Shhh, NZ doesn't torture, we just 'out source' torture
Questions over SAS handing over of prisoners
Questions have been raised about whether New Zealand's SAS may have handed over prisoners to an Afghan unit that is believed to use torture.
The British military has been banned from handing prisoners to the Afghan National Directorate of Security as it is so notorious for torture.
The Government has said the SAS worked with Afghanistan's Crisis Response Unit in Kabul, but was not directly responsible for any prisoners captured by the unit because it was not the head of the unit.
Incredible isn't it, we hand prisoners over to a torture unit that the even British have stopped using and what is the optimistic bullshit defence our boy in a bubble Prime Minister is using? We ask the torturers if they will torture and the torturer promises to be good??? What the hell is the Prime Minister smoking? Pretending it's not our responsibility what happens to these prisoners once we've handed them over to a notorious torture group is as embarrassing as it is morally bankrupt.
The President of Pakistan's response to flooding in his country is more credible than John Key's response to NZ troops handing prisoners over for torture.
posted by Bomber @ 8:38 pm
24 comments
24 Comments:
So what if we torture terrorists. If that's what it takes....
And let me guess anon, we know which ones are terrorists after they confess from being tortured?
"Pretending it's not our responsibility what happens to these Afghans once we've handed them over to a notorious Taliban is as embarrassing as it is morally bankrupt."
This sums up the case for our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
because we're young
because were dumb
oh oh oh
everything will flow
oh oh oh
you know
everything will flow
and animal nitrate as well
and so young
and the beautiful ones
"The President of Pakistan's response to flooding in his country is more credible than John Key's response to NZ troops handing prisoners over for torture."
I think we can ascertain that John Key thinks our soldiers handing people over to known torturers is the RIGHT thing to do.
The BEST thing to do.
A GOOD thing to do..
YAHWEH bless his lovely soul.
We shouldn't even be there helping those idiots capture 'terrorists'. They are reacting to the occupation by becoming freedom fighters. If the situation turned and we had to protect our land from invasion I'm sure most would do the same.
Get out of their country.
I think 2 years ago they had the same discussion . The army did not want the sas to go because of the legal ramifications of passing on the prisoners to the US. Now they say they did not know there was a prob
No, what sums up our withdrawal is that it won't
happen until they've created a compliant client state.
They're not there for the women, they're not there
for the Taliban or the War lords they previously funded.
They're there to control the region. Massive bases which will never be withdrawn from in Iraq and Afghanistan on either side or Iran is no accident.
No one since Alexander the Great. Get ready for a long wait.
"They're not there for the women, they're not there
for the Taliban or the War lords they previously funded.
They're there to control the region. Massive bases which will never be withdrawn from in Iraq and Afghanistan on either side or Iran is no accident."
The US can build bases in a number of surrounding countries which shock horror they have already done to support the logisitical efforts required in Afghanistan.
If compliant = not harbouring Al Queda and engaging in heroin traffic then I'm all for complaint. Obviously you think differently.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-ill-be-an-armchair-warrior-any-time-rather-than-an-armchair-appeaser-2048851.html
Pop over to Public Address AAMC, and have a look at the post RB has on this issue.
There you will see things commonly called facts.
Those facts will point out to you that the Talib, not the coalition forces, are the biggest killers of the populace.
Oh, and just because you AAMC, don't give a fuck about women and children, doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't.
We are there now, we are wanted by the locals to stay there, and they the women want they rights they had a generation ago.
Time to give it to them.
" Anyone who thinks the United States is really going to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011 needs to come to this giant air base an hour away from Kabul. There’s construction everywhere. It’s exactly what you wouldn’t expect from a transient presence."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/u-s-afghan-mega-base/#more-29169#ixzz0wqhrZPz7
As Rudyard Kipling wrote East is east and West is west and never the twain shall meet, but it was the Stinger missiles from the C.I.A that drove the Russians and their gunship helicopters out of Afghanistan. If them the next country to invade had heeded this lesson of their own making they may never have gone there either. Also their closest ally Britain invaded in 1839 as a gambit in what war poets called the great game or the 100 year pre-cold war contest with the Russians for power and influence in Asia Minor. Three years later they made a hasty retreat and were cut to pieces on the road out of Kabul. Promised safe passage they were in turn massacred. This remains one of the saddest military defeats in their history. The Soviet’s occupied to prop up communism and bombed the place back into the Stone Age. Afghanistan remains one of the five least developed countries in the world. They then pulled out and left them to fend for themselves against the Taliban.
