Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Bully for Omar Khadr      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Canada known around the World as soft-touch SuckersPage 2 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Shano it does go both ways, there were some Yankee cowboys popping off rounds too.
That's war, it sucks and people die. Okay you want that kid charged with murder then charge every allied soldier that has made a kill in combat aswell, and especially the pilots that can't hit their target but sure as shit can hit a school or church.

Omar is a creepy little guy and would rather not have him as a fellow countryman to be honest, but torturing 15 year old kids, held without charges for an indefinate period, then when charges are brought the defence is not allowed to even know what evidence will be used against the accused ..... Makes the US just as bad of a state as the old Taliban regime. And hypocritic to boot.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 28
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 11:32:34 PM

Sorry,how could anyone get it so wrong,the Taliban are not terrorists/criminals,they're misunderstood freedom fighters/holy warriors who
abide by the Geneva convention, wear uniforms , don't attack civilians,they don't chop the heads off their prisoners,they carry their arms openly,they don't torture prisoners,they don't have public executions,they havn't banned kite-flying television,music and the Internet,they treat women with respect by not allowing girls to attend school,work outside of home,leave home without a male upon penalty of death,chop their fingertips off for wearing nail polish.
This is the Kadhr and Taliban family creed and they would rather die and have died to maintain control over a traumatized afghani people.

How nice of you to resort to your typical strawman argument.

I can't find anything, in any post, that says or suggests what you have said. However, to address some of your points.

At the time of the invasion the Taliban were not terrorist/criminals, they were the de-facto government of Afghanistan, a position which they obtained with the support of the majority of the population of Afghanistan. What they wore was, by default, the uniform (whether you and I think it looks like our idea of a military uniform is irrelevant. It is, in fact, no different from what the majority of the Northern Alliance (coalition allies) wore (I find it funny that it is a uniform when our allies wear basically whatever but not when the enemy wears it). They did carry their weapons openly and whether or not they treated any prisoners by the Geneva Convention is a moot point since they were never able to take enough prisoners for that to be determined.

Whether or not they execute criminals, how they do it or why is a matter for the laws of that land and not something they have to answer to us for. Let's not forget that, at the time of the invasion many US states had the death penalty for many crimes, many of them allowed for the execution of juveniles (thankfully since struck down by SCOTUS) and even the mentaly retarded. Is that realy any more moral?

As for the laws they had, how those laws considered women and what they banned, again a case of their country, their laws. At the time the Taliban came to power (with the support of the majority of the populace) their position on such things was no secret. They were absolutely open in their desire to enact and enforce extremely strict Sharia law. This was known and still they were supported. It is not for you or I to decide that another populace does not have the sovereign authority to establish such laws in their own land (isn't that the SAME argument we use against establishing Sharia law in Canada?).

How they behave in combat now is absolutely irrelevant to the situation 5 years ago and that is the time frame we are talking about. At that time the current government did not exist and the Taliban and those who fought alonside them were still at war with the coalition forces and a minority group of rebel elements allied to the coalition.

If the handgrenade thrown by Khadr had been thrown this year (last year, after the new constitution or popularly elected gov't) it might be an entirely different story but that is NOT what happened. Events of 5 years ago cannot be legitimately viewed through the lens of today.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 30
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/8/2007 1:51:19 PM

Claiming a majority is a totally ridiculous statement,here's a history lesson:

Well, how about this...


Taliban

Origins

The Taliban initially had enormous goodwill from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality and incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Two contrasting narratives of the beginnings of the Taliban are that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals. The other is that the Pakistan-based lorry shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs. In either or both cases, the Taliban were based in the Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan region, and were overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominantly Durrani Pashtuns. They received training and arms from Pakistan although they retained some independence, often refusing the advice of the Pakistan government.

The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan to capture Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men. Starting with the capture of a border crossing and a huge ammunition dump from warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a couple weeks later they freed "a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia" from another group of warlords attempting to extort money. In the next three months this hitherto "unknown force" took control of twelve of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, with Mujahideen warlords often surrendering to them without a fight and the "heavily armed population" giving up their weapons. By September 1996 they captured Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.

That is just a short one, I can come up with many others. I will also point out the following parts of the article you posted...

The Taliban actively recruited thousands of young men in the Afghan refugee camps


Many war orphans also joined the movement


many war-weary Afghan people, particularly Pashtuns, supported the Taliban in hopes of respite from years of war

So, lets see, between the two...

enormous goodwill

thousands of recruits

warlords often surrenduring without a fight

population giving up their weapons willingly

hopes of respite from years of war

main support base in the Pashtuns (Afghanistan's majority population)

...Sounds an awful lot like majority support to me. But then I suppose you are privy to some "secret code" in the words that means the opposite.

Yet again you state as fact that the majority of Afghans wanted their women's fingers cut off for using nail polish, they were absolutely open to having their fatherless children starving because their mothers would be murdered if they worked or ventured outside of their homes,they supported being buried up to their neck or being stoned in soccer stadiums by the tens of thousands for hiding family photographs or reading a book other than the Qur'an.
How do you know so much about the Afghan people and their desires?

Again with your strawman arguments. I never said the majority supported the Taliban because they wanted those things. What I said was that the Taliban's beliefs were well known and, whether the majority wanted those things or not, the one thing they can't plead is a lack of "truth in advertising" although, if you look at the tribal codes of Afghanistan's majority population you will find much of those notions of honor and justice there. Your proof is found in the very article you posted.

were actually based in ancient tribal rules and customs

Next

Roadside bombs are open weapons?

Boobytraps and ambushes (both hidden and secretive by their very definition) are absolutely legitimate combat tactics. Every military in the world is trained to employ exactly those tactics (but again, I guess it's OK if we use those tactics when we deem it necessary but the enemy isn't allowed to).

Perhaps they didn't take enough prisoners for that to be determined is because captured prisoners had their heads chopped off?

Please, provide me with specific examples of this being used as a wide spread (or even frequent) practice in Afghanistan. I think you are confusing Afghanistan with Iraq.

George Santayana:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And that has what to do with Omar Khadr's status (or even my statement you responded to with it)?

I know it'll never happen, but just once I'd love to see a revisionist bleeding heart take personal responsibility(house,feed,clothe and pay legal bills) for someone like Omar and his family.

Again, that has what to do with it?

Your constant use of illogical statements, rampant emotionalism and irrelevant arguments doesn't help you to make your case.

Not only have you failed to make a case for Omar Khadr's guilt (or even suspicion) of murder and war crimes, you have actually bolstered the case against it.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 32
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/8/2007 4:07:10 PM

Do you have sources that validate suicide bombers as being allowed by the Geneva Convention?Do you know how many Canadian soldiers and Afghani civilians have been killed by suicide bombers in Afghanistan?

???

Have you no ability to focus on relevant points?

What the h*ll does this have to do with Omar Khadr (who was not a suicide bomber nor were any members of the family) and the events of 5 years ago (when suicide bombing was not a tactic employed by the Taliban)?

Defend the Kadhr family and Taliban terrorists as brave freedom fighters all you please

Again with the strawman argument.

Where have I ever said the Khadr family or Taliban were "brave freedom fighters"?

Please, oh please, show me where I have said this (of course you can't because that interpretation exists only in your own mind).


the UN troops in Afghanistan are defending your right to do so

No they're not. Not Khadr, his family nor the Taliban have never presented a real, present or practicable threat to the collective rights of Canadians (or the west).

Again, you seem incapable of arguing your point without resorting to irrelevant, illogical or irrational points.

Is your attachment to your point realy so desperate?

How much longer until it reaches the point where it becomes "Oh yeah, well you're a poo-poo head"?

Your argument gets weaker and more desperate with each post.

None of this has anything to do with Omar Khadr and the events of 5 years ago that lead to his detention on charges which have failed before a US military court.

Don't you think that they, of all people, would be most likely consider it from the same point of view as you (and yet they don't) rather than insisting on due process and professional military conduct and values (which they do)?

Oh, wait, I am getting a vision...

Yes, it's coming to me now...

They are liberal, bleeding-heart, anti-American, activist military judges who don't support the troops.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 34
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:17:08 PM

Your quite confident in suggesting you somehow miraculously know the motivations of others so allow me an observation.

There is nothing miraculous about it.

You said that I...

Defend the Kadhr family and Taliban terrorists as brave freedom fighters

However, nowhere in my posts did I ever reference Khadr or the Taliban as "brave freedom fighters".

Since the statement was never made and you interpreted my posts to say that logic dictates that the interpretation must exist in your mind (because it doesn't exist in reality).

How can a supposed veteran of both the US and Canadian armed forces cite one -sided convention obligations

You see? There it is again.

I never (anywhere, ever) said that convention obligations were one-sided. You're interpreting what I have said according to your own bias rather than the actual facts (logic dictates that conclusion because you are saying I said something I didn't say, ever).

During the invasion (and that is the only relevant time frame for this as that is when the incident involving Khadr took place) the Taliban was obligated to follow the convention obligations every bit as much as the coalition forces.

I have asked you to provide me with specific examples of the Taliban beheading prisoners during the invasion. You have failed to do so. To that I will now add: Show me specific evidence of any systematic violation of convention obligations by the Taliban during that time (that should give you plenty of lee-way to make your point).

Now comes the key point of that portion of my argument. Without regard to any convention violations by the enemy, our people are still morally obligated to uphold their obligations. It is a fundamental principle of a professional military (and a fundamental principle of moral behaviour).

For an example from everyday life (this should help you to understand the principle): The fact of an individual breaking the law and murdering someone does nothing to release the police (or any other citizen) from their legal obligation and freeing them to murder the perpetrator after the fact.

If you truly believe that a violation by the enemy automatically gives us license to commit the same violation then you have just proven that the following observation of yours...

I have no doubt that you truly believe that you hold the higher moral ground.
You're welcome to your illusion of superiority.

...is no illusion at all.

massage historical facts

I am not massaging any historical fact.

It is a fact that, of all the factions in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, the Taliban had the largest support base.

It is also a fact that the support base they had constituted a majority of the populace.

It is a fact that they had this support because they were seen as the most capable of bringing the fighting between the numerous warlords and their factions to an end.

There is no "massaging" in that, just simple facts and logic.

suggest a moral responsibility for Canada to offer refuge to a terrorist

I have not said that Canada has a moral responsibility to offer refuge to terrorists. What I have said is that, a person is not guilty of terrorism simply because of their beliefs. In order to be guilty of terrorism they must actually act on those beliefs by engaging in an act of terrorism. In this country you are free to believe whatever you choose, the measure of those beliefs only comes when you actually act on them in a manner that is specifically illegal.

As example:

You are free to hold whatever racist beliefs you choose. You are even free to say things like "I hate all ***". Your racism only becomes criminal when you act on it by doing something like harming a member of that group (physically or by violating their rights) or inciting others to harm them.

I have also pointed out that the Khadr family has been watched, scrutinized and investigated by the RCMP and CSIS. To date there is no legal basis for removing their citizenship or denying them the privilege of continuing to remain in the country. That is the reason they are still here and living free lives and it is exactly how it shopuld be.

You may not like it but that is one of the elements of due process that exists in this country. It is the same due process that protects minority rights and prevents a gov't from arbitrarily removing any group they happen to disapprove of at the moment.

all because of an incorrect technical filing procedure while your former brothers in arms are being blown up by the same terrorist faction?

In the case of Omar Khadr, his actions at the time and under the circumstances they occurred were not terrorism or a war crime. He should not have been charged in the first place but, rather, held as a prisoner of war.

