Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The Geneva Convention is so quaint.


Shorter Raphael Alexander: Scratch a political centrist like me and you’ll find a vindictive neoconservative completely lacking in both respect for the rule of law and simple human compassion ... again just like me.

158 comments:

Raphael Alexander said...

Gee, that didn't take long. What do you have, my RSS feed?

thwap said...

raphael,

This is a joke, right? Some sort of "trap" that seemed like a good idea at 2 in the morning?

Or are you really that vile?

Raphael Alexander said...

thwap, I wrote that all of 30 minutes ago. What are you talking about?

LuLu said...

Gee, that didn't take long. What do you have, my RSS feed?

Don't flatter yourself, dear. I stopped in to see what heinous fuckery the BTs were up to ... and lo and behold, there's a new king of the crazy castle.

Congratulations, I'm sure you'll be invited to all the best wingnut parties now.

Red Tory said...

Funny when Raphael untethers his "true blue" side and all those darling notions about being a centrist and the quaint affectations of being a thoughtful moderate are brutally punted out the window of the top floor of his latest tower of hysterically flatulent, hit-generating rhetoric.

thwap said...

The thinking behind that post seems indicative of the semi-coherent thoughts one has right after waking up suddenly.

That you wrote and posted it just recently doesn't mean that you might have thought it would be a lark to write something self-damning, thinking you could get CC (or lulu as it turns out) to condemn it.

I can only imagine that this is some sort of un-thought out "joke" to get people upset at Canadian Cynic.

Otherwise, it's a vile piece of shit, reflective of the thought processes of a truly contemptible human being.

Someone who drank a lot of drug and pissed filled Kool-Aid, the "War on Terror" flavoured kind.

Raphael Alexander said...

RT, let's have it out. I never called myself a "thoughtful moderate", so don't throw it in my face when I don't live up to YOUR OWN expectations.

As for hits, it had nothing to do with hits. It had to be said to counter the terror-apologist pity party here at CC's shrine to the BTs.

Ti-Guy said...

Shorter RA: "I wish I could strangle Omar Khadr with my own hands."

Raphael Alexander said...

thwap, please. I don't write to be critiqued by either of these two BT-infatuated writers. I assure you that it is neither the latter option I was given either. If you don't want to know what makes the right side "tick", then by all means ignore us and continue your obsession with Canada's poster boy for "when I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the big, bad Americans shot me in the back".

LuLu said...

It had to be said to counter the terror-apologist pity party here at CC's shrine to the BTs.

What an astonishing pile of bullshit. Do yourself a favour Raphael and stop trying to speak for anyone but yourself - your doing a piss poor job of it.

Raphael Alexander said...

lulu, to quote the narcissistic Canadian Cynic, attack the ideas, not the man.

Ti-Guy said...

Raphael, since you have evidence that proves Khadr's guilt, the reason you aren't furnishing it to the US military and the Bush administration must be that you're a terrorist-enabler and a traitor.

thwap said...

I think ti-guy nailed it.

You're no different from the insurgents who wish violent deaths on their Western enemies.

Only difference is you're a comfortable, safe Canadian who hasn't had family members who died due to UN sanctions, or who Saddam Hussein killed from a list provided by the CIA, or who were raped by Northern Alliance warlords armed and funded by the CIA, or who were raped and killed by US goons at Abu Ghraib, or who were shot surrendering at Fallujah.

Omar Kadhr was the product of his upbringing. Like you (apparently) he was schooled in fanaticism. His supposed crime though, was apparently throwing a grenade during a fire-fight when he was 14.

For that, and for being his father's son, you're pleased that he's been tortured for years.

This country could do without garbage like you.

Raphael Alexander said...

Thanks for proving you didn't read the article, ti-guy.

LuLu said...

lulu, to quote the narcissistic Canadian Cynic, attack the ideas, not the man.

You first.

Raphael Alexander said...

Only difference is you're a comfortable, safe Canadian who hasn't had family members who died due to UN sanctions, or who Saddam Hussein killed from a list provided by the CIA, or who were raped by Northern Alliance warlords armed and funded by the CIA, or who were raped and killed by US goons at Abu Ghraib, or who were shot surrendering at Fallujah.

No, I'm a lot different thwap. I and my family who have been here for generations have always been law-abiding citizens who paid their taxes and never once considered beheading anyone for offending Islam.

And I certainly don't think anyone in my family used Canada like a dirty rag in order to come and go from here, using it as a base of operations while plotting violent acts in the name of Islam.

I've already explained why Canada is reluctant to free Khadr, given how many times we've been burned by that family. Not that the terror apologists here would ever note that [PSA came close].

This country could do without garbage like me? I suppose the model citizens of Canada are based on the Omar Khadr's and his apologist terror enablers?

thwap said...

Read the whole thing. (I read your putrid ideas.)

"Omar Kadhr was the product of his upbringing. Like you (apparently) he was schooled in fanaticism. His supposed crime though, was apparently throwing a grenade during a fire-fight when he was 14.

For that, and for being his father's son, you're pleased that he's been tortured for years.
"

I honestly don't give a shit about your bleatings about your tax-paying family.

No, you don't behead people. But, if you'll notice, you and yours haven't suffered like the people of Iraq have. It does something to people. And self-righteous hypocrites like yourself would do well to think about the anger created by the policies you endorse.

You have no cause to wish for the years-long torture of a teenage boy.

Adam C said...

Hey, I read the article. When your "ideas" are that Khadr deserves to be tortured because (a) his father was a very bad man; and (b) Jean Chretien was an insufficiently vigilant prime minister, well, it leaves us very little to attack.

These ideas are self-evidently stupid and barbaric. What that says about their author is a legitimate topic of conversation.

Raphael Alexander said...

What does Iraq have to do with Omar Khadr? Thwap, please pay attention. It makes conversation so much easier.

Raphael Alexander said...

Adam, my point was more than your curt "a" and "b". It's about Canada being used like a condom by militants, and then expecting us to clean up the mess afterwards. Why not let Afghanistan repatriate Omar? After all, he went there to fight for an ideological dream. I think he should have that chance to live that dream: in dirt poor Afghanistan. Not Canada, the welfare state with health care to paralyzed children of terrorists.

LuLu said...

You keep using the term "we" and I keep trying to make you understand that you don't speak for me. You have no idea what I think or believe where Omar Khadr is concerned, you have only your assumptions that we here at CC Central are "apologist terror enablers".

And why is that, Raphael? Because I disagree with the shit that has been done in my name without my consent? Because I don't think the Geneva Convention is quaint and outdated? Because for all their talk about being the party of law and order, the Harper Tories are nothing but jumped-up fascists?

I cannot stress this enough so you pay attention – we are supposed to be better than this. The fact that you can’t see that is really quite sad.

Red Tory said...

RA — RT, let's have it out. I never called myself a "thoughtful moderate", so don't throw it in my face when I don't live up to YOUR OWN expectations.

It’s a truly strange world where someone might consider the expression “a thoughtful moderate” to be some sort of a disgusting insult or seemingly regard it as an epithet. Such are the dissociatively perplexing and radically polarized times in which we live, I guess. Silly me… it was my distinct impression this was the image and online persona you were quite deliberately cultivating (while of course being oh-so careful not to completely alienate the loopy, helmet-clad readership of the Blogging Tories).

As well, I have no particular “expectations” of you my dear fellow, and most especially not now that you seem to have angrily denounced any pretense whatsoever to being the “centrist” you (apparently now quite laughably) claim to be. A centrist must, by nature, be a “thoughtful moderate”… it’s a pesky “logic” thing… don’t worry about it. And what the hey… After all, there’s no need to in BT-World®! (One of the many “bonus” features of Stephen Taylor’s closed-loop, reverberating echo-chamber.)

As for hits, it had nothing to do with hits. It had to be said to counter the terror-apologist pity party here at CC's shrine to the BTs.

Well, to quote from Ronald Reagan, “there you go again…” Yes, that evil rotter CC and every perfidious “liberal” dissident who comments here are nothing but “apologists” for TERRA and “terrorists”. QED, ladies and gents. It should also be noted that you’ve admitted on many occasions to writing inflammatory headlines simply to attract traffic to your site.

Allow me to reiterate what I said about “Freedom is my Nation” earlier today: “Just another phony, baloney wingnut bullshitter.” Or, what I said over at my place this afternoon: “The Blogging Tories: ultra-fucking-maroons… Almost without exception, each and every one of them.”

