bleeding heart Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes. thanks to some (rather wavering) eyewitness accounts (which are notoriously unreliable in the best of cases, not so incidentally)...and a confession which may well have been coerced under torture. Mr. Arar "confessed" to being a terrorist operative, I remember. (And who can blame the poor guy?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) and while they continue to exist , in your mind what do they control parts of afghanistan and pakistan what government do they form..... the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, aka the Taleban government or when others don't like it Regime while they continue to combat ISAF and Afghanis governmental forces in Afghanistan they form no party that has any legal rights any where... You just arn't recognizing them cause it substantiates your position, that position doesn't reflect reality though. Even the installed Afghan government forces are killing Nato states solidiers. Your right the state of Aghanistan still exists but it is controled by the elected government of Afghanistan.... The elections were rigged. Afghanistan remains a split state with groups both for and against the government. They work with the Taleban as well as US led coalition forces. perhaps you can provide a source that states something else.... There are lots of sources http://www.mei.edu/c...tic-development http://www.wsws.org/.../afgh-s29.shtml http://rt.com/news/a...withdrawal-894/ http://dawn.com/2012...nment-collapse/ http://www.reuters.c...66672._CH_.2400 etc.. The general concensus is Hamid is a puppet propped up by NATO. Without the bribes nato has been dishing out.. and if you doubt that the government is incredibly corrupt receiving payola then that is a whole different absence of your awareness. Fact is there is massive hate of the NATO forces within the Afghan puppet government and that is the best nato could do. Also it is currious 5 of 7 of Hamids sibblings live in the United States. Also that the NLF was CIA backed and a route for the US resistance funding of the mujahadeen. Hamid was the director of that group and clearly has direct and long term connections with the CIA since the 80's. Connections that had him within the US government in the 1990's including speaking to the US senate. maybe the 100,000 topics in goggle are wrong.... yes most certainly, why don't you post up some of these trusted links that substantiate your side of events. But don't post up any news from a NATO country. Research how the Bonn Conference 2001 came into being and who was pro US / pro west at the conference and who was not. Then look at the events of the 2004 elections - which saw NATO disallowing specific candidates because they were not pro west. Then look at the 2009 election rigging reports. What don't you understand? Those are them free elections of the people who will vote for us elections right? What we will do is just not let anyone run that people will vote for other than the person we want to win, then it will be a fair election right? Fair for us because we'd just have to kill the guy .. Hamid = CIA collaborator for the past 40+ years, and that is the reason NATO let him be where he is. He has been working for the CIA longer than he has been working for the Afghan government. Edited October 12, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Yes. thanks to some (rather wavering) eyewitness accounts (which are notoriously unreliable in the best of cases, not so incidentally)...and a confession which may well have been coerced under torture. Mr. Arar "confessed" to being a terrorist operative, I remember. (And who can blame the poor guy?) the same arar who omar after torture identified as a terrorist...you torture someone long enough they'll tell you anything you want to hear... tell them to confess or spend the next 40 yrs in prison and they'll do that as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 parts of afghanistan and pakistan Quote what government do they form..... the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, aka the Taleban government or when others don't like it Regime Which is recogonized where exactly, what legal authority do they have and over whom..... You just arn't recognizing them cause it substantiates your position, that position doesn't reflect reality though. Even the installed Afghan government forces are killing Nato states solidiers. They are not recognized , because they were removed form power by the coalition forces you remember the invasion part of this conversation right.... If it does not reflect reality do they hold a seat in the UN, are they recognized by any nation as the legit Afghan government...if so by which country...History is full of disposed governments, those that are still recognized still hold a seat of power ....the Taliban are now just a group of thugs hanging out in Pakistan, occassionally attacking afghanistan... Yes there has been cases of green on blue attacks, but you have to remember there is over 300,000 afghan government miltary personal, and has you put it there is wide spread hate of NATO forces, if that was the case why is there not more cases of these attacks, why have they just not asked NATO to leave....instead of dreading the day NATO leaves....Your making assumptions again..... The elections were rigged. There were some issues with the election process. it's all been recorded , but even with your sources they have failed to declare the whole process a failure, nor have they declared the results Bullshit.....And yet the current government is still in power and recognized by the wait for it...the UN, and how many other nations..... Afghanistan remains a split state with groups both for and against the government. They work with the Taleban as well as US led coalition forces. Sounds something like "wholly shit" Canada..... the general concensus is Hamid is a puppet propped up by NATO. Without