|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:09 pm
Scape Scape: This is a 7 year old open wound. Even the Japanese and German POW's were not held that long. Only the communists held them longer and we seem to have adopted a lot of thier traits as well. Well, one issue with this is that the "War on Terror" isn't over. Yes, the Germans, Japanese, and Italian POWs weren't held for 7 years, but that's because World War II only lasted for 6 years. Worse yet, since we're not fighting a country, but an ideological and fundamentalist force made up of a number of organizations (mostly the Taliban and AQ, but others, as well) from various countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, among others). Once, and if this war ends, where exactly do we release these POWs, if their respective home country won't take them back? What about the precedent of released Gitmo prisoners going back into the war? So, then we have the issue of trials. After World War II, we had the Nuremberg Trials against the highest ranking of Nazi officials. Israel prosecutes captured Nazi war criminals, like Gestapo members and concentration camp guards. This war is different. A majority of German soldiers during World War II fought the war for the same reason Allied soldiers did, for their country, family, honor, etc etc etc. Many didn't have much of a choice to serve, and some even risked death to be a deserter, like the current Pope. A majority of those fighting in the Taliban and AQ made a conscious choice to leave their countries, families, and lives to fight against the West/Christianity/Judaism/Israel/whatever. Yes, many are brainwashed into the life too. So what do we do with these individuals? Let them go, at the dangerous risk of them committing acts of terrorism against the West? Keep them imprisoned, after a trial of some sort? Execute them and dump them into the Atlantic? The Geneva Convention, and many World War II-era treaties dealing with warfare barely touch upon "radical religious extremists" and how to deal with them. Some, on the left, see them as regular soldiers who should be treated like soldiers of the past. Others see them as "non-uniformed combatants" which gave up their protections as they disguised themselves as a part of the innocent civilian population, thus their lives can be forfeited without delay. We're fighting a new type of war, and the civilized world, West and East, haven't caught up. This isn't a war just between NATO and the Taliban/AQ, but rather engagements by many countries by many similar organizations. The Philippines vs. MNLF, Israel vs. Hamas, Russia vs. Chechens, etc. Each have dealt with the problem in their own way, some with brutality that would not be accepted in Canada and the US. So how do we solve this problem? How do we end a no-front war, what do we deal with those captured before committing terrorist attacks in Toronto or Kabul? What do we do with those captured already? Absolutely nothing is black and white, and there is no correct answer. Anybody who believes otherwise has a very large ego or a time machine.
|
Lemmy
CKA Uber
Posts: 12349
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:15 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: Scape Scape: This is a 7 year old open wound. Even the Japanese and German POW's were not held that long. Only the communists held them longer and we seem to have adopted a lot of thier traits as well. Well, one issue with this is that the "War on Terror" isn't over. Yes, the Germans, Japanese, and Italian POWs weren't held for 7 years, but that's because World War II only lasted for 6 years. Worse yet, since we're not fighting a country, but an ideological and fundamentalist force made up of a number of organizations (mostly the Taliban and AQ, but others, as well) from various countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, among others). Once, and if this war ends, where exactly do we release these POWs, if their respective home country won't take them back? What about the precedent of released Gitmo prisoners going back into the war? So, then we have the issue of trials. After World War II, we had the Nuremberg Trials against the highest ranking of Nazi officials. Israel prosecutes captured Nazi war criminals, like Gestapo members and concentration camp guards. This war is different. A majority of German soldiers during World War II fought the war for the same reason Allied soldiers did, for their country, family, honor, etc etc etc. Many didn't have much of a choice to serve, and some even risked death to be a deserter, like the current Pope. A majority of those fighting in the Taliban and AQ made a conscious choice to leave their countries, families, and lives to fight against the West/Christianity/Judaism/Israel/whatever. Yes, many are brainwashed into the life too. So what do we do with these individuals? Let them go, at the dangerous risk of them committing acts of terrorism against the West? Keep them imprisoned, after a trial of some sort? Execute them and dump them into the Atlantic? The Geneva Convention, and many World War II-era treaties dealing with warfare barely touch upon "radical religious extremists" and how to deal with them. Some, on the left, see them as regular soldiers who should be treated like soldiers of the past. Others see them as "non-uniformed combatants" which gave up their protections as they disguised themselves as a part of the innocent civilian population, thus their lives can be forfeited without delay. We're fighting a new type of war, and the civilized world, West and East, haven't caught up. This isn't a war just between NATO and the Taliban/AQ, but rather engagements by many countries by many similar organizations. The Philippines vs. MNLF, Israel vs. Hamas, Russia vs. Chechens, etc. Each have dealt with the problem in their own way, some with brutality that would not be accepted in Canada and the US. So how do we solve this problem? How do we end a no-front war, what do we deal with those captured before committing terrorist attacks in Toronto or Kabul? What do we do with those captured already? Absolutely nothing is black and white, and there is no correct answer. Anybody who believes otherwise has a very large ego or a time machine. 
