Omar is back

[guyser]

Please, when quoting me,,, please dont cut and edit to make your point...

Here is my gramatically correct sentence that you butchered to suit your cause:

I suppose there was some sort of a point being attempted?

I guess not

[Peter F]

Google. Use it. in 35s of searching there are a number of people terrorists charged or convicted of murder by the US and other western Nations.

Of course there is. No question about terrorists being charged with murder. But the question is has anyone, terrorist or no, been charged with murder while an unpriveledged combatant - like Mr. Khadr's murder conviction. Perhaps it bears repeating that after 10 years of combat in afghanistan not to mention Iraq, with all the various gunfights and other exchanges of gunfire with insurgents, there has been no one else charged with the same - I assume common - crime of murder while an unprivledged combatant.

[jacee]

Google. Use it. in 35s of searching there are a number of people terrorists charged or convicted of murder by the US and other western Nations.

Prove it.

A link ...?

[jacee]

so he was 10 in 2002? I think your info is a little off...

Now I remember why I had you on ignore. :

I do wish you'd read the thread, read the links and try to comprehend, so I wouldn't have to keep repeating ...

Omar's father put him into Al Quaeda training in Pakistan, and then into combat in Afghanistan in 1996 at 10 years of age.

You want the link?

Read the thread.

Edited October 4, 2012 by jacee

[Fletch 27]

Numerouse...He is a famous one!

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

Prove it.

A link ...?

[Argus]

Just correcting an inaccuracy (okay, several).

If you're talking morality then it's splitting hairs to say a few months matter.

[Argus]

Oddly, Omar's dad started out with the best of intentions.

His dad was an Islamist creep. And so was everyone else the kid saw for most of his life. How else was he supposed to end up?

[Argus]

If I am understanding things correctly, some people on this forum are suggesting a 15 year old cannot make adult choices at all but magically at the age of 18 they suddenly can make "adult" decisions.

No, I don't think Khadr, at 18, would have been any different than Khadr at 15. When immersed in that environment from a very young age you can't be anything else.

So is your position that a 15 year old is too stupid to know the most basic of things? Like the difference between right and wrong

.

If he was brought up here, and just had a crazy father, that would be different. But he was never exposed to any kind of independant thought over there, and all the religious types, who are supposed to the guardians and teachers of morality, were kooks like his father, and telling him that killing infidels and heretics was what God wanted.

I think the age thing is really beside the point. I wouldn't feel any differently about Khadr if he was captured at eighteen or twenty.

[bleeding heart]

When it does not come to whether or not it’s right or wrong but it comes down to being dangerous to the health of developing bodies intervention is required.

Intervention?

You say they're adults.

Alcohol is legal.

why shouldn't they able to consume it?

Then why can’t I go and get some crack cocaine? I’m 25 and am an adult so why is it that I cannot go and purchase it from my neighborhood pharmacy?

Crack is illegal for everybody.

Are you calling for the illegalization of alcohol?

If the age of consent is at age 21 or higher than that becomes irrelevant.

no, because sex of course will still occur--illegally. (There's no way you can possibly disagree with that.)

So if a forty year old has sex with a fifteen year old...the kid is guilty...but the adult isn't?

????

Or are they both equally guilty?

It's ridiculous.

So you think that rights and privileges make an adult? So by your reasoning adult in Ontario are 19 and over because at 18 they are not trusted to make proper decisions regarding drinking and smoking until 19... so how does that work? They are not adults until all their rights and privileges are given to them?

I've said it several times: I don't think anyone should be held to the responsibilities of an adult, unless they are also given the rights of an adult.

Or you give the 15 year old the chance to prove themselves as an adult and punish them if they screw up letting them know what is expected of them.

That's what I've been saying; if your view is that we hold them responsible..then they also get the rights.

Until the age of 19 people are idiots and thus cannot be trusted to be adults?

Ask yourselfthat question: you're the one who said they shouldn't be allowed to drink...or to have sex.

