Conservative Party Insurance?

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

Let me just let that one sink in for a little bit – the Khadr family hung out with Osama bin Laden AFTER the 9/11 attacks. The entire Western Intelligence Community (oxymoron?) cannot find the guy, but a family now living in Toronto is able to break bread with the guy.

I'm not sure what your point is here, to be honest. Politicians and journalists do that kind of thing all the time (hang out with evil people in hiding).

The evidence that Khadr did NOT commit the murder he is accused of is flimsy; another member of al Quaeda was found alived in the compound where Khadr was, and thus it is conceivable that the second member could have thrown the grenade, but all witnesses say it was Khadr. His defense is circumstancial at best. I am not saying that he should be held indefinitely. Just that he should be tried, convicted, and then locked away forever. He is a danger to society. If he is released because of lobbying by the Canadian government I will hold each and every MP who went along, or encouraged his release personally responsible for the deaths of the innocent people that will occur in the future.

Witnesses? The evidence against him is flimsy and circumstantial:

In July of that year, U.S. forces launched an all-out ground and air assault against a compound containing hostile fighters. In any similar battle (including guerrilla conflicts like the Vietnam War), a fighter detained after such an assault would have been treated as a prisoner of war. In any similar conflict, a captured Canadian would have been returned home to face treason charges.

But U.S. President George W. Bush insisted those taken in Afghanistan not be given prisoner-of-war status and not be sent home, but instead be treated to jail and so-called "coercive interrogation" techniques. Khadr has said those techniques included shackling him in painful stress positions and using his head to mop up urine.

With the interrogation over, his trial has begun, a trial that even Khadr's U.S.-appointed military lawyer dismisses as a joke. Under Guantanamo rules, Khadr can be convicted as a war criminal on the basis of both secret evidence and evidence gleaned under torture. Even in the unlikely event of acquittal, he may not be released.

And now we find that maybe he didn't kill anyone after all.

When Khadr was captured, the U.S. government story was clear: since the young Canadian was the only enemy soldier in the compound found alive, he must have thrown the grenade.

It now seems, according to the written testimony of the unnamed U.S. soldier who was first into the shattered compound, that two enemy fighters were alive when that grenade was thrown.

The U.S. soldier, OC-1 in a transcript mistakenly released to reporters, says that after the grenade was lobbed, he saw two figures – one lying wounded on the ground, the other seated and facing away from him. OC-1 shot the wounded man in the head, killing him. Then he shot the one facing away from him – Khadr – twice in the back. OC-1 says he assumes Khadr threw the grenade. But he doesn't know because he didn't see.

www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/301223

But the real question here, is what makes him different from other child soldiers?

You can't convict someone for crimes they might commit in the future, and it seems to me a big leap to say that he will be a murderer. As you said, his family is here, and they don't seem to be killing people. I don't know what ought to be done with him, and I would hope the person who makes that decision would be much closer to the situation than I am, but this mock trial is clearly not the right way to go.

[franko]

machabby said:

You can't convict someone for crimes they might commit in the future

Fully agree with this thought.

But the real question here, is what makes him different from other child soldiers?

Probably the fact that he intentionally left one country to go to another to fight.

[BadCompany]

machabby said:

You can't convict someone for crimes they might commit in the future, and it seems to me a big leap to say that he will be a murderer.

Sure you can. It's called the Dangerous Offender Act. It assumes that there is a high likelihood of a repeat offense, and that it is to the benefit of society to keep them locked away. Like Paul Bernardo.

If Khadr is convicted of murder - and I said to put him on trial - it would be a pretty safe assumption to say that he will meet all criteria to be declared a dangerous offender.

machabby said:

As you said, his family is here, and they don't seem to be killing people.

His family is actually good friends with the "Toronto 17" who are charged with plotting numerous terrorist activities. Yes, they have not been convicted, but they were nevertheless charged. The Khadr family even showed up at their court appearances, to demonstrate their support.

They may not have actually killed anyone, but they sure do hang around with a lot of people who seem to have that intent. Whether it be Osama himself, or people who think he's all that. Again, we actually have laws (originally intended for biker gangs) that make it illegal to associate with these types.

machabby said:

I don't know what ought to be done with him, and I would hope the person who makes that decision would be much closer to the situation than I am, but this mock trial is clearly not the right way to go.

I agree. He should be tried in a real court, and then locked away using existing laws. Guantanomo is an embarrassment.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

machabby said:

I don't know about innocent, but usually, a 15 year old kid in that circumstance would be considered a child soldier and would therefore be treated differently. But Khadr has been held without trial for five years, in violation of international law, and it's come out recently that the US government/military was withholding evidence that shows he likely did not commit the "crime" they accused him of. In a nutshell, he's been denied the rights that we would expect him to have in a democratic country and there's absolutely no reason to believe he will receive a "fair trial."

The Liberals did nothing about this when they were in power, and one of them recently admitted this was because the Canadian public wasn't interested in the story at the time. Now they're pressuring the Conservatives to take action.

I once read a book by Jeffery Archer (not quite a literary giant, but bear with me) in which this up-and-coming politician discovers a British citizen is being held in some god-forsaken-prison, in some god-forsaken-country. So he gets up in front of parliment and in a thundering voice demands to know why the British government is not doing all it can to save this poor, wretched British citizen.

That night - and I'm making up the details as I go, it's the sentiment that's important - a limousine pulls up in front of the up-and-coming-politician, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (or whatever) steps out. He hands the newbie a dossier, all about the poor, wretched British citizen being held in some god-forsaken-prison, in some god-forsaken-country. The guy is a complete scumbag. Total whacko, who if unleashed on the British population would almost certainly cause all kinds of misery.

Omar Khadr is a scumbag. I have no love for Guantanomo, I think its an abomination and against everything a free and democratic society should stand for, but to demand the release of Omar Khadr would be tantamount to being an accomplice to murder. Not the one he may or may not have committed in Afghanistan, but the one he WILL commit in Canada. I understand that Khadr is a product of his up-bringing, that he can't be blamed for having a family that literally lived in the same house as Osama bin Laden but it is what it is. Khadr routinely hung out with bin Laden's kids, bin Laden attended all the family's functions - marriages, birthdays, funerals - and Khadr was totally and completely indoctrinated into that way of life. His family - living in Toronto and collecting welfare from the Canadian government - has pretty much said they are okay with terrorism and the killing of Canadian citizens. Quotes from his sister (again, living in Toronto):

* We're not al-Qaeda. We respect them, we've had some interactions with them, we disagreed with them and we just wanted to go to live along side-by-side helping each other in whatever way we can.

* If I was to choose for my daughter to live a life of no meaning or to die a martyr, I would choose for her to die a martyr.… I'd love to die a martyr. It's a desire that I believe that any Muslim would have or should have.

From his brother:

* Abdul Karim adds that Omar will get even with the Americans when he gets out of Guantánamo Bay: "When he's all right again he'll find them again ... and take his revenge."

* Asked if he looked up to Osama bin Laden, Abdurrahman Khadr tells Simon, "It was amazing to meet the person who was the most wanted person in the world. The minute he walked into the room and I was like, 'Wow, I just saw this person in the magazine and now he’s right here in front of me.' It was like a superstar, I think."

Let me just let that one sink in for a little bit – the Khadr family hung out with Osama bin Laden AFTER the 9/11 attacks. The entire Western Intelligence Community (oxymoron?) cannot find the guy, but a family now living in Toronto is able to break bread with the guy.

There are more, and CBS even has a video of Khadr undergoing training in an al Quaeda camp, planting mines, shooting guns, that sort of thing.

The evidence that Khadr did NOT commit the murder he is accused of is flimsy; another member of al Quaeda was found alived in the compound where Khadr was, and thus it is conceivable that the second member could have thrown the grenade, but all witnesses say it was Khadr. His defense is circumstancial at best. I am not saying that he should be held indefinitely. Just that he should be tried, convicted, and then locked away forever. He is a danger to society. If he is released because of lobbying by the Canadian government I will hold each and every MP who went along, or encouraged his release personally responsible for the deaths of the innocent people that will occur in the future.

Khadr lawyer and family are playing the Canadian public like two string fiddels. By cleverly climbing onto the anti-Bush sentiment, they have spun a tale of doubt where non exists. He threw a grenade but he was "only" fifteen. And? As you say, he comes from indocrination whose ONLY desire isto kill infidels in the name of Allah.

BTW, I read somewhere that over 90% of the people convicted of crimes and in jail claim that they are innocent. If only they had George Bush and Gitmo to put in their spin.......

[Cranky]

machabby said:

The U.S. soldier, OC-1 in a transcript mistakenly released to reporters, says that after the grenade was lobbed, he saw two figures – one lying wounded on the ground, the other seated and facing away from him. OC-1 shot the wounded man in the head, killing him. Then he shot the one facing away from him – Khadr – twice in the back. OC-1 says he assumes Khadr threw the grenade. But he doesn't know because he didn't see.

[/b][/i]

[/quote]

Two man in a room, one wounded and on the ground and the other seated and facing away from him. So we are suppose to believe that someone lying on the ground WOUNDED threw the granade but the perfectly healthy person who travellled 7,000 miles to kill the infidels is innocent. Okay, I buy that.

Do you realize under the law that even if we really, really stretch our imaginations and say that Khadr didn't throw the grenade, he still guilty of being an accomplice to murder?

And I couldn't care less about his lawyers spitting out about the "Canadian boy" held by those AMERICANS. This nationalistic spin doesn't work with me.

[HABsurd]

badcompany said:

machabby said:

You can't convict someone for crimes they might commit in the future, and it seems to me a big leap to say that he will be a murderer.

Sure you can. It's called the Dangerous Offender Act. It assumes that there is a high likelihood of a repeat offense, and that it is to the benefit of society to keep them locked away. Like Paul Bernardo.

If Khadr is convicted of murder - and I said to put him on trial - it would be a pretty safe assumption to say that he will meet all criteria to be declared a dangerous offender.

I can't believe I am reading this. The concept of jailing someone for their potential crimes is the province of dictators and totalitarians regimes. Furthermore, you completely mischaracterize the dangerous offenders act. What it states is that a CONVICTED person, under very specific circumstances, may be indefinitely incarcerated. It is NEVER used as justification for conviction.

badcompany said:

His family is actually good friends with the "Toronto 17" who are charged with plotting numerous terrorist activities. Yes, they have not been convicted, but they were nevertheless charged. The Khadr family even showed up at their court appearances, to demonstrate their support.

They may not have actually killed anyone, but they sure do hang around with a lot of people who seem to have that intent. Whether it be Osama himself, or people who think he's all that. Again, we actually have laws (originally intended for biker gangs) that make it illegal to associate with these types.

machabby said:

I don't know what ought to be done with him, and I would hope the person who makes that decision would be much closer to the situation than I am, but this mock trial is clearly not the right way to go.

I agree. He should be tried in a real court, and then locked away using existing laws. Guantanomo is an embarrassment.

