SmoothedShredder Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 Thought this was an incredibly hot topic as so many layers of politics come crashing though this lens. The Globe has a pretty fair intro report on the subject, but no doubt the nature of this debate is going to send ginormous shockwaves through Canadian Politics. Globe and Mail Article I thought this editorial in the comments section was quite clear, and I tend to side with Ignatieff on his original perception. Still, there is a case to be made for Isreal that by and large it's offensive was strategic, and steming from a direct attack, there can within that framework be instances where 'war crimes' can occur, and Ignatieff was not in the wrong for saying this. Here's the comment.... Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: Let's get something straight. Whatever one feels about Hezbollah or the IDF, what happened in Qana and other acts of the IDF are quite reasonable labeled 'war crimes' during the recent war in Lebanon. The IDF fired two bombs into an apartment building. Over 50 people died when the building collapsed, including 37 children. The IDF used no less than 3 pretexts for the bombing: 1) Hezbollah missiles were fired from the site. This was disproved by the IDF's own investigation, no missiles were launched from Qana that day. 2) Hezbollah fighters used the civilians inside the building as 'human shields'. Haartz, the Israeli newspaper reports on 1 August that this was not the case, based on IDF sources. This is further supported by the fact that independent organizations like Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross did NOT find any military equipment in the area of the bombing. 3) IDF claims the building was abandoned and used by Hezbollah. This is of course in contradiction with 2, but whose keeping track? Anyway it was clearly a residential building, and unless intelligence specifically indicated otherwise, it was clear it would be used by civilians for shelter. So it was a war crime. This doesn't even include the fact that the IDF used cluster bombs in the conflict. A cluster bomb is a bomb containing many smaller bomblets that are supposed to make them more deadly. These bomblets have about a 20% failure rate to explode on first impact, but are known to explode afterwards when picked up or otherwise disturbed. Almost 100 people have been killed or injured since the end of hostilities because there are an estimated 1 MILLION unexploded bomblets in south Lebanon. This is in addition to the IDF bombing civilian infrastructure targets like electrical stations, fuel depots, roads, bridges, etc. Did Hezbollah criminally target civilians with their munitions? Yes. But so did Israel. So whatever faults Ignatieff may have, calling the Qana bombing a war crime is not one of them. Irregardless of the fact there may of been war crimes on both sides, it's still valid to say that one of the sides did a war crime. The PM did not do himself any favours by playing the 'Anti-Isreal' card, though he has a logical loophole as he stated that 'some' liberal Candidates have 'anti-isreal' stance, and it has been conflated to 'Harper says the Liberals are Anti-Isreal'... still for the political game he's trying to play, the same consequences for the Liberals would of unfolded weather he fanned the flames or not... and to my resounding approval, Harper is now getting a tonne of flack for politicizing this issue as he has. The Kunundrum for me lies in the fact that even when we do identify a country or a nation as commiting a war crime, we can't really stop doing buisness with it... (or can we?) What about the USA and Guantanamo... or the Iraq prisons... nevermind the precet for the actual invasion of the War.... Harper/Rae(with his "my wife is Jewish, so I know!" stance) are framing it so that we have to ignore the 'little war crimes' so that we CAN do buisness and have a clean conciousness... ignoring the facts... Iggy is atleast willing to start the debate, and the way it seems to have opened up like a powder keg (atleast on the newspaper sites and Radio), seems like there been alot of dialog repressed... Still what a dynamic issue... facts/stances/alliancs/strange bedfellows... crazy time. In other news... word on the Street is that Iggy is going to get ganged up on by Rae, Dion, and Kennedy at the Delegates thing-a-ma-gig. So he's got a tough road ahead of him, and meaning there's a very good chance that Bob Rae might be the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada! This is a revelation so crazy to me that I think I'm beginning to see what all you think about Harper... "This is impossible... how could this happen!"... but I'll be the bigger person and hope if/when he gets elected he can do much more with his experience, and free spending when we are not in a recession... oh wait, Ontario had the Smallest growth of all the Provinces this year, and predicted for the next year (unless the Auto Industry gets online soon, it could be recession time!)... what is Canada going to do with a stalled engine, and Bob Rae cranking the starter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 The liberal leadership race is a farce -- just take a look at the top two candidates. I'm pulling for a Dion win. Even if he can't beat Harper, he won't drag the Liberal party down even further into the mud. If only he had a hint of charisma.P.S. smoothshredder, I had to replace the single quotes with double quotes in the thread title because it was giving me the misleading "subject line is too long" error message when attempting to reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 P.S. smoothshredder, I had to replace the single quotes with double quotes in the thread title because it was giving me the misleading "subject line is too long" error message when attempting to reply.Ah! I'd written this bunch of stuff I had to abandon after a few shots of that. Thanks.Boiled-down point: I hope Kennedy gets it. He won't, but I'm still hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 what is Canada going to do with a stalled engine, and Bob Rae cranking the starter! what a scarier than hell thought! no... really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 I do think that Harper should shut his yap about what leadership candidates are saying until after one of them is chosen, though. If he wants to go back and quote Ignatieff during an election campaign, that's fine. But I don't see the point of jumping into the fray at this point, unless he's trying to influence who will be chosen as leader of the Liberal Party - which he shouldn't be doing in the first place.And when will you people learn that "irregardless" is not a word? It's either "regardless" or "irrespective". Grrrrr...