Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


betsy

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Omni said:

That's the argument right there. The rest of you lengthy screed just goes in bad grammatical circles. 

It is not a legal argument which was my point. I do notice you now only call it an argument. The word legal must have what conveniently escaped your attention? You think you can deflect with that dropping of the word legal? Right. Next it is not even an argument. He offered no reason why the price to protect the integrity of the legal system not the merits warranted he not proceed further. He simply decided this arbitrarily in secret. it is this half assed secret deliberation and after the fact  rationalization Canadians do NOT boy. This WE you refer to, 70% of this WE does not buy his back room deal that keeps secret the amount. This 70% we does not buy anything he says now they found out his office lied and paid the money a week early to prejudice the widow of the person Kadr killed trying to freeze his money pending a legal review.  That Sir was deliberate political manouvering and no amount of spin can make an excuse for it. Your boy Trudeau has a large brown stain on his punk shit, white pant outfit he wears to each gay pride parade.

I also note you have no explanation why Trudeau has no problems continuing to spend millions on a legal case to dey veterans benefits but did suddenly have financial concern over the Kasr case. You have no explanation how a Prime Minister who in two years has bankrupt this nation with out of control spending is only fiscally concerned about one legal case.

Who you?

Listen Spicer knew when to walk away, so should you. You defend the indefensible.

I am glad to see though Trudeau prancing about in Halifax. That's his idea of leadership. Giggling giggling and posing with drag queens for photo ops in Halifax. What a hip guy. Some of us want a Prime Minister with substance and this thing called a vertebrae. He chooses instead to be a prancing photo op. That's what he offers. Yabba Dabba Doo. He lives the Flintstone theme song. Good for him.

 

 

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

No its n ot the argument its the rationalization, the excuse.  In any event it took you this long to admit you have no legal argument based on a case precedent but in fact are parroting the political statement of Trudeau's press office excusing why they did not  proceed further.

I also note you have no explanation why Trudeau has no problems continuing to spend millions on a legal case to dey veterans benefits but did suddenly have financial concern over the Kasr case. You have no explanation how a Prime Minister who in two years has bankrupt this nation with out of control spending is only fiscally concerned about one legal case.

Who you?

Listen Spicer knew when to walk away, so should you. You defend the indefensible. I am glad to see though Trudeau prancing about in Halifax. That's his idea of leadership. Giggling and prancing around for photo ops. Some of us want a Prime Minister with substance and this thing called a vertebrae.

 

Veterans affairs is a different case. I was just explaining to you what happened in this case.

P.S. I don't think Spicer "knew" when to walk away. I think he was "told" when to walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Veterans affairs is a different case. I was just explaining to you what happened in this case.

P.S. I don't think Spicer "knew" when to walk away. I think he was "told" when to walk away.

Of course its a different case. The fact remains he will spend millions to avoid paying vets but will quickly pay off a terrorist. The point is he values terrorists more than he does our soldiers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Spicer is smart enough not to pay a convicted war criminal and Al Qaeda terrorist $10.5 million.

 

True. I think he deserves a vacation. Trudeau appears to be on one permanent feel good vacation . However the Kadr issue is not going away. I will tell you this, our press is very pro-Trudeau they've done their best to try bury the story but it keeps bubbling back up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Spicer is smart enough not to pay a convicted war criminal and Al Qaeda terrorist $10.5 million.

 

I don't think I would let Spicer anywhere near money. He has trouble counting as we saw from his comments on the inauguration attendance #'s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-07-19 at 0:21 PM, Rue said:

 

 

Quote

Your first question simply shows you do not believe Kadr acted immorally and that with due respect Peter F is something I think not worthy of a response. I don't believe you don't know the answer to the question or why its immoral to be a terrorist. I do think by asking the question you condone and defend terrorism.