That his family is despicable is hardly the point and largely irrelevant. That no one, even Khadr, will ever see the evidence against him is greatly disturbing. Neither is the idea that he should be tried in a "real court" as long as he is found guilty. I suppose "thought crimes" and concentration camps for muslims is next. Might want to reconsider adding Japanese and krauts to the list, happened once might happen again.

[HABsurd]

habsaddict said:

machabby said:

The U.S. soldier, OC-1 in a transcript mistakenly released to reporters, says that after the grenade was lobbed, he saw two figures – one lying wounded on the ground, the other seated and facing away from him. OC-1 shot the wounded man in the head, killing him. Then he shot the one facing away from him – Khadr – twice in the back. OC-1 says he assumes Khadr threw the grenade. But he doesn't know because he didn't see.

[/b][/i]

[/quote]

Two man in a room, one wounded and on the ground and the other seated and facing away from him. So we are suppose to believe that someone lying on the ground WOUNDED threw the granade but the perfectly healthy person who travellled 7,000 miles to kill the infidels is innocent. Okay, I buy that.

Do you realize under the law that even if we really, really stretch our imaginations and say that Khadr didn't throw the grenade, he still guilty of being an accomplice to murder?

And I couldn't care less about his lawyers spitting out about the "Canadian boy" held by those AMERICANS. This nationalistic spin doesn't work with me. [/quote]

Just out of curiosity, are you arguing by extension that everyone in Afghanistan with links or sympathy to the Taliban should be executed? Not surprising that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we should try executing 50% of the Afghani population - that will show them we are serious.

[BadCompany]

habdomen said:

I can't believe I am reading this. The concept of jailing someone for their potential crimes is the province of dictators and totalitarians regimes. Furthermore, you completely mischaracterize the dangerous offenders act. What it states is that a CONVICTED person, under very specific circumstances, may be indefinitely incarcerated. It is NEVER used as justification for conviction.

I never said that it should be used to justify a conviction. What I said was that he should be tried in a real court, and assuming he is convicted, thrown away forever. The Dangerous Offender comment was in response to the notion that we cannot convict someone for crimes they may commit in the future. You actually can IF they meet the criteria set forward in the Dangerous Offender Act, of which a previous conviction and a high likelihood of re-offense are two of the necessary tenets.

As I said a couple of posts up:

badcompany said:

If Khadr is convicted of murder - and I said to put him on trial - it would be a pretty safe assumption to say that he will meet all criteria to be declared a dangerous offender.

Notice the "IF."

habdomen said:

That his family is despicable is hardly the point and largely irrelevant.

That depends on what you are arguing. If you think he should be freed so that he can return to civilization - i.e. his family - then you must accept that he will continue to harbor what we would call terrorist ideas. His mother and sister routinely talk about martyrdom, and his brother believes that is the route Khadr will take.

If you are trying to rehabilitate him, then releasing him will not work. He is a danger to society.

habdomen said:

That no one, even Khadr, will ever see the evidence against him is greatly disturbing. Neither is the idea that he should be tried in a "real court" as long as he is found guilty.

I agree. As I said, Guantanamo is an embarrassment, and against everything the free world stands for.

And I never said "as long as he is found guilty." In fact, I believe I qualified my posts several times with the word "IF", as in "IF he is found guilty."

habdomen said:

I suppose "thought crimes" and concentration camps for muslims is next. Might want to reconsider adding Japanese and krauts to the list, happened once might happen again.

Um, this is in response to what? We are talking about one person, and his family, and the beliefs that person and his family have. Not once did I type the word Muslim, or Islam, or even religion. In fact, the closest I came was in quoting the Khadr family, when THEY talk about martyrdom. Don't extrapolate feelings or opinions where none exist...

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habdomen said:

Not surprising that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we should try executing 50% of the Afghani population - that will show them we are serious.

In what way are we losing, man? Not a loaded question, just the first time I've read this opinion.

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

disgruntled70shab said:

Well, here's another one. Imagine getting 9 appearances in court at 10 minutes an appearance when your life is on the line.

Montrealer sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia

By Jonathan Montpetit and Nelson Wyatt

cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/03/4897376-cp.html

Cheers.

Some follow up here guys. This is the kind of support I was referring to in an earlier post. This kind of response is immediate and public. In contrast to the Liberals' "quiet diplomacy" policy.

I think I also read elsewhere that while this government would not ask for clemency for condemned Canadians in democratic countries, they would review each on a case-by-case basis.

Ottawa to seek clemency for Cdn under Saudi death sentence

By THE CANADIAN PRESS

Beheading of Canadian in Saudi Arabia still on

OTTAWA — Government sources say Prime Minister Stephen Harper has instructed Canadian officials to ask Saudi Arabia for clemency for a Montreal man sentenced to death by beheading.

Mohamed Kohail, 23, was convicted of murder for a schoolyard brawl gone awry.

The government had said earlier it was disappointed with the outcome of the case and was ready to help the family with an appeal.

Now sources tell The Canadian Press it will appeal directly to Saudi authorities.

This appeal comes after the government refused to intervene in the case of a Ronald Smith, an Alberta man who has been on death row in Montana for more than 20 years.

The government has said it would no longer ask for clemency for Canadians convicted and sentenced to death in democratic countries.

cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/05/4913576.html

[Cranky]

habdomen said:

habsaddict said:

Two man in a room, one wounded and on the ground and the other seated and facing away from him. So we are suppose to believe that someone lying on the ground WOUNDED threw the granade but the perfectly healthy person who travellled 7,000 miles to kill the infidels is innocent. Okay, I buy that.

Do you realize under the law that even if we really, really stretch our imaginations and say that Khadr didn't throw the grenade, he still guilty of being an accomplice to murder?