So actually, I stand corrected. You’ve lived DOWN to my expectations. Congratulations. Maybe Steve Taylor has a tiny biscuit for you. Arf!

Raphael Alexander said...

I use the term "we" where it pertains to Canada, lulu. I am a Canadian, like it or not. And boo-hoo to your "shit done in [your] name without [your] consent". It's called tyranny of the majority. Vote MMP next time.

I told you this has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, or the Americans, or Iraq, or Saddam Hussein, or the Fascist Tories, or anything other than Canadians sick of being used by the Khadr family. You obviously missed the point of the article because you were too busy jumping to predictably apologist conclusions.

Raphael Alexander said...

Silly me… it was my distinct impression this was the image and online persona you were quite deliberately cultivating

I don't cultivate, RT. I write my thoughts on various political issues. And I've been anything but careful not to alienate the BT's who, I'll have you know, care about Omar Khadr slightly less than they already don't care about Taliban detainees.

angrily denounced any pretense whatsoever to being the “centrist”

No. I've angrily denounced your mocking and sarcastic commentary every time something you don't personally agree with comes from my keyboard. You then deem fit to pontificate on it to no end in a kind of self-adulating tone which implies the sheer obviousness of it beggars belief.

It should also be noted that you’ve admitted on many occasions to writing inflammatory headlines simply to attract traffic to your site.

I admitted that once, and I certainly have nothing on anyone in this room with regard to inflaming.

So actually, I stand corrected. You’ve lived DOWN to my expectations.

Martin, whatever notions of insight you think you have gained by hanging around with ideological versions of Punch and Judy's here are greatly, and I mean greatly miscalculated. Well, thank goodness I don't blog to meet Martin's expectations.

thwap said...

raphael,

I sppose i owe you an explanaton: You're blood-thirsty yammerings about the evil of young Omar are obviously based on some simplistic, and as I said, hypocritical, notion of how inexplicably nasty these Muslims are and how they need to be tortured.

I used the example of some atrocities committed against Iraqis, as well as atrocities in Afghanistan, to give you a sense of the factors that make some people there different from you and me (well at least different from me).

And Al Qaeda is partly inspired by grievances against Arabs and Islamists in Iraq. So that would explain Omar Kadhr's father's motivations to an extent. (Note that I didn't say "excuse.")

And, to conclude, aside from quibbling with some minor points I've made, you haven't dealt with my main point: That I'm condemning you for cheering on the torture of a teenaged boy.

I'll repeat: "cheering on the torture of a teenaged boy."

lenny said...

Another conny with contempt for the rule of law and basic human rights who doesn't bat an eye at the U.S. convening kangaroo courts, lying and witholding evidence.
It's not a man-bites-dog story - that's for sure.

LuLu said...

I just want to make sure that I have this straight ... since I have issues with the complete disregard the Bush Administration, and by extension the Harper government, has for the rule of law, that makes me an “apologist terror enabler”. Right?

So when you say something like this:
We don't even care if he's been tortured a little bit, and by a little bit, I'm guessing it's been a lot. He's likely been subjected to every kind of interrogation technique, stress position, humiliation, abuse, and inhumane treatment of the worst prisons on Earth. And yet it's difficult for me to care.

That makes you a torture apologist, correct? Thanks for clearing that up.

Raphael Alexander said...

notion of how inexplicably nasty these Muslims are and how they need to be tortured.

Wrong. I have every respect for Muslims who obey the rule of law. I have little for those who don't.

And your examples were irrelevant. End of story. I don't really care what al-Qaedists are inspired by, as it's immaterial to the topic here. Unless it is some kind of prelude to more terrorist apologist nonsense.

That I'm condemning you for cheering on the torture of a teenaged boy.

I didn't cheer it on. I characterized Guantanamo Bay as a torture chamber and a concentration camp gulag. All I said was that "it's hard to care".

thwap said...

Fucking gutless weasel words.

Here's what you wrote:

"For many like myself, we'd rather forget him as he rots away in the human rights-free concentration camp of Guantanamo Bay. We don't even care if he's been tortured a little bit, and by a little bit, I'm guessing it's been a lot. He's likely been subjected to every kind of interrogation technique, stress position, humiliation, abuse, and inhumane treatment of the worst prisons on Earth. And yet it's difficult for me to care."

Yeah, you didn't cheer. You just revelled in mentioning all the horrors you imagine he's being subjected to and then stated like you were cool, how you don't care.

Whatever. If you really think your sadism merits parsing with a fine-toothed comb, ... I don't care what you think.

And my examples were meant to illustrate a simple point that is clearly beyond your capabilities, so I won't continue trying to explain it to you.

I'll leave you to your masturbation fantasies about tortured teenage boys and have done with you.

Raphael Alexander said...

I didn't revel in it. I admitted an often denied truth of Guantanamo Bay. I also find it difficult to care. But that's Al-Qaeda is doing to kids like Omar Khadr. They certainly know what they're doing in the video, and they're not that innocent. It isn't that I don't agree with some of what you're saying. It's just that the Khadr's are a cancer, and we'd rather cauterize it right there in Cuba.

jj said...

RA, you can't be serious.

Do you think for one minute that those kids in that vid are politically-astute enough to question what the adults tell them? Especially in view of what they can see with their own eyes -- their homes being invaded and blown to bits by foreigners.

Give your head a friggin shake.

Raphael Alexander said...

Do I think they're politically astute? No. Do I think that actions have consequences? Yes.

Red Tory said...

RA — I don't cultivate, RT. I write my thoughts on various political issues.

Yeah, and I just dropped off a turnip cart.

No. I've angrily denounced your mocking and sarcastic commentary every time something you don't personally agree with comes from my keyboard. You then deem fit to pontificate on it to no end in a kind of self-adulating tone which implies the sheer obviousness of it beggars belief.

Well, that was fairly incoherent. Yes, I will indeed resort to mockery when, for example, you invoke tactics from the Medieval Crusades vis-à-vis describing the “way forward” for Canadian troops in Afghanistan. How one “implies sheer obviousness” is a bit of a confounding puzzlement (albeit completely meaningless, the words sound good together though, don’t they? Almost like they should mean something…)

I certainly have nothing on anyone in this room with regard to inflaming.

Well, let me escalate and refine somewhat the charge of being “inflammatory” and that is being “misleading” as well. Case in point, your headline the other day where you stated that the Liberals don’t understand the mission in Afghanistan and then in the comments said completely the opposite. Here was your headline: “Worth Repeating: Bob Rae And Liberals Don't Understand Mission” and here’s what you said in the comments: “I'm not saying the Liberals don't understand the mission.” Wow. You should see if Mitt Romney is looking for staffers with that whopper.

Martin, whatever notions of insight you think you have gained by hanging around with ideological versions of Punch and Judy's here are greatly, and I mean greatly miscalculated. Well, thank goodness I don't blog to meet Martin's expectations.

Oh really? Perhaps you find the inane flapdoodle of “Anonymous” and “Anonymous” or the other “Anonymous” as well the execrable prattling of “Joanne-True Blue,” or “Kursk” and “Mary T” to be vastly more “insightful” do you? Good luck with that.

My expectations aren’t really all that great, although I do tend to gravitate to sites that are thoughtful, opinionated, articulate and/or humorous. When all four of those qualities are in evidence… well, all the better.

LuLu said...

And do you honestly think people like the Khadrs raise their children like the Cleavers? No, Raphael, they indoctrinate them.

If you are surrounded from birth by people who tell that black is always white and white is always black, how are you to know different? Every child is a product of their environment and a 15 year old is still very much a child, whether you want to admit it or not.

Raphael Alexander said...

Yes, I will indeed resort to mockery when, for example, you invoke tactics from the Medieval Crusades vis-à-vis describing the “way forward” for Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

They weren't tactics. It was a valid comparison. Canada can't sit holed up in a bunker in Afghanistan and say "we're in control". It's deceitful of you to imply otherwise.

My expectations aren’t really all that great, although I do tend to gravitate to sites that are thoughtful, opinionated, articulate and/or humorous.

