Overheard on CBC radio news just now – a World Report “news” item on the suicides of three inmates of Gitmo, complete with editorial comment from Dwight Smith that the suicides “spoil the brief moment of success” the US had with the death of al Zarqawi.
Smith made no attempt to explain just how the two incidents are related, much less how the self-inflicted demise of three hard core terrorists in a prison in Cuba dimish the achievement of bringing to an end the career of the world’s second-most wanted butcher.
Because, you know, he’s the CBC and you, lowly listener, should just know these things in your heart.
Update – there are a number of commentors who would do well to read this before continuing with their flawed arguments demanding that those who violate the rules of war have the “right” to protection under the Geneva conventions.
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.