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  
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 1
Bully for Omar KhadrPage 1 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Dropped charges in 2 cases puts U.S. terror trials in limbo
Last Updated Tuesday, June 5, 2007 | 7.17 AM ET
CBC News

The White House is being urged to re-examine the way it tries war-crimes suspects at Guantanamo Bay after American military judges dropped terrorism charges against two prisoners.

On Monday, the U.S. judges abruptly dropped all charges against two men being held at the prison in Cuba — Omar Khadr, a Canadian accused of killing a U.S. soldier, and Yemen's Salmi Ahmed Hamdan, who was accused of being al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's chauffeur.

In the two separate cases, the judges based their decisions on a technicality that throws the military commission trials process into doubt.

Khadr, a 20-year-old from the Toronto area who had been facing charges of murder and terrorism, appeared on Monday before a military commission in Guantanamo, where he was expected to be arraigned.

Instead, the judge, army Col. Peter Brownback, dismissed the charges for technical reasons.

Under the Military Commissions Act that was revised and passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2006, military commissions only have jurisdiction to try "unlawful enemy combatants." However, Khadr was classified by a military panel in 2004 as only an "enemy combatant" — which is what led the judge to dismiss the charges on Monday.
'Procedural games'

The military judge hearing Hamdan's case later dropped all charges against him as well, similarly reasoning the Pentagon had failed to classify him properly.

Lt.-Cmdr. Charles Swift, who represents Hamdan, said that "if we go back to a system that's tried and true, the court martial," then lawyers can resume proving their clients' innocence or guilt, "rather than playing these procedural games."

None of the roughly 380 detainees at Guantanamo have been classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants.

Audrey Macklin, an associate law professor at the University of Toronto, told CBC News on Tuesday that the military commissions are viewed among most legal experts she knows — American or otherwise — as "a travesty.

"There is no such thing in law as an 'unlawful combatant' or 'unlawful enemy combatant,'" she said, adding that Monday's rulings bespeak "the larger disarray of the military commission" resulting from an "ad hoc concoction of a process that doesn't really exist."
'It's a failure'

Macklin also noted that since Khadr was a minor when he allegedly killed a U.S. medic, he should be subject to a different set of culpabilities than the adult prisoners at Guantanamo — an argument also posed by some international human rights groups.

Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and imprisoned in Guantanamo. He was accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American medic, Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer.

U.S. army Sgt. Layne Morris, who says Khadr wounded him in a battle in Afghanistan in 2002, reacted on Tuesday to published reports of Khadr's sister's concern over her brother's health

"Whiney terrorists are probably the most irritating thing I've heard," he said.

"I mean this is a person who has indicated that her greatest goal in life was to become a martyr for the cause. So to hear her whining about the treatment of her brother, how he has got to be locked up, this is a kid who begged to be killed. I don't have any sympathy for her or him or anybody in that outfit."

Col. Dwight Sullivan, the chief of U.S. defence lawyers at Guantanamo, told CBC News "the experience of the military commission system demonstrates that it's a failure.

"Rather than trying to revive these charges, it seems time for the United States to take a new look and find a new way to deal with these cases," he said.

Sullivan suggested using the U.S. federal court system as an alternative.
Appeal within 72 hours

Officials at the Pentagon said the rulings exposed flaws in the military commissions and that they would consider appeals. The U.S. Defence Department said Monday that there would be an appeal of the judge's decision within 72 hours, but if appeals failed, the department could redesignate the detainees.

Despite the rulings, however, it's unlikely to mean freedom for either Hamdan or Khadr — the only Canadian at the U.S. prison — or any of the other detainees there.

Khadr and Hamdan are two of only three Guantanamo prisoners who faced charges under the new system.

Hamdan, charged with conspiring to harm U.S. citizens, has admitted to being a driver for Osama bin Laden but denied taking part in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the United States.

David Hicks pleaded guilty in March to providing material support to al-Qaeda. He was released from Guantanamo and is serving out his nine-month sentence in his native Australia.
With files from the Associated Press

Now, if they will release him (doubtful since the US gov't has already set itself up with the excuse that, even if acquited, detainees can still be held).