And I couldn't care less about his lawyers spitting out about the "Canadian boy" held by those AMERICANS. This nationalistic spin doesn't work with me.

Just out of curiosity, are you arguing by extension that everyone in Afghanistan with links or sympathy to the Taliban should be executed? Not surprising that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we should try executing 50% of the Afghani population - that will show them we are serious.

Where did I say anything remotly near of what you are "extending"? You're spinning what was never there.

Secondly....

Where exactly are we "losing the war"? In Taliban Jacks mind? Let's face it, the Taliban will NEVER win but we can certainly appease them to capitulate to them.

habdomen said:

.
I suppose "thought crimes" and concentration camps for muslims is next. Might want to reconsider adding Japanese and krauts to the list, happened once might happen again.

Another spin to what was never there to begin with.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

habdomen said:

Not surprising that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we should try executing 50% of the Afghani population - that will show them we are serious.

In what way are we losing, man? Not a loaded question, just the first time I've read this opinion.

Cheers.

Dis, you know and I know that this is not something that we will ever lose on the battlefield. EVER. But give people like Taliban Jack and his tribe time and he/they will prvail.

Sadly, when they prevail, the Afgani people will pay the price.

[HABsurd]

disgruntled70shab said:

habdomen said:

Not surprising that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we should try executing 50% of the Afghani population - that will show them we are serious.

In what way are we losing, man? Not a loaded question, just the first time I've read this opinion.

Cheers.

Let's see.

First we have Canadian commanders requesting double the number of Canadian troops because, "The number of incidents has doubled, if not more, in Kandahar," since 2006.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Then we have the following analysis:
"The almost inevitable civilian casualties resulting from reliance on air-strikes has led to a growing alienation of the population, especially in the south, analysts report.

Tactical victories, then, are not being translated into the strategic defeat of the insurgents.

"We are winning the battles and not the war, in my view. We have been very successful in clearing areas of the Taliban, but it's having no real strategic effect," said Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon after a meeting in Scotland of nations with troops in Afghanistan."

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL190590

So, with every won battle we help the taliban recruitment drives. and

Finally, we have record production of opium to provide the cash.

www.newsweek.com/id/118534

I cannot help but contrast this to all the rosy stories we getting about a year ago.

[HABsurd]

habsaddict said:

habdomen said:

Just out of curiosity, are you arguing by extension that everyone in Afghanistan with links or sympathy to the Taliban should be executed? Not surprising that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we should try executing 50% of the Afghani population - that will show them we are serious.

Where did I say anything remotly near of what you are "extending"? You're spinning what was never there.

I am merely following your own definition of what constitutes an accomplice.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habdomen said:

disgruntled70shab said:

In what way are we losing, man? Not a loaded question, just the first time I've read this opinion.

Cheers.

Let's see.

First we have Canadian commanders requesting double the number of Canadian troops because, "The number of incidents has doubled, if not more, in Kandahar," since 2006.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Then we have the following analysis:
"The almost inevitable civilian casualties resulting from reliance on air-strikes has led to a growing alienation of the population, especially in the south, analysts report.

Tactical victories, then, are not being translated into the strategic defeat of the insurgents.

"We are winning the battles and not the war, in my view. We have been very successful in clearing areas of the Taliban, but it's having no real strategic effect," said Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon after a meeting in Scotland of nations with troops in Afghanistan."

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL190590

So, with every won battle we help the taliban recruitment drives. and

Finally, we have record production of opium to provide the cash.

www.newsweek.com/id/118534

I cannot help but contrast this to all the rosy stories we getting about a year ago.

Thanks HS. I haven't had time here at work to go through the links you provided but I get the gist well enough. I will go through them later though.

I think we can compare the increased amount of insurgents to another situation in the war. We've expressed concerns about how ill-protected our troops are in combat vehicles. However, I know for a fact DND has procured some of the best battle vehicles on the market today for our troops.

Sure, we brought over the Leopard I's, but the situation dictated that we needed a better, more effective MBTs. So, DND purchased the Leopard II as a replacement. What do the Taliban do? They up the ante. The bigger and more armoured our combat vehicles, the bigger and more powerful the IEDs become.

I think its the same here WRT the troops actually. The Taliban are realizing that NATO is having problems maintaining popular support for the war effort in their home countries. They also know that NATO is having problems finding replacement soldiers as well. A lot of countries are simply running out of deployable troops. So, what do they do? They increase their combat activities against NATO in hopes of decreasing morale, etc.

The problem is what happens when NATO pulls out? The Taliban move right back into business (probably by force) and re-establish their al-Qeada support networks, camps, et al. And once we get hit hard on our own soil, people will be asking why and pointing fingers. There will be blame for inactivity in our law enforcement agenices and CISIS not doing their jobs. Some will even blame the military for being so complacent.

To them I say, "... too late. We were doing something about it but you wanted the troops home."

I'll try to find some positives that detail what good our troops are doing over there, HS. But, depending who I talk to, anything detailing positives about the war is usually dismissed as jingoism or propaganda.

The sad thing is though, it's also one of the most effective weapons the Taliban rely on.

Cheers.

PS, I wish I could relate this to the thread title but can't.

[HABsurd]

disgruntled70shab said:

habdomen said:

Let's see.

First we have Canadian commanders requesting double the number of Canadian troops because, "The number of incidents has doubled, if not more, in Kandahar," since 2006.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Then we have the following analysis:
"The almost inevitable civilian casualties resulting from reliance on air-strikes has led to a growing alienation of the population, especially in the south, analysts report.