Oh really? I've never seen you on James Bow's site, or any of the numerous sites which are actually thoughtful and articulate without hyper-partisan leftist spin [hint,hint]. No, I suspect you enjoy good old egregious insults and outright hyperbolic lies. You and your pals here are little better than Neo with the pejorative-ridden, albeit grammatically enhanced, manifestos about how evil everything right of the Liberal party are.

But who am I to deny a man and his meat? Chow down on that BSE burger, Red.

Raphael Alexander said...

No, Raphael, they indoctrinate them.

Apology noted.

Every child is a product of their environment and a 15 year old is still very much a child, whether you want to admit it or not.

Apology noted.

Is anyone here ever going to actually admit Omar Khadr did bad things? If you keep building him up like this, soon he may get his wings like Clarence and fly away to heaven!

Ti-Guy said...

Is anyone here ever going to actually admit Omar Khadr did bad things?

I'll admit you've done bad things. Why should I care about laws, due process and rules of evidence?

These anti-democratic, illiberal rightwingers. We really should intern them all.

LuLu said...

Is anyone here ever going to actually admit Omar Khadr did bad things?

Sure Raphael, just as soon as the Americans stop hiding evidence and resorting to constant spin tactics to try and support their complete disregard for habeus corpus. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Raphael Alexander said...

lulu, a conditional to your admission that Omar Khadr is a bad person is that I must admit the American hide evidence, spin information, and try to weakly support their disregard of habeus corpus? That's easy. The Americans do all of those things and more [you're actually being quite easy on them]. Now where's mine?

jj said...

RA - Omar Khadr did bad things.

Omar Khadr was brought up to believe he was right to do these bad things, and that in fact, the bad things weren't being done by him but by the people he was defending himself against.

All the evidence Omar Khadr could see with his own unworldly 15-year-old eyes reinforced what he was told.

So does he deserve to be tortured for not being astute enough to question his parents and everyone else around him in that situation?

LuLu said...

You have to admit nothing, Raphael - I said the Americans have to admit to it. Nice try, though.

Now here's a small bone. Omar Khadr did, indeed, do bad things at the age of 15 which makes him a child soldier and subject to protection under the Optional Protocol of Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. His treatment at the hands of the Americans could actually be considered a war crime. But you have no problem with that, right?

Raphael Alexander said...

So does he deserve to be tortured for not being astute enough to question his parents and everyone else around him in that situation?

No. And I never said he did.

Red Tory said...

RA — They weren't tactics. It was a valid comparison. Canada can't sit holed up in a bunker in Afghanistan and say "we're in control". It's deceitful of you to imply otherwise.

Interesting. Here’s what you had to say to a commenter talking about “static [defensive] positions” in Afghanistan:

Kind of like when the Europeans took Jerusalem in 1099 and then sat in there fortifications until 1187 when the Muslims, who had been wandering around Jerusalem freely for 88 years, plucked it from them.

So, how exactly was I being “deceitful” there? You did precisely what I said you did: invoking tactics from the Medieval Crusades vis-à-vis describing the “way forward” for Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Oh really? I've never seen you on James Bow's site, or any of the numerous sites which are actually thoughtful and articulate without hyper-partisan leftist spin [hint,hint].

As a matter of fact, I visit Bow’s place with some regularity and stop by numerous sites without ever bothering to comment on them. For example, "Sadly No!" is one of my favourites and I don’t think I’ve ever left a comment there. Every once in a blue moon I’ll comment at Atrios or Crooks and Liars. There is a certain “fellowship” factor that can be weighed into the equation (which is why Atrios can post an “open thread” and still get hundreds of comments).

No, I suspect you enjoy good old egregious insults and outright hyperbolic lies.

Now you’ve stepped over the line into the realm of outright douchebaggery.

You and your pals here are little better than Neo with the pejorative-ridden, albeit grammatically enhanced, manifestos about how evil everything right of the Liberal party are.

Considering that I’ve expended a good deal of my time denouncing the so-called Conservatives for not being sufficiently “conservative” and for shamelessly pandering to the “mushy middle” of the political spectrum, that’s pretty laughable. Others here can attest to my tiresome rants about the scrapping of the accountability provisions in the Canada Health Act and egregious squandering of money on this or that political pet project. If you could pull your head out of your arse for bit, you might realize that much of the criticism that’s leveled here against Harper & Co. isn’t really “partisan” at all, but takes the government to task over issues like accountability, transparency, scientific obduracy and fiscal responsibility.

Raphael Alexander said...

But you have no problem with that, right?

No. I never said that.

My article explains the mentality of Canadians [except YOU, lulu, of course] and their reluctance to go to bat for the kid.

There's a huge difference between explaining why some Canadians find Omar Khadr worthy of forgetting, and condoning the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

Raphael Alexander said...

You did precisely what I said you did: invoking tactics from the Medieval Crusades vis-à-vis describing the “way forward” for Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

No. I described an historical tactic which was proven a shoddy one.

Anyway, pretending you haven't been engaging in niceties with me at my blog whilst quietly pounding back a few over a good old round of "aren't those BT morons something, especially that so-called centrist Raphael, who does he think he's fooling" over here has not gone unnoticed.

Good day, sir!

LuLu said...

But you did say this:

For many like myself, we'd rather forget him as he rots away in the human rights-free concentration camp of Guantanamo Bay. We don't even care if he's been tortured a little bit, and by a little bit, I'm guessing it's been a lot. He's likely been subjected to every kind of interrogation technique, stress position, humiliation, abuse, and inhumane treatment of the worst prisons on Earth. And yet it's difficult for me to care.

That sounds an awful lot like someone who has "no problem" with Khadr's treatment to date. You can't have it both ways, Raphael.

jj said...

"No. And I never said he did."

Not outright. But you did say that you don't really give a shit, and that those who do give a shit are, what, "terrorist enablers"?

That kind of amounts to the same thing.

LuLu said...

Anyway, pretending you haven't been engaging in niceties with me at my blog whilst quietly pounding back a few over a good old round of "aren't those BT morons something, especially that so-called centrist Raphael, who does he think he's fooling" over here has not gone unnoticed.

Oh my god, Red, you tease. Have you been leading Raphael on? For shame.

Raphael Alexander said...

That sounds an awful lot like someone who has "no problem" with Khadr's treatment to date. You can't have it both ways, Raphael.

Wrong. There's a difference between not caring if someone gets his "comeuppance" and intellectualizing the fact that torture is wrong.

But you did say that you don't really give a shit, and that those who do give a shit are, what, "terrorist enablers"?

No. I'm saying that by minimizing his flaws and maximizing things like "oh he's a child, oh he a had a bad upbringing, oh he's a poor kid" sounds an awful lot like the same nonsense you hear about the latest guy who raped a four-year-old. "Oh he was sexually abused, oh his father was cold, oh he never had a friend". That is apologist crap. The Khadr family is a national disgrace on Canada, and the torture Americans have inflicted on him does little to change that opinion.

jj said...

"...sounds an awful lot like the same nonsense you hear about the latest guy who raped a four-year-old."

Are you serious? That's not even apples and oranges, that's chevy trucks and oranges.

The guy who raped the 4-year-old wasn't indoctrinated by his family to believe that he was doing the right thing.

Try again.

Dave said...

The Khadr family is a national disgrace on Canada, and the torture Americans have inflicted on him does little to change that opinion.

And you are better in what way?

thwap said...

This piece of shit has his own blog.

Can someone please have him banned?

For the record: There's a difference between either explaining or excusing the crimes of a teenager and cheering on the years-long, unending torture of said teen.

Jeezis-fukkig-murphy, but that I even have to type such obviousness, ... what a sign of the decline of our political culture.

We're given to understand that this pompous ass is entirely indifferent to Omar Kadhr's torture. He's not cheering it on, oh no.

And look at this pompous ass's courage and honesty! Admitting that the Americans are torturing scum-bags and murderers, just like their opponents in the "War on Terra" ... this insufferable buffoon is just, ... well I don't know what fantasy is playing in his limited brain, ... but then the idiot types this:

"It's just that the Khadr's are a cancer, and we'd rather cauterize it right there in Cuba."

But he's indifferent to what happens to the 14 year old who was raised by a father in Al Qaeda who threw a grenade during a fire-fight. He doesn't care one way or the other. Except to say that he and his family are a cancer that needs to be cauterized (read: tortured by sadistic fuck-faces at Guantanamo Bay forever) ... god, there's so much stupidity packed beneath this idiot's verbiage, ...

