Khadr allways catches my attention in the news.

[Guest]

Ah, I see.

[Peter F]

OK by you he's a hero and those Taliban- al Qaeda -terrorist suppressors of women,acid throwing in girls faces, demolisher of other religions icons,

are the good guys.

ya sure, whatever you say

If you read the lengthy psychiatric interviews and of the bomb making deeds of the16 near year old 'child soldier' (he wasn't),

http://www.mc.mil/CASES/MilitaryCommissions.aspx transcripts of the Omar Khadr case

the sentencing trial begins page 4200 where the commision becomes aware that a deal has been agreed to and proceeds to sentencing

in particular the psychiatrist testimony commences at line 19 of page 4360.

Do read the cross-examination that follows.

Its alot of reading but I will summarize from the Defence closing statement to the commission

PAGE 4863

5 DefenceCouncil [LTC JACKSON]: And then we go to the future that was painted

6 by Dr. Welner. He’s really the government’s only witness that talks

7 to you about Omar Khadr and his future dangerousness. He met with

8 Omar for 7 or 8 hours over 2 days, and the focus of that interview

9 was not even about future dangerousness, not at all.

10 One thing he did say--a couple of things he said about Omar

11 is he’s intelligent; he’s westernized. But just like Mr.[censored]

12 said, he had never, ever conducted an assessment like this, not once.

13 And what was his group sample size? Zero. Meaning, what could he

14 compare Omar Khadr to? Zero.

15 They tried to minimize Sennels. And we don’t know if he’s

16 a doctor or a mister, because Dr. Welner never checked. He never

17 asked him for his CV. He never asked him for, “Hey, can you send me

18 more articles about the way you feel?” And he didn’t just rely on

19 him for something minor like the prosecutor wants you to believe. He

20 made his framework. He develops his framework from the work of

21 Sennels. And Sennels’ book, by the way, is in Danish. So Dr. Welner

22 has never even read this book. And so what does he do; he picks up

23 the phone and he calls Sennels, and he has a conversation with him.

PAGE 4864

1 And he does not even check his source at all to see who this man is.

2 In 5 minutes of a Google search the defense found out who Sennels

3 really was.

4 CTC [MR.[censored] : Objection, Your Honor. This is facts not

5 in evidence. Counsel can’t talk about what he did on the Internet.

6 MJ [COL PARRISH]: Counsel, you may suggest that when they do a

7 Google search, but you may not talk about your results of a Google

8 search since they’re not in evidence.

9 DC [LTC JACKSON]: One can easily find how information about a

10 person in today’s society, especially someone with the views like

11 Sennels.

12 Next slide. Next slide, please.

13 [The paralegal indicated there was a problem with the slide.]

14 DC [LTC JACKSON]: Okay. It’s always technology that gives us

15 problems.

16 While she’s doing that, Members, let me talk to you about

17 some of the things----

18 [The next slide from AE 382 was displayed.]

19 DC [LTC JACKSON]: Now, it’s up.

20 Relies on Sennels in developing his framework. And what

21 Sennels says, “When having Muslim clients on my couch, it was in most

22 cases like having someone from another planet visit me.”

23 Next slide.

PAGE 4865

1 [The next slide from AE 382 was displayed.]

2 DC [LTC JACKSON]: “The western world has to put a complete halt

3 to Muslim immigration and non-Western immigrants who did not already

4 receive citizenship.”

5 Next slide.

6 [The next slide from AE 382 was displayed.]

7 DC [LTC JACKSON]: “Those who are referred to as foreign

8 criminals, religious extremists, or terrorist in the making are all

9 Muslims.”

10 Next slide.

11 [The next slide from AE 382 was displayed.]

12 CTC [MR. : Your Honor----

13 DC [LTC JACKSON]: A rough----

14 CTC [MR. : ----again--I’m sorry to interrupt, but

15 these are all facts that are not in evidence. These are questions

16 that were merely posed by defense counsel. Dr. Welner specifically

17 indicated that he did not rely on Dr. Sennels.

18 MJ [COL PARRISH]: The members will remember the testimony of

19 Dr. Welner. There were certain questions asked of Dr. Welner during

20 cross-examination, and he acknowledged certain things, but also said

21 certain things about not considering those items.

22 I think this is fair comment. You may continue.

23 DC [LTC JACKSON]: Thank you, sir.

PAGE 4866

1 “A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims

2 in the world are inbred.”

3 Next slide.

4 [The next slide from AE 382 was displayed.]

5 DC [LTC JACKSON]: “Please study the Qur’an and see what that

6 means. It is a criminal book that forces people to do criminal

7 things.”

8 Next slide.

9 [The next slide from AE 382 was displayed.]

