Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[WWWTT]

Nope. Are you high?

The Taliban didn't issue a jihad against the western world; that would be al Qeada. I'm definitely not saying that the Taliban is all warm and fuzzy, but I stand by my beliefs. I don't see anyone involved in a jihad, a desire to kill as many westerners as possible, as wanting to have "peace" talks with the very people they are professing a desire to kill. Do you? If they do, then I'd say we accomplished our mission. Wouldn't you?

As for Hitler, since you seem to think it's relevant, he committed suicide; he didn't stick around for peace talks.

Nope not high because I do not do drugs(of any kind),however you have written before that you drink.(oh ya your the one that doesn't think that drinking alcohol everyday would be a sign of alcoholism,right?)

As far as the taliban go they were harbouring al qeada and committing human rights violations galore.The current Afgan government would still do very little to encourage human rights so whats the difference?

It was time for Canada to go a long time ago.If the US wants to stay there then that's there business and not a smart move in my opinion

WWWTT

[WLDB]

So your logic is that since he's not responsible for how he is, Canada should let him roam the streets?

Definitely not a good idea at this stage. Personally I do see him as a child soldier. He didnt chose to go to Afghanistan. Very few kids get to chose where their parents move to. Given he has now been in prison nearly half his life he likely has some problems as a result. He'll need some sort of therapy if he is to be released at some point.

[Guest American Woman]

Nope not high because I do not do drugs(of any kind),

Good for you. It's best to wait until you're of legal age to drink.

however you have written before that you drink.(oh ya your the one that doesn't think that drinking alcohol everyday would be a sign of alcoholism,right?)

Wrong. And fyi, just because someone drinks alcohol doesn't mean that they get drunk. You learn something new every day, eh? - Isn't learning fun?

As far as the taliban go they were harbouring al qeada and committing human rights violations galore.The current Afgan government would still do very little to encourage human rights so whats the difference?

We went to war with them for harboring al Qaeda. If they now want to have peace talks, why not? Why not hear what they have to say about it now? It's a new government. As for "human rights," we went to war because of the jihad against us, the terrorist attacks committed against us, not because of their human rights record.

It was time for Canada to go a long time ago.If the US wants to stay there then that's there business and not a smart move in my opinion

You don't think engaging in peace talks is a smart move? Because that's the issue here.

[Guest Peeves]

Good for you. It's best to wait until you're of legal age to drink.

Wrong. And fyi, just because someone drinks alcohol doesn't mean that they get drunk. You learn something new every day, eh? - Isn't learning fun?

We went to war with them for harboring al Qaeda. If they now want to have peace talks, why not? Why not hear what they have to say about it now? It's a new government. As for "human rights," we went to war because of the jihad against us, the terrorist attacks committed against us, not because of their human rights record.

You don't think engaging in peace talks is a smart move? Because that's the issue here.

I for one am always for peace talks, but then, I recall the picayune issues at the Korean talks and the fundamental draconian ways of the Taliban, and I sorta cringe at the thought.

I have concluded that Islam as practiced by the Taliban is incapable pf coexistence with Western values.

[guyser]

, Canada should let him roam the streets?

Cant jail since he didnt commit any crimes against Canada nor in Canada.

If he serves his entire sentence in the US, then he walks free as anyone while in Canada.

If he is sent back to finish his sentence here, then we can put restrictions on him.

[Guest American Woman]

Cant jail since he didnt commit any crimes against Canada nor in Canada.

So you don't think a crime committed against your ally during war is a crime against Canada too? Isn't that what NATO is all about - an attack against one is an attack against all? I don't understand how we can be fighting in the war together, and yet a murder of an American by a Canadian isn't perceived as committing a crime against Canada. What if an American had purposely killed a Canadian soldier and we had the same attitude? I have the feeling that it wouldn't go over well in Canada.

[GostHacked]

So you don't think a crime committed against your ally during war is a crime against Canada too? Isn't that what NATO is all about - an attack against one is an attack against all? I don't understand how we can be fighting in the war together, and yet a murder of an American by a Canadian isn't perceived as committing a crime against Canada. What if an American had purposely killed a Canadian soldier and we had the same attitude? I have the feeling that it wouldn't go over well in Canada.

