Entitled refugees

[Shady]

7 hours ago, Rue said:

Your sorrow is selective.

What was not a good idea was Argus presuming to lecture me about anti-semitism and telling me I must negatively generalize about all Muslims because they hate Jews which is precisely what he did  which  then made me morally obliged as a Jew to explain it is precisely because Nazis negatively generalized about all  we Jews that for anyone  to tell us to do the same thing to others is absurd and just outright ignorant.

You want to be sorry, then start by trying to understand when and why I raised the history of Nazism. I only did so when Argus played the Jew card suggesting as a Jew  I  should know  certain Muslims hate Jews.

My raising it was as an analogy of direct relevance  to the consequences that arise when any of us define an entire people as undesireable.

If you can not understand that with due respect it might be good idea you tried rather than try indirectly to suggest I unfairly called Argus a Nazi.

I have challenged his hateful negative generalizations of an entire people as a Jew whose family history was the target of it, as a Zionist faced with it as an impairment to achieving peace with certain Muslims and as a human being.

 

 

 

It’s beyond ridiculous to raise the spectre of nazism.  People can be criticized without it being related to Nazi Germany.  It just makes you look foolish, while at the same time lessening the significance of what happened during the holocaust.  Please be more careful and responsible.

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

It’s beyond ridiculous to raise the spectre of nazism.  People can be criticized without it being related to Nazi Germany.  It just makes you look foolish, while at the same time lessening the significance of what happened during the holocaust.  Please be more careful and responsible.

No of course not. Its meaning and  significance depends on the context the holocaust  is used. Your blanket prohibition  and censorship of its use is illogical. 

I raised the point for a specific reason or context.. to explain why Argus telling Jews who and why we should hate is ignorant of Jewish history.

 It was not initiated as a stand alone accusation.  It was raised to explain why telling Jews to hate Muslims is an ignorant and stupid thing to do.

That in no way diminishes the holocaust but applies lessons learned from the holocaust NOT TO REPEAT the same process of steretyping and so does the exact opposite.

In fact to remain silent as a Jew as to what the holocaust taught us about hatred in the face of being told by Argus in reference to my being a Jew who and when to hate would diminish the meaning of the holocaust. That is why I raised it.

You might also want to look at the negative generalizations Argus threw out on the Islam thread about my positions and for that matter Dialamah's before you tell me how to deal with the implications of the steretypes he throws out. 

I respond to what is said. I make no apologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Rue

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

And Dr. Stephan Xenakis had this to say about Khadr and Welner:

Welner spent what - 7 hours? - with Khadr, and then went off to interview his jailers.  Xenakis spent 200 hours with Khadr.  Who do you suppose is going to understand him better?

Oh, btw - you are "misinformed"; you said:

He did on May 15, 2015 - in person, in front of several cameras.

He told his prison psychiatrist that he renounces terrorism.

So, that's at least twice.  And in many interviews he's reiterated his desire to live a peaceful "ordinary" life, and has advised young people not to take the same path he did. 

 

I don't see much renouncing in those quotes.  The authors of the articles simply state he has renounced.  His comments are more like, "Ya, I shouldn't have done that.  I deserve to be forgiven."

I wasn't supporting Welner, he just made some interesting distinctions between child soldiers and Khadr.  Instead of discussing those distinctions, you attack Welner.  Oh well.

The first thing Khadr did was demand his passport back so he could go to Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of terrorism) and have contact with his still terrorist family.  I would think he would want to put some distance between himself and them, but no......he actually wants to go back to the family that taught him terrorism.  How do you think that's going to work out?

[Rue]

Deleted

Edited January 23, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

I agree with G's position on Kadr but I am not sure how it relates to the thread. The defficiency in our laws as to how to deal with terrorists and child terrorists is a very real and complex issue. Banning innocent Muslims coming to Canada or hating all  Muslims won't resolve it.

I have yet to hear anyone provide criteria to screen out what they feel are undesirables.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't see much renouncing in those quotes.  The authors of the articles simply state he has renounced.  His comments are more like, "Ya, I shouldn't have done that.  I deserve to be forgiven."

Right, so - "He's never renounced terrorism" ... upon being presented with proof that he has renounced terrorism "No, he didn't!"

And you wonder why I think you you will accept only information that demonizes Muslims, either as individuals or as a group.

[Goddess]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Right, so - "He's never renounced terrorism" ... upon being presented with proof that he has renounced terrorism "No, he didn't!"

And you wonder why I think you you will accept only information that demonizes Muslims, either as individuals or as a group.

He makes some comments that sound good, but as I say - he also is demanding to have contact with his still terrorist family, which belies his claim to want to change.  The conditions of his release were that he surrender his passport and not have contact with his family and he is now challenging those conditions.  Not indicative of a remorseful man.

I'm sorry - I don't have a soft spot in my heart for terrorists, misogynists, and antisemites like you do.

He has some proving to do - quite a lot, really.  He has wronged the people of Canada, the people of the US and the people of the world in the worst way possible.  He has killed people and ruined families. 