Tactical victories, then, are not being translated into the strategic defeat of the insurgents.

"We are winning the battles and not the war, in my view. We have been very successful in clearing areas of the Taliban, but it's having no real strategic effect," said Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon after a meeting in Scotland of nations with troops in Afghanistan."

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL190590

So, with every won battle we help the taliban recruitment drives. and

Finally, we have record production of opium to provide the cash.

www.newsweek.com/id/118534

I cannot help but contrast this to all the rosy stories we getting about a year ago.

Thanks HS. I haven't had time here at work to go through the links you provided but I get the gist well enough. I will go through them later though.

I think we can compare the increased amount of insurgents to another situation in the war. We've expressed concerns about how ill-protected our troops are in combat vehicles. However, I know for a fact DND has procured some of the best battle vehicles on the market today for our troops.

Sure, we brought over the Leopard I's, but the situation dictated that we needed a better, more effective MBTs. So, DND purchased the Leopard II as a replacement. What do the Taliban do? They up the ante. The bigger and more armoured our combat vehicles, the bigger and more powerful the IEDs become.

I think its the same here WRT the troops actually. The Taliban are realizing that NATO is having problems maintaining popular support for the war effort in their home countries. They also know that NATO is having problems finding replacement soldiers as well. A lot of countries are simply running out of deployable troops. So, what do they do? They increase their combat activities against NATO in hopes of decreasing morale, etc.

The problem is what happens when NATO pulls out? The Taliban move right back into business (probably by force) and re-establish their al-Qeada support networks, camps, et al. And once we get hit hard on our own soil, people will be asking why and pointing fingers. There will be blame for inactivity in our law enforcement agenices and CISIS not doing their jobs. Some will even blame the military for being so complacent.

To them I say, "... too late. We were doing something about it but you wanted the troops home."

I'll try to find some positives that detail what good our troops are doing over there, HS. But, depending who I talk to, anything detailing positives about the war is usually dismissed as jingoism or propaganda.

The sad thing is though, it's also one of the most effective weapons the Taliban rely on.

Cheers.

PS, I wish I could relate this to the thread title but can't.

Last things first; this has no relation to the thread title. On to your points.

I am not sure that an increase in the number and quality of combat vehicles is the solution. Didn't the soviets try this tactic 30 years ago? Furthermore, most of the accounts describe how the countryside is no longer in coalition control. Not sure how tanks can make a difference in such terrain.

As for al-qeada support camps, they are doing quite fine in Pakistan right now. What are we doing about them? the answer to that is easy; nothing. The link you make implying that the occupation of Afghanistan makes Canada safer from terrorist acts is unproven. The threat exists regardless of the situation of Afghanistan.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habdomen said:

Last things first; this has no relation to the thread title.

Actually, I was trying to convey how well we hijacked this thread by discussing the war. In order to try and bring it back onto the government. I believe without a doubt that our involvement in Afghanistan has brought more international respect back to Canada than anything else in recent times.

On to your points.

I am not sure that an increase in the number and quality of combat vehicles is the solution. Didn't the soviets try this tactic 30 years ago? Furthermore, most of the accounts describe how the countryside is no longer in coalition control. Not sure how tanks can make a difference in such terrain.

Mentioning improved equipment was another example how this government supports the troops who are looking out for our best interests. Under the Liberals it was a case of, "... we don't care if you're not properly prepared, get over to Afghanistan now."

As for your Soviet example, the Soviets were there for other reasons that taking out terrorist camps and their support networks. Do you have another example?

As for al-qeada support camps, they are doing quite fine in Pakistan right now. What are we doing about them? the answer to that is easy; nothing. The link you make implying that the occupation of Afghanistan makes Canada safer from terrorist acts is unproven. The threat exists regardless of the situation of Afghanistan.

Yes, they are, which is why the war stagnates at certain points. It's long been known that the Afghani-based Taliban units replenish their ranks through Pakistan. It's up to Pakistan to tighten up their border control.

You've been quite selective in what it is you want to debate when it comes to the war. I gave you my opinion as to why we are there. I think I've done a pretty good job explaining why our government thinks we should be there.

If you feel we shouldn't be there, then what advise do you have for our government WRT combating terrorism? What other strategies are at our government's disposal? How can the government better support the war on terror?

Again, sitting at home waiting for the CN Tower to be destroyed is not an option. Sitting at home and waiting for a small extremist faction to behead our PM is not an option. How do you, as a taxpayer, feel the government can go a better job in this area?

I believe this aspect might bring us back on track.

Cheers.

[HABsurd]

disgruntled70shab said:

habdomen said:

Last things first; this has no relation to the thread title.

Actually, I was trying to convey how well we hijacked this thread by discussing the war. In order to try and bring it back onto the government. I believe without a doubt that our involvement in Afghanistan has brought more international respect back to Canada than anything else in recent times.

Well, do you have any evidence that we are getting any respect? I do hear meaningless platitudes from NATO bureaucrats. I think the original statements by Gates on the Canadian troops is far more meaningful and singularly lacking in respect.

If would try relate this discussion on Afghanistan to the original title I would argue that, if true, the bribing parliamentarians by a political party is a far greater threat to Canadian democracy than anything we face from al-qaeda.

Mentioning improved equipment was another example how this government supports the troops who are looking out for our best interests. Under the Liberals it was a case of, "... we don't care if you're not properly prepared, get over to Afghanistan now."

As for your Soviet example, the Soviets were there for other reasons that taking out terrorist camps and their support networks. Do you have another example?

The Soviets were fighting exactly the same war we are fighting now. To paraphrase the articles I already linked, "we have already given up the countryside".