Americans don't even get upset when Americans target and kill Americans in foreign lands.

[dre]

So you don't think a crime committed against your ally during war is a crime against Canada too? Isn't that what NATO is all about - an attack against one is an attack against all? I don't understand how we can be fighting in the war together, and yet a murder of an American by a Canadian isn't perceived as committing a crime against Canada. What if an American had purposely killed a Canadian soldier and we had the same attitude? I have the feeling that it wouldn't go over well in Canada.

I dont think that attacking the equipment and personel belonging to military invasion force is a crime at all. We should hold him, so that he cant return to the theater and resume fighting, but he should be set free immediately apon cessation of hostilities.

[guyser]

So you don't think a crime committed against your ally during war is a crime against Canada too?

Canada was not in Afghanistan then.

Ergo no crime against Canada nor Canadians.

It is the yard stick used to measure.

I don't understand how we can be fighting in the war together, and yet a murder of an American by a Canadian isn't perceived as committing a crime against Canada. What if an American had purposely killed a Canadian soldier and we had the same attitude? I have the feeling that it wouldn't go over well in Canada.

We 'weren't ' in the war together at that point.

Had the Americans killed Omar at the time, so be it. I doubt much would have been made (above the usual very minor #'s of whiners)

No one is happy Omar lived,except his mom and some others who want to use it for for their own purposes.

Had Richard Reid (Shoe Bomber) tried to bomb Air Canada , would Americans give a shite if we had shot and killed him? No, same goes both ways

[dre]

So you don't think a crime committed against your ally during war is a crime against Canada too?

OF COURSE attacking members of a foreign invasion force is not a crime! It wouldnt be a crime if he had killed Canadians either.

Arriving at a series of mud huts and a granary filled with fresh straw surrounded by a 10-foot (3.0 m) stone wall with a green metal gate approximately 100 metres radius from the main hut, the Special Forces team saw children playing around the buildings[36][50][53][54] and an old man sleeping beneath a nearby tree.[45]

Seeing five "well-dressed" men sitting around a fire in the main residence,[54] with AK-47s visible in the room, Morris has claimed that he either approached and told the occupants, who had seen him, to open the front door[54] or that he snuck quietly back without being seen and a perimeter was set up around the complex.[45] Either way, the team waited 45 minutes for support from the soldiers searching the first residence, and at one point Morris chided the soldiers from the 82nd for setting up a defensive perimeter with their backs to the house, rather than properly covering the house itself.[45][48]

During this time, the elderly man sleeping beneath the tree awoke and began screaming loudly in Pashto, causing a number of local children to run over and interpret for the Americans, explaining that the man was "just angry". Morris took a photograph of the children standing on the road outside the compound.[45] A crowd of approximately a hundred local Afghans had gathered around the area to watch the incident unfold.[54] An Afghan militiaman was sent towards the house to demand the surrender of the occupants, but retreated under gunfire.[49]

Capt. Christopher Cirino

Reinforcements from the 3rd Platoon of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion 505th Infantry Regiment arrived under the command of Captain Christopher W. Cirino,[53][55] bringing the total number of Americans and Afghan militia to about fifty.[56] Two of Zadran's militiamen were sent into the compound to speak with the inhabitants, and returned to the Americans' position and reported that the men inside claimed to be Pashtun villagers. They were told to return to the huts, and inform the occupants that the Americans wanted to search their house regardless of their affiliation.[55] Upon hearing this, the occupants of the hut opened fire, shooting both militiamen.[50][57]

So lets see we invaded their country, destroyed a shitload of people and property, and paraded around searching peoples private homes at gunpoint. And its a crime when members of the local population shoot us?

If someone invaded Canada or the US I would hope that everyone who was able did their best to kill as many invading soldiers as possible.

Edited April 30, 2012 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Canada was not in Afghanistan then.

Ergo no crime against Canada nor Canadians.

It is the yard stick used to measure.

We 'weren't ' in the war together at that point.