the bribes nato has been dishing out.. and if you doubt that the government is incredibly corrupt receiving payola then that is a whole different absence of your awareness. Fact is there is massive hate of the NATO forces within the Afghan puppet government and that is the best nato could do. The general concenus , made up of whom....who was involved in this poll...which nations took part.....or are you just including people on this forum.... Also it is currious 5 of 7 of Hamids sibblings live in the United States. Also that the NLF was CIA backed and a route for the US resistance funding of the mujahadeen. Hamid was the director of that group and clearly has direct and long term connections with the CIA since the 80's. Connections that had him within the US government in the 1990's including speaking to the US senate. I think your forgetting that the conflict in afghan has been ongoing for 30 plus years so yes there are alot of aghanis how have involvement with the US, Russian governments in the past, but your suggesting with out any proof that the current government should be discounted because of some election tampering....and that some how and i'm not sure how the taliban have some legitimate hold of power in Afghan...when really they are mostly confined to the hills carring out insurgent activities.... yes most certainly, why don't you post up some of these trusted links that substantiate your side of events. But don't post up any news from a NATO country. I've done that but some how you have failed to either not read them or failed to comprehend them.....and while WIKI may not be the most trusted the info i've posted is historic data. Hamid = CIA collaborator for the past 40+ years, and that is the reason NATO let him be where he is. He has been working for the CIA longer than he has been working for the Afghan government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Which is recogonized where exactly, what legal authority do they have and over whom..... States are self recognized. Read a little bit about what a state is, what is required to be a state and get back. Fact is people don't like recognizing new states. If I am self recognized as state XYZ and you don't like state XYZ you can say I don't recognize that state, but the fact is, it is a state because it is self recognized, and it is only politics stopping the second point of statehood, a willingness to communicate. A state can possess the willingness to communicate and thus be a state, but others not willing to communicate limits the external recognition of that state. You just see only real countries are states, false. Only totalitarian governments won't let the world be free and force conformity. Take for example the US negotiating with the Taleban as a party of war. Other countries recognize(d) the Emirate for example Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the third one. I also do not doubt it is a state. Its just politics at play not legality. They were a government. They still exercise as a government in a warzone, although their scope is limited externally. They are not recognized , because they were removed form power by the coalition forces you remember the invasion part of this conversation right.... No they still have power. If it does not reflect reality do they hold a seat in the UN The UN is a members only club, while China was not a member it was definately a state so your point is irrelevant. Fact is a lot more governments exist than the UN recognizes, or than Canada recognizes, this doesn't make them any less real. , are they recognized by any nation as the legit Afghan government...if so by which country...History is full of disposed governments, those that are still recognized still hold a seat of power ....the Taliban are now just a group of thugs hanging out in Pakistan, occassionally attacking afghanistan... You could say that of the Canadian government too. It is all perspective, what matters are the essential legal elements that make a state or a government, that's it. Yes there has been cases of green on blue attacks, but you have to remember there is over 300,000 afghan government miltary personal, and has you put it there is wide spread hate of NATO forces, if that was the case why is there not more cases of these attacks, Why don't more people shoot cops? Why arn't bullets put through lawyers and politicians on a daily basis? People don't think their life is worth killing the other person over. Sense of duty, religious grounds, who knows. If people just killed everyone they hated it'd be a different world. Killing people has to work in the big scope of individuals values. why have they just not asked NATO to leave Some have. As I said though NATO has both propped up Karzai and put a lot of money in, now that develop projects are winding down their use for NATO will be less. There were some issues with the election process. it's all been recorded , but even with your sources they have failed to declare the whole process a failure,A rigged election is a rigged election, its the same as here in Canada. It isn't a fair and free election if it is rigged and candidates don't have access to run. Very few countries do, this doesn't make it any less of an issue. The general concenus , made up of whom....who was involved in this poll...which nations took part.....or are you just including people on this forum.... people who know. I think your forgetting that the conflict in afghan has been ongoing for 30 plus years so yes there are alot of aghanis how have involvement with the US, Russian governments in the past, but your suggesting with out any proof that the current government should be discounted because of some election tampering.... Without any proof? It is well documented NATO disallowed specific candidates from running including threatening people. and while WIKI may not be the most trusted the info i've posted is historic data. Wiki is totally tainted and