quote:

---

Italian prosecutors are said to be seeking the indictment of a U.S. soldier in a case that has strained relations between the two countries — the shooting of a senior Italian intelligence officer as he shepherded an abducted journalist to safety in Iraq.

Nicola Calipari, who held the rank of major general in the intelligence service, was killed when U.S. troops fired on the car in which he was taking journalist Giuliana Sgrena to the Baghdad airport after securing her release from kidnappers in March 2005. Sgrena and another agent in the car were wounded.

---

Sgrena was a reporter for the Communist newspaper Il Manifesto, which strongly opposed the U.S. war in Iraq. She survived her abductors unscathed, but wasn't so lucky when she encountered Iraq's liberators. I'm personally hoping the new Italian government brings the killer to justice, either by a commando raid and arrest on U.S. soil, or, if that's too dangerous, just a simple targeted assassination.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Italians want to try U.S. soldier...

Sgrena was a reporter for the Communist newspaper Il Manifesto, which strongly opposed the U.S. war in Iraq. She survived her abductors unscathed, but wasn't so lucky when she encountered Iraq's liberators. I'm personally hoping the new Italian government brings the killer to justice, either by a commando raid and arrest on U.S. soil, or, if that's too dangerous, just a simple targeted assassination.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

Your screechings of "bloody murderer" ring rather hollow with the posting of this sick thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Your screechings of "bloody murderer" ring rather hollow with the posting of this sick thought.

Whatever happened to due process?

---

Can't you read?

The U.S. will never hand over this alleged murderer to face justice, which of course would be the preferred option.

I then suggested the next best thing, which was that the Italians go and get him and arrest him, so that he can face trial.

As a last-resort alternative, if the above course is "too dangerous" (I repeat, can't you read?), I suggested assassination. This is only if all else fails, and it is to prevent the offender from killing again.

Now, what is it you find sick in this process? Besides the fact that it would be the Italian authorities going after the "perp", and not the U.S. authorities?

Or have I missed all your many posts demanding "due process" for Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other targets of U.S. extra-judicial attention? Perhaps you could refer me to some of them? I do apologize in advance if I got you all wrong.

[ 24 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

I suggested assassination. This is only if all else fails, and it is to prevent the offender from killing again

---

So, you only advocate murdering those who do not agree with your ideology as a last resort?

quote:

---

Or have I missed all your many posts demanding "due process" for Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other targets of U.S. extra-judicial attention? Perhaps you could refer me to some of them? I do apologize in advance if I got you all wrong.

---

Find evidence to support your smear.

For crying out loud... America has been assassinating/replacing WORLD LEADERS for over half a century now (and supporting dictatorships like Suharto and Sadam).

quote:

---

cdnviking :

Israel has been murdering "terrorist SUSPECTS" for DECADES NOW and no one is too upset.
For crying out loud... America has been assassinating/replacing WORLD LEADERS for over half a century now (and supporting dictatorships like Suharto and Sadam).

Why not the Italians and murder suspects?

---

Suspects? No trial,no sentencing if convicted,just murder them because Unionist says they are guilty?

I do believe this progressive site has a policy regarding the promotion of any sort of violence.

Promoting peace by murdering "suspects"

At risk of encurring the wrath of the ususal suspects,let us use Unionist's words on the 17 alleged terrorists in Toronto.

Following your reasoning,there is no need for charges or a trial or sentencing,if convicted,just assasination.Murder-as a last resort of course.

quote:

---

Do either of you idiots even comprehend that your words are the opposite of rational thought

---

Apparently YOU are the idiot, as you cannot RECOGNIZE SARCASM.

Do you DEFEND what Israel does, or what America does when it doesn't like who is in power or is standing up to either of them?

I don't defend "targetted assassination" or murder, for that matter.

Yasser Arafat was supposedly a terrorist, but WAS NEVER CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. Israel spent a LOT of time figuring out HOW TO KILL HIM. What about "Hamas Extremists"? Don't they have a RIGHT to a fair trial? Where is your outrage for them?

Menachim Begin WAS a CONVICTED TERRORIST for blowing up the King David Hotel, yet the world EMBRACED HIM.