|
Posts: 42160
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:24 pm
Scape Scape: This is a 7 year old open wound. Even the Japanese and German POW's were not held that long. Only the communists held them longer and we seem to have adopted a lot of thier traits as well. The Axis POWs were released and repatriated after their war ended, not while the conflict was ongoing. Funny, I don't remember seeing any headlines about the terrorists asking for an immediate cessation of hostilitiies or offering an unconditional surrender. Sorry Kai, I didn't see your post before I posted.
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:37 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock: I think a lot of hot air has been expelled on both sides on this one.
Really it boils down to this for me. In Canada we should be able to protect our citizens caught up in legal problems in other countries. But we should also be able to diferentiate between Canadian citizens in good standing (by that I mean not criminals and citizens that have some residency in our country) and wankers who live in an Al Queda compound and join an insurgency against our allies and our own forces.
I've been called a 'Khadr hater'. Well I'm not a Khadr lover. I'm for citizenship meaning something. I'm not for all these 'plastic Canadians' coming over here to have a few kids and get a nice passport while they carry on bombing people where they came from or living in Beirut for years at a time then calling for Canada to come and rescue them from the country they fled as refugees but now have two houses there and a business.
Being able to say that stuff in an open forum would garner me the label of 'racist' from some of you. I'm not. I believe we have a duty and a right to challenge this bullshite. I think JFK said it best.
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
What have the Khadr's ever done for Canada? What have the other plastic Canadians ever done for Canada? They just take and give nothing back.
Nothing. So why the fuck should we do anything for them? Post Of The Year #1 
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:38 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: Scape Scape: This is a 7 year old open wound. Even the Japanese and German POW's were not held that long. Only the communists held them longer and we seem to have adopted a lot of thier traits as well. Well, one issue with this is that the "War on Terror" isn't over. Yes, the Germans, Japanese, and Italian POWs weren't held for 7 years, but that's because World War II only lasted for 6 years. Worse yet, since we're not fighting a country, but an ideological and fundamentalist force made up of a number of organizations (mostly the Taliban and AQ, but others, as well) from various countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, among others). Once, and if this war ends, where exactly do we release these POWs, if their respective home country won't take them back? What about the precedent of released Gitmo prisoners going back into the war? So, then we have the issue of trials. After World War II, we had the Nuremberg Trials against the highest ranking of Nazi officials. Israel prosecutes captured Nazi war criminals, like Gestapo members and concentration camp guards. This war is different. A majority of German soldiers during World War II fought the war for the same reason Allied soldiers did, for their country, family, honor, etc etc etc. Many didn't have much of a choice to serve, and some even risked death to be a deserter, like the current Pope. A majority of those fighting in the Taliban and AQ made a conscious choice to leave their countries, families, and lives to fight against the West/Christianity/Judaism/Israel/whatever. Yes, many are brainwashed into the life too. So what do we do with these individuals? Let them go, at the dangerous risk of them committing acts of terrorism against the West? Keep them imprisoned, after a trial of some sort? Execute them and dump them into the Atlantic? The Geneva Convention, and many World War II-era treaties dealing with warfare barely touch upon "radical religious extremists" and how to deal with them. Some, on the left, see them as regular soldiers who should be treated like soldiers of the past. Others see them as "non-uniformed combatants" which gave up their protections as they disguised themselves as a part of the innocent civilian population, thus their lives can be forfeited without delay. We're fighting a new type of war, and the civilized world, West and East, haven't caught up. This isn't a war just between NATO and the Taliban/AQ, but rather engagements by many countries by many similar organizations. The Philippines vs. MNLF, Israel vs. Hamas, Russia vs. Chechens, etc. Each have dealt with the problem in their own way, some with brutality that would not be accepted in Canada and the US. So how do we solve this problem? How do we end a no-front war, what do we deal with those captured before committing terrorist attacks in Toronto or Kabul? What do we do with those captured already? Absolutely nothing is black and white, and there is no correct answer. Anybody who believes otherwise has a very large ego or a time machine. Post Of The Year #2 