incomplete, it is aligned with only pro west statements and they lock pages that are politically charged and force a pro west position, likewise they remove edits that arn't pro west. Edited October 13, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) I've said dozens of times i do not agree with everything that has happened to Omar, as it has been stated in the media his re education will commence very soon under the Canadian system. And while his situation was not all of his making "HE" has made some bad choices along this journey as well, those are the ones i would like to see him held accountable.... I've said dozens of times i do not agree with everything that has happened to Omar, as it has been stated in the media his re education will commence very soon under the Canadian system. And while his situation was not all of his making "HE" has made some bad choices along this journey as well, those are the ones i would like to see him held accountable.... You don't think he's been "held accountable" yet?Shot in the back 3 times, no pain killers, 'interrogation' that amounted to torture, 10 years in Gitmo + 8 year sentence ... What do you mean by "held accountable"? What more should they do to him? Edited October 13, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I hope that he is put under 24 hour surviellance as well as gps anklet monitored. he is a threat to national security. He may well try to set up a terrorist cell here in Canada once he is released. We must be vigilant against this convicted war criminal and terrorist. He is dangerous and deadly. A trained bomb maker. He is the face of the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 I hope that he is put under 24 hour surviellance as well as gps anklet monitored. he is a threat to national security. He may well try to set up a terrorist cell here in Canada once he is released. We must be vigilant against this convicted war criminal and terrorist. He is dangerous and deadly. A trained bomb maker. He is the face of the enemy. If he's the face of the enemy then we havn't got a hell of a lot to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 If he's the face of the enemy then we havn't got a hell of a lot to worry about. He has already killed. Plus dear Omar is an experienced bomb maker with a radical Islamic ideology. If this doesn't worry you then nothing can. His mother has instilled an ideology in him that states that Canadian kids raised in Canada will all become homosexuals and drug addicts by the time they are 13. She has said this. He is very dangerous. Paul Bernardo looked innocent too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 I hope that he is put under 24 hour surviellance as well as gps anklet monitored. he is a threat to national security. He may well try to set up a terrorist cell here in Canada once he is released. We must be vigilant against this convicted war criminal and terrorist. He is dangerous and deadly. A trained bomb maker. He is the face of the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) He has already killed. Plus dear Omar is an experienced bomb maker with a radical Islamic ideology. If this doesn't worry you then nothing can. His mother has instilled an ideology in him that states that Canadian kids raised in Canada will all become homosexuals and drug addicts by the time they are 13. She has said this. He is very dangerous. Paul Bernardo looked innocent too. That is a whole different issue. First off he shouldn't be held under a foreign sentence, the whole concept is bogus. However, under security certificate grounds, it would be possible to persue protections for the sake of national security. One has to question the reasonable grounds, as basically it would constitute an unlawful search or violation of his constitutional rights. Get the hell out of the country if you don't beleive in the constitution. People like you ruin this country by washing away freedoms and protections we all should enjoy. If he wanted to kill people he'd be attempting it in gitmo. section 21 of the CSIS Act 21. (1) Where the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16, the Director or employee may, after having obtained the approval of the Minister, make an application in accordance with subsection (2) to a judge for a warrant under this section. Matters to be specified in application for warrant (2) An application to a judge under subsection (1) shall be made in writing and be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant deposing to the following matters, namely, (a) the facts relied on to justify the belief, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16; (b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears that they are unlikely to succeed, that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation using only other investigative procedures or that without a warrant under this section it is likely that information of importance with respect to the threat to the security of Canada or the performance of the duties and functions under section 16 referred to in paragraph (a) would not be obtained; (c) the type of communication proposed to be intercepted, the type of information, records, documents or things proposed to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) proposed to be exercised for that purpose; (d) the identity of the person, if known, whose communication is proposed to be intercepted or who has possession of the information, record, document or thing proposed to be obtained; (e) the persons or classes of persons to whom the warrant is proposed to be directed; (f) a general description of the place where the warrant is proposed to be executed, if a general description of that place can be given; (g) the period, not exceeding sixty days or one year, as the case may be, for which the warrant is requested to be in force that is applicable by virtue of subsection (5); and (h) any previous application made in relation