10 DC [LTC JACKSON]: Why is that important? Because the

11 government’s own witness was allowed to read those documents, and

12 then he came back into court, and he didn’t just say, “Despite that

13 knowledge, I don’t change anything.” He said, “Now, I have more

14 respect for Sennels.” That’s what he said. And that’s offensive.

15 Because you, as a scientist, which is what he supposed to do, is get

16 data together and then develop a theory. What he did here is he came

17 up with a theory, and then he got the data that fit the theory. And

18 that is not the way a scientist works.

19 Importantly, there was no peer review in this instance.

20 Now, peer review--I’m not a science guy, but I did chemistry and

21 physics and things like that where you do an experiment, you get a

22 result, it’s easy to tell whether you got it right or not. Here,

23 we’re dealing with what some people call “soft science.” Meaning

PAGE 4867

1 that, how are you going to be able to understand whether your results

2 are good or bad? One of the ways is through peer review.

3 Now, let me talk to you a little bit about peer review.

4 What is peer review? From Dr. Welner’s own site, “Peer review is the

5 oversight of distinguished experienced and respected colleagues.

6 When an examiner answers to a peer reviewer, the case consultation

7 reflects the discipline and scientific rigor that a court should

8 expect within its cases.”

9 Was this peer reviewed? No, there was no peer review.

10 Because if he had peer reviewed, someone had looked at this, they

11 would have checked his sources. They would have known that Sennels

12 is not somebody that should have been relied upon.

13 The other thing about Dr. Welner is he really only

14 considers what government witnesses tell him. His memory was

15 outstanding for the seven or whatever hours he testified for the

16 government. He could remember everything he said, but he couldn’t

17 remember anything that Omar told him. And why that’s important,

18 because this evaluation was not about Dr. Welner, which is what he

19 made it out to be. It was about Omar Khadr; that’s what it was

20 supposed to be about. And what he came in here and gave us was not

21 science. It was pure conjecture, pure conjecture. He has no idea

22 what he was doing. He formed a framework based on a faulty

23 framework, and then he came in here and he told you what the

PAGE 4868

1 government wanted him to. And the reason for that, Members----

2 CTC [MR. : Your Honor, again, these are facts that

3 aren’t in evidence. Clearly, there’s no testimony that he came in

4 here and said what we wanted him to say. He said exactly the

5 opposite.

6 MJ [COL PARRISH]: Members, in sentencing argument, it’s not the

7 opinion of counsel in sentencing argument. The sentencing argument

8 is not evidence. Sentencing argument is made in order to assist you

9 in your understanding of the evidence, and to assist you in

10 determining what you believe an appropriate sentence should be after

11 you’ve considered all of the evidence in this case. And I believe,

12 thus far, counsel has not stepped outside the bounds of fair comment

13 on the evidence.

14 You may continue.

15 DC [LTC JACKSON]: Thank you, sir.

16 Dr. Welner was not acting as a forensic scientist, a

17 forensic psychiatrist. Make no mistake about that, Members. One of

18 you asked the right question. Did you lose somebody on 9/11?

19 Because he’s biased, and he’s biased for the government. He came in

20 here, and I’ll say it again, he was an advocate, an advocate for the

21 government. An expert looks at all of the facts and then makes a

22 conclusion based on the facts. He didn’t do that here. He didn’t

23 base his opinion on one study, one bit of science, nothing. And you

PAGE 4869

1 should discount his entire testimony because its value is zero.

The lack of remorse for attacking our NATO allies, the support of his father's commitment to Osama, and his families behavior en toto, and still feel he deserves your compassion then you are probably one that hates what democracy stands for.

Neither his father nor family are/were on trial here. Omar Khadr cannot be held accountable for the actions/speach of others

And yes, he has my compassion - Call CSIS.

As Canadians they embarrass me and should any that value democracy and justice.

ah, was that his crime then? Embarrassing you?

[login]

It was a US invasion of another country. The US solidiers fire on him before he defended himself.

End of story.

If it happened in America people might see it differently. Perhaps as a violation of Posse Comitatus Act.

Delta ain't the victims.

Any US soldiers held in Afghanistan for murder of Combatants?

Being fired on allows you to legally engage.

Under threat of lethal force individuals are allowed to defend themselves.

Edited December 10, 2012 by login

[Guest Peeves]

It was a US invasion of another country. The US solidiers fire on him before he defended himself.

End of story.

If it happened in America people might see it differently. Perhaps as a violation of Posse Comitatus Act.

Delta ain't the victims.

Any US soldiers held in Afghanistan for murder of Combatants?

Being fired on allows you to legally engage.

Under threat of lethal force individuals are allowed to defend themselves.