   And again, Rue, What was the immoral act? or acts?  As I see it, If the USofA declares war on the Taliban, then invades Afghanistan to force out the Taliban and in so doing engages in combat with the Taliban, then the Taliban by virtue of opposing the USofA in its endeavours are not terrorists. Khadr was part of a group  certainly associated with the Taliban, opposing the US forces.   Therefore he was not a terrorist but a combatant.   It was in combat that Sgt Spears died, allegedly by Khadr's action of throwing a grenade during that combat. That is not terrorism.   That he partook in building IED's and event went out (under the supervision by the way) and planted IED's in spots specifically chosen (by those supervising him) to be places where US military convoys regularly transit, is not terrorism.  

   You are equating those actions (and those actions are the only actions Khadr has been accused of or even admitted to) with terrorism. Just like blowing up bars in Bali, or buses in London, or concerts in Paris or Manchester, or loading suitcases with explosives on aircraft, or machine-gunning random people at airports, or shooting any US citizen that happens to be at hand on cruise ships.   I say there is a vast difference between terrorism and combat/war. 

  As regards who is a child soldier and who is not - or more specifically; who should be called a child soldier and who should not be - your argument leads to the inane conclusion that there are two types of child soldiers:  (1)Those who fight in uniforms of states for noble causes. Such children deserve the benefit of the law regarding child soldiers, but only if the recruiting state doesn't realize that the child is serving. 

     (2) those children fighting out of uniform for an immoral undignified cause who should not, under any circumstance, be called child soldiers for the sake of other child soldiers dignity (see 1 above).  Such children should on no account be considered child soldiers or even treated as such. it would certainly be a travesty of Morality if not Law to do so.

Quote

He did nto go to war in a legally constituted army following the rules of the Geneva Convention. Kadr went to engage in terrorism with Al Quaeda who do not follow any laws or conventions but their own.

  Khadr guilt, if any, requires that Khadr himself commit terrorism. It doesn't matter one iota what other folks do or did or will do or what organization they are part of.  

 Is it possible for folks fighting in a legally constituted army following the rules of the Geneva conventions to commit atrocities or war crimes or even terrorism? Yes.  Is it possible for those associated with terrorist organizations to not commit terrorism or war crimes or atrocity? Also yes.    The question is : What did Khadr do? Not what Al Queda does or advocates.

Quote

This nation is built on the blood of  moral men and women who gave their lives for the moral values Kadr spits at to this day. To put them and him on the same moral plane for that reason is an insult to them not just me and many others.

  Khadr spits does he? Where has he done that? His mom may have done that. Maybe his dad did that, maybe. Where has Khadr done that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2017 at 10:21 AM, Rue said:

Your first question simply shows you do not believe Kadr acted immorally and that with due respect Peter F is something I think not worthy of a response

You wholly support the illegal, amoral, war criminal actions of the USA, Israel, UK, ... . Is the word stunning 'hypocrisy' within your ken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2017 at 10:21 AM, Rue said:

This nation is built on the blood of  moral men and women who gave their lives for the moral values Kadr spits at to this day. To put them and him on the same moral plane for that reason is an insult to them not just me and many others.

This nation is built on the blood of how many First Nations' peoples and people.

Don't try that wholesale nonsense about wars of liberty and freedom. WWI and WWII were such. All the rest have been following war criminals into illegal invasions of sovereign peoples. That was Afghanistan too, an illegal invasion, all based on lies. The US was negotiating oil pipelines with the Taliban, the folks they made and nurtured and embraced, until August of 2001. 

You trying to hold the moral high ground is laughable in the extreme, Rue.

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, hot enough said:

This nation is built on the blood of how many First Nations' peoples and people.

Don't try that wholesale nonsense about wars of liberty and freedom. WWI and WWII were such. All the rest have been following war criminals into illegal invasions of sovereign peoples. That was Afghanistan too, an illegal invasion, all based on lies. The US was negotiating oil pipelines with the Taliban, the folks they made and nurtured and embraced, until August of 2001. 

You trying to hold the moral high ground is laughable in the extreme, Rue.

When the white man showed up the natives were killing each other off. Mass rape and genocide and what about the 1 st settlers that came here and were slaughtered by the natives. And anyone that thinks america was making a deal with the taliban on oil is a fool. Ask the afghani women what they thought of the invading troops, they wish we were still there. Young girls with dreams of being pilots and even presidents are now being dashed by the returning taliban who think of women as cows or property. Any women that is against what we tried to do in afghanistan is also a fool and has very little idea what goes on over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

You wholly support the illegal, amoral, war criminal actions of the USA, Israel, UK, ... . Is the word stunning 'hypocrisy' within your ken?

