Omar is back

[Signals.Cpl]

And that's just for having opinions. Imagine what you'd want to do if someone destroyed a couple of your skyscrapers full of office workers.

He would ask them about their childhood and cry about how much of a victim each and everyone of them is.

[Guest American Woman]

And that's just for having opinions. Imagine what you'd want to do if someone destroyed a couple of your skyscrapers full of office workers.

You know, I was thinking along those lines, too - so often it seems as if people who have the most difficult time controlling their anger simply because they don't like what someone says, are the first to criticize people for fighting back after innocent people have been purposely targeted, attacked, and killed.

[eyeball]

Charge the parents with indoctrination, wow, that would be a slippery slope.

We dive head first down that slope every time we teach kids that obeying their parents is amongst our highest most cherished values.

Maybe 'child' endangerment although he wasn't a child. I suppose their views haven't changed, he'll be going back to the same atmosphere and beliefs.

He was 8 when the indoctrinating started scriblett, exactly wtf don't you get about that?

Did he go willingly with his father to fight, or was he forced to go under some terrible threat ?

I don't know. You mean you don't know either and yet you're still willing and hoping he'll be punished in either case? What's up with that?

[Signals.Cpl]

We dive head first down that slope every time we teach kids that obeying their parents is amongst our highest most cherished values.

He was 8 when the indoctrinating started scriblett, exactly wtf don't you get about that?

I don't know. You mean you don't know either and yet you're still willing and hoping he'll be punished in either case? What's up with that?

Do you support letting criminals go based on their childhood? If someone was "indoctrinated" since the age of 3 that beating your wife is appropriate who should we consider the victim? The guy who beats his wife because he was indoctrinated or the wife? What about rapists? Or murderers? Or is it just over Khadr that your heart bleeds?

[Deuce]

Coming onto this forum and posting "I don't like this" without evidence or ability to create progressive dialogue is trolling.

So when you enter these types of threads and repeatedly make the same type of comments such as "Is this thread really necessary?", you are in case and point trolling.

Strike 1 for you, Facilitator.

[eyeball]

And that's just for having opinions.

No it's for supporting governments who act on the basis of your opinions actually having any real merit but of course they don't so...

Imagine what you'd want to do if someone destroyed a couple of your skyscrapers full of office workers.

You'd have a point if that was done right out of the blue for no reason, but of course it wasn't so...

[eyeball]

Do you support letting criminals go based on their childhood?

Sometimes.

If someone was "indoctrinated" since the age of 3 that beating your wife is appropriate who should we consider the victim? The guy who beats his wife because he was indoctrinated or the wife? What about rapists? Or murderers?

Both in all cases.

Or is it just over Khadr that your heart bleeds?

That too.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sometimes.

Both in all cases.

That too.

You really are out of touch with reality, aren't you?

[WWWTT]

So from now on we will ask rapists, murderers and every other criminal if they were brainwashed since the age of 8. If they were brainwashed starting at a young age they automatically will be released with a pat on the back and an apology for a crappy childhood?

In Canada if you are under the age of 18 and commit a crime,you are tried as a minor.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

You really are out of touch with reality, aren't you?

Not really, just your's.

[Deuce]

In Canada if you are under the age of 18 and commit a crime,you are tried as a minor.

WWWTT

Unless your crime was so heinous that they may consider trying you as an adult.

[eyeball]

Unless your crime was so heinous that they may consider trying you as an adult.

The key here is may consider. Notwithstanding the initial notification of Omar Khadr's rescue from Al Qaeda, consideration has been utterly and deliberately missing in his case.

[WWWTT]

Unless your crime was so heinous that they may consider trying you as an adult.

Provide a link

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

In Canada if you are under the age of 18 and commit a crime,you are tried as a minor.

WWWTT

And if we follow along with eyeball and his suggestion we won't need to charge anyone since their childhood would be an excuse to do any crime without fear of any consequences.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not really, just your's.

Well there is reality and then there is your reality, I live in the real world where your childhood trauma might be a mitigating factor but is not a blank check to commit any and all crimes wether you are 15, 20 or 50.

[madmax]

Provide a link

WWWTT

Erm, Omar Khadr......

You don't need a link. He was a boy of 15 and was charged with war crimes as an adult enemy combatant.

However minors can be charged as an adult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_as_an_adult

[Signals.Cpl]

The key here is may consider. Notwithstanding the initial notification of Omar Khadr's rescue from Al Qaeda, consideration has been utterly and deliberately missing in his case.

Rescue...lol you are funny...

[Guest American Woman]

Provide a link

The Youth Criminal Justice Act

For nearly 100 years, under both the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act, the law has allowed young persons who are 14 years of age or older to be transferred to the adult court under certain circumstances. If the young person is convicted in adult court, the court can impose an adult sentence. The Youth Criminal Justice Act does not lower the age at which a young person may be subject to an adult sentence.