Raphael Alexander said...

Are you serious? That's not even apples and oranges, that's chevy trucks and oranges.

I'm trying to get you to see that all the minimizing of Omar's crimes make it sound like he's a victim here. The fact is that he made several very definitive choices in life, one of which might have been lobbing a grenade at U.S. troops.

And you are better in what way?

Way to join in the fun, Dave. Well, for starters, I don't belong to Al-Qaeda, nor do I have three brothers who are members.

Red Tory said...

RA — No. I described an historical tactic which was proven a shoddy one.

You’re so deeply dishonest sometimes. I’d like to say it’s cute, but it’s not. You did exactly what I said you did and still won’t bring yourself to admit it, even though it’s right there in black and white. You flatly contradict yourself time and again… but won’t admit it and instead just get all defensive and huffy.

Anyway, pretending you haven't been engaging in niceties with me at my blog whilst quietly pounding back a few over a good old round of "aren't those BT morons something, especially that so-called centrist Raphael, who does he think he's fooling" over here has not gone unnoticed.

Yawn.

As Jim Hightower famously said, “the middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos.” Get used to it.

Raphael Alexander said...

Can someone please have him banned?

Yes, that would be the progressive tactic.

But he's indifferent to what happens to the 14 year old who was raised by a father in Al Qaeda who threw a grenade during a fire-fight. He doesn't care one way or the other. Except to say that he and his family are a cancer that needs to be cauterized (read: tortured by sadistic fuck-faces at Guantanamo Bay forever) ... god, there's so much stupidity packed beneath this idiot's verbiage, ...

Now he's 14? Pretty soon the apologists will have him to down to infant age. I wonder if Al-Qaeda knows how much you care for their children, thwap? They may actually have to rethink the whole jihad thing.

Dave said...

I don't belong to Al-Qaeda, nor do I have three brothers who are members.

But you do condone state sanctioned torture on captured combatants.

Raphael Alexander said...

RT, choosing the same side all the time isn't courage. It's called blending in with the crowd. And I know you're used to that.

Raphael Alexander said...

But you do condone state sanctioned torture on captured combatants.

Uh, no. You do need to read first, Dave, comment second.

Red Tory said...

Uh, oh! Those pesky "liberal" facts again...

A U.S. Special Forces soldier injured in the battle where Omar Khadr was captured says he was shocked to learn that the Canadian teenager wasn't the only one alive when a grenade fatally wounded another soldier.

Layne Morris, a former U.S. Green Beret who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan and forced to retire from the Army, said he always maintained that Khadr was the sole survivor in the compound.

"That was a total shock to me," Morris said in a telephone interview from his Utah home. "Everyone had told me from the get-go that there was only one guy in there."

A document inadvertently released to reporters here Monday disclosed that after the grenade was thrown, a U.S. operative killed another suspect and then shot Khadr twice in the back. The revelation casts doubt on the Pentagon's assertion that Khadr threw the grenade that fatally wounded Delta Force soldier and medic Christopher Speer.

Khadr is charged with "murder in violation of the laws of war" for Speer's death in addition to attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and providing material support to terrorism.

Morris had been airlifted from the battle scene before Speer was injured, but said that other soldiers involved in the firefight had told him that Khadr was the only one who could have tossed the grenade.

The five-page classified document, however, states that an unidentified operative reportedly saw someone with an AK-47 beside him, moving and "moaning" after the grenade was thrown. He shot him in the head, killing him.

"When the dust rose, he saw a second man sitting up facing away from him leaning against the brush. This man, later identified as Khadr, was moving ... (the operative) fired two rounds, both of which struck Khadr in the back."

It appears no one witnessed Khadr throwing the grenade, but that the operative concluded that Khadr was responsible based on his position and the trajectory of the grenade.

Khadr was 15 years old during the firefight and has been held now in U.S. custody for almost six years. This is the Pentagon's third attempt to try Khadr after charges were dismissed twice before — first by the U.S. Supreme Court who deemed the process illegal, and then by a military judge who ruled he didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Up until this week it had been the military commission process itself that has been on trial — with Khadr's lawyers and international civil rights groups challenging the legality of the Guantanamo commissions.

But with this first official account of the firefight, and as Khadr's trial nears, the prosecution's evidence is also being called into question.


Read the complete story here.

Raphael Alexander said...

Right, RT, that totally clears him. I'm sure the Americans will release him forthwith.

LuLu said...

I'm trying to get you to see that all the minimizing of Omar's crimes make it sound like he's a victim here. The fact is that he made several very definitive choices in life, one of which might have been lobbing a grenade at U.S. troops.

Which, of course, justifies his treatment at the hands of the Americans in Gitmo as far as your concerned. Stop talking around the point, find your spine (it's attached to your neck, btw) and admit it.

I don't see why this is such a problem for you, you've already said it on your blog.

Raphael Alexander said...

Lulu, help me out here. I need you to focus for a second:

The fact that the Americans torture Khadr is immaterial to the fact some people [like me] don't really care whether Harper gets him released or not. Firstly, it's out of our government's hands. Second, the Americans do what they like. They invaded Iraq without any support whatsoever, and they'll let go of Khadr when they're good and ready. My article merely explains the mentality behind why we don't care that Khadr rots there. It is hubris brought on by his actions and those of his family. Not caring Khadr rots there is not condoning torture.

Dave said...

Uh, no. You do need to read first, Dave, comment second.

Don't even attempt to patronize me you smarmy little fuckwad.

I've called you what you are right from the beginning. Now you're trying to run from your own words.

He's likely been subjected to every kind of interrogation technique, stress position, humiliation, abuse, and inhumane treatment of the worst prisons on Earth. And yet it's difficult for me to care. How, one might ask, could someone who advocates so strongly against human rights abuse in Afghanistan, care so little about human rights abuse of a Canadian citizen? It's simple.

You're trying to have it both ways in that paragraph.

And, you can't.

Even ignoring the fact of Khadr's age when captured, he was hors d'combat when captured after a firefight... by US combat troops. That makes him a POW. And you wrote that YOU don't care that he was probably tortured... by the US government.

That is state sanctioned torture of a prisoner of war. You clearly approved. That serves to render all previous protestations regarding torture meaningless.

Or...don't tell me, are you employing moral relativism here?

thwap said...

lulu ban this idiot

LuLu said...

With all due respect, Raphael ... fuck off. If anyone needs to focus here, it's you. The rest of us are too busy chasing you around the comment thread while you constantly change your position.

And seriously that's enough with the royal "we". In fact, it's the outside of enough. I realize that you think everyone is entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it fact.

Paladiea said...

I'm trying to get you to see that all the minimizing of Omar's crimes make it sound like he's a victim here. The fact is that he made several very definitive choices in life, one of which might have been lobbing a grenade at U.S. troops.


Khadr IS a victim. He's the victim of torture. The fact that he may have committed crimes in the past is irrelevant to the fact that he's been tortured.

Torture is WRONG, no matter if it's of an innocent or someone who's guilty of murder. End of story.

The fact that you can't seem to get upset over the fact that someone is being tortured gives your tacit approval of his treatment.

LuLu said...

While I might be tempted, thwap, that's the BT answer to things not mine. And to be completely honest, I'm enjoying watching him try to extricate himself from his obvious and salacious approval of torture.

jj said...

"The fact is that he made several very definitive choices in life, one of which might have been lobbing a grenade at U.S. troops."

OK, sure. He had choices. He could have chosen to walk away (in the heat of battle, no less) from a lifetime of indoctrination, something that was reinforced by what he saw all around him. I don't know what could have possibly moved him to make that choice, but sure, it was on the table.

The issue isn't the choice he made, it's his subsequent (mis)treatment at Gitmo and whether we're okay with that. I am not, which in your opinion makes me a "terrorist sympathizer/enabler whatever". Meaning you are okay with it.

I find that very sad.

Raphael Alexander said...

That is state sanctioned torture of a prisoner of war. You clearly approved. That serves to render all previous protestations regarding torture meaningless.

I'm not a state, and I haven't sanctioned anything, Dave. I just don't care about Omar Khadr. And maybe you could understand people a little better if you could understand that little fact.

I realize that you think everyone is entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it fact.

Of course not. It's not fact until CC weighs in.

Raphael Alexander said...

Torture is WRONG

Yup.