The dropping of charges, especially since he has been held since 15, should be all the impetous the Canadian gov't needs to demand he be returned to his family.
 E-wok II
Joined: 5/31/2007
Msg: 5
Bully for Omar Khadr
Posted: 6/5/2007 7:08:35 PM
Who the hell let these people into our country?? My wife had to undergo
serious and lengthy criminal record searches...she had to disclose names
and phone numbers of people she'd known covering 2 decades and 2 decades
of where she worked, schooled etc. This Kadhr family is so conspicuously
odd and just EVIL. I say strip them of their citizenship based on misrepresentation
of their affiliation with terrorists groups. What a sick twisted bunch.
Joined: 10/10/2005
Msg: 6
view profile
Bully for Omar Khadr
Posted: 6/5/2007 7:16:23 PM
It's scary that the charges were dismissed because of a legal definition, not because he was proven to be innocent of the charges. I'll sleep better in my bed tonight knowing that.
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 9
7.62 X 51 mm. FMJ for Omar Khadr
Posted: 6/6/2007 9:23:38 AM
I wish they would give him a good cure for his martyr fantasies.

a rifle bullet in the forehead.. It is indeed sad that didn't happen years ago; we wouldn't have to waste so much time & $ on this.
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 10
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/6/2007 12:46:12 PM

plain and simple, Canada is known around the world as the bleeding-heart sucker country that can always be 'used' when you have a sob story to tell.

Use us, then laugh at our foolishness, come here to be citizens, bleed as much as possible out of medicare, education, social services, etc., but pay no or very little in taxes..

Note the many tens of thousands of "citizens of convenience" in Lebanon, who maintained dual Lebanese/Cdn. citizenship but did not reside in or pay any taxes to Canada for years; come back maybe for free medical care and cry they are Cdns. when they need a free taxpayer-supplied emergency evacuation.

Now many thousands are once again back in Lebanon..and war is heating up (again)..

will Canada (the fools) rush over to bail them out at no expense to them, once again?

I wouldn't be surprised.
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 11
Calm down.
Posted: 6/6/2007 1:29:36 PM
I suppose to some due process and human rights might seem like foreign concepts.

What country you gonna invade next boys?
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 12
Calm down.
Posted: 6/6/2007 1:32:38 PM

what was the due process that Khadr gave to SFC Speer?

Khadr is a soldier accused of lobbing the hand grenade that killed Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, a 28-year-old medic with the U.S. Special Forces. At least one eyewitness said Khadr was no confused little boy. He knew exactly what he was doing: trying to kill Americans.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 13
Dual nationalty ?
Posted: 6/6/2007 3:06:09 PM
A lot of people seem to be missing the real point here.

Khadr's family aside (since this isn't about his family, but him), the outcome of the hearing points out the fundamental flaw here.

Khadr was captured in Afghanistan, during a war, and was held in Guantanamo as an "enemy combatant".

For those not familiar with the concept, that means he was, under international convention, a prisoner of war. It also means that his act of throwing the handgrenade occurred during the conduct of combat. The action was nothing more or less than a combat ambush, a perfectly legitimate combat tactic.

Under those circumstances the act was neither murder nor a war crime any more than when any US (or Canadian) soldier shot Afghani's while engaged in combat.

After holding him for 5 yrs. as an "enemy combatant" (or POW) the US decided to try him before a military commission as an "unlawful combatant". The tactic was used in order to get around the fact that they could not try him for that act as an "enemy combatant" (owing to the fact that, with that status, it was not a crime).

There would be no problem with the US holding him "for the duration" as an "enemy combatant" as long as they afforded him the full rights and privileges of a POW. They, however, have not done that. They have played fast and loose with the definition of his status (and that of most of the others in Guantanamo) in order avoid having to meet the obligations owed by convention to "enemy combatants" and to justify treatment that was and is contrary to their convention obligations.

The ruling was basically an acknowledgement of the fact that it must be "either/or" not whatever suits expediency at the time.
 E-wok II
Joined: 5/31/2007
Msg: 14
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/6/2007 5:47:45 PM
Now many thousands are once again back in Lebanon..and war is heating up (again).

I'm seeking Mexican citizenship or, why's it
anybody's business? I joined a a gym membership. So what? I'd
pay taxes there and here. My dues would be all paid up. American/Canadian
dual citizens....who doesn't know anybody with that kind of membership?

Back to topic: Everybody already knew Guantanamo Bay detainees are being
held under some fictitious legal status...the lawyers have to go back to
the drawing board and invent a new name. But with Khadar, I don't care
if he spends life behind bars under any, let's just let him
fade away.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 15
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/6/2007 8:03:40 PM

this is a rediculous conversation the man has killed a solder a person from whom was tasked to help, u guys are obviously not the military, have your best buddy die infront of you then talk to me bout justice, there is a reason why this man is n trial and justice should served

Well, bud, you would be wrong. I can't speak for the others but I am a US vet, served in the Canadian military too, and I don't see it that way at all.