The dismissal was anything but a "mere technicality". He was given a specific classification by the US's status tribunal. The court where they attempted to try him did not have the jurisdiction to do so, by US law.

The comparison between the situation, events and state of affairs 5 years ago and the behaviour of the Taliban today is a false comparison.

It is a blatantly transparent attempt to bolster your argument by attacking me as unpatriotic and traitorous to "my former brothers in arms" using illogic and emotionalism that bears no relationship to the reality of the situation.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/9/2007 3:27:18 PM

How can a supposed veteran of both the US and Canadian armed forces cite one -sided convention obligations,massage historical facts,suggest a moral responsibility for Canada to offer refuge to a terrorist all because of an incorrect technical filing procedure while your former brothers in arms are being blown up by the same terrorist faction?


Even though it isn't directed my way ...... if you lower yourself to your enemies standard in what way are you any better. Due process, open court, access to facts, evidence and charges even for the worst is a must. Period, otherwise the "court" procedure is little more than a useless sham with no credibility. Confessions tortured out of a 15 year old kid ... worthless. Now if you convict on fact in a fair trial rather than emotion then you have something you can make stick with a clear conscience.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 37
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/9/2007 6:07:44 PM
What is Canada's moral impetous to demand that he be returned back to Canada?

Canada has a legal impetus.

Omar is a Canadian citizen (by birth), he has not been convicted of any act of terrorism, he is not known to have participated in any bombings of civilians (1995? He would have been, oh, 8 years old) and the only accusation of engaging in a terrorist act is from the US while he was engaged in resisting the invasion of Afghanistan.

I guess this is where you separated al Qaeda and their acts of terrorism and the Geneva convention compliant Taliban,how convienient for Omar and your facts.

Yet another red herring.

You still continue to evade the issue of the time, circumstances and state of affairs in which the only act attributed to Omar to be called an act of terrorism/war crime occurred but instead rely on actions and activities in which Omar played no role.

Oh, but I guess you are going to continue to rely on the "sins of the father" argument. I guess it is a good thing for the Khadr family that our legal system doesn't agree with you on this.

"immense majority support"?OK From the encyclopedia Encarta one more time:

Shall I repost the article I posted in response to yours?

Shall I quote (again) those portions from your article that show the significant support?

Shall I quote some of the other articles that show the level of support among the populace the Taliban had?

I won't waste my time since it won't make a difference considering the only response you could come up with to the article I posted and my quoting evidence from your very article was to repost it (as if my quoting it means I didn't read or understand it).

Nice try, points for effort but none for accuracy.

Wrong again:
"The 1949 Geneva Convention explicitly supports the Bush Administrations position that the Guantanamo detainees are unlawful combatants, and thus not protected as prisoners of war, because:

Well, it was nice of you to quote a reference that considers only parts of Article 4 of the 49 Convention on Prisoners of War (and wrongly at that).

Lets first adress the wrong points.

1) Afghanistan is a party to the 49 convention and the Taliban was the gov't which means the Taliban and any forces fighting for them during the invasion are covered by that Convention.

2) Do you honestly believe that the Taliban and their forces had no command or discipline structure (the Taliban? The kings of command and discipline? The ones who dictated almost every aspect of Afghani life and handed out discipline like it was candy?) or that the commanders weren't held responsible for the f*ck ups of their men?

We've already addressed (3.) and (4.) for the time period in question, no need to go over it again (even if only because you will ignore it and try to come up some irrelevant distraction).

5) Again, please provide the examples of systematic violations of the "laws and customs of war" during the invasion I have asked for (twice). Can you do it? (Probably not since you continue to evade the point and simply regurgitate the same mantra over and over).

Now that quote you gave only references Paragraphs 1 & 2 of the relevant Article. There are 4 other categories in that Article and one of them fits Omar to a "t". That would be Paragraph 6.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The only possible way you can disqualify Omar from that category is to prove he did not enter Afghanistan before the invasion or "take up arms" until after the country was fully occupied.

