Omar Khadr Suing And Being Sued

[WWWTT]

No you would sue his father's estate and mother and they could seize his mother's house in Canada.

False, that American will never be able to do that!

I'll believe it when I see it.

WWWTT

[Wilber]

LOL!

We are not the Canadian government!

Nor are we in any way responsible for the actions of the conservative government!

WWWTT

Wrong. The Canadian government was elected by and represents you and you will pay if Khadr wins, not the government.

[WWWTT]

Wrong. The Canadian government was elected by and represents you and you will pay if Khadr wins, not the government.

Ok if you say so buddy.

Oh and by the way, you and I are paying didely squat here. If Khadr wins, and you want to write him a cheque, write one on my behalf too! I'll pay you back no problem buddy!

WWWTT

[monty16]

It would be very surprising to see Khadr win but if he did then it would be held up as an example of fair and just application of the law.

I have exactly zero concern on what it will cost Canada or Canadians. I would see it as honourable to be a part of paying him.

[Wilber]

Ok if you say so buddy.

Oh and by the way, you and I are paying didely squat here. If Khadr wins, and you want to write him a cheque, write one on my behalf too! I'll pay you back no problem buddy!

WWWTT

So I take it you don't pay taxes.

[WWWTT]

Khadr isn't suing Bush, he is suing you. Time to get your priorities in order.

Wrong. The Canadian government was elected by and represents you and you will pay if Khadr wins, not the government.

So I take it you don't pay taxes.

What you have clearly written is that Monty16 would be listed as a defendant in a lawsuit!

Then you wrote that if Khadr wins, I will have to pay out the settlement.

So now do you want to clarify what you are writing?

WWWTT

[Bryan]

I guess Saddam should've have refused inspections for four years then. Violating UN resolutions can have deadly consequences. Especially when there's actually people around that want to enforce them.

I was with you up to this point. Several of the actual weapons inspectors have written books on the subject. Iraq was thoroughly inspected and fully cleared. Both the UN and in turn the US knew for an absolute fact that Saddam did not have those weapons prior to the invasion.

[Shady]

Except they never found any violations.

Are you kidding? The fact that Saddam refused inspections from 1998 to 2002 was a violation. The fact that he fired on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone was a violation.

[Shady]

I was with you up to this point. Several of the actual weapons inspectors have written books on the subject. Iraq was thoroughly inspected and fully cleared. Both the UN and in turn the US knew for an absolute fact that Saddam did not have those weapons prior to the invasion.

That's just not true. That's why George Tenant, former CIA director told George Bush, that it was a slam dunk that Saddam still had illegal weapons. The problem was that Saddam was bluffing. But he was also bluffing his own military generals, as well as his neighbours like Iran. Unfortunately his bluff was called.

[On Guard for Thee]

Are you kidding? The fact that Saddam refused inspections from 1998 to 2002 was a violation. The fact that he fired on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone was a violation.

No I'm not kidding. I was there with the UN weapons inspectors untill we were ordered out of the country 2 days before the bombs stated falling. Nothing of signifigance was found. I spent a lot of time in those no fly zones, both north and south. Never got shot at.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's just not true. That's why George Tenant, former CIA director told George Bush, that it was a slam dunk that Saddam still had illegal weapons. The problem was that Saddam was bluffing. But he was also bluffing his own military generals, as well as his neighbours like Iran. Unfortunately his bluff was called.

Absolutely correct Bryan.

[Bryan]

That's just not true. That's why George Tenant, former CIA director told George Bush, that it was a slam dunk that Saddam still had illegal weapons. The problem was that Saddam was bluffing. But he was also bluffing his own military generals, as well as his neighbours like Iran. Unfortunately his bluff was called.

That's certainly the story that Bush told us. The actual weapons inspectors, the ones who would actually know, tell a different story.

[Shady]

That's certainly the story that Bush told us. The actual weapons inspectors, the ones who would actually know, tell a different story.

So the weapons inspectors know what the CIA director told the president? How so?

[Shady]

No I'm not kidding. I was there with the UN weapons inspectors untill we were ordered out of the country 2 days before the bombs stated falling. Nothing of signifigance was found. I spent a lot of time in those no fly zones, both north and south. Never got shot at.