Please list this actions. And the we can list what the taliban and the so called palestinians do. Do you even have a clue to what went on or just into left wing media headlines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PIK said:

When the white man showed up the natives were killing each other off. Mass rape and genocide and what about the 1 st settlers that came here and were slaughtered by the natives.

A Canadian government planned and executed genocide over a century long is a genocide. 

Quote

And anyone that thinks america was making a deal with the taliban on oil is a fool.

Taliban forces conquering Afghanistan.Taliban forces conquering Afghanistan. [Source: Banded Artists Productions]The Taliban conquer Kabul [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/19/2002] , establishing control over much of Afghanistan. A surge in the Taliban’s military successes at this time is later attributed to an increase in direct military assistance from Pakistan’s ISI. [NEW YORK TIMES, 12/8/2001] The oil company Unocal is hopeful that the Taliban will stabilize Afghanistan and allow its pipeline plans to go forward. According to some reports, “preliminary agreement [on the pipeline] was reached between the [Taliban and Unocal] long before the fall of Kabul .… Oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America’s, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan.” [DAILY TELEGRAPH, 10/11/1996] The 9/11 Commission later concludes that some State Department diplomats are willing to “give the Taliban a chance” because it might be able to bring stability to Afghanistan, which would allow a Unocal oil pipeline to be built through the country. [9/11 COMMISSION, 3/24/2004]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PIK said:

Please list this[sic] actions. And the[sic] we can list what the taliban and the so called palestinians do. Do you even have a clue to what went on or just into left wing media headlines?

Go ahead and list whatever you want, in Standard English. 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, PIK said:

When the white man showed up the natives were killing each other off. Mass rape and genocide and what about the 1 st settlers that came here and were slaughtered by the natives. 

Where do you get your history from?   This is ignorant in the extreme.  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

Quote


The Aboriginal population of Canada during the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000[10] and two million,[11] with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health.[12] Repeated outbreaks of Old World infectious diseases such as influenzameasles and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity), were the main cause of depopulation. This combined with other factors such as dispossession from European/Canadian settlements and numerous violent conflicts resulted in a forty- to eighty-percent aboriginal population decrease after contact.[10] For example, during the late 1630s, smallpox killed over half of the Wyandot (Huron), who controlled most of the early North American fur trade in what became Canada. They were reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.[13]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jacee said:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/medic-account-omar-khadr-1.4218853

Interesting perspective from the medic who saved Khadr's life.

Interesting...no, i wouldn't put it like that, designed to once again soften the issue for the liberals, that's probably more accurate.  look at poor Omar, look at how human he is, the medic who saved his life must have thought so, otherwise he wouldnt have saved him. Except they try to save everyone, friend and enemy.  The rest of his opinions aren't relevant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stan said:

Interesting...no, i wouldn't put it like that, designed to once again soften the issue for the liberals, that's probably more accurate.  look at poor Omar, look at how human he is, the medic who saved his life must have thought so, otherwise he wouldnt have saved him. Except they try to save everyone, friend and enemy.  The rest of his opinions aren't relevant.

I'm assuming as a medic, he took the Hippocratic Oath.

And apparently lived up to it.  Good for him.

But yes, the rest of his opinions are as irrelevant as the apologists say ours are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Where do you get your history from?   This is ignorant in the extreme.  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

 

Idk about 'mass rape', but the idyllic, peaceful lives of our native population before our arrival is a myth.  There was regular fighting, slavery, early death, and yes our first aboriginal peoples in the arctic were removed, killed off perhaps, by the ancestors of it's current inhabitants.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, recently i saw an article about someone in Canada, a minor, charged and convicted as an adult, this happens with some regularity in Canada.  So generally minors who purposefully murder or otherwise commit violent acts probably come from bad families and bad parents, and no doubt each case is looked at individually, but it's a bit hard to imagine how a 15-16 year old building IED"S, coming from what seems like a fairly advantaged, yet evil family, wouldn't at least know what he was doing was wrong at least as much as any other teenager who murders or rapes someone.  Building bombs is a very cold blooded thing to do.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/crown-seeks-adult-sentence-for-14-year-old-charged-with-first-degree-murder/wcm/d73a7bfe-c08b-4f91-8edb-f65c6ae5948a