Do you realize how idiotic your argument is? That suddenly on your 18th birthday you become an adult or your 19th birthday in Ontario. Playing the you are not an adult at 17y and 360 days but suddenly you are an adult and should act like one at age 18 is ridiculous.

Christ, Signals, you explicitly endorse age limits.

You don't think they're arbitrary...until you do.

[jacee]

Numerouse...He is a famous one!

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

Sorry ... not "in combat".

The claim in the Globe and mail is that Omar is the only captured combatant in Afghanistan to be charged with murder.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21596&view=findpost&p=838138

Edited October 4, 2012 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

You are making my point: Elders (mother, father) forced Omar into AlQuaeda training, and into combat at 10 years of age

Thanks.

Could you please cite the source for your claim, in parenthesis, that by "elders," Omar is referring to his mother and father? As I've pointed out several times now, Omar does not refer to his parents ever "forcing" him to do anything or ever putting him in harm's way. Quite the opposite. So a source would be appreciated (though I won't hold my breath).

[PIK]

Could you please cite the source for your claim, in parenthesis, that by "elders," Omar is referring to his mother and father? As I've pointed out several times now, Omar does not refer to his parents ever "forcing" him to do anything or ever putting him in harm's way. Quite the opposite. So a source would be appreciated (though I won't hold my breath).

The family moved there after omar was born and lived in a compound for terrorists and returned to canada few times after that to raise money in TO to give to the taliban. The kid was born here and that is the only thing canadian about him. He was not raised with canadian values.

[Guest American Woman]

The family moved there after omar was born and lived in a compound for terrorists and returned to canada few times after that to raise money in TO to give to the taliban. The kid was born here and that is the only thing canadian about him. He was not raised with canadian values.

That doesn't mean he blames his parents, or that he felt his parents forced him to do anything, and it doesn't mean that by "elders" he's referring to his mother and father, as indicated in the post I was responding to.

[WIP]

A famous quote made by Benjamin Franklin way back in 1759 "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." is all that needs to be said regarding issues like what happened to Omar Khadr. Regardless of all the blathering by rightwingers who are so scared that they quickly hand over freedoms in exchange for security, the simple fact is that the case against Omar Khadr has been filled with illegalities right from the time he was arrested in Afghanistan right through to the present. The case against Khadr has no merits except for the suspicions of the paranoid, fearful conservatives who will dump legal and due process overboard to fight Muslim terrorism. And, just as in the U.S. right now, Canadian governments will use special extra-legal procedures claimed to be necessary to fight terrorism, to be used against other individuals or groups who are deemed hostile by the government. Harper is already starting down this path in declaring environmental activists opposed to tar sands exploitation to be "environmental terrorists."

[WWWTT]

Good quote!

I do not believe that the conservatives have ever feared Omar or Islamic terrorists.

However,I believe they capitalize on the fear that some people have!

WWWTT

[login]

Could you please cite the source for your claim, in parenthesis, that by "elders," Omar is referring to his mother and father? As I've pointed out several times now, Omar does not refer to his parents ever "forcing" him to do anything or ever putting him in harm's way. Quite the opposite. So a source would be appreciated (though I won't hold my breath).

It is awfully problematic to quote without evidence ---- afterall Omars Father is dead, he was known as a philanthropist and active volutneer in positive social endevours before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Where is the evidence?

Minors arn't forced they have no vote.

Parents exercise gaurdian ship.

I just saw a 4 year girl old shooting a rifle at the range, is this radicalization?

I think people just like to paint these things but kids all over Canada are playing war games shooting "toy guns, and real ones". Being told Muslims are bad people and terrorists. It is no differnet, it is a non argument a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Who has better training, the terrorists kids or the ones that grow up to kill them?

same ---- different pile.

What is the difference between what happened in Afghanistan and what happened in Canada ---- which country was invaded?

Omar Khadr acted in self defence against a delta force operation that resulted in the deaths of everyone around him, and the death of one of the attackers, in a foreign country where the US has no jurisdiction.

he was tried outside the US constitution and outside the international law of war outside canadian law, and Canadian laws regarding child soldiers.