Canada sent its first troops in Dec. of 2001 - and pledged its first troops warships and planes as early as October of 2001. We most definitely were in the war together at that point.

Had the Americans killed Omar at the time, so be it. I doubt much would have been made (above the usual very minor #'s of whiners)

No one is happy Omar lived,except his mom and some others who want to use it for for their own purposes.

Had Richard Reid (Shoe Bomber) tried to bomb Air Canada , would Americans give a shite if we had shot and killed him? No, same goes both ways

I wasn't referring to the Americans killing Omar - he was with the enemy. I meant what if an American had purposely killed a Canadian soldier? - "Canadian" as in fighting with the Canadian military.

[dre]

I wasn't referring to the Americans killing Omar - he was with the enemy. I meant what if an American had purposely killed a Canadian soldier? - "Canadian" as in fighting with the Canadian military.

If Canada invaded the US then the killing of our soldiers by American regulars OR irregulars would be wholly and completely justified and reasonable.

Edited April 30, 2012 by dre

[guyser]

Canada sent its first troops in Dec. of 2001 - and pledged its first troops warships and planes as early as October of 2001. We most definitely were in the war together at that point.

Dec 2001 , JTF forces (40 men) were sent to assist in Afghanistan.

More were there on 'military exchange programs' which are loaners with special rules but are considered to be acting under the receiving military's operations.

The bold part just isnt true.

I wasn't referring to the Americans killing Omar - he was with the enemy. I meant what if an American had purposely killed a Canadian soldier? - "Canadian" as in fighting with the Canadian military.

Sorry, mis-read you then.

I would hope they shoot to kill.

I wish the Yanks had killed him, or he fell out of plane on his way back, or fell up the stairs a dozen times ....

Edited April 30, 2012 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

Dec 2001 , JTF forces (40 men) were sent to assist in Afghanistan.

More were there on 'military exchange programs' which are loaners with special rules but are considered to be acting under the receiving military's operations.

The bold part just isnt true.

In early February 2002, Canada sent 850 troops from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to Kandahar as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

And as I said previously, Canada had already pledged 2000 troops in October of 2001 - and announced the launch of Operation Apollo.

Operation APOLLO was Canada’s military contribution ... This required a significant contribution of manpower that demonstrated our continuing, strong commitment to our allies, and to international security.

At its peak in January 2002, the Canadian Naval Task Group

included six warships and about 1,500 Navy personnel...

Operation APOLLO (Oct. 2001– Oct. 2003)

I don't understand how you can say we were not at war together at the time.

[dre]

I don't understand how you can say we were not at war together at the time.

It just flat out doesnt matter whether we were or not.

[guyser]

I don't understand how you can say we were not at war together at the time.

I get what you are saying, but the fact is, we weren't

I give you our Minister of Defence.....

"Canada is not at war in Afghanistan, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

Fighting violent insurgents is just one task among many for Canadian soldiers trying to bring stability to the troubled country, O'Connor told a Commons committee Tuesday.

"The military has to conduct a range of activities,'' he said under questioning from MPs.

"I don't consider this war.''

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20060503/afghanistan_oconnor_060530/#ixzz1tZ7TtYaA

I dont like that Omar shot and killed Americans. He could have killed Hungarians for the same reason , and my stance is the same.

He did not commit crimes against a Canadian, nor did it occur in Canada. So in that sense, what can we legally do?

As I said, if he is sent here to complete his sentence, then we can do something , restrictions etc.

If he is sent here after completing his sentence , then he walks a free man.

I dont understand our govt, they should have in already and place the restrictions on him they can. By ignoring this, they in large part are assuring his freedom. Doesnt make sense, unless its some C ruse to create a new law somewhere down the line. (but I doubt that)

[Army Guy]

I dont think that attacking the equipment and personel belonging to military invasion force is a crime at all. We should hold him, so that he cant return to the theater and resume fighting, but he should be set free immediately apon cessation of hostilities.

It is a crime if your not part of the defending military, he was part of AL Qaida which is a terrorist organization, which was allowed to operate within Afghan's border, they had nothing to do with Afghan other than staying there, See genva convention....it is a war crime. It is also again'st Canadian law to become involved in a war again'st the Canadian militray or her allieds...So much much for that thought process.

