Omar is back

[bleeding heart]

Considering who the people responsible for the investigation/report interviewed, I just don't see much likelihood of them erring in that direction; so while one can't rule out the possibility on a "never say never" basis, it's hardly by "exactly the same token."

On the contrary, the word "terrorist" should have some actual meaning...and declarations by leaders about Intel is not even a faint approximation of "truth" or "fact."

What, exactly, are our criteria for determining who is a legitmiate target (adn who isn't a legitimate target?)

If it comes down to blind trust of our governments, than we have abandoned democatic principles by definition, and become servile little servants of Power.

It's not as if our leaving, discontinuing our actions, will prevent the death of innocent civilians - doing so could ultimately result in more civilian deaths, especially in the long run.

Yes, it's possible, and the situation is a difficult one whichever way you slice it.

That in no way determines that there is a default setting in which our current behaviour must be more or less correct.

I get the feeling that many, many of the critical are critical mostly for the sake of being critical of the U.S./coalition, however.

I, on the other hand, suspect it's a vanishingly small number.

Or perhaps it's a side-effect that those who are prone to side with the terrorists will do just that - and we must deal with that aspect along with the rest. Doing nothing is obviously not going to accomplish anything. I doubt you can argue that.

I don't argue it; except that increasing terrorism is not a side effect, but a total failure. And "siding with the terrorists" can be the result of watching one's loved ones obliterated, not simply religious/cultural adherence to terrorist behaviour becauseof....some force, some cultural perversity that makes no sense to us.

- and as if our actions, our desires, are no different from theirs.

Well, they often are, but not always--we too have certainly not been shy about collusion in terrorism, mass murder of innocent people, and so on.

So each situation, I think, needs to be carefully parsed and evaluated on its own terms, albeit keeping larger institutional structures, strictures, and motivations in mind.

[Guest American Woman]

On the contrary, the word "terrorist" should have some actual meaning...and declarations by leaders about Intel is not even a faint approximation of "truth" or "fact."

What, exactly, are our criteria for determining who is a legitmiate target (adn who isn't a legitimate target?)

If it comes down to blind trust of our governments, than we have abandoned democatic principles by definition, and become servile little servants of Power.

Again, the investigation/report about drones that was referenced wasn't carried out by our government or Intel.

Yes, it's possible, and the situation is a difficult one whichever way you slice it.

That in no way determines that there is a default setting in which our current behaviour must be more or less correct.

By the same token, the reality that there are civilian deaths because of drone attacks in no way determines that there is a default setting in which our current behavior must be incorrect, evil, equal to, no different than those we are fighting against - which is the way it is being presented by so many.

I, on the other hand, suspect it's a vanishingly small number.

That doesn't surprise me. I, on the other hand, have no problem clearly seeing such criticism for what it is.

I don't argue it; except that increasing terrorism is not a side effect, but a total failure. And "siding with the terrorists" can be the result of watching one's loved ones obliterated, not simply religious/cultural adherence to terrorist behaviour becauseof....some force, some cultural perversity that makes no sense to us.

By the same token, the desire to fight the Taliban/terrorism can be the result of watching one's loved ones obliterated, threatened, and controlled by the Taliban/terrorists - and if there are more dying at the hands of the Taliban/terrorists, as you yourself have said you believe to be true, then there are more who would fight our fight than side with those who are purposely killing even more of their loved ones than we are responsible for.

But of course a declaration of war is going to result in some support on the other side; it's inevitable. To not declare war, to not fight back for that reason, makes no sense. As for "increasing terrorism" - is there? Has there been an increase in terrorism since we began the war on terror?

Well, they often are, but not always--we too have certainly not been shy about collusion in terrorism, mass murder of innocent people, and so on.

I would really appreciate a source that confirms what you are saying - that we have ever, much less "often," made the killing of civilians our goal - much less the killing of civilians for not doing our bidding.

So each situation, I think, needs to be carefully parsed and evaluated on its own terms, albeit keeping larger institutional structures, strictures, and motivations in mind.