|
Posts: 35283
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:45 pm
Let's say for the sake of argument that Omar was not the one that threw the grenade, would it have made any difference just like if Saddam actually had WMD? Of course not. He's guilty before he was even tried.
In war without uniforms there will be casualties without record. What happened to Omar was sad but to say that there is no authority over reach here is a joke. What he has now become is a direct result of the process and the system has created a terrorist.
The Germans fought WWII because of the humiliating terms after the loss of WWI. Does that lesson need to be relearned? Armies of enemies are created when we disregard the fundamentals of justice.
|
Posts: 33691
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:43 am
Scape Scape: Let's say for the sake of argument that Omar was not the one that threw the grenade, would it have made any difference just like if Saddam actually had WMD? Of course not. He's guilty before he was even tried.
In war without uniforms there will be casualties without record. What happened to Omar was sad but to say that there is no authority over reach here is a joke. What he has now become is a direct result of the process and the system has created a terrorist.
The Germans fought WWII because of the humiliating terms after the loss of WWI. Does that lesson need to be relearned? Armies of enemies are created when we disregard the fundamentals of justice. You're getting a little off topic there, moddie... imo, I don't think the Taliban care one hoot about our system of justice, except when they can shout and cry and use it to their benefit. A trial is in the works, a trial that will involve a different set of parameters for the accused. And Kai, very well written post. 
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:11 am
Scape Scape: Let's say for the sake of argument that Omar was not the one that threw the grenade, would it have made any difference just like if Saddam actually had WMD? Of course not. He's guilty before he was even tried. In Omar's case, yes, in Saddam's case, not really, considering how much of a brutal asshole Saddam was. Omar is small fry in the big scheme of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The Americans were not hunting for an Omar Khadr when they arrived in Afghanistan, they were hunting for the big fishes within AQ and the Taliban. If Omar Khadr surrendered without tossing that grenade that killed a US soldier, then this issue would have ended years ago as the Americans gave us responsibility over him, being a Canadian citizen (the fact that he IS a Canadian citizen, along with the rest of his family disgusts me, but, that's another issue entirely). He would have been guilty of being born into a shitty family, and that would be the end of the line. However, Omar, being 15 years old, made the conscious decision to toss that grenade. He was captured after doing so. No matter what people might say about him being a "child", he was old enough to make the decision to toss a grenade, and he was old enough to know the consequences of said action.
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:23 am
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy: So, despite yours, alot of other Canadians believe leaving him in American custody to face trial is actually the right thing to do in this case. Couldn't be bothered to read what my opinion actually is?
|
Posts: 2074
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:18 am
Scape Scape: gonavy47 gonavy47: Helping Khadr is like hugging a suicide bomber...be my guest. Imagine if you were 15 and in Omar's situation. What would you have done different? If Omar was the shoe bomber or the rich son who choose to be the underwear bomber do you really think anyone would care for his fate? They had a choice, he didn't. Do you think this guy is going to change his ideology? Like I said, be my guest!
|
Posts: 2074
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:29 am
Scape Scape: Let's say for the sake of argument that Omar was not the one that threw the grenade, would it have made any difference just like if Saddam actually had WMD? Of course not. He's guilty before he was even tried.
