Peter F Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Didn't you say these kids are abused - having been indoctrinated/brainwashed without their full understanding due to their age? Well obviously that's the difference between Army Guy and these kids! Furthermore, Army Guy was not indoctrinated to kill INNOCENT PEOPLE - which maybe just about anyone, from all walks of life, gender and age. These children were "programmed" to be without any feelings of compassion - so yes, they are psychos! No I didn't say that. But I agree with it. Child soldiers are not indoctrinated to kill innocent people; they are probably indoctrinated to kill guilty people. Now you and I both know they indoctrinate to kill innocent people, but the child is convinced he is or is supposed to, kill guilty people. Doe's he know they are innocent? Of course not. The child soldier is convinced his targets are guilty...and it would be very easy to convince the kid that a soldier from faraway lands is guilty...particularly if the kid is an orphan. Damn right its child abuse. Doe's the psychosis develop from killing innocent people only? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 "10 year olds, or 15 year olds carrying weapons, and most certainly if fireing those weapons, are very likely to be shot.An unpleasant situation in regards to child-soldiers but understandable nevertheless." "Western" values talking here.....otherwise an unremarkable event. What that means is Kids fireing weapons at soldiers are going to be shot. Its really a shame, but - can't really blame soldiers for shooting kids who are shooting at them. I don't think anyone who kills a kid who is engaging them in combat can be blamed for anything. No leniency nor compassion required. Shoot them; Bayonet them; incinerate them; blow them to bits with 500lb bombs; stitch them up with 25mm chain-guns. Just like any other combatant. Right..no big deal. But after...when they have surrendered and/or been captured: then they need be treated as the children they used to be and not incarcerated in maximum security prisons for the next 30 years with a life sentence like every other adult non-western combatant apparently should be. In fact, I think this country has signed an agreement to that effect and it therefore has the force of law behind it and is very probably what we would do if we ever get ahold of a child soldier. I have yet to hear of that happening though. ..and you probably won't. See Somalia Affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 fact, I think this country has signed an agreement to that effect and it therefore has the force of law behind it and is very probably what we would do if we ever get ahold of a child soldier. That's because they are not child 'soldiers'. They are child wanne-be murderers, but not child soldiers, therefore that agreement does not apply. It is important that you are able to see this legal difference in order to understnad this situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 That's because they are not child 'soldiers'. They are child wanne-be murderers, but not child soldiers, therefore that agreement does not apply.It is important that you are able to see this legal difference in order to understnad this situation Good point. What is it that makes a kid a child soldier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Good point. What is it that makes a kid a child soldier? See the Geneva Conventions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) You did ask the below question did you not, Justification does matter and that fact is reflected in how we judge people, and the amount of punishment we hand out for each crime... Not exactly. Justification is why I, we, them do or not this or that. Judgement and punishment assumes the existence of an arbiter (independent, impartial, etc - or not) who can deal it. But what if there's no such arbiter? Can anybody do what they like, without regard of the consequences? Can they do what they like because they believe that it's the right thing to do? .and judgement and punishment is what we've been discussing here, and how much Omar should recieve.... No, wrong. Canada cares about child soldiers, right? Omar is a child soldier, right? Canada should be concerned with Omar getting the treatement suitable for a child soldier, not an adult criminal, especially in the highly questionnable, context of pseudo justice that considers resisting foreign invaders a war crime. My examples i gave you illustrate why justification does matter. These examples? The car: oops, I just intentionally drove into a crowd of people; but I didn't really intend to kill anybody. Or, the police: I just appointed myself a police officer, invaded the home of a nasty neighbour and was forced to fire a few shots. Surely my intention to deal justice relieves me of all responsibility?? Yes sure, these justifications can justify pretty much anything. As we already found out. Anything can be justified, verbally or on paper. Only the act makes the difference, shows once and for all, to those who care to see, what is what, and who is who. Edited October 23, 2008 