When George W Bush sent US forces to Afghanistan, he was effectively sending them back in time, to the middle Ages. This mismatch doomed them all to be defeated.
The longer a conflict or conflagration lasts the more people and countries get tied up in it. No one is in ultimate control.
Gaddafi today is a partner of B.P. All this after Reagan killed some close members of his family with a stealth bomber. Turning down a request for training their troops added an extra year up to five years instead of 2-4 withdrawal dates. Then we should not be in any hurry to get out of Afghanistan today, as Paul Buchanan mentions in the Listener and Dominion Post we should not have eschewed our closest allies requests for 50 more ANZAC troops to train Afghan forces in Oruzgan. August 2, 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, igniting the possibility of war in the Persian Gulf. This area has long been a tinderbox, and I could see the world was about to be swept up into war. President George H.W.Bush was already trying to limit the conflict and avoided a war which would have swept the whole Arab and Muslim world up into arms by not going onto Baghdad. President Bush somehow knew through gut instinct or plain know how that it was not just seen as an attack on Iraq alone, but for Muslims religion is of a higher order than the nation state, and if Iraq was finished off altogether the Arab world would join together in opposition to the Christian world and its leader the United States. On September 11th 2001 we all felt the visceral and utter horror when the World
Trade Centre twin towers in New York City were destroyed by mostly Saudi Al Qaeda terrorists. This was the inevitable Clash of Civilizations we had heard mentioned earlier. In their purest forms however Islam and Christianity are not really religions of conflict and confrontation. It is bigoted ignorance to brand them as such as the fundamental essence of all religions which is Peace is the same. All Muslims were branded as Terrorist’s after the 9/11 attack, but for most people they are simply ordinary and above average behaviour wise and problem wise. Even though some people talk about peace and love they still fight each other. The late Yasser Arafat led the Palestinians for a long time. Like all political leaders he hoped for peace and was also associated with resolving strife in the region as Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and Arafat himself grew to embody the self-determination for Gaza and the West Bank to become an independent state, and many now argue that he had shifted his views away from fighting “to peace”; and to deter the activities of the extremist’s like Hamas after he was elected president of the Palestinian National Authority in 1996. Let’s start in the deserts of Iraq. Many people were perplexed by Tony Blair’s decision to back George W. Bush’s invasion, which has led to the deaths of 1.2 million people. Blair said he was motivated by opposition to two things-terrorism and tyranny. First off he said Saddam Hussein might give weapons of mass destruction to jihadis. Then it was proven after the invasion that Saddam had no WMD and no links to jihadis-as many critics of the war had said.
Even after testimony to the Iraq inquiry this last week that saw the former head of intelligence at MI5 decry his claims of no WMD and Hans Blix backed her up, Blair still declared when he appeared that he would ‘do it all again’ anyway, because Saddam Hussein was just a simple dictator and a tyrant.
Most critics of the war said the real reason was a desire for western access to vast supplies of oil, and the media trumpet the same motives.
“Iraq is recovering from 30 years of dictatorship, and from 2-3 wars and sanctions. Saddam Hussein poured money into his self-inflicted war with Iran, leaving nothing for hospitals or schools.”
Quite the contrary actually.
Saddam, carefully prepared and conducted the long and painstaking negotiations that led to the nationalization of Iraq’s oil in 1972.Enormous revenues were freed from the hands of greedy international conglomerate corporations and their highly damaging ecological footprint, and meanwhile Obama should have had the same intentions as Saddam and Gaddafi did to nationalise B.P’s oil and minimise its harmful footprint.
Johnson - I'm not going to publish your two comments, the first wanting me to commit suicide and the second one being a fantasy about me being tortured as I think we can discuss politics without you posting violence fantasies about me, perhaps you need to grow up a little or just stay on the No Minister site?
Time to give it to them.
"IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
IF YOU DON'T FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS
YOU'LL LOSE THEM."
penny bright
"Oh, and just because you AAMC, don't give a fuck about women and children, doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't."
