Jump to content

Omar Khdar


Topaz

Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman
So ... perhaps the grenade was thrown by the man who was still alive until they shot him, or perhaps it was a friendly fire accident.

I don't know why they originally concocted the story about shooting Omar in the back. Pretty weird.

However, the photo seems pretty clear to me.

If you read the full report, you'd see that one was firing a rifle and that it wasn't considered possible that the same man could be throwing a grenade at the same time he was firing a rifle. It's believed that because of his wounds, Khadr wasn't capable of firing an AK-47, but he was capable of throwing a grenade over his head.

As for what the photo is "pretty clear about," it shows him wounded and no one, to my knowledge, has refuted that he was wounded. In fact, in the accounts that I've read, the soldiers shot Khadr three times in the chest. So I'm not sure what "the photo seems pretty clear to [you]" about.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 741
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A child cannot commit treason.

Tango..think back to when you were 15.....i remember when i was 15 did i do mischief?...sure!!

but what we are talking about here is a young MAN!! that willing went with the Taliban to fight Nato forces to which we belong! he knew what he was doing..these creeps come to Canada hide behind our good will and weak immigration and use us as a jump off base to attack the U.S.A! we know what they are doing in those Mosques in Canadian cities and it is a hell of alot more than just praying...they do fund raising here in Canada to what they say is helping people in the mideast...oh their helping them alright! they are helping Al Qaeda using OUR money...on top of that Omar and his family verbally attack Canada and the Western culture ! Make no mistake this is the enemy pure and simple....Omar should be shot by the Military and his family given the boot!!!....the One thing you must remember and to many forget...we are at WAR with these people our soldiers are dying fighting these vermin..what this country needs to do is rally around our troops and support them in killing these Taliban pigs!

Edited by wulf42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treason should be for people who actually were accepted as full members of the community to begin with; that have the right to vote. Otherwise, how can you betray what you do not belong to?

In that case don t charge him with treason! just shoot him as a spy like we did in WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
A child cannot commit treason.

That's your opinion. There's nothing about age in the definition:

DOD Dictionary of Military Terms:

Violation of the allegiance owed to one’s sovereign or state; betrayal of one’s country.

Seems to me your statement is like saying a 15 year old cannot commit murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tango's and a few others here, believe that child soldiers are not responsable for "any " of thier crimes including murder....it a free ticket to ride....

Lucky for us terrorist acts are not covered in the GC, or Canadian law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tango's and a few others here, believe that child soldiers are not responsable for "any " of thier crimes including murder....it a free ticket to ride....

Lucky for us terrorist acts are not covered in the GC, or Canadian law...

Army Guy , take your flag of Cheney and your false pictures that caused thousands of lives in IraQ. Than take a picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ... perhaps the grenade was thrown by the man who was still alive until they shot him, or perhaps it was a friendly fire accident.

I don't know why they originally concocted the story about shooting Omar in the back. Pretty weird.

However, the photo seems pretty clear to me.

Your mish mashing serveral statements to support your argument.....and perhaps confusing your self in the process

The other man shot in the skull was found only feet away form omar...which according to you he Omar ,was cover in rubble, or as the statement you provided said the top floor of the complex ...anyways alot of rubble....One would assume that the other man would be covered in rubble as well...because he is only a few feet away....but he's not...the defense is saying that this man Could have thrown the grenade....Omar could not have because he was covered in rubble....Can we have it both ways....

The photo shows Omar laying on his back with gapping wounds in his chest >>>those are exit wounds, meaning he was shot in the back.....entrance wounds are small and clean, exit wounds are alot larger and messy as the bullet passes thru flesh it expands, or fragments as it hit bone causeing a much larger hole upon exiting.......

