Compensating Khadr

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Actually I was thinking about nonsensical generalizations.

So I tripped...

That's nice, Mr Never Say Anything. 

[Rue]

6 minutes ago, betsy said:

Well.....if he's an abused child - as you and a lot of people want to think - he spent most of youth in torture FROM HIS OWN PARENTS!

Why wasn't the CAS involved early on  when it came to light that the Khadr kids were being raised as "soldiers?"  A lot of couples have had their children taken away from them for lesser reasons.  Kids have been taken from parents for doing drugs - and yet the Khadr kids were raised among IEDs for toys.

Actually no psychiatric profile was done on him to indicate he lacked capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. There is no clinical evidence he was even abused.

The notion he was abused is one political leftists come up with and project on him inferring if he's a terrorist and he's 15 he must have been brain-washed. In the clinical world of psychiatry and forensic profiling, children as young as 7, 8, know when they kill or engage in violence its wrong. Its sheer political fantasy to make him out to be a child victim.

That's what liberals do. They see victims because they have never met the people they see as victims. They have never lived in their world, lived in the world they come from-they assume these victims come from the same environment they did. They have no clue that there are 15 year olds from the exact same conditions as Kadr who choose to reject terrorism not embrace it when their families are as violent if not more violent.

Don't you find it ironic Besty the Liberals were all over themselves applauding a Pakistani girl shot by terrorists in the face and now put this Kadr on the same moral ground as her.

Also Besty and you are well aware, whether its the New Testament, Old Testament and yes the Koran, it clearly states in all 3,  no one should profit directly or indirectly from violence, crime. No religion condones his paying of people who engage in violence. Even criminals arrested and released because of the rules of evidence that dismiss illegally obtained evidence, can not profit from  their crimes-but hey in Canada if you are a terrorist you can. Trudeau sees that as a moral obligation.

Now you and I disagree over some religious doctrine but not this basic doctrine of morality and I say this, if this government is so spiritually devoid or moral conceptualization that it can't understand you don't let people profit from their wrong doings, God help us all. This government has made a mockery of the most basic and fundamental of human moral issues in the name if claiming its recognizing human rights. Its sheer insanity at its worst.

[jacee]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

I had to go looking for a previous article I came across to support the comment I made above. Took me a while to find it. Maybe you've read it, or others similar

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty

Yes I've read it. Very telling ...

"Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction."

[capricorn]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Betsy, think for Christ's sakes,

 

You think by invoking the Christ's name it will give your argument more weight? And you do this knowing full well you're addressing a devout Christian. You're despicable.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

That is a ridiculous reply, Hal. There would be no problems of the variety/volume if the US had not illegally invaded sovereign nations. If the US hadn't been illegally invading sovereign nations for well over a century.

In your world you select the US as the source for all evils.

I would just look in the mirror kid.

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, capricorn said:

I would not be surprised if Omar Khadr is a sociopath.

Sociopaths are people who buy into right wing nutcase websites and repeat their memes without ever a rational thought passing thru their "brains". The facts simply do not support all the right wing crap that is delivered here. 

It was done with people from China, from Pakistan, Blacks, people from wherever; right wingers never need a reason to hate, it's always there, ready to boil over.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

In your world you select the US as the source for all evils.

Not all, but most. Thems the facts, Rue, but I know how fact adverse you are. 

[jacee]

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Bull!  In fact chances are, if he was building and setting bombs, he killed many more people than just the one US solider.

Yes, they made the children make the  IED's.

If the children didn't do what they were told, they were made to become suicide bombers - kill others and kill themselves. 

That's from an article written by one of Omar's older brothers, the one who, when he was old enough, defied his father and ran away ... because his father was threatening to make him a suicide bomber.

 

 

[capricorn]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Sociopaths are people

You don't have a clue what is meant by sociopath.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, capricorn said:

a devout Christian.

Really? Why so much hate in a devout christian?

You can't see the silliness in hating people for no sane, logical reason, people who have suffered immensely because of folks like you, capricorn, and yes, Betsy too. 

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, capricorn said:

You think by invoking the Christ's name

Why do you so hate freedom of speech, capricorn?

[capricorn]

3 minutes ago, jacee said:

If the children didn't do what they were told, they were made to become suicide bombers - kill others and kill themselves

 

Blowing themselves up sounds good to me, hopefully before they kill others. Fewer jihadis roaming the streets.

[jacee]

37 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

The topic is not about me, hot enough.  Stop making personal attacks.

You are pretty full of hate for a 'Christian'. Kinda strange.

[jacee]

Just now, capricorn said:

Blowing themselves up sounds good to me, hopefully before they kill others. Fewer jihadis roaming the streets.

They are children.