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afro poppa Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 I am not gonna say too much on this one...except for this, Harper should definately shut his mouth when it comes to the Liberal Leadership race. It almost shows a sign of fear that he even needs to bother. I also really hope that Ignatieff and other Liberals aren't actually focusing some of their campaign on being "anti-Israel" because quite frankly thats just fucking scary. I should probably start following this a little closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted October 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 And when will you people learn that "irregardless" is not a word? It's either "regardless" or "irrespective". Grrrrr......Yeah, sorry, I should be more like you Silverback. Limit my posts to Linking to an article or a picture, and only saying what I think in a sentance or two. That way I'd have far less to edit, and like yourself, I'd never look like an idiot. Boy is my face red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 And when will you people learn that "irregardless" is not a word? It's either "regardless" or "irrespective". Grrrrr......Yeah' date=' sorry, I should be more like you Silverback. Limit my posts to Linking to an article or a picture, and only saying what I think in a sentance or two. That way I'd have far less to edit, and like yourself, I'd never look like an idiot. Boy is my face red. [/quote']You mispelled "sentance", too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 How about this, dingleberry?I don't know if I'm a fan of Bob Rae or not, but I think that the flak that has been thrown his way isn't necessarily deserved. People like to focus on the leader rather than the party - and the fact is that the NDP was *unready* to govern in Ontario when they were elected. Electing the NDP in Ontario was more about giving the finger to to the Conservatives and the Liberals than it was about electing the NDP. If Bob Rae is elected leader of the Liberal Party, I don't think he will necessarily govern the same way that he did with the NDP in Ontario.People like to forget that economic change doesn't happen overnight, and that the current government is rarely entirely to blame and/or credit for the current economic situation.Should I have used 37 sentences to express my opinion, or is this enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted October 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 Much better, thanks. So if you can get around the grammer, that was kinda what I already said about Rae in my first post. Looking forward to read about what you think "people like to do next...". Is this why you list "Contract Killer" as your occupation in your profile? I suppose I'm just one of the people you don't like cause of my stupidity. Sorry to get this thread so off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted October 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 I like how there were a couple comments made about how others' should close their mouths about the leadership race. I don't think I could ever comment about someone else 'not commmenting', seems kinda odd, kinda like saying free speech for me, but not for you, and I didn't even have a reporter ask me a direct question about the topic, like Ignatieff did when he spoke his views about 'war crimes' and how Harper was when he was asked about Ignatieffs' comments. If anything Harpers comments will either a) Clarify the Liberal Party candidates views towards the subject, because quite frankly, the Liberal Party sometimes manages to support many popular positions simutaniously. This can only to be to the benefit of the Delegates so they can atleast beaware of 'who' they are voting to be their leader, or Harpers comments can be used to expose them as the yes-people they act as to effectively balance in the middle of popular opinon. I'm not denying it was a mud sling. I don't think that 'Anti-Isreal' was the best terminonlgy to use, but one can't deny that it's shaken things up, and really challenged the Liberals to rise to the occasion, and really isn't that what being a good leader entails? I suppose it really comes down to the goals set out by the parties in question. Harper has painted the Candidates into a corner, the real test is if they will all be able to work together and stay consistant with the "We don't want Harper in power" stance, or if they will allow their own infighting to bring them down. Harpers comments only hurt him in this respect, and is therefore a solid consequence for his goof. So far so good for the Liberals... tomorrow's going to be a fun day! How anyone can comment about someone else 'not to comment' is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 15, 2006 Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 No comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted October 15, 2006 Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 No comment.I refuse to comment on whether I was going to say the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 well, what happened yesterday? i totally blanked around the 3 o'clock hour and completely forgot about the debate!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 well, what happened yesterday? i totally blanked around the 3 o'clock hour and completely forgot about the debate!! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/15/liberal-leadership.htmlAloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hux Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 You can also watch it again at cpac.caSome fiery moments yesterday - good watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts