so any attempt foiled would have been great and welcome news to be spread widely.

If there were no demonstrations against Hitler, it was because he and his apparatus were firmly in control by the time the design was plain. There may not have been many people on the streets, but there were a fair number in concentration camps. Which makes it all the more important to resist the beginnings of fascism, Right or Left, American or Islamic.

So, Kate, give me the facts to explain the moral depravity of my position to me. I am quite able to think a position through to its logical end, but not if the position is nothing but designer phrases. A credible syllogism needs terms, not just a conclusion.

Out of 65,000 most have been freed. So the ones remaining are the ones the U.S. forces considers the most dangerous, the biggest threat. The worst of the worst.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of truly innocent and persecuted people on the planet today this is quite the group to fight for.

Course defending all those other hundreds of thousands doesn't involve bashing Bush, so redardless of how innocent they are, and how tortured thier captivitiy (or mass slaughters) may be, if it doesn't have the right political impact, to bad so sad. It's just so much easier (and personally pleasing) to simply talk up U.S.'s abuses rather than acknoleging the true horrors the U.S. forces are fighting against.

Penny, if your blood pressure can stand it, read Chapter 2 of Greg Palast's just-published "Armed Madhouse." It's about oil and Iraq and OPEC. I know he is a muckracker, but he cites facts, not just opinions.

"The problem with this particular "War on Terror" is that it is a smokescreen for something else and that something else is control of oil...."

Standing by my earlier comments: "Oil is a commodity like copper, coal, pork bellies, soy, corn, silver, etc......Oil trades on the world's future markets. People that need it, buy it. People that have it, sell it. Supply and demand set the price." The US got no special deal with Iraq's oil, as if the democratically elected government there would support the US hijacking their principle source of revenue. The present price of our oil imports and at retail here endorses that we pay the price like everyone else on the global futures/spot market.

Forget the backtracking clarification. Do you forget, when confronted, that what you've stated is captured in print above? Just curious.

Here's an interesting little story about the lovely and talented Rocco Galati, who represents one or more of the Mississauga 17. It's from Dec 2003 and concerns his advocacy for one of the equally lovely and talented Khadr's:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/002017.html

Oil is power you need it to impose your will on others.

But look at the money they've made on this war.
Flechettes are cheap to make and kill all the bad guys, but they're illegal.

They're not spending it on the reconstuction.

They are spending it on the new Huge bases they are building for the long term stay of US troops.

Why does the World cry out for an end to this war?

How many bases does the US need in the middle east? Why are so many of the countries that are friends of the US, run by dictators? What gives the US the right to interfere with another counties politics or change the leadership? Which they always seem to bring in a dictator.

Who knows when they send your job to the middle east, because some will do it for pennies, and your family ends on welfare becuase the only jobs are those in the police, the millitary or prison guards. Most people aren't needed anymore so war will get rid of the excess.

The new private prison work farm is coming, so why pay for what you can get done for free, gets rid of that labour expense off the books more profit for some.
If your not making the profit then your doing the labour.

Penny:

Do you think for one second that the US would spend hundreds of billions of dollars and entertain the deaths of thousands of people so that Iraq could sell it's oil to China? Give your head a shake!

penny
Its all about oil. The U.S. will be in charge of the pumping, storing, shipping, exploration, building the oil terminals, the auxilliary buildings plus a plethora of other government and private contracts. Just like in Alberta where the U.S. controls everything but has deemed it reasonable to give Alberta 1% royalty until and unless the oil companies ever show a profit on paper only then will Alberta get 27% royalties. America is not an economic giant because they don't do very good deals for themselves.

The US pays a competitive price for Iraqi oil. Otherwise, they won't be getting it for long. And why cheat an economy you've invested billions in to succeed.

If US companies, as opposed to the now defunct Saddam supporting French, whom the democratic Iraqis refused to renew contracts with, are servicing and exploring Iraqi oil, so be it. They are after all one the best experienced and equiped to do that anywhere.

Hey, neutralsam, still waiting on your "last count 108" verifiable link. Are you working on that?

Here's one for all.

How did the USA treat Canada during the softwood lumber deal?

Was the out come Fair?

Did they tell the truth when they said Canada was flooding the US market with cheap Canadian lumber?

Why would they tell us the truth now, its not how they play the game?