Legally Omar was not criminal, he was justified and acted in self defence.

People villifying him simply don't understand the real facts of what occured. By opting as the US as being the good guys in this story, you ignore the fact the US acted outside of international sanction, it acted outside of international law, it acted outside of its own domestic law.

I'd throw a grenade at a delta force that was killing people and most likely myself too if it was all I had. Although it wasn't greatly established this was what occured, afterall the case was a plea bargain to remove the guy from an illegal court process after a couple years of unlawful detainment torture and human rights abuses.

Wake the hell up if you still see Omar as a bad guy. He was a 15 year old Marked kid that had his family killed around him.

I applaud him for having the bravery to resist. If the US invaded Canada I would applaud 15 year Canadian kids who did the same.

My grandfather was 15 when he enlisted in WWII.

None the less it was illegal then and it is now...

BUT SELF DEFENCE AT ANY AGE IS NOT ILLEGAL IT IS JUSTIFIED. US HAD NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO MURDER AFGHANI'S NOT BY AFGHANI LAW AND NOT BY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The only problem is that it was a Canadian ally, not the eneny. If it was some Al Qaeda terrorist killed in that attack by Omar, he'd be a hero.

I'm not condoning murder but I am advocating for self defence against foreign aggression as well as unlawful use of force, especially unlawful use of lethal force. The US was the offender, Omar was the defender. He was fully justified to beleive his life to be in immenent threat of ceasation. He was fully justified to kill them.

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a. ) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b. ) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

Edited October 7, 2012 by login

[Army Guy]

The claim in the Globe and mail is that Omar is the only captured combatant in Afghanistan to be charged with murder.

Is false, just google it, and you'll come up with lots of names, Johnny walker the american Insurgent, charged with attempted murder, they're are many more, Afghanistan jails are full of them....

[eyeball]

Is false, just google it, and you'll come up with lots of names, Johnny walker the american Insurgent, charged with attempted murder, they're are many more, Afghanistan jails are full of them....

I think if you look more closely you'll find the claim is that Omar Khadr is the only person to be charged in the death of any of the 2500 American and Canadian or so soldiers that have been killed to date.

I wonder how many are rolling in their graves at the thought that the best their governments could come up with is one illegally brainwashed child soldier in a kangaroo court.

This is probably the sort of injustice many of their grandfathers fought against in previous wars and they're probably spinning in their graves.

[Guest American Woman]

Is false, just google it, and you'll come up with lots of names, Johnny walker the american Insurgent, charged with attempted murder, they're are many more, Afghanistan jails are full of them....

He's the only one charged with "murder in violation of the laws of war." From what I've read, it's rare for a combatant who has killed like he did to be taken alive, and from what I've read, Khadr has said that he knew the fighting was over when he threw the grenade at Speers, who was a medic, attending to the wounded at the time - so perhaps this is why he was charged.

Or perhaps either he is guilty of murder or treason, as Canadian forces could have met with the mines he planted between Khost and Ghardez, if killing an ally isn't good enough to qualify - I've asked some here if it would have made a difference in their eyes if he had killed a Canadian instead of an American; would it have been 'accepted' as an act of war, when he's fighting on the other side? Or would he/should he have been charged with a crime? Should the U.S. 'accept' it as 'an act of war' when he's the citizen of an ally's country?

As for his having been brainwashed, I'm not sure how he was any more brainwashed than a Canadian or American who is raised to believe it is his/her duty to defend their country in war. He was all but 16 at the time he was captured, just months away, almost old enough to have joined the Canadian reserves with parental permission - and too old to have been considered a child soldier until the definition was revised that February. Surely he wouldn't have been of a different mind just months later.

He's never said that he doesn't believe in the al Qaeda mission. He's never said his parents forced him into anything. He didn't complain about abuse at Gitmo at the time.* He said it wasn't bad, that he wouldn't mind staying at Gitmo. I think he became 'street wise' so to speak, after a time, and learned just what to say.