It's going to take more than a "Woopsy-doodle!" apology to prove he's changed.  That may be enough for you - but it's not for for many others.  And that doesn't make us bad and him good.

ETA:  One of the concerns I have with the Khadr payout is that it essentially makes it okay for kids under 18 to run around the world killing American soldiers in the hopes of getting that $10 million dollar payout or a chance to rape 72 young women.  It's a win/win for terrorists.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess

[Goddess]

One of the ways Khadr could prove he has changed is if he were to settle the $134 million lawsuit that Speers' widow has against him and spare them that heartache.  He has not done that.  He prefers to keep his $10 million.

I dont' find it as easy as you do Dia, to dismiss the pain and suffering of those Khadr destroyed - the 158 Canadian soldiers killed and 2000 wounded - some of them by the bombs Khadr was making.

http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/on-target-is-the-omar-khadr-case-finally-closed

 

Quote

 

For many Canadians, Omar Khadr deserves no pity. For those in the ‘hang ‘em high’ camp, Khadr fought in Afghanistan as an Islamic extremist, with links to al-Qaeda. He was captured following a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002, by U.S. Special Forces. During that skirmish Khadr committed a war crime when he threw a grenade that killed U.S. Army Sergeant Christopher Speer. At the scene of the battle, the U.S. Military found a video depicting Khadr being instructed on how to build an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).

Khadr is a Canadian citizen, and since Canadian soldiers fought alongside American troop inside Afghanistan, he is a traitor. The fact that the vast majority of Canada’s 158 soldiers killed and 2,000 wounded during our twelve year deployment to Afghanistan were the result of IED’s makes Khadr’s treason all the more despicable in the eyes of his haters.

This is why it is important to remove the emotion from the Khadr equation and to analyze the actual facts of the case.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess

[Goddess]

49 minutes ago, Rue said:

I agree with G's position on Kadr but I am not sure how it relates to the thread.

The Khadr family is the poster child for "Entitled Refugees".  They used the benefits of Canadian citizenship, all the while denigrating the country and all Canadian citizens and using our country as a home base to terrorize int he name of their religion.  They are an embarrassment to our country.  How some people can defend them is beyond me.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess

[dialamah]

37 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The Khadr family is the poster child for "Entitled Refugees".  They used the benefits of Canadian citizenship, all the while denigrating the country and all Canadian citizens and using our country as a home base to terrorize int he name of their religion.  They are an embarrassment to our country.  How some people can defend them is beyond me.

Actually, I agree with this - the Khadrs were, as a family, pretty extreme.  What a shame we couldn't or didn't do more, sooner, to discourage them.  Just think, if we had a proactive and effective method of identifying potential extremists/terrorists, instead of our current reactive, hand-wringing we do now, this entire situation might not have come about.

38 minutes ago, Goddess said:

How some people can defend them is beyond me.

I do tend to choose compassion over hard-line condemnation, that's true.  But also, I think it's important to uphold Canada's laws which tend to focus on human rights regardless of the human in question: in Khadr's case, we did not as evidenced by losing several court decisions. 

How some people can be so willing to simply throw our own laws out the window because they don't like an individual's religion or politics is beyond me.  Might as well live in an Islamic country, if that's where Canada is headed.

[dialamah]

58 minutes ago, Goddess said:

makes Khadr’s treason all the more despicable in the eyes of his haters.

He was never charged with treason; perhaps that would have been a better option than what our government did do.  Perhaps repatriating him, as a 16-year-old and as the US asked us to do, and then immediately charging him with treason would have been a clearer, more honest and imo, a more effective means of having him locked up for life, and not paying him 10 5. million dollars.  At least a charge of treason would be more straightforward; the evidence that he may not have been responsible for the death of Speers could be ignored.  Whether a minor can be charged with treason is the question I have.  It seems the government is remarkably unwilling to use that - even with adults returning from fighting with ISIS.

What the government chose to do, however, is ignore Canada's laws and leave him in Guantanamo, allow him to be tortured and essentially deprive him of the rights he's entitled to as a Canadian citizen.  We either defend Canada's laws, or we do not.  

59 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is why it is important to remove the emotion from the Khadr equation and to analyze the actual facts of the case.

Yes, that would be good.  If one removed the "emotion" and analyzed the actual "facts" of his case, they'd consider his youth and the statement of the soldiers who actually captured him - that there is a possibility he wasn't the one who threw the grenade that killed Speer and blinded the other guy.  They'd also remove the 'emotion' and ask themselves if Canada should or should not be expected to uphold our own laws.

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Shady said:

It’s beyond ridiculous to raise the spectre of nazism.  People can be criticized without it being related to Nazi Germany.  It just makes you look foolish, while at the same time lessening the significance of what happened during the holocaust.  Please be more careful and responsible.

Perhaps you could remind people of that when they refer to nonconservatives as being like Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot. That's been going on around here since forever.

 

[Goddess]

34 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 How some people can be so willing to simply throw our own laws out the window because they don't like an individual's religion or politics is beyond me. 

