dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4767
share rss forum feed
Expand your moderator at work


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to Ian

Re: Canadian comes home from Guantanamo

said by Ian:

Omar Khadr, convicted Islamic terrorist and murderer.

Really? A 15 year old? A kid?

You do mean to say, he was told to take a plea bargain and in exchange for a guilty plea he was to be let of or a US run torture camp? Right? I think you forgot to mention that part. Or is that not important?

Did a kid not take the plea bargain he was told to take in exchange to be let of gitmo not ever happen in your world? Seems the press reported on this extensively in mine.

said by Ian:

Not speaking for Wolfiie00, but I'm perfectly happy with people being as different as they want to be, right up until those differences impact my safety and the safety of my country. And specifically, Omar Khadr, fits that other definition of "different".

Well you can live in fear for your safety from this one kid. I'm not too worried about it.

I see we have an underlying theme here. Fear.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
said by Shrug :

I see we have an underlying theme here. Fear.

You might want to give some thought to why we have prisons, and why we put murderers and other dangerous offenders in them.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to Shrug
said by Shrug :

Did a kid not take the plea bargain he was told to take in exchange to be let of gitmo not ever happen in your world? Seems the press reported on this extensively in mine.

A guy (no longer a kid) with extensive legal advice did so yes. I'm not prepared to debate the charging kids as adults thing, but suffice to say, I think a 15 year old is not really a "child". And child or no, a murderous individual with a hatred (brainswashed? sure) for the west is a danger.

said by Ian:

Well you can live in fear for your safety from this one kid. I'm not too worried about it.

I'm sure I could. I'm not though. Doubt Omar Khadr (the now adult, FYI) himself will be doing much of anything the rest of his life un-scrutinized by some law enforcement agency or another.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


neochu

join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON
reply to PX Eliezer70
Isn't the "dangerous offender" protocol exactly for cases like Mr Khader?

Its well known in the media psychiatric state (indoctrination/history/child soldier stuff) plays a huge part in what the system determines is the best measure of security to protect the population from people like this individual while still honoring habeus corpus.

In fact it could set a precedent to have an automatic DO referral for anyone convicted of violent terrorism related offenses.

Or is this the lynch mob mentality that wants to execute and hang someone in the streets again?


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to Ian
said by Ian:

A guy (no longer a kid) with extensive legal advice did so yes. I'm not prepared to debate the charging kids as adults thing, but suffice to say, I think a 15 year old is not really a "child". And child or no, a murderous individual with a hatred (brainswashed? sure) for the west is a danger.

Regardless of what he is now and what you think a child is, he was officially a youth when the firefight occurred.


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

said by Shrug :

I see we have an underlying theme here. Fear.

You might want to give some thought to why we have prisons, and why we put murderers and other dangerous offenders in them.

You mean:

Child Soldier.

Enemy combatant.

Someone who killed someone else in war, regardless if the US wants to call it a police action or whatever invented propaganda phrase of the day is instead.

You know, the things and responsibilities Canada signed on to and now want to pretend doesn't exist.

You know, how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled his charter rights were ignored.

You know, how every international rights (and child warfare) organization on the face of the earth is calling Canada out on?

You know... all the stuff you are choosing to ignore as non-existent, while the Supreme Court of Canada ruled otherwise already.

Fear makes people ignore all sorts of things, it appears.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Ian
said by Ian:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Ian:

It isn't people fearing Islam or Pakistanis that makes worrying about Khadr sensible, it's fear of specifically Omar Khadr, convicted Islamic terrorist and murderer. You're transitioning to the general from the specific.

And so your bias and bigotry of Muslims now shows in your bold comment.

Do you also bold the religion of people like Paul Bernard, or Jeffry Dahmer, Heinrich Himmler, or Adolph Eichmann when you write about them? Why not vilify their religions too? After all there's plenty of vile hateful Protestants, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, and ones in every other religion you can think of. So why single out Islam?

I'm really not sure what your point is. And I didn't single Islam out in this context. Omar Khadr did, by his own actions. Do I agree that it was wrong to do that? You bet I do. But I'm not about to apologize for Khadr's past murderous intent with religious "justification".

It is the actions of Islamic terror groups worldwide that makes such groups a particular concern of CSIS, the RCMP, CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5, MI6, etc....etc. Wrapping oneself up in some sort of self-righteous indignation over perceived slights to an ethnic group doesn't change that, by the way.

I would also wish that this wasn't the case.

But sure, if a Norwegian terrorist is convicted of a terrorist act in the name of "insert whatever religion here", feel free to call me out on that if I fail to mention that religion when describing that particular convicted terrorist.