*In a letter written to his parents on Nov. 25, 2002 he wrote: The Americans are the opposite of what the whole world denies. Health services 24 hours, three meals a day, Ramadan eat before dawn and sunset

and

A letter arrived from his mother on March 6, 2003, that included: ICRC visited me and told me that you are in the best of conditions

and in a meeting with the BSCT (Behavioral Science Consultation Team) in November of 2003 he commented that he would not mind staying here at Gitmo because it's not so bad.

[Army Guy]

Who has better training, the terrorists kids or the ones that grow up to kill them?

same ---- different pile.

What a load of Crap, when was the last time you saw children getting training on fully automatic wpns, RPG's, explosives, learning how to assualt objectives....a couple shoots at the range does not equal the training these guys get, and playing cowboys and indians will never even come close to the training these guys get....It's not the same pile....

Omar Khadr acted in self defence against a delta force operation that resulted in the deaths of everyone around him, and the death of one of the attackers, in a foreign country where the US has no jurisdiction.

Another load of crap, self defense, tell me what part of self defense was it when the 3 Afghanis policemen knocked on the door and were greeted by a hail of gun fire.....

Legally Omar was not criminal, he was justified and acted in self defence.

Omar was a Canadian citizen in a foreign country, and was subjected to their laws,( which does not include greeting policemen with gunfire) ...he was also a part of and a member of a terrorist group, sorry strike 2, He was part of a bomb making cell, strike 3 perhaps you can give all us readers a few laws that clearly state Omar is acting within the law.....And was entitled to self defense.

Wake the hell up if you still see Omar as a bad guy. He was a 15 year old Marked kid that had his family killed around him.

While i don't agree with everything that Omar has been faced with during his life time, he has been convicted in a court of law of murder for crimes he committed and is now doing the time for those crimes as justice demands, his circumstances and age have played a part in his sentencing, orginally 40 years parred down to just 8........I shed no tears for the family he has lost, nor the pain he has suffered, I've watched to many of my own comrads, loaded on to the back of a herc to make the long journey home in an aluminum casket,or on a bed missing limbs and scarrd for life....for me he will always be the enemy. An enemy which was designated by our Government, and Omars actions...

The only problem is that it was a Canadian ally, not the eneny. If it was some Al Qaeda terrorist killed in that attack by Omar, he'd be a hero.

No it would still be murder has Omar had no legal right to bear arms and use them in combat.

I'm not condoning murder but I am advocating for self defence against foreign aggression as well as unlawful use of force, especially unlawful use of lethal force. The US was the offender, Omar was the defender. He was fully justified to beleive his life to be in immenent threat of ceasation. He was fully justified to kill them.

Another load of crap....Maybe you can back up this garbage with a source....maybe you can find a source that gives Omar authority to take part in a conflict in a foreign nation, because you make it sound like it is OK to join a terrorist group, spread terror through out that nation, then have the right to self defense when that nation decides to knock on his door....

Add to this being a bomb maker and he had a target on his head the day he first planted an IED.....

His rights ceased when he joined a terrorist group, and took part in terrorist activities, in a foreign nation....Perhaps you should check on what Afghanis laws are for terrorism....and what their punishments are....

[login]

What a load of Crap, when was the last time you saw children getting training on fully automatic wpns, RPG's, explosives, learning how to assualt objectives....a couple shoots at the range does not equal the training these guys get, and playing cowboys and indians will never even come close to the training these guys get....It's not the same pile....

Another load of crap, self defense, tell me what part of self defense was it when the 3 Afghanis policemen knocked on the door and were greeted by a hail of gun fire.....

Why were they knocking on the door? And, delta just happened to be positioned around to to...? Why was delta there.. what are the names of these three Afghani policemen, and under what grounds and whose authority were they acting... Omar wasn't arrested under Afghan law... What law was broken...

What year is this? and what Afghani's are you talking about Taliban Government Policemen coordinate with US delta force? Does not compute, you are talking BS.