It is already established that he was in Afghanistan before the invasion, I know you can't prove the "after the country was fully occupied" part because even today the country is not fully under coalition control and I seriously doubt you can show any violation of the the "carry arms openly" or "respect the laws and customs of war" part (since he was shot during an ambush, a legitimate combat tactic, and was not known to the coalition before then).

Again, points for effort but none for accuracy.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 38
Dual nationalty ?
Posted: 6/10/2007 11:10:44 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong

Yes, I will.

In the quote you provided, the one about "International Rules About Soldiers", Paragraph 6 of Article 4 is being "conveniently" overlooked.

I will quote it again

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Did you notice the distinct absence of the requirement for wearing a uniform?

The incident occured during an ambush, the grenade was thrown over a wall and the individuals who conducted the ambush were sufficiently identifiable for the US soldiers to know who to shoot at.

Now, as a soldier, how do you know who to shoot at in such a situation? Um, the answer, "by the weapons they carry" seems to come to mind here. Your argument is as specious as the US claim that Omar "killed a medic" in order to call it a war crime (the sgt., incidently, wasn't serving as a medic, he was serving as an infantry squad leader, a role forbidden to medics as it deprives them of their protected status).

Personally, I believe his entire family should be executed for treason or at the very minimum deported as a clear and present danger to society.. because of their expressed views supporting terrorism and declaring Canada as a legitimate target.

It is certainly your right to believe that and even to express that belief.

The law protects you in that belief. It also protects the Khadr family in their beliefs.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 40
Dual nationalty ?
Posted: 6/10/2007 1:05:54 PM

"Taliban" Jack Layton leader of the NDP was so perplexed by the alledged mistreatment that Canadian captured Taliban troops received by the Afghan government that for months he demanded action and the resignation of the Defense minister daily in Question Period.

Official leader of the Opposition Stephane Dion was so upset about the same alledged
mistreatment of terrorists that he suggested building a jail in Canada to ensure the Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan were guaranteed humane treatment.

It should be apparent to anyone with an iota of common sense that if there was a shred of credibility for Omar Khadr's rights and opposition parties had an opportunity to slam the US over this or any issue they would be falling all over themselves .The rush of political parties to be the first to demand Omar Khadr's "rights" to be returned to Canada and his family have not materialized.The opportunity to score political points,take the higher moral ground and embarass the Conservatives must be irresistable.

Again with the red herrings.

You continue to evade straightforward questions of your stated "facts" despite numerous opportunities and requests to back them up. Whenever one of your "facts" is refuted you simply try to deflect the argument or resort to irrelevancies.

Obviously you are not capable of arguing the point on the basis of true facts but rather your opinions and beliefs (however non-factual they may be) which you try to put off as facts.

On this post the OP is the only one who is asking the Canadian government to petition the US for the return of Omar Khadr to Canada

Again with the "facts" (really, only faulty perceptions) that exist in your own mind.

here are links to articles (and these are just in the last week) asking for exactly the same thing.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/070609/n060906A.html

http://www.caircan.ca/ann_more.php?id=2910_0_9_0_C

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20070606065326725&query=omar%2Bkhadr

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/wire/article.jsp?content=n060906A

I could include links to all of the other fora, blogs, etc. where other Canadians are also asking for the same thing but there is no value in taking up the majority of a page with links you can find for yourself if you only make the smallest effort (which I doubt you will since it would likely cause you too much cognitive dissonance to have your world view so shaken).

As far as this thread goes, I am not the only one to support Khadr's rights but, in reality, I don't need anyone's help to debate with you (I'm actually holding one arm behind my back and typing with one finger right now).