Canadians and others were part of the NATO forces. Had he then killed a Canadian(NATO) military man in what was apparently a fairly long battle, would that make any difference? A Canadian killing a Canadian NATO soldier?

That certainly might have happened.

A CANADIAN KILLED ONE OF OUR ALLIES, get it?

[GostHacked]

Seeing as Canada was in Afghanistan at the request of the Government of Afghanistan why would we need to declare war on Afghanistan?

The government at the time was the Taliban when the towers fell. Only after the Taliban was taken down, did Karzai get put in and then perhaps the request for Canada to be there. The Taliban would not have wanted us there, hence the need for formal declaration of war in order to take them out.

Canada did participate in the operation to take the Taliban down.

[Guest Peeves]

"name='Peter F' timestamp='1355124082' post='862868']

ya sure, whatever you say

name='Peter F' timestamp='1355124082' post='862868']

ya sure, whatever you say

snip

Truncated for brevity.

Neither his father nor family are/were on trial here. Omar Khadr cannot be held accountable for the actions/speach of others

And yes, he has my compassion - Call CSIS.

ah, was that his crime then? Embarrassing you? "

Obviously you favor the rights of a terrorist and his family over the lives of NATO soldiers.

Khadr is a convicted murderer who might have gotten a 40 year sentence. To me he is also a Canadian traitor as was/is any of his CANADIAN family that provided aid or assistance to our common enemy.

"Omar Khadr plead guilty to murdering an American soldier (NATO FORCES) and ended a war crimes case that has dragged on for eight years.

The Toronto-born detainee told military judge Army Col. Patrick Parrish that he understood the charges, his confession, and the conditions of a plea agreement.

In addition to pleading guilty to throwing a grenade when he was 15 that fatally wounded Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, Khadr is convicted of attempted murder, spying, conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism."

This murderer was very close to16 years of age and was participating in enemy actions against NATO forces. He is fortunate not to have been killed in the fire fight, but is still guilty and needs to deal with the consequences of his actions.

[jacee]

"name='Peter F' timestamp='1355124082' post='862868']

ya sure, whatever you say

name='Peter F' timestamp='1355124082' post='862868']

ya sure, whatever you say

snip

Truncated for brevity.

Neither his father nor family are/were on trial here. Omar Khadr cannot be held accountable for the actions/speach of others

And yes, he has my compassion - Call CSIS.

ah, was that his crime then? Embarrassing you? "

Obviously you favor the rights of a terrorist and his family over the lives of NATO soldiers.

Khadr is a convicted murderer who might have gotten a 40 year sentence. To me he is also a Canadian traitor as was/is any of his CANADIAN family that provided aid or assistance to our common enemy.

"Omar Khadr plead guilty to murdering an American soldier (NATO FORCES) and ended a war crimes case that has dragged on for eight years.

The Toronto-born detainee told military judge Army Col. Patrick Parrish that he understood the charges, his confession, and the conditions of a plea agreement.

In addition to pleading guilty to throwing a grenade when he was 15 that fatally wounded Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, Khadr is convicted of attempted murder, spying, conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism."

This murderer was very close to16 years of age and was participating in enemy actions against NATO forces. He is fortunate not to have been killed in the fire fight, but is still guilty and needs to deal with the consequences of his actions.

Gee, I guess that's why he's been in jail for 10 years.

We're aware of your opinions. Why does this warrant a new thread? You have nothing new to say.

[jacee]

"name='Peter F' timestamp='1355124082' post='862868']

ya sure, whatever you say

name='Peter F' timestamp='1355124082' post='862868']

ya sure, whatever you say

snip

Truncated for brevity.

Neither his father nor family are/were on trial here. Omar Khadr cannot be held accountable for the actions/speach of others

And yes, he has my compassion - Call CSIS.

ah, was that his crime then? Embarrassing you? "

Obviously you favor the rights of a terrorist and his family over the lives of NATO soldiers.

Khadr is a convicted murderer who might have gotten a 40 year sentence. To me he is also a Canadian traitor as was/is any of his CANADIAN family that provided aid or assistance to our common enemy.

"Omar Khadr plead guilty to murdering an American soldier (NATO FORCES) and ended a war crimes case that has dragged on for eight years.

The Toronto-born detainee told military judge Army Col. Patrick Parrish that he understood the charges, his confession, and the conditions of a plea agreement.

In addition to pleading guilty to throwing a grenade when he was 15 that fatally wounded Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, Khadr is convicted of attempted murder, spying, conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism."

This murderer was very close to16 years of age and was participating in enemy actions against NATO forces. He is fortunate not to have been killed in the fire fight, but is still guilty and needs to deal with the consequences of his actions.