All this photo proves is he was shot in the back....kind of hard to do when your laying on your back buried in rubble....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Army Guy , take your flag of Cheney and your false pictures that caused thousands of lives in IraQ. Than take a picture

Monkeyman you got something to say....just say it....This is not about Iraq, not about being being racist, not about religion ...it's about being a terrorist....and you could be white, brown, black, purple with warts on your dick....i don't give a sweat F***, your going to get the same treatment....

You've clearly stated serveral times that most Muslims are again'st violence and terrorism....so lets clear the air right now are you one of those muslims....are you again'st violence and terrorism.....if so then great we are on the same page....if not then you got a problem....thats where the line in the sand is....pick a side .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
The photo shows Omar laying on his back with gapping wounds in his chest >>>those are exit wounds, meaning he was shot in the back.....entrance wounds are small and clean, exit wounds are alot larger and messy as the bullet passes thru flesh it expands, or fragments as it hit bone causeing a much larger hole upon exiting.......

That clears things up for me, though I'm not sure why accounts I've read said he was shot in the chest -- perhaps because that's where the gaping wounds were.

At any rate, thank you for your clarification on why shots from the back would appear as they did on his chest in the photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your opinion. There's nothing about age in the definition:

DOD Dictionary of Military Terms:

Violation of the allegiance owed to one’s sovereign or state; betrayal of one’s country.

Seems to me your statement is like saying a 15 year old cannot commit murder.

Tango's and a few others here, believe that child soldiers are not responsable for "any " of thier crimes including murder....it a free ticket to ride....

I do not why tango thinks a child cannot commit treason; maybe because they are too young, or whatever. But for myself, let me make it clear that the justification for why I think children should not be charged with treason is markedly different from the reason children are usually treated as lesser offenders under the law, though the causes are related.

As far as I know, the reason we have a Young Offenders Act is because it is thought that people under a certain age, because they have not fully developed physically and mentally, cannot be held as accountable for some crimes as adults. The age cut-off, 18, is arbitary, because trying to tell who thinks like an adult when would be an exercise in futility. If a 15 year old murders someone in Canada, while the default is that they be charged as a minor, because of the severity and nature of the crime, they can in fact be charged an adult under certain circumstances.

On the other hand, treason is not tied first to mental capacity, it is tied to citizenship, and is a political crime. Obviously there is some relation because the age of majority is also the age of "no more mister nice cop". But someone who does not get a say in the community is essentially not fully a member of that community, from a political standpoint. They did not form part of the original compact, social contact, or whatever you want to call it. Citizenship before the age of majority is rather probationary, are more malleable than that of adults: hence why it is much easier for a dependant child to gain their parents citizenship, as far as I know. But when a "citizen" turns 18, or an 18+ becomes a citizen, they become full members of the club, with all the rights and responsibilities. It is for this reason, because we only accept adults as full citizens, as voting club members, that I do not think that we children should be eligible for treason; they cannot betray that which has not fully embraced them.

Edit: To be clear, I mean this as a normative argument, not one that is descriptive of the current order.

Edited by Remiel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mish mashing serveral statements to support your argument.....and perhaps confusing your self in the process

The other man shot in the skull was found only feet away form omar...which according to you he Omar ,was cover in rubble, or as the statement you provided said the top floor of the complex ...anyways alot of rubble....One would assume that the other man would be covered in rubble as well...because he is only a few feet away....but he's not...the defense is saying that this man Could have thrown the grenade....Omar could not have because he was covered in rubble....Can we have it both ways....

The photo shows Omar laying on his back with gapping wounds in his chest >>>those are exit wounds, meaning he was shot in the back.....entrance wounds are small and clean, exit wounds are alot larger and messy as the bullet passes thru flesh it expands, or fragments as it hit bone causeing a much larger hole upon exiting.......

All this photo proves is he was shot in the back....kind of hard to do when your laying on your back buried in rubble....

I think you are intentionally confusing and misleading people. Did you look at the picture, or are you just winging it?

Obviously Omar was shot in the back during the fight, fell, and at some point was covered in rubble, presumably from a grenade, since he also had shrapnel wounds in his eyes.