[Army Guy]

So lets see we invaded their country, destroyed a shitload of people and property, and paraded around searching peoples private homes at gunpoint. And its a crime when members of the local population shoot us?

If someone invaded Canada or the US I would hope that everyone who was able did their best to kill as many invading soldiers as possible.

We invaded a country that assisted in hiding and protecting a know terrorist group who brought they're game to our shores...must be a hard concept to wrap your mind around....or are you one of those that turns the other cheek in a bar fight....

when you have an enemy that dress up like civilians , hides among them , yes we search homes and we even do it with guns, in the midddle of the night, if you got nothing to hide, then nothing to worry about....shoe might be on the other foot if the bad guys were threatening your family and we did nothing to do about it, did not search for them....

These laws are meant to protect civilians, pick up arms and engage the enemy you endanger other civilians, lets not forget, when our military engages a target we are not restricted by police rules ...meaning we can use what ever means nessicary to remove the threat, if it takes a F-18 loaded with 500 lb bombs then so be it, we take out a full city block...Some on this forum have yet to imigine what war is truely like...that we are there on some humanitarian mission handing out blankets and candy....Canada sent us over there to close with and destroy the enemy...

Yes it is again'st the law as well as Genva conventions, inter national law, want to pick up arms and engage in your own private war....want to do that then form a partisan group, with clearly marked uniforms as stated in the genva convention with a clear cut chain of command....etc etc anything else and your a terrorist, with no convention to protect you....

[Army Guy]

I get what you are saying, but the fact is, we weren't

I give you our Minister of Defence.....

"Canada is not at war in Afghanistan, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

Fighting violent insurgents is just one task among many for Canadian soldiers trying to bring stability to the troubled country, O'Connor told a Commons committee Tuesday.

"The military has to conduct a range of activities,'' he said under questioning from MPs.

"I don't consider this war.''

No we were not at War as it is tech laid out, in fact the entire Aghan conflict is not a war, no declaration was made, we are involved with the war on terroism, which is a play on words as once again considered an operation...WE Are in Combat in Afghanistan, fighting with US forces side by side...So the government can play with all the words they want, but out troops are fighting and dying, bringing the fight to the bad guys....I'd call it a war...

[dre]

We invaded a country that assisted in hiding and protecting a know terrorist group who brought they're game to our shores...must be a hard concept to wrap your mind around....or are you one of those that turns the other cheek in a bar fight....

when you have an enemy that dress up like civilians , hides among them , yes we search homes and we even do it with guns, in the midddle of the night, if you got nothing to hide, then nothing to worry about....shoe might be on the other foot if the bad guys were threatening your family and we did nothing to do about it, did not search for them....

These laws are meant to protect civilians, pick up arms and engage the enemy you endanger other civilians, lets not forget, when our military engages a target we are not restricted by police rules ...meaning we can use what ever means nessicary to remove the threat, if it takes a F-18 loaded with 500 lb bombs then so be it, we take out a full city block...Some on this forum have yet to imigine what war is truely like...that we are there on some humanitarian mission handing out blankets and candy....Canada sent us over there to close with and destroy the enemy...

Yes it is again'st the law as well as Genva conventions, inter national law, want to pick up arms and engage in your own private war....want to do that then form a partisan group, with clearly marked uniforms as stated in the genva convention with a clear cut chain of command....etc etc anything else and your a terrorist, with no convention to protect you....

None of that means jack shit. People have the right to resist a foreign military occupation in all cases. And the people doing so are almost always irregulars because the national army has obviously been dispatched at that point.

This was the case when we backed Afghan irregulars and the use of assymetric warfare against the Soviet Union, and this was also the form that much of the resistance to German occupation took during WW2. The idea that citizens do not have the right to resist is preposterous, as is the idea that they are going to put on clearly marked uniforms and walk out and meet you on the battlefield.

anything else and your a terrorist

Thats fine... but you just classified not only Afgans that fought against the soviets as terrorists, but underground resistance movements in places like the Netherlands, Poland, France, and Czechoslovakia as well.