The fact that you can't seem to get upset over the fact that someone is being tortured gives your tacit approval of his treatment.

Nope.

That's like arguing not objecting to anything disagreeable which is beyond your control implies tacit approval. Afraid they haven't invented that crime yet Pal.

Raphael Alexander said...

The issue isn't the choice he made, it's his subsequent (mis)treatment at Gitmo and whether we're okay with that. I am not, which in your opinion makes me a "terrorist sympathizer/enabler whatever". Meaning you are okay with it

No. You make good observations and then draw illogical conclusions. Let me reiterate your position [among the rest of the progressives here].

1. Omar Khadr cannot be charged because he was child soldier.

2. Anyone who doesn't therefore want Omar immediately released must approve of torture.

Well, I could also ask George to leave Iraq, but I don't think it's really going to make a difference.

Dave said...

I'm not a state, and I haven't sanctioned anything, Dave. I just don't care about Omar Khadr. And maybe you could understand people a little better if you could understand that little fact.

Again, with the patronizing. I understand you just fine. You're a dishonest conservative.

And apparently it is you who does not understand. I never called you a "state". But you do condone state sanctioned torture. In fact, that you misinterpreted that statement is quite stunning.

Question to others: Was my point difficult to understand?

LuLu said...

No Dave - it was quite easy to understand. Raphael's dealing with the constant shifting of his position so it might've been too much for him.

Paladiea said...

Nice shifting of the goalposts there. You're the one who brought up his treatment in the first place. If the said disagreement was irrelevant to the topic at hand you may have a point, but your seeming indifference to the plight of Khadr while you're broaching the subject is quite a different manner.

Perhaps you worded yourself badly. It's fine to not care for someone, personally I wouldn't spend a minute with Khadr, but I will always until the day I die be enraged at his treatment at the hands of the US.

Raphael Alexander said...

Again, with the patronizing. I understand you just fine. You're a dishonest conservative.

Just a little tit for tat, Dave. You've been disrespectful since day one.

But you do condone state sanctioned torture.

Wrong. There is a difference between condoning and no caring.

Exhibit A: A man breaks into Paul Bernardo's cell, sodomizes and tortures him for 17 hours, and then slits his throat.

I do not condone it. I do not, however, care enough to object.

Paladiea said...

That should be matter instead of manner.

Raphael Alexander said...

but I will always until the day I die be enraged at his treatment at the hands of the US.

Great, Pal. That's your freedom of choice.

jj said...

RA, you already said you don't care if he's being tortured. Whether you like it or not, that does amount to tacit approval.

What if one of our troops was captured by the Taliban? How would you expect he/she be treated? OK to torture?

Paladiea said...

Great, Pal. That's your freedom of choice.

Gee thanks. But tell me, aren't you even the tinest bit concerned over the torture of a murder suspect?

Ti-Guy said...

That's like arguing not objecting to anything disagreeable which is beyond your control implies tacit approval.

With me, that's just true for one issue...torture. There is nothing more repulsive to me than that. You are dehumanised when you either condone it or are indifferent to it.

I wouldn't wish torture on the worst human being I can think of. I'd support execution before that.

I can't believe I even to say this. I really think this society is producing some hideously immoral people.

Raphael Alexander said...

What if one of our troops was captured by the Taliban?

You can't seriously expect me to compare that congenital terrorist to one of our soldiers?

But tell me, aren't you even the tinest bit concerned over the torture of a murder suspect?

The U.S. has tortured innocent people in Guantanamo. Khadr isn't one of them.

Red Tory said...

RA — RT, choosing the same side all the time isn't courage. It's called blending in with the crowd. And I know you're used to that.

Nice try. I suppose that’s why I had written many times at my old blog that, despite being bunch of socially retarded cretins, I didn’t really care if Harper’s Conservative government went on in perpetuity given that they were running the place for all intents and purposes like a de facto Liberal government. Or when I attacked the more strident Quebec Liberals and numerous other jittery bloggers who were calling for Dion’s head after the by-election losses for being a bunch of “defeatist” whiners. Or whenever I have consistently and repeatedly railed against the concept of “nation-building” and our continued involvement in Afghanistan, even though that runs counter to the ostensible foreign policy principles of the Liberal Party. Or when I spent the better part of a year defending the record of Michael Ignatieff against the hostile criticism of not only Conservatives, but also enthusiastic supporters of other candidates (Kennedy supporters mostly). Or when I’ve decried deficit financing, government bloat and unaccountable transfers of politically driven money to the provinces. Or when I (repeatedly) called Denis Coderre a “clownish buffoon”… and worse! Or whenever I’ve taken pot-shots at Jason Cherniak for one thing or another (his shabby treatment of Robert McClellan, being the most egregious). Or whenever I’ve expressed skepticism or serious reservations about global warming and how best to approach this problem that seems to be looming on the near horizon (specifically, attacking wretched “feel-good” non-solutions). Or when I’ve steadfastly defended the Senate and have touted its role as a worthwhile counterbalance to the more politically expedient “other place.” Or when I guest blogged this past weekend in support of Keith Martin’s Private Member’s Bill that would scrap ss. 13(1) from the Human Rights Act even though this runs counter to mainstream Liberal thinking. I could go on…

Yep, that’s a profile of someone who just wants to fall in with the crowd alright.

Two words: One of them is “off” — you can fill in the other one all by yourself.

LuLu said...

Just a little tit for tat, Dave. You've been disrespectful since day one.

Perhaps you've done nothing to earn Dave's respect. Naahhh ... couldn't be that.

Raphael Alexander said...

I really think this society is producing some hideously immoral people.

Like the one which produced Omar Khadr? The one which gave him every freedom of choice, health care, education, a wonderful life? And he pissed it all away to join daddy on a jihad against America?

Yeah, I feel bad for the guy allright. The worst part about all this is that he'll likely come out of there with a deeper hatred for the west. And irony of ironies, if he murdered one of you in revenge, where would your sympathies be then?

Paladiea said...

The U.S. has tortured innocent people in Guantanamo. Khadr isn't one of them.

So torture is OK if the person is "guilty". Pray tell, how do you find out if that person is guilty? And please enlighten me as to what crimes warrant torture. I would like a list.

Paladiea said...

Yeah, I feel bad for the guy allright. The worst part about all this is that he'll likely come out of there with a deeper hatred for the west. And irony of ironies, if he murdered one of you in revenge, where would your sympathies be then?

I'm sure our sympathies wouldn't be anywhere as we'd be dead. Or did you mean if a friend of ours got killed?

If that was the case, I still wouldn't approve of torture. In fact I would blame people like you who made light of his treatment which in your scenario caused him to "retaliate".

Dave said...

I do not condone it. I do not, however, care enough to object.

Moral relativism.

As for my lack of respect for you, you've earned it buckwheat. You're intentionally deceptive at best and completely dishonest at worst.

Every time you get called on a post, you go into a hyper-defence. How many times have you been jumped on and then defended your words with the argument to the effect that, "that's not what I meant"?

Funny how it's all of us who can't seem to fathom your meaning. It's clear at the time and then you suggest that you actually meant something else.

Thwap said it initially. I thought it was intended as something other than your direct opinion. Now that we know it truly is your opinion, you don't like the way we're treating you or your words.

Why not?!

What are you afraid of?

Raphael Alexander said...

And please enlighten me as to what crimes warrant torture. I would like a list.

The Khadr families extensive list of crimes against this country is well documented, not least of which is the parasitic health care dollars that go to the youngest terrorist.

At any rate, you're creating a strawman again. I never said anything warrants torture. I don't condone torture.

Paladiea, you've stopped blogging. How come?

Red Tory said...

RA — Right, RT, that totally clears him. I'm sure the Americans will release him forthwith.

That puerile style of argument might work well with your children, but it’s utterly pathetic in this venue. Who said that it “totally clears him”? A: Nobody. (Well, but you… being facetious.)

What it does however is casts doubt on the absolute certitude of the case against this individual and demonstrates quite clearly the need for proper trials for these “detainees” as they’re called.

LuLu said...

Well kids, you'll have to kick ass without me - this girl has to get up for work in a few short hours. I've no doubt you're all more than up to the task.

Good night, darlings.

Paladiea said...

The Khadr families extensive list of crimes against this country is well documented, not least of which is the parasitic health care dollars that go to the youngest terrorist.

