Monday, January 11, 2010

It was only a shoe! Get over yourself!

It's amusing to watch the historical revisionism of Canada's wankers when they're trying to downplay the recent allegations of Afghan detainee torture (that is, when they're not embracing it wholeheartedly, but that's a whole 'nother post).

Let's set the stage regarding the single incident of a detainee and some shoes, shall we (emphasis depressingly added)?


Uncensored documents and sworn testimony indicate one prisoner was beaten so badly, Canadians intervened to take him back and treat him
Paul Koring
From Monday’s Globe and Mail
Published on Sunday, Dec. 06, 2009 10:30PM EST
Last updated on Sunday, Dec. 06, 2009 11:14PM EST

Sworn testimony by senior Canadian officers and rare uncensored documentary evidence contradict Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s repeated assertions that no proof exists of even a single case of a Canadian-transferred detainee abused by Afghan security forces.

In one well-documented case in the summer of 2006, Canadian soldiers captured and handed over a detainee who was so severely beaten by Afghan police that the Canadians intervened and took the detainee back. Canadian medics then treated the man’s injuries. The incident is documented in the field notes of Canadian troops, recounted in a sworn affidavit by a senior officer and confirmed in cross-examination by a general...

In the case of the transferred and subsequently rescued detainee, Canadian soldiers intervened to take an Afghan from a room where he was surrounded by five or six Afghan police who were beating the handcuffed man with shoes or boots. Blood was running down the detainee’s face so “I immediately assumed positive control of the individual and removed him,” the soldier’s field diary says...

The Canadian soldier’s account, handwritten in a field notebook in the hours after the June 19, 2006 incident, is corroborated by a medic’s examination of the detainee’s injuries and photographs, which the government refuses to release. The account, first outlined in a May, 2007 affidavit by Colonel Steve Noonan, Canada’s first task force commander, was subsequently confirmed by then Brigadier-General Joseph Deschamps, who was chief-of-staff for operations in Canada’s expeditionary forces command when he was cross-examined about it in January, 2008.

So ... are we good here? Everybody have a clear idea of what happened, and how undeniably it was corroborated? Because if you went only by the shrieking idiocy coming out of Canada's Wankerhood, you'd never know such a thing ever happened:

Today, Afghan detainees, one allegedly beaten with a shoe by an Afghan prison guard, is (allegedly!) throwing the country into madness.

And, trust me, you will search in vain through the archives of Canada's Wingnut-o-sphere for an accurate portrayal of that event. I've tried. What you will find are amusing anecdotes involving, oh, a detainee that was hit with a shoe, or smacked with a shoe or, in one case, the show was simply thrown at him, ha ha!, when the heck did that become torture?

What you won't find is a single member of Canada's Blogging Tories who described what happened honestly. I'm willing to bet on that.

: Commenter CWTF warns us that loyal Stephen Harper water-carrier Adrian MacNair is once again lying in the pages of the Post:

And what you get instead is this. The same old manufactured controversy about another hidden agenda, except that this time it’s based upon the testimony of a single Canadian out of the entire mission in Afghanistan who believes there is a remote possibility that torture may have occurred after detainees were handed over.

And it wouldn't be a Canadian MSM comments section without the relentless, pathological dishonesty of the ubiquitous "Sassylassie":

Iggy's campaign platform appears to be "Smear our troops as war criminals who aided an Afghan to beat A SINGLE detainee with a shoe," their second platform appears to be Climate Change. Need I say more about the loopy upside down logic of the leftwingers?

I'm not sure whether it even matters anymore whether they're liars or just stupid.


Anonymous said...

I wonder how Potatoe Pete would feel if by accident my shoe ended up kicking him in the nads...

Sparky said...

Where's the same macho 'waterboarding's not torture!! See, I'll do it on TV!!' from these people?? Why not subject themselves to the same 'not torture' that the detainees endured??
I want to see a bt say, "Hell, that ain't torture! Look, I'll have a half dozen guards beat me with shoes! See?? What's all this talk of torture! (psst--someone call me an ambulance--I think I have some broken ribs...)"
Put up or put a sock in your yipping hole.

groundling45 said...

Why don't the "blogging Tories" properly laud this soldier's actions in saving the detainee? The man's clearly a hero. Why aren't they supporting the troops?

Anonymous said...

I see the National Post has decided to elevate Adrian*'s post...
Follow at your own risk

Do they purposely reprint shitty blog entries?

*I'm guessing that Adrian is his real name...

none said...

I have seen no mention of the cultural implications of beating a muslim with footwear.

liberal supporter said...

For most of these BTs, their mothers wear army boots, but they are too stupid to know that, so it is understandable they keep referring to beatings with "shoes".

Cameron Campbell said...

Woah.. none I hadn't thought of that..

sooey said...

So, they've gone from denying it happened at all, to, it doesn't matter that it happened, to, it's good that it happened, to, anybody who says it happened is smearing the troops - even though it's essentially the troops who are blowing the whistle.

What kind of people would feel it necessary to contort themselves in that way?

Ti-Guy said...

What kind of people would feel it necessary to contort themselves in that way?

People for whom the truth simply doesn't matter. Not until they get caught, that is.

Remember, it's the same bunch of cretins who were positive Iraq had WMD's.

Noni Mausa said...

This has sounded odd to me from the beginning, beating a prisoner with shoes. What shoes?

There is no mention of kicking, which everyone knows can kill a man. So presumably the alleged shoe whackers are holding the shoes/boots in their hands to administer the beating.

So, while they beat the man, they're in stocking feet? Or do they carry extra shoes around just in case they need one (in a holster opposite the one with a gun in it?)

I assume these aren't wing-tips or Birkenstocks either, so ... cleats? spikes? extra weight provided by a sock full of lead sinkers? Any chance of repetitive strain injury, since shoes aren't designed for hitting things?

Also, beating a guy with a shoe, when fists are so ready to hand*, seems quite ... odd.


* sorry

thwap said...

Excellent post.

Perfect description of these moral failures.

liberal supporter said...

I have seen no mention of the cultural implications of beating a muslim with footwear.
It is to show contempt. Six guys doing it is thuggery.

"Going into someone's house or a mosque, you would always take your shoes off first. Shoes are used to beat servants, thieves, prostitutes; it indicates servility. Were you to beat your children, this would be done with a stick or the hand, but never shoes.".

Soles of shoes would be more or less like using the old school strap, which could be used for a light punishment, or by six sadists while the guy is handcuffed.