The last three posts show such a pathetic ignorance about the world oil market it's really too much to address, but Steve's last example takes the cake: Alberta, one of the most prosperous populations on the planet. The rich American oil companies come in and steal our oil, leaving poor Alberta to fend for itself.

God forbid Iraq becomes like Alberta.

Oil companies have investors (hell I may be an investor - I own mutual funds), employees, suppliers, collateral suppliers (like the furniture companies that sell to the employees, investors and suppliers) etc.

BTW Steve, et al, I hate to break it to you, but oil is important cuz we need it for our cars, planes, factories and consumer products. When you decide to start living in a hut, without modern amenities, give me a call. Otherwise you might want to keep the condescending "oil bad" thing down a tad.

penny:

Oil companies are making huge profits largely because the instability of the situation in the middle east has raised world crude prices. And as long as Iraq is selling oil to the US, the Americans don't have to hijack anything. You are being extremely naive or wilfully blind if you don't think the US has any influence over who the Iraqis sell their oil to.

Well penny your not reading the posts. Type in "108 dead prisoners". Then your can read it from who ever you'd like.

So mitch it you know so much what happened to our trust fund from the 70's? Seems to me that the people in charge gave loans to all their friends that never paid them back, they were forgiven.

But we still have some left.

Democracy died a long time ago. Somewhere around the time of the signing of the GATS agreement.

If the rules didn't apply with the softwood problem, why will our complaints meet a different fate here?

Suggested reading for all the GAT Agreement.

mitch:

Get a grip! No one said oil is bad.

I guess by "getting a grip" I'm to enter your fantasy world where, notwithstanding that world oil prices have gone up, apparantly only American oil companies profit (I guess the other oil companies keep their prices below market levels), where notwithstanding that the main economic attack against Bush right now are high oil prices, this was all part of his plan, where the oil for food scandal in which primarily Russian, French and German companies profited off the backs of ordinary Iraqis, didn't happen.

Uhhmmm, I pretty happy in my reality based world thanks.

No,no!! It's not oil, it's gold!

There are huge profits in gold largely because of the instability in the middle east .

Halliburton and all these oil companies have SEC regulations, which make it more difficult for them to manipulate the markets. Hell, even a lot of Middle Easterners have shares of Halliburton.

But the gold market has shot through the roof. It's all the Swiss gnomes. They've been controlling things behind the scenes all along.

They worked it all out in the Council of Foreign Relations. It's all Roberto Calvi, Licio Gelio, and Banco Ambrosiano Group... Ya gotta see the big picture...

neutralsam,

If by our trust fund from the 70s you mean Alberta's Heritage Fund, do you have any links for forgiven loans to friends? This is the first time I've heard that. TIA.

Well Kathryn if you put the two together in google you'll find all kinds of stuff on it. But when the government was asked to disclose the information the refused.

A copy of the Master Agreement, including any amendments thereto, between the Government of Alberta and Peter Pocklington covering a $55 million loan guarantee and a $12 million loan made available to Gainers Properties Inc. on March 3, 1988
Not accepted

A copy of all agreements, correspondence, and other documents covering all understandings between the Alberta Treasury Branches, Palm Dairies Ltd., and Peter Pocklington relating to a $100 million debenture dated March 11, 1988.
Not accepted

They don't like to talk about it. We have only the people in power to believe that nothing wrong was done and the peoples money is safe. The fund should be in the trillions by now shouldn't it?

neutralsam,

Snark wasn't called for.

Denied motions for information are not links to forgiveness of friends' loans. I've been looking and can't find any.

Your evidence of wrongdoing boils down to a lack of evidence of same. Interesting.

This is an amazing thread. It's gotten so massive. Kudos to Kate for drawing in an audience this charged and eager.

That said I will make a few closing remarks.

1. I get that we need to be pretty ruthless with terrorists, and I support it. String 'em up by the balls. That link Kate gave, I'm behind that soldier who killed the wounded dude in the Mosque 100%. As far as I'm concerned you don't question the soldiers on the ground, you question the leadership of them only. I suspect, at least with the 'righties', that in that sense at least I'm on the same side as most people here.

2. I don't think I should need to say such things to be considered 'credible'. Mitch seems to think I do, but I disagree. And when I say I think we should hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others there is nothing contradictory in that and point 1. In other words, if we set some standard, say on beheadings, and if someone violates that, then I don't really have any good reasons why we shouldn't lower our own standards in response. Mitch tries to allude that I think that because American soldiers may have tossed Qurans in the toilet, that's the same as beheadings. Or some such nonsense. It's not that at all. It's just the idea that if something like, for example, freedom of speech really is important, then just because, for instance, Iran violates that principle, we shouldn't automatically violate it as well. Again, as a principle I think most people would agree.