to a person identified in the affidavit pursuant to paragraph (d), the date on which the application was made, the name of the judge to whom each application was made and the decision of the judge thereon. Issuance of warrant (3) Notwithstanding any other law but subject to the Statistics Act, where the judge to whom an application under subsection (1) is made is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing the persons to whom it is directed to intercept any communication or obtain any information, record, document or thing and, for that purpose, (a) to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing; (b) to search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information, record, document or thing; or (c) to install, maintain or remove any thing. Matters to be specified in warrant (4) There shall be specified in a warrant issued under subsection (3) (a) the type of communication authorized to be intercepted, the type of information, records, documents or things authorized to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) authorized to be exercised for that purpose; (b) the identity of the person, if known, whose communication is to be intercepted or who has possession of the information, record, document or thing to be obtained; (c) the persons or classes of persons to whom the warrant is directed; (d) a general description of the place where the warrant may be executed, if a general description of that place can be given; (e) the period for which the warrant is in force; and (f) such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable in the public interest. Maximum duration of warrant (5) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection (3) for a period exceeding (a) sixty days where the warrant is issued to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada within the meaning of paragraph (d) of the definition of that expression in section 2; or (b) one year in any other case. 1984, c. 21, s. 21. Renewal of warrant 22. On application in writing to a judge for the renewal of a warrant issued under subsection 21(3) made by a person entitled to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Minister, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection 21(5) if satisfied by evidence on oath that (a) the warrant continues to be required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16; and (b) any of the matters referred to in paragraph 21(2)(b) are applicable in the circumstances. 1984, c. 21, s. 22. Warrant authorizing removal 23. (1) On application in writing by the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose, a judge may, if the judge thinks fit, issue a warrant authorizing the persons to whom the warrant is directed to remove from any place any thing installed pursuant to a warrant issued under subsection 21(3) and, for that purpose, to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing. Matters to be specified in warrants (2) There shall be specified in a warrant issued under subsection (1) the matters referred to in paragraphs 21(4)(c) to (f). 1984, c. 21, s. 23. <a href="http://www.csis-scrs...cle-24">Warrant to have effect notwithstanding other laws 24. Notwithstanding any other law, a warrant issued under section 21 or 23 (a) authorizes every person or person included in a class of persons to whom the warrant is directed, (i) in the case of a warrant issued under section 21, to exercise the powers specified in the warrant for the purpose of intercepting communications of the type specified therein or obtaining information, records, documents or things of the type specified therein, or (ii) in the case of a warrant issued under section 23, to execute the warrant; and (b) authorizes any other person to assist a person who that other person believes on reasonable grounds is acting in accordance with such a warrant. 1984, c. 21, s. 24. =---------------------------------------------------= Anyone with half a brain can make a bomb given the proper components. Do you honestly think Omar is going to get out after over a decade and start making bombs in Toronto? If you start criminalizing people who know you are an idiot. These things are not complex, and based on your statements you would likely fall into this same trap. MAKING PEOPLE STUPID IS NOT THE ANSWER. FREE PEOPLE AND WE WILL BE FREE. Jack the ripper could accomplish more than any bomb Omar is making. It is incredibly easy to kill people. Those sorts of IED's were to fight solidiers not civillians. "threats to the security of Canada" means (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage, (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person, (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). R.S., 1985, c. C-23, s. 2; 2001, c. 41, s. 89 What of those things does Omar represent? Edited October 14, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 States are self recognized. Read a little bit about what a state is, what is required to be a state and get back. Fact is people don't like recognizing new states. If I am self recognized as state XYZ and you don't like state XYZ you can say I don't recognize that state, but the fact is, it is a state because it is self recognized, and it is only politics stopping the second point of statehood, a willingness to communicate. A state can possess the willingness to communicate and thus be a state, but others not willing to communicate limits the external recognition of that state. You just see only real countries are states, false. Only totalitarian governments won't let the world be free and force conformity. The state of Afghan already existed and was created in 1709 , By Mirwais Hotak declares Afghanistan (land of the Afghans) an independent state and establishes the Hotaki dynasty at Kandahar.....so there was no need to recognize the state itself, as it had already existed...... What i was reffing to was the offical recoginition of the government itself, And just like the Taliban when it formed the Afghani Government in September 1996, government officials of the Islamic State of Afghanistan under Burhanuddin Rabbani were displaced by forces of the Taliban. The United Nations refused to recognize the Taliban government, instead it recognized the Islamic State as the official government government in exile. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy could be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions. The Taliban controlled 95% of the territory by 2001 and only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized them as the government of Afghanistan. The remaining 5% belonged to rebel forces that became known as the Northern Alliance. Which creates a problem does it not, 3 nations out of the entire UN refused to recognize the Taliban as the offical government of Afghanistan....But rather recognized the Burhanuddin Rabbani has the government in exile....The same situation as you proclaim the Taliban are in today the government in exile.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Afghanistan I know you don't like wiki, but this info is basic and available on hundreds of others.... And yet according to you this works for only the Taliban....But lets also make some other connections that you have pinned on the current government ....You've mentioned and not yet "proved" CIA involvement in the creation of the current government....And yet failed to mention the huge role Pakistan and their ISI played in sustaining the taliban government with not only funding, equipment and supplies, direct military assistance, planning , and providing manpower ....these roles were reported by Human rights watch, and many other sources....You see the Taliban were not elected by the people of Aghanistan, but rather siezed power via force....which i assume you think is alright, but god forbid you have some election irregularities.... http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban So i want to take us back to the beginning of the current governments history....in December 2001, the German city of Bonn hosted a conference of Afghan leaders at Hotel Petersberg, to choose the leader of an Afghan Interim Authority – widely known as the Bonn Conference.[1] The Conference chose Hamid Karzai, who was subsequently elected President in 2004. I checked the names mentioned in the link below, and none of them were working for the CIA at the time, nor was there any CIA members at the conference at the time....Instead Afghanis politicians who got together and decided who would assume the role of interm leader....that deligation choose Hamid Karzai, as the best canidate....All this was done under UN auspices ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Afghanistan,_Bonn_(2001) In December 2001, a number of prominent Afghans met under UN auspices in Bonn, Germany, to decide on a plan for governing the country; as a result, the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) - made up of 30 members, headed by a chairman - was inaugurated on 22 December 2001 with a six-month mandate to be followed by a two-year Transitional Authority (TA), after which elections are to be held. One of the sections of the Bonn Agreement[1] envisaged the establishment of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.[2] Resolution 1386 of the United Nations Security Council subsequently established ISAF. Before the election of 2004, Karzai led the country after being chosen by delegates of the Bonn Conference in December 2001 to head an interim government after the removal of the Taliban Emirate. Just wanted to put this in here again, note it says that the Taliban Emirate had been removed, and replaced by a new government.....under the UN so i guess this links them to this conspiracy theory of yours as well... This is followed by a Transitional Administration which was to serve for a 2 year period.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Transitional_Administration This all goes to prove that your orginal statement that Omar was acting in self defence is false, just not possiable.... ....that the government of Afghan at that time was in fact the only legal version, there was no taliban in waiting or excile they had been removed from power and done so under the watchful eye of the UN themselfs.... with the new government formed under the same watchful eye of the UN..... So with the government of Hamid Karzai up and running , Omar could not have been acting in self defense as the Taliban were removed.....and a new government put in place.....one that had decreed that terroist groups and insurgent fighters such as the Taliban were not to be tolerated, and had asked ISAF for assistance in assisting with gain control of the security of the nation..... In english that means Omar and his good buddies were fugitives from the law....and were being hunted down for thier activities....which included terrorizing the people of Afghanistan....now it is kind of hard to get a self defence judgement on that....and if one was granted, then all fugitives could claim the same thing and gun down government forces as they seemed fit..