In war without uniforms there will be casualties without record. What happened to Omar was sad but to say that there is no authority over reach here is a joke. What he has now become is a direct result of the process and the system has created a terrorist.
The Germans fought WWII because of the humiliating terms after the loss of WWI. Does that lesson need to be relearned? Armies of enemies are created when we disregard the fundamentals of justice. The Germans fought WW2 because they were led by an evil megalomaniac who saw an opportunity to dominate the world. He used the excuse of the Versailles treaty to incite the population. Was Germany better off immediately after the war than they were in 1918? I think not! The country was partitioned and almost totally occupied, yet have they started another war since the country was re-united? No! Someone said that German POW's were repatriated soon after the war ended. Let's not forget that quite a few were executed for war crimes, especially the SS concentration camp leaders.
|
Posts: 35283
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:08 am
commanderkai commanderkai: Omar is small fry in the big scheme of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The Americans were not hunting for an Omar Khadr when they arrived in Afghanistan, they were hunting for the big fishes within AQ and the Taliban. If Omar Khadr surrendered without tossing that grenade that killed a US soldier, then this issue would have ended years ago as the Americans gave us responsibility over him, being a Canadian citizen (the fact that he IS a Canadian citizen, along with the rest of his family disgusts me, but, that's another issue entirely). He would have been guilty of being born into a shitty family, and that would be the end of the line.
However, Omar, being 15 years old, made the conscious decision to toss that grenade. He was captured after doing so. No matter what people might say about him being a "child", he was old enough to make the decision to toss a grenade, and he was old enough to know the consequences of said action. Scape Scape: In February 2008, the Pentagon accidentally released documents that revealed that although Khadr was present in the house, there was no other evidence that he had thrown the grenade. In fact, military officials had originally reported that another of the surviving militants had thrown the grenade just before being killed, and later rewrote their report to implicate Khadr instead. http://www.thestar.com/article/345838We don't even know if he even had a grenade to throw.
|
Posts: 35283
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:14 am
gonavy47 gonavy47: Scape Scape: gonavy47 gonavy47: Helping Khadr is like hugging a suicide bomber...be my guest. Imagine if you were 15 and in Omar's situation. What would you have done different? If Omar was the shoe bomber or the rich son who choose to be the underwear bomber do you really think anyone would care for his fate? They had a choice, he didn't. Do you think this guy is going to change his ideology? Like I said, be my guest! Helping him now is not what I am getting at. What I am talking about is how a monster is manufactured by this process. If we were to just look at how this combatant was handled we made him a terrorist even if he wasn't one before and that is something we need to seriously look at here because we don't want to be creating the very enemy we are supposed to be fighting.
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:40 am
SprCForr SprCForr: But as POW's they were going to be held until the end. Since Khadr and his ilk have managed to secure status as POW's, they should too. The end of time?
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:46 am
commanderkai commanderkai: Well, one issue with this is that the "War on Terror" isn't over. Yes, the Germans, Japanese, and Italian POWs weren't held for 7 years, but that's because World War II only lasted for 6 years.
Worse yet, since we're not fighting a country, but an ideological and fundamentalist force made up of a number of organizations (mostly the Taliban and AQ, but others, as well) from various countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, among others).
The "War on Terror" will never be over. Terror isn't a thing that can be shot, it's an emotional state that has always existed and always will exist. Fighting an ideology, as opposed to having concrete ends, is just an excuse for perpetual war--which of course is exactly what the neo-cons want.
|
|
Page 6 of 8
|
[ 114 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests |
|
|