Apples and oranges some will say!

quote:

---

Originally posted by cdnviking:

Apparently YOU are the idiot, as you cannot RECOGNIZE SARCASM.

Do you DEFEND what Israel does, or what America does when it doesn't like who is in power or is standing up to either of them?

I don't defend "targetted assassination" or murder, for that matter.

Yasser Arafat was supposedly a terrorist, but WAS NEVER CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. Israel spent a LOT of time figuring out HOW TO KILL HIM. What about "Hamas Extremists"? Don't they have a RIGHT to a fair trial? Where is your outrage for them?

Menachim Begin WAS a CONVICTED TERRORIST for blowing up the King David Hotel, yet the world EMBRACED HIM.

Apples and oranges some will say!

Are you one of those idiot few?

---

No,I don't condone assasination or murder by anyone.

Does one require a disclaimer with every post that condemns Israel and the US to avoid non-sequiturs that infer bias toward Israel and the US because they are not mentioned?

This thread isn't about Israel or the million and one other grievances harboured against it.It is about Unionist's embrace of murder and assasination as a tool to achieve his political ends.

quote:

---

This is only if all else fails, and it is to prevent the offender from killing again.

---

I believe that the Americans who indiscriminately shoot at vehicles they consider too close to their convoys,should be held accountable for their actions.Also the vehicles in convoys who's aggressive driving results in injury or death.As well as any other incidents by any participants in any conflict that warrant investigation by the ICC.

The fact that the Americans have not signed on to the Rome Convention,does not relieve them of responsibility for their actions.

The fact that the Americans have not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC,does not give license to lunatics such as Unionist to advocate murder of "suspects".

That the idiot qualifies his statement with "as a last resort" is laughable.

His reasoning that murdering the "suspects" will "prevent the offender from killing again" puts him well to the right of even the proponents of "Old Sparky" down in Huntsville,Texas.

Which makes Unionist more dangerous than G.W. Bush himself.

I didn't mean it Missus Cleaver,I was onlyjoking.

Considering your second post and the fact that you have been previously censured by Michelle for wishing death on Canadians,your satire defense also rings hollow.

I stand up to threats of violence toward anyone.If it gets "ugly",too bad...Better to stand up and be counted than to shrink from confronting the proponents of violence toward others because of one's delicate sensibilities.

quote:

---

... you have been previously censured by Michelle for wishing death on Canadians,your satire defense also rings hollow.

---

After a few days,Michelle finally intervened and said it was babble policy not to allow the wishing of death upon anyone although the intervention was specifically about unionist's wishing death upon Canadian troops as a means to bring them home.

The opening post can be construed as satire,I suppose but unionist's second post reinforces the view that unionist was originally not satirical but serious.

I understand now. When the Crusader Imperialist Warmongers advocate the use illegal force,its racism. When the leftists advocate the use of illegal force,its merely satire.

Without evidence or any basis in fact,I am smeared as a supporter of Us aggression.I have not and do not support Us interventionism and have not and do not support Canada's mission in Kandahar.When I challenge unionist and cueball to find a quote of mine to support their unfounded allegations,they slink away.

If you wish to challenge my views,fine.At least have the jam to support your allegations with facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Without evidence or any basis in fact,I am smeared as a supporter of Us aggression.I have not and do not support Us interventionism and have not and do not support Canada's mission in Kandahar.When I challenge unionist and cueball to find a quote of mine to support their unfounded allegations,they slink away.[/QB]

---

I opened this thread in memory of the four soldiers killed in Afghanistan:

quote:

---

Unionist: My condolences to the families, and my fervent wishes that those warmongers who sent these victims to Afghanistan and their chorus of supporters in Parliament someday be dragged in front of an International War Crimes Tribunal. Canada out, now!

jester: Pro Patria. There are occasions when it is insensitive to make political points over our loss. Unionist,why don't you take this day off and shut the fuck up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Of course, I may have misread your statement of not supporting the Canadian mission in Kandahar. These four young Canadians were killed near Gumbad. Our mission there is ok, eh jester???

---

That aside from the strategic folly that we are engaged in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
What is moral and ethical about participating in a policy of pre-emptive warfare and aggression under the command of a rogue nation that disrespects the Geneva Convention and refuses to participate in the ICC?

