punked Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 I gues it's either you have instances where he engaged in terrorism or you are unclear as to what the definition of terrorism is.... Terrorism is the systematic use of terror.[clarification needed][1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. I think one depending on their ideology could easily argue you are wrong. Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 Terrorism is the systematic use of terror.[clarification needed][1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.I think one depending on their ideology could easily argue you are wrong. from the website you failed to source.... 4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism It's a shame some are so willfully dense so that they obscure for partisan reasons black and white Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Progressive Tory Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 So in your opinion, it's the best coarse of action to upset our biggest trading partner and best friend based on who's in the White House. What? If the Bush administration got upset because we wanted to protect the rights on one of our citizens, he's not my best friend. On the other hand if any PM supports abusing our rights, we have to protest. You've got to remember that the American people are also ashamed of what went on at the camp. Obama is doing what's right. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Argus Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Now that President Obama has ordered Guantanamo closed down, all prisoners will be either released or sent to detention in other countries.Omar Khadr should be returned to Canada and set free. He was 15 years old when he was taken prisoner in AFghanistan. There is no proof that he killed an American, and the trial has now been ordered halted by President Obama. After 5 years, will he be set free, as are his rights under Canadian law? And if so, can he then sue the Canadian government, and maybe the US as well, for illegal detention, maybe even torture? Bring him home and let him blow himself up in the middle of an NDP caucus meeting. Edited January 22, 2009 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 Yeah! Too bad it took an American to protect a Canadian's rights, while our own government would rather feed him to the wolves. I'd feed him to the Robert Pickton's pigs myself. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 I see an Obama/Ignatieff administration as a meeting of minds; intellectual equals. Such an "administration" does not exist as of yet. The Bush/Harper administration was more like Puppet Master and Puppet. Unfortunately, the Puppet Master was an idiot. Then Obama would have a smart "poodle" instead of a puppet. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 I see an Obama/Ignatieff administration as a meeting of minds; intellectual equals.The Bush/Harper administration was more like Puppet Master and Puppet. Unfortunately, the Puppet Master was an idiot. There was never the slightest indication that Harper was in any way, shape or form Bush's "puppet". But the extreme left despised Bush, and despise Harper, and since the extreme left is rife with emotionalism and bigotry, it was easy for you guys to put them together. Obama is Black, though. And you will not be able to find your way to criticising him in any way no matter what he does. So you love him all to pieces - even though he's a stinking American. As for the similarities between Obama and Ignatieff, the only ones I can see is that neither of them has yet enunciated a single, coherent idea, vision or policy for improving a single bloody thing. But don't let that get in the way of your unadulterated worship. After all, the sustaining motto of the left is Style over Substance. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 I'm sure you're nothing to him either, but how long have you been a supporter of cannibalism? The fact is, HE IS CANADIAN and as such deserves the rights of all Canadians to a fair trial. It's what puts us above barbarism. (and the whole eating of people) He is no kind of Canadian. He was raised by foreign scum, mostly outside of Canada. He probably doesn't even speak the language. He has no education or job skills. He will be on welfare the rest of his natural life - which hopefully will be a short one. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 So you take the side of a person who is a member of a known terrorist group who hated Canada and the west and was involved in the war? And what precisely is it you propose we do? He hasn't been convicted of anything, and in fact it looks like he was himself the victim of torture, some of it producing ludicrously unfounded answers (like Arar being in Afghanistan). He's a Canadian citizen, and therefore has a legal right to return here. Quote
DFCaper Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 The fact is, HE IS CANADIAN and as such deserves the rights of all Canadians to a fair trial. It's what puts us above barbarism. (and the whole eating of people) I would agree, if his actions were performed in Canada or for Canada, but they weren't. Just like laws from other countries don't apply here. It's not like he is being put to death for stealing food. Like Argus says, "He is no kind of Canadian. He was raised by foreign scum, mostly outside of Canada." He has a Canadian citizenship only so his terrorist family would have an easier time moving around unsuspected and have a save haven with free medical care. His case is a special case. And not a special case in his favour. Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
Chris in KW Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 Whether we consider Omar Khadr to be "scum" or "a terrorist" or "a freedom fighter" isn't really the question. Whether we consider him to be a "good Canadian" is also not the question. He has Canadian citizenship. That's not a matter for debate. The Canadian gov't (including both liberal and conservative leaders) has taken the lazy approach, which is to let the US deal with it. Looks like we'll have to deal with it soon. As a 15 year old, Khadr was fighting in Afghanistan. Whether he was a 15-year-old terrorist or a 15-year-old soldier, he ought to be rehabilitated. Whether that's in a hospital or a jail is up to a court to decide, not me. Thousands of young teenagers in African countries (Rwanda and others) were recently enlisted and trained to be vicious militia fighters. The things these "kids" did were monstrous. However, when the violence is done, civilized countries have the responsibility to try to help people like this. Not call them scum and let them rot in jail. Two last points. 1. If I'm a person of Afghani descent, fighting IN Afghanistan against a foreign army, am I a terrorist? Or am I a soldier? I'd call him a soldier. 2. If a soldier is in a firefight that leaves EVERY other member of his squad dead, is it really a "crime" for him to throw a grenade at the enemy forces that just wiped out his squad? Or is it an act of war? To call this murder seems like gross hypocrisy to me. Quote The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. (Carl Jung)