,a puzzling position for a US/Canadian Armed Forces Veteran

Not at all puzzling to someone who understands the obligation of a soldier to uphold professional military values, obligations, conduct and true patriotism (not that you would know much about those things, apparently) rather than resort to blind, knee-jerk, "Bush-league" definitions.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 42
Dual nationalty ?
Posted: 6/10/2007 6:42:19 PM
You can't be serious,when in your world did they become part of the Canadian Government?

Ah, so now we go from you attributing statements to me that I didn't make to stating that you said things you didn't.

The statement I responded to by providing those links was where you said


On this post the OP is the only one who is asking the Canadian government to petition the US for the return of Omar Khadr to Canada


Your only comment about the gov't inquiring about his rights was merely a transparent attempt to slam the Liberal and NDP leaders.

Examples (from your own statement)

"Taliban" Jack Layton leader of the NDP was so perplexed by the alledged mistreatment that Canadian captured Taliban troops received by the Afghan government that for months he demanded action and the resignation of the Defense minister daily in Question Period.


Official leader of the Opposition Stephane Dion was so upset about the same alledged mistreatment of terrorists that he suggested building a jail in Canada to ensure the Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan were guaranteed humane treatment.


It should be apparent to anyone with an iota of common sense that if there was a shred of credibility for Omar Khadr's rights and opposition parties had an opportunity to slam the US over this or any issue they would be falling all over themselves

Oh, and by the way, your "Two statements in 5 years from Canadian Government officials" comment?

Are you sure you aren't wrong about that too? If you want to bet on it I'll be happy to take your money.

Your other links lead to "factual sources" such as Amnesty International and Maude Barlow?

You're going to put factual sources in quotes for those and then turn around and quote an article from David Horowitz's (actually that should be the new Horowitz or "Neo-Horowitz" now) FrontPage?

You want to discredit Amnesty and Barlow and the best you can do is Neo-Horowitz and yet another irrelevant (non)point (what in h*ll does that have to do with Khadr)? You are one funny little boy.

I'm sure your fellow US and Canadian Armed Forces Veterans agree with your version of "true patriotism".They all must be slapping you on the back and hoisting their glasses in the Legion celebrating your advocacy for the return to Canada of an al Qaeda member into the bosom of his terrorist family.

You just can't do it can you? You just can't get through even one post without resorting to that same fallacy can you?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 44
Dual nationalty ?
Posted: 6/10/2007 9:46:53 PM
Why would you respond with any links to this statement? Do you not understand what "ON THIS POST" means? It means On this post in POF.And you wonder why I have to repost statements?

I would say that the reposts are due either to not actually reading what has been posted or not being able to actually challenge it effectively. Go back and read it again, I did answer "ON THIS POST". I also added some references too that illustrate that I am not just "shouting from a lonely mountaintop".

The article I posted was about Amnesty International's anti-Guantanamo stand,that's relevant to Khadr is it not?

All the references I provided you were very specific to Khadr, the dismissal of charges and his release. Call them political if you will, it doesn't change the point.

Yours was nothing but a right-wing diatribe against Amnesty and "leftists", no mention of Khadr at all or even a cogent defense of Guantanamo.

I guess if you close one eye, squint with the other and look out of the corner of your eye you might find some relationship but even then you'd have to be incredibly astigmatic to see it.

I believe that Alexa Macdonald and Irwin Cotler may have made a comment on the Omar Khadr situation but I wasn't able to source it.

At least your starting to get warm. Keep looking (unless you're ready to make that bet now).

Is it a fallacy to suggest that a "True Patriot"(of which you claim to be one)does not turn his back on his former comrade in arms to defend the "rights" of a terrorist who's vowed to destroy the country his comrades have died defending?

First, yes it is a fallacy because you are incorrectly assuming that standing up for fundamental values and the obligations and conduct of a professional military is the same as "turning your backs on your comrades" (this is the same kind of fallacy as saying if you don't support a war then you are not supporting the troops).

It's a weak argument to support a false dichotomy that is intended to try to "shame" someone into adopting your point of view.

