ISIS interview.

[PIK]

  self-proclaimed executioner for ISIS, reportedly living in Toronto has federal Conservative MPs worried.

In the New York Times podcast, Caliphate, a man under the pseudonym Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi admitted to killing people for the terrorist group when he was in Syria.

“One shot. Clean to the head. Just finish them off,” Abu Huzaifa said on the podcast of executions. “They brought in these men wearing blue jumpsuits…they were blindfolded, handcuffed, came in as a line and sat in front of us.”

Abu Huzaifa casually described how an ISIS execution took place. He said the Sunni Muslim men were non-emotional as they prepared to meet their demise.

“To me, they looked like animals (when they were facing me),” Abu Huzaifa told interviewer Rukmini Callimachi. “The guy (in front of us) would give us a cue and then say, ‘Fire!’

  At first, Abu Huzaifa said he couldn’t do it because the men looked like “regular guys,” but he said he kept telling himself that he was “doing it for a reason” and he “wouldn’t be held accountable.”

“They put themselves in that situation. They (the prisoners) killed themselves,” he said. “Then you just have to close your eyes and do it…and just shoot.”

The man said executions were part of steps to become a front-line fighter, which was one of his goals.

Abu Huzaifa is now reportedly living in Toronto, due to operational security reasons, the CBC reported. 

While he was reportedly questioned by CSIS and the RCMP, Abu Huzaifa has not been charged with any crimes.

This has federal Conservatives worried, demanding that something must be done.

“This individual is speaking freely to the media,” said Conservative House leader Candice Bergen during question period on Parliament Hill Friday. “The government has got to know where he is.”

However, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale was leery to comment, stating security concerns as the reason.

Bergen retorted, wondering why the government isn’t doing anything since the media reported Abu Huzaifa is living in Toronto.

“Canadians deserve more answers from this government. Why aren’t they doing something about this despicable animal

http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/canadian-isis-executioner-who-admitted-to-killings-on-podcast-has-conservatives-worried

This is so sad. What has happened to our country? Why can't people see what trudeau is doing? What is even more disgusting is when trudeau was asked about this in the commons and his answer was simply disguxting. I can't find the link at the moment but he should be forced to resign.

[Army Guy]

Our government and our laws have given these scumbags freedom to do what ever they want, including murder. How does one gather enough evidence that would satisfy a Canadian court of law....answer, it can not, it is mission impossible....so why do we need these types of laws ?....what a joke....this country needs to get it's shit together, we are more worried about their rights than those of normal Canadians.....

[GostHacked]

Jail and then deport his ass back to Syria.  NOW.

[Goddess]

But.......but........their "rights"!

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

But.......but........their "rights"!

Who said he can't he be charged and processed according to the rights he's due?

[PIK]

His answer in the commons was disgusting, just a tyrant on how the cons just like to spread fear, to him it is a non issue.

[cannuck]

He is probably here to collect his $10mm and get a hug from our dear PM.

[Army Guy]

Charged with what, nobody can prove anything....this guy is innocent until proven guilty in a Canadian court, what about an Iraqi court where his crimes were committed ? .........and according to the liberal government it would be barbaric to hunt him down in Syria and kill his ass while he was learning what ISIS life was all about.....So we are left with these scumbags walking our streets, i wonder what does this do to islamophobia in Canada. 

[GostHacked]

38 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Charged with what, nobody can prove anything....this guy is innocent until proven guilty in a Canadian court, what about an Iraqi court where his crimes were committed ? .........and according to the liberal government it would be barbaric to hunt him down in Syria and kill his ass while he was learning what ISIS life was all about.....So we are left with these scumbags walking our streets, i wonder what does this do to islamophobia in Canada. 

Was this the mentality regarding Khadr? Innocent until proven guilty? Somehow I think not.

[Army Guy]

NO this was not the case with Omar, Omar was a terrorist plain and simple. Only Omar there was proof, here there is not...don't get me wrong this guy is guilty as shit as well but how does one prove that. Omar was pulled off the battle field....kind of hard to claim he was not a terrorist... 

Omar case in one in million, where there was follow up and evidence gathered, it is next to impossible to do all those things in a combat zone....and rarely happens.... 