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Omar is a child soldier, right? No, no he is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 See the Geneva Conventions Geneva conventions do not say what you think it does. The Geneva conventions say a child soldier is anyone under the age of 15 partaking in military operations. There is no other qualification. The idea that there is a legal distinction based upon the childs motive is, to put it mildly, a complete fabrication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) No I didn't say that. But I agree with it. Child soldiers are not indoctrinated to kill innocent people; they are probably indoctrinated to kill guilty people. Now you and I both know they indoctrinate to kill innocent people, but the child is convinced he is or is supposed to, kill guilty people. Doe's he know they are innocent? Of course not. The child soldier is convinced his targets are guilty...and it would be very easy to convince the kid that a soldier from faraway lands is guilty...particularly if the kid is an orphan. A child packed with bombs explodes himself in a marketplace to kill one or two percieved "guilty people." In that process, how many inoocents got blown away or maimed for life just to get these two supposedly guilty ones? It only proves what I'm saying - the child had been programmed to focus on the two supposedly guilty with total disregards for the others that he kills along in the process. In other words, this child had become a killing machine! Damn right its child abuse. And I wholeheartedly agree. IF Khadr does indeed fall under the category of a child soldier, as you claim he is, shouldn't you be venting your outrage at the PARENTS of these children who let this happen in the first place? Shouldn't we be questioning how MRS KHADR had stood by while Khadr Jr is being abused by Daddy? And what was BIG SISTER doing all that time? Doe's the psychosis develop from killing innocent people only? No, it usually begins from childhood experiences. Their upbringing. And usually in the movies, it's because of Daddy....or Mommy! Edited October 23, 2008 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 A child packed with bombs explodes himself in a marketplace to kill one or two percieved "guilty people." In that process, how many inoocents got blown away or maimed for life just to get these two supposedly guilty ones?It only proves what I'm saying - the child had been programmed to focus on the two supposedly guilty with total disregards for the others that he kills along in the process. In other words, this child had become a killing machine! So shouldn't you be venting your outrage at the PARENTS of these children who let this happen in the first place? Shouldn't we be questioning how MRS KHADR had stood by while Khadr Jr is being indoctrinated? And what was BIG SISTER doing all that time? No, it usually begins from childhood experiences. Their upbringing. And usually in the movies, it's because of Daddy....or Mommy! Omar Khadr was not captured wrapped in explosives. He was wearing no bombs. He is not nor has he ever been a suicide bomber. He is charged with murdering an American soldier. That is the only killing he is accused of. He has not killed any innocent people. There is no charge by the US army that Omar killed anyone else in the process of {allegedly) killing the SSF soldier. In other words there is no evidence to support your contention that Omar Khadr is a killing machine. My 'outrage' if you want to call it that, is directed towards the cooked up legal system that treats 15 year olds as 'killing machines' because they were found in a dusty battlezone with an AK47 laying nearby. My 'outrage' is directed towards yourself and others who are outraged that the 15 year old, abandoned by his mother on the other side of the world and left in the guardianship of terrorists, didn't do what a normal 15 year old Canadian would have done: Told everyone he depended upon for his existence to kiss his arse, and set off on foot for the nearest Canadian Embassy. I am outraged that the outrage expressed towards this kid is seriously misdirected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 A child packed with bombs explodes himself in a marketplace to kill one or two percieved "guilty people." In that process, how many inoocents got blown away or maimed for life just to get these two supposedly guilty ones? I'm just curious how dropping a bomb on a populated village or a town would be any different? Is it because it does not constitute an intent to kill (which would be an interesting legal innovation - e.g for those Christmas shooters in Toronto - we fired guns in the crowd of shoppers, but we didn't really intend to kill anybody)? Or because everybody there is presumed to be guilty, by definition? And now prepare for a big news: there's none. No, maybe one: the hypothetical "child" performs their act in their own land... The bomb is usually dropped on someone else's. Would that make a difference? I wonder... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 A soldier wears a uniform. Combatants (any age) without uniforms are, in fact, partisans. I'm not so sure partisans are treated the same as soldiers. They sure weren't during WW2....especially on the Russian Front where there were no 'conventions'. Re: Omar the Killing Machine. There are photos and I believe a video of Omar Khadr making land mines. I doubt they were for Halloween pranks. ------------------------------------------------------------ Like my father before me, I will work the land, Like my brother above me, who took a Rebel stand. He was just eighteen, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his grave, I swear by the mud below my feet, You cant raise a Caine back up when hes in defeat. ---The Band Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 A soldier wears a uniform. Combatants (any age) without uniforms are, in fact, partisans. I'm not so sure partisans are treated the same as soldiers. They sure weren't during WW2....especially on the Russian Front where there were no 'conventions'.Re: Omar the Killing Machine. There are photos and I believe a video of Omar Khadr making land mines. I doubt they were for Halloween pranks. According to the Geneva Convention, a partisan, to be accorded the protection of the convention must bear his arms openly and wear some sort of identifying mark while they are engaged in operations. A sash, a hackle, armband etc will suffice. Those who don't generally want to melt into the general population.....those caught with arms and without an identifying mark may be summarily executed on the spot. No one except perhaps the Russians would do this now a days...but that is the legal intent. I think we should consider reviving old traditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Omar Khadr was not captured wrapped in explosives. He was wearing no bombs. He is not nor has he ever been a suicide bomber. He is charged with murdering an American soldier. That is the only killing he is accused of. He has not killed any innocent people. There is no charge by the US army that Omar killed anyone else in the process of {allegedly) killing the SSF soldier. In other words there is no evidence to support your contention that Omar Khadr is a killing machine. My 'outrage' if you want to call it that, is directed towards the cooked up legal system that treats 15 year olds as 'killing machines' because they were found in a dusty battlezone with an AK47 laying nearby. My 'outrage' is directed towards yourself and others who are outraged that the 15 year old, abandoned by his mother on the other side of the world and left in the guardianship of terrorists, didn't do what a normal 15 year old Canadian would have done: Told everyone he depended upon for his existence to kiss his arse, and set off on foot for the nearest Canadian Embassy. I am outraged that the outrage expressed towards this kid is seriously misdirected. How many sons by the Khadrs had been indoctrinated? Omar being the youngest, was the last one, if Im not mistaken. True he was not strapped with bombs. Because of having been caught, no one will know now if eventually he would've ended up being a suicide bomber. But chances are, he could've. You are so focused on age that you've lost track that I am speaking about the indoctrination/brainwashing of these children that makes them devoid of any compassion. What is this nonsense that simply because of his age, you're only so willing to expose everyone to danger! That's why I said those who are caught like Omar will need psychological help! They pose a threat to the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I'm just curious how dropping a bomb on a populated village or a town would be any different? Is it because it does not constitute an intent to kill (which would be an interesting legal innovation - e.g for those Christmas shooters in Toronto - we fired guns in the crowd of shoppers, but we didn't really intend to kill anybody)? Or because everybody there is presumed to be guilty, by definition?And now prepare for a big news: there's none. No, maybe one: the hypothetical "child" performs their act in their own land... The bomb is usually dropped on someone else's. Would that make a difference? I wonder... War is war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 The Khadr LegacySend her your best wishes, she's receiving very few messages of support. I'm glad I was reading on an empty stomache. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 (edited) Geneva conventions do not say what you think it does. The Geneva conventions say a child soldier is anyone under the age of 15 partaking in military operations. There is no other qualification. The idea that there is a legal distinction based upon the childs motive is, to put it mildly, a complete fabrication. I did not say what I thought the Geneva Conventions say. You and others have said that Omar should get a free pass because he was 15 at the time he killed the US Medic. Then you and others cite the Geneva Conventions for protections on Child Soldiers... Well, the convention itself, even if he was a part of a legitimate armed forces, doesn't say that they are not criminally responsible - it merely provides recommendations on how to handle them. Also, since Omar was 'fighting' and was flouting the rules of war, then even any of these recommendations would not apply to his case. He is being handled as a child who commits a crime under the US armed forces law. There is NOTHING in the Geneva conventions that prohibits this. If you have information to the contrary, please feel free to 'correct' me - otherwise suck it up and move on. Edited October 24, 2008 by White Doors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 War is war. Right, something we can finally agree on. Everybody does that they have to do, in whatever way they can do it. There's no winners and no claimers of moral right (really). It's a war. Do we want to be in this one (mind you, we dont' really have to), is the $1000 big question.