Gee, I guess that's why he's been in jail for 10 years.

What else would you like? Waterboarding?

We're well aware of your opinions.

Why does this warrant a new thread?

You have nothing new to say.

[login]

Canadians and others were part of the NATO forces. Had he then killed a Canadian(NATO) military man in what was apparently a fairly long battle, would that make any difference? A Canadian killing a Canadian NATO soldier?

That certainly might have happened.

A CANADIAN KILLED ONE OF OUR ALLIES, get it?

In Canada it would in Afghanistan it wouldn't, but in Canadian law it would, if the CF actions were lawful, which they wouldn't be.

The Allies attacked a Canadian, get it?

If Delta Force shows up at your door and starts shooting attempting to kill you, I will not be upset you killed Americans defending yourself.

The Americans have no place there in the first place it is a called attempted murder, people can defend themselves against attempted murder. Nato cannot claim that civillians are unlawful combatants, if they are arming civllians to fight against governments they don't like. It is just rhetorical bs. The bottom line is that people are trying to kill you. As a Canadian you have the right to defend yourself.

The context of Afghanistan was problematic it is the same problem Nato faces in arming civillians to rebel against their legitimate governments.

Waging war against America is not the same as waging war against Canada. If it was Canada it would be treasonous conduct, if it is America, it is foreign enlistment.

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

Edited December 11, 2012 by login

[PIK]

So life is worse for him in Millhaven than it was at Guanatanamo? Talk about ironic. I'm sure there are a few here who won't have anything to say about that.

It will be interesting to see what happens when he comes up for parole - which is really just around the corner.

Gitmo was a resort for them, now he is in a real prison, he may wish he never came back.

[Signals.Cpl]

In Canada it would in Afghanistan it wouldn't, but in Canadian law it would, if the CF actions were lawful, which they wouldn't be.

The Allies attacked a Canadian, get it?

If Delta Force shows up at your door and starts shooting attempting to kill you, I will not be upset you killed Americans defending yourself.

The Americans have no place there in the First place it is a called attempted murder, people can defend themselves against attempted murder.

The context of Afghanistan was problematic it is the same problem Nato faces in arming civillians to rebel against their legitimate governments.

And a Canadian Khadr had no place there either... I love how you miss about 80% of the argument and add "facts" where you want to... After a long day dealing with adults I like coming here and read your responses... lightens the mood to see your brand of comedy.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[login]

And a Canadian Khadr had no place there either... I love how you miss about 80% of the argument and add "facts" where you want to... After a long day dealing with adults I like coming here and read your responses... lightens the mood to see your brand of comedy.

He was a guest. Canadians have the right to enter remain or leave Canada, so yes he did have that right. It is a constitutional right. Maybe you should learn a little about what rights Canadians have before you shoot your mouth off.

I am not saying it isn't unfortunate that the event occured, I just do not hold Khadr accountable for any wrongdoing, and I feel his actions were good intentioned, not morally corrupt. I think the US went far beyond its jurisdiction in seeking to overthrow the Taliban (as well as police other countries which it is still doing including Canada - the US have been given tacit approval to police Canada as a criminal jurisdiction in which their police and military can make arrests on Canadians in Canada with the same powers of the RCMP, such as the US DEA which is more militarily trained than the CF - the Canadian border has also been handed over to the US), and was not legally justified to attack Khadr nor kill his other family members (other Canadians).

The fact it was war, it was an unfortunate event, but it was not one that Khadr initiated and he was the defender not the offender.

Association does not equate sanction and Osama was never brought to trial even when the US had that oppourtunity, both before the invasion, when they offered to turn him over to Pakistan, as well as when the US invaded his residence and opted to use lethal force rather than nonlethal force.

Edited December 11, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

He was a guest.

So were Delta Force...they were a guest to the people of Afghanistan while he was a guest to the people animals who indiscriminately kill civilians, target little girls who only want to go to school and get an education, use civilians as human shields, oppress women to almost unheard of degree, kill anyone willing to teach girls and well there is quite a lot more but I will not waste my time explaining all of their activities.

Canadians have the right to enter remain or leave Canada, so yes he did have that right.

Never said he had no right to be there, what people have a problem is that he left Canada and went to a war zone fought our allies and then cried for Canada to take him back...he was in Afghanistan placing IEDs while Canadian soldiers were in Afghanistan helping our allies...love how he had a right to be there and oppress people as a guest but we had no right to be there to help people as a guest... love your "logic"...

It is a constitutional right. Maybe you should learn a little about what rights Canadians have before you shoot your mouth off.

I did not know treason was a constitutional right... but then again you know everything about nothing so why am I even arguing...