This from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) an organization who have been fighting for Womens rights in Afghanistan since 1977.
http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/07/lets-rise-against-the-war-crimes-of-us-and-its-fundamentalist-lackeys.html
Not believing the U.S. is there with the intention of helping Afghan's or women does not equal not giving a fuck about women, quite the opposite in fact. Creating more extremism doesn't help anybody in Afghanistan. The U.S. had no interest in saving the Women of Afghanistan from 1996-2001 during the Taliban's rule, in fact they had funded them during their fight against Russia. They also do very little for the rights of women in Saudi Arabia incidentally.
"Those facts will point out to you that the Talib, not the coalition forces, are the biggest killers of the populace."
Yes, as a byproduct of the occupation the insurgency has grown and is being very successful at blowing a lot of people up, although remember not all insurgents are Taliban. If our actions create more of the problem we're proposing to solve, do we not share responsibility for the deaths that result from the insurgency?
The US sent the bombers in as a reaction to 9/11 despite in June 2002 the head of the FBI Robert Mueller admitting they didn't KNOW exactly who was behind the attack but that the planning and implementation were conducted in The United Arab Emirates and Germany and the pilots were almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia - America's great FUNDAMENTALIST mates in the region. So why did they bomb so quickly despite the Taliban making noises about handing Osama Bin Laden over given the appropriate evidence?
Perhaps this group linked below had a little to do with the U.S. desire to have a strong military presence in the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
"The US can build bases in a number of surrounding countries which shock horror they have already done to support the logisitical efforts required in Afghanistan.
They're not building bases to support their effort in Afghanistan, in fact compared to Iraq, Afghanistan was playing second fiddle until the recent attention, it's part of the prize but not the focus.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174789/the_mother_ship_lands_in_iraq
If compliant = not harbouring Al Queda and engaging in heroin traffic then I'm all for complaint. Obviously you think differently. "
Heroin production has increased dramatically since invasion!
"Somewhat ironically, the only time when heroin prohibition actually worked in Afghanistan was during the reign of the Taliban. Mullah Mohammed Omar declared it "un-Islamic" to process heroin in July 2001, and production for that year fell by 91%. In Helmand, production apparently ceased completely."
http://afghanistan.suite101.com/article.cfm/the-growth-of-the-heroin-trade-in-afghanistan#ixzz0wrEubJKU
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html
In preparation for bombing the US demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population despite reports that 5 million (and later 7.5m) people faced starvation without that aid. See link from World Food Programme..
http://one.wfp.org/newsroom/in_depth/afghanistan.asp?section=2&sub_section=2
Fortunately this didn't transpire, but it is obviously a cost America was prepared to live with.
Really?
http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/heroin.html
http://afghanistan.suite101.com/article.cfm/the-growth-of-the-heroin-trade-in-afghanistan
Interesting enough it says "The Taliban's methods were crude, and their were probably less than pure - designed more to increase the value of their own heroin stockpiles than anything else.."
Given that 1999-2000 were drought years The Taliban were not losing much by 'banning' poppy cultivation which resulted in a stable price for their own stockpiles of heroin to sell on the international markets.
So in conclusion, Our government thinks NZ soldiers handing people over to known torturers is CHOICE.
Oh they'll tell the truth after a bit of torture..
Sure they may say things like "Purple banana fairies run the world " in their pain induced delirium but they'll also say things that fit our agenda.
These people will truly appreciate & possibly even thank us with a bit of hindsight.
So people will be tortured..
So more kiwis will possibly be blown into chunks all over Afghanistan..
Its worth it.
No?
I'm sure this thread is long forgotten but I just read your Independent article Anon and couldn't help but respond;
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-ill-be-an-armchair-warrior-any-time-rather-than-an-armchair-appeaser-2048851.html
What a vitriolic and simplistic man you've chosen to reference, his total lack of any factual reference testament to his wholesale adoption of the status quo.
So we should bravely support any war by US against THEM? Our boys marching bravely into a nuclear holocaust, that'd be brave and clever and just. And cause we're ALWAYS the good guys right, cause history stopped in 1945 didn't it?!
I propose that those who aspire to establish what are really the motivations in our world and who fight to defend a decent and just world and against the abuse of power are more deserving of his "Armchair Warrior" moniker, and that your man is the armchair cynic and apologist, prepared to swallow the company line and simplistic chest beating.
And; if a great power, whether the Chinese or the American's found strategic advantage in New Zealand and started flying their drones here killing my family and friends, I wouldn't be in that Armchair for long, I can assure you of that!
Post a Comment
<< Home