Other older guy was found alive, and then was shot dead.

There are so many madeup versions of this around, though, it's hard to get to the truth. I prefer the court reports (under oath), and I think the picture speaks for itself re the sequence of events: Omar wasn't throwing any grenade at the end of that fight.

I have never said Omar should be "set free". In fact, I believe his best chance was in court. Once there, it was definitely looking like he was innocent, so (I believe) Obama pulled the plug on the trial to avoid the embarrassment to the US in a public court.

This was a 15 year old, a Canadian in a war zone under the care and control of adults, not by his own choice. A fifteen year old cannot consent to go to war: His father made him. He knew if he didn't obey his father, Dad would turn him into a suicide bomber - ie, have him killed - because that's what Dad tried to do with his son who did rebel.

Omar Khadr was held for seven years, interrogated and tortured, without charges. He's a worldwide sensation - the black sheep that Canada does not want back - so the US finally lays charges, goes to court ... and holy crap! Their own soldiers tell them now that he is innocent? He couldn't have thrown the grenade?

I'm pretty sure Obama wishes Omar would just vapourize, and Harper does too.

This is a 'public relations nightmare' for the US, and for Canada.

But that's nothing compared to what Omar Khadr has been through since he was 10 years old and forced into war, imo.

There is great danger in speculation and fabrication, because if it turns out we're wrong, as i believe, then we're real stinkers ... like now.

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omar Khadr was held for seven years, interrogated and tortured, without charges. He's a worldwide sensation - the black sheep that Canada does not want back - so the US finally lays charges, goes to court ... and holy crap! Their own soldiers tell them now that he is innocent? He couldn't have thrown the grenade?

I'm pretty sure Obama wishes Omar would just vapourize, and Harper does too.

That is why the U.S. soldiers should have plugged Omar when they had the chance.........i bet they won't make that mistake again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tango's and a few others here, believe that child soldiers are not responsable for "any " of thier crimes including murder....it a free ticket to ride....

Lucky for us terrorist acts are not covered in the GC, or Canadian law...

Exactly right!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also clarify that even though I do not think that children should necessary be eligible for being charged with treason, I do think that my justification for that still allows for them to be charged with specific action based crimes, such as spying and sabotage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why the U.S. soldiers should have plugged Omar when they had the chance.........i bet they won't make that mistake again!

Oh, I'm sure many wanted to, but usually any captured, English speaking Taliban combatant is a higher value asset for intel purposes. Somebody made a decision to drag his ass to 'Gitmo instead.....probably saved his young life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sure many wanted to, but usually any captured, English speaking Taliban combatant is a higher value asset for intel purposes. Somebody made a decision to drag his ass to 'Gitmo instead.....probably saved his young life.

True enough!!

but i really hope you guy's keep him .....we don t want him!!

Feel free to keep him lock up for good at Gitmo !!................. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children and war crmes ...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55047.php

"Shall juveniles committing war crimes be prosecuted? If not, is there a danger that warlords may delegate more atrocities to be committed by child soldiers?"

"One may argue that child recruitment into armed forces is in itself a war crime, and that child soldiers are overwhelmingly victims rather than perpetrators and should therefore not be prosecuted," the authors say. "Yet such impunity may encourage military commanders to delegate the 'dirtiest' orders to child soldiers. In that way, a decision not to prosecute child perpetrators would indirectly expose child soldiers to more risks rather than protecting them."

The authors argue that "there may be situations where it could be in the interest of children to be held accountable," but international courts are not the place. "These are not matters for an international court, which is more of an opportunity to bring to justice leaders and architects of crimes who would otherwise escape from justice in unwilling or incapable states."

For children, "accountability does not necessarily involve criminal responsibility, a wide range of other options exist," including, for example, specialized participation in post-conflict truth and reconciliation tribunals and peace-building exercises.