You are disgusting.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, capricorn said:

Blowing themselves up sounds good to me, hopefully before they kill others. Fewer jihadis roaming the streets.

Kids today!  They blow up so fast...

[betsy]

21 minutes ago, Omni said:

International Law OPAC 2000 says with regard to child soldiers the age is 18. That's a start. And the OMG, he MAY have called a female guard a bitch. Yippity doo dah day. That really makes him a terrorist doesn't it. Even though they tortured him and threw him in jail illegally for 10 years. I'd have some words to say that you've probably never heard before if they did that to me. 

Levant was referring to article 38.  Check video timer 0:37

Read for yourself:

 

Quote

 

In 1989, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities."

International Humanitarian Law

According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:

The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

As the ICRC commentary on Protocol it makes clear, this is not a complete ban on the use of children in conflict.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children

 

 

Quote

 

Rule 136. Recruitment of Child Soldiers

International and non-international armed conflicts

Additional Protocols I and II prohibit the recruitment of children.[1]  This prohibition is also found in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour.[2]  Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “conscripting or enlisting children” into armed forces or groups constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

 

Age-limit for the recruitment of children

Additional Protocols I and II, the Statute of the International Criminal Court and of the Special Court for Sierra Leone put the minimum age for recruitment in armed forces or armed groups at 15, as does the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Although there is not, as yet, a uniform practice with respect to the minimum age for recruitment, there is agreement that it should not be below 15 years of age.

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter39_rule136

 

Ezra Levant is right!  You're wrong.

Edited July 9, 2017 by betsy

[Omni]

13 minutes ago, jacee said:

Yes I've read it. Very telling ...

"Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction."

And as a former Crown Prosecutor the opinion(s) carry some weight.

[capricorn]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

They are children.

You are disgusting.

So sue me.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

A hundred miles N of TO.

Don't answer personal questions.

You don't know who this is, and it's suspicious that he's asking.

Edited July 9, 2017 by jacee

[betsy]

18 minutes ago, Rue said:

Actually no psychiatric profile was done on him to indicate he lacked capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. There is no clinical evidence he was even abused.

The notion he was abused is one political leftists come up with and project on him inferring if he's a terrorist and he's 15 he must have been brain-washed. In the clinical world of psychiatry and forensic profiling, children as young as 7, 8, know when they kill or engage in violence its wrong. Its sheer political fantasy to make him out to be a child victim.

That's what liberals do. They see victims because they have never met the people they see as victims. They have never lived in their world, lived in the world they come from-they assume these victims come from the same environment they did. They have no clue that there are 15 year olds from the exact same conditions as Kadr who choose to reject terrorism not embrace it when their families are as violent if not more violent.

Don't you find it ironic Besty the Liberals were all over themselves applauding a Pakistani girl shot by terrorists in the face and now put this Kadr on the same moral ground as her.

Also Besty and you are well aware, whether its the New Testament, Old Testament and yes the Koran, it clearly states in all 3,  no one should profit directly or indirectly from violence, crime. No religion condones his paying of people who engage in violence. Even criminals arrested and released because of the rules of evidence that dismiss illegally obtained evidence, can not profit from  their crimes-but hey in Canada if you are a terrorist you can. Trudeau sees that as a moral obligation.

Now you and I disagree over some religious doctrine but not this basic doctrine of morality and I say this, if this government is so spiritually devoid or moral conceptualization that it can't understand you don't let people profit from their wrong doings, God help us all. This government has made a mockery of the most basic and fundamental of human moral issues in the name if claiming its recognizing human rights. Its sheer insanity at its worst.

We agree on some issues, yes.  

Religion - it's a very divisive subject (since not everyone adhere to the same doctrine), so it's understandable that we won't see eye to eye in some of those hot issues.

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, capricorn said:

You think by invoking the Christ's name it will give your argument more weight? And you do this knowing full well you're addressing a devout Christian. You're despicable.

Yes Cap. Its like lice, ticks, flees, vermin. They were put on the planet for some reason. Maybe to test us. Maybe to remind us to wash.

 

 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, capricorn said:

So sue me.

Despising your evil is all that is required.

Do you think the christians will step forward to denounce your evil?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

Don't answer personal questions.

You don't know who this is, and it's suspicious that he's asking.

I hear ya. That's my old family home where I grew up and return to once in a while to visit. (gotta use up those airmile points) it isn't where I live now.

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Rue said:

Yes Cap.

Nice touch, Rue. So close to a person who wishes children to be blown up. But then that is what you regularly support. Peas in a pod, you and "cap".

Edited July 9, 2017 by hot enough

[Hal 9000]

7 minutes ago, jacee said:

They are children.

You are disgusting.

 

They cease to be children when mom sends them to terrorist camp.