As for al-qeada support camps, they are doing quite fine in Pakistan right now. What are we doing about them? the answer to that is easy; nothing. The link you make implying that the occupation of Afghanistan makes Canada safer from terrorist acts is unproven. The threat exists regardless of the situation of Afghanistan.

Yes, they are, which is why the war stagnates at certain points. It's long been known that the Afghani-based Taliban units replenish their ranks through Pakistan. It's up to Pakistan to tighten up their border control.

Pakistan is in no position to do this. The people that live in the tribal territories barely recognize the Pakistani government. So then what?

You've been quite selective in what it is you want to debate when it comes to the war. I gave you my opinion as to why we are there. I think I've done a pretty good job explaining why our government thinks we should be there.

If you feel we shouldn't be there, then what advise do you have for our government WRT combating terrorism? What other strategies are at our government's disposal? How can the government better support the war on terror?

Again, sitting at home waiting for the CN Tower to be destroyed is not an option. Sitting at home and waiting for a small extremist faction to behead our PM is not an option. How do you, as a taxpayer, feel the government can go a better job in this area?

I believe this aspect might bring us back on track.

Cheers.

One fights terrorism through intelligence services like CSIS and the RCMP in cooperation with other intelligence services. Further, I would argue that the troops in Afghanistan have a negligible affect on al-qaeda operations. Al-qaeda operate in right now in bases located in pakistan, iran, lebanon, sudan and throughout the middle east. Should we occupy those countries as well? Impractical, you say? Exactly.

Note that none of the terrorists involved in the world trade center attack were Afghani and most, and in some cases all, of their training occurred outside Afghanistan. To me it is a pipe dream that all we need to do treat Afghanistan like some sort of Terroristan and that simply occupying it is sufficient to fight any terrorist threat. Incidentally, I also feel that threat of terrorist attacks has been exaggerated by the media and politicians. For example, the "Toronto 17" is a joke.

[HABsurd]

So, not only are we losing the war in Afghanistan and require more troops but we are also over budget.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080312.wafghan12/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Of course, our government would never actually tells us this. Rather the information had to be dragged out of them.

[Cranky]

habdomen said:

So, not only are we losing the war in Afghanistan and require more troops but we are also over budget.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080312.wafghan12/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Of course, our government would never actually tells us this. Rather the information had to be dragged out of them.

We are losing the war? LOL! What this is all about is trying to get the rest of NATO to get off their butts. Then again one may want to use the Taliban version of events where one man standing and a thousand of his comrades dead around him is a Taliban victory.

Why have the Taliban resoorted to using IAD's? Because they are "winning"? Why have they not launched one of their famous "spring offensives"? Because they are "winning"? Why have they resorted to torturing and murdering anyone who is in contact with Western people? Because they are "winning"?

We WILL "lose" this war, or more correctly, the people of Afghanistan will be be the gross losers to the Taliban's brutal regime the minute we pull out of there.

Having said that....Do you want the troops to be pulled out of there?*


Note: One can not cry about "justice" for one man if one is willing to leave millions to brutulization and atrocities.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habdomen said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Actually, I was trying to convey how well we hijacked this thread by discussing the war. In order to try and bring it back onto the government. I believe without a doubt that our involvement in Afghanistan has brought more international respect back to Canada than anything else in recent times.

Well, do you have any evidence that we are getting any respect?

Yes. From the troops I've talked to who were there. Granted there are areas of Afghanistan where foreigners aren't welcome. However, it would be interesting to see what questions you would have for the troops if you could talk to them. I talk to them on a daily basis.

If would try relate this discussion on Afghanistan to the original title I would argue that, if true, the bribing parliamentarians by a political party is a far greater threat to Canadian democracy than anything we face from al-qaeda.

You're talking as if this was a proven, done deal. Do you know something we don't?

The Soviets were fighting exactly the same war we are fighting now. To paraphrase the articles I already linked, "we have already given up the countryside".

No we're not fighting the same war at all. The Soviets had an entirely different agenda for invading Afghanistan and it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. And their enemy, the Afghans, were being supplied by the CIA and other US-based organizations.

Pakistan is in no position to do this. The people that live in the tribal territories barely recognize the Pakistani government. So then what?

Actually, the coalition is doing something about it. The problem is getting NATO countries to contribute more troops.

You've been quite selective in what it is you want to debate when it comes to the war. I gave you my opinion as to why we are there. I think I've done a pretty good job explaining why our government thinks we should be there.

If you feel we shouldn't be there, then what advise do you have for our government WRT combating terrorism? What other strategies are at our government's disposal? How can the government better support the war on terror?

Again, sitting at home waiting for the CN Tower to be destroyed is not an option. Sitting at home and waiting for a small extremist faction to behead our PM is not an option. How do you, as a taxpayer, feel the government can go a better job in this area?

I believe this aspect might bring us back on track.

Cheers.

One fights terrorism through intelligence services like CSIS and the RCMP in cooperation with other intelligence services. [/quote]
They're working 24/7 in Canada and in other countries. In fact, while Canada maintains it has no involvement in Iraq, the coalition commandos that rescued two peace activists were provided intelligence from the RCMP (was publicized so I'm not divulging any confidential information here).

See the connection? Civilian and military intelligence communities working together, and quite effectively I might add.

Further, I would argue that the troops in Afghanistan have a negligible affect on al-qaeda operations. Al-qaeda operate in right now in bases located in pakistan, iran, lebanon, sudan and throughout the middle east. Should we occupy those countries as well? Impractical, you say? Exactly.