I am not saying it isn't unfortunate that the event occured, I just do not hold Khadr accountable for any wrongdoing,

Yeah, we should hold the US accountable that he went to Afghanistan planted IEDs that in many situations kill civilians intentionally... we should hold the Us accountable because he is a Canadian and he had the "right" to go and oppress the people of Afghanistan?

and I feel his actions were good intentioned,

I am done arguing with you, I feel like I am getting dumber just by reading your posts... he had good intentions I know...blow up NATO soldiers, bring back the Taliban to power and oppress and terrorize women and the people of Afghanistan in general? Good intentions all around right?

not morally corrupt.

Well if your thing is throwing acid at the faces of little girl or shooting them in the head then by all means you are right... but then again if you are civilized not so much.

I think the US went far beyond its jurisdiction in seeking to overthrow the Taliban, and was not legally justified to attack Khadr nor kill his other family members (other Canadians).

The US had every right to overthrow Afghanistan, and the people of Afghanistan are that much bette off without them no matter how bad it gets. The Khadr's had no reason or right to involve themselves in oppressing a nation and any punishment that terrorist receives is not enough.

The fact it was war,

A war where he had no right involving himself in... it didn't work that well for Kanao Inouye so I guess that piece of garbage can count himself lucky...

it was an unfortunate event,

It is an unfortunate event that the Americans could not finish the job.

but it was not one that Khadr initiated and he was the defender not the offender.

Not initiated? He moved from Canada to Afghanistan where he build IEDs and he did not initiate anything? Are you serious? Do you read what you post or is a surprise for you as well?

[Guest American Woman]

Gitmo was a resort for them, now he is in a real prison, he may wish he never came back.

It's sounding that way. Should make those who believed the allegations of torture second guess Khadr's claims.

[Guest Peeves]

I hope he gets to meet a patriotic Canadian while in custody.

BTW ever read how many of those released went back to fighting NATO military? Seems a few did. Maybe we can send him back there flight expense paid. I'd even extend that to his entire family, and even contribute. A couple of posters here might show their compassion and accompany him.

Of course they might expect the government to provide protection from the Taliban.

[login]

So were Delta Force...they were a guest to the people of Afghanistan while he was a guest to the people animals who indiscriminately kill civilians, target little girls who only want to go to school and get an education, use civilians as human shields, oppress women to almost unheard of degree, kill anyone willing to teach girls and well there is quite a lot more but I will not waste my time explaining all of their activities.Never said he had no right to be there, what people have a problem is that he left Canada and went to a war zone fought our allies and then cried for Canada to take him back...he was in Afghanistan placing IEDs while Canadian soldiers were in Afghanistan helping our allies...love how he had a right to be there and oppress people as a guest but we had no right to be there to help people as a guest... love your "logic"...

I'd like you to say who Khadr killed or whose face he threw acid into. Unless you have something to support that I suggest you shut your mouth. Its not like police havn't killed people in Canada under circumspect situations, likewise other acts such as abuse of torture by the government, it just doesn't get to court because the courts cover anything up that makes the administration of "justice" look bad. Fact is here that you don't like their acts, this is about Khadr. You don't have to like everything the government does to work for them, much like you don't have to agree with everything a company does to buy their products, and you don't need to agree with everything your organization does to be part of it. Even if he did support those things, there are no laws in Canada that prevent Canadians from engaging in those activities in foreign countries.

I did not know treason was a constitutional right... but then again you know everything about nothing so why am I even arguing...Yeah, we should hold the US accountable that he went to Afghanistan planted IEDs that in many situations kill civilians intentionally... we should hold the Us accountable because he is a Canadian and he had the "right" to go and oppress the people of Afghanistan?I am done arguing with you, I feel like I am getting dumber just by reading your posts... he had good intentions I know...blow up NATO soldiers, bring back the Taliban to power and oppress and terrorize women and the people of Afghanistan in general? Good intentions all around right?

Could have been anyone the fact is they were firing on him. If you have treason charges press the charges, otherwise shut up.

The Khadr's had no reason or right to involve themselves in oppressing a nation and any punishment that terrorist receives is not enough.

I get it you don't like what you beleive the Khadr's supported. There is something called different views and moderation. Everyone in an organization does not represent the most extreme elements of that organization. Khadr's father was engaged in humanitarian efforts, and was a good man as far as I have seen. It doesn't mean that his activities were about brutalizing people, quite the contrary, none the less much like in Canada where there are different flavours of political beleif and legal beleif, so true as in Afghanistan.

A war where he had no right involving himself in...

He had every right. No where in the constitution does it say Canadians cannot engage in militant activities in foreign states under sanction of the government. I personally have met atleast one person who works for a paramilitary organization in a foreign government, the US actually, I'm sure there are others. A bunch of Canadians join the French Foreign Legion also.

it didn't work that well for Kanao Inouye so I guess that piece of garbage can count himself lucky...