That aside from the strategic folly that we are engaged in.

If Canada were to take the moral and ethical highground it would not cooperate or support any country that refused to sign on to the ICC.

---

We leave, Afghanistan self destructs, and many thousands, mostly non-combatants will die. The country will regress to pre-Taliban warfare before the vhange to the Taliban. We are currently in a position to influence the current and future Afghanistan behaviour towards more respect for human rights and human life (and I do not care what form of government they take).

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

We leave, Afghanistan self destructs, and many thousands, mostly non-combatants will die. The country will regress to pre-Taliban warfare before the vhange to the Taliban. We are currently in a position to influence the current and future Afghanistan behaviour towards more respect for human rights and human life (and I do not care what form of government they take).

It would be immoral, and unethical to abandon these people before the mission is complete, and it would most certainly leave the world open to more attacks, given the support mulitple terrorist organisations like aQ receive from the poppy fields.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Only a modern-day proponent of the White Man's Burden can talk this way.

---

It is correct, it is a burden... I can not help to recognize a racist connotation however in your usage here of Kipling. Are you suggesting to leave the Afghan people to the destruction of civil war?

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: SunTzu ]

quote:

---

SunTsu:
It would be immoral, and unethical to abandon these people before the mission is complete,....

---

It was immoral and unethical to start the mission in the first place, and it is unethical to work with allies that have a lower level of respect for human rights and international agreements than we do.

quote:

---

We leave, Afghanistan self destructs, and many thousands, mostly non-combatants will die.

---

We will leave and despite our efforts the country may continue on with its civil war. The only question we need to figure out the answer to is how many Canadians will die or be maimed before we leave.

quote:

---

....it would most certainly leave the world open to more attacks, given the support mulitple terrorist organisations like aQ receive from the poppy fields.

---

The solution to terrorist attacks is not military, it is social and economic. A military confrontation may do more to increase the problem than abate it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

It is correct, it is a burden... I can not help to recognize a racist connotation however in your usage here of Kipling. Are you suggesting to leave the Afghan people to the destruction of civil war?

---

Yes, Sir! I trust their ability to run Afghan society more than yours. Isn't that an odd thought?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Yes, Sir! I trust their ability to run Afghan society more than yours. Isn't that an odd thought?

Anyway, it's theirs to run, not yours. As you and your colleagues will find out very shortly, if you don't save your skinny asses and get out of there asap.

---

Who do you trust? Name them please... Why do you trust them... The them being Taliban and warlords.

If you are referencing fighting capabilities, then you should know for every one Canadian they get, we cause 100 casualties to the insurgent forces... Note also that we are much more focused then our American friends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

The solution to terrorist attacks is not military, it is social and economic. A military confrontation may do more to increase the problem than abate it.

We may have already passed the point where more troops of the US and its vassal nations have been killed or wounded in the so called war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere than the citizens of those countries were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks. It seems that the Islamists are not the only ones committing suicide.

---

Your smiley here is disturbing when taken in the context of associating it with death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

There seems to be an instance on labelling us criminal etc on the basis of what Americans have done. This is niether fair, nor conducive to valid conversation.

---

My problem is with Canada having sent troops to help overthrow a government, and remaining there to prop up a puppet government. That's all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

My problem is with Canada having sent troops to help overthrow a government, and remaining there to prop up a puppet government. That's all.

But what actions of the Americans are you referring to? If you believe Canadians are being unfairly accused because of some American actions (which is what you appear to be saying), please identify those actions. Are you saying the Americans have committed some war crimes??

---

Hmmm, around and around in circles eh? You and others make vague accusations... Never failing to follow through with exact proof, but the occasional link to something an American has done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:
Now apply those rules to say the majority Muslim country Indonesia, where just last fall 3 Christian girls had their heads cut off for being Christian?

---

My God, they're beheading Christian girls in a "majority Muslim" country! What are you waiting for, Sun Tzu? To the rescue! The White Man's Burden is a weighty one indeed.

Mind you, that other Christian managed to escape to Italy before the "majority Muslim" government in Kabul lopped off his head.