3. There is an unwillingness to see the others point of view on this blog. I got into a disagreement with Penny, which I am perfectly willing to chalk up to a misunderstanding. She said something that, taking at face value, was false. But maybe she didn't mean what I thought she did. Or maybe that's not what she was trying to say. If in fact, the sense in which I took it was false, then I should give her the chance to clarify, or modify, or re-examine her beliefs. Without judgement. But I've seen penny try to hold people to the meaning that she imparts on theirs words. Mitch too.

4. I come here and post here because I think I have something to learn from the people who post here. Your beliefs are different from mine, but because of that, I have an opportunity to examine the faults, weaknesses and problems with my beliefs. That's valuable to me. Unfortunately, learning is difficult when those you are engaged in it with adopt a preaching, or tutoring standpoint. Aside from human nature, where we put our backs up and harden our positions when attacked, it's just not possible to engage in real dialogue without first adopting the position that your own beliefs may be wrong, or in need of modification. Someone above said that sarcasm, wit, and emotion are part of the fun, and I agree. It's fun to score points. But ultimately, that leads nowhere. And in the end I find it unsatisfying. I have been disapointed by an unwillingness to understand what I'm trying to say. And as the thread goes on, I'm as guilty as those I accuse, for reasons noted above.

True Confessions of a Canadian Muslim Islamist Terrorist

The Imam taught me first how to yodel.

Then Imam taught me how to giggle.

Then Imam taught me how to make IED.

Then Imam taught me how to hold Sword of Islam.

Imam and me practiced on a bust of Prime Minister.

Funny thing happened next: we got busted.
...-

“My client advised that as he was being searched, he was touched on the ribs and he is ticklish, and he giggled a bit and the guard held him on the ground and drilled his fingers in the cheek and said, ‘is this funny?’”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Please tell me how you found out that Usama had something to do with the attacks on 9/11?

A Friend asked me if I knew anything that could prove that he had anything to do with the attacks. Seems the FBI can't find any connection to Usama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks.

The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Check out the FBI's most wanted.

Boy, after reading some of the delusional conspiracy theories by our lefty trolls, I'm thinking these guys have been sharing M.Moore's crack pipe.

Here's a fact:

Every single Canadian oil company in Canada could be bought for 242 billion Canadian dollars (and this is a figure from a few weeks back so it's less now with the pullback.) Every. Single. One. Wanna list?

If the war was "all about oil" as the drooling idiots suggest, don't you think that the Yanks could have put their 1/2 TRILLION US DOLLARS to better use? Like, buying up all of Canada's oil?

Hell, they'd still have enough money to buy out Total SA at roughly $285 Billion. Total SA is France's largest oil company, whose largest shareholder is Canada's Power Corp. whose largest shareholder is former PM Chrétien's son-in-law's family. Total SA had the oil contracts under Saddam. France and Canada tried to block the war. All about oil? Maybe. If you're French/French Canadian....

I don't see the troll/demented tin-hat set whining about France and Canada's conspiracy to enslave the Iraqi people under the yoke of Ba'thist tyranny so the Desmarais/Chretien families could prosper...

Of all the stupid, mindless, illogical slanders against the US and their motivation for the war, the "all about oil" motive just may be the most asinine, foolish and typically leftist yet. The US pays the going rate for Oil whether they buy if from Alaska, Alberta, Sudan, Venezuela, Iraq... Invading Iraq didn't get them a discount card. They ain't shopping at fricken Wal-Mart. Iraq's oil is owned by the Iraqi government - not the US Marine Corp.

I think the next most idiotic statement is that the Banks are war profiteers off the Iraqi invasion. Ya, cause Banks love instability. Do you lot have a clue? Really.

Warwick:

It's not about price, it's about access. Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world. So get your head out of your ass.

Iberia,

If a place has oil, it will make it to market at the market price. Regardless.

It really makes no difference who gets the oil because if China or France is supplied by Iraq's oil (like they did under Saddam when it was $18 bbl,) the US will gain access to a greater share of the oil sold by other countries by default. It's a global commodity. The demand is aggregate. If Iraq didn't sell to the Yanks, they would sell to someone else who would then need less oil out of Saudi or UAE or Venezuela... Get it? Of course not. If you understood you'd be a conservative. It's not understanding a damn thing that makes you a lefty.