So why don't you just stop with the "Islamic" terrorist routine, and just say "terrorist"?

Does it really matter what religion someone is when they become a faceless suicide bomber, a guy who slips a bomb into a mailbox in Montreal, a Timothy McVeigh and a truck full of fertilizer & diesel, a Charles Whitman who barricades himself at the top of a college bell tower with a sniper rifle, or just some schmuck who snapped and went into a post office and shoots the place up? They're all 'terrorists' of one sort or another.

Do you want to internalize and perpetuate the cycle of victimization and aggression that so many groups through history have chosen to wear on their sleeves and use as a rally cry to their 'cause' to this day - hundreds of years after the fact - by your continued vilification of Muslims? I know many Muslims who are charming delightful, accomplished people who harbor not one iota of rancor towards anyone. Why? Principally because they are educated.

Here are some old feuds which still carry simmering tensions that periodically boil over (in no particular order ... ok, not so much Ghengis Kan or Alexander the Great so much any more....)):
a) Albanians & Turks (1830's & other times in history)
b) Muslims & Christians (crusades)
c) Albanians & Serbs/Montenegrans (Yugoslavia in the past 20 years - basically a Christian vs. Muslim thing again .... with the Muslims as the ones getting slaughtered)
d) Armenians & Turks (1915/6)
e) Persians & Macedonians (Alexander the Great)
f) Ghengis Khan and anyone who got in his way
g) Quebecers & English Canada (Je me souviens when the English handed our butts to us in 1759)?

Is there any logical point in any of the aforementioned groups maintaining their Hatfield/McCoy nonsense in this day & age? And bear in mind that it isn't the groups as a whole - but more the rabble-rousing few (which often includes extremist politicians & religious leaders of both sides) who foment the strife and danger. But it's also ordinary people who don't temper their rhetoric and stop to think about what they are really saying.

One other serious question:
When there is effectively no working central/regional government with de facto control over the police/military (say for example in 2002 Afghanistan), and the rule of law is what the village elder says it is, and the mightiest military power in the world swoops down on you, ...... is planting an IED an act of resistance or terrorism? This is a serious question and it goes to the heart of the legality of war in general and the right to defend one's self.

Just because you don't own a tank and can't wage "traditional" warfare, do you automatically give up the right to defend your land? (I'm not talking Khadr here, just people in an invaded country) Does it depend on whether you wear a swishy computer-designed camouflage uniform and Kevlar boots vs. a flowing robe and sandals? Or does it simply depend which side you're on and how good your PR machine is?


Markie
Still Living Free

join:2009-07-11
Canada
reply to PX Eliezer70
I hope he proves the naysayers wrong, gets on with living life, gets his education and learns what it means to be productive. Any guesses on what this guy has cost the West? $100m isn't out of the realm of the possible and yet here we are, stuck in the middle with him so going forward the best possible outcome that allows him the benefit of his youthful indiscretion is a paycheck with the same deductions as the rest of us.
--
»libertarian.on.ca/


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
reply to Shrug
said by Shrug :
Someone who killed someone else in war, regardless if the US wants to call it a police action or whatever invented propaganda phrase of the day is instead.

You mean a Canadian who committed treason and took up arms siding with the enemy with the intent to kill Canadians and their allies...

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Markie
said by Markie:

I hope he proves the naysayers wrong, gets on with living life, gets his education and learns what it means to be productive. Any guesses on what this guy has cost the West? $100m isn't out of the realm of the possible and yet here we are, stuck in the middle with him so going forward the best possible outcome that allows him the benefit of his youthful indiscretion is a paycheck with the same deductions as the rest of us.

That's the whole premise of asymmetric warfare, but the US did this to themselves....again. Shrub never learned the lesson of Vietnam because he was too busy shirking his duty with the Texas National Air Guard.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

So why don't you just stop with the "Islamic" terrorist routine, and just say "terrorist"?

Because words are descriptive and they expand meaning? Don't like the fact that some terrorists are Islamic? Then take it up with those like Omar Khadr, who committed his acts of terror in the name of Islam, not me.

I'm not going to refrain from describing an IRA terrorist who blows up a London bus station as "Irish Republican Army" because I want to pussy-foot around and am scared of offending the many Irish who aren't, in fact, terrorists.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

So why don't you just stop with the "Islamic" terrorist routine, and just say "terrorist"?

To add to what's already been said in response to that, I suggest you read some of what I posted upthread about the connection to radical Islam, or read some of the pronouncements from al Qaeda and the Taliban, or just watch the news once in a while. The connection to radical Islam as the motivating factor for the terrorism that we're fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that poses such a major threat to the world is so fundamental that ignoring it goes far beyond mere political correctness and amounts to a complete denial of the facts. For these terrorists, their religion and their politics is indistinguishable.