"Forcing children into armed combat is one of the most reprehensible acts imaginable," says UN Under Secretary-General Hans van Ginkel, Rector of UNU. "How best to deal with those involved, warlord and child alike, is a matter of importance for all UN member states and this book makes a major contribution by capturing thoughts on the matter of some of the world's most authoritative experts."

I agree with this - that there should be consequences for 'child soldiers', with a focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. They had no choice, but nonetheless their humanity has been damaged and needs rehab to ensure they are no further danger to society.

And I certainly agree that "Forcing children into armed combat is one of the most reprehensible acts imaginable,"

Like many others, I wish it was Father Khadr in Gitmo. I doubt we'd waste much concern on him! Imagine telling your kid that the best thing he can do for his family is to become a suicide bomber!

Abduraham Khadr:

"Three times my father himself tried to get me to become a suicide bomber," Abdurahman says. "He sat me down with the al-Qaeda scholar, he sat me down with, you know, the person to train people to become suicide bombers. He sat me down with these two people and tried to convince me to become a suicide bomber. He's like, you know, you'd be our pride in this family, you'd be our pride, you know, if you do this. But I was totally against it. I was like I believe in fighting, you know, someone on the ground and he shoots me and I shoot him, you know. But I don't believe in blowing myself up, killing innocent people. I don't, I just don't believe in that… I just see that he [my father] really believed in it. And he wanted me to believe in it too."

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
There are so many madeup versions of this around, though, it's hard to get to the truth.

Yet you say: Obviously Omar was shot in the back during the fight, fell, and at some point was covered in rubble, presumably from a grenade, since he also had shrapnel wounds in his eyes.

So as you say it's hard to get at the truth, you say "obviously" this-is-what-happened.

You also say I prefer the court reports (under oath), and I think the picture speaks for itself re the sequence of events: Omar wasn't throwing any grenade at the end of that fight, yet if there are conflicting reports under oath, you pick the one you want to believe as 'the truth.' You also conclude that Omar wasn't throwing the grenade at the end of the fight based on a picture that was taken even later. Who are you to know if he was capable of one last move, blindly throwing a grenade?

I have never said Omar should be "set free". In fact, I believe his best chance was in court. Once there, it was definitely looking like he was innocent, so (I believe) Obama pulled the plug on the trial to avoid the embarrassment to the US in a public court.

Yes, that's why Obama made all the decisions that he did regarding Gitmo; it was "definitely looking like [Omar] was innocent," so Obama tried to spare the Bush administration embarrassment for having held Omar for all those years, and "pulled the plug on the trial."

This was a 15 year old, a Canadian in a war zone under the care and control of adults, not by his own choice.

How do you know it wasn't his choice to be there? Seriously.

A fifteen year old cannot consent to go to war: His father made him. He knew if he didn't obey his father, Dad would turn him into a suicide bomber - ie, have him killed - because that's what Dad tried to do with his son who did rebel.

Wow. Sounds as if you really have some privileged information regarding what went on the Khadar family, not to mention in Omar's mind.

A fifteen year old can most definitely want to go to war. The fact that it's not legal (here) doesn't mean there aren't fifteen year olds who "want" to, and who choose to go in nations that don't have laws against it. But to speak about "what he knew" as if you actually know what was on his mind tells me all I need to know about your views on this issue.

Omar Khadr was held for seven years, interrogated and tortured, without charges. He's a worldwide sensation - the black sheep that Canada does not want back - so the US finally lays charges, goes to court ... and holy crap! Their own soldiers tell them now that he is innocent? He couldn't have thrown the grenade?

Which "soldiers" have ... "holy crap!" .... "[told the court] that Omar was innocent?"

I'm pretty sure Obama wishes Omar would just vapourize, and Harper does too.

Yep. I'm sure that's exactly what Obama is wishing.

This is a 'public relations nightmare' for the US, and for Canada.

I honestly don't think most people are looking upon it as that "nightmare" that you see it as.