I would see it differently if he had surrendered and dropped a grenade as he was being taken under control (then it would be a crime) but that is not what happened. As it is, I don't see where it is any more acceptable for him to be tried for a crime under the circumstances than it would be if the shoe were on the other foot.

As a prisoner he is entitled to the same treatment I would expect for my own (and whether the other side affords that same treatment or not is irrelevant, a fundamental principle of proper military conduct).

If the US felt he was a criminal rather than a prisoner then they should have proceeded that way from the beginning (they had all of the means to do that from the start), not hold him for 5 years and then try to fiddle and finagle later.
 E-wok II
Joined: 5/31/2007
Msg: 16
Bully for Omar Khadr
Posted: 6/6/2007 8:24:15 PM
Mungojoe, I just feel there are other people more worthy than this
family. Nothing feels better than poking Bushco in the eye but
we aren't talking about real home-grown Canadians here...he's no Maher Arar. When we piss
on the neo-con-Americans it's different than when some ungrateful anti-western
family coming here killing off American soldiers - although not Canadian, I suspect
it wouldn't have made an iota of difference if they turned out to be Canadian boys.
I'm an ex-soldier too and it sickens me to imagine that I could have been out
in the field and this sick puppy carrying a Canadian passport would throw
a grenade at me - essentially throwing a grenade at CANADA. This could have
easily been dubbed a UN-sanctioned war but by fault of Bush it wasn't, but
it wouldn't have made a difference to this worthless piece of shit.

Don't waste your's a wasted effort. They came here.....spat on us yet
refuse to go back to their homeland; if they loved it there so much, why not
stay in that hell hole? At least over there they wouldn't be treasonous pigs.
You think this puppy will have your back if ever there was war involving
Canadians? Or would he stick it in? Go back and read the quotes that spewed
from Kadhars mother...oh my God! They HATE YOU.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 17
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/6/2007 8:39:08 PM

Don't waste your's a wasted effort.

I'll make one (and only one) post on the Khadr family.

I may not believe in all the things they believe but I'd defend to the death their right to believe as they choose (not to be confused with actually acting on those beliefs in a criminal way here, though even then I would defend their right to due process).

There is a reason (that has nothing to do with political correctness) for why they are still allowed to be here and it's closely related (if not identical) to the reason why they are under an RCMP/CSIS microscope. I doubt that you should have to think too hard to figure out what it is.
 E-wok II
Joined: 5/31/2007
Msg: 18
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 12:46:59 AM
"We believe dying by the hand of your enemy because you believe in… you're doing it in the way of Allah, that it's the best way to die. My father had always wished that he would be killed… he would be killed for the sake of Allah. I remember when we were very young he would say, if you guys love me, pray for me that I get jihaded, which is killed." -- Khadr's daughter Zaynab, on her father

Exactly, I hope his kids are listening....the best thing they could do
is to die in Guantanomo Bay at the hands of their enemy - those are
the fathers, we are waiting. It's "for the sake of Allah" and I
whole heartedly agree they should get their wish. It's good for them, good for
us...and I'm damn sure it's good for "allah". Let's all wish them luck in attaining
their goals.
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 19
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 1:11:06 AM
An appeal to emotion does not a logical argument make.

Try to think objectively for a second. Say the US is taken over by (a different) nutjob and they ask Iran to help "liberate" the country from "terrorist republicans". Some random Texan lobs a grenade at an Iranian soldier, it caught and taken to a secret camp in Iran in violation of Iran's on (dubious) laws.

Do you want that American tried for murder and executed or do you want him, per the rules of international conflict, held until the war is over and then released.

Serious question.
 E-wok II
Joined: 5/31/2007
Msg: 20
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 1:19:37 AM
^^^^^^Wrong comparison. First, it would be odd if that good ol' boy decided pack his shit and move to
Iran after lobbing that grenade, wouldn't it? That's the point you're missing, I believe.
You wouldn't move your family to Satan Jr's pad after that. The Texan would either
move to Iran or Iraq...somehow I don't see that happening. What was the MISSION
in killing that soldier? That incident occurred in AFGHANISTAN where the
Pakistani nationals and Taliban were HIJACKING the soldiers, both
Canadian and American, were answering a distress call by the Afghan people. The
little shit was supporting the hijacking...he betrayed his country in Afghanistan
(treason) and he also betrayed Canada (treason). I say strip the citizenship and
hand them back to Afghanistan authorities....its their problem NOT our business.
Our hands would be clean of this mess once and for all.

Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 21
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 5:16:09 AM

First, it would be odd if that good ol' boy decided pack his shit and move to
Iran after lobbing that grenade, wouldn't it? That's the point you're missing, I believe.
You wouldn't move your family to Satan Jr's pad after that. The Texan would either
move to Iran or Iraq...somehow I don't see that happening. What was the MISSION
in killing that soldier? That incident occurred in AFGHANISTAN where the
Pakistani nationals and Taliban were HIJACKING the soldiers, both
Canadian and American, were answering a distress call by the Afghan people.

OK, now your just full of sh*t.

The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time the family went there (from Canada). The Taliban had assumed gov't with immense majority support of the people of Afghanistan. It may have evolved into a gov't that many were not happy with but the Taliban's beliefs and agenda were an open book at the time they took power (with the support of most of the country).

There was no international cry by the people of Afghanistan to have the west come over and "save us from the Taliban". The coalition went to Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban in the process of trying to eliminate al-Qaeda. That was not a necessary step as al-Qaeda could have been removed (with a lot less turmoil for Afghanistan) by a combination of spec ops forces and air/missile strikes without removing the Taliban (that was the job of the people of Afghanistan since they supported the Taliban in the first place).

To try and remake the events to show Khadr as a traitor is the height of disingenuousness. If the action against al-Qaeda had been taken without the additional agenda of going after a fundamentalist Muslim gov't at the same time the issue would not exist.
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 23
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 1:19:54 PM

I would see it differently if he had surrendered and dropped a grenade as he was being taken under control

the US soldiers were too civilised for their own good; had they simply busted a cap into Khadr's head none of us would have known, and there'd be no problem, no discussion or argument.

the Leb/Cdn. dual citizens could have lived in canada for 3 yrs, then got citizenship (all you need) or been born to one parent who is Lebanese and one Cdn., or born of Leb. parents on Cdn. soil, then leave and go back to need to pay any taxes, etc.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 24
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 1:40:36 PM

If,If,If. If the Kadhr family hadn't packed up Canada and shuffled off to Afghanistan to become martyrs then this issue would not exist.This family were not hillbillies moving to Beverly Hills or Little Mosque on the Prairie type people.


They are (or were in the case of the dead ones) Muslim. They believed in Islam for Muslims in Muslim countries and they went to a Muslim country with a Muslim gov't that rose to power with the support of the majority of the population to fight for that belief. That does not make them criminals nor does fighting for that gov't in that country make Omar a criminal.

If they had taken that fight to a non-Muslim country with a non-Muslim majority that did not have a Muslim gov't which rose to power with the support of the majority of the population I would see it differently.

They have not done that nor have they vowed to, or advocated for, the overthrow of the Canadian gov't. Until they do that they are fully entitled to their belief.

As example, I am thoroughly opposed to the US/British action in Iraq but I do not consider the US/British who go to fight there in the belief that it is right are criminals (I think they are misguided and wrong in their belief but not criminals) nor do I believe that those who fight against the US/British forces in an effort to defend Iraq are criminal for fighting for their belief (that the US/British have no business being there). Even if I did agree with the action I would still not consider those that oppose it and engage the US/British forces in an effort to defend Iraq to be criminals

If the populace in a Muslim country with a vastly Muslim majority want a fundamentalist Muslim gov't and there is a sufficient majority to support the rise of such a gov't to power then that is their right, no matter what we think of about it.
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 25
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 2:46:41 PM
He can only be a prisoner of war if he was part of his countrys (Canada's) armed forces ..........he wasn't so he is a terrorist .

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your perspective) that is not even close to true.

The classification is applicable to a range of individuals from uniformed military to "joe blow" in the countryside who takes up arms (and need not be uniformed for obvious reasons, like hasn't got 3+ months to get kitted out and go through training) to fight an invading force. Citizenship in the country invaded is not a requirement.

Has it ever been known that some criminal or terrorist related persons such as these have had their citizenship overturned and themselves deported ? Or those who provide false papers or information to gain entry they get deported ?

It has happened many times, they'll even go back years to do so. People who have resided in Canada as citizens for decades have been stripped of citizenship and deported for some/all of those reasons.

This family has been under the scrutiny of the RCMP for years and thoroughly investigated. The fact that they are still citizens should be a hint (that there are no legal grounds sufficient to warrant removing citizenship/deportation).

Advocating doing so because of unpopular or unpalatable beliefs and opinions without sufficient proof of a criminal act smacks of "Bush-league" politics.
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 27
view profile
Canada known around the World as soft-touch Suckers
Posted: 6/7/2007 11:04:30 PM
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.
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.
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...



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


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.
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.
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. 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.
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
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.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Bully for Omar Khadr