dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
7

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to Shrug

Premium Member

to Shrug

Re: Canadian comes home from Guantanamo

said by Shrug :

See in one breath you state the question is this guy. Yet in another breath you state fear towards the whole culture/religion as to why he can't be rehabilitated.

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. Maybe he, specifically, can be rehabilitated. Are you aware that also, maybe he can't be?
said by Shrug :

The hate, or whatever, is all due to your fears of others being different?

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".

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

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. Maybe he, specifically, can be rehabilitated. Are you aware that also, maybe he can't be?

I would suspect that since he was 15 when he engaged in these activities that his future behaviour is a wild card. Theres been arguments over the past decade, some that went to the US supreme court, as to whether or not we can rehabilitate teenage murderers. Those arguments, of course, didn't include religiously indoctrinated teenage murderers so it's unlikely that anyone in this thread could say.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

2 recommendations

MaynardKrebs to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

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?

Shrug
@videotron.ca

Shrug to Ian1

Anon

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

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 Ian1:

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.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Ian1:

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.

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to Shrug

Premium Member

to Shrug
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.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to Shrug

Premium Member

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 Ian1:

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.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

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

Shrug to Wolfie00

Anon

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
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Ian1:

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?
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned) to Shrug

Member

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...

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

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.

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

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.
Wolfie00

Wolfie00 to Shrug

Premium Member

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.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Wolfie00

Premium Member

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 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned)

Member

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 Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

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.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to urbanriot

Premium Member

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.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

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.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

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.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

said by Ian1:

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.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

said by peterboro:

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

Perhaps. Good editorial about Omar's wonderful mother here.

»fullcomment.nationalpost ··· -mirror/

"“We don’t feel like we’re being treated fairly,” Elsamnah told the Star. It’s unclear who the “we” is she’s referring to in that statement. If it includes Omar, she’s partly right. Omar Khadr hasn’t been treated fairly. But the foremost culprits in that crime are his late father and his now complaining mother, parents who set their youngest child on a path that could only lead to violent death — that of innocent Westerners if not his own.

If she’s including herself as one of the wronged, Elsamnah is very much mistaken. She is lucky she has not been held to account for the horrors she’s helped inflict on her own son."
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

(Quoting an editorial): But the foremost culprits in that crime are his late father and his now complaining mother, parents who set their youngest child on a path that could only lead to violent death that of innocent Westerners if not his own.

To that I'd add: Not just Westerners....

The Taliban and al-Qaeda kill plenty of civilians in Pakistan and other countries. Ironically most of the victims in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and many of the victims elsewhere, are of the same Muslim faith that this family purports to support....
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

[
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.

Khadr's home was where his father said it was - that would be true of any 10-year old, or even 15-year old who knew no other place in between.