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Islam as a mainstream religion or with the majority of its peaceful followers. No one here has made any such claim.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Shrug
said by Shrug :

... the Supreme Court of Canada ...

Fear makes people ignore all sorts of things, it appears.

Suggest you get some facts straight. The fact that it was deemed that CSIS inappropriately shared information with the US has nothing whatsoever to do with Khadr's guilt or the danger that he may still pose. The Supreme Court of Canada also overturned a lower court decision that had ordered Khadr's repatriation from Gitmo.

Anyone who looks at the circumstances of his crimes and the prior background -- like how close the family was to bin Laden and that they were actually living with bin Laden while he trained them in terrorism, and that they engaged in terrorism and raised money for him -- will realize how deeply ingrained and dangerous this background is. Khadr was in point of fact sentenced by a jury to 40 years in prison for war crimes. He merely became the beneficiary of a pre-trial deal that limited the sentence to 8 years, which under our system gets him parole next year. Whether this is just or wise is quite another question.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Islam as a mainstream religion or with the majority of its peaceful followers. No one here has made any such claim.

Well, one could argue then, that this Islamic terrorist was defending his home land from the attack of Christian invaders?


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
said by urbanriot:

said by Wolfie00:

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Islam as a mainstream religion or with the majority of its peaceful followers. No one here has made any such claim.

Well, one could argue then, that this Islamic terrorist was defending his home land from the attack of Christian invaders?

I thought it was established Kahdr was Canadian? So Canada is his home...AND as far as I know the Christian invaders were not attacking Canada...


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Oooh, wow, you're right... a Canadian Islamic Terrorist was defending someone else's homeland from the attack of American Christian invaders! Thanks for the correction.


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
reply to PX Eliezer70
Or a Canadian performing an act of treason taking up arms with the enemy against Canadians and their allies as they liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban & Al Qeada....

Now what would have happened to a Canadian who left Canada and took up arms with the Nazis in France when the Allies where liberating France?

PS: he was not defending his homeland or anyone's homeland. He was protecting a terrorist organization led by their families friend Bin Laden...


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

said by Wolfie00:

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Islam as a mainstream religion or with the majority of its peaceful followers. No one here has made any such claim.

Well, one could argue then, that this Islamic terrorist was defending his home land from the attack of Christian invaders?

You could.....if Afghanistan were Omar Khadr's home (it wasn't) or that the invaders were necessarily Christian. In any case, whether or not Khadr met the legal test as a war criminal and terrorist was up to the US legal system, not ours. And those questions were never tested at trial since Khadr plead guilty to both.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to Markie
said by Markie:

I hope he proves the naysayers wrong, gets on with living life, gets his education and learns what it means to be productive.

Who knows how he will turn out. That's a gamble and that's one for the specialists working with him.

Maybe he will turn out ok. Maybe he will kill himself, maybe someone else will kill him, maybe he will go bananas. Maybe he will preach love. Maybe he will preach hate. Who really knows?

How does any child soldier turn out?

I recall discussing this with a few of you here once before when where I worked took in a Serb or Bosnian child soldier (forget what side he was on now).

That kid was smart and very good at his job... but a loaded gun if you pissed him off in some way. I think it's expected. Don't you?

These people have lived a lifetime in a short period of a few years that you will never experience your entire life.

How many US tortured children do we take in (that the public knows of)? What are the stats on them? Besides, stats be damned. He deserves a chance at life. It's Canada's duty that they signed on for (but wishes to ignore) in international agreements as it relates to child soldiers, and his rights as a human being, and a Canadian child ....Even if some of you here are trying to redefine what a child is on an internet forum to justify your own fears.

Who really knows... But I sure as hell don't fear it like some here.

said by Wolfie00:

The connection to radical Islam as the motivating factor for the terrorism

Yeah and invading countries that had no ties to 9-11 (as determined by the 9-11 commission) does not contribute to extremism in any way. The US has to shoulder the majority of the responsibility for what they started and did, as well as what comes with it.

If 50% of Canadian villages and cities were wiped out along with a third of the innocent population, I think we would have some radical extremism here as well.

Do you think that recent B film about the Muslim prophet really caused thousands to freak out for no reason? Or is there now an underlying hatred that has been bred and that will continue for the next 3 generations in a whole bunch of Muslim countries?

I hope to heck your eye are open to what is causing it. And how it would be if it were reversed. But I guess that's a whole other topic.