That 'kid' was 14, so is this a purely ideological, no one under 18 could ever, ever, ever know any better and should never be charged as an adult, or what exactly makes Khadr so special that in his particular circumstance he couldn't ever, ever be responsible for anything he did, and then i wonder how many of the same people who believe that under 18 is a 'child' forever and always, would also be fine giving 16 yr olds the right to vote.  That's quite an illogical soup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Stan said:

So, recently i saw an article about someone in Canada, a minor, charged and convicted as an adult, this happens with some regularity in Canada.  So generally minors who purposefully murder or otherwise commit violent acts probably come from bad families and bad parents, and no doubt each case is looked at individually, but it's a bit hard to imagine how a 15-16 year old building IED"S, coming from what seems like a fairly advantaged, yet evil family, wouldn't at least know what he was doing was wrong at least as much as any other teenager who murders or rapes someone.  Building bombs is a very cold blooded thing to do.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/crown-seeks-adult-sentence-for-14-year-old-charged-with-first-degree-murder/wcm/d73a7bfe-c08b-4f91-8edb-f65c6ae5948a

That 'kid' was 14, so is this a purely ideological, no one under 18 could ever, ever, ever know any better and should never be charged as an adult, or what exactly makes Khadr so special that in his particular circumstance he couldn't ever, ever be responsible for anything he did, and then i wonder how many of the same people who believe that under 18 is a 'child' forever and always, would also be fine giving 16 yr olds the right to vote.  That's quite an illogical soup.

Still flogging that dead horse?

Canada never bothered to bring him home to try him here, so that bird has flown.

We'll see what happens in his US appeal of his conviction. Maybe they'll address that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Not interesting at all. He was morally and legally obligated to do the job he was trained for. If he hadn't I'm sure you people would be clamoring for his blood and money.

Certainly, but he's an American, he is the real enemy here, I don't think we should underestimate how much a general anti American sentiment leads so many to automatically side with someone who may very well have blown up our own soldiers with the bombs he was making (maybe got some muricans too though..yay!), but of course, not in anyway responsible for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jacee said:

Still flogging that dead horse?

Canada never bothered to bring him home to try him here, so that bird has flown.

We'll see what happens in his US appeal of his conviction. Maybe they'll address that issue.

Im not going to respond much to you, all you do is deflect away from points made and never seriously answer anything, the point is you and others will gladly defend him on ideological grounds and you will use any method you can to do it, even when its in complete opposition to other beliefs you are likely to hold.  Are all children, "children".  or are some children fully aware that when they murder someone at the age of 14 that they were murdering them, seemingly yes, and are other children at the age of 15, who grew up in a family of terrorists, somehow incapable of understanding that they were building bombs to kill people?  Maybe, but it seems pretty unlikely.  It's really your side that flogs the argument of him as a child, it's convenient to refer to arbitrary ages of adulthood and ignore the reality, if he had been 17 3/4 would he have been a child?  How about 18, the day he turns 18 all the lights come on and now he suddenly knows what he's doing?  it's nonsense.  And I don't think you really care about any of it, you care that he was there sticking it to the Americans, the rest of this is just backdoor ways of defending him.  But he was a child, and i bet if i looked i would find more than one of you here hoping for an under 18 voting age, letting children, who seemingly know nothing, vote, imagine.

 

His rights were violated, he was also building bombs that may have killed some of our own people, fighting against us, and he knew as well as anyone what he was doing, building bombs is a meticulous, cold blooded, premeditated task.  That's why you don't help hm with a settlement, or try to keep it quiet.  If he he didn't know what he was doing than why is it ever legal in this country to charge a minor as an adult?  They are all children, why the hell are they allowed on the highways?  Are we somehow unaware of all the accidental deaths these children cause?

Edited by Stan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...