Of course it does.

And that means that it's not automatically "bad" just because we are doing it. It's not always automatically the wrong thing to do, just because we are doing it. It's also not automatically wrong because it results in some civilian deaths (for the reasons stated). As I pointed out, there could very well be, likely be, more civilian deaths if these organizations stay in power, indefinitely. If the concern is ultimately for the civilian population, what is the best thing to do? What would ultimately be most likely to provide the most good for the most people?

Edited October 19, 2012 by American Woman

[Army Guy]

It's all moot now.

You don't get the 40 year sentence you want and I don't get the deprogramming/rehab that I think is necessary.

And Omar Khadr never got a life of his own.

Yes it is all moot, although there is suppose to be a rehad program starting up shortly, again i doubt it will do any good, but atleast they can say they have done do diligence .....

None of those kids in Afghan have a life of their own....Omar is just one that has got all the attention.....

[Radsickle]

None of those kids in Afghan have a life of their own....Omar is just one that has got all the attention.....

Omar is just one who is Canadian. Remember?

[Radsickle]

YEs, Compensate him for being a convicted terrorist.. Your disdane for Harper should not implicate my tax dollars.. Thank GOD the Canadians citizens who vote more and more for Harper do not find your ideas appealing.

Im sure the NDP would be in FULL agreement with you... Shamefull

What's shameful is how "disdane" could "implicate" tax dollars. That makes about as much sense as Canadian citizens voting "more and more" for Harper!

I'm sure an English teacher would be in full agreement with you... NOT.

[Army Guy]

Of course the drone strikes don't account for all of the US/coalition activity, either - so it's not representative of the total percentage of civilian/militant/terrorist deaths. Also, it's a matter of opinion if some of the deaths were simply "civilians," making such figures unreliable. I would be curious, also, to know how many more civilians the Taliban/terrorist organizations have killed - uncaring and/or deliberately. I would also hope that in the long run, such organizations will lose their power and their hold over civilians.

I would still like to see a study of whether or not all of the drone strikes are 'necessary' - mainly the secondary strikes, when apparently emergency personnel are going in to assist the wounded and become victims themselves.

According to the stats that are out there from different sources, in 2011, 2010, and 2009 an average of 80 % of all civilian cas were attributed to insurgents. 2011 in the 1 st 6 months 1462 civ deaths, 1167 from insurgents... .....2010.....2777 Cas, of which 2080 were caused by insurgents

2009 ....2412 civ deaths, 1630

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics

The Drone is a wpn system that gives mission planners another tool , this one provides safety for soldiers as they don't need to in most cases cross a border, or hit a target deep behind enemy lines....before drones soldiers used to have to physically cross borders, pentrate enemy lines , get close to the target to laze it so an aircraft could drop a bomb...it posed risks for soldiers on the ground , and pilots....now they just send a machine...

Not all targets are equal, high value targets such as Bin Ladin still get the human touch, as it is more reliable, and confirmation can be made instantly....

[Army Guy]

Omar is just one who is Canadian. Remember?

Yes the Canadian who was conficted of murder, terrorist activites and aiding and abeding the enemy....that guy right....

[Army Guy]

What's shameful is how "disdane" could "implicate" tax dollars. That makes about as much sense as Canadian citizens voting "more and more" for Harper!

I'm sure an English teacher would be in full agreement with you... NOT.

NO whats shameful is agreeing to compensate a conficted terrorist with tax payers dollars....while soldiers who have suffered much worse than our new hero Omar get a standard payout of 250,000 provided they qualify by Vets affairs...

[login]

YEs, Compensate him for being a convicted terrorist.. Your disdane for Harper should not implicate my tax dollars.. Thank GOD the Canadians citizens who vote more and more for Harper do not find your ideas appealing.

Im sure the NDP would be in FULL agreement with you... Shamefull

Who cares if he is a terrorist. Criminals that are abused and have their rights violated are entitled to compensation and an apology also.