But that's nothing compared to what Omar Khadr has been through since he was 10 years old and forced into war, imo

Again, you have no idea if he was "forced into war" or not. You really need to learn to differentiate between "fact" and "personal beliefs" based on, well, nothing, really.

There is great danger in speculation and fabrication...

There sure is, yet it doesn't seem to be stopping you. You are speculating as to why Omar was in Afghanistan, what happened while he was there, why he did what he did, what he thought, and why Obama has made the decisions that he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you say: Obviously Omar was shot in the back during the fight, fell, and at some point was covered in rubble, presumably from a grenade, since he also had shrapnel wounds in his eyes.

So as you say it's hard to get at the truth, you say "obviously" this-is-what-happened.

You also say I prefer the court reports (under oath), and I think the picture speaks for itself re the sequence of events: Omar wasn't throwing any grenade at the end of that fight, yet if there are conflicting reports under oath, you pick the one you want to believe as 'the truth.'

There are no conflicting reports under oath.

You also conclude that Omar wasn't throwing the grenade at the end of the fight based on a picture that was taken even later. Who are you to know if he was capable of one last move, blindly throwing a grenade?

Yes, that's why Obama made all the decisions that he did regarding Gitmo; it was "definitely looking like [Omar] was innocent," so Obama tried to spare the Bush administration embarrassment for having held Omar for all those years, and "pulled the plug on the trial."

How do you know it wasn't his choice to be there? Seriously.

Wow. Sounds as if you really have some privileged information regarding what went on the Khadar family, not to mention in Omar's mind.

A fifteen year old can most definitely want to go to war.

Omar was 10 when his father took him to war. He was 15 when it ended for him ... in Gitmo.

The fact that it's not legal (here) doesn't mean there aren't fifteen year olds who "want" to, and who choose to go in nations that don't have laws against it.

It's not legal anywhere, by international law.

But to speak about "what he knew" as if you actually know what was on his mind tells me all I need to know about your views on this issue.

Which "soldiers" have ... "holy crap!" .... "[told the court] that Omar was innocent?"

Yep. I'm sure that's exactly what Obama is wishing.

I honestly don't think most people are looking upon it as that "nightmare" that you see it as.

Again, you have no idea if he was "forced into war" or not. You really need to learn to differentiate between "fact" and "personal beliefs" based on, well, nothing, really.

Read Omar's brother's story (above). Omar knew that if he didn't do what his father told him, his father would make him kill himself by becoming a suicide bomber. That's "force", in my view.

There sure is, yet it doesn't seem to be stopping you. You are speculating as to why Omar was in Afghanistan, what happened while he was there, why he did what he did, what he thought, and why Obama has made the decisions that he did.

I am trying to draw a distinction between:

- the court reports of US soldiers' testimonies under oath, that I believe are closer to the truth, (Dec2008-Jan2009) and

- the army incident reports that appear doctored for a coverup, as might be expected under pressure of commanding officers, (2002?) and

- the popular myths that have no basis in fact.

It's your choice what you choose to believe, but I prefer to try to root out the real truth.

I've provided the links earlier if you wish to read the media reports of US soldiers' testimonies under oath.

Apparently I'm the only one here interested enough in the truth to actually follow the pre-trial (Dec08) and trial(Jan09). It seems that others are only interested in creating myths to support anger and desire for revenge. It's also clear that the Canadian media felt the same, as their reports were not nearly as clear and thorough as the US media reports I read at the time.

I believe the US soldiers actually present at the incident told the truth in court:

- The adult was still alive and was executed. There was doubt whether he could have thrown a grenade as he was shooting at the time the grenade went off.

- Omar was badly wounded earlier in the fight, buried under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and could not have thrown a grenade. The earlier report that they had shot him in the back after the fight was apparently a coverup story. Look at the picture: There's dust on top of the blood from his wounds. Those wounds did not occur after they pulled him from the rubble. They were already there when he was under the rubble.

