At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.We are in a new phase of a very old war.
Along similar lines...Our Craven and Seditious Mainstream Media
@1389. True but isn't it the case that "rules of engagement" now prevent the killing of un-uniformed combatants whereas in WW2 they WOULD have been legally shot by convention? Indeed, doesn't the Geneva Convention still say that.Nasty person that I am I would like to see the West acquire pigskins for the express purpose of burying Islamic combatants. Perhaps the threat would be enough to discourage some - no 72 perpetual virgins and ample young boys (hell being gay is OK if the victim is pre-pubescent says Mo). So no advantage.
Money Shot:"I don't believe in God but I hate him."
The idea of executing Muslim terrorists by tying them up in pig-skin, soaking them in whiskey, and setting them on fire does have a certain emotional appeal. I actually favor the idea of raising man-eating boars, and slowly lowering the offenders into the pen so that they can suffer a slow death of being eaten by pigs.But realistically speaking, this is useless. While Muslims make a big fuss about how offended they are by the various sinful/unclean things the West embraces, Jihadist readings of Islamic doctrine support fully the notion that as long as a Muslim is martyred in the cause of Jihad, every other possible uncleanness is forgiven. This is why it is common for Muslims about to carry out an attack to indulge in forbidden behavior such as paid sexual favors and drinking (final meals of pork are less common, but they are not essentially different).Indeed, the idea that it is not possible to cleanse oneself of the moral filthiness of having enjoyed Western culture except through martyrdom is already a significant recruiting tool for Jihad groups. It is certain that such actions as, for instance, leafleting extremist Islamic nations with porn or secretly putting lard in all their food would result in a significant upsurge of terrorist recruitment as a result of devout young Muslims deciding that martyrdom was the only way for them to 'cleanse' themselves in the sight of Allah.That said, I do not subscribe to the notion that the West is responsible for Islamic violence. If a thing is the right thing to do, then it ought to be done regardless of whether Muslims are going to be upset and riot or commit terrorist attacks as a result. Really the only question is whether leafleting impoverished, misogynist cultures with porn or raising man-eating pigs is morally acceptable by the standards of Western Civilization.Amusing as these ideas might be, I tend to think that they could be regarded as immoral even if we could expect them to have a beneficial impact, which they will not.Chiu Chun-Ling.
Mr. Levant’s description of the firefight involving Omar Khadr is entirely contradicted by an eye witness report from a soldier on the scene. (OC-1 CITF Witness Report)Formal charges were laid against Khadr near the end of 2005. Legal objections were raised in Canada and elsewhere because the charges were for war crimes that don’t exist, not because Harper was elected, and not because Khadr was 15. ( “A Court Without Jurisdiction – Omar Khadr – David Glazier”). Glazier is a former US naval commander, now a law professor and expert in laws of war.Killing an officer performing medical duties is a war crime under Geneva. Throwing a grenade in the direction of an advancing “assault element” of armed soldiers, one of whom is trained as a medic, is not a war crime, whoever does it, and whoever did it in this case. See Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute.The US government obviously recognized that this case was legally problematic. That’s why they have been pushing a plea bargain, under both Bush and Obama. It means no appeal, and it keeps the issue of invented war crimes away from the Supreme Court. There have only been a handful of these cases and all but one ended the same way.Khadr was essentially charged for fighting in the war while not being part of a uniformed military. He fought in the war because of where he was mainly raised and by whom. Technically, he could have been charged under domestic law, but even that would have been unusual, in the circumstances. Thousands of soldiers have been wounded or killed by such fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq and other wars before them including Vietnam. The charges against Khadr are unique, and clearly resulted from the special circumstances post 9/11. Even the original prosecutor now says that if another government treated an American the way Khadr was treated he hopes Americans would object, and they would. See many articles and interviews – Morris Davis on Omar Khadr.The “child soldier law” doesn’t prohibit prosecution. It does commit state parties to a very different approach for minors Khadr’s age. See Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on children in armed conflict. This was adopted into Canadian and US law. The Guantanamo judge ruled it was superseded by the Military Commission Act, passed four years after the US adopted the treaty, and Khadr was in the war. The MCA says nothing about age. He did not say Khadr wasn’t covered by the treaty. He said the decision to prosecute was made by others. See Military Commission web site – Child Soldier Protocol.Mr. Levant relies on the testimony of a Prosecution psychiatrist. The Defence psychiatrist, of course, had the opposite opinion. See Stephen Xenakis Omar Khadr – article in Haaretz.http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/first-do-no-harm-1.353473The Canadian Supreme Court essentially declared this trial illegal, basing themselves in part on US Supreme Court's decisions and reports from Canadian intelligence officers.The case has been hopelessly politicized in Canada. It may be too late to ever release Khadr safely, but he deserves a chance, subject to tight security measures.PS, No Benwick. Killing of prisoners without trials hasn't been the custom for a century, at least, and it was never a US tradition. The original purpose of the military commission system was to provide trials in war situations where courts weren't operating or where not accessible. Now they're used for show trials, mocking US tradition and values.Diane
"Khadr was essentially charged for fighting in the war while not being part of a uniformed military."This is, in fact, one of the core war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. You might make note of that. It is a significant point because if it were not a crime to engage in combat without using easily identifiable distinctions to show that one is a combatant, then it would be impossible to ever prosecute anyone for attacking non-combatants, which is the whole point of having laws of war.Chiu Chun-Ling.
Diane,First you say, "...He fought in the war because of where he was mainly raised and by whom." So, you agree that it is HIS parents' and HIS culture's fault that he ended up in trouble and in jail.Then you write, "but he deserves a chance, subject to tight security measures." So, you agree that he is STILL a high security risk to the West.So, I respond to you, "No, MY kids deserve a chance to live without this kid's violent religion in our culture and without the threat of violence against Westerners. No security measures will be enough to deter someone raised to be a violent Islamist.My human sympathies lie with the potential Western victims instead of the likely Islamic perpetrator.My loyalty lies with my race and culture rather than the Islamic death culture that subsumes all other races and cultures when offered tea and sympathy instead of stone cold violent resistance.My kids deserve a chance.My kids deserve protection from Islam.My kids deserve Western culture untainted by Sharia Law - and the crimes it supports including gang rape, girlhood clitorectomies, child marriage, forced marriage, cousin marriage, polygamy, wife beating, boy and girl child rape and molestation, animal cruelty, etc.
1/30/2012 11:23 AM comment by Egghead
Post a Comment