People who are violating their rights are human rights abusers, which is on an equal plane or worse.

Defending against a foreign invasion is honourable. You just slap a lable on, fact is he wasn't a terrorist, he wasn't targetting civillians.

The Canadian Forces killed more innocent civillians than Omar Khadr did. Get it straight.

You are speaking from a fantasy standpoint not based in the real world.

You people are disgusting if you think that human rights abuses are ever "ok", they arn't. People like you should be shot.

People with that position are a disease on humanity that must be cured.

Edited October 20, 2012 by login

[bleeding heart]

Again, the investigation/report about drones that was referenced wasn't carried out by our government or Intel.

And so it's accurate...except the civilian deaths part?

That doesn't surprise me. I, on the other hand, have no problem clearly seeing such criticism for what it is.

And this response doesn't surprise me.

But I'm not sure you're seeing things clearly.

By the same token, the desire to fight the Taliban/terrorism can be the result of watching one's loved ones obliterated, threatened, and controlled by the Taliban/terrorists - and if there are more dying at the hands of the Taliban/terrorists, as you yourself have said you believe to be true, then there are more who would fight our fight than side with those who are purposely killing even more of their loved ones than we are responsible for.

That's because, I think, you're looking at things far too simplistically.

I suspect plenty of people hate the Taliban and the NATO coalition, both at once. Not neccessarily an irrational stance.

As for "increasing terrorism" - is there? Has there been an increase in terrorism since we began the war on terror?

It's not in doubt; it's not even a controversial assertion.

The better question is whether or not there's a direct causal link; that we don't know.

I would really appreciate a source that confirms what you are saying - that we have ever, much less "often," made the killing of civilians our goal -.

Please. Reagan arming, training, and funding the terrorist Contras isn't even a secret...and only the most hardcore idiots still support that monstrous idea. That's terrorism by any definition.

But a much bigger, more horrible example is the material aid for Indonesia's State terror against East Timor; terror that couldn't have continued without decisive Western support (both in arms and in diplomatic wrangling). At least a sixth of the population was murdered...perhaps almost as much as a third, much of it by enforced starvation, the rest through mass slaughters. Rape was a common war practice, as we've seen elsewhere. So was torture.

East Timor did nothing to us...and in fact, did nothing to Indonesia. This was the nexus of Imperial and Cold War military politics at its ugliest.

Ford and Kissinger explicitly gave Suharto the go-ahead, as we know now from declassified records...suggesting only that he keep it quiet till the President was back in the US, so that Ford could avoid the domestic embarassment of having green-lighted an illegal invasion and the subsequent murders...which a few countries, including yours and mine, all supported, ensuring diplomatically that the events continued, and supplying the arms necessary to kill all those pesky human beings.

The US, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan knew exactly what was being done with our generous help...and so we kept helping with it.

Paul Wolfowitz, as diplomat, was a major booster of General Suharto, right through the worst excesses.

Before that, US ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then Ambassador to the UN, was charged with making sure the UN remained powerless to stop Indonesia's attempted genocide...as Moynihan pointed out in his memoirs.

In Canada, as in the US (and probably in the other colluders with state terror) there was a little debate noise made, in our respective political Houses, but nothing much. And so it continued.

If it weren't for some leftist activists, some Catholic activists (working outside permission from the Church, I believe, but am not certain) and of course the courageous East Timorese people themselves...well, probably most of them would have been murdered, E. Timor would be an Indonesian Province or territory, and no one would be the wiser.

As it stands, most people don't know, although the information is easily available. Heck, you didn't even know that your own coutnry was an intentional, intrinsic part of one of the worst acts of State terror in the postwar era.

And that means that it's not automatically "bad" just because we are doing it.

???

Of course it's not automatically bad just because we are doing it.

Things are bad, good, a combination, or neutral by virtue of themselves, not by virtue of the agents involved. Of course we agree that far.

What would ultimately be most likely to provide the most good for the most people?