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Not exactly. Justification is why I, we, them do or not this or that. Judgement and punishment assumes the existence of an arbiter (independent, impartial, etc - or not) who can deal it.But what if there's no such arbiter? Can anybody do what they like, without regard of the consequences? Can they do what they like because they believe that it's the right thing to do? You need to stop dancing around the issue, there are laws in which govern how each of us act and what we can do, or not do ,same for nations, and when there is no law then they sit down and make one or by majority vote on what action is nessicary. So there is always an abiter, and there is always rules in which we or nations conduct ourselfs, so no we can not do what we think is right, if there is a law in place to prevent such acts. No, wrong. Canada cares about child soldiers, right? Omar is a child soldier, right? Canada should be concerned with Omar getting the treatement suitable for a child soldier, not an adult criminal, especially in the highly questionnable, context of pseudo justice that considers resisting foreign invaders a war crime. Yes Canada does care about child soldiers, No Omar is not a child soldier, And here we go once again, lets drop everything about this mission which effects millions of lives daily, to look after the needs of one and i say again one Canadian citizen, whom should have been deported long ago.... Lets make sure that we look after his needs, make sure he recieves the treatment he requires first and foremost, after all there is still soldiers awaiting the same type of treatment....but thats another topic is it not.....and while we are at it, what of the others that need treatment, be it mental or physical, that have been effected by this whole affair, wifes , children of our soldiers, yes the forgotten ones.... they've still yet been looked after....not to mention the thousands of regular Afgan citizens that have been effected by these scumbags, where is thier treatment....i know it is next on your list of things to bitch about.....so i'd like to ask why has Omar recieved a bump in the line up because he is 15, or because he sits in a jail cell , recieving 3 meals a day, medical treatment, metal health care treatment, his religious needs are meet, his education needs are being meet, he has free lawyer staff....all on someone elses dime....Give me a break... There has been more than enough links and info made available to make a strong case that proves Omar was not a child soldier, that there has been in the past, children tried and convicted under Canadian law and justice system providing that they commited serious crimes, and recieved serious adult sentences...You can't see that because of the tears.... Your still convinced that he was partaking in this war not as a terrorist but rather as a soldier resisting foreign invaders....which does not surprise me, but facts have been presented that he was in fact a member of Al quida....a terrorist group....there has been proof he did take part in the planting in mines and IED's, in fact a home movie of Omars was found....so he has taken part in terrorist activities, which makes him a terrorist, not a legal combatant....he was also part of a fire fight between US and Afganis forces, although there is no evidance he partook he was there and did have a wpn found next to him.... So existing laws have branded him an illigal combatant, ...and while a few have discussed giving him a free pass, i think our court or justice system should determine his actual status, to determine if he could be charged with adult crimes.... we as a nation need to prepare for that day, when they do sentence him, we need to set an example, to let the other child soldiers know there is consquneces to thier actions....so i don't have to face them on the battle field... Omar will not be the last child soldier, out of this conflict.