Also, the day before Obama pulled the plug on the trial (Jan09), knowing it was going to happen, Omar Khadr's lawyer held a press conference and said that the evidence to be presented in court the next day was a forensics report indicating that the grenade was US issue, and Speer's death thus likely accidental 'friendly fire'.

However, he never got a chance to present that evidence in court.

Now you tell me that's not suspiciously like a coverup!!

Again, I have provided the links earlier and I am not interested in arguing with people who haven't read the reports from court.

Either you are looking for the truth, or you prefer to be part of the coverup.

That's your choice.

Me, I preferred to pay close attention to what the soldiers said when they were under oath and not under direct pressure from army command. Afterall, it is their duty to tell the truth, and to refuse illegal orders such as fabricating coverup stories, and I admire them for stepping up.

I do believe it is a HUGE public relations nightmare for the US and Canada, and I think both Obama and Harper know that, and they are just stalling to avoid letting the real truth come out in court. Meanwhile, Omar sits in Gitmo so the US and Canada don't have to embarrass themselves. Is that justice? No ... it's just sleazy politics.

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
It's your choice what you choose to believe, but I prefer to try to root out the real truth.

Of course it's my choice to believe what I believe; and it's your choice to believe what you believe, even speaking for Omar and what he thought, in the process. Right? Interesting, though, that while you claim it's my choice to believe what I believe, you claim what you believe is "the real truth."

Apparently I'm the only one here interested enough in the truth to actually follow the pre-trial (Dec08) and trial(Jan09). It seems that others are only interested in creating myths to support anger and desire for revenge.

Yes, it's crystal clear that you, in speculating what was on Omar's mind, speculating that he was "forced" to be there, speculating about what he was thinking, speculating as to why Obama halted the trial, are "the only one here interested ... in the truth..."

Unbelievable.

As for what I'm interested in, you don't have an inkling of a clue as to what my "desire" is. For one thing, I've never even declared Omar to be guilty or innocent, while you claim to know "the real truth" about everything that went down that day. As for me, I'll leave that verdict up to a court of law.

I believe the soldiers actually present at the incident told the truth in court:

The adult was still alive and was executed. There was doubt whether he could have thrown a grenade as he was shooting at the time the grenade went off.

Right. There's doubt that he could have thrown the grenade. Yet a grenade was thrown. So who do you propose threw it? Oh, that's right. According to you, it "may have been" an American. In any case, it wasn't Omar. Because you said so. Case closed.

Omar was badly wounded earlier in the fight, buried under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and could not have thrown a grenade. (The earlier report that they had shot him in the back was apparently a coverup story.)

"Apparently" we don't need a court of law. "Apparently" you have all the answers.

You do realize that several witnesses to the same event can give different accounts and they all believe they are telling the truth, right? Because from their perspective, from their memory, they are telling the truth. The problem is, witness testimony is often flawed. That's why we have trials and juries even when there are witnesses. We don't simply put one witness under oath and give a verdict based on that one witnesses testimony.

A lot happened in the course of a very short period of time that day. I imagine emotions were running high. I imagine everyone didn't see everything from the same view at the same time. And the photo certainly tells nothing other than the Omar was injured, as was claimed.

The day before Obama pulled the plug on the trial (Jan09), knowing it was going to happen, Omar Khadr's lawyer held a press conference and said that the evidence to be presented in court the next day was a forensics report indicating that the grenade was US issue, and Speer's death thus likely accidental 'friendly fire'.

However, he never got a chance to present that evidence in court.

Now you tell me that's not suspiciously like a coverup!!

It sounds to me like the defense lawyer was saying he had evidence in his client's favor, which most defense lawyers claim. I guess we don't need trials any more, though; according to your logic here, we can simply base the verdict on what the defense lawyer tells the press.

Again, I have provide the links earlier and I am not interested in arguing with people who haven't read the reports from court.

