[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

You're getting a little off topic there, moddie...

imo, I don't think the Taliban care one hoot about
our system of justice,

Well, I guess the Taliban have that in common with those here that think it's OK to torture kids.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

In Omar's case, yes, in Saddam's case, not really, considering how much of a brutal asshole Saddam was.

Well don't forget Bush if your counting bodies of innconet Iraqis. Bush gave Saddam a run for his oney there, no doubt about it.

$1:

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.

How do you know he tossed agrenade. Not like he was tried or anything.

And yes he was a child. 15 is a child. Your perception on the matter is irrelvant. The reality is he was a child.

And you are in favour of the US having arbitrary powers to detain and torture anybody for ever, even kids. That's the bottom line.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well don't forget Bush if your counting bodies of innconet Iraqis. Bush gave Saddam a run for his oney there, no doubt about it.

I'm just curious, are you related to some Iraqi who was killed, or do you use those deaths to keep trying to shut down opposition to your viewpoints? Seemingly it is one or the other, considering how actively you keep peddling your perception over the Iraq War and anti-American/neo-conservative bias, no matter what topic is brought up.

$1:

And yes he was a child. 15 is a child. Your perception on the matter is irrelvant. The reality is he was a child.

Actually, my perception is my reality, much like your perception is your reality. Just because you cannot see past your perception does not make your reality correct. You can see him as a child who has absolutely no responsibilities for his actions, I see him as the opposite.

My perception of reality is that Omar Khadr tossed a grenade, killed a US soldier, was captured, and almost executed on the battlefield for his actions. Seemingly, instead of shooting him in the head, they sent him off to Gitmo. I also see OJ Simpson as a murderer, even if he was acquitted in a court too.

$1:

And you are in favour of the US having arbitrary powers to detain and torture anybody for ever, even kids. That's the bottom line.

I said nothing of the sort. I just said they have those powers (and certainly I never argued they can detain anybody, just those non-uniformed combatants), not if those powers are ethical or morally correct. The fact you try to put that argument in my mouth shows how little you understand my views.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

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.

Just curious, why do you think the neo-cons want perpetual war? And an even better question, since you know all, including what I think, what should we do about it? Do you even think a threat exists, or do you see it as some boogeyman created by the neo-cons to keep people in perpetual fear?

[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Do you even think a threat exists, or do you see it as some boogeyman created by the neo-cons to keep people in perpetual fear?

Change the word created to exploited and I think you've got it, Pontiac.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Do you even think a threat exists, or do you see it as some boogeyman created by the neo-cons to keep people in perpetual fear?

Change the word created to exploited and I think you've got it, Pontiac.

So tell me, do you see the threat as serious? Do you even think a threat exists? And how is it being exploited?

[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

andyt andyt:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Do you even think a threat exists, or do you see it as some boogeyman created by the neo-cons to keep people in perpetual fear?

Change the word created to exploited and I think you've got it, Pontiac.

So tell me, do you see the threat as serious? Do you even think a threat exists? And how is it being exploited?

No, terrorism isn't a very serious threat unless we let it be. That's the definition of terrorism - a tactic by the weak to try to create fear. I'm not saying we ignore the threat, I am saying we don't over react either. Iraq and loss of civil liberties are two examples of how fear is exploited in the US, and the second example applies to us too.

I supported the invasion of Astan to go after Bin Laden. And of course Rumsfeld made sure to fuck it up, so Bin Laden could escape and continue to be the boogeyman. The true danger isn't from Astan, but from Pstan becoming taken over by the radicals. That's no longer terrorism, that's a dangerous state. But we don't seem to have clue how to prevent something like that. Same with N Korea.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I'm just curious, are you related to some Iraqi who was killed, or do you use those deaths to keep trying to shut down opposition to your viewpoints? Seemingly it is one or the other, considering how actively you keep peddling your perception over the Iraq War and anti-American/neo-conservative bias, no matter what topic is brought up.

I'm not trying to shut down anyone. Just a reminder that if your'e going to remark on the brutality of killers of Iraqis, then you shouldn't forget to add George W. Bush to the list.

$1:

Actually, my perception is my reality, much like your perception is your reality. Just because you cannot see past your perception does not make your reality correct. You can see him as a child who has absolutely no responsibilities for his actions, I see him as the opposite.