This statement implies that murder (and wasting taxpayer money) warrants torture. But then in the next breath you say that nothing warrants torture.

Ok, if the latter is truly your opinion, then you agree that the treatment of Omar Khadr is wrong. Am I correct?

Paladiea, you've stopped blogging. How come?

Been busy.

Ti-Guy said...

The one which gave him every freedom of choice, health care, education, a wonderful life? And he pissed it all away to join daddy on a jihad against America?

No, the one which is producing people like you...no respect for law, due process rules of evidence, the protection of human rights and indifferent to torture.

A veritable light on to the world. Smell the freedom, oh unfree brown people everywhere. Bend over backwards and prepare your balls for the electrodes of democracy!

Dave said...

You can't seriously expect me to compare that congenital terrorist to one of our soldiers?

Clayton Matchee, Kyle Brown, Michel Rainville, Matt McKay.

Raphael Alexander said...

Moral relativism.

No, moral relativism would be the idea you seem to have that I should possibly care as much about Canada's bastard son as I do about real Canadians.

As for my lack of respect for you, you've earned it buckwheat. You're intentionally deceptive at best and completely dishonest at worst.

Nonsense. You told me you don't believe a word anybody who is a conservative says. You're patently dishonest, and your partisan shtick is over the top. A shame, too, since you're otherwise well-informed and well-read.

How many times have you been jumped on and then defended your words with the argument to the effect that, "that's not what I meant"?

About as many times as you've deliberately tried to misconstrue them.

Funny how it's all of us who can't seem to fathom your meaning

I suspect it's something to do with this not being the most non-partisan atmosphere, Dave.

Cherniak_WTF said...

hat it does however is casts doubt on the absolute certitude of the case against this individual and demonstrates quite clearly the need for proper trials for these “detainees” as they’re called.
Shorter = Kangaroo court

jj said...

"You can't seriously expect me to compare that congenital terrorist to one of our soldiers?"

I didn't ask for a comparison, I just asked a question, which you're sidestepping.

IMO the torture of POWs (apart from being despicable behaviour) endangers our troops. You're OK with that?

Raphael Alexander said...

Ok, if the latter is truly your opinion, then you agree that the treatment of Omar Khadr is wrong. Am I correct?

Absolutely.

Raphael Alexander said...

IMO the torture of POWs (apart from being despicable behaviour) endangers our troops. You're OK with that?

I don't see how Americans torturing a Canadian endangers our troops.

niven said...

Raphael, the torture of this man is unconscionable, and you are supporting his torture by saying you don't care. If it was a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, held by the Taliban, would you support them torturing him?

What I find even worse is the suggestion that Omar is not entitled to have a fair trial to determine his guilt, even after being held for 6 years. A military tribunal, as we have seen with the court document that was inadverdently allowed to go to the media showing some of the governmental evidence against him is false, is not a fair and impartial Justice.

The UN has enshrined certain Basic Rights for all men. Perhaps not only you, but the US administration and others should reread what it says, and think about what you are supporting.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

No matter what we believe Omar Kadr may have done, there has been no proof of his guilt presented to anyone in Canada that can say with certainty he is guilty. When you say that you do not care he is being tortured, you are talking about a person, that under all we as Canadians believe, is still an innocent man.

Dave said...

I suspect it's something to do with this not being the most non-partisan atmosphere, Dave.

Right! And you aren't non-partisan either. Such self-declaration means nothing. You are a Harper conservative... done.

Paladiea said...

Absolutely.

Ok, so then we return to the original question. Why did you write an entire post on how you wish people would forget about him and leave him to rot away in his torture chamber?

If your point was that we could choose a better poster child for human rights, then why didn't you word it that way?

Red Tory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Red Tory said...

I'm not a state, and I haven't sanctioned anything, Dave.

What a willful and marvelously ignorant bit of obduracy that is.

jj said...

You are impossible

Raphael Alexander said...

Raphael, the torture of this man is unconscionable, and you are supporting his torture by saying you don't care.

I don't agree. That's like saying if you didn't condemn the murder of Jeffrey Domer, you condone murder.

If it was a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, held by the Taliban, would you support them torturing him?

It's a hypothetical which I think is irrelevant to the topic.

When you say that you do not care he is being tortured, you are talking about a person, that under all we as Canadians believe, is still an innocent man.

Omar Khadr has plenty of blood on his hands and we all know it. He may not ever be found guilty according to the strict terms of the law, but he was compliant in all of it.

Raphael Alexander said...

Right! And you aren't non-partisan either. Such self-declaration means nothing. You are a Harper conservative... done.

Dismissal noted. I'm not a Harper conservative, by the way.

Why did you write an entire post on how you wish people would forget about him and leave him to rot away in his torture chamber?

I didn't. I wrote about how it might be possible that people could understand the mentality of not caring.

You are impossible

JJ, you really expect to get any mileage out of me on a 15 on 1? Even Omar Khadr probably gets better odds than that.

Sheena said...

Whoa man.
Slow night at the donut shop? Shitty weather making you a shut in? Sexy cheap shoes snap a heel off on first wearing?

104 comment in 4 hours = wankerville.

Didn't ANYbody bother getting off the goddamn couch to go to Raymi's art show tonight?

jj said...

"Omar Khadr has plenty of blood on his hands and we all know it."

So much for due process.

Dave said...

It's a hypothetical which I think is irrelevant to the topic.

Hahahahaha!

It's one of many in this thread, but it's the first one not offered by you therefore you consider it irrelevant.

I notice you ignored the four names I provided.

Dave said...

you really expect to get any mileage out of me on a 15 on 1? Even Omar Khadr probably gets better odds than that.

Self-pity. Shaken not stirred.

Raphael Alexander said...

Dave, what? Somalia? What's your point again?

Paladiea said...

I didn't. I wrote about how it might be possible that people could understand the mentality of not caring.

Actually if I read it write you wrote about more than the possibility. You asserted that you don't care that he's being tortured, and then you asserted that the majority of Canadians agreed with you. Which is patently false, and you and I both know that.

However as no stranger to controversy, I might be inclined to forgive you if you added a clarification. But that's up to you. Anyhow, I shall let you take your lumps at the hands of everyone else. I have to get some things done before I sleep.

Raphael Alexander said...

the majority of Canadians agreed with you. Which is patently false, and you and I both know that.

Well, maybe we should get Ipsos Reid in on it or something.

G'nite.

Red Tory said...

I don't see how Americans torturing a Canadian endangers our troops.

Can we get that engraved on a plaque or something?

Chet Scoville said...

There is a difference between condoning and not caring.

A meaningless distinction, I'm afraid.

Raphael Alexander said...

I see Chet. And have you spoken up about every injustice you've ever seen in the world? Or just the ones you read about in google news?

the rev. said...

a hundred comments on this waste of skin's endorsement of torturing teenagers who shoot back when foreign invaders shoot at them? A hundred!
Raphel, you're a fucking vile idiot who is trying to spin and hairsplit your way out of the hole you dug when you wrote that you didn't care about a Canadian teenager being tortured for the past five years. No amount of parsing or spin is going to get you off that hook, so just fuck off.

Surely the rest of you have something better to do than fence with shit-for-brains troglodyte?

Raphael Alexander said...

the rev, suggestion denied.

Now here's a penny. Why don't you go and buy yourself a vowel and a few consonants which doesn't include a pejorative?

niven said...

Omar Khadr has plenty of blood on his hands and we all know it.

Actually I don't know it. Please tell me what he has been found guilty of.

You make some grand assertions, but fail to provide any proof of what you deem is common knowledge.

Whether he is an ass or not should not be at debate, what should be at debate is the justification for holding him for 6 years, and the torture he has likely endured. That the Canadian Government has been lax in petitioning the US Government to either charge him with a crime in a quick and speedy manner, or to release him to the Canadian government is unjustifiable. That no charges have been bought for 6 years is indefensible. That he was tortured is inexcusable.

All the moral arguments that the west can give the rest of the World concerning human rights and ftreedoms has been destroyed by the actions of the Bush Administration and supportive governments

Red Tory said...

Douchebaggery in Action:

Blogger Raphael Alexander said...
Dismissal noted. I'm not a Harper conservative, by the way.
12:09 AM


But, uh-oh! From his blog:

I've always felt the focus of the federal Conservative Party is rightly Stephen Harper.