It's a faulty law that allows Canadian citizens to engage in terrorist activities against our own and our allies and get paid millions of dollars to do so.

Our laws have not caught up with the fact that these kinds of people have no laws.  We are trying to deal kindly with people who do not deserve it, don't appreciate it and would never do the same for us.

Quote

Might as well live in an Islamic country, if that's where Canada is headed.

Living in an Islamic-ruled country sounds better to you than if Canada stopped treating terrorists with kid gloves, sing songs and poetry readings?

To each their own, I guess.

Quote

I do tend to choose compassion over hard-line condemnation, that's true.

Mine is too.  The only difference is that my compassion for terrorists is tempered by a greater compassion for those who are its victims.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess

[Shady]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps you could remind people of that when they refer to nonconservatives as being like Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot. That's been going on around here since forever.

 

Ok I will.  I'll keep an eye out for it.

[dialamah]

There isn't a law that pays Canadians to engage in terrorist activities, and Khadr was not paid for doing that.  That's a strawman argument.

The law that got him money was the the one that the government failed to follow - the law that promises Canadian citizens due process, presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.  Is that a faulty law?

 

22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Living in an Islamic-ruled country sounds better to you than if Canada stopped treating terrorists with kid gloves, sing songs and poetry readings?

Living in a country that upholds it's own laws sounds better to me than living in a country that doesn't.  If Canada isn't going to do that, then what's the difference between them and an Islamic-ruled country?

It has nothing to do with treating terrorists with 'kid gloves'.  It has to do with our own responsibility to live up to our own standards.  We did not due that in Khadr's case, and he got 10.5 million dollars for it.   

Edited January 23, 2020 by dialamah

[Shady]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

There isn't a law that pays Canadians to engage in terrorist activities, and Khadr was not paid for doing that.  That's a strawman argument.

The law that got him money was the the one that the government failed to follow - the law that promises Canadian citizens due process, presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.  Is that a faulty law?

Living in a country that upholds it's own laws sounds better to me than living in a country that doesn't.  If Canada isn't going to do that, then what's the difference between them and an Islamic-ruled country?

It has nothing to do with treating terrorists with 'kid gloves'.  It has to do with our own responsibility to live up to our own standards.  We did not due that in Khadr's case, and he got 10.5 million dollars for it.   

No court awarded 10.5 million dollars to him.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Is that a faulty law?

It is faulty if it allows terrorists to return to Canada and walk the streets freely because we can't give them "Due Process" by providing evidence from a battlefield (nearly impossible).  Which is exactly what is happening.

[dialamah]

24 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Our laws have not caught up with the fact that these kinds of people have no laws. 

Oh, I agree with this by the way - Canada definitely needs to address the issue of extremism/terrorism by Canadian citizens at home and abroad.   

Should this apply to mercenaries?  Hmmmm .... 

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Shady said:

No court awarded 10.5 million dollars to him.

No, but if the government had waited till the court got that far, he'd likely have gotten more.  Would that have been better?

[Goddess]

Just now, dialamah said:

No, but if the government had waited till the court got that far, he'd likely have gotten more.  Would that have been better?

Not everyone agrees with this.  You should stop spouting it as "fact".

[Shady]

Just now, dialamah said:

No, but if the government had waited till the court got that far, he'd likely have gotten more.  Would that have been better?

Complete nonsense.

[Shady]

Just now, Goddess said:

Not everyone agrees with this.  You should stop spouting it as "fact".

Apparently some people can see into the future! 

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It has nothing to do with treating terrorists with 'kid gloves'.  It has to do with our own responsibility to live up to our own standards.  We did not due that in Khadr's case, and he got 10.5 million dollars for it.   

It has a lot to do with treating terrorists with kid gloves.

A lot of people don't think that captured terrorists deserve 10 million dollars for being sleep-deprived, having dogs bark at them or being warned of possibly being raped by other inmates while they interrogate him to find the other terrorists he's been in partnership with.

The American army left him alive because of his age and we awarded him 10.5 million dollars.  I doubt they will ever do that again.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

It is faulty if it allows terrorists to return to Canada and walk the streets freely because we can't give them "Due Process"

Ok, how would you change it?  Remove the right of due process for Canadians generally?  Or for people who fight in wars?   What would be your solution to this problem?   How could you make it effective, fair, and reduce, as much as possible, the possibility of someone being unjustly punished?  Or even being convicted in a Kangaroo court, or being tortured till they confessed to what they didn't do?  

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I do think maybe tweaking the law on treason would be a better approach than changing the rights of Canadian citizens to due process.  Not that I have any idea of what our laws on treason look like.

Quote

by providing evidence from a battlefield (nearly impossible).  Which is exactly what is happening.

Yes I agree it can be nearly impossible to know what happens in the midst of battle.  Which is exactly why it's possible that Khadr didn't kill anyone.  

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Which is exactly why it's possible that Khadr didn't kill anyone.  

His job was interpreting for terrorists and building the IEDs that definitely killed people.  That's pretty generous to say he didn't kill anyone.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Goddess