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Army Guy: I think it has a bit to do with the tired old left-wing response re: GWB. A person dislikes George Bush and crew. Therefore, anyone on the other side of the fence must have some merrit to the 'anti-Bush' cause. Guys like Omar Khadr could blow-up a bus full of nuns and a few folks would find some noble justification for the carnage. His terrorist Dad 'made him do it', for example. Similar concern for, say, a young USAF pilot who bombs the wrong target will not be found in the same group. Cries of America targeting civilians, etc, will be the collective burp. Just my spin on the situation. I hope your job is getting easier, AG...but, I kinda doubt it. A virtual beer on me. ------------------------------------ Fifteen men on a dead man's chest Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum Drink and the devil had done for the rest Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum. ---Robert Louis Stevenson: Treasure Island Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 You need to stop dancing around the issue, there are laws in which govern how each of us act and what we can do, or not do ,same for nations, and when there is no law then they sit down and make one or by majority vote on what action is nessicary..... So there is always an abiter, and there is always rules in which we or nations conduct ourselfs, so no we can not do what we think is right, if there is a law in place to prevent such acts. If you mean the "laws" that allowed "us" to "go" in Afghanistan and Iraq, then no, these aren't really laws as such. They are arbitrary standards that are forced by some upon others and as such have no relation to justice. Just as there's no arbiter, the main principle of whom is to stand above the conflicting sides. If one side declares itself to be the arbiter making their own laws for everybody else, that has only one common thing with real justice: i.e. words. And as we know, words will suffer anything, and are very cheap. So save everybody these empty lecturing, J.WMD.Bush and Tony "Ballistic Missile" Blair already exhausted it to the extent possible and beyond. No Omar is not a child soldier, And here we go once again, lets drop everything about this mission which effects millions of lives daily, to look after the needs of one and i say again one Canadian citizen, whom should have been deported long ago.... And here's a fine illustration of the concepts of these "laws" and "justice": here, it works, there - no-no. Just because I said so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 (edited) So save everybody these empty lecturing, J.WMD.Bush and Tony "Ballistic Missile" Blair already exhausted it to the extent possible and beyond. They never did locate Saddam's missing chemical weapons stocks. The missing VX nerve agent precursors are particularly disturbing. However, as I've said before, if you give me unlimited funds to hide fifty 18-wheeler trucks and trailers in British Columbia, you'll never see those trucks again. Gone...poof. Non sequitur, I believe, is the fallacy used. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So unless someone wants to dig-up every square inch of Iraq and perhaps Syria and Iran...we might as well give-up the hunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_nerve_gas ----------------------------------------------- Go ahead. Make my day. ---Det. Harry Callahan Edited October 24, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Well, yeah. Would you recommend us now changing our actual justice system to be based on these "absence of evidence.." principles that were applied with such an astounding success in Iraq?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Well, yeah. Would you recommend us now changing our actual justice system to be based on these "absence of evidence.." principles that were applied with such an astounding success in Iraq?? Whatever. I suggest you look-up the effects of VX nerve agent and then decide for yourself if it is worth looking for or simply allowing it to fall into what could be the VERY wrong hands. VX is known as an area denial weapon of mass destruction. Once an area is infected/contaminated, it is next to IMPOSSIBLE to clean-up. Try that out in midtown Manhattan and see what happens... The US and Russia have both been destroying their stockpiles of this stuff (with great difficulty) as they view it as a 'white elephant' in terms of weapons. Saddam had something like 4500 tons (yes tons) of the precursors (components) and it was the reason Israelis were hiding in plastic shrouded rooms wearing bio-chem suits during Gulf War I as Saddam had SCUD warheads loaded with the stuff in his possesion. A tiny droplet of VX can kill in minutes...and as hinted at, never goes away. Sarin is tame by comparrison. http://www.3dchem.com/molecules.asp?ID=99 http://www.ilpi.com/msds/vx.html http://www.be-prepared.info/vx-nerve-gas.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/404896.stm -------------------------------------------------------------------- I was so naive as a kid I used to sneak behind the barn and do nothing. ---Johnny Carson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Whatever. You should try a better answer though. Pointing a finger up into the sky doesn't count. So, again: Do you advocate setting up a different standard for our justice here? (i.e from innocent till proven guilty to "absence of evidence, ...") Or do you advocate having different set of standards for us (innocent till proven guilty) vs. them ("absence of evidence ...")? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.