I dont buy any of it. If Canada is invaded by a hostile foreign army and I get a chance to kill some of them, then I wont sit around worrying about my legal status.

or are you one of those that turns the other cheek in a bar fight

Nope, just smart enough to understand that if I throw a punch theres a good chance someone will return the favor.

[Army Guy]

None of that means jack shit. People have the right to resist a foreign military occupation in all cases. And the people doing so are almost always irregulars because the national army has obviously been dispatched at that point.

It means everything because the victor always gets his way in courts, you could find yourself getting a lenthy prison sentence...or shot depending on the victor...Irregulars really even irregulars are subject to the genva convention...as for the National Army has always got a massive recruitment program going on in the time of need.

This was the case when we backed Afghan irregulars and the use of assymetric warfare against the Soviet Union, and this was also the form that much of the resistance to German occupation took during WW2

Did you even read up on any of this, do some research, Afghan freedom fighters did in fact have a distinctive uniform or arm bands,clear chain of command , carried arms openly.... AS did the resistance fighters in most of europe...all wore arm bands and carried arms openly...check out what the convention says then tell me all these resistance fighters did not comply, anyone else is classified as an insurgent, with very little rights under the convention...

The idea that citizens do not have the right to resist is preposterous, as is the idea that they are going to put on clearly marked uniforms and walk out and meet you on the battlefield.

Can't have it both ways bitch about NATO Pers searching homes at gun piont and they say you have the right to defend your country by hiding behind other inocent civilians.....the very people your supose to protect....Anyone picking up touching any wpns or military equipment and you become targets, and can be engaged at any time without warning...meaning if you are indentified , a soldier could shoot you while your out shopping with your family...drag your carcus out into the street to be load onto a army truck never to be seen again...because you got a hard on to play soldier...Sorry, it does not work that way....

dont buy any of it. If Canada is invaded by a hostile foreign army and I get a chance to kill some of them, then I wont sit around worrying about my legal status.

This is not about you, it's about the bulk of the people your hiding behind, supporting you, all that stuff that goes into it...soldiers are going to be hunting you down like dogs, then putting a bullet between your eyes...trained soldiers that know how to hunt dogs down not some red necks from the back woods...soldiers with Arty, Attack helos, jets, bombers, shit some guy in a sea can 3000 kms away is just going to press a button and you and your merry gang will go up in flames....

Nope, just smart enough to understand that if I throw a punch theres a good chance someone will return the favor.

no not a good chance, they will be coming ,and not with regular force units the big dogs you here about in all the papers they deal with terrorist....

[cybercoma]

It is a crime if your not part of the defending military

I guess that's what happens when your country is stupid enough to declare war against a non-military entity.

[g_bambino]

I guess that's what happens when your country is stupid enough to declare war against a non-military entity.

No declaration of war was made.

[GostHacked]

No we were not at War as it is tech laid out, in fact the entire Aghan conflict is not a war, no declaration was made, we are involved with the war on terroism, which is a play on words as once again considered an operation...WE Are in Combat in Afghanistan, fighting with US forces side by side...So the government can play with all the words they want, but out troops are fighting and dying, bringing the fight to the bad guys....I'd call it a war...

You are correct, it is a war no matter how it is termed. When it's classified as something else then we can avoid asking parliament or congress for an approval of the declaration of war.

The term war on terror is a convenience term for a foot hold in other countries to intimidate other countries (Like Iran for example) Omar is being used as a political and emotional tool to try and get continuing support for the war on terror, and we know how fast that is fading.

[g_bambino]

When it's classified as something else then we can avoid asking parliament... for an approval of the declaration of war.

An Act of Parliament (the expression of the approval of the three parts of parliament for some act) isn't required for a declaration of war. Declaring war remains a Royal Prerogative (i.e. issued by the monarch/governor-in-Council on the advice of the prime minister).

However, every action by the government is subject to the scrutiny of parliament and whether or not a prime minister remains in office depends upon the support of the majority in the Commons.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 1, 2012 by g_bambino