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 This all goes to prove that your orginal statement that Omar was acting in self defence is false, just not possiable.... ....that the government of Afghan at that time was in fact the only legal version, there was no taliban in waiting or excile they had been removed from power and done so under the watchful eye of the UN themselfs.... with the new government formed under the same watchful eye of the UN..... So with the government of Hamid Karzai up and running , Omar could not have been acting in self defense as the Taliban were removed.....and a new government put in place.....one that had decreed that terroist groups and insurgent fighters such as the Taliban were not to be tolerated, and had asked ISAF for assistance in assisting with gain control of the security of the nation..... In english that means Omar and his good buddies were fugitives from the law....and were being hunted down for thier activities....which included terrorizing the people of Afghanistan....now it is kind of hard to get a self defence judgement on that....and if one was granted, then all fugitives could claim the same thing and gun down government forces as they seemed fit..... Geeze, someone forgot to inform the occupants of that mud hut that the government had changed and they were to obey whatever the foreign army approaching their home demanded. Because Afghanistan was such a stable country to begin with, eh? And with such advanced modes of communication.... How could they have missed the news? I guess Omar's guardians hadn't read that day's edition of The Khost Chronicles, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 The state of Afghan already existed and was created in 1709 , You don't understand. States needn't be confined by geographic boundaries. Any true state is not limited by political boundaries except out of respect for other states. Government is over poeple. Jurisdiction is over territory. States are free, if you don't understand it is because you don't understand statehood. You line of argument is political not legal. You've mentioned and not yet "proved" CIA involvement in the creation of the current government *Bidden Smile* I checked the names mentioned in the link below, and none of them were working for the CIA at the time, nor was there any CIA members at the conference at the time You failed the main question though, how did the Bonn Conference come about, the dispute over who was pro west and who was not is another question, and needn't be who was CIA, that was never the question so it is a bit of a false dichotomy but one that could be returned to. Also don't use NATO links, wikipedia is included as a NATO link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 *Bidden Smile* You failed the main question though, how did the Bonn Conference come about, the dispute over who was pro west and who was not is another question, and needn't be who was CIA, that was never the question so it is a bit of a false dichotomy but one that could be returned to. Also don't use NATO links, wikipedia is included as a NATO link. Your right i don't understand and can not find a link that explains it in the context your explaining it....Give me an example of a state that is not confined by boundries ie borders....From the sources i've found so far Government have control only have control of people within it's borders, and only have Jurisdiction within it's borders...they do have limited control over it's citizens outside those zones but that is it... So explain to me how this small band of taliban still have political or governmental control over anyone in afghan.... How the Bonn conference came about , it's spelled out in the links i gave you....The Un decided that instead of creating elcections right away within Afghan and have the country split on culture divides , it was decided to gradually build into it. allow the political system to mature and grow....no mention of any CIA involvement....Take a look at thos names that are provided in those links they are not all pro west....in fact some of them are clearly anti west...and wanted nothing to do with the proclaimed ISAF / UN plan.... Sorry but NATO links it is, don't like them then provide your own links that dispute them...Thats what debating is all about is it not.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 Geeze, someone forgot to inform the occupants of that mud hut that the government had changed and they were to obey whatever the foreign army approaching their home demanded. Because Afghanistan was such a stable country to begin with, eh? And with such advanced modes of communication.... How could they have missed the news? I guess Omar's guardians hadn't read that day's edition of The Khost Chronicles, eh? Thats a croak of shit, and you know it.....everyone in the country knew that Coalition forces had invaded and disposed of the current government....that much was being broadcasted via taliban communications systems, plus the regular comms network you know radio, TV, even in the mosques....they knew exactly what was going they new that ISAF was hunting down bomb making operations and they were one of them, they knew ISAF would hand them over to the government of Afghanistan, and they did not treat insurgents very well....no they knew the score, hence we they decided to take they're chances and open fire first..... They did'nt read the news, thats pretty thin even for you Radsickle.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Anyone with half a brain can make a bomb given the proper components. Do you honestly think Omar is going to get out after over a decade and start making bombs in Toronto? If you start criminalizing people who know you are an idiot. These things are not complex, and based on your statements you would likely fall into this same trap. MAKING PEOPLE STUPID IS NOT THE ANSWER. FREE PEOPLE AND WE WILL BE FREE. Jack the ripper could accomplish more than any bomb Omar is making. It is incredibly easy to kill people. Those sorts of IED's were to fight solidiers not civillians. The problem is not making the bombs but having the will to use them to promote your aims, regardless of the cost or victims....Omar and his buddies planted IED's and mines that claimed far more civilians than soldiers....most were victim operated, meaning all that was required was for someone to run over them, planted on roads and paths that had more civilian traffic on them than military....your claim that they were meant to fight soldiers is false...they're number one goal was to promote terror among'st the civilians.........killing soldiers was an added bonus.....To them this was all a game to see how many they could kill, that takes a special