Wait a minute. We can't send troops to either place. Indonesia is our ally. And we've already got troops in Afghanistan.

I'm really confused now.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

My God, they're beheading Christian girls in a "majority Muslim" country! What are you waiting for, Sun Tzu? To the rescue! The White Man's Burden is a weighty one indeed.

Mind you, that other Christian managed to escape to Italy before the "majority Muslim" government in Kabul lopped off his head.

Wait a minute. We can't send troops to either place. Indonesia is our ally. And we've already got troops in Afghanistan.

I'm really confused now.

[ 25 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

quote:

---

SunTsu:
Your smiley here is disturbing when taken in the context of associating it with death.

---

Nothing exceptional about death, it happens all the time and is the constant companion of soldiers in the field. Might as well poke fun at it. Perhaps you don't see the irony of fighting a war against terrorism to protect us from being killed by terrorists and expending more of our lives to do it than the terrorists would have killed?

The fact that we are wasting lives and resources in places like Afghanistan applying a lethal military solution to a non-military problem speaks poorly of our political leadership and those who support them and the killing of our soldiers. And, when one supports the use of military force one defacto is supporting the death of soldiers regardless of the fairytales and fantasies used to rationalize away this reality.

quote:

---

Please, what are the under lying factors of terrorism?

---

They are a complex mix of social, political and economic issues and one needs to recognize that more important than what causes terrorism is what causes people to support it to one degree or another.

Some terrorists have legitimate concerns, others just manipulate the concerns of others. In any event the head on military approach is just as if not more likely to reinforce and spread these concerns as it is to abate them.

Of course, defining the causes of terrorism requires that we have a common definition of what is a terrorist, and there are many views on that. The issue is too complex to deal with at length here at the moment but some preliminary reading for those interested in exploring this issue:

Terrorism in historical perspective

Common Ground: Definition of terrorism

World Order, Failed States and Terrorism

quote:

---

Terrorism exsisted prior to any influence the west had.

---

Of course, but that is beside the point. It can be reasonably argued that today our actions are helping to spread terrorism rather than contain it.

quote:

---

We leave, Afghanistan self destructs, and many thousands, mostly non-combatants will die.

---

But you will leave. One day, when the Conservative/Liberal governments can no longer squeeze any domestic political capital out of this folly, the Canadians will come slinking home in Victory. And Afghanistan will become what it will become, like you had never even been there.

On a related note, I heard that shitforbrains Chief of Defense Staff speaking to a Commons committee on the CBC the other day. He blathered the typical "civilize the savages" nonsense so beloved by imperialists, and I said to myself "but what about the little girls going to school? Won't someone think of them?!?!?". No sooner had the thought bubble formed over my head than that scumbag pipes up with that gem of smarmy propaganda: "little girls can now go to school". He really should be polishing trash cans in an 8 X 8 cell somewhere.

quote:

---

It would be immoral, and unethical to abandon these people before the mission is complete

---

What would complete the mission? A big box store development in Kabul?

quote:

---

and it would most certainly leave the world open to more attacks,

---

No one from Afghanistan attacked anyone. We attacked them. You understand that, right?

quote:

---

given the support mulitple terrorist organisations like aQ receive from the poppy fields.

---

quote:

---

Jingles:
The only terrorist organization to benefit from the poppy fields is the CIA.

---

Not true. The CIA is one organization that benefits, but many more do so too. The illegal drug trade is a major part of our economic system which is one reason that the so called war on drugs, like the war on terror, is a sham war for public relations purposes. They make handy bogeymen to rally the public with, but they are a too convenient source of power and income to get rid of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

Fairy tales. The only terrorist organization to benefit from the poppy fields is the CIA. They set the whole operation up to begin with. How do you think they move the tonnes of junk out of Afghanistan; on the back of a mule, or in the hold of a C-17?

---

Whilst there is plenty of forensic evidence linking Taliban and insurgets to the poppies, I couldn't help but to notice that you failed utterly to provide a link to back up your rather outrageous claim.

Wish I could say this surprises me, however, going back amongst the rest of your rather dubious posting career, you have made continual malicious, and in my opinion egregious posts maligning without proof all and sundry.