I would argue that denying al-Qaeda training bases in one of those countries is extremely effective. Eventually we'll be leaving, granted. However, this mission will be up to whoever takes over.

I would also argue that we very rarely hear of any intelligence activity. How do we know that our international intelligence communities are keeping tabs on al-Qaeda around the globe? The last I heard, al-Qaeda's financial networks are in shambles.

So, we have Intel working with international agencies taking care of that, and we have troops on the ground in Afghanistan denying terrorists a country from which to train.

Intel and military working together again towards the same end goal.

Note that none of the terrorists involved in the world trade center attack were Afghani and most, and in some cases all, of their training occurred outside Afghanistan. To me it is a pipe dream that all we need to do treat Afghanistan like some sort of Terroristan and that simply occupying it is sufficient to fight any terrorist threat.

Unfortunately, singling out that the 9/11 terrorists as not having trained in Afghanistan isn't an argument that lessens the terrorist networks that were established in that country beforehand.

Incidentally, I also feel that threat of terrorist attacks has been exaggerated by the media and politicians. For example, the "Toronto 17" is a joke.

The towers come down in NYC and you consider the terrorist threat to be exaggerated? Just wanted to make sure I got that straight.

Cheers.

[HABsurd]

habsaddict said:

habdomen said:

So, not only are we losing the war in Afghanistan and require more troops but we are also over budget.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080312.wafghan12/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Of course, our government would never actually tells us this. Rather the information had to be dragged out of them.

We are losing the war? LOL! What this is all about is trying to get the rest of NATO to get off their butts. Then again one may want to use the Taliban version of events where one man standing and a thousand of his comrades dead around him is a Taliban victory.

Why have the Taliban resoorted to using IAD's? Because they are "winning"? Why have they not launched one of their famous "spring offensives"? Because they are "winning"? Why have they resorted to torturing and murdering anyone who is in contact with Western people? Because they are "winning"?

We WILL "lose" this war, or more correctly, the people of Afghanistan will be be the gross losers to the Taliban's brutal regime the minute we pull out of there.

Having said that....Do you want the troops to be pulled out of there?*

Note: One can not cry about "justice" for one man if one is willing to leave millions to brutulization and atrocities.

Maybe you are right, but then it hardly makes sense that this would be an internal government document.

From what I have heard (and what the Americans complain about), coalition forces have retreated from the countryside to perimeters around their bases. Furthermore, one doesn't urgently request more troops and equipment when things are going well.

My problem with the effort in Afghanistan is my belief that the local population outside of Kabul is deeply ambivalent about our presence as they are towards their own government (even if it wasn't dysfunctional). Odds of success seem slight to nil.

[HABsurd]

disgruntled70shab said:

habdomen said:

Well, do you have any evidence that we are getting any respect?

Yes. From the troops I've talked to who were there. Granted there are areas of Afghanistan where foreigners aren't welcome. However, it would be interesting to see what questions you would have for the troops if you could talk to them. I talk to them on a daily basis.


You're talking as if this was a proven, done deal. Do you know something we don't?

No, hence the use of the conditional. I do believe Cadman's wife and daughter, but I think that Harper has far too much sense to engage in such a thing and he probably knew nothing about it.

No we're not fighting the same war at all. The Soviets had an entirely different agenda for invading Afghanistan and it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. And their enemy, the Afghans, were being supplied by the CIA and other US-based organizations.

Sorry, but isn't it a matter of perspective? In both cases, foreign powers try to prop up a Kabul based regime. The local population of south-east Afghanistan no doubt see us as more benevolent but still very foreign.

One fights terrorism through intelligence services like CSIS and the RCMP in cooperation with other intelligence services.

They're working 24/7 in Canada and in other countries. In fact, while Canada maintains it has no involvement in Iraq, the coalition commandos that rescued two peace activists were provided intelligence from the RCMP (was publicized so I'm not divulging any confidential information here).

See the connection? Civilian and military intelligence communities working together, and quite effectively I might add.


I would argue that denying al-Qaeda training bases in one of those countries is extremely effective. Eventually we'll be leaving, granted. However, this mission will be up to whoever takes over.

I would also argue that we very rarely hear of any intelligence activity. How do we know that our international intelligence communities are keeping tabs on al-Qaeda around the globe? The last I heard, al-Qaeda's financial networks are in shambles.

So, we have Intel working with international agencies taking care of that, and we have troops on the ground in Afghanistan denying terrorists a country from which to train.

Intel and military working together again towards the same end goal.

I suppose in the limit we could try to occupy all regions where terrorist bases are located, but I fear there isn't enough money in the world to do that. (Hell, we would probably have to occupy half of Europe while we are at it.) Not even sure how much longer the US can keep up its present commitments - spending $100 per taxpayer per month. I suppose I see military action as being inefficient for this goal.

Unfortunately, singling out that the 9/11 terrorists as not having trained in Afghanistan isn't an argument that lessens the terrorist networks that were established in that country beforehand.

Incidentally, I also feel that threat of terrorist attacks has been exaggerated by the media and politicians. For example, the "Toronto 17" is a joke.

The towers come down in NYC and you consider the terrorist threat to be exaggerated? Just wanted to make sure I got that straight.

Cheers.

I never said the threat is zero. However, I do feel that threat is exaggerated. Convincing people to agree to either counter measures that are either ludicrous (see airport security) or dangerous (see the willingness to give up fundamental freedoms, condone torture, etc.).

[MC Habber]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government is working diligently to help a Canadian woman who's been imprisoned in Mexico without trial for more than two years - but he's stressing that Mexico's courts, just like Canada's, are independent.