There is Zero motivation for anyone to invade a country and spend a few hundred billion just to have the privilege of paying $68 a barrel when you can pay the same $68 a barrel from every other oil producing country on earth without getting a few thousand of your countrymen killed, spending hundreds of billions and being endlessly slandered by a band of retard journalists, democrats, professors and other vermin.

Only a retard would think anyone in any country needs to invade a country to buy its oil. There is a very well established network of markets designed to buy and sell oil at the market rate. Even countries that have crappy ineffective militaries are allowed to participate.

In fact, to think that the Yanks need to invade to buy oil is the most pathetic form of intellectually stunted idiocy ever. In the history of stupid. Even by the retard standards of the left.

Even Hugo Chavez sells oil to the Evil Imperialist Yankee Gringos. So why invade? Note: they haven't invaded Venezuela. They aren't going to.

If Iraq had zero oil they still would have been whacked.

Iberia (and other lefties,) you are total, complete morons.

Whatta go, Warwick, the whole range of reason from "A" to "B", and insult from "A" to "Z!"

If you were as good-looking as Ann Coulter, you, too, could become a conservative institution.

(Sorry to blog like a conservative - the devil made me do it.)

Just an addendum to the "Eject! Eject! Eject!" discussion of detainees:

"No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends -- provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying to encourage other countries to adhere to."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060614.html)

If President Bush had deleted "an excuse" and inserted "evidence," he would have gotten it absolutely right.

Agitfact,

Like all lefties when confronting an argument you don't understand, you change the subject...

Nothing at all about the fact that the "no war for oil" line is so ridiculous. Nope, we'll have no retort! just another question, never any answers. Good lefty. Heal for Al Gore. Play dead. Roll over. Tell us half a quote...

Consequently, the other half was W basically saying "but what do we do with those people?" Of course, you have nothing of use to offer on that question either.

Change the subject again then?

Warwick:

You must be stupid: I did not say buy; I said control. Now that the French and Russian oil companies are not welcome in Iraq, American oil companies are involved in the oil business, no doubt with favourable contracts with the new Iraqi government.

"There is Zero motivation for anyone to invade a country and spend a few hundred billion just to have the privilege of paying $68 a barrel..." So what was the motivation? WMDs and unproven links to 9/11? Freedom and democracy?

You're not right just cause you say you are. Time will prove if it was worth all the trouble.

Iberia,

It's you who must be stupid.

You clearly didn't get the point that controlling a country's oil is not relevant because it will get sold on the world market regardless. It doesn't matter which oil goes to which place so long as all the oil keeps flowing. So, if you need more oil or want more oil, all you have to do is buy it on the world market. "Control" is unnecessary. It's a frickin commodity. There is an established market. All you have to do is bid on how much you want and if you out-bid the other market participants, you own it. And for the record, if you own it, you control it. Seems obvious...

The lefty line that the Yanks went in to steal all the oil is just stupid. Not only are they not stealing it, they're protecting the country that is charging them full price for it. The Yanks are still paying Iraq the market rate on the world market. So if the motivation was to "control" the oil, what did they get? $70 oil. They can get $70 oil anywhere. You don't need to invade a country and spend 1/2 a trillion dollars and 2500 lives to get it.

I don't get how people are so stupid as not to see the bloody obvious.

The motivation for war was many things - all of which can be debated on their merits. You can logically argue that the war was not worth it or the reasons were faulty. But an intelligent conversation about the Iraq war would exclude the motivation that wasn't there: oil. That wasn't it. Oil isn't a factor. It takes a special kind of stupid to think otherwise.

Is oil totally irrelevant? Not to the world, not to US and other western interests. The interest lies in stability and a free flow of trade. War is niether. That is why 1) Saudi Arabia is not rubble, and 2) Oil rose from less than $20 a boe to over $70. It remains there in part because of the threat from Iran. But this is a separate thing from the motivation for war. You go to war because you believe a country is a threat to you. You don't go to war to steal something it would be cheaper to buy. Control? If the motivation was to "control" Iraq's oil they would have done a deal with Saddam - Just like the French did. Invasion would be counter-productive.

Get it? Didn't think so...