Correct me if i am wrong but Omar was tried and convicted of murder was he not ? on the outset there may of been some doubt as to whether he kill the medic, but he was guilty as shit of being part of a terrorist group, being a terrorist, taking part in gathering intel on a coalition partner, planting IED's, picking up a firearm and participating in combat, while being a non combatant...that they got from Omars home made combat porn tape.....

the list goers on, most of those charges were dropped in favor of the murder charge, which the final results were respected in the US and Canada despite what Canadian justice figures claim was a kangaroo court....he remained in jail....

 

 

Just a off topic question, those Native Americans Indians snatch up and put into foster homes, sent away to far away schools....what did they get for there rights being violated....was it 10 million....

[Clubbob]

Omar was a child soldier brought over there by his parents. The evidence used to convict him was unreliable since it was gained through torture and lack of witnesses. His legal rights violated for 10 years as he had no trial when he was first taken in. 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

27 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

....Just a off topic question, those Native Americans Indians snatch up and put into foster homes, sent away to far away schools....what did they get for there rights being violated....was it 10 million....

 

Yes....apparently the rights of a convicted war criminal and ISIS fighters are worth 100X more than the rights of First Nations who committed the crime of being "aboriginal".

Edited May 17, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, Clubbob said:

Omar was a child soldier brought over there by his parents. The evidence used to convict him was unreliable since it was gained through torture and lack of witnesses. His legal rights violated for 10 years as he had no trial when he was first taken in. 

 

Cry me a river.....

Omar was a terrorist.....As for the evidence,  well did it not bring about a conviction, yes or no ?.....was that conviction upheld by the US justice system ?.....and then by the Canadian Justice system ?.....yes or no.....Some of his civil rights were violated , and he was compensated for that......with 10 mil dollars, and yet just last week the Canadian government settled with Native American's who had their civil rights violated much more than Omar and his merry band of terrorist ever did , and what was the payout again ?.....lots of justice there.

[Clubbob]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Cry me a river.....

Omar was a terrorist.....As for the evidence,  well did it not bring about a conviction, yes or no ?.....was that conviction upheld by the US justice system ?.....and then by the Canadian Justice system ?.....yes or no.....Some of his civil rights were violated , and he was compensated for that......with 10 mil dollars, and yet just last week the Canadian government settled with Native American's who had their civil rights violated much more than Omar and his merry band of terrorist ever did , and what was the payout again ?.....lots of justice there.

Inadmissible evidence since it was acquired through torture making those convictions moot so no he wasn't properly convicted. He was 15 when captured making him a child soldier. The SCC ruled that the government violated his s.7 charter rights when they questioned him after torture as well as refusing to bring him back to Canada. I will take The SCC's view over a random users opinion.

[turningrite]

9 minutes ago, Clubbob said:

Inadmissible evidence since it was acquired through torture making those convictions moot so no he wasn't properly convicted. He was 15 when captured making him a child soldier. The SCC ruled that the government violated his s.7 charter rights when they questioned him after torture as well as refusing to bring him back to Canada. I will take The SCC's view over a random users opinion.

I think it's difficult to have a lot of sympathy for those who leave Canada for war zones and other dangerous places. I suspect many believe that most such cases should be treated as 'at your own peril' expeditions and even more so when the intent of such journeys ostensibly violates Canadian law, as now appears to be the case with the returning ISIS members. The SCC ruled on the Charter violations in the Khadr matter yet it did not set compensation. I believe this should have been determined in the lower courts where the very real concern about moral hazard could and should have been considered. 

[Clubbob]

Khadr was brought to Afghanistan by his parents he didn't choose to go there.

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Clubbob said:

Khadr was brought to Afghanistan by his parents he didn't choose to go there.

That doesn't matter.  He was brainwashed by his family for 15 years and ought to have known better than to take up arms against the West.  Its perfectly acceptable for Canada to treat child soldiers like evil, murdering warlords, regardless of any UN resolutions about treatment of child soldiers that we signed on to, and our own laws.  

Edited May 18, 2018 by dialamah

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Clubbob said:

Khadr was brought to Afghanistan by his parents he didn't choose to go there.

C'mon, Omar had a five o'clock shadow by the time he was 11, obviously he was an adult by the time he was nine.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

He was brainwashed by his family for 15 years and ought to have known better than to take up arms against the West.

If that were only the case, then the government would have charged his parents with indoctrinating a child soldier.