That's the question, the best question, and the one that seems to always have us all vexed.

Edited October 20, 2012 by bleeding heart

[jacee]

What's shameful is how "disdane" could "implicate" tax dollars. That makes about as much sense as Canadian citizens voting "more and more" for Harper!

I'm sure an English teacher would be in full agreement with you... NOT.

NO whats shameful is agreeing to compensate a conficted terrorist with tax payers dollars....while soldiers who have suffered much worse than our new hero Omar get a standard payout of 250,000 provided they qualify by Vets affairs...

Nobody has agreed.

That will be a matter for the courts to decide, in the lawsuit proceedings.

[Guest American Woman]

Omar is just one who is Canadian. Remember?

So what does that have to do with the way he was raised? He was raised in Afghanistan, by his parents. Did he not have a childhood? Sounds as if he certainly did have one that he enjoyed before he made the decision to stay and fight and throw the grenade in the compound that day; in that regard, many almost 16 year old convicted murderers don't have the remaining 'childhood' that those who aren't convicted of such an act do - even Canadians living in Canada.

Are you of the mind that the Canadian government is somehow responsible for his childhood years?

Edited October 20, 2012 by American Woman

[jacee]

... before he made the decision to stay and fight and throw the grenade in the compound that day;

Again ...

At what age did Omar Khadr make a legal decision to "fight"?

You haven't answered that yet.

[Argus]

Omar is just one who is Canadian. Remember?

But largely disowned by most Canadians.

I certainly don't think of him as Canadian.

[Argus]

Who cares if he is a terrorist. Criminals that are abused and have their rights violated are entitled to compensation and an apology also.

People who are violating their rights are human rights abusers, which is on an equal plane or worse.]

That depends on the prisoner, and also on which 'rights' are violated, given the enormous elasticisity some have made of that term.

Defending against a foreign invasion is honourable. You just slap a lable on, fact is he wasn't a terrorist, he wasn't targetting civillians.

If he's an Afghani, which is the only group who can 'defend against a foreign invasion' then we should ship him to Afghanistan.

You people are disgusting if you think that human rights abuses are ever "ok", they arn't. People like you should be shot.

People with that position are a disease on humanity that must be cured.

Sounds like you need to open some concentration camps.

[Guest American Woman]

Again ...

At what age did Omar Khadr make a legal decision to "fight"?

You haven't answered that yet.

If you think I'm interested in responding to your selective responses to all that I've said, while completely ignoring the bulk, guess again.

Edited October 20, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

But largely disowned by most Canadians.

I certainly don't think of him as Canadian.

I doubt if he ever thought of himself as Canadian - until he wanted Canada to come to his rescue. Like father, like son in that respect, I would say.

[jacee]

If you think I'm interested in responding to your selective responses to all that I've said, while completely ignoring the bulk, guess again.

Your bulky posts don't say much.

You're still evading the only question that matters.

[Guest American Woman]

Your bulky posts don't say much.

You're still evading the only question that matters.

I realize that anything that doesn't fit in with your agenda "doesn't matter." That's all too obvious. Of course the 63 page report, including quotes by Omar and comments by experts "doesn't say much either." I get where you're coming from, and knowledge of the whole situation apparently means very little to you.

Yes, it's all so very funny, isn't it? L.O.L.

[jacee]

But largely disowned by most Canadians.

I certainly don't think of him as Canadian.

He is a Canadian citizen, and we've certainly had plenty of discussions about how Canada should handle him. My perception is that there are as many people here defending him as a child soldier as there are 'disowning' him.

Many want to punish his Father for abusing Canadian privileges ... but we do't punish kids for the sins of their Fathers ... to my knowledge.

[Argus]

He is a Canadian citizen, and we've certainly had plenty of discussions about how Canada should handle him. My perception is that there are as many people here defending him as a child soldier as there are 'disowning' him.

Many want to punish his Father for abusing Canadian privileges ... but we do't punish kids for the sins of their Fathers ... to my knowledge.