Either you are looking for the truth, or you prefer to be part of the coverup.

That's your choice.

Yes, of course. Because if anyone's "truth" isn't your "truth," they "prefer to be part of the coverup."

Enough said.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children and war crmes ...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55047.php

"Shall juveniles committing war crimes be prosecuted? If not, is there a danger that warlords may delegate more atrocities to be committed by child soldiers?"

"One may argue that child recruitment into armed forces is in itself a war crime, and that child soldiers are overwhelmingly victims rather than perpetrators and should therefore not be prosecuted," the authors say. "Yet such impunity may encourage military commanders to delegate the 'dirtiest' orders to child soldiers. In that way, a decision not to prosecute child perpetrators would indirectly expose child soldiers to more risks rather than protecting them."

I think the authors conclusion is completely wrong in this article: If child soldiers are immune from war crimes, it does not mean that the warlords can send them into the worst situations with impunity. What it means is that there is no one standing between the warlord and the deed to shoulder the blame for the crimes. That, I think, would be very poor strategic thinking on any warlords part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are intentionally confusing and misleading people. Did you look at the picture, or are you just winging it?

I've looked at the picture plus the many more that were taken by US forces, most as they were working on saving young mr Khadr, I've aslo seen first hand poeple shot dozens of times, so although i may not be a forensics expert but i have been trained to tell the difference on a exit and entrance wound.....So to answer your question no i'm not winging it....

Obviously Omar was shot in the back during the fight, fell, and at some point was covered in rubble, presumably from a grenade, since he also had shrapnel wounds in his eyes.

Have you seen anyone shot by a 5.56 mm round, this is not the movies, if he was shot in the back he would have been thrown to the ground face first...lets not forget he was shot multiple times....the odds of him landing on his back as you suggest is very unlikely....So if he was covered in rubble as one statement suggests he would have been laying face down....and yet he was not...Thats a problem.....

Later you claim the wounds are covered in dust....well once again read your statements, tthe part about firing a few rounds down the lane way, the soldier sight is obscured by the amount of dust raised by firing his wpn...this dust affectionately known as Poo dust , is like talcum powdered, about 6 in thick in most places, just walking in the stuff can raise or reduce visability, and it gets on or coats everything it touches....moving Omar to a safe area to medically work on him would have been enough to coat the wounds....that and the fact that when performing first aid, one does have to check and treat both wounds exit and entrance which could involve rolling him over...into guess what the Poo dust.....

There are so many madeup versions of this around, though, it's hard to get to the truth. I prefer the court reports (under oath), and I think the picture speaks for itself re the sequence of events: Omar wasn't throwing any grenade at the end of that fight.

Just to make things clear making a false written statement carries the same punishment as making one under oath,sitting in front of the court....The picture explains nothing except clearly showing he was shot in the back....

Plus the fact that only one soldier out of the 4 that where there or seen the entire thing has changed thier statement....the other 3 have not....my question to you is why is this one statement true and the others false....what fact or piece of evidence changed your mind....

I have never said Omar should be "set free". In fact, I believe his best chance was in court. Once there, it was definitely looking like he was innocent, so (I believe) Obama pulled the plug on the trial to avoid the embarrassment to the US in a public court.

Thats exactly what is going to happen if he is brought to Canada and put on trial here. we all know that key evidence has been ruled out , as torture was involved ....he'll be found inocent and set free to roam your neiborhood....back with his family who loves thier new country, well everything except our way of life, did i mention us as well....I'm sure a young man with a bone to pick with not only the US but Canadians as well, will make an ideal next door neibor....

There is great danger in speculation and fabrication, because if it turns out we're wrong, as i believe, then we're real stinkers ... like now.

And if we are right, and he is set free to carry out his mytradom on some high value target.....i just hope it's not my neiborhood. And i will add this ....your Apology will mean squat to those lives omar takes ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...