Omar was a Canadian citizen in a foreign country, and was subjected to their laws,( which does not include greeting policemen with gunfire)

Total BS, the DELTA FORCE AIN'T ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN POLICE!

TOTAL RHETORIC.

...he was also a part of and a member of a terrorist group, sorry strike 2, He was part of a bomb making cell, strike 3 perhaps you can give all us readers a few laws that clearly state Omar is acting within the law.....And was entitled to self defense.

HELLO he was part of a defence against a foreign invasion. (And for that he was not a criminal he was a victim according to international law)

[

While i don't agree with everything that Omar has been faced with during his life time, he has been convicted in a court of law

WHAT COURT OF LAW? UNDER WHAT LAW? UNDER WHAT JURISIDICTION?

More BS.

I'll read the rest later as you arn't providing any real evidence other than tilting what actually occured to suit your conscience.

No it would still be murder has Omar had no legal right to bear arms and use them in combat.

Everyone has the right to self defence. I can pick up a gun and shoot people to defend myself if I feel my life is jepordized. So can your grandma or 1 year old child. It is about reasonable use of force.

Canada don't have a right to kill people half way around the world for sport. Nor does the US or their puppet governments.

As far as your budies go and lack of evidence it is you who has blinders on, and you arn't judging the situation on an equal basis.

You simply arn't recognizing rule of law in context of the Taliban being the civil authorities at the time of the invasion.

You and your budies invaded another part of the world contrary to the UN charter. While you can beleive they were terrorists, they didn't commit any terrorist acts against Canada, or any other country. A group of Saudi's financed by a Pakistani general (according to the FBI) who were trained in Germany and the United States Hijacked some planes.

There were no illegal activities happening in afghanistan at the time of the invasion.

You are making a fantasy world to suit your own objectives.

Counterinsurgency doctrine and the rules of engagement

are inseparable at the tactical level. Soldiers at this level face

an indistinguishable enemy who attacks these Soldiers from

buildings or other areas populated with noncombatant

civilians to provoke the use of force in self-defense.6 Major

General Robert Neller wrote, “[t]hough the inherent right of

self-defense will always remain paramount in a COIN

environment the default reaction must always be to ‘not

shoot.’”7 This proposition is a harsh reality for Soldiers and

Marines at the tactical level.

He was fired on he can fire back. That is the bottom line.

source: https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/ARMYLAWYER.NSF/0/5596a10a4f7576e2852579e2005ba0ac/$FILE/By%20Major%20Winston%20S.%20Williams.pdf

Civillians who will be killed by military personnel are not legally obligated to roll over and die, and may use reasonable force to protect their life and liberty.

So under your justification anyone making guns at Colt Canada or making bombs is a terrorist? You don't like the conduct so you criminalize it, that is all it is to you, the legal justification is absent from your assessment. You are oblivious to the law. It is them and that is all that matters to you, it is them so they are terrorists, even if the same conduct under equal circumstances happens here in Canada.. it isn't terrorism, .... you don't have an equal view in the same light so your opinion is biased and not reasonable in consideration of the application of law. The very basis that international law was not adhered to nor US Law in Omar's treatment invalidates the entire process - he was subjected to unlawful process and commmitted no "crime" as no law was broken by him --- and in all instances of US law he had justified defences. He was subjected to torture and human rights abuses and in any civilized nation that would make him a victim of humans rights abuses perpetuated by a state --- and those being war crimes.

The US doesn't even recognize the bloody Geneva Conventions

You are totally oblivious to the circumstances of the invasion of afghanistan, its illegality and absence of grounds for the US to try people for terrorism in another state--- they have no grounds.. if they were to be tried for breach of law it would need to be within their jurisdiction - the US did not claim occupation of Afhgnaistan it had no lawful or legal authority and didn't even follow the international rules for occupations.

It is a rouge state when it comes to international law, and American's are proud of that.

Your justification for locking the kid away for a decade was --- George Tenet thought it had Osama's fingerprints on it.

Bin Laden Plan

In 1999 Tenet put forward a grand "Plan" for dealing with al-Qaeda.

...