It is an unfortunate event that the Americans could not finish the job. Not initiated? He moved from Canada to Afghanistan where he build IEDs and he did not initiate anything? Are you serious? Do you read what you post or is a surprise for you as well?

You are just out of touch with the fundamentals of what occured. He did nothing wrong. He was engaged in a war, you just don't like who he was fighting for. Say that and save me the time of your nonsense talk.

You are so full of sh!t

You don't like their values that is all your position is about, not the facts.

Your problem is you don't support liberty as a fundamental right, that is why your position is wrong, not because the values of human non violation you support.

If you want to say acts they did were wrong fine. But attacking someones liberty without even associating someones support or direct assistance to those acts is just a bad premise.

I don't hear you attacking the US for arming syrians who hold women and children under gun point and force their husbands and fathers to act as suicide bombers or watch their family die by US backed terrorists.

These are the same people who fought in Iraq against NATO allies... and are commiting attorciites, yet you remain complicit in silence in accepting those acts, does it make you any better than your demon Omar?

Edited December 11, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

I'd like you to say who Khadr killed or whose face he threw acid into.

This is and was well recorded Taliban and by extension al-Quida practice, he went to fight for them and therefore he fought for their beliefs and supported their actions.

Unless you have something to support that I suggest you shut your mouth.

Its not like police havn't killed people in Canada under circumspect situations, likewise other acts such as abuse of torture by the government, it just doesn't get to court because the courts cover anything up that makes the administration of "justice" look bad.

Because stupid things happen in Canada we should let terrorists go free? Love your logic or lack thereof.

Fact is here that you don't like their acts, this is about Khadr.

So you like their actions? You support the Taliban and al-Quida? Financially, morally or physically?

You don't have to like everything the government does to work for them, much like you don't have to agree with everything a company does to buy their products, and you don't need to agree with everything your organization does to be part of it. Even if he did support those things, there are no laws in Canada that prevent Canadians from engaging in those activities in foreign countries.

Yeah but the organization(see Taliban history pre 2001) he so heroically joined to fight the big bad Americans redeemable qualities they could never even match up. I guess you support those who committed the Holocaust or the Genocide in Rwanda, after all you don't need to like everything about the organization to be part of it right? Three hoorays for the SS, the Gestapo and the Interahamwe!

Could have been anyone the fact is they were firing on him.

If he was not there, he would not be fired upon.

If you have treason charges press the charges, otherwise shut up.

Are you tired? Do you need a nap? You seem awfully cranky... need a wowypop?

I get it you don't like what you beleive the Khadr's supported.

And you do, thats the difference between us...well one of the differences the others being I have common sense, a brain and well I am an adult.

There is something called different views and moderation.

Well thats true, you could be a conservative or NDP and thats your right, but when it comes to supporting the Taliban through your actions and participation you have to judge their history and previous actions and their view is that women are dogs( thats why they are not allowed to get an education, covered from head to toe and could only leave the house if a male relative was with them or they received written permission to be outside "unsupervised") and he judged that with the Taliban and al-Quida just fine...

Everyone in an organization does not represent the most extreme elements of that organization.

Well unless the organization is all extreme and none of the soft and gooey stuff.

Khadr's father was engaged in humanitarian efforts,

Financing al-quida does not count as "humanitarian" effort...

and was a good man as far as I have seen.

According to the Taliban and al-Quida he was a great man... so was Hitler, Saddam and Stalin when you ask their supporters,idiots, undedicated or apparently you.

It doesn't mean that his activities were about brutalizing people,

Yes, because hat was it almost 8 or 9 years of Taliban rule was a paradise for the people of Afghanistan and they were not oppressed in the least?

quite the contrary, none the less much like in Canada where there are different flavours of political beleif and legal beleif, so true as in Afghanistan.

Do you know ANYTHING about the Taliban?

He had every right.

And we have every right to let him suffer the consequences.

No where in the constitution does it say Canadians cannot engage in militant activities in foreign states under sanction of the government.

Not military, terrorist.

I personally have met atleast one person who works for a paramilitary organization in a foreign government, the US actually, I'm sure there are others. A bunch of Canadians join the French Foreign Legion also.

Again, there is a difference between military organizations(US military, British Military etc...) and terrorists(the Taliban, al-Quaida etc...) learn the difference it might do you some good.

You are just out of touch with the fundamentals of what occured.

He was send to Pakistan as a translator, he chose to go and fight with the Taliban...the same group that were oppressing Afghanistan for years, he build IEDs that likely killed NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians, he was captured by American Forces while in the company of his colleagues(al-Quida/Taliban) and received a 10 year vacation to sunny Cuba... What did I miss?