If you're not kidding, than how can you call Saddam's refusal to allow inspections for four years not a violation? How is firing ant-aircraft guns at patrolling aircraft of the no-fly zone not a violation? Oh, so now you're trying to say that no planes were fired upon? Come'on man.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's certainly the story that Bush told us. The actual weapons inspectors, the ones who would actually know, tell a different story.

The mostly likely scenario of getting shot at in the no fly zones was if an Iraqi aircraft would make the mistake of escorting us across the line. We were told in no uncertain terms if they follow you across either of those latittudes, turn away because there will be shrapnel flying. That would be from American fire.

[Shady]

The mostly likely scenario of getting shot at in the no fly zones was if an Iraqi aircraft would make the mistake of escorting us across the line. We were told in no uncertain terms if they follow you across either of those latittudes, turn away because there will be shrapnel flying. That would be from American fire.

Even Russia acknowledged the actions, they just disagreed that it was any violation.

Disagreeing with the United States, Russia said Wednesday that Iraqi firing on U.S. and British aircraft in the no-fly zones does not constitute a violation of the new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/11/20/russia-no-fly-zone-firing-not-violation/

[On Guard for Thee]

If you're not kidding, than how can you call Saddam's refusal to allow inspections for four years not a violation? How is firing ant-aircraft guns at patrolling aircraft of the no-fly zone not a violation? Oh, so now you're trying to say that no planes were fired upon? Come'on man.

The UN searched far and wide and found nothing of any import. I had dinner in Basra one night with a very experienced UN weapons inspector who had been sent in there after GW 1. His comment was he used to have them, he doesn't now. He has conformed, we have found nothing to declare a war over. You are going by the drivel CNN or MSNBC feeds you. Come'on man. I was there.

[Shady]

The UN searched far and wide and found nothing of any import. I had dinner in Basra one night with a very experienced UN weapons inspector who had been sent in there after GW 1. His comment was he used to have them, he doesn't now. He has conformed, we have found nothing to declare a war over. You are going by the drivel CNN or MSNBC feeds you. Come'on man. I was there.

Of course you were.

Anyways, this is thread drift. We can agree to disagree.

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course you were.

Anyways, this is thread drift. We can agree to disagree.

I have often disagreed with Bryan, but he has his facts straight on this one for sure. Let him inform you.

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course you were.

Anyways, this is thread drift. We can agree to disagree.

You can doubt whether I was there or not. Obviously you weren't. my job takes me into war zones from time to time. Not fun, but it's a job.

[monty16]

That's just not true. That's why George Tenant, former CIA director told George Bush, that it was a slam dunk that Saddam still had illegal weapons. The problem was that Saddam was bluffing. But he was also bluffing his own military generals, as well as his neighbours like Iran. Unfortunately his bluff was called.

Oh yes it's true and it's obvious that most Americans don't want to bear the guilt. Or am I holding them up to a standard that isn't realistic for those who support their country's murder on false pretences.

In actual fact there has been several investigations done on it and it certain now that the US knew very well that there were no weapons. MSNBC has just recently aired a documentary, "Why We Did It" that uncovers the remaining lies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Americans don't bear guilt...they bear arms. No guilty feelings for Omar Khadr, Maher Arar, or Saddam Hussein.

[On Guard for Thee]

Americans don't bear guilt...they bear arms. No guilty feelings for Omar Khadr, Maher Arar, or Saddam Hussein.

Some Americans do actually. They worry over an illegal war like Iraq. Kinda bad for the PR.

[Wilber]

What you have clearly written is that Monty16 would be listed as a defendant in a lawsuit!

Then you wrote that if Khadr wins, I will have to pay out the settlement.

So now do you want to clarify what you are writing?

WWWTT

So Monty16 doesn't pay taxes either. Interesting.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Wilber

[Shady]

You can doubt whether I was there or not. Obviously you weren't. my job takes me into war zones from time to time. Not fun, but it's a job.

Sure it does. It's fun to pretend to be whatever we want online, isn't it?