| Hi, if you're reading this, it means you are not logged in. For all visitors.... please feel free to look at the threads. Since we are so slow at the moment the board has been condensed. If you would like to add your own 2 cents, please register.. or log in. Trouble in registering, please send an email to: xray62@gmail.com Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Who cares about Taliban prisoners.; Not even on my radar. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 2 2009, 08:13 AM (73 Views) | |
| Beancounter | Nov 2 2009, 08:13 AM Post #1 |
|
Afghan prisoners not our responsibility By PETER WORTHINGTON Last Updated: 2nd November 2009, 3:59am Former Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in an interview he couldn't recall reading a report in 2006 that warned prisoners captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan might be tortured or abused when turned over to Afghan authorities. Even if Hillier had read the report by Foreign Affairs diplomat Richard Colvin that prisoners turned over to Afghan custody risked torture or human rights abuses ... so what? Hillier's prime concern was combating the enemy, cutting down the risk to our troops, protecting Afghan civilians, and ensuring at best that our guys -- our soldiers -- don't torture or drastically abuse prisoners. It's not the function of Canadian soldiers to monitor what happens when prisoners leave our jurisdiction -- unless, of course, we view ourselves as colonizers and occupiers rather than as allies. Broadly speaking, our military doesn't encourage or advocate torture of anyone, by anyone. But our main concern is that we don't do it. What the Afghans do to one another is beyond our scope -- our mission in Kandahar is not to force cultural changes that have been rooted for generations in the region. Right now Parliament is in a dither over Colvin's 2006 report that Taliban or al-Qaida prisoners turned over to Afghan authorities risked being tortured and abused in a way that cannot be condoned by our side. POLITICAL POSTURING The indignation exhibited by the Opposition in Parliament seems pure political posturing, and is both misguided and inappropriate. Pity the critics aren't equally incensed at what the Taliban inflict on their enemies -- and on women. But no, cultural equivalence comes into play there. Simultaneous with suspicions that Gen. Hillier might have been aware of the report outlining concerns on behalf of Taliban prisoners, the Military Police Complaints Commission has been holding "a public interest investigation" into allegations that military police in Kandahar didn't provide proper medical care to prisoners, and did not properly investigate complaints made by prisoners of abuse. Criminal investigations are underway. Surely this concern is also out of line. Looked at realistically, some 3,000 Canadian troops in Afghanistan are not going to change ingrained customs and attitudes. Yes, we try to lead and persuade by example, but it's a slow and oft-misunderstood process. Taliban fighters know if they ambush Canadian troops, and then hide their weapons when reinforcements counter-attack, that unarmed men are automatically and officially classified as farmers and presumed innocent, even if they aren't. The Afghans may think we're nuts in this regard (they are probably right), but those are the rules of engagement under which our soldiers fight. Zany, but very Canadian. As to what happens to prisoners once they are turned over to Afghan mercies, it's difficult to believe the Canadian public gives a damn. We've endured too many casualties to overly fret about Taliban sensitivities. LOW PRIORITY Gen. Hillier is on tour to flog his book (A Soldier First), and it's reasonable that concern about how Afghans treat prisoners would be a low priority for him in 2006, at a time when Canadians were doing a lot of fighting and consistently clobbering the enemy on every occasion. That most Canadian casualties are the result of roadside bombs and IEDs is testimony that in combat our side invariably wins. Hillier's famous quote that the Taliban are "detestable murderers and scumbags" may be too colourful for the taste of some, but all things considered it is pretty accurate. Beancounter: I totally agree, I have said all along: "Take no prisoners." They are scum and should be exterminated. They are not on my radar any more than Omar Khadr. If I never hear about him again it will be too soon. |
 |
 
|
| ReallyOrnery | Nov 4 2009, 03:25 AM Post #2 |
|
Beancounter: If Canandian troop give accused Taliban prisoners to the Afghans, knowing that they will be abused, then you Canadians are as guilty as the Afghans of committing acts of torture. The US, UK and you Canadfians invaded that nation based on a lie, and now you want to sidestep your responsibilites and obligations simply because it is inconvenient for you to do what is right: ensure the safety of accused Taliban prisoners. Under International Law, the invaders (that's you) are responsible for everything that goes on in the nation that you (the invader) invaded. Your comment, "Hillier's famous quote that the Taliban are "detestable murderers and scumbags" may be too colourful for the taste of some, but all things considered it is pretty accurate," shows just how shallow your thinking is in this matter. Let me give you a slighly deeper point to contemplate: The people you are calling "Taliban" are farmers, merchants and patriots who resent being invaded and occupied by foreign troops. They didn't ask you to 'liberate' them or 'save' them or even 'stick your nose into their business;' but you, the US and the UK decided that y'all knew better than the Afghan people about how they wanted to live and you can't grasp the simple fact that the Afghans resent you being in their nation. Let me ask you something: If Canada were invaded by several