Well, I would argue with that ontological viewpoint by pointing out that just because you do not perceive a car hurtling at you while your'e jaywalking, does not mean that the car does not exist. Therefore I refute your "perception is reality" argument. T

The fact is that Khadr was 15 at the time of the alleged killing. And 15 is, in fact, a child. You can perceive him as an adult of course--that's your prerogatiove. But your perception is wrong.

$1:

I said nothing of the sort. I just said they have those powers (and certainly I never argued they can detain anybody, just those non-uniformed combatants), not if those powers are ethical or morally correct. The fact you try to put that argument in my mouth shows how little you understand my views.

Baloney. No one is arguing if the US has the power to detain and torture whoever they want. Of course they do. That's a demonstrable fact.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Just curious, why do you think the neo-cons want perpetual war? And an even better question, since you know all, including what I think, what should we do about it? Do you even think a threat exists, or do you see it as some boogeyman created by the neo-cons to keep people in perpetual fear?

The neo-conservatives realized that America was a military hyperpower. Their policy was that no nation should be able to pose a threat to American military supremacy. That is an aggressive foreign policy. Any nation that is deemed to be inimical to Americans interests and has a threatening military becomes a target. Not because they attack America, but because they could attack. It becomes a pre-emptive exercise where you elimnate foes before they become a problem.

Actually, it is a very practical philosphy, I'll give it that. It boils down to "We have the biggest hammer, so this is the tool we're going to use."

And I'm not sure what threat you are talking about? The threat that Canada will be conquered by Afghanistan, or Iraq? Or the risk that I will die in terrorist atatck? Either way, thoses risks are low--though they are risks, granted. They certainly are not worth granting the state arbitrary powers to detain, torture or kill.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not trying to shut down anyone. Just a reminder that if your'e going to remark on the brutality of killers of Iraqis, then you shouldn't forget to add George W. Bush to the list.

Right. All I said that if he had WMDs or not, his actions speak for themselves though decades of control of Iraq. Comparing to Bush, or any other political figure does not change what Saddam did.

$1:

Well, I would argue with that ontological viewpoint by pointing out that just because you do not perceive a car hurtling at you while your'e jaywalking, does not mean that the car does not exist. Therefore I refute your "perception is reality" argument.

Too concrete of an example to make a valid comparison. You're trying to say a 15 year old is a child. A child can be a broad or a narrow definition. A fifteen year old in the United States and other Western countries can be tried as adults if they commit an adult crime, like murder. I see what Omar Khadr did as an "adult" crime or action. His age does not matter as much as his actions. You might disagree. That's your perception on the issue.

$1:

The fact is that Khadr was 15 at the time of the alleged killing. And 15 is, in fact, a child. You can perceive him as an adult of course--that's your prerogatiove. But your perception is wrong.

I agree he was fifteen at the time of his alleged killing. I disagree with the idea that his age should be the sole indicator of his status of him being a child. That's where we disagree. My perception is wrong to you, but might not be wrong to others. You do not control reality.

$1:

Baloney. No one is arguing if the US has the power to detain and torture whoever they want. Of course they do. That's a demonstrable fact.

That's what I was arguing. My opinion on if it is ethically justified or morally correct does not matter. It is what is happening, and no amount of a philosophical discussion will ever change said fact.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The neo-conservatives realized that America was a military hyperpower. Their policy was that no nation should be able to pose a threat to American military supremacy. That is an aggressive foreign policy. Any nation that is deemed to be inimical to Americans interests and has a threatening military becomes a target. Not because they attack America, but because they could attack. It becomes a pre-emptive exercise where you elimnate foes before they become a problem.

Actually, it is a very practical philosphy, I'll give it that. It boils down to "We have the biggest hammer, so this is the tool we're going to use."

So then, since the neo-cons are generally out of political power within the United States, why has the Americans actually increased their interests in Afghanistan? Why have the Predator drone attacks continued in Pakistan and who knows where else?

This isn't a purely "neo-con" philosophy, but rather a shift in aspects of American foreign policy. A decade or so of inaction against terrorism during the 90s led to 9-11, and they're attempting a new strategy of actively combating potential terrorist threats, compared to letting potential threats take action. The major aspect that I disagree with is perpetual warfare, since even after active combat ends, the drone strikes, the intelligence operations, the cooperation with Allied, friendly, or even rival states will continue.

$1:

And I'm not sure what threat you are talking about? The threat that Canada will be conquered by Afghanistan, or Iraq? Or the risk that I will die in terrorist atatck? Either way, thoses risks are low--though they are risks, granted. They certainly are not worth granting the state arbitrary powers to detain, torture or kill.