person to be that cold hearted....you could see that in the way they built their devices, with secondary devices more powerful than the orginal designed to kill first responders....which was normally ambulance staff, people on the scene trying to help, fire dept....real nice guys your buddy Omar....which is why ISAF spent so much funding and resources hunting these guys down... Edited October 15, 2012 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 According to the Military Commission Trial the goal of his making and planting of mines was directed towards the killing of US military personnel. This was stated over and over again in the trial transcripts and at no time was OK accused of any deaths (anyones military or civilian) resulting from the mines he was accused (and pled guilty) to planting. The crimes of others should be laid squarly on the shoulders of the others committing the crimes. Not piled onto OK just because he's the only guy available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 According to the Military Commission Trial the goal of his making and planting of mines was directed towards the killing of US military personnel. This was stated over and over again in the trial transcripts and at no time was OK accused of any deaths (anyones military or civilian) resulting from the mines he was accused (and pled guilty) to planting. The crimes of others should be laid squarly on the shoulders of the others committing the crimes. Not piled onto OK just because he's the only guy available. Like i said the mines that Omar planted are victim operated ....they do not just explode when US military pers run over them...He placed them on a Hyway, that had about 90 % civilian traffic on it ....And he knew that, as he often worked gathering intel on US military traffic patterns.....But it's nice to know that it was his intention only to kill US military pers....i wonder did he stay on the side of the road to warn civilians of the mines , did he place a sign to warning them...or did he plant them just seconds brfore US pers arrived.... Kind of like leaving a loaded wpn on the living room table, in a house full of kids....hoping they won't touch it..... ISAF keeps detailed records of every IED or mine that is detonated, but it is extremily hard to prove who planted them unless caught in the act....or the IED has a signature to a certain bomber....I wonder how many were recorded in the area that this bomb cell woked in.... The area OK makes his vidio of planting mines, the next morning US forces hit one in that area, Omar was not accused of planting those mines has there was no hard evidence....But odds are it was his group, as they were the only one in that area....they knew it was his group but could not prove it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Omar was not accused of planting those mines has there was no hard evidence....But odds are it was his group Child soldiers don't generally lead groups. They are indoctrinated and told what to do. There is a protocol on how to deal with child soldiers that the Americans and Canadians ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Why is it ok for the US to slaughter civilians wholesale with their drone strikes, but Omar Khadr, the child pawn of al Qaeda, is vilified for setting up landmines in areas heavily patrolled by US troops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Army Guy, I'd still like an answer ... What more do you think should be done to hold 12-15 year old Omar Khadr accountable for his actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Child soldiers don't generally lead groups. They are indoctrinated and told what to do. There is a protocol on how to deal with child soldiers that the Americans and Canadians ignored. It was not my intention to mislead the reader into thinking Omar was the leader of the bomb making group, And he did do what his was told, planted mines on a busy hyway knowing very well the results of his actions....That was my intention.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Why is it ok for the US to slaughter civilians wholesale with their drone strikes, but Omar Khadr, the child pawn of al Qaeda, is vilified for setting up landmines in areas heavily patrolled by US troops? Here is another example of the expectations of western Civilians on how ISAF is expected to run the WAR, Surgical strikes, no civilian cas, no killing of child soldiers, the list goes on....Insurgents are responable for 80 % of the civilian deaths ....thats a huge number.... While it is tragic that civilians are killed in any military operation, it is going to happen regardless of what wpn system you use....there is no perfect system that will kill only bad guys....those drone attacks are the result of months of Intel gathering , tracking down elusive high value targets, that are the command and control of terrorist insurgents....they are responable for the most part of thousands of civilian deaths.....after a risk mangement acessment the orders are given.....And while you may not like them, they are legal, and fall under the ROE's for the nation carrying them out.... Omar on the other did operate for one of the worlds largest terrorist networks, and was classified as an insurgent, or illigal combatant.....are you saying that he and they're operating proceedures are legal or perhaps should be legal think about that for a minute....that would mean that anyone could kill anyone at anytime by any means without legal action being taken again'st them....that would mean throwing out the conventions, or inter national law.... There are laws and for the most part they are designed to protect non combatants.....without them armies could kill wholesale, much like the monguls did or Hilter did with the unwanted of his world.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 What more should be done to Omar Khadr, Army Guy? 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.