0
   

A DIFFERENCE IN STYLE

 
 
Setanta
 
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 06:31 am
Canadian soldiers have replaced American forces in Afghanistan, primarily in the Kandahar region, and are soon to be joined by English and Dutch forces. This is not the typical peace-keeping mission which is familiar to all Canadians--this is a shooting war. And as such, questions arise which have long been discussed in the United States. One is the question of the treatment of prisoners.

From The Toronto Star:

Canadians capture 10 Taliban suspects

Largest group apprehended yet
Raid finds money, bomb materials


May 12, 2006. 12:00 AM



As reported by the Canadian Press, and publish in The Toronto Star.

What is ironic about this is that the media in Canada are demanding to know what the military has "to hide." The Canadian deployment to Afghanistan is being increasingly criticized in Canada, especially as the dead and wounded come home. Rather than acknowledging that the Canadian Defense Forces are operating under the provision of the Geneva Convention, the press are suspicious that Prime Minister Harper's government may be attempting to keep information from the public.


The second paragraph of Article 13, Part II, of the Third Geneva Convention, that part being entitled General Protection of Prisoners of War, reads, in its entirety:

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

The London (Ontario) Free Press says News Service asked to hold prisoner photos. The Toronto Globe and Mail alleges that Forces try to suppress photos of prisoners. Compare this to the treatment of "detainees" by Americans, and in particular, the treatment of "detainees" at Abu Ghraib. There is definitely a difference of style.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 810 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 07:10 am
Since I know little about the real Afghanistan, I read what the experts have to say. I do not believe the official propaganda announcements. It looks like that country will be our Vietnam, endless fighting and total government corruption.
.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis22.html
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 07:12 am
Do some online research about Afghanistan, and then you won't be subject to such ignorance, nor obliged to rely upon dubious sources. In the late 1950s, the United States decided to prop up the "King" of Afganistan. I happened to learn a good deal about this in the 1960s, because my aunt (my father's sister) worked in Kabul for American Airlines. The King was overthrown and a civil war began in 1963. That civil war, although it has changed in form and the details of the contending parties, has never ended. The Afghan people have been in a state of war for more than 40 years.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 09:35 am
setanta, do you think that Margolis is a dubious source? Do you know more than he does because your auntie lived down there once.
.
I like this Margolis fellow. He has been at all the hotspots in the Middle East and knows more about it than you and I and your auntie.
.......................
Eric Margolis
Foreign Correspondent and Columnist, Toronto Sun
.
Eric Margolis is a journalist born in New York City and holding degrees from Georgetown, the University of Geneva, .
He now works in Canada as contributing editor to the Toronto Sun chain, writing mainly on Middle East, South Asia, and Islamic affairs.
.
He also writes for Dawn, Pakistan's leading newspaper, and for the Gulf Times in Qatar and Khaleej Times in Dubai. He also appears frequently on Canadian television broadcasts - he appears regularly on CNN, CNN International, Fox, CBC, Britain's Sky News, NPR, and CTV National.
.
Margolis is affiliated with several organizations including the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London and the Institute of Regional Studies based in Islamabad, Pakistan.
......................
We in Canada have a new prime minister who will do anything to please Bush. We have a new military leader who talks like a redneck. No wonder the Afghanis are upset.
....................
Many Afghans, not just the Taliban, have been infuriated by outside forces occupying their country.

He finds General Rick Hillier's comment that Canadian troops will be targeting "detestable murderers" and "scumbags" a dangerous simplification of Afghanistan's political situation. It's not just the Taliban who are opposing foreign troops, Weera argues. Locals in the country's south and east have been infuriated by the performance of outside forces in their areas.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 09:39 am
I object to your standard sources not because i allege a lack of knowledge, but because i allege bias. Keep your snotty characterization of my aunt to yourself.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:18 am
What characterization? I don't see any.
.
All people are biased. Starting to make 'snotty' remarks is not helping the conversation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:25 am
It isn't much of a conversation. I posted an article, and links to others. You posted another article. Where's the conversation? It is snotty to refer to my aunt as "auntie," and that was your intention. I rarely read anything you post--both because it is not likely to be anything you wrote, but something you picked up elsehwhere (and showing an appalling lack of judgment), and because you have a nasty bias to the left.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:32 am
You are right; I lean to the left. You lean to the right. I don't read much of your cut and paste either. You are not that important.
.
Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:36 am
detano inipo wrote:
You are right; I lean to the left. You lean to the right.


Shocked

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:38 am
Re: A DIFFERENCE IN STYLE
Setanta wrote:
The London (Ontario) Free Press says News Service asked to hold prisoner photos. The Toronto Globe and Mail alleges that Forces try to suppress photos of prisoners. Compare this to the treatment of "detainees" by Americans, and in particular, the treatment of "detainees" at Abu Ghraib. There is definitely a difference of style.


Why, did the US military use barbed-wire handcuffs instead of plastic ties?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:42 am
Ticomaya wrote:
detano inipo wrote:
You are right; I lean to the left. You lean to the right.


Shocked

Laughing


Kind of amazing, no?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:44 am
Re: A DIFFERENCE IN STYLE
Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The London (Ontario) Free Press says News Service asked to hold prisoner photos. The Toronto Globe and Mail alleges that Forces try to suppress photos of prisoners. Compare this to the treatment of "detainees" by Americans, and in particular, the treatment of "detainees" at Abu Ghraib. There is definitely a difference of style.


Why, did the US military use barbed-wire handcuffs instead of plastic ties?


You are being disingenuous. The gentleman who took photos of the alleged Taliban members made prisoner by the Canadians was not a member of the Canadian Defense Forces. At Abu Ghraib, members of the United States Army took photographs of prisoners, many of whom were naked, and usually placed in humiliating positions. This was intentional, and a clear violation of portion of the Third Geneva Accord which i have cited.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:56 am
Re: A DIFFERENCE IN STYLE
Setanta wrote:
You are being disingenuous. The gentleman who took photos of the alleged Taliban members made prisoner by the Canadians was not a member of the Canadian Defense Forces. At Abu Ghraib, members of the United States Army took photographs of prisoners, many of whom were naked, and usually placed in humiliating positions. This was intentional, and a clear violation of portion of the Third Geneva Accord which i have cited.


Here's what I mean: The article indicated the 10 detainees were turned over to Afghan authorities, and were not held for any length of time by the Canadian military. The Canadian pictures taken were of the capture, not the detention. Seems like comparing apples to oranges to compare the capture and brief detention in this case to the Abu Ghraib scandal. I'm not saying that if the Canadian military had established a prison compound in Afghanistan to house its prisoners it would have treated its prisoners the way the US soldiers at Abu Ghraib did, but I don't see how the conclusion can be drawn that it wouldn't have, all things being equal. I mean, someone could post a video of the New York police department taking a prisoner into custody, all the while not beating him with their batons, then draw the conclusion that there is definitely a difference in style" between the NYPD and the LAPD.

Not to mention that the taking of the pictures at Abu Ghraib was not sanctioned by the US military, and clearly the US military was not desireous of those photos being published.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » A DIFFERENCE IN STYLE
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 01:42:17