No, but we punish them for their own sins. I understand how he came to be what he is, but that doesn't change what he is.

As for "omar", he's an Islamist with little knowledge of or interest in Canada beyond a way out of Gitmo and a source of funding. Does he even speak English? In any event, technically, due to lousy immigration laws, he's 'Canadian', but he'll never be a Canadian.

[jacee]

... knowledge of the whole situation apparently means very little to you.

Your evasion of a simple question is quite funny.

Let me make it even simpler, and not ask for a fact but just your opinion:

In your opinion, at what age did Omar Khadr make a legal decision to fight for AlQuaeda/Taliban?

[Argus]

Your evasion of a simple question is quite funny.

Let me make it even simpler, and not ask for a fact but just your opinion:

In your opinion, at what age did Omar Khadr make a legal decision to fight for AlQuaeda/Taliban?

What difference does that actually make? I don't think we're really discussing legal tecnicalities but rather moral imperatives.

Omar Khadr could not help become what he became, I agree. Nevertheless, one could say the same of a variety of child molesters and psychopaths and we still punish them severely. If a 15 year old boy raped and murdered a girl in Canada would you feel sorry for him because of his poor upbringing and demand he be released? Even if he represented a continuing danger?

[Guest American Woman]

And so it's accurate...except the civilian deaths part?

Are you aware of how the information was gathered? Who was interviewed? It appears as if you are not. Note that I'm not arguing that the information put out by our governments/Intel is accurate - and I'm sure you don't, either; and I doubt whether you think terrorists were incorrectly identified as civilians by our governments/Intel; ie: I doubt that you think the inaccuracies lie in that area. The same principle applies to those interviewed for this account. I believe the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

And this response doesn't surprise me.

But I'm not sure you're seeing things clearly.

I didn't expect it to surprise you - not at all. And yes, I'm seeing things quite clearly.

That's because, I think, you're looking at things far too simplistically.

As opposed to your complex thought, no doubt.

I suspect plenty of people hate the Taliban and the NATO coalition, both at once. Not neccessarily an irrational stance.

Have I indicated otherwise? However, if NATO succeeds in removing power from the Taliban/al qaeda, their actions will cease - while if our actions ceased, there would still be many, many civilians deaths and acts of violence directed at them - indefinitely. Until they took it upon themselves to remove them from power, which I doubt would be a peaceful, death-free event for civilians. Yet it remains to be seen that what you "suspect" would be quite obvious. On the other hand, the opposite of your original claim is also true - there are those who appreciate the opportunities now afforded in areas where such forces no longer have the power they used to have, and I think the Malala's of the area could use some help in getting rid of such forces. Can you argue otherwise? From what I've read, it's the militant Islamic right that voices the most objection to the West's actions - as they accuse Malala of being aligned with the West.

In other words, things aren't as simple as you so often present them.

It's not in doubt; it's not even a controversial assertion.

The better question is whether or not there's a direct causal link; that we don't know.

It's not in doubt? We've been experiencing more terrorism since the war against terrorism? And your claim is all the evidence one needs?

Please. Reagan arming, training, and funding the terrorist Contras isn't even a secret...and only the most hardcore idiots still support that monstrous idea. That's terrorism by any definition.

Sigh. Always back to Reagan, eh? I guess that's proof eternal of our evil actions; proof of what we "often" do. I'll address the rest of this later .... heading out now.

[jacee]

No, but we punish them for their own sins.

Yes we certainly have.

I understand how he came to be what he is, but that doesn't change what he is.

That's why assessment and rehabilitation is critical, not just incarceration and release.

As for "omar", he's an Islamist with little knowledge of or interest in Canada beyond a way out of Gitmo and a source of funding.

Evidence? Or is that just your opinion?

Does he even speak English?

You don't know?

In any event, technically, due to lousy immigration laws, he's 'Canadian', but he'll never be a Canadian.

That's what some 'Canadians' have always said about new Canadians.

Nothing new there.