Second, even if Khadr is a criminal he is still entitled to due process, it is one of the cornerstones of western values (or are you suggesting that we should become the very people you decry). That you can't see that only proves the moral superiority you attribute to me.

By the way...

Omar Khadr has vowed to destroy a country? Really? Show me the quote (or are you just editorializing again?).
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 46
Dual nationalty ?
Posted: 6/11/2007 5:09:50 AM

Did "you" notice that it is known that he trained with a unit???

Did you notice that it doesn't say anything about what kind of training someone might have had?

What it does refer to is forming into regular units.

It also makes no reference to whether you use a rock, a borrowed gun or a grenade or even how the weapon was obtained?

Lots of people have various levels of military training, doesn't nullify their status.

Pretty much nullifies your lame ass argument, huh?

Firstly , No professional military is obligated to stand up for terrorists who don't fight under the universal rules of engagement

We've already covered that but I will give you yet another opportunity to show how he violated any universal rules of engagement.

I won't hold my breath though, you haven't backed up anything you were asked to yet, I doubt you will. I will wait for you to recycle another of your already refuted points without supporting it, yet again.

You are just full of sympathy for your Jihad loving friends ...eh??? Always being critical of their treatment at Gitmo (even though you have no idea how they are being treated, aside from what you read or think up) Do you have a poster of Bin Laden in your livingroom?? I hope the son of a b.itch ends up as your next door neighbor, would be a nice fit.

Taking lessons from Boca on irrelevant and pointless insults? Oh wait I guess you don't need lessons on that do you.

Apparently the term loyalty doesn't mean much to you unless it's tied to a terrorist.

Ah yes, true to form. At least your consistent.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 48
Omar Khadr is NOT a POW .. but a captured Terrorist
Posted: 6/12/2007 5:18:23 AM
Omar Khadr was captured on July 27, 2002 ..... The Taliban by December 17 2001 were pushed completely out of Afganistan.

Actually, no.

The Taliban did not withdraw from Afghanistan until near the end of 2002, after the summer. This was after the end of "Anaconda" and also after the capture of Khadr.

It was over the winter of 2003 that the Taliban took the time to reorganize in Pakistan and regroup to initiate the current insurgency. It was in the summer of 2003 that the current insurgency began to build its momentum.

On July 27, 2002, 15-year-old Khadr was in a compound near Khost that was surrounded by US special forces. According to the US version of events, the Americans called on those in the compound to surrender. When they refused, a firefight ensued. Sergeant Layne Morris was injured early in the skirmish. The Americans called in a bombardment.

Hardly sounds like a criminal act (hmm... seems the US initiated the firefight) and definitely not a war crime or violation of the rules of warfare.

The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.[105] On October 14 the Taliban offered to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Ladens involvement in 9/11.[106] The U.S. rejected this offer as an insufficient public relations ploy and continued military operations.
This even calls into question the validity of invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban from power.

You'll get no argument from me over the need to "defang" al-Qaeda but the method strikes me as a little like "killing a fly with a shotgun".
 phine_likker
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 49
Khadr an "inhabitant" of Afghanistan/land in question??
Posted: 6/12/2007 9:08:55 AM

" Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "


umm, what does "inhabitants" mean exactly? "usual residents"?

Omar Khadr was not really a 'resident' /inhabitant of the land in question; didn't he specifically leave Canada to go over there (Afghan.) to fight, AFTER the battle was engaged. ?( US troops on the ground?)
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 50
Khadr an inhabitant of Afghanistan/land in question??
Posted: 6/12/2007 1:06:28 PM
Omar Khadr was not really a 'resident' /inhabitant of the land in question; didn't he specifically leave Canada to go over there (Afghan.) to fight, AFTER the battle was engaged. ?( US troops on the ground?)

He went to Afghanistan almost a year before the invasion.

Edit: It actually may have been much longer than that, that is simply the most recent publicly well documented time I am aware of.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Bully for Omar Khadr