Harper suggested Wednesday that neither he nor Mexican President Felipe Calderon can intervene in the judicial systems of their respective countries.

"If the president of Mexico called me and demanded I release a Mexican national, I would not be in the position to do that," Harper told reporters in London, Ont.

The full article is here, but a few bits really jump out at me:

A Toronto Star/Angus Reid poll found 50 per cent of Canadians said they would boycott Mexico for their holidays.

The survey also found 44 per cent of Canadians said they would stop buying Mexican products sold in Canada.

Only 20 per cent of those surveyed in the poll said they would trust Foreign Affairs to come to their assistance if they were detained in a foreign country.

[princelh]

What do you expect the Harper government to do? Declare war on Mexico? Although I believe the Martin case is typical banana republic crap, Mexico has a right to try this person under their laws. I also heard that she would have been out by now, if she hadn't kept putting in legal road blocks, that prevented her release.

On the Khadr family; piss on them. They should deport the whole family, since they are contrary the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadins. I hope Omar Khadr rots in Gitmo. I hope he never sees Canada again. Just what we need, another recruiter for Muslim fundamentalism. They should curtail immigration from the Middle East, until this bullSaperlipopette is stopped. My Canada does not include the Khadr family!

[MC Habber]

I wasn't going to bother posting this, but...


Omar Khadr: A most peculiar young offender
He should be dealt with here in Canada, as a juvenile who was involved in terrorism

SEAN FINE

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

March 22, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT

The civilized world condemns the recruitment of child soldiers. Yet Canada sits quietly by as one of its citizens, Omar Khadr, is prosecuted by the United States for war crimes he allegedly committed at age 15 as a member of al-Qaeda.

It is impossible to square. Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral and abusive; consequently, it is immoral and abusive to prosecute as a war criminal a child recruited by al-Qaeda, and punish him accordingly. We can't have it both ways.

Lately, it has dawned on Canadians that the United States may well have lied about its evidence against Mr. Khadr. Far from having proof that only he could have thrown the grenade that killed their soldier, the U.S. appears to have hidden the truth: that the teenage Canadian was in the company of an adult al-Qaeda fighter and was himself unarmed, on his knees and facing away from battle when a U.S. soldier shot him twice — in the back.

But the falsehoods are only part of the reasons why Canadians let the 15-year-old disappear six years ago into the legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in which he had no access to a lawyer for the first 27 months and no way to contest his detention. Canadians accepted that Mr. Khadr be held fully responsible for his actions. As if he were an adult.

The irony has never really penetrated Canadians' consciousness. Canada, the country of the liberal Youth Criminal Justice Act, is the only Western nation to give the United States carte blanche with one of its nationals at Guantanamo. Britain, Australia, Sweden and Germany fought to repatriate their nationals — adults, all of them. And Canada let a juvenile languish.

The reply from our government is but a single, vapid refrain: "Let the process work." But this is a process that, even apart from its other flaws, aims at punishing Omar Khadr for the accident of his birth in an al-Qaeda family.

the rest

[Skilly]

machabby said:

It is impossible to square. Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral and abusive; consequently, it is immoral and abusive to prosecute as a war criminal a child recruited by al-Qaeda, and punish him accordingly. We can't have it both ways.

I totally disagree with this statement.

Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral, and abusive, ... but it is also calculated. They know if they are caught over here that we will do nothing to them.

Our Young Offenders Act is way too lenient. We let children hide behind it, just because of age ... alot of "youths" know exactly what they are doing, and do exactly what they planned on without remorse. To me, these should be tried as adults. The problem is that we do not have a proper "evaluation technique" to seperate the ones who the Act was actually written for from the calculating devients who laugh at the act - unless we delve into the psycho mumbo-jumbo which in the hands of most people is more art than science.

[princelh]

I'm glad that Omar Khadr is the U.S.' problem. I don't want to see any of my tax dollars being used to prosecute or attempt to free him. The Muslim Fundamentalists want it both ways. Ignore the Geneva Convention when fighting for their RELIGIOUS reasons, but want the protection of it, when captured. This is not a conventional war between governments or nations, but an idiological war for world supremecy. Until the bleeding heart, socialist types figure this out, then we'll always be on the defensive.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

It is impossible to square. Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral and abusive; consequently, it is immoral and abusive to prosecute as a war criminal a child recruited by al-Qaeda, and punish him accordingly. We can't have it both ways.

I totally disagree with this statement.

Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral, and abusive, ... but it is also calculated. They know if they are caught over here that we will do nothing to them.

Our Young Offenders Act is way too lenient. We let children hide behind it, just because of age ... alot of "youths" know exactly what they are doing, and do exactly what they planned on without remorse. To me, these should be tried as adults. The problem is that we do not have a proper "evaluation technique" to seperate the ones who the Act was actually written for from the calculating devients who laugh at the act - unless we delve into the psycho mumbo-jumbo which in the hands of most people is more art than science.

The response comes straight from the article:

the U.S. stretches the point: "If anything, the Protocol obligates the United States to prosecute Khadr" because not punishing Mr. Khadr would "further incentivize" al-Qaeda in recruiting young people.

If the U.S. is right, where is the outcry that all the world's child soldiers are going unpunished at all the world's tribunals except this one?

[Cranky]

skilly said:

I totally disagree with this statement.

Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral, and abusive, ... but it is also calculated. They know if they are caught over here that we will do nothing to them.

Exactly. Back in the 80's, the mob recruited kids to do all kinds of low level criminal activity. From "runners" to break and enters. The kids knew EXACTLY how to play the system. Al Quida is even better at it and they play for bigger stakes.