The threat or potential threat of terrorism.

Also, do you really believe that the state did not have those powers before September 11, 2001? I'm not discussing the legality or the ethical considerations of said powers, just if they had them.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Right. All I said that if he had WMDs or not, his actions speak for themselves though decades of control of Iraq. Comparing to Bush, or any other political figure does not change what Saddam did.

Granted.

$1:

Too concrete of an example to make a valid comparison. You're trying to say a 15 year old is a child. A child can be a broad or a narrow definition. A fifteen year old in the United States and other Western countries can be tried as adults if they commit an adult crime, like murder. I see what Omar Khadr did as an "adult" crime or action. His age does not matter as much as his actions. You might disagree. That's your perception on the issue.

The ddifference between a child and an adult is defined. Within the varying definitions in teh United States and Canada, 15 is always considered a child. Even if tried as an adult, it remains "a child tried as an adult." If Khadr was tried as an adult in a competent court, I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with that. I do have an issue with torturing children.

$1:

That's what I was arguing. My opinion on if it is ethically justified or morally correct does not matter. It is what is happening, and no amount of a philosophical discussion will ever change said fact.

Well, if that's your whole case then I wholheartedly concede. It did indeed happen. And nothing I do will ever change that fact. However, I'm not powerless and I'd like to do my best to see that my country does not support torturing children. As you do your best to protect the rights of the unborn.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

So then, since the neo-cons are generally out of political power within the United States, why has the Americans actually increased their interests in Afghanistan? Why have the Predator drone attacks continued in Pakistan and who knows where else?

This isn't a purely "neo-con" philosophy, but rather a shift in aspects of American foreign policy. A decade or so of inaction against terrorism during the 90s led to 9-11, and they're attempting a new strategy of actively combating potential terrorist threats, compared to letting potential threats take action. The major aspect that I disagree with is perpetual warfare, since even after active combat ends, the drone strikes, the intelligence operations, the cooperation with Allied, friendly, or even rival states will continue.

I don't disagree with striking against terrorists, like we did in Afghanistan. It's the statement that America "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence" that I find disturbing. That, to my mind, is not a philosophy of freedom or self-determination, but a philosophy of servitude.

$1:

The threat or potential threat of terrorism.

Also, do you really believe that the state did not have those powers before September 11, 2001? I'm not discussing the legality or the ethical considerations of said powers, just if they had them.

Agreed. But the worst thing that can happen, in my opinion, is that the flashlight shines on this kind of behaviour and no one cares. The defining aspect of a free society is the goevrnment--the military--are bound in their behaviour by civilians, by voters. Once that goes out the window, once the security appartus of the state operates above the law with impunity, then with it goes freedom.

I'll let you rebut and leave it at that. I apologize to you for getting my hackles up earlier. It's an issue I argue with perhaps too much passion.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The ddifference between a child and an adult is defined. Within the varying definitions in teh United States and Canada, 15 is always considered a child. Even if tried as an adult, it remains "a child tried as an adult." If Khadr was tried as an adult in a competent court, I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with that.

And now we enter the gray area. There is no argument he was 15 when he was captured. I agree he was. I see him, however, under that same category. "Children, tried as adults", face adult consequences for their actions. Khadr, in my eyes, committed an "adult" action, using his capable mind, and now should face adult consequences. He was old enough, at 15, to conduct said action and activity, now I see absolutely no reason, nor have any desire to repatriate Khadr to Canada because I see his actions and thought processes as being of a mature "adult" nature, no matter his physical age.

And a competent court? Another gray area. No matter what court process considered would work. You'd consider a military trial as some kangaroo court, and would probably only consider a civilian trial...which would remove any consequences for his action due to the fact that the military does treat the battlefield as a crime scene, and any possible evidence probably does not exist any longer.

$1:

I do have an issue with torturing children.

You have an issue with torture in general, you're just peddling the children line to win brownie points. The emotional appeal of "PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" just makes this argument continuous and tiring. So, unless you're going to tell me that you're a-ok with Khadr being tortured if he was captured when he was...20, for example, just stop.

[Freakinoldguy]

Curtman Curtman:

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?

$1:

So why the fuck should we do anything for Haiti? Israel? Afghanistan? Because sometimes we do what is right, not what is profitable.

If this diatribe is your opinion, then yes, I actually read what it was.

But I do have a question. Who is this "we" you allude to in your statement? Cause it sure doesn't include me or alot of other Canadians who like me are diametrically opposed to your political agenda.