Thursday, January 31, 2008
Post: The Stephen Harper Party [And Assorted Conservatives]


I'm sure it's probably not what he meant to say and that we're just not understanding it properly.

Raphael Alexander said...

Notice how creative the apologist rhetoric has evolved? First he was a "child soldier". My, but how that creates a very nice vision of sympathy. I can almost see the tiny child soldier trying to shoulder that heavy Kalashnikov rifle all by himself.

Next we find out he was 14, not 15. He may even get younger before the opposition is done with him.

And now, "the rev" suggests he was only shooting back when "foreign" invaders shoot at them. How very curiously apologist for a Canadian born citizen caught in a Taliban and al-Qaeda camp hanging out after an air strike. Gee, I guess he was just eating chips and drinking Sprite over a game of backgammon with the local Mullahs while they took turns stoning a local girl for flashing eyebrow.

It gets better and better, this darling of Canadian injustice.

Raphael Alexander said...


Actually I don't know it. Please tell me what he has been found guilty of.


Request denied. Avail yourself of wikipedia.

That the Canadian Government has been lax in petitioning the US Government to either charge him with a crime in a quick and speedy manner, or to release him to the Canadian government is unjustifiable.

I'm not the Canadian government.

All the moral arguments that the west can give the rest of the World concerning human rights and ftreedoms has been destroyed by the actions of the Bush Administration and supportive governments

Nonsense. Canada isn't tainted by the actions of our allies, any more than conservatives are tainted by my opinions.

Raphael Alexander said...

RT, interesting you took an article condemning Steve to imply my affection. Lordy, but how it does get better and better.

Dave said...

Hold it.

Raphael sets up camp in CC's comments thread and he's now issuing orders.

Very quaint.

Raphael Alexander said...

Dave, sucks when you can't delete the last comment eh? Censorship just aint what it used to be. Maybe you can convince Cynic to give you admin functions here.

KEvron said...

"it is not opposition but indifference which separates men." - mary parker follett

KEvron

the rev. said...

yeah exactly Dave, I think he's dug the hole deep enough now that we can just put the manhole cover back on and forget about the shit below.

So, how about those Habs, eh?

Dave said...

Raphael.

Merely making an observation. You are a true RWA, further adding to the knowledge we possess of your true political and social tendencies.

But feel free to continue. I suspect that by morning you'll be paying for it in spades.

Rev.
Habs? Is that a soup?

Red Tory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
niven said...

Actually, rev, I have an old outhouse out back that needs a hole. Mind if I borrow this one?

Red Tory said...

RA — First of all, the words are your own and they have a certain validity that's exclusive from the overall context of the post, which, by the way, was hardly “condemning” Stephen Harper but more… oh, golly gee, can I use the term? Being an “apologist” for the PMO and its apparent “miscommunication” that places a tad too much emphasis on STEPHEN HARPER over the Conservative Party and has resulted in certain individuals in the dreaded mainstream press like the lovely Kady O'Malley “writing articles of a negative nature.” But I can understand your sensitivity being, that you “run a Conservative blog which endorses Stephen Harper” (to quote you again, from the same piece) But of course, we shouldn’t foolishly misconstrue from this that you are a “Harper Conservative.” No siree…

How it does get better and better indeed.

Raphael Alexander said...

RT, you can try to pigeon-hole me all you want but I am what I am. I have opinions which vary as widely as agreeing with a very socialist idea, to a very fascist one, and everything in inbetween. Call me a Harper conservative if it makes you feel better.

niven said...

Okay Raphael, I read Wiki, and still haven't found anything he was found guilty of that would make you think he should be tortured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

In fact there is surprising little evidence that he has done anything criminal at all, if in fact he was subjected to torture, as most of the evidence is his own testimony, which we can assume was forcibly coerced.

the rev. said...

A SOUP! Sacrilege! Legions of Montreal Canadiens fans will get you for that -- but what can one expect of someone living in a city where you have to watch the Canuck play shinny.

Niven, its all yours, but you may want to invite your friends over for green beer and stewed prunes first.

Dave said...

The Canucks play? I always thought they were a group of uniformed millionaires out for a free-skate.

jj said...

RA - Are you sober? You're drinking, aren't you.

That would explain your confusion -- the "apologist rhetoric", as you call it, hasn't "evolved" at all. The Rev's comment about shooting back is very similar to one I made way, way up the thread.

The only apologist rhetoric that seems to be evolving is that of the torture apologist. Hint: that would be you.

Red Tory said...

RA — Well, seeing as during the course of this charming little exchange you’ve called me a liar, deceitful, and a two-faced backstabbing prat who just likes to fall in with the crowd, allow me to point out that it is not me that’s attempting to pigeon-hole you, but your own words that are doing a rather excellent job of that all by themselves. You say one thing one day and another thing the next day, or even within the span of minutes. You write certain things and then plainly contradict them with something completely contrary and then blame the reader for misunderstanding your intent. Being fickle is one thing, but when you state that you’re not a “Harper Conservative” and yet write that you feel the focus of the party should rightly be on Stephen Harper and that your write a blog that’s Conservative and endorses Stephen Harper… well, you know… even a simpleton like me can connect those dots. Here in my deeply cynical neck of the woods, there’s a little thing called “intellectual honesty” and I’m afraid that you seem to be sorely lacking in this respect sometimes.

Regarding all of the hoo-ha here concerning Omar Khadr, quite frankly, I could give two shits about this person or his despicable family, but there is a more important and overarching principle that transcends him and the sordid particulars of his case and this is simply… the rule of law, and more importantly in this case, how it has been flouted by the Bush administration and largely ignored by our own government (and the preceding one, I should note). I’ve said before that this is not a sympathetic person and no one will lose a moment’s sleep worrying over his fate, but that said, we should be concerned about the principle involved and perhaps give some thought to how “expendable” people can become when it suits the expediency of the powers that be. That’s something worth getting exercised over and guarding against and why this case matters — maybe more than it should strictly on the circumstantial merits. Oh, and this isn’t a “liberal” thing, it’s not a left/right “partisan” thing… it goes well beyond that. You know... speaking as a "thoughtful moderate"...

Frank Frink said...

RA, this constant comparison you make of Khadr's torture at the hands of the US government to hypothetical musings of what could happen to Paul Bernardo or Jeffrey Dahmer at the hands of a fellow inmate is intellectual dishonesty to the nth degree. But no surprise, you're a master at it. Or just blithely and blissfully dense, but I'll go with the former.

One is the action of an individual, the other is an action of a state. Big difference, very big difference.

Red Tory said...

I think he's scarpered...

the rev. said...

I think, if anyone is still paying attention around here, that we can now safely say that RA has jumped the shark and can be safely seated with Patsy, Weiner and Five Feet of Ignorant Bigotry at the hateful-but-irrelevant table of the internet cafe.

Chet Scoville said...

And have you spoken up about every injustice you've ever seen in the world?

No, I haven't. But when one DOES speak up about something, and when what one says is, "I don't care about this," then I really don't see how that's functionally different from approving it by implication.

E in MD said...

Holy crap. 141 comments? I go sleep for a couple of hours and you guys get into a scrap without me?

*pout*

Phyl said...

I don't see how Americans torturing a Canadian endangers our troops.

Wow. I haven't seen such a stunning display of totally brain-dead stupidity in...wow. Ages.

"They tortured one of ours, let's get even by torturing some of theirs, since they've showed us it's open seasion and we don't even have to have proven their guys guilty of anything to justify it! Woo hoo!"

Colossally stupid or (more likely) sensationally evil. Congratulations, RA, smug little demon.

Kelseigh said...

I know the conversation's pretty much over, but does RA even understand the term "child soldier"? He doesn't show any sign of it up there.

Red Tory said...

On his site he sort of gives an obligatory nod of acknowledgement to this point, but goes on to reiterate that he doesn’t care. This, after noting that the conditions in Gitmo aren’t really all that bad, suggesting that the reason the Harper government won’t take action is because they have no faith in our justice system to deal effectively with the situation, etc.

Besides, he’s onto bigger and better things… He’s got other fish to fry, you know. Like serving up a completely disingenuous “controversy” over the debunked notion that global warming has “stopped.”

Raphael Alexander said...

Nonsense, Marty, pure nonsense.

Red Tory said...

Oh really, "Raphy"... how so?