He did nothing wrong.

Who is a funny bunny? You are!

He was engaged in a war,

Terrorist Activities against the nation and people of Afghanistan.

you just don't like who he was fighting for.

Neither do the Majority of Canadians, the only problem is the idiot few are also the loudest.

Say that and save me the time of your nonsense talk.

I ask again, do you think about what you write, or is it kind of a surprise to you as well when it come out?

You are so full of sh!t

Not really, I just emptied my bowels and seems to me that you are trying to spew your all over this forum.

You don't like their values that is all your position is about, not the facts.

You wouldn't know what a fact or for that matter reality is if it smacked you in the face.

Your problem is you don't support liberty as a fundamental right,

Yeah because the Taliban are the poster child of liberty... genius...pure genius...

that is why your position is wrong, not because the values of human non violation you support.

What are you talking about? That is if you can decipher your own bullshit...

If you want to say acts they did were wrong fine.

Building IED's, funding terrorists, fighting to oppress Afghanistan...need I say more?

But attacking someones liberty without even associating someones support or direct assistance to those acts is just a bad premise.

You mean like attacking the liberty of a little girl for wanting to get an education?

I don't hear you attacking the US for arming syrians who hold women and children under gun point and force their husbands and fathers to act as suicide bombers or watch their family die by US backed terrorists.

I don't see you having a source for that.

These are the same people who fought in Iraq against NATO allies... and are commiting attorciites, yet you remain complicit in silence in accepting those acts, does it make you any better than your demon Omar?

Cant compare him to myself, I am a human being, he is an animal... see no comparison...

Man when you grow up to be a biiiiiig boy and you find some women to marry, she will be in for a biiiiig surprise when she finds your loyalties and beliefs are so inline with the Taliban... are you going to let her learn? Work? Or are you going to follow in the footsteps of your heroes the Taliban?

Edited December 11, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[login]

I don't have time to waste on a full response so I'll sumarize.

A does not = B building a bomb is not the same as throwing acid in a girls face. Your logic is faulty. If he was supplying acid, that is a different story in that he was abbeting that act. Although once again its not the jobs of Canadians to police people in Afghanistan, except for those offences on statute that are appliaclbe there. Now you could suggest that law change, but it is defamation to suggest that he supported acts he didn't. I don't think he was a terrorist. He was fighting the military not civllians. It was an invasion, he wasn't building bombs to terrorize Afghani civillians.

This discussion isn't about the Taliban or what their beleifs are. As for my personal opinions on them, I really can't offer comment as I have no first hand knowledge to make an informed opinion.

In regard to genocide I can't offer comment, as although, I do support genocide, I do not think it should be done on a basis of association or exercise of a group, but as an extreme of war to reduce casualties and damages. That is eradication to end war, not to eradicate a people. I am fundamental that way, I support humane actions, and I find that long dragged out wars arn't humane, and relatively quick death for those opposing peace is a better solution. That is my opinion. I don't like low intensity warfare as there are too many victims, it serves as an indirect torture. In the instance in the Holocaust, the starvation of Jews would be my second choice to gasing them, now I know I will never have that dilema, but it was a rather harsh war context that saw forced labour during a period of overactivity. A lot of advances did result from the war though, I am not condoning those acts but I do understand that there were benefits that came from it, not to say that there were many negatives also. Since it is illegal to advocate for genocide in Canada, I do need to say that these are my opinions and I do not call for any specific group to be eradicated, but as a matter of practice and theory there are instances in which genocide is a greater good, not because of who people are but because of what can result from not acting. I was someone who highly advocated for peace but after being victimize I do unfortunately feel there are people who should be killed to save humanity from further harm and the creation of more victims.

Your logic is faulty.

I need to add in the case of the Holocaust there were more options available that could have been explored, but if between starving them to death or gasing them to death, I would gas them.

This is and was well recorded Taliban and by extension al-Quida practice, he went to fight for them and therefore he fought for their beliefs and supported their actions.

Because stupid things happen in Canada we should let terrorists go free? Love your logic or lack thereof.

So you like their actions? You support the Taliban and al-Quida? Financially, morally or physically?

Yeah but the organization(see Taliban history pre 2001) he so heroically joined to fight the big bad Americans redeemable qualities they could never even match up. I guess you support those who committed the Holocaust or the Genocide in Rwanda, after all you don't need to like everything about the organization to be part of it right? Three hoorays for the SS, the Gestapo and the Interahamwe!

If he was not there, he would not be fired upon.

Are you tired? Do you need a nap? You seem awfully cranky... need a wowypop?