Under the YOA, if a 16 or 17-year-old is charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault, it is presumed that he or she will be transferred to the adult court and, if convicted, will receive an adult sentence. The presumption does not mean that there will be an automatic adult sentence. It means that the young person must persuade the court that he or she should remain in the youth court.

The YCJA contains some important changes regarding adult sentencing:

The transfer process is eliminated. Instead, the youth court first determines whether or not the young person is guilty of the offence and then, under certain circumstances, the youth court may impose an adult sentence.

A pattern of repeated, serious violent offences is added to the list of offences that give rise to the presumption of an adult sentence.

The age at which the presumption of an adult sentence applies is lowered to 14. However, provinces have the authority to set the age at 15 or 16.The effect is that if a province chooses to set the age at 16, there would be no change from the YOA.

I find this interesting:

The youth incarceration rate is higher in Canada than other Western countries, including the United States.

The youth incarceration rate is higher than the adult incarceration rate in Canada.

[eyeball]

And if we follow along with eyeball and his suggestion we won't need to charge anyone since their childhood would be an excuse to do any crime without fear of any consequences.

You're a liar. I suggested no such thing.

[eyeball]

Well there is reality and then there is your reality, I live in the real world where your childhood trauma might be a mitigating factor but is not a blank check to commit any and all crimes wether you are 15, 20 or 50.

You're full of shit. Where did I ever say it was a blank cheque?

[kraychik]

He's an innocent victim and we're just one more link in the chain of guilty pricks who've been screwing him over.

He has been convicted of murder, and admitted to it. He's also never apologised for it or expressed any remorse for it. I guess somehow that defines him as an "innocent victim" in your leftist mind.

You didn't hear me when I said his mother should be charged with illegally indoctrinating him into becoming a soldier?

Can you show me the law in the Criminal Code which prohibits "illegal indoctrination"? I'm not sure how you can charge someone with a non-existent offence.

[kraychik]

We dive head first down that slope every time we teach kids that obeying their parents is amongst our highest most cherished values.

Good idea. We should use the approach of using the example of Pavlik Morovoz to reach our children to prioritise the state above all other issues, considering this flaw in human nature of having deep connections to one's family.

He was 8 when the indoctrinating started scriblett, exactly wtf don't you get about that?

None of that absolves him of responsibility for his crimes. One of his brothers, Abdurahman I think his name is, rejected the Islamist indoctrination.

Although there's not really much point in discussing this with you, is there? You've already described Khadr as an "innocent victim".

[Deuce]

He has been convicted of murder, and admitted to it. He's also never apologised for it or expressed any remorse for it. I guess somehow that defines him as an "innocent victim" in your leftist mind.

He was convicted in a kangaroo court...

But assuming Omar did lob the grenade, Has the US ever apologized for their actions? Nope. Why? Because, it's all fair in love and war. Why should Khadr apologize in your opinion? The friends/family around him were getting killed and it was a "them (soldiers) or me" situation.

In all honesty I don't see how you would have acted any differently in his shoes, but pray tell.

[kraychik]

He was convicted in a kangaroo court...

No. American military tribunals afford full habeus corpus.

But assuming Omar did lob the grenade, Has the US ever apologized for their actions? Nope. Why? Because, it's all fair in love and war. Why should Khadr apologize in your opinion? The friends/family around him were getting killed and it was a "them (soldiers) or me" situation.

He wasn't adhering to any basic set of standards of morality or law with respect to his participation in armed conflict. I understand the "all's fair in love in war" phrase, and perhaps he should've been left to die on rather than being saved by an American army medic. Lastly, by the time he threw the grenade, he had waited long enough to lead the Americans to believe that hostilities had ceased, so there's not a strong case to be made for him acting in self-defence. More importantly, he was there of his own volition.

In all honesty I don't see how you would have acted any differently in his shoes, but pray tell.

You can ask the same pointless question about any murderer. If I had been in Eric Harris' or Dylan Klebold's shoes, perhaps you'd assert that I would've shot up Columbine High School, as well? It's a ridiculous question with the explicit intent to absolve a murderer or his crimes.

[Deuce]

None of that absolves him of responsibility for his crimes. One of his brothers, Abdurahman I think his name is, rejected the Islamist indoctrination.

His brother (Abdurahman) was older when he he split from the Khadr clan then Omar was when he was captured.

Abdurahman attended numerous AQ training camps, including bomb making, hand to hand combat as well as sniper training. His father signed him up for these.

It was just after 9/11 when the US invaded Afghanistan that Abdurahman was split from the Khadrs and was rounded up by NATO forces.

There Abdurahman had time to reflect on what his father (tried to make him a suicide bomber) had been trying to brainwash into his head for so many years, he realized that he had valuable information and decided to turn "informant" for the CIA.

He didn't choose to split from the Khadr clan, they lost track of each other in the melee that was the US led invasion.

Omar/Abdurahman's father is now dead.

Abdurahman lives in Toronto currently... Where's the rightwingers crying for his deportation?