Red Tory said...

Let's look at my "pure nonsense" shall we?

Here's what Raphy wrote earlier today:

This should clear up a few things for Canadians interested in the case, since it shows that Omar Khadr is being charged as an accessory to the murders in part of the firefight. Now the only thing that remains isn't the participatory evidence, which is now irrelevant, but his status as a "child soldier". Oh, and for those concerned about his welfare, Omar Khadr is being held in Camp 4, a detention facility reserved for "compliant" prisoners in which they live almost as freely as in a regular U.S. prison.

And in the comments:

Define "OK" for me. Do I approve? No. Do I care? No. Do I approve of torture? No.

And another response:

I'm glad you asked that question. Let me ask you one in response. Would you care if Paul Bernardo were butchered in his cell? Or do you care that Jeffrey Domer got shanked? Your answer is immaterial here, but let's assume that for the sake of argument there are people who might say they don't care if such a possibility arises. They don't condone it, but they don't care if it happens.

And this:

I suspect that a good part of the reason our government has done nothing about Khadr is that they don't have any confidence in our legal system to deal with Khadr's case. (Either because our legal system really doesn't have any mechanism to deal with his case or they simply don't trust it not to treat him as a poor little misunderstood boy who's really innocent and will go work with Katimavik when he gets out).

Let's re-cap my "nonsense":

On his site he sort of gives an obligatory nod of acknowledgement to this point, but goes on to reiterate that he doesn’t care. This, after noting that the conditions in Gitmo aren’t really all that bad, suggesting that the reason the Harper government won’t take action is because they have no faith in our justice system to deal effectively with the situation, etc.

Sounds pretty much like an accurate summary of what YOU wrote there Raphy.

Red Tory said...

RA — You scarpered off the first time with no response and didn't address how you can claim not to be a "Harper Conservative" when what you've written in the past clearly contradicts that assertion (notwithstanding that you plaintively moan a bit from time to time about his poor communication strategy and certain other quibbles with the party), you failed to address how I just like to "fall in with the crowd" even though I listed numerous examples of how that's a baseless assertion, and now you won't address how what I wrote was "pure nonsense" even though I've amply shown how it was nothing of the sort, but an accurate summary of what you had, in fact, written.

Additionally, you did attempt to manufacture a phony controversy over those two articles written recently in The New Statesman and I note you surreptitiously went back after the fact and added the paper's disclaimer in its entirety (which essentially destroys the whole "controversy" you were seeking to whip up over whether global warming had "stopped" as Whitehead claimed based on a fundamental misreading of the data).

Now you're claiming that “the correlation between socioeconomic inequality and terrorism appears to be one which is largely absent of evidentiary support” because "insurgency statistics” that have been “collected of captured insurgents display that demographics indicate the largest number [44%] come from the country of Saudi Arabia, a nation with a very high GDP.”

You're either stupid or wretchedly dishonest. Or, possibly both.

Raphael Alexander said...

Martin, speaking of wretched dishonesty, did you bother telling readers that I never wrote this comment you attributed to me?

I suspect that a good part of the reason our government has done nothing about Khadr is that they don't have any confidence in our legal system to deal with Khadr's case. (Either because our legal system really doesn't have any mechanism to deal with his case or they simply don't trust it not to treat him as a poor little misunderstood boy who's really innocent and will go work with Katimavik when he gets out).

But of course you didn't. Just as you didn't fact check whether Joanne on SDA was JoJo or not when you accused her of spewing bile. And then you promptly washed your hands of the dishonest affair by saying no harm done, she's a douchebag anyway [or something to that effect].

Raphael Alexander said...

Now you're claiming that “the correlation between socioeconomic inequality and terrorism appears to be one which is largely absent of evidentiary support” because "insurgency statistics” that have been “collected of captured insurgents display that demographics indicate the largest number [44%] come from the country of Saudi Arabia, a nation with a very high GDP.”

Evasion of argument noted, Martin. You could also take up this argument with Paul Krueger, who used demography to prove this point. The left [include yourself if you like] enjoy using capitalism as a means of explaining socioeconomic deprivation and terrorism, when under scrutiny that argument falls flat on its face. Much like you have, I'm afraid.

How that's retirement from blogging coming along?

LuLu said...

a) I can't believe people are still playing down here; and

b) Why don't you go have your oh-so-offended hissy fit somewhere else, Raphael? Any credibility you might have had died a very quick death with your constantly shifting position.

How's that lack of spine working out for you?

Raphael Alexander said...

Lulu, I was just addressing my friend Martin here as he continues to throw bricks from his glass house.

LuLu said...

Well if anyone can recognize a glass house ... I'm sure it's you.

Red Tory said...

RA — I stand corrected. That comment you cited which I had wrongly attributed to you was actually written by Andrew Gorman and not you. He had prefaced it with a previous comment of yours and I mistakenly conflated the two. I do note however that you addressed one subsequent to it to take issue with the point raised, but not this one. So do you agree with the contention of Mr. Gorman here?

Just as you didn't fact check whether Joanne on SDA was JoJo or not when you accused her of spewing bile.

Of course the facts in that matter were that the assumption was made by another commenter and, yes, I did neglect to fact-check it and took the individual's assumption at face value. However, I will note here there that when I asked Joanne whether she disagreed with the assertion being made in that comment, she refused to address the matter and wouldn't actually come out and admit that her own opinion diverged from it in any way.

You could also take up this argument with Paul Krueger, who used demography to prove this point. The left [include yourself if you like] enjoy using capitalism as a means of explaining socioeconomic deprivation and terrorism, when under scrutiny that argument falls flat on its face. Much like you have, I'm afraid.

It's a completely ridiculous argument and one that's based on "country-wide" GDP rather than per capita GDP. To use these figures and claim that ipso facto there's no correlation between "terrorism" (a term of some convenience) and economic deprivation or poverty is, as I said, either plainly stupid or deeply dishonest.

Red Tory said...

RA — Just for the record, while I most certainly don’t like to make egregious mistakes, and I’d be a complete liar if I didn’t say that it does pain me somewhat to admit having made one. Otherwise however, I really have no problem confessing to getting things wrong from time to time — especially in matters of judgment. Such is the way of things and, after all, nobody’s perfect. Of course it can be embarrassing to get basic facts wrong, but as inexcusable as it may be, it does happen and we’re all prone to such errors now and again for various reasons.

I find it somewhat amusing that you would raise the old case of mistaking JoJo for a commenter on SDA with the same name. This was an incident I’d completely forgotten about, but somehow seems a bit fresher in your memory banks. What strikes me as funny about that particular incidence is that when it was brought to my attention, I immediately issued a retraction and an apology, as well an explanation of how/why I had dropped the ball. And yet… NOT GOOD ENOUGH! No sir, Joanne had to milk that for a few days and call me a lying hypocrite.. or whatever (I really couldn’t be bothered to go digging through her turdpile to confirm the actual terms she used. Whatever it was it certainly provided a lot of jolly good fun for everyone who hates my guts to jump on the bandwagon and denounce me as a complete shithead.). And even after I issued yet another apology and clarification, she still continued to beat me over the head with the purported outrage I’d inflicted on her. But yet, as I said, curiously would not herself denounce the sentiments expressed in the comment, or state openly that she, in fact, disagreed with them.

So, it’s a little amusing you’d bring up that hoary old chestnut.

Aside from pointing out that I wrongly attributed a comment on your site to you rather than another commenter, I see you still haven’t addressed a single one of the other things I pointed out here. My comments weren’t “pure nonsense” (unless of course you take issue with the assertion made by Mr. Gorman which you had the opportunity to do so but appeared not to have seen as worth doing); you did in fact attempt to whip up some sort of “controversy” over an issue where none existed regarding climate change having “stopped” as Whitehead wrongly contended (then later snuck in the NS disclaimer that you’d oddly left out originally); you did accuse me of behaving in a manner of falling in the crowd that isn’t supported by the facts; you did say on the one hand that you’re not a “Harper Conservative” but at the same time said you think the focus of the CPC should rightly be on Harper and that you support him; and, most recently, you did retail a complete howler purporting there’s no relationship between terrorism and poverty based on some pretty shoddy (and I would contend deeply dishonest) "evidence" in this regard.

Raphael Alexander said...

Red, check your website comments.

Red Tory said...

Done and done.