And you do, thats the difference between us...well one of the differences the others being I have common sense, a brain and well I am an adult.

Well thats true, you could be a conservative or NDP and thats your right, but when it comes to supporting the Taliban through your actions and participation you have to judge their history and previous actions and their view is that women are dogs( thats why they are not allowed to get an education, covered from head to toe and could only leave the house if a male relative was with them or they received written permission to be outside "unsupervised") and he judged that with the Taliban and al-Quida just fine...

Well unless the organization is all extreme and none of the soft and gooey stuff.

Financing al-quida does not count as "humanitarian" effort...

According to the Taliban and al-Quida he was a great man... so was Hitler, Saddam and Stalin when you ask their supporters,idiots, undedicated or apparently you.

Yes, because hat was it almost 8 or 9 years of Taliban rule was a paradise for the people of Afghanistan and they were not oppressed in the least?

Do you know ANYTHING about the Taliban?

And we have every right to let him suffer the consequences.

Not military, terrorist.

Again, there is a difference between military organizations(US military, British Military etc...) and terrorists(the Taliban, al-Quaida etc...) learn the difference it might do you some good.

He was send to Pakistan as a translator, he chose to go and fight with the Taliban...the same group that were oppressing Afghanistan for years, he build IEDs that likely killed NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians, he was captured by American Forces while in the company of his colleagues(al-Quida/Taliban) and received a 10 year vacation to sunny Cuba... What did I miss?

Who is a funny bunny? You are!

Terrorist Activities against the nation and people of Afghanistan.

Neither do the Majority of Canadians, the only problem is the idiot few are also the loudest.

I ask again, do you think about what you write, or is it kind of a surprise to you as well when it come out?

Not really, I just emptied my bowels and seems to me that you are trying to spew your all over this forum.

You wouldn't know what a fact or for that matter reality is if it smacked you in the face.

Yeah because the Taliban are the poster child of liberty... genius...pure genius...

What are you talking about? That is if you can decipher your own bullshit...

Building IED's, funding terrorists, fighting to oppress Afghanistan...need I say more?

You mean like attacking the liberty of a little girl for wanting to get an education?

I don't see you having a source for that.

Cant compare him to myself, I am a human being, he is an animal... see no comparison...

Man when you grow up to be a biiiiiig boy and you find some women to marry, she will be in for a biiiiig surprise when she finds your loyalties and beliefs are so inline with the Taliban... are you going to let her learn? Work? Or are you going to follow in the footsteps of your heroes the Taliban?

Edited December 11, 2012 by login

[guyser]

Khadr's father was engaged in humanitarian efforts, and was a good man as far as I have seen.

I guess getting rid of humanity is an effort.

You must be blind if thats what you see.

Credibility out the window with one sentence.

Ciao.

[login]

I guess getting rid of humanity is an effort.

You must be blind if thats what you see.

Credibility out the window with one sentence.

Ciao.

What "bad acts" did Khadr's father do?

[guyser]

I don't have time to waste on a full response so I'll sumarize.

First mistake

In regard to genocide I can't offer comment, as although, I do support genocide, I do not think it should be done on a basis of association or exercise of a group, but as an extreme of war to reduce casualties and damages. That is eradication to end war, not to eradicate a people.Your logic is faulty.

Wow!

Your logic is faulty.

Someones may be faulty. Yours is plain wrong.

By chance do you have a dictionary? Not to mention the mere fact you contradict yourself within 5 words. New record that one.

[guyser]

What "bad acts" did Khadr's father do?

'

LOL

Dont worry about it, you'll never see them anyway. Youve been blind so far so why change?

[login]

'

LOL

Dont worry about it, you'll never see them anyway. Youve been blind so far so why change?

Military acadamies exist in other parts of the world, there are cadet programs throughout Canada.

Just these people ended up fighting Nato. what don't you get about that?

Edited December 11, 2012 by login

[login]

First mistake

Wow!

Someones may be faulty. Yours is plain wrong.

By chance do you have a dictionary? Not to mention the mere fact you contradict yourself within 5 words. New record that one.

Where is the contradiction?

"The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group."

I stated that I would not commit genocide simply due to association, that is religion, ethnicity etc.. but support genocide in specific circumstances as a means to humane resolution of more servere circumstances that place a greater harm to human rights.

States that execise the death penalty are effectively totalitarian states which support genocide.

My message is one of love, not hate.

Edited December 11, 2012 by login

[guyser]

Military acadamies exist in other parts of the world, there are cadet programs throughout Canada.

Just these people ended up fighting Nato. what don't you get about that?

I get that.

Not that it is relevant in any way shape or form.

But hey, keep on truckin' with that genocide support.