That seemingly simple omission is the key that kept the lid on the fiction that the War on Terror wasn't a real war and which would have blown an even larger lid off the fact that we tortured and maltreated prisoners of war including child soldiers, in direct contravention of laws governing our conduct in times of war.

Edited May 18, 2018 by eyeball

[turningrite]

17 hours ago, Clubbob said:

Khadr was brought to Afghanistan by his parents he didn't choose to go there.

I'm not sure this point serves to validate your argument. Why on earth would the Canadian government (i.e. Canadian taxpayers) be accountable for the outcome of decisions made by his family members any more or less than if the decisions were made by Khadr himself? Of course, the SCC dealt with two entirely separate matters, in one instance concerning his treatment at Gitmo and secondly concerning the failure/refusal of the Canadian government to repatriate him. I tend to agree with the SCC on the latter concern, although to be fair the Harper government's general approach was to avoid repatriating Canadians caught up in the often draconian web(s) of the U.S. security and justice systems. On Gitmo, however, I tend to be more skeptical. In particular, I question whether the involvement of Canadian officials who attended Gitmo had any significantly negative impact on Khadr's treatment there by the Americans. Would his treatment have been more humane had Canadian officials not been involved? Was/is it reasonable to hold the Canadian government complicit in Khadr's treatment at Gitmo? It seems to me the SCC veered heavily in the direction of applying the principle of vicarious liability to this situation, which is very problematic when our main ally operates on the basis of 'exceptionalism' where adherence to international law is concerned and in particular where international law conflicts with American security interests beyond the country's borders. Historians will of course parse these issues as well as the not insignificant broader implications of the Trudeau government's settlement with Khadr. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, the SCC ruling was about repatriation of a Canadian citizen and Khadr's Charter Rights, having little relevance to U.S. detention policies and interrogation methods at 'Gitmo and elsewhere.   Indeed, Canada started detaining foreign nationals indefinitely at Millhaven and other maximum security facilities long before 9/11 based on Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (1976)...."security certificates".   The SCC only struck down certain provisions of security certificate detentions in 2007.

To the Americans, Omar Khadr was just another foreign terrorist / jihadi fighting in Afghanistan, not a U.S. citizen subject to an entirely different protocol.   The U.S. captured (or killed) many foreign nationals for "terrorism"...nothing special about Canadian Khadr in that regard.

Edited May 18, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Goddess]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

C'mon, Omar had a five o'clock shadow by the time he was 11, obviously he was an adult by the time he was nine.

According to Islam, he was.

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

According to Islam, he was.

Canada is not an Islamic country, so why would this be remotely relevant?  Unless you are advocating that Canada implement a system where stupid Islamic practices and beliefs are allowed for Muslims, while everyone else lives under our more progressive treatment. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by dialamah

[Goddess]

21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Canada is not an Islamic country, so why would this be remotely relevant?  Unless you are advocating that Canada implement a system where stupid Islamic practices and beliefs are allowed for Muslims, while everyone else lives under our more progressive treatment. 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm advocating. 

It's relevant because this is the mentality of the people we are dealing with.  If they want to train their children to be killers before they are adults, then why should they get to fall back on the "But, he's just a child" arguement after they get caught and demand payments be made?  Kind of like having your cake and eating it too.

Quote

while everyone else lives under our more progressive treatment. 

They chose to NOT live under our more progressive treatment.  I have a problem with them actively choosing to live this way and then demanding special treatment and cash when it doesn't work out.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Goddess

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm advocating. 

It's relevant because this is the mentality of the people we are dealing with.  If they want to train their children to be killers before they are adults, then why should they get to fall back on the "But, he's just a child" arguement after they get caught and demand payments be made?  Kind of like having your cake and eating it too.

They chose to NOT live under our more progressive treatment.  I have a problem with them actively choosing to live this way and then demanding special treatment and cash when it doesn't work out.

Yawn.  You cry about poor girls forced to wear hijabs/niqabs/get married by their parents, but are only too happy to pillory boys whose parents are no less influential.  You also advocate for the breaking of our own laws on how we treat our citizens and agreements we've made about the treatment of child soldiers; how is that any different than an Islamic country imposing punishments on non-Muslim citizens, just because they aren't Muslims?  Double standards in applying laws is not a practice I want Canada to follow.