nations that wanted you to live like them, who denigrated your religious beliefs and customs, who established a puppet government that wallowed in corruption, who twisted your mores and morals into perversions and who insisted that anyone who opposed them was a terrorist, what would you do: fight or turn quisling; humm? I know what I would do under such circumstances, but I honestly doubt if you would have the hairy coconuts necessary to take up arms against such an invasion and stand against those who would make you their slaves. That is the difference between you Canadians, Americans and the Afghans. Neither the Afghans nor true Americans will tolerate foreign invaders, regardless of their excuse for being in our respective nations -- while you, my friend, would make any excuse to justify -- and profit -- from foreigners raping your nation so long as you made a dollar or two at the expense of your fellow countrymen ==> and women. Invade my nation and I will most definitely put a .223 caliber bullet in your pea-sized brain. No doubt the Afghans think like I do. It's just too bad that you, Beancounter, think that such people are "...detestable murderers and scumbags...." Heaven forbid that you should ever have to make the moral discision to fight or phuck; indeed, you would probably supply your own KY Jelly as long as you made a buck getting laid like a whore. (Xray, I know this thread is destined for the Coliseum, but I feel like kicking some jingoistic azz tonight, so put the thread where you want it because I will put Beancounter in the ground on this issue; the boy has no common sense; indeed, he thinks the rules apply to everyone but his nation. He has zero sense of history.) He, Beancounter, is truly pathetic. RO |
|
|
|
| jabs | Nov 4 2009, 09:19 AM Post #3 |
Moddy
|
My comments: A good opposite argument- aside from the use of some intemperate descriptive language toward the origional poster. I'm willing to let it stand as is- and let it remain in here- if xray wishes to edit, so be it! jabs |
|
|
|
| Beancounter | Nov 4 2009, 09:26 AM Post #4 |
|
If I remember correctly the Taliban government of Afghanistan sheltered Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. After 9/11 the U.S attacked Afghanistan. It then became a NATO project with many European nations participating. There are now more US troops there than all other nations combined. You may not like it, but the military handed prisoners over the the democratically elected authorities of the country. I totally agree, and if you don't like it, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. |
|
|
|
| xray | Nov 4 2009, 10:39 AM Post #5 |
Administrator
|
Jabs has decided to allow the post to stay, so I will stand behind him. |
|
|
|
| ReallyOrnery | Nov 7 2009, 01:17 AM Post #6 |
|
jabs: Good for you! I know I went to excess with Beancounter, but I wanted to get his blood boiling on this issue. We invaded thier nation (Afghanistan) and we're surprised that their people turned on us like mad dogs? Good grief! What would the Beancounters of this world do if their nations were invaded; humm? RO |
|
|
|
| ReallyOrnery | Nov 7 2009, 01:38 AM Post #7 |
|
Beancounter: The Taliban government of Afghanistan requested an International Arrest Warrant and supporting evidence that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaida were responsible for the attacks of 9-1-1 on the US. Rather than obey International Law and produce the requested documentation, the US attacked Afghanistan without mercy for its government or its people. It, meaning the Afghanistan War, became a NATO project because the US was trying to sidestep its individual responsibility for violating International Law. There have always been more US troops in Afghanistan "...than all other nations combined." We've just seen that "democratic" process at work in Afghanistan when the opposition leader to the US puppet regime boycotted the present elections because corruption there is rampant. Hitler and Stalin did the same thing when they overran conquered nations: They established "democratically elected authorites" that did exactly what those two dictators wanted them to do. The War Crimes trials denied such nonsense at the end of World War II and nothing has changed since then. If the conquering nation turns over prisoners to a political entity that it knows will violate the prisoner's Human Rights, then the conquering nation is as guilty of Crimes Against Humanity as is the government entity that does the actual torture. You would have made one 'ell of a good Nazi. RO |
|
|
|
| Beancounter | Nov 7 2009, 12:39 PM Post #8 |
|
"You would have made one 'ell of a good Nazi." Except of course that I lived through the Nazi occupation! Your remark must be the STUPIDEST one of your entire life! |
|
|
|
| ReallyOrnery | Nov 9 2009, 02:40 AM Post #9 |
|
Beancounter: I guess your Führer didn't kill enough civilians trying to bring Europe under his heel that now you want to take it out on the Afghans? You Nazis sure have a burr under your saddles when it comes to mass killings. I bet you miss the good ol' days when you could make lamp shades and soap out of your victims. Now I know why you are so thirsty for blood; you're still pissed off that you lost WWII! RO Edited by ReallyOrnery, Nov 9 2009, 02:44 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Beancounter | Nov 9 2009, 08:09 AM Post #10 |
|
The Nazi's and the Islamo-Fascists have one thing in common: They hate Jews. Sweets calls me a Zionist, you call me a Nazi. Which is it? There is no doubt about the fact that both of you are anti-Semites who hate Jews, which puts you a lot closer to the Nazi's then me. When it comes to pegging me, neither one have a clue of what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · News Central · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
9:09 AM Nov 24