M.Dancer Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 1. If I'm a person of Afghani descent, fighting IN Afghanistan against a foreign army, am I a terrorist? Or am I a soldier? I'd call him a soldier. 2. If a soldier is in a firefight that leaves EVERY other member of his squad dead, is it really a "crime" for him to throw a grenade at the enemy forces that just wiped out his squad? Or is it an act of war? To call this murder seems like gross hypocrisy to me. 1. He is of Egyptian descent... 2. He was not a soldier but an illegal combatant as defined under international law. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Moonbox Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Khadr as far as I'm concerned renounced his citizenship when he took up arms against our allies outside of Canada. After you take up arms for ANOTHER nation and people you should be prepared to be treated as a member of that nation, whatever it may be. What the hell do you think a Canadian soldier for the Iraqi military would get if he was captured by militants? "Oh, actually I'm Canadian sorry. I'm not REALLY with these guys...I'm just with them right now...you know...killing and shooting YOUR people." Give me a break. Edited January 22, 2009 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
guyser Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 Khadr as far as I'm concerned renounced his citizenship when he took up arms against our allies outside of Canada. Legally he is a canadian citizen, nothwithstanding your concerns. After you take up arms for ANOTHER nation and people you should be prepared to be treated as a member of that nation, whatever it may be. Dont think that has ever been in dispute.Pretty much like canucks who served in viet nam for the States. The simple truth is , had the kid died on the battlefield no one would be concerned one way or another,except maybe his mom. But he wasnt. What the hell do you think a Canadian soldier for the Iraqi military would get if he was captured by militants? Killed. Relevance? Give this kid his trial, no more no less, here there anywhere (that a proper legal authority exists) but give him his day. Quote
Chris in KW Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 Khadr as far as I'm concerned renounced his citizenship when he took up arms against our allies outside of Canada. Actually, on that point I agree with you. We should really should have a law that allows Citizenship to be revoked if you fight for any army other than the army of Canada. Apparently we don't have such a law or are not enforcing it. My hatred of his actions does not revoke his citizenship. And we have to deal with this issue under our LAWS, not our emotions! So while I agree with you here, and would revoke his citizenship if I could, I also don't believe in re-writing laws to deal with individual cases. Cheney and Bush have been doing too much of that lately. After you take up arms for ANOTHER nation and people you should be prepared to be treated as a member of that nation, whatever it may be. Ok, so for purposes of argument, let's pretend we passed the above law, and treat him as if he's a citizen of Egypt. Should we still not be treated as a Prisoner of War? We do not put POWs in murder trials. Take your pick. Either he's Canadian or he's not. Either he's a citizen, or he's a POW. And before you say, "Neither, he's a terrorist", let's examine that. It's important to define terrorism correctly. Terrorists are people who attack civilians and civilian infrastructure. To attack an invading army (whether that army is right or wrong) is not terrorism. Quote The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. (Carl Jung)
DFCaper Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 Two last points. 1. If I'm a person of Afghani descent, fighting IN Afghanistan against a foreign army, am I a terrorist? Or am I a soldier? I'd call him a soldier. He attacked us, as we are fighting in Afghanistan along with the Americans. So as Far as I'm concerned, he's not Canadian. That doesn't make him a Child soldier. I just think it's not Harpers fault that he is in this situation. It's he's dads… Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 Khadr is a terrorist. To me he has no nationality - other than treasonous pig using Canada's soft underbelly to cowardly weasel out of his deserved fate. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) 1. If I'm a person of Afghani descent, fighting IN Afghanistan against a foreign army, am I a terrorist? Or am I a soldier? I'd call him a soldier. He (you) can't have it both ways. He's either a Candian citizen demanding his rights as a Canadian - who killed a fellow Canadian. OR He's an afghan enemy combattant who tried to kill a Canadian soldier. So he's either guilty of murder or treason. Take your pick. Either way he should be in jail or deported to barbaristan. It's sickening that these assholes (Arar and Khadr) can be members of enemy organizations directl;y agressive toward our country and yet still we bend over backwards to accomodate them. Arar's got 10.5 million of our tax dollars in his jeans and a few months later it's revealed that he actually was a terrorist after all. Un feaking believable. Edited January 22, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 22, 2009 Report Posted January 22, 2009 He (you) can't have it both ways. He's either a Candian citizen demanding his rights as a Canadian - who killed a fellow Canadian.OR He's an afghan enemy combattant who tried to kill a Canadian soldier. So he's either guilty of murder or treason. Take your pick. Either way he should be in jail or deported to barbaristan. It's sickening that these assholes (Arar and Khadr) can be members of enemy organizations directl;y agressive toward our country and yet still we bend over backwards to accomodate them. Arar's got 10.5 million of our tax dollars in his jeans and a few months later it's revealed that he actually was a terrorist after all. Un feaking believable. Ummm..Jerry.....I realise this isn't current news, being the last time it was a front page story was this morning,,,,but he didin't kill a Canadian..he is accused of killing a US soldier. ...Do try and stay current...and swift....heck, try visiting swift current and read the paper... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Keepitsimple Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 You don't know the Khadr story do you? Khadr was seriously wounded by shrapnel. The Americans first shot him in the back twice.. Then for whatever reason cooler heads prevailed and he was given medical treatment. As well, there's no evidence that Khadr was the person who threw the grenade that allegedly killed Christopher Speers.Keepitsimple, why do you think it is that people post on this site without doing even the minimum necessary research to inform themselves about an issue? It's not as if it is difficult to look up the information. Why would people willfully, in your view, choose to remain ignorant, and from that ignorance condemn other people? I knew exactly what has been reported. This wasn't the police making an arrest - it was a firefight in the heat of battle. Combatants are shot at when they try to run - that's why they sometimes get shot in the back. I'll repeat my post which gives Khadr the benefit of doubt as to whether he actually threw the grenade. Barts, why do you think it is that people read posts on this site and only see what they want to see? It's not as if it is difficult to read an entire post and understand that there might be a different point of view - maybe not your viewpoint - but a valid one. Why would people willfully, in your view, choose to remain ignorant, and from that ignorance condemn other people? He should be thankful to the Americans for saving his life. He was seriously wounded as a combatant on the battlefield and could have/should have been left there to die. Whether of not he actually threw the grenade, the soldier that was killed was an American Medic. Instead of leaving him to die, the Americans wanted to see if they could get any information from him....so they saved his life. Make no mistake - he was the enemy and although he may have been 15 at the time, who would know that on the battlefield. Guns and grenades are just as effective in the hands of a 15 year old. It would have been much simpler if he would have died on the battlefield. Quote Back to Basics
CANADIEN Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) I enjoy how the left stands up for terrorists and in the name of personal freedom. Then Ontario is turning more and more into a nanny state with more and more of our personal freedoms being taken away with new laws every year without protest. This coming from someone who supports torture and opposes the rule of law. The terrorist Khadr should have been tried for his crimes according to the rule of law, that is in a legitimate American court, not the Guantanamo parody of justice. Edited January 23, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 Bring him home and let him blow himself up in the middle of an NDP caucus meeting. I think that Omar Khadr deserves to rot in jail. But this one is a new low, even from you. Quote
CANADIEN Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 I'd feed him to the Robert Pickton's pigs myself. I thought you could not sink much lower after your last one. I stand corrected. Quote
CANADIEN Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 I'm sure you're nothing to him either, but how long have you been a supporter of cannibalism? The fact is, HE IS CANADIAN and as such deserves the rights of all Canadians to a fair trial. It's what puts us above barbarism. (and the whole eating of people) Hear! Hear! More fondamentally, he is a human being. It is one thing to say that he is a terrorist (hhhe is), a murderer (I think it is, but that's a determination to be made by a legitimate court of law), a scumbag (he is), that he should rot in jail (he should, after being found guilty in a legitimate court of law), that he is not a Canadian (legally he is, UNFORTUNATELY). Or even that he should be executed after being found guilty (I oppose the death penalty, but I would not cry "oh the poor little maaartyr). But its quite another thing to approve of his torture and the conditions in which he was detained, to wish he would blow himself up in a meeting of left-wing party, to hope he would be eaten alive. That some people would scream "THEY are uncivilized, and WE are civilized" then turn around and make such statement is hypocritical and sickening. Quote
CANADIEN Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) He (you) can't have it both ways. He's either a Candian citizen demanding his rights as a Canadian - who killed a fellow Canadian.OR He's an afghan enemy combattant who tried to kill a Canadian soldier. So he's either guilty of murder or treason. Take your pick. Either way he should be in jail or deported to barbaristan. It's sickening that these assholes (Arar and Khadr) can be members of enemy organizations directl;y agressive toward our country and yet still we bend over backwards to accomodate them. Arar's got 10.5 million of our tax dollars in his jeans and a few months later it's revealed that he actually was a terrorist after all. Un feaking believable. facts are not your stong suit, are they? Omar Khadr is accused of killing an American soldier, not a Canadian. Of course, he still is a terrorist. As for the witness whose testimony "revealed" Maher Arar so-called guilt, it took less than a day to demolish his testimony by comparing it to his own notes taken when he interrogated Khadr. The guy is a cop; if he had given that kind of contradiction-ridden testimony at a parking infraction hearing, he would be on photocopier duty by now. What is unbelievable is that people would grasp at anything, no matter non-sensical, to sustain a claim that Maher Arar is a terrorist. We are talking about a man's freedom here; is it too much to ask that any accusation against him be at least more believable than the 9/11 conspiracy theories? Edited January 23, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote
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.