Such is the price of war (or holy war as Bush described it on TV).


Punks Galore

@videotron.ca
reply to vue666
said by vue666:

Or a Canadian performing an act of treason

Doesn't matter how much you try to thump the "treason" thing, or whatever your mind is fantasizing about. He wasn't convicted of treason. He is a child soldier.

Come on, you can say it... C h i l d - S o l d i e r.


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
Just because he wasn't convicted of treason doesn't mean he did not commit treason.

Kindly look up the definition of treason....

quote:
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

AND sorry you can't play it both ways claiming Khadr should be allowed into Canada as it is his homeland... AND then claim he was defending his homeland in Afghanistan... So which is his homeland Canada or Afghanistan?


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to Ian
said by Ian:

You could.....if Afghanistan were Omar Khadr's home (it wasn't) or that the invaders were necessarily Christian.

I just wanted to have some fun with labels If he was fighting in the name of, on behalf of, Islam then I accept your labels. I'm not entirely clear on that one as I've read conflicting reports on exactly what he was doing there and why he was there.

quote:
When asked how that made him feel at the time, the US military reports that the 15-year old stated "I wanted to kill a lot of American[s] to get lots of money".
The whole thing is just... fucked. A kid raised with Bin Laden to hate the west, who could have had a moderately decent life in Scarborough.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
said by urbanriot:

The whole thing is just... fucked. A kid raised with Bin Laden to hate the west, who could have had a moderately decent life in Scarborough.

It is. None of these things are simple. And I'm not sure that some of the solution isn't to hold the parents (1 surviving in this case) responsible for much. But we have no such law and custom in Canada.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
said by Ian:

said by urbanriot:

The whole thing is just... fucked. A kid raised with Bin Laden to hate the west, who could have had a moderately decent life in Scarborough.

It is. None of these things are simple. And I'm not sure that some of the solution isn't to hold the parents (1 surviving in this case) responsible for much. But we have no such law and custom in Canada.

If we accept Vue's premise that treason is applicable the maybe the mother is guilty of:

PART I Criminal Code Parties to Offences
Person counselling offence
22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to vue666
said by vue666:

Just because he wasn't convicted of treason doesn't mean he did not commit treason.

Kindly look up the definition of treason....

quote:
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

AND sorry you can't play it both ways claiming Khadr should be allowed into Canada as it is his homeland... AND then claim he was defending his homeland in Afghanistan... So which is his homeland Canada or Afghanistan?

And kindly look up section 11(d) of the Charter. Unless he has been convicted of treason, he is innocent of treason.


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

1 edit
Again just because he wasn't charged does not mean he did not act out the crime... I'm sure there are plenty of murderers & thieves running lose who have not been charged....

He fought with the enemy against his country and it's allies... Now what do you call that?

By your logic if I drove 60 kph in a 30 kph zone and wasn't caught I would not have been speeding...


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to vue666
said by vue666:

Just because he wasn't convicted of treason doesn't mean he did not commit treason.

Kindly look up the definition of treason....

You expect a child who left here at what age to know that. Or who was brought into some war when he was 14 to know what treason is, and what side is right or wrong in mass killings?

Sorry I missed the Canadian court case on that one. As well as all the other child soldier cases where they were declared to have committed treason because their father brought them to another country as... come on... you can say it... C h i l d r e n.

You are still fantasizing about a little boy who left Canada all by his lonesome to join a war and fight for what he thought was right, but was instead treason. And then this little boy knew all the ins and outs of law. etc, etc, etc.

As you, yourself, state over and over again, there is no rehabilitation in your fantasizing and make believe. To me, in my opinion, it goes beyound comprehension.

said by vue666:

AND sorry you can't play it both ways claiming Khadr should be allowed into Canada as it is his homeland... AND then claim he was defending his homeland in Afghanistan... So which is his homeland Canada or Afghanistan?

I never stated that. Maybe you can correct yourself and direct your question at the one who did?


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
said by Shrug :
You expect a child who left here at what age to know that. Or who was brought into some war when he was 14 to know what treason is, and what side is right or wrong in mass killings?


Ignorance of the law is never an acceptable excuse or reason...

As far as age, he sure knew what killing is...

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to vue666
said by vue666:

Again just because he wasn't charged does not mean he did not act out the crime... I'm sure there are plenty of murderers & thieves running lose who have not been charged....

He fought with the enemy against his country and it's allies... Now what do you call that?

By your logic if I drove 60 kph in a 30 kph zone and wasn't caught I would not have been speeding...

You would be presumed innocent just like he is. Deal with it, or file a private prosecution.