The CTC's Strategic Assessments Branch was formally set up in July. But it struggled to find personnel. The head of the branch finally took up his post on September 10, 2001.

2 year gap much...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-107hrpt792/pdf/CRPT-107hrpt792.pdf

---

3 policemen...

In the early morning of July 27, 2002, a team composed of 19th Special Forces Group, the 505th Infantry Regiment and a "militia", composed of approximately twenty[50] Afghan fighters loyal to mercenary warlord Pacha Khan Zadran and led by Zadran's brother Kamal, had been sent from the airbase to the Ab Khail house in search of an elderly wheelchair-using man alleged to be the bomb-maker who had hidden anti-tank mines several weeks earlier

....\

American military intelligence had authorized a retaliatory attack on Sarajuddin, destroying his house, and killing his wife and half a dozen family members. The other three men were captured because they owned passports, or were related to Sarajuddin.

Pacha Khan directed recruiting of fighters from villages to fight under Zadran, when the USA appealed to local leaders to overthrow the Taliban

Edited October 8, 2012 by login

[jacee]

Could you please cite the source for your claim, in parenthesis, that by "elders," Omar is referring to his mother and father? As I've pointed out several times now, Omar does not refer to his parents ever "forcing" him to do anything or ever putting him in harm's way. Quite the opposite. So a source would be appreciated (though I won't hold my breath).

The quote by Omar says " elders" (previous post), and I'm assuming he means parents, since no other elders have that power.

Can you cite source(s) for your claim?

[jacee]

He's the only one charged with "murder in violation of the laws of war." From what I've read, it's rare for a combatant who has killed like he did to be taken alive, and from what I've read, Khadr has said that he knew the fighting was over when he threw the grenade at Speers, who was a medic, attending to the wounded at the time - so perhaps this is why he was char... (etc)

Cite sources pls, because I think most of this is bs.

Speers was trained as a medic, but that was NOT his assignment that day: He was an armed combatant soldier like any other.

I think you know that and I think you are intentionally biasing your post(s).

[Guest American Woman]

Cite sources pls, because I think most of this is bs.

Speers was trained as a medic, but that was NOT his assignment that day: He was an armed combatant soldier like any other.

I think you know that and I think you are intentionally biasing your post(s).

I didn't say Speers wasn't taking place in armed combat that day; I clearly said the fighting was over at that point in time, and he was attending to the wounded, and that Omar stated that he knew the fighting was over.

I am in no way "biasing" my posts, but I sure think that you are. I've asked you more than once for the source for your claim that Omar blames his parents for what he did, which you have not provided. I'm still waiting. I've seen the "elders" reference, which is not a reference to his parents - yet you added mother and father in parenthesis after his claim about "elders" to make it look as if they "forced" him to do what he did. You keep repeating that they forced him, yet that goes against what Omar himself has said, so I've asked several times for sources confirming that he was "forced" by his parents. So how about providing the source(s) I've asked for, because you sure wouldn't be intentionally biasing your post(s) as you accuse me of it, right?

After you do that, I will find and provide my sources, as I've got other things to do tonight - but I'll just point out that you've ignored that his letters home make no mention of abuse at Gitmo; those claims only came later. Again, in a letter written to his parents on Nov. 25, 2002 he wrote: The Americans are the opposite of what the whole world denies. Health services 24 hours, three meals a day, Ramadan eat before dawn and sunset ... I know that goes against everything you'd like to believe, and everything you've been putting out there, but that's the reality.

[Guest American Woman]

The quote by Omar says " elders" (previous post), and I'm assuming he means parents, since no other elders have that power.

Can you cite source(s) for your claim?

I'm just seeing this post now so will quickly address it. You really shouldn't "assume" what another person "means" and then put it out there as reality/fact. He most definitely says that his parents never forced him to do anything, as I've pointed out several times now. Perhaps ultimately no one forced him to do anything, but I find it interesting that you think al Qaeda, for example, wouldn't have that power; sounds to me as if you are confirming that he was there by choice, that he could have just walked away from them.